What Are the Reasons?

Summary

Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast: "What Are the Reasons?"
Host: Greg Koukl
Date: July 10, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Greg Koukl addresses a fundamental apologetic question: "How do we know that Christians believe the right thing?" Drawing upon recent conversations with young people and referencing high-profile challenges (e.g., from Piers Morgan), Greg explores the nature of evidence, explanatory power, and the importance of reasons in forming rational Christian belief.

The episode then transitions into a deep dive on the topic of forgiveness, particularly the tension between conditional and unconditional forgiveness, sparked by a call from Darren. The conversation wrestles with biblical passages, theological scholarship, and real-life scenarios, highlighting the complexities Christians face when considering repentance, reconciliation, and the restoration of relationships.

Greg closes out the episode by addressing listener questions on conversational tactics and the importance (or lack thereof) of using God’s personal name accurately, providing a rich, practical, and scripturally-rooted perspective.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. How Do We Know Christians Believe the Right Thing?

[00:52 - 12:03]

• The Core Question:
  Greg recounts being asked, “How do we know that Christians believe the right thing?” He notes this is a common objection both inside and outside Christian circles, referencing Piers Morgan’s version: "There are thousands of gods—why believe yours is right?"

• Explanatory Power as the Guiding Principle:
  Greg shares how he explained this to his young daughter, summarizing his approach:

  “Honey, the reason we believe that God is true is because he is the best explanation for the way things are.” (Greg Koukl, [01:39])

• Application of Explanatory Power:

  • Kalam Cosmological Argument:
    Greg argues that the universe must have had a cause, and that the most reasonable “something” causes the universe is an immaterial, powerful, personal agent—God.
  • He invites listeners to evaluate all religious claims by comparing their explanatory power regarding reality.

• On Uncritical Acceptance:
  Addresses the hypothetical of extraterrestrials denying God:

  “Why would you trust… because they’re really smart? There’s a whole bunch of really smart people on the planet that say the same thing. And I have the same question for the aliens that I have for the human being who said that. And my question is, what are the reasons you say that’s true?” (Greg Koukl, [09:12])

• Bottom Line:

  “So regarding the question, how do we know that what Christians believe is true… it’s just simple. The reasons. It all comes down to the reasons, I guess.” (Greg Koukl, [10:56])

---

2. Listener Call: Is Forgiveness Conditional or Unconditional?

Darren from Newbury Park
[13:33 - 32:17]

Forgiveness, Repentance, and Restoration

• Defining Terms:
  Darren inquires about Greg’s stance—does forgiveness require repentance (“conditional”) or not (“unconditional”)?
  Greg stresses the importance of understanding the biblical term "repentance" (Greek: metanoia, meaning "change of mind"), and that its specific meaning depends on context.

• Scriptural Exploration:

  • Luke 17 and Matthew 18 are cited: Both seem to affirm repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness in interpersonal ("horizontal") relationships.
  • Greg brings in Proverbs 19: "A man's integrity makes him slow to anger… his glory to overlook a transgression." He suggests that sometimes “overlooking” can functionally parallel forgiveness even if there’s no repentance.

• Key Tension:

  • Conditional Forgiveness: Requires repentance, backed by biblical passages and theologian Millard Erickson.
  • Unconditional Forgiveness: Reflects Christian calls to be slow to anger, to “let things go”—even absent penitence.

• Complex Scenarios:

  • Irreconcilable Situations: What about when someone is dead or unwilling to repent? How does forgiveness apply?
  • Example: Erica Kirk’s public forgiveness of her husband’s murderer sparked debate; Greg interprets her act as, “just letting it go… not going to hold this against you… not going to labor under the anguish.”

    “I don’t know if that’s forgiveness without repentance or how you would characterize it, but it certainly was good what she did, noble what she did.” (Greg Koukl, [27:08])

• Distinction Between Forgiveness and Reconciliation:
  Several times, Greg and Darren recognize that forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration are related but not identical processes.

• Theological and Psychological Implications:

  • Quoting a former pastor: “The way you secure the future is with a promise… the way you repair the past is through forgiveness.” (Greg Koukl, [29:43])
  • Greg notes, “Forgiveness... leads to mental health” (Greg Koukl, [30:32]), highlighting the teleological (designed-for) view of health echoed in Scripture.

---

3. Listener Questions—Open Mic Segment

"That’s Just Your Opinion/Everyone’s Entitled to Their Own Opinion"

[34:15 - 39:10]

• Conversational Tactic:
  Such phrases are often used to shut down discussion.

  “They’ve reduced your point... to a mere opinion. And okay, you’re entitled to your wrong opinion, subtext, but it’s just an opinion and I’m done with this.” (Greg Koukl, [35:35])

• How to Respond:

  • Assess motivation—are they truly done, or is there room for dialogue?
  • Use clarification questions:
    “I’m not sure what you mean by that… Why are you saying it now? How does that bear on the conversation that we’re having?”
  • Make the distinction between an unsupported opinion and an argument backed by reasons.

---

Is It Blasphemy Not to Use God’s Exact Name?

Shane’s Call
[40:21 - 57:44]

• Question Recap:
  If the original Hebrew name for God (the Tetragrammaton, YHWH) is lost or mistranslated, and we use “God,” “Jesus,” or “Theos,” is that blasphemy?

• Greg’s Response:

  • The biblical command to “remember/preserve his name” is not about perfect pronunciation, but about living with God in mind, honoring His character and authority.
  • Names in biblical and ancient contexts meant much more than their spoken or written form—they signified essence, authority, and relationship.
  • It is not blasphemy to use different tokens (words/sounds) as long as they refer to the one true God.

