← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
It’s Okay to Quote a Single Verse...If You Understand the Context
00:58:00
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:29]
A
Hey. Hey, friends. Greg Koukl here on Stand a Reason. And it's a pleasure to be with you today and to talk with you about things that really matter and think through some issues or challenges that relate to those things that really matter, the eternal issues. I think right now of this passage that has meant so much to me in, I would say, the last 10 years, really, I've focused in on it a lot. It's been encouraging encouragement to me. It's in 2 Corinthians 4, the last two verses, 16 through 18. And the part of this that I remember, Paul is talking about his body wasting away. Okay, the tent. Right. But there's something else that is arising or being built up and enduring. And he says that momentary light afflictions are producing. Of course, they weren't momentary or light for Paul in one sense, the way we usually consider it, but he's making a comparison. And these afflictions are producing for us an eternal weight of glory. All right, that by itself is significant. But then he offers the Mo that allows him to focus on that truth that helps him through the hard times, which in the moment don't feel momentary nor light. But he says, so that we look at the things, not the things that are temporal, but the things that are eternal. Because the things that are temporal are passing away, but the things that. Oh, no, I think I've quoted it wrong. The things that are physical. Nope. Now we got to look at it. Yep. One of my favorite verses. I'm leaning on it all the time, trusting in it, quoting it to encourage myself. I can't recall it now. I'm messing up. All right, so here it is. While we look not at things which are seen. There we go. But at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. Okay, so that's the perspective. There are lots of things that are important in life but have limited importance because they don't have eternal consequence yet. Investing our time and our effort in the things that have eternal consequences, where the real action is long term. All right, now I have this odd sense that I started this comment with one end in mind, and I can't remember where I was going to go with it. So Amy's going to help me out here. Maybe she says, I don't know, talking about my. No, that was Paul's body that was breaking mutt down. My body's just doing just fine anyway. Well, okay, so there's a mini homily for you. We focus on things that are not seen, but are, but are eternal rather than the things that are seen are temporal. And God knows where I was going to go with that. However, I do have a challenge that's been offered to me here, and this is an open mic day and, or should say hour. And in other words, I'm taking questions that you, as my listeners, have called in with and left on recording. Characteristically, that's on our website. You go to our homepage str.org to the podcasts section, and under live broadcast, there's a place for you to leave your question, record it, and then we get to it eventually, which is true in almost every case. Once in a while I say I have nothing to say about that. Please contact our caller, Amy, and let them know that I've got nothing helpful to offer. But characteristically, I've got an opinion about just about everything. Sometimes it's more educated than others, but that's for you to judge. And to kick off my open mic session here, just received a challenge from somebody regarding an aphorism that I frequently use. And it's part of the DNA of stand to reason and I think ought to be part of everybody's spiritual DNA. And the aphorism is never read a Bible verse. Never read a Bible verse. Now, the statement sounds extreme, which taken literally, it is, but it's meant to capture your attention and also be memorable because there's a principle I'm trying to communicate here. And the principle is not that you should never read a verse like toss your Bible out, but rather that you are mindful that verses do not exist in isolation. And in fact, there are no verses in the Bible. There are words, there are sentences, there are paragraphs, but there are no verses. The verse numbers were added hundreds of years later, maybe 1,000 years later, I don't know. First chapter breaks were added, then verse numbers were added just to make it more convenient. But the liability is that it encourages people to take individual verses, that is a sentence or so that is delineated by a number as a discrete piece of information that they can understand with no reference to the verses that come before it and after it. Now, every once in a while, you can just read a verse and you're going to get the meaning. In fact, there is one book of the Bible that is written that way for the most part, or I should say a large part of it is, and that's the Book of Proverbs, especially from chapter 10 and on. You have these pithy statements that are meant to be considered individually as discrete statements about the way life works, but not the rest of Scripture. And even a good portion of Proverbs are not like that. You have to read more around it, or else it's likely you'll misunderstand the sentence itself. All right, so the challenge that's been offered to me here is somebody wrote in to our social media coordinator who passed this on to me. Well, Jesus quoted single verses at times, and so did Paul. And what about all the psalms used in Hebrews or other prophecies pulled out of their original context? Okay, so there's a notable example that's left out. Jesus is included. Paul, he did this too. He did what I say shouldn't be done. And writers of other passages like Book of Hebrews have passages in them where you see these individual verses quoted in the text. All right, well, who is the notable that is left out? Me. In other words, I don't follow the dictum, taken in a certain sense in a woodenly literalistic way, to never quote a Bible verse. I just did