← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:05]
A
SA.
- [00:31]
B
Okay, friends, Greg Kogel here for Stand to reason and thank you for being part of the show here. I am. Let's see. I wanted to let you know something happening this this next week. That'll be next weekend after next weekend. Yeah, I'm getting my dates a little goofy here. We're going to be in Reality in Atlanta, Georgia on the 12th and 13th September. But the 11th, that would be Thursday. I'm actually going to be speaking at Kennesaw State University. And that is, is that right now I have two different spellings here. Is it Kennewissau or is there supposed to be a W there? Have I been saying it right? Kennesaw. Okay, somebody, this is a problem. Kennesaw State. And on Thursday, September 11, I'm going to be talking about the problem of evil ratio. Christie is the host there. And then of course, I'll be doing the apologetics event there. Reality on September 13th. Make that 12th and 13th, Friday and Saturday. Alan will be speaking at North Coast Calvary Church in Carlsbad, California on Friday, September 19th. And John Noyes will be at the Biblical Worldview Conference in Plano, Texas on Sunday, September 28, through Tuesday, September 30. Now, I'm stumbling here doing these announcements because I'm still trying to choke down the rest of that pizza that I that I actually started last show, but I haven't been chewing it for four days. My last show was just a few moments ago, so I'm working on that. So my apologies for whatever. Anyway, there's some events coming up team they want to be part of. Just a reminder that by midnight September 12th for Minneapolis, that's the last day for early bird savings. $20 off the full price for Minneapolis. Reality. That's our big one 4000 biggest church in the state, Grace Church, Eden Prairie. That'll be November 7th and 8th. All the information about that is apologetics.com now that was a very, very boring way to start a show. I suspect. I have one other thing to add to what I said last show regarding the challenge that was offered about what happens after you die. Why is it they have no chance after you die to repent and become a believer? I do think that's biblical, but it seemed to one personally somewhat odd and arbitrary. I dealt with most of the issues there. But there's some other things, and this is interesting that Amy mentioned this when she and I were talking about this particular issue and that was that questions like this about Salv actually entail a whole bunch of other Issues that are theologically important and that are somewhat.
- [03:52]
A
I.
- [03:53]
B
Don'T want to say incomprehensible, but I think difficult to manage and to see how it all fits together. Because the question was, you have libertarian free will, right? You get to make your choices. Right. That was part of the interaction that as Fred was the name I gave to the atheist offering the question, I said yes, and both of the apologists acknowledge that. And I believe in libertarian free will, too. That means I could make my own choices and I have the ability to make different choices. But I don't think that's somehow like a universal in the sense that everything is like that for me. All right. In other words, I think libertarian free will is exercised by human being, but within limits. And I do not think that man's free will determines the course of the universe. That's God's purposes. Now, is there an interaction there? Yeah, and this is an imponderable, to some degree, man making free choices and God being sovereign. But which one comes out on top? It's got to be God, because he's the one who's ultimately in control and there's a place for human freedom. But any scenario, a person may construct any thought experiment that someone offers, which was offered in this situation, what if the person wants to become a Christian, but he's going to do it on Sunday when he goes to church and then somebody murders him before that happens? You can't leave out the question of the sovereignty of God, the omniscience of God and the sovereignty of God. These are factors that are working in here as well. And I don't think that it is just the raw individual decisions that human beings make that determine the course of the future. Rather, God's purposes do. And we can't leave speculative human actions as the decisive elements of human destiny. The Scripture speaks against that time and time and time again. In fact, Amy is collecting this catalog of verses that talks about God intends to accomplish this and he decides to do it, and then the people follow through and do that. And the thing that they do when they follow along making their own decisions for the wrong reasons, them, the motivations, they are still held responsible for their evil they've done, just like those who crucified Christ. So anyway, I just thought I'd toss that in there as a postscript to that earlier discussion. All right, let's go and talk with Ryan in San Angelo, Texas. Ryan, thanks for calling.
- [06:50]
A
Thank you for taking my call. Last week. A gentleman called in about the porch and about the planks being replaced. Oh, yeah, that he remembered what you said 25 years ago. And I really like how that was put.
- [07:08]
B
Thank you.
- [07:11]
A
I've got. I'm trying to make certain links and let go your take on it. Proverbs 20, verse 30 says that there's no wisdom nor understanding or counsel against the Lord.
- [07:30]
B
Huh.