  “My name is Gregory, but if I was in Mexico, they would call me Gregorio. Now, is that still my name? Yeah, that’s my name in their language… It’s making reference to the same individual.” (Greg Koukl, [43:30])

  • The idea that power is in the mere utterance of God’s or Jesus’ name is described as an “occult view of language.” True power rests not in phonetics but in genuine relationship and faith.

  • Scriptural Example:
    The sons of Sceva (Acts), who tried to cast out demons “in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches,” failed because they had no true authority or relationship.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Explanatory Power as the Centerpiece:

  “The reason we believe that God is true is because he is the best explanation for the way things are.”
  (Greg Koukl, [01:39])

• On Uncritical Acceptance, Even from Aliens:

  “I have the same question for the aliens that I have for the human being who said that. And my question is, what are the reasons you say that’s true?”
  (Greg Koukl, [09:12])

• On Forgiveness and Mental Health:

  “How do you repair the past? No, there is a Christian way to restore the past, and that is through forgiveness.”
  (Greg Koukl, [29:43])

  “Much of scripture really matches with what even secular society has discovered about what mental health looks like...”
  (Greg Koukl, [30:32])

• On the Divine Name:

  “It’s not blasphemy to use a different sound to pick that individual out... Names are flexible in a certain sense.”
  (Greg Koukl, [43:58])

• On “Just Your Opinion”:

  “When you give an opinion along with reasons, that constitutes an argument... Now you got a case. So you’re not just giving your opinion in that situation.”
  (Greg Koukl, [38:07])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Introduction & Main Question

  • [00:52] “How do we know that Christians believe the right thing?”
  • [01:39] Main explanatory power quote, origin with Greg’s daughter
  • [06:15–10:30] Explanatory power, Kalam argument, the role of ‘reasons’ in faith
  • [09:12] “What are the reasons?”—response to both people and hypothetical aliens

• Forgiveness Segment with Darren

  • [13:33] Darren’s call, defining the conditional/unconditional forgiveness debate
  • [17:00–22:00] Scriptural passage analysis (Luke 17, Matthew 18, Proverbs 19)
  • [26:30] Erica Kirk’s forgiveness of her husband’s murderer—real-life application
  • [29:43] The “forgiveness repairs the past” quotation

• Practical Apologetics—Handling Conversation Stoppers

  • [34:15] "That's just your opinion…" handling dismissive statements

• Divine Name & Blasphemy Discussion

  • [40:21] Shane’s call about God’s name
  • [43:30] “My name is Gregory… is that still my name?”
  • [49:20–53:30] Occult view of language and the failure of the sons of Sceva

---

Final Thoughts

With characteristic clarity and approachability, Greg Koukl refocuses the apologetics conversation on “reasons”—inviting listeners to examine not just what they believe, but why. The episode’s thoughtful engagement with forgiveness underscores the complexities of living out faith, while the Q&A segments equip Christians with practical tools for both apologetics and personal growth.

---

For further resources:

• Referenced books: Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology, J. Warner Wallace’s The Truth in True Crime
• Suggested viewing: Chris Brauns’s YouTube content on forgiveness

---

Transcript

[Caller/Listener]

Sa.

[Greg Koukl]

Hello, friends, it's Greg Koukl here on Standard Race. And thank you for being part of our show today. I mentioned in the last show that I had a wonderful time just this last Sunday evening in Wisconsin fielding questions from a group of young people.

[Caller/Listener]

And

[Greg Koukl]

