What Things in Heaven Were Reconciled to God on the Cross?

Summary

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.

Transcript

[A]

SA okay, friends, thank you for joining me today. I'm reflecting a little bit on some of the responses that I received from my more recent Was it last week's podcast where I talked about the difference between infallibility and inerrancy? And, you know, I'm scratching my head at some of these responses. I have them in front of me. I'm not going to necessarily read them, but it's clear to me that there's been some misunderstanding. Okay, so let me repeat what I said last week with a hope of clearing up any confusion. What I mentioned last week was that given these words that are applied are used to describe Scripture as a high view of Scripture, okay, A low view is it's man's writings and that's it. A high view entails God's involvement with it in some significant way. And I said, given that there are two words that are used to describe it and are distinguished from each other, and those words are infallibility and inerrancy. Now, I made the point that many people use those words interchangeably, and I have no trouble with that because they generally mean the same thing when they use them. And what they mean is a very high view of Scripture. What I would call now inerrancy. But when you think about those words infallible and inerrant, you think about the linguistics of it, the those aren't exactly the same. And it does seem like infallible would be the stronger word than inerrant. If we say that something is inerrant, then we mean it has no errors. And I've done lots of things that didn't have any errors of one sort or another, depending on the frame of reference you have. But to say something is infallible or maybe someone or some text means it's not capable of errors. So it might be inerrant because it's not capable. So on a linguistic basis, the infallible is the stronger word. Something could be inerrant, as it turns out, but it may have been different. But if something is an infallible source, that means there is no chance it could ever make a mistake. I understand that distinction. And taken on a linguistic basis, infallible would be the stronger word. But that isn't the way theologians use these words. The way theologians use the word infallible is the weaker of the two words. Inerrancy is the stronger one. And the way I care, infallibility is a way of kind of characterizing Scripture. It's a way of offering a high view of Scripture without Committing yourself to particular details that some people think are mistaken, like history and science. It's a way of saying, well, look it, the things that really matter about the Bible is the theology and the morality. So in theology, in ethics and practice, how we live our lives, all of that stuff, the Bible has no errors. Now, it may err in other areas that are inconsequential to what they just mentioned, faith and practice, but maybe they get their science wrong, they get their history wrong. There might be a lot of mistakes, but those are not relevant to the core theological material. That is called infallibility. And I think that is the Fuller Seminary standard. Infallibility is associated with Fuller Seminary. Okay, but it's not the strongest word. Inerrancy goes way beyond that. Inerrancy says that the Bible is reliable in those areas that infallibility affirms reliability in. But it goes beyond that and says there are no errors in anything that the Scripture affirms to be true. Now, look, I understand that there have been changes in manuscripts since then. This is an assessment of. Of the original words. The originals are inerrant, and we have ways of reconstructing the original with a high degree of confidence. Okay, it's another issue. All right, Some people think, what about spelling errors? Well, in a certain sense, there is no such thing as a spelling error. What do you mean? Because there weren't any standards of spelling back then. People spelled things in different ways. If you read Old English, you get all kinds of weird spelling of things. Things. Spelling gets standardized later. And so if there's a difference in spelling, it's not an error, it's just a difference. People maybe spelled things phonetically. Okay? In any event, that's the distinction that I was making. I wasn't even arguing, actually, for one or the other. I was just trying to help folks understand the different ways these terms are used. Okay? Now, I am an inerrantist. In other words, I think the Bible is God's word. And if God's word and God can't err, then his Word can't err. Now, that's a pretty straightforward kind of syllogism, and I think it works. Now, of course, that depends on the first claim, and that is the first premise that the Bible is God's word. But for those of you who think it is God's word, God has spoken through this Scripture, well, then it can't make a mistake because God himself is not capable of errors. The only errors we might see is in textual amendations or changes or Additions or omissions that happen over time. But we're not making claims about what man did to manuscripts. We're making claims about the thing itself, the original. All right. And insofar as we're able to, with a high degree of confidence, reconstruct the original, then that is going to also carry with it the quality of inerrancy. All right. Not just infallibility, which is the weaker standard in my view, but also inerrancy, which theologically is the stronger word. Okay. That's all I was saying. So hope that clears up whatever confusion some might have had based on. On what I said. And if not, well, so be it. So let's go to the calls, and Anthony in North Dakota is first. Anthony, welcome to the show.

[B]

Hi there, Greg.

[A]

Hi there.

[B]

Happy to be here.

[A]

Pardon me?

[B]

Happy to be here. Thank you for taking my call.

[A]

I thought you said happy New Year. I said wait. We're way past that. Okay, I'm glad you're happy to be here. Good. Welcome.