it a few moments ago when I mentioned 2 Corinthians 4:16 through 18. Now, I did pause for a moment and give a little bit of context there. The point of the dictum never read a Bible verse is not to never read or recite or quote a verse. But my point is, if you want to know what a verse means, you can't just read a verse. You have to read more so that you're confident that your own understanding of the meaning that verse is sound to the author's intent. All right, now, if you've done your homework, if you're familiar with the flow of thought of a passage and you have an individual verse that makes your point legitimately, then you can quote the verse because you know the meaning in the larger flow of thought, and that's the context or that is the manner in which I cite individual verses at particular times. You know, and so I violate my own rule, but not. I don't really, because I understand the point of the rule and apply the concept on a regular basis. And when Amy and I do Strask, and we are asked questions there, we field a question in that podcast that has to do with a particular verse much of the time. And this is where Amy steps in and say, we have. We have a principle here that will help you out. Never read a Bible verse. So if you read above this passage and below it, let's look at the larger context, the challenge or the query of answers itself simply by reading the larger context. There it is. It's not so hard. Alright, so yes, Jesus often quoted single verses. Why did he do that? Because he understood the meaning of the verse and he wasn't getting it wrong. Paul did as well. The writer of Hebrews does as well. He's telling you in the context of New Covenant Christianity and the person of Jesus and the work of Jesus. This is what the Book of Hebrews is about, broader context. He is pulling passages from the Old Testament that he is explaining the meaning of in light of New Covenant Christianity and the work of the cross and the priesthood of Christ, etc. Etc. Etc. Those of you familiar with the Book of Hebrews know what I'm talking about. So they are not abusing passages because those writers know the meanings. And in fact they are helping us, with divine help, being inspired by the Spirit themselves to write these texts, to help us understand what these texts, which might have been a little confusing to us when we read them, even in the context, they are helping us to understand what these verses actually mean, intended by the author back then and applied to Christ in a New Covenant situation. So thank you for the observation. Yes, there are people in the Bible who violate the rule, never read a Bible verse, or at least they went in the quoting of it. They use a verse, but they are not violating the principle involved. And the aphorism is offered to you just so you understand the principle and can apply it yourself. And as for those prophecies pulled out of their original context, yes, this is a little bit more troublesome. That's not the right word to use. I don't mean that it's more troublesome like they shouldn't be doing that. I'm bothered by that. It's a little bit harder to make sense out of because it does seem that biblical writers see information in Old Testament passages that here, what, 2500 to 3500 years later, maybe 4000 years later, wildly removed by time and location and language, we don't see it. But the New Testament writers who are closer in all of those ways do see it. Plus they have the help of the Holy Spirit. So there's an ability they have sometimes to extract information that we don't see. This is why it's important that we with a high view of Scripture, we know that they are speaking under the authority of the Holy Spirit. When they do this assessment of passages that sometimes we ask ourselves, how did they get that out of? How did they get this out of that? So we read in Hebrews, okay, he's quoting this. Well, I don't see that, no. But the writer of Hebrews did. And the early church acknowledged the authority, the divine authority of the book of Hebrews as being part of the canon. Okay, so I get it. Sometimes you can see the connection, sometimes you can't. But that doesn't give us liberty to snatch passages out of their context and apply meaning that clearly the author never intended. Chief among these, chief offender right now, and there are many offenders, is the Jeremiah 29:11. I know the plans that I have for you. I was at graduation a couple of days ago, my daughter, my 17 year old graduated from high school, and there was that verse displayed, which is common in Christian environments. For I know the plans that I have for you, saith the Lord, to give you a future and a hope not for destruction, but prosperity kind of thing. I don't have this memorized because it's so I have a block against it since it's abused like it was there it is for a specific people at a specific time, for a specific purpose connected to a specific covenant. And none of those things apply to Christians today. Therefore, that verse doesn't apply the way Christians apply today. It's an abuse of the passage. Now, it has usefulness if understood properly. And Daniel understood it properly when 70 years later, he invoked this passage in a prayer for the return of the Jews to their homeland. You can read that in what, Daniel 9 in any event, so the principle still holds. And I thank you for raising the issue, the challenger, and I hope that answers it for you. All right, now we have a regular contributor to our questions here at the open mic session. His name is Dan. He's kind of our resident atheist and he's right at the top of my list, which means this question's probably been in here a long time. He calls a lot. Every page of questions have got a Dan one. Oh, man. Here's a Dan. Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan and Dan. So he has got a lot of questions, but this first one I think can be dispatched quite easily before we go to break. So let's do that. Let's have Dan's first question about lepers and blind people.