there was a question that came up that I wanted to talk about a little bit here because it has such wide application and it's so germane to what we do at Stand to Reason. And we're going to call on board here. I'll get to Darren, I'll get to you shortly. Thanks for your patience. But that question was how do we know that Christians believe the right thing? How do we know that Christians believe the right thing? Of course, that's a challenge we often get and we get it from people who says, and I actually heard who was the guy who replaced Larry King, the British guy, he's got his own show now. Pierce Brosnan? No, that other guy. Piers Morgan. I know Prince Brosnan is. He's that other guy. James Wand, Piers Morgan. And he even asked this question, I think it was to Wesley Huff. And he said, look at there are 3000 gods that people believe in. What makes you think that your God is the right God? Well, that's kind of a hostile challenge kind of thing. But I can't remember Wes's exact words, but he was following the same line that I always follow on this same question. And it's what I told them. You know, I had my daughter when she was my 21 year old now, who was about 8 years old, had been baptized already when she was younger at six. But she asked me this question, Papa, how do we know that God is true? How do we know that God is true? Now, she had already had some of the what theologically, but now she's asking about the why. Why, how do we know that God is true? And I thought about it for a moment and then thought came into mind that actually captures in a simple sentence my entire approach to this broader question. And what I said to her is, honey, the reason we believe that God is true is because he is the best explanation for the way things are. The reason that we believe God is true is because he's the best explanation for the way things are. Now, this is the notion of explanatory power. And of course, scientists use this all the time. You look at an event and then you ask, how did that happen? What caused that? Then you might have a whole bunch of different alternatives. But what you have to do is try to find or work with Discover the alternative that does the best job of explaining everything that needs to be explained regarding that particular thing. If it has good explanatory power and a lot better explanatory power than the other options, well, it's the front runner. And in the same way, when it comes to the God question, as I was explaining to her, there's a host of things that we are aware about in the world, some of them physical, some of them non physical, that are inviting explanations. And it turns out that God is the best explanation for the way things are. Take the Kalam cosmological argument. Everybody knows the universe came into existence sometime in the past. They debate about how long ago that happened. Even Christians debate that. But the point is that the universe had a beginning. Okay, what caused that? Well, you only have two options, something or nothing. Something or nothing. Now, if you're an atheist, you want to say nothing caused it, but is that the odds on favorite? You know, things aren't popping into existence all the time. Oh, where'd that come from? I just popped into existence out of nothing right there. That's my new Mercedes SL in the garage. Yeah, honey, you came home, saw that. Yeah, that just popped into existence out of nothing. That's where the universe happened. So I guess could happen to little old Mercedes. Oh, no wife is going to believe that. Nobody's going to believe that because it's inconsistent with their common experiences that when an effect takes place, there's a cause that caused it. And so to say that nothing caused everything for no reason and with no purpose, by the way, and those all go together, it doesn't seem to be the odds on favorite, it seems to make more sense. The better explanation for the way that is, is that God or let me back up for a minute. That something caused the universe. Now you have to ask other questions. What kind of thing could be outside of the physical universe, therefore immaterial, that is adequate for the effect. The universe itself had to be something immaterial. Pretty smart, pretty powerful, personal. Because only persons agents can make decisions to initiate something. They initiate the causal chain. All of that begins to look like the God guy. And so again here we're just simply applying this simple concept, the best explanation for the way things are. So the answer to the question how do we know that Christians believe in the right thing? And just like Piers Morgan was asking, is because you look at the reasons, you look at the reasons, maybe there are thousands of gods. What reason do I have to believe any one of those is the right God? Now we look at other things that seem to require the existence of a particular kind of God or which. The God of Abraham, Isaac, of Jacob fits that category really well. And so the more reasons that we can come up to with regarding the thing that we hold to be true, the more confidence that we have that it is true over and against other alternatives that don't have reasons for them, no evidence for them. And that's why, you know, that basically was Wes's answer and would be my answer too. You have to go with the reasons. So regarding the question, how do we know that what Christians believe is true or that they believe the right thing? It's just simple. The reasons. It all comes down to the reasons, I guess. Somebody just made a movie. Is it. Steven Spielberg just made another movie about extraterrestrials and UFOs and all that. Is that out yet? Oh, really? I would like to see it because I think the angle that is being played there is the angle that there's been a big cover up and everybody in the government knows there's aliens, but they're not telling us. By the way, think of how difficult that would be, you know, how hard it is to keep a secret. It is really hard for anybody to keep it a secret. Now, sometimes some individuals can keep a secret, but can hundreds and thousands of people keep a secret? That just seems unlikely to me. But in any event, from what I understand, that's the take. All right. And there was some suggestion, and again, I'll have to see the movie and maybe we can talk about it on the air, but there was a suggestion in the promo material that the. The message being communicated, if one takes it seriously, creates all kinds of theological problems. Really. Well, maybe for others. I honestly do not see yet at least what theological problems would be created by the existence of extraterrestrials. I don't think those exist. Aliens from other physical beings from other planets are visiting this planet. I actually just participated in a documentary about that. And I don't know if that's out yet or not, but I saw the original. I saw the finished product. I had a very small part in it, but I made this point. And the point I made was what had to do with what if the aliens presented themselves and then said, there is no God. Oh, Jesus is just, you know, all the stuff you believe in him is wrong. Now, I think a lot of people have this sense that if an alien said that, it must be true. Well, why would you trust. Because they're really smart. Well, look, there's a whole bunch of really smart people on the planet that say the same thing. And I have the same question for the aliens that as I have for the human being who said that. And my question is, what are the reasons you say that's true? How did you come to that conclusion? If you want to go back to the tactics material, why would you say there is no God? They don't get a pass just because they're really smart aliens and oh, if you say so, it must be the case. I actually think whatever it is that we see out there is not physical, it's not natural. I think it's supernatural, but that's another issue. Why would you say that? What are your reasons for it? And then they're going to have to give me the reasons if I'm to be persuaded that they're mistaken. And I'm sorry that they're right and I'm the one and Christians are the ones and religious people are the ones who are mistaken about all of that. Just because an alien says there's no God doesn't mean that's a true statement. What are the reasons? That's what always matters with everything. With everything controversial, anything you disagree with. And you know how I know that's the case? This is easy. I said it's the reasons that matter with everything. And then you say, no, it isn't. And then I say, why do you say that and what happens next? The person's going to give me the what. The reasons why he thinks that reasons aren't the only thing that matters. So anyway, there you go. Let's go to Darren in Newberry park, right down the road from me. Darren, welcome to the show.

[Caller/Listener]

Hey, great. How are you?

[Greg Koukl]

I'm doing good. Did you know we were neighbors?

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, I do know that. Called him before. And it's good to have you back live.

[Greg Koukl]

Thank you. I'm good to be. It's good for me to be alive, too. I like this.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, we like to be alive too. I missed the interim. I'm guessing he must have been back in Wisconsin.

[Greg Koukl]

I was. And yeah, that's my home away from home, so to speak. And I just love going there and you know, ever since COVID there's a tremendous freedom to be all different places and still work because I never used, what do you call it, zoom or anything like that before. Now I got an account and I can zoom anybody anytime I want. Because now the cabin, I got Starlink and you might have missed that. I don't know, maybe I didn't mention it, but I Got Starlink and I didn't have anything like that before. Starlink has been great because it just shoots up right through a big hole in the trees and I get my really good reception with that. So now I got broadband in my cabin in the woods, so. And that's where I was. And I can do work there and whatever. So I'll be going back hopefully certainly in September and then maybe. No, in August I'll be going back and then maybe September, October. Right. You know, late September, early October. I got a lot of events in the fall, but sometimes I'll just, I'll just station there in northern Wisconsin and then fly back and forth from there for my events.

