Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:07]
Caller
SA.
- [00:29]
Greg Kokel
Hello, friends. Greg Kokol, your host on Stand To Reason. Thank you for joining me today. And I want to give you the number because Amy told me to. I've been doing that. I went for so many years doing live radio, commercial radio for the Crawford Network at KBRT here in Southern California, some of their other stations. I was always ringing out that number, you know, and people would be calling in now. We're, we, we do broadcast when people are calling in, but that's because they know when we're broadcasting. But the broadcast is not live anymore in the way radio was live in the past. Now it's podcasting for the and we do have a radio presence on the American Family Radio Network, just one hour a week, I think. But our numbers 855-243-9975. That's 855-243-9975. Somebody's just calling in now to add to the queue. So you can call if you're live streaming, either through our app or however you do that, and you're welcome to do that, or if you're not, then you can just call in during our live show, four to six on Tuesday nights, Tuesday evenings, Los Angeles time. Now, I want to talk about something. We've been knocking around a bit as a team, kind of trying to get some precision on this issue, and it's the issue of inerrancy. Now, there has been a lot of talk about this, what it means and how to understand the concept as applied to Scripture. And I want to make a couple of distinctions. I'm not going to resolve this issue now, but I want to just throw a few things out there for you to think about. Incidentally, I know John Noyce is working now on an stru on the issue itself, and that'll be later this year. Which reminds me, we've got two fairly new courses available for Standard Reason University. Tim Barnet is teaching one on Uncertain the Role of Doubt in the Christian Life. And Alan Schliemann has got a new teaching out, relatively new, called Engaging Muslims with the Gospel. You can find that@str.makethatraining str.org and those of you who are familiar with STR University, you know how that works. Just go to our website. You can find it. Those coming up, those are up. And John's coming up, because this is an important issue. But let me, let me clarify something about the inerrancy discussion. And basically, this is a discussion about whether or not the Bible has errors in it or if it does, does it have errors in places that really matter. And I'll explain that in just a moment. But one thing that's always been for me really important about this is that we see, we understand that this is actually an intramural discussion. It is an in house discussion. It's a discussion between those who are convinced that the Bible is God's word in some significant sense, that God had a role in inspiring the words of the text. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3, All Scripture, all these writings are theo neustos. They are God breathed. And they are profitable therefore for teaching and reproof, for correction, for training and righteousness, so that the Christian, the man of God, can be complete, adequate for any good work. So there is a purpose for the Scriptures and the Scriptures can accomplish their purpose because of their authority and their author is God. But in what sense and how precise is that authorship? That's kind of the in house discussion. People outside, they don't think the Bible's inspired. And so getting their view of inspiration isn't very useful. There's a book out now, it's called Five Views and Inspiration and four of those views are people who believe the Bible is inspired and the fifth one inerrant. That's right. Well, okay, yeah, inerrant. And thank you, Amy. And Peter N says no, well, he doesn't even hold to inspiration, inerrancy of any sort. I don't know why he's in the book. But nevertheless, this is an in house discussion on what it means for Scripture to be in inerrant. Have I been using that word the whole time or have I always talked about inspired? I'm okay, all right, senior moment. So inerrant and to be inspired, at least in a biblical sense, generally means that it's God's words there. And if God can't err, if the Bible is God's word and the Bible and God can't err, then the Bible can't err. I mean, that seems to follow. And that's a standard little syllogism that has been useful for people thinking about this issue. Okay, but notice that there is this conviction from the outset that the Bible is God's word. Now there's a defense for that conviction. I'm not going to go into that now. There's a couple of ways of going about that. But just to make the point that the inerrancy debate is an in house discussion. All right, so in that discussion there are basically two views and the words are oftentimes used interchangeably, but they don't mean the same thing theologically. So when I hear people talk about inerrancy or infallibility and then infallibility and inerrancy, and they toss these words back and forth as if they're synonyms, I just take that at face value coming from the person who's speaking. But they are not synonyms in the theological world. They are two different standards. And it seems like infallibility would be the higher standard and inerrancy would be the lower standard. So in other words, if you say that the Bible is inerrant, you're saying essentially it has no errors. That needs to be qualified. But simply put, it has no errors. But if you say it's infallible, you're saying it's not even capable of having errors. So if it's infallible, it's inerrant because it's not capable of having any errors. So the infallibility language would seem like it's the more weighty word, okay? But in theological circles, it's just the opposite. All right? That is infallibility is a lesser standard of authority from the Scripture. And this concept comes out, they call it the fuller standard from Fuller Seminary. But infallibility, again, when used in technical terms, and a lot of people use them interchangeably, you're not going to get a fuss out of me. But when used as a technical term, theologically, infallibility means the Bible is without error in the areas of teaching of faith and practice is the standard way of putting it. In other words, what it teaches theologically, how to live