- [16:50]
B
Greg, comma my question for you is, how many lepers and blind people did Jesus not heal and why? We know that the Bible records that he healed blind men and he healed a leopard. So he had the power. So how many leopards and blind people in the Bible time when Jesus was alive did Jesus not heal? And why, if you and I had the power to heal leprosy, wouldn't we? I certainly would if I had the power to stop rape, wouldn't I? I certainly would. Why didn't Jesus? Why did Jesus think it was okay to watch the suffering and the diseased and the raped and the blind continue to suffer? Got any answers, Greg? And please don't tell me God is mysterious. That's just punting.
- [17:52]
A
All right, Dan, thanks for the question. So I guess your question in some are three. Okay. How many lepers did Jesus not heal? How many blind people did Jesus not heal and why? That pretty much sums it up. I mean, there are some other things in there, but. All right, so let me take them in order. How many lepers did Jesus not heal? I don't know. Second question, how many blind people did Jesus not heal? I don't know. Third question, why did Jesus not heal them? I don't know that either. So that's the best I can do on that question, Dan, but I appreciate asking it. Let's take a break. Greg Kochl back at you here when I return on Stand to Reason. Friends, if you like this broadcast, I know you'll love Strask. It's our shorter 20 minute podcast where I am paired with the wonderful Amy hall and together we answer the questions you send us on Twitter. Strask is released twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays, and it's only about 20 minutes long, so it's perfect to listen to on your morning jog or while driving around running errands or cleaning your garage or just plain loafing at home. Amy and I tackle your questions on theology and ethics and culture and lots more, offering our insight on the questions you're asking or the challenges you face. You can listen on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your own shows. Just remember, send us your questions on Twitter using the name of the podcast, Strask. That's Strsk. Have you ever wondered how Stand to Reason 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, we 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 at str.org/donate. All right, back at you here, Greg Kokel, and maybe I should take a moment and say something about the brevity of my last response. Part of what I want you folks to see is that you don't have to jump through every hoop that a critic asks you to jump through. We don't know everything, and some things can't be known. That's not punting. That's just being fair. Regarding the nature of the historical accounts. All right, do we have some detail anywhere about why Jesus did or didn't heal? Well, in some accounts, it says he healed everybody that came to him, at least on that occasion or characteristically other times, it says that he couldn't do much healing there because they had little faith or trust in him to do it. Okay, So, I mean, it isn't like we're lacking any information, but to be honest with you, I don't take this as a serious issue. And this is why maybe to some of you, it seemed I was a bit dismissive of Dan in that brief response now, and I was. Or not so much of Dan. But of this particular query, those of you who've listened in the past, you know that Dan has lots of questions, and I frequently spend time trying to parse out an answer that's adequate to the task. But I'm just letting you know that you don't always have to do that. Sometimes you could say, I don't know and I don't know, and I don't know that either. But what relevance does that have to anything really important? I think Dan's attempt was to show his point, was that if he had that power, he would heal everybody, et cetera, et cetera, stop the rapes and whatever have you. You know, there's an interesting point that's made in a movie called Bruce Almighty and the Comedian. Oh, I almost had his name here. Jim Carrey. Thank you, Amy. Amy, you cannot die before I do, okay? Or else I won't be able to do this show without your help. So Jim Carrey is given the authority of God for a season. And one of the things that he does is he answers every prayer that comes in. You got mail. And these are all the prayers that come in. And he puts, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. All get yes. And so he gives everybody what they ask for. And there are all kinds of bizarre, negative, ugly, unintended consequences. Okay? And I think that helps us to see that we don't know enough to rule the universe, but God, at least in principle, does. So sometimes he doesn't do what we'd like him to do. And we don't know why that would be the case because if we were God, we would do that. But guess what? We're not. And I don't think the inability to answer a question why did God or why didn't God do the kind of thing that I would have done or wouldn't have done is any liability on the existence of God. So, ergo my fairly brief response. Let's hear from Nathan here who has a question about