[Caller/Listener]

The freedom's great. It's good to have you live and anyway, yeah, you know, it's been a few weeks since you were live. I don't know, maybe six or seven. But I'm trying to do this by memory. I think you had a caller who called in about forgiveness and you always push back against Greg Kouko. Well, I'm going to nudge back, but with trepidation. But I remember a few years ago you recommended seven books and one of them was Millard Erickson's Systematic.

[Greg Koukl]

Right.

[Caller/Listener]

Which is Christian theology.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah, that just came up just an hour ago here with my staff. His book, I think it's a good book if you want a survey of theology. Right.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah. So I, I did get. And it is, that's a great recommend. I, I thoroughly enjoy that. It's theology book. So what came up? You were talking to a caller a few weeks ago about forgiveness and I guess I'm, I'm referring specifically to believers forgiving sins against them. I guess what, what you'd call horizontal forgiveness, but it must apply vertically too, and how the Lord deals with us in that. And Erickson's got a very, you know, maybe an age and a half write upon. He calls forgiveness conditional or unconditional condition being is repentance required for, to grant forgiveness. And I, I, it seemed to me you sort of came down on the unconditional side. And I think I just want to nudge back a little bit. Okay. Against that.

[Greg Koukl]

I'm not sure what the terms mean. So as you're using them, maybe just give a. What did you think I said? How about that?

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, just, just whether forgiveness is just sort of blanketly given by God, you mean? Well, no, like let's say a believer is sinned against by another believer.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah.

[Caller/Listener]

So do we automatically forgive or is the condition repentance?

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah, well, Jesus spoke about that, about forgiveness. And if he repents, you've got then forgive. And Peter says seven times, and Jesus says 70 times seven. So certainly in that circumstance, there's an element there of repentance. And what I take that is the person. See, the trouble in this conversation, for me at least, is the word repentance. It's the Greek word metanoia, which means to have a change in mind. And when the word comes up in conversation, it's almost like people can hear a street preacher. The. The words and the noise of a street preacher ringing in their ears, repent, repent, repent. And of course, the sense there is, turn from your sin, turn from your sin. And that's the way it's understood. Whenever they read the word repentance in Scripture, they say, turn from your sin. But I don't think that's what the word means. I mean, a repentance, a change of mind or a change has to have an object. What change is in view and in one place in the Scripture at least, it refers to repentance towards God and faith in Jesus. So that strikes me as being an example of changing your mind about God, which entails putting your faith in Jesus. You have a wrong view of God, Your religious direction is amiss. You got to change that and go to Jesus. So that's what the word repentance means. Now, sometimes the word repentance can be referring to repenting from sin, but the context would dictate that. So I don't think it always means turning from sin. But it's clear that Jesus said repentance or metanoia is involved in our forgiveness of other people. And my suspicion is somebody is saying, I'm sorry I did this against you. I'm guilty. I'm sorry. And I guess I wouldn't say that means I'm never, ever going to do it again. But certainly their point of view or their perspective or the position of their will is, I'm done with that now. It could happen again. And that's why Jesus says 70 times 7, because that's the way human beings are. We fall again and fall again and fall again. So that's the way I would understand forgiveness, at least in that context. But I think it's kind of slippery. How do you forgive somebody who's dead and who has hurt you and harmed you badly? What recourse do you have psychologically to that? Now I have a gal who interviewed me on her own podcast a year or so ago and was a great interview, but she notified me that she has written a book on forgiveness. And I'm waiting to get it because it's meant, to my understanding, to work out a lot of these details because I'm equivocal on the issue. I'm not sure I understand the whole thing, but I've expressed my view. I don't think that God requires us to turn from all our sin before we become Christians. What I wrote.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah. Now that's the vertical.

[Greg Koukl]

I'm thinking more of the horizontal between people.

[Caller/Listener]

Right. And Erickson, in his systematic, he addresses, you know, in maybe three or four paragraphs, maybe half a page, okay. He talks about both sides, but he falls on the conditional side. And one of his conclusions is that he says that those who argue for the unconditional view tend to have to rely more on an argument from silence. Which that does seem to be true to me, because if you look at. You cited Luke 17. I mean, it's very clear. It says if a brother sins, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgiven. Or you go to Matthew 18, which is more of a. A, you know, church discipline or restoring a brother. Right. It gives all it gives. Can, you know, it ups the condition. Take it, you know, one or two witnesses, if they don't listen, go to the church.

[Greg Koukl]

Sure.

[Caller/Listener]

And so it does seem to imply a conditionality of repentance.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah.

[Caller/Listener]

And I guess I bring it up because, you know, I was raised in the church and it always seemed to be taught. Well, just forget

[Greg Koukl]

that seems overly simplistic. Right.

[Caller/Listener]

Well, it does. And there does seem to be other elements, like beyond forgiveness, you've got reconciliation and restoration. So those seem to play into it as well.

[Greg Koukl]

Sure. I'm hoping that this interview that I have, and I'm planning to do a show about it, will help bring more of that in perspective, just for me, you know, and also for my listeners because of that. But this, even what you've told me Erickson said raises some questions. So in Proverbs 19, like four or something like that, the proverb says that a man's integrity makes him slow to anger. All right, so why would he be slow to anger? I mean, somebody does harm to him. That's what people get angry when they feel harmed or attacked or whatever. Okay. So it says a man's integrity makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook a transgression. To overlook a transgression.