and what God is like, the moral teaching, etc. That's where the Bible is completely reliable. It is God's word without any errors in it in those areas. Now, when it comes to science and history in those categories, there may be errors on this view. So if you believe in infallibility, you're comfortable with everything the Bible teaches theologically and morally. We got that. But I'm not going to hold the Old Testament historical accounts to that standard. There are mistakes in the Old. This is what they'll say. There are mistakes in the Old Testament. There are scientific mistakes. Actually, these were ancient people. They didn't understand things. So we're not going to hold that against them. We're just going to hold them to the moral, ethical, and theological claims that that's what we can rely on. That is called infallibility. Now, inerrancy as a standard, as a word takes it further. It said, yes, the Bible is reliable in faith on issues of faith and Practice, but it's also reliable in everything else that it affirms. That it affirms. So if it claims that something is so, then it is. Now, we have to keep in mind the conventions of language, of course, and different genre. And we have poetry and proverbs. And proverbs aren't meant to be promises, so we don't read them as promises. That isn't the intention of the author. It is giving us probabilities, if you will. And so the genre there has to be taken into consideration. But when all those considerations are made in all areas, not just faith and practice, but anything else that's being spoken of, if we are interpreting correctly, then that whatever the Bible affirms is God's word without error. Now, keep in mind that the Bible will affirm error when the error is spoken by somebody in the text. Sometimes it records a lie being spoken by a liar, but it's recording the lie accurately anyway. That's the standard for inerrancy. If you take into consideration the genre, the normal conventions of language, the circumstances it's written in the intention of the author, then whatever is affirmed to be true is true, is without error, regardless of the category. That's the inerrancy standard, as opposed to the weaker standard called infallibility. So I'm not going to go into a lot more about that. John will do that when the course comes out in a few months. Whenever I did want to offer a thought, though, about how one could justify the claim that the Bible is God's word, because we're actually starting with that affirmation. We are starting with that presumption, presupposition. And then given that the Bible is God's Word, how are we going to understand the intention of God's word regarding accuracy? And that's the inerrancy debate in House. Is it infallibility? Is it inerrancy? Is it something else? A third category? But there is a way that John Warwick Montgomery has offered this and many, many, many years ago. He's still alive, still teaching. Saw him about a year ago, he said like he did. Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. Well, Amy said he passed away. Well, he must have passed away. He was 93 when I saw him last year. Oh, at the end of September. Okay. Well, well done, good and faithful servant. He offered a way of dealing with Scripture and making a case for the inspiration of Scripture. And I think he called it retroduction. And what he starts with are the Gospels as historical documents. Okay. These are not the inspired Word of God. That's not a starting point. Let's just start with the Gospels as accounts, detailed accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Do we have good reason to trust the content of the information of those accounts? And so, just under purely historiographical kind of analysis, the canons of historical analysis, can we trust what the Gospels say about Jesus life? And the conclusion he comes to is, yes, we can. Okay, now, treating the Gospels as reasonably accurate history, what do we learn about the beliefs and the actions of Jesus of Nazareth? Well, we learn that Jesus of Nazareth actually believed the entire Old Testament was God's word. And he quotes from lots and lots of different places and many times from the most controversial portions of Scripture. So he talks about Adam and Eve. He talks about Jonah and the great fish or the great sea creature. He talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. So he's making reference to these controversial areas that people would read and say, nah, now that's not real. But it seemed that Jesus believed they were. These were historical accounts. All right. And then we also have Jesus in the upper room giving instructions to his disciples on the last day of his life, I should say natural life with them. And he's telling them that they are going to receive the Holy Spirit, who will bring to remembrance everything that he has taught them, that the Holy Spirit would lead them and guide them into all truth. Now, those are two different statements he makes, I think one in chapter 14 and one in chapter 15, maybe 16 of the gospel of John. But he's making reference to what will happen in the future to those that are part of the apostolic band. He's not talking to them as all Christians. The promise to receive all truth from the Spirit is not for every Christian, obviously, because we disagree so much when we have the same Spirit. No, it was given to the disciples to secure a testimony after Jesus was gone. That would be holy writ for the new covenant, just like the Hebrew Scriptures were wholly writ for the old covenant. Okay, so Montgomery's approach then is that he looks at the claims that Jesus made, and then he asks, does he have authority to make claims like this? Can we believe those claims? We have good reason to believe Jesus knows what he's talking about. And this, of course, is secured by the resurrection. If Jesus predicted his own death and his own resurrection, then was executed and three days later raised himself from the dead, if that actually happens. Now, this guy knows a thing or two, doesn't he? He's got credibility. And Paul said at the beginning of Romans, and this is a Fairly early reference, the book of romans in the 50s. He said in the first chapter that Jesus was declared with power to be the Son of God. That's a divine reference by the