Bible study materials. Nathan, hello, this is Nathan from Madison, Wisconsin. And I was wondering a couple questions for Greg in terms of which study Bible he would most recommend and which Bible commentary he would most recommend in terms of more or less for the lay person. But what he feels is most accurate in terms of not reading a Bible verse and taking into context the, the full text and context of the of the verses. So thank you, I appreciate it. Well, thank you, Nathan. And by the way, you're in Madison. Well, Madison is not my favorite city, but Wisconsin is kind of right up there with my favorite states. Wisconsin had, believe it or not, California. I like California. Best weather in the world. But in Wisconsin it's pretty good during the summer too. At least in northern Wisconsin, where I spend quite a bit of time in the summer, I actually do not have a recommended study Bible or a recommended commentary. Well, I'll fudge on that in just a moment. I don't use a study Bible. Lots of people do, which is fine. I just don't. I use a new American Standard 95. I've been using that since I first became a Christian and I'm sticking with it the rest of my life. It's a good translation and I have marginal references that give cross references and some notation about textual issues, variants, for example, or about clarifying the literal meaning of some of the words that have been translated in English a certain way. And that's all that I need right now. Now, I'm not saying I don't use other resources. I do, but the resources that I use are not study Bibles and they aren't, characteristically, commentaries. I used to have a whole set of commentaries and honestly, I don't even remember what that set was. It was a good set in the sense of being a conservative you mentioned, Nathan, that are not taking Bible verses out of context. Most of the classical commentaries or writings aren't given to that error. Only popular works are given to that error. Usually in commentaries there is. They're much, much more careful. Now keep in mind that all commentaries are Written from a point of view. And so you are going to. The scholarship is going to reflect the point of view. So if the scholarship is, let's just say, more liberal in their approach to scriptural authority, you're going to see that reflected in the way they assess certain passages. They may not even think the passage reflect things that actually happened. Okay. What I suggest is, and I've done this in the past as I suggested one tome, one volume for a Christian's library, a Christian who's just getting started. I don't have the commentaries anymore. And part of the reason is they're huge tomes. Commentaries are like 6, 8, 10 volumes, you know, and that's a lot of wall space that's taken up. Now, most of that is available digitally. I don't like reading digital stuff. I like to have the book in my hands. All right. But I find that for my purposes, when I have to look something up, the digital versions or the digital options are just more convenient and characteristically less expensive. All right, so. But I will recommend Millard Erickson's Christian Theology. This is a single volume and it's a breakdown of different areas of biblical teaching. So that book tends to be like many others. They're called systematic theologies. That is, they systematically look at different areas. So they'll look at the doctrine of God. That's called theology proper. They're going to look at the doctrine of man and all the different things that the Bible says about man and his condition. That's biblical anthropology. They're going to look at the doctrine of Christ. That's Christology. You're going to look at the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Pneumatology, the doctrine of the Church. What is that? Ecclesiology, doctrine of end things, eschatology. So you're going to have things broken down. It is a. It is a systematic treatment. It isn't taking the Bible in the order of things that are taught. It is taking all the elements of a particular biblical topic in one place. And so I think that's a good way to get a good solid view. Millard Erickson is a very solid conservative. The book is called Christian Theology. We used to actually sell it here at Stand to Reason. I don't know if we carry it anymore, but you can just go to Amazon and find it there and you're going to get all the basic stuff by a good thinker. If you want to know what the best resource is, I would say it's a digital resource called Logos L O G O S Now it costs something for the software, but what they do is they give you a gazillion resources and you can go to any particular passage in the Bible and see what all these resources had to say about that passage. And there's a whole bunch of other things that Logos can do for you as well. So that is a very thoroughgoing tool for studying Scripture and has lots of things even if you're not doing in depth stuff. And so I highly recommend that as probably the most thoroughgoing tool that you can use, there's an expense involved and you can get it at different levels, different. So if