[Caller/Listener]

I believe that's the verse you cited a few weeks ago.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay. Yeah. Well, this is what this. It's kind of like, all right, you let it go. Now, it doesn't use the concept of forgiveness there, but there does seem to be a release. Supposed to be like a release. Okay, just let it go, let it slide, let it roll off. Don't refuse to be offended or something like that. Well, it seems to me that has to be factored in somehow.

[Caller/Listener]

Or let me tell you, this is how Erickson says. He says it should be noted that the conditional view of forgiveness does not imply an unforgiving or bitter spirit.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so that's good.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, I mean, but that seems to make your point about the proverbs.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah, but to. So, so you're not released from your unforgiving, bitter spirit. Is that the way you put it?

[Caller/Listener]

No, he's just, you know, he, he says it implies that, that holding the conditional view of forgiveness, in other words, that repentance is required, does not imply a bitter spirit.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so, okay, that's good. And I get that. So how does. Generally, I would think that the way to deal with the bitter spirit is to let something go that you're holding onto. So. Well, forgiveness is a release of a debt. I mean, that's kind of the metaphor that's being used. So wouldn't be letting something go that is legitimately against you. You let it go. Isn't that like the same forgiving of a debt that would fall into the de facto forgiveness category?

[Caller/Listener]

That's why I'm calling Greg. Coco,

[Greg Koukl]

you have too much faith in me, brother. But we'll see. This is, I guess, my own confusion or uncertainty about how this all plays out. I know Lisa Childer. She got, contacted me recently and actually interviewed this young lady and she said the interview is great. You ought to interview her. And I said, well, she's already sending me the book or whatever and I'm checking out. A lot of people will contact me one way or another. Say I've got a book and I want to, you know, an interview, which I understand the marketing, but I just get a flood of that. So I'm slow to commit. But this gal, I have a lot of respect for and I'm very interested in seeing what she had to say. And now Elisa says she's familiar with the content and she gives it a thumbs up. That means a lot to me. So I will. We'll see in the future, maybe later in the summer, whatever, what, what ends up happening here with this material. But you can see where I'm kind of caught between. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this. And then you have the other issue, by the way, of what do you do when you're deeply harmed by, injured by somebody who's gone now? There can't be a reconciliation, you know, or maybe they're not gone, but the nature of the thing, the person, all of that, there never will be a reconciliation. Lots of people who are listening right now have circumstances like that where they have people in their lives that mean a lot to them, that have hurt them deeply and are not ever going to let go. They're never going to apologize. They're never going to bend the knee, they're never going to humble themselves and say, I am so sorry, please forgive me. It's not going to happen because it's not in their skill set, their virtue skill set. So where does that leave the Christian with regards to forgiveness? Are they unforgiving?

[Caller/Listener]

Well, I do think there are dots to connect, as I mentioned, between forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration. I mean, I asked my pastor this question. I use the exit that I asked you.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay.

[Caller/Listener]

And I use the example of, let's say you had an usher who's lifting money out of the offering plate. I go, are you going to forgive him? He goes, well, I can forgive him. He goes, but I'll never touch the offering plate again.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah, well, I won't forgive him. I'm going to fire him. But see, I don't even. Well, yeah, that's a separate issue. You know, you may not trust them, but if you say you're going to forgive them, what if he doesn't? He gets caught, but he doesn't fess up. You know, there's no. Then what? Well, I'm not going to forgive him. Then you got to stay.

[Caller/Listener]

I'm thinking two of Erica Kirk. Right.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay.

[Caller/Listener]

Forgiving Charlie Kirk's murderer.

[Greg Koukl]

Right? Yeah, right. That was a bit controversial for a lot of people.

[Caller/Listener]

Right, Right.

[Greg Koukl]

And so the question I would have there, I mean, I saw that like everybody else did. And what did she mean? I was very, very noble. I mean, I think it was entirely genuine.

[Caller/Listener]

And

[Greg Koukl]

you don't. There's no. It's not appropriate to forgive people who haven't injured you. And of course, killing Erica's husband, that's an injury to Erica, not just to her husband. So it's appropriate for her to do that. But the question is he hasn't repented, as far as anybody knows, he hasn't even tried yet. You know, now what? And so that's a very apropos illustration or event regarding this issue to me. I just talked, I thought of it Like, I'm just letting it go. I'm not going to hold this against you. I'm not going to labor under the anguish of what you did to me or Charlie, you know, and so. And I think that's noble. I don't know if that's forgiveness without repentance or how you would characterize it, but it certainly was good what she did, noble what she did. And of course, even if there were actual forgiveness and requests of forgiveness and all that went down, that doesn't address the issue of civil punishment, which is an entirely different category.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah, I'll give you. You know, before I called you today, I did some research on this, and I didn't get a chance to look at his YouTubes, but there's a. There's a pastor named Chris Bronze, B R A U N S, who it looks like has done a lot of work in this area, and Erickson cites him, too. So I intend to look at his YouTube.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay.

[Caller/Listener]

Anyway. All right. Well, it's a fascinating topic to me because I was raised with the idea you just blanket forgive. And I'm not sure I really hold that now.