- [07:31]
A
And so trying to make the link from that's not just religious jargon, so to speak. The idea of that logic, reason and deduction can be irreducibly complex based on their. Their grounding that there's. There's no wisdom or understanding of the word one. We could say, oh, the Lord is shifty. But more, I think more consistent it would be that the very idea that what we use, what we call reason, logic and deduction is. Is his very nature. And so that that verse is not just a religious kind of platitude, but that it's what best corresponds with reality.
- [08:27]
B
I guess I'm not entirely sure of the question here. You may use the phrase irreducibly complex to describe reason and logic and deduction. I actually don't think that phrase applies to that. Irreducibly complex is something that's applied to biology. That means that certain parts work together in particular ways, and they could not have been developed little by little, step by step, piecemeal, and still produce something workable. They had to be all assembled at once, like the famous Mouse trap illustration. So I don't think you are referring to reason, logic and deduction as irreducibly complex. You might have meant that in a different way, and I need clarification on that. The verse 30 in chapter 21 of Proverbs says there is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the Lord, and the horse is prepared. Then it says, the horse is prepared for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord. I think those are akin to each other. If you recall, in the Book of Numbers, there was a guy named Balaam who was hired to prophesy against Israel and its purposes. And he couldn't do it. He was forced by God to prophesy blessing and not cursing. And I think that's what kind of is in view here in verse 30. I don't know that it's referring. It doesn't strike me that it's referring to anything like the laws of logic. Is that the way you read it?
- [09:57]
A
Yeah, that's accurate. Well, I was. I remember you said you're not really. That's not really your forte of the transcendental argument for Logic and stuff. And. And so. But I do admire the way you think about things and the way you approach certain. And so my main goal is to like, instead of just being a religious grounding Kalb, like space, matter of time are co. Relative. They came in at the same time or same. You know, they rely on each other in the same way. I was thinking reason, logic and deduction may have the same properties. Because if something is true but you can't deduce, doesn't do you much good. Or if your deduction is the logic you're using to deduce with is faulty, you're still going to come to wrong conclusions. Yeah, well, that was some of the workings I was trying to work out. That's why I wanted to present to you, so you could help me, please.
- [11:11]
B
Well, reason is our capacity to think rationally. Okay. Logic is more like a tool to come to accurate conclusions about things, and that would be the deduction. So there's a kinship between these, but they're separate. Okay. Reason is what is a feature of our cognitive abilities. We employ logic, which trades on certain rational truths or logical truths, laws of logic they might call that. And then as we apply them accurately, we can draw conclusions or deduct conclusions from the logical process that we're employing with our reason. All right, so again, I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this or what the question is. Again, I'm looking here at your proverb. There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the Lord. I think all that means, simply put, is God is in charge. People can do all of their stuff, all their thinking, all their planning, all their this, that, and the other thing. But if they're going to oppose God's purposes, it's not going to work. I was just going to say the next you go, your turn.
- [12:55]
A
I was thinking the lot is thrown in the lap, but the whole disposing of is of the Lord.
- [13:01]
B
Yeah, well, the next verse is something like that. The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the Lord. And so on the one hand, there is not going to be any counsel against the Lord, the Lord's purposes, no matter how clever you are. That's verse 30. And when God wants to accomplish a victory, you can prepare the horse for battle. And there's nothing wrong with that, but God is the ultimate determiner of the outcome is what the person is saying here. So that's how I think those verses kind of work together, so to speak.
- [13:38]
A
King Ahab, when the soldier Shot a arrow at. At random and not only hit him, but hit him in between his armor.
- [13:46]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [13:46]
A
It was a fatal, fatal wound.
- [13:48]
B
That's right.
- [13:51]
A
Okay.
- [13:52]
B
Okay.
- [13:54]
A
I enjoy logic and reason. And I was. With that verse, I was thinking there was connection, but I see your point with that.
- [14:02]
B
Yeah, sometimes we, we. We kind of overwork a passage. We make it work too hard and we find meaning in it that probably wasn't implied by the author himself. And that's what I'm looking at here. And I think verse 30 and 31 are. Yeah, good. Verse 30 and 31, I think, are in parallel construction. They relate to each other. They say something kin to each other, but from opposite directions. So sometimes it's simpler than we think.
- [14:34]
A
Okay.
- [14:35]
B
All right, buddy.
- [14:36]
A
Thank you.
- [14:37]
B
All right, Ryan, I thank you too, for your call. I'm going to go back to open mics right now. And we have a question from Tom about casting lots in the Book of Acts. Let's take a look at that, Tom.