you're just a, you know, a do it yourself or so to speak, you're not going to need the kind of depth and resources available digitally that say a PhD candidate would need. All right, so you can, you can survey the options and then choose what you like. But that's Logos. L O G O S I will tell you something that I when I'm. I'm in the mood for doing a deeper dive in a particular topic, I have a couple of books that I go to. All right. And these are going to be much more thoroughgoing and more, in a certain sense, opinionated. These books are called Dogmatics. So I have WGT SHEDS Dogmatic Theology. That's S H e D D and this is the, the particular publication of SHED that Alan Gomes has added his incredible help to in terms of transliterating the Greek and the Hebrew and, and the Latin. You know, he's made it accessible. I love Shedd's Dogmatics. Okay. Alan Gomes Editor it's been around for about 20 years. I know that number because he gave me a copy of it when my 20 year old was newly born. He said, this is for her, but you can read it until she's old enough to read it herself. So it's still on my shelf and I still use it. I also have turretin t u r r e t I n and rr1t kind of thing. And this is another Dogmatic. Both of these are reformed theolog. And when I want to go deep into something. Right now our team is discussing the Fall and the nature of the Fall and the impact of the Fall on all human beings. And so my goal is to pick up my copy of SHED and go to Anthropology and Harmatology, those sections on what the Bible teaches about man and about sin, and see what SHED has to say about this. Because I like going to some of these older writers because they just did theology better and I don't mean that they were more right than modern folk. I'm just saying that they were more careful, I think, and more thorough going in their assessments. Plus, they all, you know, spoke multiple languages. They had the English, they had the Latin, they had the Greek, they had the Hebrew at all in others, you know, and so they give you a very educated response. But they are working from within a theological framework. That's why they're called dogmatics. So I mentioned that Shed and Turretin and who's the other one? Hodge is another example. These are coming from a theological point of view that's Calvinistic or Reformed. And so they're going to cash out these issues in terms of those convictions. But it's not that the convictions came first and now they got to interpret what they read in light of their convictions. It's the other way around. What they read and study has created the convictions they have theologically, and then they argue for them in their pieces. Who's the other one? That one we sell here, Wayne Grudem. We have Grudem Dogmatics, and there's also a. A trimmer version of that. So Grudem has his dogmatic theology, or maybe it's called Systematic. Wayne Grudem, G R U D E M his systematic theology. And then he also has his kind of a systematic theology light. I don't know what that's called, but you can find it. Do we still sell either of those? Yeah, we do. Which one? Both Systematic. Yeah. Okay. So we have that in our bookstore, str.org so that's the way you go. You find you're going to have differences of opinion about lots of things. The important element, though, is that you have people providing their opinion in a thoughtful way, taking the text seriously. All right. Now, even so, you're going to have people with different opinion. I get that. But what you want to do is you want to survey some of these opinions on issues that are really important and then figure out what point of view you think is best justified by the text. All right. A logos is probably your best tool for that. You want a single volume, Millard Erickson Christian Theology. And then I do all my other work, if I'm doing a deep dive in some of these dogmatics that go deep. And I wrote a piece, what, a year and a half ago or two years ago now, I don't know, called why the Blood on the Blood Atonement. Well, I drew from Alan Gomes edition of WGT Shed's Dogmatics, and it was Very helpful. And it was on that ground that I did. I offered my own arguments, but there were more that I offered too. But if you want to read that, you just go online. Why the blood? And I contend for what I take to be the biblical view of a penal substitution with regards to the work of the cross. Jesus died for our sins. He took our place and paid the penalty by receiving the wrath of God on himself that we deserve. That allows us to go free and be forgiven even though we're guilty. So that's the deal there. Hope that helps. Nathan, how did that happen? Okay, so this is open calls and somebody called in, threaded the needle and so we got a call here. Usually those calls come in between four and six on Tuesdays during our regular broadcast. But I'm happy to take the call now. So let's go to Andrew. Andrew, I'm curious, how is it that you happen to ring us up just now when this is in our normal showtime.
- [38:25]
B
I just called in, I wanted to. I wasn't sure what time Amy opened the mike's open book call.