resurrection from the dead. So the resurrection secures a number of things. And one of them is the authority of Jesus to speak as God himself regarding all things. Now, that puts his statements about scripture, Hebrew scripture, New Testament scripture to come in an entirely different category. Now we can say that God said that the Old Testament in all of its parts were inspired because Jesus cited from all these sections the entire Tanakh, the first five books of the Bible, the law, the Torah, the prophets, the wisdom, literature, the writings, all of these he cited from and said that all of these things speak of him. And so now, speaking with divine authority, having been clarified that authority, he already had it, but clarified now by the resurrection, he speaks with authority to identify the divine source of the Word in the Old Testament and also confirming the disciples, the apostles in the future, to be writing holy writ for them. And this is why this is an issue of canon. Now, what books count and as canon, which is the rule, that's what the word means. Well, Jesus was the rule when he was here. And then those who he trained to follow after him directly, that inside band when he's gone, then they became the rule. And then when they were gone, the things that they wrote became the rule. And that's why apostolic authority attached to any book of the New Testament was vital in almost every case. There's some exceptions, Book of Hebrews, for example. But known apostolic authority and connection was vital to including it in recognizing the books as part of the canon. Now, I've written about this and I'm trying to remember when it came out last year to solid ground. It was the. The canon, which books and why, I think is the title of it. And it might have been like September that it came out. No, it came out. When did that come out? When the solid ground of the canon that I wrote, what was that? November. Which books and why? Or October? Anyway, I was late out of getting into the team. It was November. So November 1st it came out. You can find it online at the bottom of our homepage right now. You can look at it. But I get going in a lot more detail there about apostolic authority, because that was the thing that really mattered. But anyway, all of this is tied together with the concept of the scripture being God's word. And that is the way that John Montgomery, God bless his soul, God rest his soul. Oh, he is resting and he is being blessed because he's with the Lord. Apparently that's the approach that John Montgomery took in kind of ratifying all of Scripture as the Word of God from Jesus perspective. And I think it's a useful approach called retroduction, I think is the way he characterized that. Oh, he did? Okay. Oh, I did. Apparently I wrote an article on this whole thing and Amy's going to link to that as well. That'll be in the show notes. Okay, let's take a break and then get to your calls on standaresan. Stay with us.
- [19:59]
Stand To Reason Donor Appeal
Have you ever wondered how standareason is able to produce fresh, accessible content each week? We rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ. If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources, including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos, consider making a financial contribution to Stand to Reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift today@str.org donate do children need to consent to puberty?
- [20:47]
Alan Schliemann
Some transgender ideology advocates think they do, and I offer two reasons why they're mistaken in the latest episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. Look for this episode on itunes, Spotify your favorite podcast app, or at the top of the homepage@str.org do you want.
- [21:05]
STR Quick Reference App Announcer
To become a more knowledgeable Christian ambassador without sitting through a formal course on apologetics? Well, we've made that possible for you through our STR Quick Reference app. Available for free on itunes and Google Play. The STR Quick Reference App holds a wealth of information summarizing what you need to know on a range of topics. Learn how to defend the faith, see how other worldviews compare to Christianity, and master the biblical view of morality all through short, engaging videos. Before you know it, you'll be well versed on a number of important apologetics topics. In addition, the Quick Reference App also includes a Bible with text and audio, as well as some featured STR resources, all to enhance your learning experience. The STR Quick Reference App will equip you to engage in thoughtful conversation about the key issues of life from classical Christian perspective. Visit iTunes or the Google Play Store today and download the STR Quick Reference app. And if you enjoy the app, make sure you give it a five star review.
- [22:11]
Greg Kokel
All righty Speaking of God's word, as we've been doing earlier today in these shows, the next caller has a question about application of God's word. So let's go right to David. Let me find your button, David. Okay, Springboro, Ohio. Where's Springboro, David?
- [22:32]
Caller
Springboro is in, is just about 20 minutes south of Dayton.
- [22:37]
Greg Kokel
Okay, close to Dayton, is that what you said?
- [22:40]
Caller
Yeah, close to Dayton. So it's like 20 minutes south.
- [22:42]
Greg Kokel
Well, that's where we got a reality happening there in Dayton in January, February, March, April.
- [22:48]
Caller
Yeah, it's dlc. Yep.
- [22:50]
Greg Kokel
Great. Okay. So what's on your mind, David, for in Springboro?
- [22:54]
Caller
Well, just first of all, thank you for your ministry. I'm an outpost director here in Springboro and we're doing yesteru class making abortion unthinkable. And one of the critiques that some of the learners have kind of come up with is they like all the information, but they're wondering, they're kind of wondering, where's the Bible? Where's the Bible? And I kind of think they're confusing the goal there. And one of just one of the things that came up with Isaiah 55:11, that God's word will never return void. So we should use biblical arguments in our pro life apologetics, which I've always been like, well, we probably shouldn't because they don't accept the Bible most times.