- [14:56]
A
Hey, Greg.
- [14:57]
C
Tom Poyntner here. I read your Solid Ground article, When God Speaks. Nicely done. You wrote there. Makes sense to me. But I. I do have two questions. The first one has to do with the end of Acts, chapter 1, where the apostles were trying to decide who should replace Judas. The text says that they, you know, prayed that God would show them which of the two men to choose, and then they cast lots right to help them make the decision. So I'm wondering how we should take this passage. It seems like they were asking God to make their decision for. For them. And the means by which they expected God to speak was through the casting of lots. And I'm wondering, is this a special exception because these were Jesus apostles and not everyday folk like you and me. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the nature of the casting of lots. So your thoughts here would be helpful. My second question, my church is offering a class on Dallas Willard's book Hearing God. Now, I don't know what that book is about, but the title makes me think of our discussion here. Yeah, and I don't know whether this book is about how to hear God in the pages of scripture, you know, properly reading the Bible, or if it's that kind of nicknick, wink, wink, nudge nudge thing that you've pointed out is non biblical. So the question is, in general, when is it our place to challenge our church leaders when they're talking about an issue that's not necessarily heretical, but maybe extra biblical and not supported in scripture? If a questionable teaching helps Someone to be more intimate with God, then what's wrong with that? Who am I to object? So should I let it go? When are we supposed to say something? When are we supposed to make waves?
- [16:35]
B
Yeah.
- [16:36]
C
And that's it. Thanks again for taking my call. Blessings.
- [16:39]
B
Yes, you're welcome. And my team here is chuckling at me because you might have noticed, those of you listening that I started to interject there because I thought I was talking to Tom that was listening to. This guy's not letting me in. Doesn't he know I'm trying to say something? How rude. So they're having a good laugh at my expense. You are, too, probably. Anyway, so that's why I shut up. I let the recording finish up. But yeah, the book that Tom you're talking about by Dallas Willard is about having a conversational relationship with God. It's not probing the scriptures to see what God's saying through the text. He's not disparaging that. It's just this other thing that he's advancing. And I would be concerned about that for the reasons that I've discussed in that piece that came out recently and many other things that I've written. So I am at opposite ends on the issue of hearing the voice of God from Dallas Willard and from J.P. moreland, who took a Ph.D. under Dallas, and Dallas was his personal spiritual mentor. Okay. So just saying, you could have really, really good people that are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and those two guys are good people. Whether I'm good people or not, you'd have to decide. But we disagree on that issue. The key are the reasons. The keys are always the reasons. And I remember in a piece that I'd written years ago about Henry Blackaby on the same issue, people pushed back, but he's a very godly person. He's a very godly person. He's such a godly man, which I don't dispute. But that doesn't mean that his views are correct. Those have to be determined on the biblical merits and not on just by his godliness. And I don't know if maybe that was an implicit slap in the face to me. Well, you disagree with him and he's a godly man, so he must be right, which means you're not a godly man, so you must be wrong. I don't know. I didn't take offense at it. But the point is, that's not the way we assess these kinds of things. Okay. And so in the case of guys like Dallas and JP and there are others as well, you know, you just have to look at the reasons biblically and see if those reasons are consistent with the text. All right, now, with regards to Acts, chapter one, we do have a circumstance there where they're bereft of a disciple. Judas is gone. Now you round out the number. I guess there was a sense that 12 is the right number and not 11. And so we got to fill the vacancy. And there was a reference to a passage that. Let's see, it's written in the book of Psalms. Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it, and let another man take his office. Now, I haven't looked this up. I have a question mark next to that thing in pencil. Maybe one day I'll figure it out. But it does seem like an odd reference. Nevertheless, it's offered by Luke here in the Book of Acts as a biblical justification for what they did. So I'm just going to take that at face value. They ought to have done this. Now, is this a model for us? Well, as far as I know, this is not. As far as I know, I do know this is the only occasion in the New Testament where something like that is done. Casting of lots. Now, we do have Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament and a couple of other providential type signs. All right, this is a providential sign. I think when you talk about Gideon and his fleece, those were providential signs too. Unique circumstance. And wasn't really an example of godly man Gideon trying to find the right course of action. Because even when God made it clear to him in multiple ways what God wanted him to do, he still. How about the best three out of five kind of thing, you know? But in any event, I think we have to look at this as a unique circumstance. It is also pre Pentecost that might be relevant because at Pentecost we officially and fully enter into the church age, a new enterprise. Now, the Holy Spirit is being given in a very unique fashion. That's when regeneration takes hold and believers are now, having believed, receive the Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 1. So arguably there's a juncture from the Old Testament economy to the New Testament economy, and they're right on the cusp of it. But that's still part of the Old Testament economy. Notice also that there are a series of requirements that had to be in place before anyone could be considered as a replacement. I'm looking at the text here myself right now. Therefore, it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. First qualification, beginning with the baptism of John, until the day he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. That's the second requirement. All right. And that was a key role of an apostle. And so there are two requirements. They didn't just say, God, tell us who's next, because God could have done that through special revelation. No, they worked through the process and realized they had two good candidates. And what they're asking God to do is, is to break the tie. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas, also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, you, Lord, who know the hearts of men, show which one of these two you have chosen to occupy this ministry. They threw lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias, and he was added to the 11 apostles. So there you have a clear example of seeking specific guidance using a providential sign. The question is, is that being presented to us as merely a description of what took place or as a prescription of what ought to take place in the future? Well, this is the only time it occurs in the Book of Acts, and certainly in the book, the entire New Testament that I know of, no other reference is made. And there is no more casting of lots for anything. The rest of the Book of Acts, as the disciples go about their business of fulfilling their part of the Great Commission. So I take this as descriptive, not prescriptive. It's something that happened, just like Gideon's fleece. But then we have to ask the self the question, is that an appropriate thing for us to do, too? Is that prescriptive for us in finding God's will? And there's no indication that either of them is prescriptive. And so therefore, I don't have any reason to think this should be repeated. Now, why was it done this way? And honestly, this is the first time it occurred to me, who chose the original 12? Jesus did. Jesus chose the original 12. Now, there were more, because there were the 12. There were the three, Peter, James, John. That was the inner circle. Then the 12, all of them. Then there was the 70. That's an outer circle. Then there was the 120. So in addition to the 12, there are other people that companioned with them. In fact, we have the names of two of them here that were there the whole time but weren't part of the inner circle. And now one is going to be drawn into the inner circle. They have criteria. Where do they come up with those criteria. It doesn't indicate that God told them that these are common sense criteria. For someone that would replace an apostle. All the apostles that were living there were witnesses, the 11 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and they had been trained by Jesus the whole time. And who chose those people out of the larger group of the followers of Jesus to be his apostles? Jesus did. So it makes sense that given those that satisfy these requirements that were characteristic of the 11, that Jesus would make the final decision. And that was done by casting lots. So that's the way I take that particular circumstance. I don't have any reason to believe that this is prescriptive for us in the future. And frankly, I don't know of anybody who advocates the hearing from God model of decision making, who is encouraging people to cast lots. It's just not part of the mix. All right, so that's the role I think that plays there. It doesn't undermine my approach, my concern, the way things I wrote in that piece, Tom and it seems just to be an exceptional circumstance. Like other examples of providential signs that we see in some other passages in Scripture. You know, when Abraham sends his servant out to get a wife for Isaac, Isaac offers God, seeks guidance and offers God a providential sign or requests one, and he gets it. And that's how Isaac got his wife, by the fulfillment of that providential sign. The question is, just because it happened, does that mean it is a guideline for all the rest of the signs? I should say all the decisions that we have to make. And the answer is I see no reason to think that. All right, let's take a break and we'll come back with more of your calls and questions on Stand to Reason.
- [27:10]
D
Do you have a passion to train people in apologetics but you don't know where to start? You may be interested in starting an STR outpost. STR outposts are local communities of Christians seeking answers to the hard questions about Christianity. Each outpost is led by a qualified director who trains others with SCR content and curriculum in their local church. By becoming an outpost director, you'll be equipped with the content and coaching you need to lead your own outpost. We currently have around 160 outposts spanning 38 states and in eight other countries, and we're adding more each month. If you're interested in learning more about starting an outpost or you want to find a current outpost in your area, visit str.org outpost you can also email me trippallman@postposttr.org.
- [28:01]
B
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 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. And it's Greg Kokel here giving you a piece of my mind as I try to do Tuesdays from 4 until 6. That's the live show. That's when I'm here taking calls. And that means you can call me with your questions. 855-243-9975 on Tuesdays 4 to 6, LA time. All right, once again, 855-243-9975. Let's go to San Diego, Texas and Ryan. Hello Ryan, welcome to the show.