[Greg Koukl]

No. Yeah. My response was somewhat equivocal. I offered a couple of things from scriptures that kind of pointed in two different directions. I mean, think about here is. I think of two others. The Lord's Prayer, forgive us our debts as we forgive others. That sounds like conditional, like our way. If we're not going to forgive others, then we're not going to get forgiven. That's got some theological concerns, I think, there. And what is it, Ephesians 4 or somewhere where it says, forgive one another just as God in Christ has forgiven you. Of course, there's no clarity about the circumstances that Paul is referring to, where forgiveness is being given. Maybe he's talking about people who are sorry, repentant, whatever, and the one who's the injured party saying, I'm not letting you off, man. I'm not forgiving you, I'm going to be mad at you forever kind of thing. Well, that's awful.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah. Of course.

[Greg Koukl]

I don't know if you've ever heard me say this, but I actually think it's a really good insight, even though I came up with it. So maybe it sounds like I'm pat, my bad. But one of the things my former pastor said, so he said this. He said, how do you secure the future? Nobody knows what's happening in the future. The past is past. The future hasn't happened. You can't promise the future. You can't secure the future. And what he said is, the way you secure the future is with a promise. And he's talking about marriage. And I thought that was very insightful. But then I thought about the past. Well, how do you repair the past? How do you fix the past? The past is gone. The past is past. It's over with. No, there is a Christian way to restore the past, and that is through forgiveness. Forgiveness. So thank you. I agree with that. And this is. I've thought I've applied it to my life as much as I can. And I think it shows the profundity of scripture because both of those things are taught and they both lead to mental health. And of course, mental health. The concept of health itself is teleological. In other words, it implies that we were made for something by someone, and we were made for a certain condition that we call health physically. And same thing with mentally. There's mental illness and there's mental health. And so much of scripture really matches with what even secular society has discovered about what mental health looks like, even though nowadays they're not comfortable with the health concept being teleological because it sounds too much like God's involved. But J. Warner Wallace has done a lot of work on this. What was the name of that book he did most. Amy Jim's book on true truth or something like that he did with Reality. What is that? Yeah, the Truth in True Crime. Thank you. The Truth in True Crime. I think that's his most recent book, other than the kind of comic book that he did with his son. But he goes through all of those kinds of things, all the things that we learned about recovering from tragedy. And he says every one of these things is in the scripture and then he gives all the texts. So I'll check that out. Yeah, yeah. True Truth in True Crime. I think it's okay.

[Caller/Listener]

That's great.

[Greg Koukl]

All right, gotta go. Here, Darren.

[Caller/Listener]

Thanks, Greg.

[Greg Koukl]

It's great talking to you. Thanks for conversation.

[Caller/Listener]

Yeah. Bye.

[Greg Koukl]

Bye now.

[Caller/Listener]

Have a good day.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, let's go to a break and then we'll have some open mic calls. Greg Koukl here, by the way. Is that my number? 562-424-8714. Ah, it's a different number than we had in the past because we've had some board problems. If you're listening and want to chat with me in the next half hour. 562-424-8714.

[Stand to Reason Announcer]

Would you like a stand a reason

[Caller/Listener]

speaker at your event?

[Stand to Reason Announcer]

Greg, Alan, Tim, John, Megan and I, Tripp, are Available in person or online just email bookingstr.org our team speaks on a wide range of topics from issues in bioethics, gender and science to topics in apologetics, theology and philosophy and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a Biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter. 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 Stan 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.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, back at you here, looking at some questions that have come in through open mics as open mic calls. And those are questions that people go to our website, at our homepage, then podcast, then to live broadcast and there you can actually leave a question and then. And as I go through the year, I get to them and answer them. So we have one from Chad here on people saying things like, well, that's just your opinion or everybody's entitled to their own opinion and let's let him explain his question and I'll respond to it. We got that bearded beast. Hey Greg, this is Chad. So question the phrase that's your opinion or the phrase everyone's entitled to their own opinion seems to be used at least sometimes as a conversation stopper. Should it be? Well, that was brief. Okay, got it. The answer is yes, that those phrases are often used to silence people and move on. Oftentimes, I would think most of the times, Chad, the person is telling you if you hear them say that they're done with the conversation, they've reduced your point. However, it is that you've made it to a mere opinion. And okay, you're entitled to your wrong opinion subtext, but it's just an opinion and I'm done with this now this might be. I think that's what's going on. And should it be a conversation start, I don't know if should it be is an appropriate question There it just is, because they're saying, I don't want to talk about this anymore. Now, at this point, you have a choice. If it looks like they're pretty serious about what they seem to be communicating, then, you know, I wouldn't continue in the conversation. Maybe others would. Ray Comfort probably would. Ray's more aggressive than I am, and God bless him, I'm glad he is, because he. And you watch him on the films on YouTube and he'll have a rough case like this, and he'll press with questions. He's very good using a tactical approach. Questions and questions and questions and questions. And every time somebody answers one of his questions, it really helps build his own case. And sometimes the perseverance there with people who don't seem initially interested begins to break through and he begins to have an impact. Well, good for Ray. You know, for myself, I'm not as aggressive as he is. Maybe he ought to be. I don't know. I think everybody's different. But, Chad, you just need to make an assessment. Is this guy shutting me down, like, period, full stop and I'm out of here kind of thing? If he is, let him go. If not, if you think that there's some room here, some wiggle room, then you might ask him. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I mean, of course I agree with. That's my opinion. Yeah, of course it's my opinion. Your opinion is your opinion. Okay, I'm not sure. Where are we going with that or you have a. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I agree with that, too. But why are you saying it now? How does that bear on the conversation that we're having? So you might want to take another step and draw them out with a question of clarification. That's the first tactical question. What do you mean by that? Because it sounds like a dismissal. Maybe they're saying, well, everything you're saying is just your opinion. Okay, well, when you say just your opinion, you mean that there's no. I haven't given any reason for it. So it's a mere opinion. Okay, let me give you some reasons. And so, by the way, when you give an opinion along with reasons, that constitutes an argument, a case, you're making a case. And for the statement or the claim or belief that you have, and then you're giving reasons for it, now you got a case. So you're not just giving your opinion in that situation. You are making a case. You've given an argument, and that's different. Now, he still may not want to respond to it. And some people who speak this way are just wanting out, maybe in part because they don't know what to do