- [23:39]
Greg Kokel
Right? Well, of course the pushback then is, well, wait a minute, Isaiah says that God's word will not return void. So it's going to do something. This is their view. Okay, now the question really is here, Isaiah 55:11, what did God intend to communicate through that verse? So I'm going to read the verse here. Let me just. I'm going to start at verse 10. Okay? For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there, without watering the earth and making it bare and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater. So will my word be, which goes forth from my mouth. It will not return to me empty without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. Now, that last line is really important to understanding this passage. When people truncate the passage and they say, well, God's word won't return void. The way they're applying it suggests that God's word is kind of magical. And if you say the magic words, words of scripture, then there's going to be a magical impact on people. Now I do think that God's Word is powerful, all right, but it's powerful being used the way God intended it to be used, which is exactly what Isaiah is saying here, that it's going to be effective for what God intends it to do. And I don't have any reason to think that what God intends is for us to just recite lines and it's just going to have a magical effect on people. I mean, think for just a moment, David, how many people have expressed John 3:16 to unbelieving folk. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. Do you think like everybody in the country has heard that at least once? Oh, yeah, yeah. Did it have a magical effect on them? No, of course not, because God did not intend His Word to be used that way. And incidentally, I'm collecting verses in the New Testament that talk about preaching the Word. And in most of the cases where it talks about preaching the Word, it is not talking about reciting the Bible. It is talking about the content of the Gospel. Remember when there was this trouble in the Book of Acts and the Hellenistic Jews were not being served properly and so they set aside seven men to take care of that, the first deacons. And the reason was is that the elders didn't want to have to serve tables instead of dedicating themselves to the Word. Well, they weren't studying Old Testament passages. And you can see in the Book of Acts this phrase, the Word being used in lots of different places. And they were preaching the Word to them and they were explaining the Word to them, and then the word blah, blah, blah. And it's clear from the context that what they're doing is communicating the details of the Gospel and the kingdom of God and all kinds of stuff. They are explaining things and sometimes defending what they're explaining, but they're not quoting verses to people. So even, I mean, the way people are suggesting we use maybe Isaiah 55:11 is just not what Isaiah intended or God certainly didn't intend. And we don't see it happening that way in the New Testament. Now, I think there are times when it's appropriate to repeat. I don't know if recite is the right word, but to speak God's Word contentfully to people, but that doesn't mean reciting it word for word as if getting all the words just so has a magical impact on people. I could talk about John 3:16 and just paraphrase it. I could say, look, I'm going to tell you how much I'm role playing now. I'm going to tell you how much God cared about you, that he gave the most important thing to him, his only son, to be sacrificed so that if you put your trust in him, you will not perish, you will have everlasting life. Now that's the word of God. And what I mean in that sense is not that my words are holy writ, but the content of what I communicated was the truth of God. And it's a paraphrase of John 3:16. And probably my suspicion it would be more effective in many cases to paraphrase for modern ears what a text is saying than just by rote repeating the words as if those words are magical in themselves. Now in the case of the moral issue of abortion, this is especially true that we are trying to persuade people with good reasons, we are not trying to recite over them verses, thinking that the recitation of the verses will somehow magically change their mind. That isn't what Isaiah 55:11 is teaching. So it's sad for me to hear this because the people who make this claim are well meaning, but this is not going to help them at all. Just reciting verses to people as if the verses have a magical power. They don't. That actually is an occultic view of language, that words have power. You know, words don't have power. It's the person of God who has the power. And when God is properly invoked, then power is available to us. But just reciting verses, I don't think you don't see that in the New Testament. In the Book of Acts you see them explaining things. Now it is the truth found in scripture. But one of the truths truth found in scripture is that it's wrong to murder. And that's taking the life of an innocent individual without proper justification. And that's what happens in abortion. And so making that case is making a biblical case for a biblical truth indeed. You could call that preaching the word to them, but you don't have to recite the verses. Make sense.
- [30:52]
Caller
Yeah, it's kind of right in line with kind of where my own thinking was. I just wanted to kind of get a smarter opinion on it.
- [31:02]
Greg Kokel
Well, one fortunate thing about the about the show is you can always go back and re listen to it again, you know, and, or you can have somebody else listen to it. But I hope this will be satisfying to them. Maybe not satisfying, but at least maybe it'll convince them of a proper way to use scripture. Yeah, okay. All right, David Good talking to you. Thanks for the call. Let's go to Broken Bow, Oklahoma, and this is Jana. Jana, welcome to the show.
- [31:32]
Caller Jana
Hi, Greg. Can you hear me?