- [29:31]
A
Hi. I wanted to ask, after salvation, is it typically supported that provenial grace is provided for our sanctification?
- [29:45]
B
Well, provenient grace is a type of grace that God provides to all people. I think that's generally the way. Is that the way you would characterize it, Amy? I don't actually know the technical definition. Maybe she could look. Yeah, we've heard this principally in terms of salvation, that God is giving a grace to help people overcome the effects of the fall. So you have these really ugly things said about all human beings by Paul In Romans 3, there is none righteous, not even one, none who seeks after God, etc. Etc. Poison of asp is on their lips, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, wait a minute. That means people, they're lost, which is what Paul's point was. Yeah, they're really badly lost. Okay, well, how are they going to come to Christ if they're already rebelling against him? And on one view, the Arminian view, God provides a kind of grace for them that gets them halfway there, so to speak. It allows them to kind of overcome the, the predisposition to rebellion and rejecting God so that it kind of equalizes that. So now they're at a point of it's up to them to break the tie, so to speak, and they can go towards God or not. And that would be Bill Craig's view. I think he even uses the terminology in that way. So that would be a way that prevenient grace is often used. But I think that the concept of prevenient grace, it would be interesting to find out what the word prevenient, how it's actually defined somewhere. I'm going to have Amy look that up. But that's the way it's usually come into play. But I think that it has a broader application. It means that kind of grace that's available to everyone. And that's why it's available to overcome the inherent effects of sin on the will and on the mind, to clear our minds enough to be able to make a libertarian choice either for or against God and Jesus and the gospel. So your question, though, is that kind of grace available to us or required for sanctification? And I'm not. Is that correct? Am I understanding your concern correctly?
- [32:14]
A
Yes.
- [32:17]
B
Well, I think grace is required for sanctification. Whether a person wants to call it prevenient grace or, or not, I don't know. Again, that depends on specifically what one means by that term. But grace is certainly required. God's working in our lives. Does that make sense?
- [32:36]
A
Yeah.
- [32:39]
B
So when Paul says in Philippians 1, or maybe it's, well, in Philippians 1, he says that God, for he who began a good work in you, will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. So that indicates a role of God working to accomplish a goal in our life. And then a little bit later he says, so work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it's God who is at work within you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. So that's an evidence of God working. Whenever God is working on our behalf, it's an act of grace. It seems to me it's always safe to call it that. What kind of grace you characterize it, what adjective you put? I don't know if that's so relevant. I just know that I need God's mercy to be the person that God wants me to be. I need his grace to accomplish that.
- [33:43]
A
I think the way I. Wow. I was praising the way I was from C.S. lewis, Mary Christianity. When he's talking about how we invite Jesus in and he fixes the, you know, the drains and the leaking roof. And we often want Jesus to fix the obvious things, but then. But if we let him, he'll still remodeled this, this whole little cottage, which is what we wanted, but he's building a palace because he's coming to live. And that this idea of we can resist him, but that the idea is to lay down our arms and that the main or the important aspect is converting rebellious wills and that the details he can work out. And it's bringing us to a point where we. We trust him to the, to the degree of whatever you. Wherever you direct me, like, Right. Like Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 40 days, you know, just wherever you go, I'll follow.
- [34:59]
B
Yeah. You know, there's a.
- [35:00]
A
The idea of, like you, we see impractical. You know, there's. There's some who, who don't seem to grow at all. And so that, that's why I was trying to like, to make. Make the best of what we see. And, and like the idea of the scripture that says be perfect, for I am perfect.
- [35:20]
B
Yeah.
- [35:20]
A
And Lewis points that it's. It's not until we get to the point where we're really wanting that does God provide in a sense that, that, that power to overcome. Because sometimes it's the idea of. Yeah, delivery from this. But, yeah, I still kind of enjoy it.