[Caller/Listener]

with

[Greg Koukl]

what you've just said. They don't know how to answer it. They don't know how to respond. They don't have anything. They disagree with you, but they can't do so in a principled way. So they just release it, they let it go. So a lot depends on what's going on there. And maybe the best thing, Chad, if you hear that, yeah, you're right. That's what's going on. It's just dismissal. It's kind of winding down. I'm getting ready to go. You can't extend it by saying, I'm not sure what you mean because those statements are obviously true. I agree with both of them. That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Okay, now what? And see what happens. All right, let's see here. I'm just looking through. I haven't looked. I haven't looked at these questions because I've been out of town. Okay, let's go with Shane. Shane R. About blasphemy. See that?

[Shane]

I have a question about the Creator's name and the Messiah's name. If you've read the Bible, there's so many passages and many different books that are telling you that his name is the Tetragrammaton, which is, you know, what the common name is, which is Y H. And people say wh yhwh. But if we, you know, look at that letter form, the first three letters within that cons, you know, string of consonants, because that's how Paleo Hebrew form text was actually in consonants. There was no so with that. Anything that came in the prefix of a word, specifically in the names, was pronounced yahoo. You find that in Joseph, Isaiah, Judah. You can find it all over the place. The letter J wasn't invented until the 1500s. With this being said, is his name really God? Now, he does say, you have to preserve his name and remember it and call to it when you need him for your prayers, etc. And I want to know, is he considering it blasphemy that I'm calling him the word God, which is has no direct ties to the word originally called Elohim, E, L, O, H, I, M, which was plural for multiple beings above you, basically. And it's widely accepted by a lot of people, like especially the Torah, that those other Elohim were actually the angels. But anyway, is he going to rebuke you for calling him God and Jesus. When he tells you to remember his name, preserve his name. And we lost that preservation of the pronunciation because we know it couldn't have been the words Jesus or God.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah, well, that's an interesting question. I've never been asked that before. I think there's a little bit of confusion. I wish I had Wes Huff here. He'd do a better job probably than me because he's really. That's part of his focus, some of these particulars like this. But Wes isn't here, so I'll do my best in his stead. And that is part of the problem. Shane, is the phrase that you cited a couple of times or the phrase is remember his name and preserve his name. I do not think that those phrases were intended to mean get his name right. It's not Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever. What is it? It's not Elohim. Elohim is a class of things. God is an Elohim because he's a spiritual being, but he is not like any other Elohim. He is God and has a name. And his name is characterized by the tetragrammaton Y, H, W, H. And later on they started adding vowel points to it. And, you know, I don't know all about the Hebrew stuff, but I just know that there's a history to this and it's a legitimate concern that we are to remember the name and preserve the name. But the name hasn't been preserved, so it can't be remembered. I think that's the complaint or concern. Shane, when God tells us to remember his name, he is not referring to recalling his as we would think of it, his. I'm just trying to think of a synonym for name now. His handle, a little bit slang, but his handle. You got to get his handle right. If you don't use the right handle about God, the right way that he calls Himself, then you got trouble. That is not what it means to remember his name or preserve his name. Because the word name in the Hebrew culture, and I think ancient near east, because this is spoken in that context, you see the same thing in the New Testament. Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Pray in the name of Jesus. Praying in the name of Jesus doesn't mean using the name of Jesus. It doesn't mean I pray in the name of Jesus at the end of the prayer. That doesn't do anything. How do I know that? Because there's a bunch of prayers in the New Testament that don't end like that. In the name of Jesus. To pray in the name of Jesus is the same as me going, let's see. What would be a good illustration? No, if I was having interactions as the president and standard reason, and I sent you as a. An emissary to talk, kind of an ambassador of sorts, to speak to the other person on my behalf with my authority, then you would be going in my name and you would be speaking in my name. You are representing who I am and the authority that I have. So you wouldn't say to the person you're talking to, whoever I sent you to, I'm here in. I'm speaking in the name of Greg Cokel. Now you would say something maybe, but different language I'm thinking of right now. For some reason, I just got this picture in my mind of the Godfather movie and Robert Duvall, the consigliere, the attorney, going to the Hollywood producer who had the horse, you know, the scene in the name of the Godfather. He was there because the Godfather sent him. He was speaking with the Godfather's authority. He was the emissary of the Godfather Corleone, Don Corleone. And so he's going to go back and let Don Corleone know what the consequence of his visit was. Okay, well, he's in the name of, pardon me for the kind of somewhat grotesque parallel, but that's what that means. And so he was acting for Don Corleone. And his decisions would be consistent with Don Corleone and his character desires, his purposes, all that. So we even use this concept nowadays. But it was much deeper and richer back then. You preserve the name, remember that. Don't forget God. Always keep God in your mind. Coram Deo. C O R A M D E O Before God, in the presence of God. So we live Coram Deo. Now that came later. That's Latin, but I like that word. In fact, I have it printed right there by my desk and I can look up and see it. And I'm thinking of a day to day Lord. Coram de, I'm living before you. And this is the sense there. That's me remembering his name. Now, I don't know what his name is. I mean, not originally, I would say Yahweh. But you know what? That we don't get it exactly right. Or we use the word Theos. Well, that would be Greek. And translated, God has no problem. My name is Gregory, but if I was in Mexico, they would call me Gregorio. Now, is that still my Name? Yeah, that's my name in their language. Would it be appropriate to say