[B]

Yeah. So I'll just jump in with my question. This is about Colossians, chapter one, and I guess verse 20, but maybe 19 and 20 just to kind of complete the sentence.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

So my question is what things in heaven might have been reconciled to God by making peace through Jesus the blood? I've got, like, three options I'm coming up with, but I wanted to see what you think of what he's referring to there.

[A]

Yes. I have never been asked this question before. I've never even thought about it. But I did notice here in my NASB translation that the word heaven has a footnote. When I looked over at the edge, it says this. And maybe. I don't know if you know this or if it will inform your own possibilities, but it says literally the heavens. So what it says literally is that made peace through the blood of the cross, through Him. I say whether things on earth or things in the heavens. Okay, so if that's the right translation, if it really means in the heavens and not in heaven, that is the abode of God himself, which is often the way we think of it, although it's odd because God doesn't have a place to live because he's everywhere kind of thing, it's a little bit of an odd way of characterizing it. But nevertheless, it's not heaven, but the heavens. And if that's appropriate, which I think it is, then this is a kind of hyperbole, which is exaggeration for the sake of impact. Okay. 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. However Jesus did it, I think that's the sense of it. I don't know of anything in heaven, if we're talking about, in a sense, the abode of God that needs to be reconciled. Unless it's the Father himself where we need to be reconciled with Him. And if you were to read it, heaven in that sense, that could be what he's making reference to, that we are reconciled with Him. And there are lots of places that talk about that. That's what the concept of propitiation entails. It's satisfaction. But God's wrath and justice is satisfied so we can be reconciled with Him. So their reconciliation is a really important part of the work of the cross. I'm thinking of Romans 5, where Paul says, no, I'm trying to get it started. But he's talking about that basically God is not mad at us anymore because of Christ. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through Christ, of course, through whom we have received. The introduction into the faith in which we stand is the way it goes. The point is now we are not at war with him, but through the cross, the grace of God that we obtain through our trust in him, our faith. Now we are in good standing with God. So it could be referring to that. My suspicion is it's hyperbole, though. He's just talking about everything. What do you think?

[B]

That's an interesting take. I did not think about the hyperbolic language kind of approach. I'll have to think on that a little more. I was thinking. I don't know. The three options I was thinking of were, okay, well, spiritual beings, you know, it sounds like, on the face of it, sounds like they're being reconciled to God somehow. Maybe fallen spiritual beings, beings in heaven.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know what spiritual beings that would be. You'd have to take another step and say, well, okay, theoretically, in heaven there are spiritual beings which spiritual beings in heaven, God's abode, need to be reconciled with God. I don't know. Okay, so that takes us to number two. Yeah.

[B]

And so the number two, I was thinking, okay, well, maybe it's just a reference to spiritual beings being judged somehow. Not like they're being redeemed or forgiven or anything, but just like things are being set straight or something. Okay, the third one I thought, and I probably get this more from listening to Michael Heiser, a little bit more like we in him or in Christ, reconstitute some form of spiritual or heavenly authority somehow.

[A]

Well, Mike, go ahead. Yeah.

[B]

What do you think?

[A]

Well, Mike Heiser's theology aside, I don't think that this is speaking to that. And I just noticed something else in this, the larger pericope, like the paragraph, so to speak. So let's start in verse 17. He is before all things. Notice the phrase all things. And in him all things hold together. He's also the head of the body, the church. He's the beginning, the firstborn from the dead. So that he himself will have first place in everything. For it's the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him. So there's a reference now to Jesus, divine nature. He's before all things, in him, all things hold together. And then jump to verse 20 and through him reconciling all things to himself. And that's where your phrase things on earth or things in heaven. This to me strengthens the idea that the phrase in question is hyperbolic. It's just another way of saying all things, which he uses the phrase all things three times, once in verse. Oh no, hear it in verse 16 also. I should turn the page. Maybe it's even before then in verse 16. For by him all things were created. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Verse 17, that's the third reference. And verse 20 again, to reconcile all things to himself. That's the fourth use of the phrase all things inside of what, four verses? And so when it says whether things on heaven or things, or rather on earth or things in heaven. So he's just kind of fleshing out the all things, all things, all things, whether on earth or on heaven. All things, all things, all things. That's the way I would take it now. And I think the other ones are, you know, interesting, but it, given that now, a little bit fanciful.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

But I never thought about it before.

[B]

So I really haven't either. And it just is like I had to slow it stop for a second. I'm like, wait a second, what in heaven is he talking about?

[A]

Yes, right. But notice that at least the way I kind of worked out this response for you, the. The interpretation, if you will, is that I expanded my look and I just saw what I thought was a pattern, a certain rhythm. And then this statement that at first seems to be problematic seems to fall into step with that rhythm and there's no problem anymore, at least not for me.