- [35:45]
B
Yeah. Okay, let me comment on that, because I. I think salvation is a free gift of grace. Okay. It's unilateral. God does it all. Okay. That is not the case in sanctification, though there is a theology that says it is. And this comes from what might be called the deeper life movement of the late 19th century. You hear phrases like all of God and none of me kind of thing. And this is reflecting what some have called the exchanged life. It's no longer I live who. Christ who lives in me. This is in the life I now live in Christ. I live by faith in the Son of God who delivered himself up, etc. This is in Galatians 2 or 3 somewhere in there. And some have characterized it as the exchanged life. This is the Christian's secret that you learn to abide in Christ in a way that you are carried along by the capability of Christ, who then works all of this inside of you. And I'll just tell you when I. Hannah Whitehall Smith, Hannah Hunard, the Spiritual Secret of China Inland Mission guy, what's his name? I mean, all of these people who had these experiences of the deeper life, man, I read them all, right? And. And I could not get it to work for me. I could not get to that point of deep surrender and deep submission that seemed to open up that doorway of the grace of God that would carry me along in this kind of exchanged life. Who founded this China Inland Mission, you know, the great 19th century. Oh, I can't think of his name I can't. Hudson Taylor. Thank you. Yeah, so Hudson Taylor was somebody else who operated kind of in that thing. Now, that might have worked for all those wonderful saints, but it didn't work for me. And it's not just that it didn't work for me as I went back to Scripture. What I found in scripture is a struggle. A struggle. It's interesting when you read in Galatians 5 about the war between the flesh and the Spirit. It's interesting what Paul says. He says, I say to you, walk by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. For these are in opposition to one another. So that you may not do the things that you please, but if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Okay, now notice he uses the word walk by the Spirit, verse 16, and led by the Spirit, verse 18. Those are in parallel. He is talking about something that's happening in our spiritual life that gives us the ability to be overcoming of the deeds of the flesh that follow in the next few verses. 19, 20, 21. And then he contrasts it to the fruit of the Spirit. But notice how he describes it. It's a battle. You cannot do what you want. When you're walking in the spirit, you don't do the fleshly things you want. When you're walking according to the flesh, you can't do the spiritual things you want. It's a constant battle. Now, I read a book and I still have it by my bedside, my reading table. And I think it's called the Enemy Within. Amy, does that sound familiar to you? The Enemy within isn't this book that was written about, it was kind of a summary of John Owen and his analysis of how to overcome the flesh and the spiritual life. Yeah, Lundgard. Chris Lundgard. Right. The Enemy Within. It's not a very long book, but it really helps us to understand that what we are in from the moment we are born again until we breathe our last breath, is a battle. A battle. And it's a battle against our flesh, which is augmented by the world and by the devil. I mean, they're breathing on that fire like this to get it hot and make it hard for us. And this is where the battle is to walk, as Paul puts it, by the spirit or being led by the spirit. Now that phrase led by the Spirit he also repeats in Romans 8. People use this all the time, but they don't use it the way Paul uses it in Romans 8. He talks about putting to death the deeds of the flesh for those who are being led by the Spirit, these are sons of God. And so you see the phrase led by the Spirit in both these places. Romans 8 and Galatians 5, and they both referring the same thing. It's the battle against the flesh in the spirit, where we put to death the deeds of the flesh. Okay? And both language, the deeds of the flesh. That language is used in both passages, too. This is the first time I noticed that just now. It's talking about the same thing. The key here is sanctification is a battle. And sanctification is a battle that we fight with God's help. We don't lie on the sidelines and say, all of God and none of me. It's all of God and all of me. All of God and all of me. And that's the way the battle is fought. And this booklet, it's not a very long book. It's probably, you know, 40 pages, 50 pages. It's an easy read, but it's a condensation. I think of John Owen, the Puritan. Thank you. The Puritan. Oh, it's towards the end of the day here, so I'm having a hard time with these either words. Words. John Owen, the Puritan, he wrote a couple of lengthy books about this, and this fella puts it down in fairly simple form, and he puts it together. So I recommend that book. But the key here is that sanctification is not a passive enterprise. We're not doing it alone. That's clear. We're not doing it in the flesh, as it were. We're not doing it by the power of our own capability. But there is Jesus here in the person of the Holy Spirit, helping us to walk with. With us, to overcome in the battle the deeds of the flesh. All right? And the scripture has a lot to say about that. But the nature of it is a fight. Yes, God's grace is involved. It's got to be. There's no hope for us, but it isn't automatic. Here I am 50. Let's see, in about three weeks, I'll be 52 years in Christ. 52 years. And I'm still battling stuff. And, you know, and I'm just thinking, oh, my goodness, when's this going to end? Well, it's going to end when you die. That's when it's going to end, you know, and then I will have rest. I finish the course. All right?
- [43:10]
A
Putting to death, like being with Christ when our flesh is on the cross. And we walk in that newness of life that.
- [43:24]
B
We got to mortify, that we got to fight against it. It's just not gone. It's just not gone. And we have the ability to overcome the slavery that we had to the flesh, but it's still not gone.