you didn't say it right? That's not really my name. My name is. Listen closely, Gregory. No, because names are flexible in a certain sense. There are different words that we use to describe it, even from Theos, from Yahweh to Theos, to God, or even Lord. A lot of the translations translate Yahweh as the Lord. So what's happening? It's just a translation. It's making reference to the same individual. And anything you say about that individual still referring to the individual. Even if you're using a different token. Words are tokens. They make a reference to a type. They point to something else. So I could have this token table. The type is this physical thing right here that we know is a table. But the token could be table. The token could be tab L e written on a piece of paper. I vocalize it or I write it down. Or it could be mesa if I was speaking in Mexico. That's what table means. That's the word. So the tokens change even though the type remains the same. And that's all we're doing with different words. So God gives his name. He's got a personal name. He's a personal being that meant something to the Jews. I am who I am is the way it's characterized in Exodus. Now, whatever the actual sound of the name of God was, how Moses would have said that in the language that he was speaking in when he was encountering God. I don't know what that would have sounded like, but I know what it's about. I know what it means. I am who I am. Lewis did a wonderful kind of characterization of this with Aslan. I said, who are you? And he said, I am myself. I am myself. And it's self reflective. I am who I am. And I think it's very rich way of causing us to focus on the. The depth of the nature of God, the very central being, so deep and profound you can't find other adjectives to capture his essence. You can say things about him. He's holy, he's powerful, he's good, whatever. Nevertheless, when it gets down to the name, the name is the essence of any individual. That's the way it was used in those texts. I am who I am was the way that God characterized himself. So simply put, Shane, in your circumstance, I don't think it would be blasphemy if we translate even if Yahweh was exactly the sound that Moses heard and now I'm in a different language. And in this language we say Theos for that individual being described there, or God for that individual is a translation. We are still referring to the same individual. And it's not blasphemy to use a different sound to pick that individual out. By the way, if you take Yahweh, which was spoken to Moses, then Moses writes it on a piece of paper. It isn't the same thing, it's a different token. So if it's blasphemy to use a different token, a written one rather than the spoken one, I should say if it's blasphemy to use a translation word which is a different token, like God or Jesus, then why wouldn't it be blasphemy to just write it down on a piece of paper or a scroll or something like that? I don't know. I just think. No, I don't think there's a problem here. I think more of this is, I don't know, much ado about nothing. You know, it's interesting that just to make this point scripturally about the power of the name. When we say the power of the name, and different Christians might say things like that, I guess they're indicating, they're implying that the sound of Jesus name or God's name, the sound, the saying of it has power in itself. Now, this turns out to be an occult view of language. And the view is that words have power. And so if you get the right words and there are people in the word faith movement who actually teach this, if you think that the power is in the words and you just get the right words and you say the right words, then that will have a powerful impact on reality. Something will take place that is like abracadabra. That is like open sesame. Notice these words. These are words that come out of fiction, whatever, but the words themselves have power on that view. But that's an occult view, meaning there is a hidden power in the utterance of the Word. And there are many people because they misread the text. New Testament and Old Testament think that there is power in the words. If you just say the words, then something magical, so to speak, is going to happen. Now, the disciples encountered this or not the disciples, but in the Book of Acts, there was an occasion. I don't know exactly the passage, but there was an occasion where this faulty point of view was put into action. And there was, of course, Paul and the other apostles are healing in the name of Jesus. Silver and gold have I done but such as I have give, I thee in the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk. So we have the walking and leaping and praising God there in the early chapters of Acts. So, wow. In the name. Well, that's because the disciples were citing the source of their power. It wasn't because they were using a magical word in the power of Jesus, in the capability of Jesus. Because of Jesus, rise up and walk. So they would use this language. And there was a temptation then clearly to presume that the words were the things that had the power and they were using the name of Jesus, the power of Jesus, the authority that they had invested in them by Jesus, to cast out demons too. And Jesus didn't use the name of Jesus, by the way, because he was Jesus. He just exercised his own power. We exercise his power through us in his name. Whether we say it or not is irrelevant. But the Jewish, The sons of a Jewish Sceva, who were casting out demons, that was their job, figured well, we'll add this to a toolbox because it works for Paul and the other disciples rather to cast the demon out in the name of Jesus. So they encountered a man who was demon possessed. He had nine demons, I think. And they invoked the name of Jesus over this man. And what they said was, I adjure you by, let's see, by Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I think is the way they put it, I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches. Come out of him. And the demons answered. They said, we recognize Jesus and we know about Paul, but who are you? And then that one man beat up a whole bunch of these guys and they fled naked and bleeding because the demon had the power, the strength through that man to do that. In other words, they didn't recognize voicing of the name of Jesus because that isn't what was going on. Just say in the name, there's no power in the name in that sense. There's power in Jesus. And if you don't know Jesus, that power is not available to you just because you say the name. All right, well, I hope that helps. Shane, good question. Thank you for calling and offering it and thanks for the rest of you to be part of this show. Greg Koukl here for standard reason. Give him heaven now. Bye bye now.

[Caller/Listener]

Sam.