- [31:33]
Greg Kokel
Sure.
- [31:35]
Caller Jana
All right. My question is, did Old Testament saints go to Abraham's bosom, which was a part of Sheol, and then later brought to heaven by Jesus, or were they taken into the Lord's presence immediately after their death?
- [31:52]
Greg Kokel
This is a hard question to answer. I kind of wish Amy was on here to give me her insight on this. I'm not sure now. Maybe there's a very clear biblical answer. But it's interesting. Jesus says to the thief of the cross, today, you will be with me in paradise. But that's kind of like right on the crux of Old Testament, New Testament crossing over into the New Testament time. So the Old Testament, you know, I mean, Jesus did give this, what, parable? Maybe. Maybe it's an account of the rich man in Lazarus and there was Abraham's bosom. And I think that's the characteristic way to take what happened to Old Testament saints, that when they died, they went to a place of rest and repose and safety and comfort until the payment for their sins was made officially by Jesus on the cross. That's probably the way I'd feel most comfortable answering. But you were going to say something. What was that?
- [32:57]
Caller Jana
Well, I'm just confused because I see there are so many people that say one way and then another. And then there's verses in Psalms that delude to David, thinking that he's going to be in the Lord's presence.
- [33:14]
Greg Kokel
Do you remember what it says specifically? He does talk about being in the presence of the Lord, but a lot of times that's in the presence of the Lord in the temple, you know, not the literal presence in the sense that we think of heaven.
- [33:30]
Caller Jana
Then there's Psalms 49, 15 that says, but God will redeem me from the power of Sheol, for he will take me.
- [33:40]
Greg Kokel
Oh, well, that's true, but it doesn't indicate when that's going to be.
- [33:46]
Caller Jana
Okay, that's kind of what I was leaning towards. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure this out.
- [33:53]
Greg Kokel
Because I'll say this to you, Jana, it's just kind of a curiosity. It's nice to knock it around, but I'm not sure what deep, profound significance it has. If you land on one side or, excuse me, or the other, it's a speculation about what happened to them, then it certainly is what's going on now. So there are probably two or three answers that might Be acceptable or legitimate. But not a whole lot rides on it, I would say. I was thinking a little bit about what is it? 2 Samuel? Or maybe it's 1 Samuel, where Samuel is conjured by King Saul. And so Samuel comes back, so to speak, as a ghost, if you will. His spirit comes back and of course he upbraids Saul and then tells Saul he's going to die for what he just did, and so were his two sons in the next battle. But I guess the question is, where is Saul coming from? I'm not Saul, but Samuel. Where is he coming from? And I'd have to look at the text more closely. I don't have it right in front of me. I don't know if it says. It just says that he appeared, that the witch of Endor saw him coming in a certain sense out of the mistake. And was his soul in repose in the grave or in Abraham's bosom, and that's where he came from. Or was he in the Lord's presence? I don't know. And then you have Jesus at the transfiguration who is talking with Moses and Elijah. Okay, so now they're there with him. Where have they been? And where did they go back to after the transfiguration? Did they go back to Abraham's bosom or did they go in the presence of the Lord? I don't know. And the text doesn't give us any indication. It just says that they, in a certain sense are alive, they are existing. That's why Jesus makes this argument for the resurrection. When God says, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he is not the God of the dead, but of the living. So Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive, existing after fashion somewhere, but it doesn't say where. So, yeah, I don't know. Maybe somebody's going to send me a note and say, oh, you got it all wrong. Here's a clear verse that says, okay, well, I think that Jesus teaching, let's just call it that. I don't know if it's a parable or an account. His teaching on the rich man and Lazarus does seem to suggest that prior to the work of the cross, those who had died in faith, Old Testament believers, were in a place that Jesus referred to as Abraham's bosom and being comforted. And there are some other passages that talk about setting the captives free. And some have suggested, well, this is what happens when Jesus dies, rises again, then the captives are set free from Abraham's bosom and come to be in heaven. In the presence of the Lord. Maybe he did say that the thief on the cross would be with him that day in paradise. So, you know, it's all old news though, isn't it, one way or another?
- [37:51]
Caller Jana
Well, I'm satisfied with that. I just wanted your take on it because I've heard from one person this and another one this, and I'm just kind of getting whiplashed on these ideas. So that's really helpful.
- [38:04]
Greg Kokel
Yeah, no worries. No whiplash necessary. It's just different ideas and whatever. It's something that is in the past and no longer has application today. Because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And I think that's pretty straightforward there in what, 2 Corinthians where Paul talks about that. Okay, Jana.
- [38:24]
Caller Jana
All right. Well, thank you, Greg. I appreciate it.
- [38:26]
Greg Kokel
You're so welcome. All the best. Bye bye. Now let's go to break and then have our final callers when we return on Stand A Reason.