- [43:39]
A
When Paul makes a distinction of indwelling sin, there seems to be a separation. What? I don't.
- [43:49]
B
I don't know where that phrase is. I'd have to look at it to know exactly what he was talking about. But Romans 7. Oh, okay.
- [43:58]
A
Near the end.
- [44:01]
B
Well, Romans 7 is an interesting chapter and there's a lot more to talk about than we have time for right now. So let's call it a call here. Okay, Ryan? And, and just chew on what I said. It's a partnership. 100% God, 100% me. Not salvation, sanctification. Got it?
- [44:23]
A
Yes.
- [44:23]
B
All right. Thank you for your call, buddy.
- [44:26]
A
You too.
- [44:27]
B
Bye Bye. All right, let's take a quick break and we'll come back for the final segment on Stand to Reason.
- [44:34]
D
Hey friends, would you like to be encouraged throughout your week with timely, relevant content meant to bolster your knowledge, wisdom and character? Or maybe you have a desire to be connected with other like minded Christians from around the world? If so, then you need to follow Stand to Reason on social media. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Not only will you be able to interact with other Stand Treason followers, but you'll also stay up to date and informed on our latest resources and events. In our current culture, it's important to have something of value to break up your social media feed, so just visit str.org and find the links to all of our social media platforms at the bottom of the homepage. Are you looking for a community where you can grow in your understanding of Christianity and learn how to defend your faith? Consider joining an STR Outpost. STR outposts are groups of believers within a local church dedicated to exploring answers to the hard questions about Christianity. Each outpost is led by a trained director who uses STR's content and curriculum to to equip members with the tools they need to think clearly and engage confidently with their faith. With around 160 outposts across 38 states and in eight other countries and growing, you're likely to find one near you. Joining an outpost is a great way to connect with others, deepen your knowledge, and be better equipped to make an impact in your community for Christ. To find an outpost in your area, learn more or to consider becoming an outpost Director yourself. Visit str.org outpost or email me trippallman@ outposttr.org.
- [46:18]
B
All right, final segment here and we've got a couple of more open calls. Remember, if you'd like to submit a question, I'm on the last two sheets here. Actually, it's only one and a half. So if you'd like to submit a question and you're not able to call in, just go to our homepage str.org under Podcasts Find Live Broadcast and then follow the prompts and you can leave your question as so many others have done. And this one is Cameron and, well, I'll just let Cameron tell you what he thinks. Greg hey, this is Cameron calling from Greenville, Winterville, North Carolina area. John came and spoke at our church recently and I'd never heard of Stand to Reason, but now I can't get enough of the podcast. Wow. I'd love to hear your opinion on things. A question came up this morning in a small group. A guy was trying to ask a question. He didn't know how to say it, but I knew exactly what he meant. And this is how I phrase it. Why does God get the credit for good things, all good things, but doesn't get the blame for bad things? Why is it that all good things come from the Father and should be requiring of praise and thanks? But when bad things happen that are not caused by sin or some wrongful action, why does God not get the blame, like natural disasters or disease? Thanks. Love to hear your opinion on that and help me answer that to myself and to my friend. See ya. All right, Cameron. Yeah, and I hope I give you something that is helpful. God gets the credit for all the good things because God is good and every good and perfect gift comes down from heaven from the Father of Lights, in whom there is no variation or shifting of shadows. That's in James 1. All right, all right. So God gets the credit for the good stuff because he's good and he is the source of all good things. But wait a minute, there's a bunch of bad things out there, too. Why doesn't he get the blame for the bad things? Well, you only get the blame for the bad things if you're doing the bad things. Blame is applied to those who are culpable, who are blame worthy. All right? And I don't know that God, I mean, I don't know why anybody would assume that God is doing the bad things like natural disasters and disease. So the simple answer is that one I just gave you, God gets credit for the good because he does good. He doesn't get blamed for the bad, because he doesn't do the bad. Now you might say, well, he allows it to happen. Well, that's true. My general take on this. And it's hard to look at every individual circumstance and say, here is the good God intends out of this bad circumstance. And by the way, I know you're in North Carolina, Greenville, got hit really badly by that hurricane, what, last year or the year before, just really wiped out whole areas. I get it. And so that's why this question comes up. But of course, a hurricane is only bad if it hurts people. If the hurricane only swamped a desert island somewhere, then it wouldn't be considered an evil thing. It's just the effect that it has on the people. So this is where it becomes difficult to properly characterize natural disasters as bad. I am not convinced that natural disasters are the result of, of, say, the fall of man. I mean, what's a tsunami? A tsunami is this