[B]

Yeah, I see what you mean there. It's like an all encompassing kind of language.

[A]

Sure, all right. There we go. You satisfied?

[B]

Yeah. Thanks for giving me a piece of your mind.

[A]

Yeah, you're welcome. I appreciate your call. Let's go to Caitlin in West Virginia. Before I push your button, I just want to mention our phone number. 855-24-39975. That's 855-243-9975. If you're listening by Live Stream, you can call me live right now. I got another 45 minutes or so. No, yeah, about 45 minutes. There's room in the lines for you, 855-243-9975. And if you're not listening right now, you can call me when I am here. And that is characteristically on Tuesdays from 4 until 6pm Los Angeles time. Okay. That said, let's go. Go to Caitlin in West Virginia. Caitlin, hi.

[B]

Hi.

[A]

Hi there.

[B]

Hi.

[A]

Hi.

[B]

All right, so my question is, I've heard of, like, a lot of Bible believers and Christians talk about, like, numerology, like the number of perfection is seven. And when you see that, and it changes all these meanings in scripture. And I've always thought numerology is like a new age you kind of thing. So I was like, this is weird. So I don't know, is it. Is it a valid thing? Like, what are your thoughts on it?

[A]

Well, Caitlyn, that's a good question. And I have heard about this before. Other people have mentioned things. And I do know that there are certain numbers that are used in scripture to. Well, you put. It changes the meaning. I don't think it changes the meaning, but it maybe adds some significance. Like the number seven is considered to be used linguistically, or it is the number of perfection. Okay. You see 40 repeating itself. 40 years in the wilderness, 40 days in the wilderness for Jesus fasting, and 40 years in the wilderness where they're wandering in the book of Numbers. And so you see these numbers pop up that seem. Maybe the number 12 also seem to be used in very particular ways. So they might be communicating a certain kind of emphasis or a certain type of insight. But I do not believe that there's a hidden meaning in the numbers. Certainly it isn't changing the meaning of the text because of the number. The meaning of the text is based on the words, not on the numbers. And we just take it in a straightforward way. But when. That's why interpretation is a matter of looking at the words and not and the relationship to each other in a sentence, in sentences and paragraphs. Okay. When people start finding meanings, deeper meanings, hidden meanings in the numbers themselves and some of these books that go off on numerology in the Bible seem to do that to me. I haven't read those books because I'm not interested in that. I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it's sound. But I've noticed as I perused some of these things that they make a mountain out of a molehill or they make a big something out of a nothing. And the idea that they're hidden meanings, this is actually an occultic understanding. Actually, the word occult means hidden. And so 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. I think His Word is there for us to read and to understand. And there might be some things hard to understand. Even Peter says that in Paul's writings. And there may be some things that were meant principally for an audience at a particular point in time that don't have the same kind of application that for us now. Because the Scripture is given in history to a people in a circumstance. And we can maybe draw principles from Scriptures written to somebody else, but still we have to be careful how we do that, because it wasn't written to us. As one person put it, Scripture is not written to us. It's written to the recipients that are long dead. But it is written for us. And so we can glean important things from that material for ourselves and apply them in our life if we're careful how we do it. But numerology, no, that's a whole different matter.

[B]

I'm glad you said that, because I've been again, these people, they read the Bible and they inspired them, and they say something like that. And I'm like, some people in our church and stuff like that.

[A]

And I'm like, right.

[B]

They did a series on the parables of Jesus and they said it just changes so much of the parables. And I was like, I don't. That makes me uncomfortable.

[A]

Well, the problem with kind of mystical interpretations is there are no fences around that. When you're dealing with the grammar and word meanings, at least you have the possibilities constrained by the words and the functions of. And the standards of language. But when you're getting mystical, there are no standards at all. You can go anywhere with it. And of course that's dangerous because God gave His Word for a reason. We go to it to find out what it's saying, not going to it to find out in a certain sense what it means. To me, especially in a mystical sense, what matters is what it meant by the author to the people he was writing the text to. That's the critical question. And mysticism takes you right out of that game into something without any restraints at all. And that's why it's dangerous. Make sense?

[B]

Yes. Yes. Thank you so much.

[A]

All right, Caitlin, I appreciate your call.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Take care. All right, let's take a break and when I come back, we'll talk some more. Friends, if you like this broadcast, I know you'll love Strask. It's our shorter 20 minute podcast where I am paired with the wonderful Amy hall, and together we answer the questions you send us on Twitter. Strask is released twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays, and it's only about 20 minutes long, so it's perfect to listen to on your morning jog or while driving around running errands or cleaning your garage, or just plain loafing at home. Amy and I tackle your questions on theology and ethics and culture and lots more, offering our insight on the questions you're asking or the challenges you face. You can listen on Apple podcasts or wherever you download your own shows. Just remember, send us your questions on Twitter using the name of the podcast. Strask. That's Strsk.