- [38:34]
Alan Schliemann
Have you seen our brand new website? Stop by str.org and enjoy a fresh, clean layout with all the same great content. The new Stand A Reason website was designed with you in mind. It has an easier than ever navigation and a crisp, simple layout so you can find all the sound analysis and careful commentary to that you've come to expect from us. Browse new features that make finding your favorite resources easier than ever. As always, it's our goal to equip you, our fellow Christians, with the confidence, clear thinking, and courage you need for every encounter you have as a Christian ambassador. Our new website is just one way we're fulfilling that goal, allowing you to access the resources you need in a new and improved way. So visit str.org and keep coming back to discover new podcasts, articles and videos each and every day. Did you know Stand A reason has a YouTube channel? We release a new video each Monday on the topics you care about through short, engaging videos. Our speakers train you on tactics, offer apologetics tips, answer common theology questions, and address big issues in the world today. Join tens of thousands of other subscribers so you can stay up to date when we release a new video. Just go to YouTube.com and search strvideos all one word and hit the subscribe button. That's strvideos. Take advantage of this free resource to help you stay informed, encouraged and equipped as you share your worldview with others.
- [40:11]
Greg Kokel
Alrighty, final segment here. Let's go to New York and Tom. Welcome to the show, Tom.
- [40:16]
Caller
Hey Greg.
- [40:17]
Greg Kokel
Hey.
- [40:19]
Caller
I'm teaching a class I called you a couple weeks ago on tactics at my church.
- [40:23]
Greg Kokel
Okay, good.
- [40:24]
Caller
And I thought I was all ready, and then I read an article on your website called a 10 Minute Witness.
- [40:31]
Greg Kokel
Okay, did I write it?
- [40:34]
Caller
Yeah, you wrote it. And it's about a salesman that came to your house and you ended up buying his product because you needed it. And then you basically took him right to the gospel, right?
- [40:43]
Greg Kokel
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right. That's because I was very short in time. I had to go to a radio broadcast, I think. Yes, that was a long time ago, 20 years, I think, when I wrote that.
- [40:53]
Caller
Yeah, probably maybe this is before tactics because I'm confused about. You know, tactics is you don't have to worry about witnessing but think about being a good ambassador. Knowledge, wisdom, character. Right?
- [41:09]
Greg Kokel
Yeah, I, I, I want to be careful about putting it that way, because being a good ambassador is being a witness of a sort. It's just a different way of approaching it. A lot of people think witnessing means saying things a certain way in a certain order to get a certain consequence. And I want to bump people out of that mentality and have them think about gardening and making their witness, being a representative of Christ as an ambassador, and have it maybe look a little different in the circumstance that you described there. That piece was, well, actually what that was was a commentary from a radio show. So I had this engagement with this young man at the door and then I had to get in the car and head for the studios, which were an hour away. And then I began broadcasting. And then I talked about this thing and they transcribed it, made an article out of it. And the particular detail there, and if I get this wrong, you can correct me, was that I was under the gun with time. And so I wasn't going to kind of, you know, rope it open or anything like that. I was just, let's just get down to business. And I also had a sense that this young man, I had a good audience with this young man because this was one of those situations where, you know, they knock on the door, they say, buy my magazine so I can go to Disney, Disneyland. You know, one of those routines. And that's an awful way. That's not a good sales technique, although it seems to work apparently, but it doesn't have integrity. And I was telling this man, I think I gave him a little sales thing like my dad taught me, you should be concerned about what they want, not what you want. And I might have told him that I don't care about you going to Disneyland if you want to sell me something, you got to appeal to my concerns, not to yours. And so anyway, but the upshot was maybe I might have brought a tennis magazine from him just to reinforce the point I was making. But I wanted to give him. I wanted to talk to him about Christ in the short time that I had 10 minutes. And so I just cut to the chase. And what had happened in the prior conversation is I had set a foundation for a friendly. A friendly interaction. So he's listening to me. I'm an older person. He's listening. I just gave him some good instruction about sales and whatever, and I'd earned some trust in that. And I said, look, I want to tell you something else. I'm just going to cut to the chase and I'm going to give you the basics. And so that's what I did, as I recall. And then I was just going to let the Lord use that, if he will, just the way it was. And there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes that's the best you can do in a short time. You don't do any fancy footwork. You just lay it on the line. And there are God, he can use that if he wants. And I'm sure there are many times where it actually bears a lot of fruit. Other times it takes a long time for a person to work through these issues. That's generally the case. And so it takes more conversation. But this one, I just cut to the chase.
- [44:26]
Caller
So would you say then that gardening tactics is more involved with gardening and witnessing is maybe, depending on the circumstance, more harvesting?