- [38:32]
A
Yeah, it's fine. I'm glad you did. Not a complaint at all. It's just the first time it's ever happened and I'm very glad to take your questions. So the rest will be open mike. But what do you have to say? What are your thoughts? What's your question? How can I help?
- [38:51]
B
Just on gardening.
- [38:53]
A
Okay.
- [38:53]
B
I've been talking, I've been talking to this guy online. It could be a guy or a girl, I have no idea. On a conservative news platform in the comments section. Very, very anti God, like anti religion and a naturalist. You know, there is no soul God. Yahweh is just made up by bronze mailed by bronze aged males and I've just been trying to put a stone in his shoe and.
- [39:23]
A
Yeah, well good for you.
- [39:27]
B
Yahweh is evil for doing a worldwide flood. And I'm just like, you know, I'm trying to. I just kind of accepted the premise like okay, let's just say that's true. What if it. And I asked using tactical game plan, what if it was just a local flood and there were no children? This person seems to be anti God killing children. Even though you know God created there's. He can take life and it's not evil. But I was just like what if would it be possible for God to have waited until everybody was older and then had been a local flood and so there were no children that were killed and that. And I used a question and I just seemed to go one ear in one ear and right out the other. And so I'm just like. I don't know what to do. Should I try to continue gardening or. I mean, this person just seems very, you know, can't explain morality because humans. Morality comes from humans. But I'm just not sure what I should do. Should I continue trying to engage.
- [40:39]
A
Okay, just. Okay, Andrew, I got a pretty good idea here of your circumstances. And let me ask you this for clarification, though. Is this a private communication between you and him, or it sounds like it's a public one. Other people can read it. Is that right?
- [40:57]
B
The latter, yes.
- [40:58]
A
Okay, good. All right. Now keep in mind, whether you continue or not, that's up to you. But I just want you to keep in mind that he is not your only audience. There are other people that are watching, that are reading, that are paying attention. And sometimes, as Lee Strobel puts it, your efforts are ricochet, evangelism, right? You're shooting at one person, so to speak. And maybe that's not the best metaphor, but, you know, you're aiming or. Well, there I go again. But. And it. And it ricochets, right, and hit somebody else. And that happens a lot. And this is one of the things I want you to keep in mind. If the person is willing to continue to engage with you back and forth, then I think there's no reason why not to. If you're willing. Okay. And somewhat capable, you have some thoughts you could share with him, and don't measure your effectiveness by that individual's response, because for two reasons, even if this was a private conversation, you don't know what's getting in and what's being affected, what God is using. You never know that what stone in the shoe you've actually put there. You know, secondly is you don't know who else is listening in. And of course, with the digital environment, there could be thousands of people that are looking over your shoulder in your conversation. And though your responses may not resonate with the individual with whom you're engaging, it may be resonating with others. All right, I don't have time to go into this, but I have a very dramatic example of that in my own life. And it happened the very first day I was a Christian. So on a Friday night, September 28th, I confessed Christ. And the next day, I got in a conversation with my. At that time, my best friend. He was my doubles partner. We played tournament tennis, and. And there were some other people involved. And it went horribly. It seemed to me. But three years later, I discovered that another, his wife, who was not part of the discussion, was listening in and it was having an impact on her. And she eventually, three years later, called me up and we got together and she told me the story. And then she became a Christian. So you never know. All right. There are going to be all kinds of different things that people bring up. What about as he did, the children dying. So, I mean, one question I would ask in particular regarding that issue is that if there is no God, what makes killing children wrong? Okay, now the question is very specific. I'm asking what makes it wrong? Not how do we know it's wrong. Now, what he's going to likely say oftentimes is, well, it's just obviously wrong. It's so obviously wrong, how could you contend. But we're not asking how we know that it's wrong. We're asking a different question. It's called, in philosophy, they call it the grounding question, which is, why is it the way it is? So what makes it wrong? So one example that I give in my own talks just to make this point, I don't know. Do you know where the. In Germany they have this super highway called the Autobahn. You're familiar with the Autobahn?
- [44:45]
B
I've heard of it, yeah.
- [44:47]
A
Okay. Can you break the speed limit on the Autobahn?
- [44:50]
B
No, sir.
- [44:52]
A
Pardon me?