engulfing wave. What caused the engulfing wave? An earthquake under the ocean. What caused the earthquake? Well, shifting tectonic plates. Right. And why is that happening? Well, that seems to be a design feature that God has put into the earth to recycle stuff. That's a good thing, but it has a bad consequence under certain circumstances. That means when people get in the way of the tsunami. Now, why are people in the way of the tsunami? Because they chose to live in a place where a tsunami might hit them. I mean, I have a place in northern Wisconsin. I'm never going to hit by a tsunami. There might be a hurricane. No, not a hurricane, a tornado. We do have those come through, but not a tsunami. All right, so there's this unusual factor in bad natural disasters that humans have freedom to go places and do things that put them in the path of these what probably would be considered morally neutral natural events that become problematic when we get hurt by them. Of course, you got Tornado Alley in what, Oklahoma or whatever. And so part of the element here to keep in mind is the element of freedom and choice that people have to choose to live places that then put them at risk for things like tsunamis, earthquakes or tornadoes or whatever. Okay, maybe in a perfect world those things wouldn't happen quite the same way. I'm not sure how that works. I haven't worked that out for myself. But I know the earthquake and tsunami thing has to do with tectonic plates shifting. And that seems like they shift for a good reason. There's a benefit for that. Another Problem with the kind of bad language, or at least ambiguity about the bad things language is that many things that seem bad initially are bad because they're painful or inconvenient for us. Oh, man, the rain came through and the flood came through and it messed up my house and destroyed my furniture and stuff like that. So that would be bad or evil in our experience. I don't know why it would be morally. And this is a question I have, maybe somebody can answer this, but why would it be morally bad that I was somehow significantly inconvenienced by some kind of natural event, or I lost things that were valuable to me? I didn't like that. But why would that be evil just because I didn't like it? And then the other question is, what would be the outcome of this evil event? In my own personal development, there were a lot of things I could look at. I'm not going to chronicle these right now, but there are many things I can look back at in my life. And it's not just that I see the silver lining or the gilded edge or whatever, these dark things that happen. But I realized that the silver lining was more than just a lining. That what good came out of it eventually, completely in my mind, justified the difficulty of the whole hardship to begin with. That the changes were so profound that even though I wouldn't want to go back through those hardships again, I am glad that I endured it for the benefit of what resulted. That reminds me of the Hebrews, passage 12. Jesus, who, the author and perfecter of our faith, who we're supposed to fix our eyes on, that text says.
- [54:00]
A
Who.
- [54:01]
B
Endured the cross, despising the shame for the joy set before him, and then sat down at the right hand of the Father. Okay, this was not fun. He despised the shame of the cross, but there was a joy that would come from it that would be something better, that would result that would justify it. In fact, there's an application further on in the chapter that's made for us in our dealings with God, that God. Well, the text says God disciplines everybody, every son that he receives, like a good father. You know, our parents disciplined us for our good, but they were imperfect in doing it. God does it for our holiness. And then the author goes on to acknowledge, all discipline for the moment is not joyful but sorrowful. Right? Just like Jesus, despising the shame, endured the cross, all discipline for us is not joyful but sorrowful. There's a parallel there, and also this parallel too. But afterwards, for those who have been trained by yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. So in both cases, in Jesus case and in our case, we have something we endure that's not good in the moment, not subjectively, but has a consequence that makes the difficulty worth it. And so the author is looking at Jesus, Jesus circumstance. And he's telling us to be like Jesus. Fix our eyes on him, the author and perfecter of our faith. Here's what happened to him, and here was the result. And guess what? God is allowing this to happen. Notice that the object there is not how to go through these trials that just get to you and assault you. No, it's the Father who is disciplining us for a good purpose. And that's no fun. Not joyful, but sorrowful. Until afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. So all of this has to be taken into consideration. Even the bad things turn out in many cases to be good. And so we can rejoice in the good that God brings out of the otherwise bad things. Even if the bad things are just sometimes really bad. Inconvenience for us. Nevertheless, it's no fun. And this is where God can take this thing. And by the way, many of the bad things are not just mere inconveniences. I get it. Painful loss, relationships, people, friends, agony of suffering, disease, etc. Nevertheless, for those who have been trained by yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. All right, good note to end on. I thank you for being with me today. I'm Greg Koukl for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. Bye bye now.
- [57:32]
A
Sa.