- [44:43]
Greg Kokel
Well, I wouldn't use those terms that way. Witnessing is any characterization of the truth about God that you're making to another person. And it might be the way you live your life. It might be what you have to say. It might be engaging them in different ways. It might be more of a classic witness. I want to tell you about Jesus who died on the cross for your sins. Okay, well, that would be witnessing, and that's the way people think about it. But I think our witness is much broader than that. It has to do with the way we live our lives, too. When I talk about gardening, I am referring to what would be considered witnessing. I would call that witnessing, too. But the goal is not to close the deal. The goal is to put a stone in someone's shoe. Because I think that most of the times when people become Christians, there is nobody that closes the deal for them. It is them by themselves with God. The Holy Spirit closes the deal. That's what happened to me. I don't know about your situation. Did you pray with someone to receive Christ?
- [45:51]
Caller
No.
- [45:52]
Greg Kokel
Did you come forward at an altar call?
- [45:55]
Caller
No.
- [45:57]
Greg Kokel
When you were believing Jesus, whenever that happened, was that just between you and God?
- [46:04]
Caller
Yes.
- [46:04]
Greg Kokel
See, that's 75% of the people that I poll say that. And I mean, audiences raise a hand, you know, and then I have them look around because most people do not become Christians because they've been challenged to receive Christ as Lord and Savior, or they come forward at an altar call. When my brother came to my apartment that night that I ended up, that was my spiritual birthday. He. He started talking to me more about Jesus. And as I recall it, I told him, you don't have to tell me anything more about Jesus. I've already decided to become a Christian. Now he says, what I said is, I already am a Christian. But in either case, Mark didn't lead me to the Lord that night. I harvested myself, you know, is the way I put it. Of course we know it's the Holy Spirit, just like in your case. And so when I talk about gardening, I'm not saying garden instead of witnessing. I see gardening as a kind of witnessing. It's a version of witnessing. It is witnessing, but not with the goal of closing the deal explicitly in that moment.
- [47:19]
Caller
Yeah, it's of the goal of moving them down the line from somewhere of radical unbelief to somewhere faith in Christ.
- [47:28]
Greg Kokel
Sure. Yeah.
- [47:29]
Caller
And we don't know where they are on that line.
- [47:31]
Greg Kokel
Exactly. Yeah. And I don't have to worry about that. When Christians put themselves under the pressure of trying to close the deal, if that's what they think is expected of them in witnessing, they aren't going to do it. They're going to sit on the bench. But if I tell them, don't worry about the harvest, go out and garden then, and gives them some tools about how to do that, well, that changes everything.
- [48:01]
Caller
Oh, sure.
- [48:02]
Greg Kokel
The whole mentality is really different. I remember being interviewed by Jim Dobson's son, Ryan, many years ago, right after tactics came out. And so I'm explaining some of the details of the book. It was a radio interview. And then he said, okay, what's the bottom line? What's the bottom line? Like, what are you trying to get people to do? And I said, well, I just want them to put a stone in their shoe. I just want them to get them thinking. And he said, what? I never heard that. Are you kidding me? Aren't you trying to lead them to Christ, try to get them to receive Christ? I said, that's not really my immediate goal. It is my ultimate goal. But that's going to happen down the line, probably. I just want to get them thinking, well, he just came in unglued in a really good way, because he felt like in what he said was, I cannot wait to get on a plane and talk to people now with this different approach. So what, you know, I mean, he's Jim Dobson's son, so a lot of expectation of being Mr. Christian, whatever, and a lot of pressure there. But when I basically explained the tactical approach to him and I didn't use the word gardening then, I don't think the way I do now. I do it much more aggressively now because it's such an important part of the model, in my view. But when I got to the point of explaining we're just going to worry about gardening, that freed him up emotionally to want to engage at that level. And I think this is what happens in people's lives when they begin to countenance this tactical approach. It doesn't feel like witnessing to them. And I think that's part of the appeal. Witnessing means going over this tract and trying to get people to pray. You mean I don't have to do that? No. Do you see that anywhere in the Book of Acts?
- [50:03]
Caller
No.
- [50:04]
Greg Kokel
There's not a single altar call in the Gospels. No. You don't see that either. So there are appeals that are made of a different sort of. But it isn't like nothing meaningful is being said, no challenge being offered. But most of the time, there's a move of the Holy Spirit in somebody's life where the message is being communicated and the work of conviction happens, and the transformation happens without the challenge. So the Book of Acts, it says that somebody is talking to Lydia, and the text says, God opened Lydia's heart to believe the Gospel. Okay, just like that. Now, there might have been more going on there, but it doesn't talk about it. When we see Peter in Acts, chapter 10, go to Cornelius's house. Right. Remember that?
- [51:00]
Caller
Yep.