- [44:53]
B
No, sir. There is no speed limit.
- [44:55]
A
Exactly right. So you can't break a speed limit that doesn't exist. All right. If there is no government to make any universal government, government over the universe, so to speak, to make laws applying to the universe, no God, then there are no speed limits. Then if there are no speed limits, as it were, then there can't be any broken speed limits. So he thinks that killing children is wrong. He's an atheist. On what grounds does he think it's wrong to kill children in if there is no God or no standard? I mean, it sounds like this is something you may have touched on already from comments you made, but that would be a fair question. Okay, but that's a question if you ask of him, I don't know what he's going to say. He might say, well, my evolution teaches me that killing children is wrong. Well, what if people didn't evolve the same way you did? Then are you saying it would not be wrong for them? Maybe the Hebrews who wrote this about God killing children in the flood, they didn't involve the same values that you had. So how are you justified in judging them? There are different ways to prosecute this particular point. But keep in mind, when you offer something like that and you're asking your questions, you're being kind, other people are listening in, other people are reading. And that's going to be the thing that makes the. I think that's going to justify your involvement. Now, sometimes. Look, Andrew, you may just get tired of the conversation. I mean, I've been in conversations with people before. Oh, man. Enough of this, man. I'm done. See you later. You know, I exit graciously, but it's okay to exit if you want to. But I wouldn't exit thinking I'm not doing any good. So what's the point? Because you don't know what good you're doing in his life, for one, and also in the lives of others who may be listening in. Make sense?
- [47:03]
B
Yes, sir.
- [47:05]
A
So, I mean, my encouragement is stay at it. It's good practice. You're not verbally engaged, so you don't have to be quick on your feet. You can just be thinking about it and doing some research, then typing out a question or whatever, or a line of argument or whatever, and offer it to him and then respond, sounds like you've done some reading. In our material, you talk about gardening, which is like some spade work before the harvest. And so you're familiar with some of the things we teach and employing some of those tactics and techniques. So I say keep at it. If you. If you're still interested.
- [47:46]
B
Absolutely am. Just work for the kingdom.
- [47:50]
A
Well, good for you. And this is one of the great things about the Internet, is that it gives a whole bunch of people a platform to communicate truths about the kingdom that they would never have had if it weren't for the Internet. You know, not many people get invited to speak places, you know, so you never know who you're going to run into and talk with. But here on the Internet, you got lots of people weighing in with their opinions about things. The important thing as a Christian on the Internet, when you're weighing in, and I have no doubt in my mind about you on this, but I'm just saying in general is you got to mind your manners. And too many people identifying as Christians get online, they're not looking somebody in the eye, they're just typing out some message and they can get really, really nasty. And this is not good because, I mean, it's not honoring to God. But as I mentioned earlier, other people are listening in. Somebody asked me once, actually, they asked me this frequently in Q and A's at events. They said, how Is it that you can keep your calm when people are pushing back at you so strongly? Now, I don't always keep my calm. I had an unfortunate discussion with a teenage daughter the other night and that did not go well for me, you know, on my side, so. However, generally speaking, I do. And one of the things I say is it's easier to keep mind my manners when I know everybody's listening. Right? The whole world's listening, whoever is on the show. And so that's something to remind yourself, you know, other people are listening for good or for ill. If you be nice and offer something thoughtful, they get that. If you're not nice and offer something inappropriate, well, then that they get that too, and that's not good. Alrighty.
- [49:54]
B
Okay.
- [49:55]
A
So you occupy a singular position on this program, Andrew. You're the only person who's ever called in during an open mic session. Isn't that right, Amy? I think this is true. One more, one other time. Oh, okay. Well, you're number two. All right, but whatever, you're number two in a set of two, so that's not bad. All right. And I appreciate you calling in. All right, thanks. But our Regular time is 4 to 6 on Tuesdays, and then you can call this number in and I'll guarantee that I'll be here for that. I'm not always. It's what? Oh, Pacific time. Amy reminded me, so. That's true. Okay, Andrew, thanks for your call.
- [50:36]
B
Thanks, Greg.
- [50:37]
A
All right, buddy. Bye. Bye now. All right, that was pretty cool. So here Isaac has got a question. Back to our open mic calls and let's hear from him.
