Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast – Episode Summary

Episode: What Things in Heaven Were Reconciled to God on the Cross?
Host: Greg Koukl
Date: February 7, 2025

Main Theme

This episode explores a challenging passage from Colossians 1:19-20: what does it mean that Christ reconciled "things in heaven" to God through the cross? Greg Koukl addresses listener questions on this theological topic, as well as inquiries about biblical numerology, abortion dialogue strategy, sharing faith with those who feel no need for God, and the alleged fallacy of reification.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Clarification on Infallibility and Inerrancy (00:04–07:34)

• Greg reflects on feedback from a previous episode regarding infallibility and inerrancy as applied to Scripture.
• Distinction between terms:
  • Infallibility (in linguistic terms): unable to err; stronger word linguistically.
  • Inerrancy: no errors; could, in theory, have erred but did not.
  • In theological usage: inerrancy is considered the stricter, higher standard.
  • Quote: “I am an inerrantist… I think the Bible is God’s word, and if God can’t err, then His word can’t err.” (06:55, Greg)
• Summary: Greg was aiming for clarity on how these terms are typically used, not arguing for one over the other—but affirms his own position as an inerrantist.

2. What Was Reconciled in Heaven? (Colossians 1:20) (07:35–16:11)

• Listener Anthony (North Dakota) asks: What are the “things in heaven” reconciled to God by Christ’s blood?
• Greg notes alternate translation: “the heavens” is more literal, implying cosmic reconciliation (“on earth or in the heavens”).
• Possible interpretations discussed:
  • Hyperbolic language: Emphasizes the totality of Christ’s work; not literal heavenly beings needing reconciliation.
    • Quote: “This is a kind of hyperbole, which is exaggeration for the sake of impact. And that is, Jesus reconciled everything that needed reconciliation. Every single thing was resolved through Christ—whether on the ground or in the sky or wherever.” (08:50, Greg)
  • Direct reconciliation with God the Father: Possible, but hyperbolic reading seems more apt in context.
  • Anthony’s three options:
    1. Spiritual beings (possibly fallen) being reconciled; Greg finds this doubtful.
    2. Spiritual beings being “set straight”—more like judged, not forgiven; again, Greg finds little biblical support.
    3. Following Michael Heiser: Humanity somehow reconstitutes spiritual authority in Christ; Greg doesn't see this in the passage.
  • Contextual support: Frequent repetition of “all things” (Col. 1:16–20) favors an expansive, inclusive meaning.
    • Quote: “So he’s just kind of fleshing out the ‘all things’: all things, all things, whether on earth or on heaven. That’s the way I would take it…I think the other ones are…a little bit fanciful.” (14:48, Greg)

Memorable moment:
Anthony: “I had to stop for a second. I’m like, wait a second—what in heaven is he talking about?” (15:19)

3. Numerology in the Bible: Is it Biblical or Occult? (16:51–22:05)

• Listener Caitlin asks: Are patterns like the number seven “changing the meaning” of Scripture? Is biblical numerology valid?
• Greg’s view:
  • Certain numbers have significance (e.g., seven for perfection, forty for periods of testing) but do not convey hidden meanings.
  • Rejects the idea of reading mystical or occult meanings into biblical numbers.
    • Quote: “When you find these hidden meanings in things, that’s kind of an occultic view of Scripture. And I don’t think that’s the way God works.” (19:01, Greg)
  • Meaning is rooted in the text and context, not numbers.
• Calls for caution against letting numerology become a “mystical, hidden code.”

4. Arguing for Humanity of the Unborn in Abortion Dialogue (24:30–38:16)

• Listener Joseph asks: Is it effective to insist a pro-choice person agree that the unborn is human before discussing abortion?
• Greg’s advice:
  • Affirming unborn humanity is critical, but ask questions and walk people through incremental common-sense steps.
  • Use biology and logic:
    • “Is it alive?”
    • “Is it growing?” (If yes, it’s alive.)
    • “Is it part of the mother’s body?” (DNA is different.)
    • “What kind of thing is it?” (DNA shows: human, but a different individual.)
  • Quote: “If it’s growing, it must be alive…So whatever’s in there is alive…What is it that’s growing, that’s alive?…Do a DNA test…It isn’t Mom’s body. It is in Mom’s body, but it isn’t Mom’s body.” (28:14, Greg)
  • Once the obvious is acknowledged, differences (like fetal stage, size, location) are morally trivial compared to the constant of humanity.
  • Cites examples of people who acknowledge humanity but dismiss care for the unborn as “inconvenient”—a position Greg finds “bizarre.”
  • Recommends his book Street Smarts for detailed help.