- [51:00]
Greg Kokel
Peter never gets to an altar call. He's halfway through his message, talking about Jesus in very concrete, specific terms, and also talking about judgment, that this is the one that will be judging the living and the dead. Whoever believes in him, whatever, will not come under judgment. Some language like that. It's a great little sermon that he gives there in that household. All those people, all those Gentiles gathered there, and he's in the middle of the sermon, and people start manifesting that the Holy Spirit is. Is already possessed by them, whether speaking in tongues or whatever it was. And, you know, Peter doesn't say, wait a minute, you're getting ahead of me. I haven't given the altar call yet, you know. Right. So there's no. And he's a bit flummoxed. And then he said, well, look, they've received the Spirit just as we have. We Jews received the Spirit, had these manifestations. They clearly, these Gentiles have received the Spirit and we've seen the manifestations. Wow. What next? Be baptized? We can't withhold water for baptism. So baptism was important. It's like the next step, but it wasn't salvation. The salvation was already in place because they had the Spirit and the Spirit's in virtue of believing. Ephesians 1, I think it says, having believed, you received the Holy Spirit of promise. And so that's, you know, and I think this happens a lot. Like I said, most people's lives. When I ask people, just like I asked you a few moments ago, what was the order for you? How did that work out? Most of the times they tell me, yeah, nobody led me to Christ. There were individuals in my life that made a big difference for me, that contributed the information that I needed, witnessing to them, if you want to use that language. But they didn't challenge me to receive Christ or pray with me to receive Christ. And actually, it's probably been 20 years since I've prayed with someone to receive Christ, maybe longer. And I don't care. Doesn't bother me because my life has, you know, never been as productive, I think, for the cause of Christ in the way I'm teaching and doing it, than. Than. Than before. So I'm not sacrificing anything. But, you know, when I tell people that, it's like, oh, bite your tongue, man. Or, what a loser. You've not let anybody to the Lord. No, but I do tell, and maybe you already know this, I'm not sure, but I mentioned to the audience about J. Warner Wallace and John Noyes. You know who Jim Wallace is, right? Oh, sure, yeah. You know, the case of Christian casemaker, cold case, Christianity and all that. Well, Jim was in my garden when he was an atheist. He was listening to this show. Now he sits behind the mic sometimes, you know, sits in for me. But he was listening to this show and when he was an atheist. No, I didn't lead him to Christ. I don't even know who led him to Christ, if anybody led him to Christ. I just talked to him last week. I got to ask him Again, how did that happen again? But I know that he was challenged by a particular pastor who said that Jesus was the smartest man who ever lived. So he decided to check it out, and that's when he discovered our show. So, look, I didn't harvest him, but he was in my garden, okay? And John Noyes, who's on our team, and he was an atheist who is now a Christian, and he does not even have a spiritual birthday. He does not know when he became a Christian. He just knows that he wasn't. And now he is, and of course, now quite a while. And he's got a degree in apologetics, and he works for us at Stand to Reason and all of that. So he's another example of somebody who is in my garden. Because when he was an atheist, he was listening to this show, and in fact, he tells me about driving along the freeway, screaming at me on the radio because he's so mad at me, you know? And so I didn't know anything about this, about his past until later on when we became friends, and he told me, but he was actually in our church. And then I was at the service when he got up and gave a kind of testimony about being an atheist and then becoming a Christian somehow, and now being a Christian. And after the service, I went and sought him out, and I said, hi, my name's Greg, you know, would you like to go to breakfast? And I just wanted to get him to know him better and maybe encourage him in the Lord, because it was clear that he had a testimony and a willingness to share it, and maybe I'd be an encouragement to him. But he was petrified because he said right away, he said, well, I know who you are. And now I know the whole story, the rest of the story. I'm the guy he used to yell at on the radio. But that was the beginning of a great friendship, obviously, and now he's on our team. But it just goes to show the power, I think, of gardening and in whatever circumstance that you have to garden. In my case, it was on the radio a lot or maybe talking to a larger group. But what I do is garden, and people come to the Lord somewhere down the line. And since I've been talking about gardening and I just got 20 seconds, and now I'm going to have to run. But since I've been talking about gardening and J. Warner Wallace being in my garden, John Noyes, I've had other people who are involved in productive Christian work. They said, and I was in your garden, too, and I was in your garden, too. And all of this is not to pat myself in the bat, but just to reinforce what you're doing with these folk, and that is teaching them to garden, because this is one of the best things you can do.
- [57:03]
Caller
Sounds to me like witnessing is much broader than I thought it was.
- [57:06]
Greg Kokel
Yeah, that's what I would say. Yeah. Being an ambassador. Yeah. Okay. Tom, thank you for your call. I appreciate it. And keep up the good work with your team there, teaching them tactics. Greg Kokel here for Stand a reason. Give him heaven. Bye. Bye. Now.
- [57:42]
Caller
It.