- [50:55]
B
Hey, Greg, my question is, how do I best navigate with a significant other.
- [50:59]
A
Who is potentially my spouse, our agreeing and disagreeing on secondary and tertiary issues? Is it right for one to think.
- [51:08]
B
That a couple should believe the same things on every account biblically?
- [51:12]
A
If so, how should two people go.
- [51:14]
B
About faithfully pursuing that? And if not, how can they lovingly move forward in that as a team? A major concern is the idea of having kids one day who will have questions and not being on the same page regarding those questions.
- [51:25]
A
Thanks, Greg. Wow, Isaac. It's a very good question and very practical. Not that others aren't so practical. This is. This is right where the rubber meets the road. And I do have opinions about this. I think you don't need to agree on everything. Certainly not secondary and tertiary issues. Primary, fundamental theological issues, yes. That is your basic convictions as a Christian. What defines you as a Christian? Your understanding of who Jesus is and why he came what he came to do and what that means in terms of living out your daily life in obedience to him. If you're not on the same page there, you're in trouble. So some people say, can a Jewish person marry a Christian person? Will that be a problem? Well, let's just set aside the passage that says, yeah, that is a problem for Christians, maybe. Let me just change the illustration. Should a Hindu person marry a Jewish person? And the answer is it depends on whether those religious identifications mean much to them. If they don't mean much to them, it's unlikely it's going to cause a conflict if it means a lot in each case. Now you've got problem because one believes God is impersonal and the other one believes that God is personal. Can you see how that's going to have ramifications for your life together? So I think presuming that the person you're considering, the woman you're considering is a Christian, committed Christian, then you both need to agree on the major issues. Okay, but there are a couple of minor, in a certain sense, minor issues. When I say major issues, I mean those defining aspects of Christianity, okay? The person in the work of Jesus, the authority of the Bible, you know, the existence of God, of course, etc. Etc. So those foundational items that make Christianity different from everything else, those things you got to have in place, and if you don't have those in place, then the person you're thinking about is probably not a Christian. Okay? But there's two other issues here that are very important for marriage. And by the way, you can suffer differences. Every relationship can suffer a difference. But think of it this way, and this is not my metaphor, someone else's. Every way that you are similar is like money in the bank. The way you think alike and especially on important things, that's lots of money in the bank. Every way that you differ is like a deduction, a liability. Everybody can suffer some liabilities because you're not all going to be on the same page with every single issue. But there's a limit, and this is what you have to assess. Now, I think I mentioned a moment ago two other issues that are really important in addition to those foundational ones, okay? And the first one is how you make decisions. Christians who are really serious about their Christianity may differ here. They do differ, and some have a conviction. And this is going to be more often, I think, with the woman than the man, that the way to answer questions is to get God to tell people, tell them what to do. Finding God's will for your life. And God will figure out what he wants you to do, and then you have to figure out what he's figured out so that you can do it. And this entails like nudge, nudge, hint, hint, and reading signs and stuff like that. Now, I don't think that's sound, but if you and your wife believe the same thing there, then you're in a good place. If you believe separate things, that's trouble. I could never marry a woman who did not hold my view about decision making in the will of God. It wouldn't work. It would be a constant battle. Okay, that's one thing. The second thing that you have to agree on is what the Bible teaches about the structure of family authority. Simply put, who's in charge? There are two views. One is compatibilism. The other one is egalitarianism. In egalitarianism, no one is in charge. Both have equal say. I don't think that's biblical and I think it's problematic. All right. Because each person gets to veto. And if each person gets to veto, then that person in that circumstance is the one who's actually in de facto authority. I actually think the Bible teaches that the husband is the final authority. Now, he's not to abuse that and make that. Ephesians 5 talks about husband being like Christ as the authority in the marriage, but also needs to love sacrificially like Christ did. There are other passages in 1 Peter 3 and Titus 2 and Ephesians 5 I mentioned and some other passages that talk about this relationship and the order that is there. And that's really critical because if you think the husband is the head of the family and your wife doesn't, that's trouble ahead. All right, so there's my quick suggestion in response to your good question, Isaac, and I hope that is helpful. All right, friend, that's it, friends. That's it for this hour. Greg Kokel for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. All right, bye bye now.
- [57:45]
B
Sam.