5. How to Engage Those Who “Don’t Need God” (38:16–46:59)

• Listener Nathan (a physician) asks: How do you share faith with well-off, content people who say they don’t “need” God or church?
• Greg’s response:
  • Don’t emphasize “church,” focus on Christ.
    • Quote: “What they need is Christ...I want people to come to Christ. And my expectation is, once they have a genuine conversion to Christ, that church will come along with it.” (41:52, Greg)
  • Most people think of faith as a “nice addition” (ice cream), not a necessity (insulin).
  • Use role as doctor as analogy: “Do you need a doctor? How do you know if you need a doctor?”
    • Illness is sometimes silent, spiritual brokenness is a reality even if not felt.
  • Present the law/moral code (summed up in loving God and neighbor) as a “mirror” to reveal spiritual need.
    • Quote: “There has never been a moment in my entire life, Christian 51 plus years, where I have ever loved God with my whole heart, mind, soul and strength…But that’s not the criteria I’m being judged by. I’m being judged by the fact that I am in Christ.” (44:32, Greg)

6. The (Alleged) Fallacy of Reification (46:59–56:42)

• Listener Caleb asks: Is it a fallacy to say things like “science says” or “the evidence says”? How to respond to those who claim “everyone just interprets evidence their way” so we can’t know truth?
• Greg explains:
  • “Reification” means giving physical qualities to the abstract, a legitimate communication technique; not a necessary fallacy.
  • “Science says” is a shorthand for “scientists, based on evidence, conclude.”
  • The real issue is not assertion, but supporting reasons—use questions to dig down to evidence and rationale (cf. the “Rhodes Scholar” tactic from Tactics).
    • Quote: “What I want to know is why they came to that conclusion. So I am looking at the reasons for the claim.” (49:58, Greg)
  • Warns against common fallacies:
    • Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
    • Genetic fallacy: Dismissing a view based on its origin.
    • Red herrings: Distracting from the main issue.
  • Encourages focus on arguments and reasons, not sources or personalities.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “[In theological terms] inerrancy is the stronger [word], and infallibility is a way of kind of characterizing Scripture...without committing yourself to particular details...” (05:20, Greg Koukl)
• “This is a kind of hyperbole...Jesus reconciled everything that needed reconciliation. Every single thing was resolved through Christ—whether on the ground or in the sky or wherever.” (08:50, Greg)
• “When you find these hidden meanings in things, that’s kind of an occultic view of Scripture.” (19:01, Greg)
• “If it’s growing, it must be alive…So whatever’s in there is alive…What is it that’s growing, that’s alive?…Do a DNA test…It isn’t Mom’s body. It is in Mom’s body, but it isn’t Mom’s body.” (28:14, Greg)
• “What they need is Christ...I want people to come to Christ. And my expectation is, once they have a genuine conversion to Christ, that church will come along with it.” (41:52, Greg)
• “There has never been a moment in my entire life…where I have ever loved God with my whole heart, mind, soul and strength.” (44:32, Greg)
• “What I want to know is why they came to that conclusion. So I am looking at the reasons for the claim.” (49:58, Greg)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:04 — Revisiting “infallibility” versus “inerrancy”
• 07:35 — Anthony’s question: Colossians 1:20—what is reconciled in heaven?
• 16:51 — Caitlin on biblical numerology
• 24:30 — Joseph on abortion dialogue strategy
• 38:16 — Nathan: reaching those with “no need” for God
• 46:59 — Caleb on “fallacy of reification” and interpreting evidence

Tone and Language

Greg’s style remains clear, patient, and accessible. He combines precise theological reasoning with practical, relatable analogies. The tone is friendly, direct, gracious, and occasionally sprinkled with dry humor—aiming always to help Christians reason well and charitably.

Bottom Line

This episode tackles deep questions of biblical interpretation, apologetics, and engaging others thoughtfully. Greg Koukl offers clear, step-by-step ways to think through theological nuances (like Colossians 1:20), constructively address disagreed worldviews, and avoid the twin pitfalls of mystical speculation and careless argumentation.

Ideal for anyone seeking to sharpen their understanding or have more fruitful faith conversations.