[C]

As a high school teacher, I always had a red pen close at hand. When I wasn't in front of my students teaching a lesson, you could find me assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluating exams. The red pen played a crucial role in the educational development of my students. With it, I questioned their assumptions, exposed their errors, and challenged them to think critically. You see, a good teacher doesn't merely tell his students that they're wrong. A good teacher shows his students why they're wrong so they don't make the same mistakes twice. He corrects because he cares. Last year, I was scrolling through social media and frankly, I was discouraged at all the bad thinking that undergirded much of what I was reading. Then it hit me. What if someone applied the red pen to this flawed thinking? And Red pen logic with Mr. B was born. In the last few months, Red Pen Logic has grown in popularity through our engaging and shareable educational graphics and videos. We are helping people, especially young people, assess bad thinking by using good thinking. And we have a lot of fun in the process. So here's your homework assignment, like the Red Pen Logic Facebook page so you don't miss our next graphic. And subscribe at the red Pen Logic YouTube channel so you don't miss a single video class Dismissed.

[A]

All right, let's go to some open mic calls, those calls that you leave for us. And then I. When I can get to them, I do get to them, and now is the time. So we have Joseph here about. It's a question about the unborn. Joseph, what's on your mind? Okay. He's getting queued up here about dealing with unborn human beings and people that sometimes when they talk about this, aren't easily persuadable. How we doing? We. Okay. All right, hit the button. We'll go.

[D]

Hey, Greg, I just want to say God bless you guys and I'm so grateful for all the work that you guys do. You guys have had a tremendous impact on.

[A]

On what did we lose Joseph? There he is. Today's one of those days.

[D]

Hey, Greg. I just want to say God bless you guys and I'm so grateful for all the work that you guys do. You guys have had a tremendous impact on my life. And I just cannot. I can't put into words how much I appreciate the work that you guys do. I read all your books and they've been just a tremendous help to me and I'm truly grateful.

[A]

You're welcome.

[D]

I've called because to me, the most important issue is the issue of abortion. I strongly believe that that is the most important civil rights issue of our time. And I was wondering if. Because whenever I have. Whenever I have a discussion with a pro abortion individual, I was wondering if this is a good approach before any conversation can be had. I always try to establish the fact that the unborn is fully human from conception. I always try to place that fact on the table. And you know, I go through the scientific and biological facts that clearly show life begins at conception. And I just ask that the individual acknowledge those facts that are irrefutable and so we can work off those facts. I feel as if once they acknowledge the biological and scientific reality that life begins at conception, now they're going to have to use whatever argument they're using to justify terminating the life of an unborn child by to also terminating a born child. Since there's no essential difference between the two regarding their humanity, both are fully human, no different, and all the other differences are just superficial and have no bearing on their humanity. And I feel as if, since those are. Since it is an irrefutable fact, if the individual is not willing to acknowledge that reality that life begins at conception, then, you know, right off the bat that they're either not serious, governed by ideology, or just, you know, just too deeply Indoctrinated. And you can't really have a discussion with them in good faith if they're not willing to acknowledge that. I was wondering if that's a good approach. Thanks.

[A]

Yeah, thank you, Joseph. And I appreciate the kind words too. And we're so glad that we can be of help to you. And I hope this response will help you too. I think the mistake. It's the right approach, but I think you have to make it more granular. You got to break it down into smaller steps because once you can. Once a person affirms that the unborn is a human being, you're right. It makes it more difficult for them to say abortion is okay, but infanticide is not because the only difference between the two is location. And location in the womb or outside of the womb is morally trivial. Okay? So the difficulty is getting them to affirm the unborns clearly and obviously and unequivocally human. And I suggest you can't assert that and help them or get them to agree. You've got to ask a series of questions. In this case, these questions have all have common sense answers to them, but each is a step to the next and brings you to the point of affirming by necessity that the unborn is a human being, an innocent human being, if you want to add that. But that would be obvious by the nature of the case. All right. And what we're trying to do is establish the one question or the answer to the one question that matters. And that is, what is the unborn? What is it? Okay, now first question is there's something inside of mom that somebody wants to take out through abortion. What is that? Oh, I don't know. Well, let's just ask a few questions. Is it alive? Well, nobody knows when life begins. This is the rejoinder to which I respond. Okay, let me put it differently. Is it growing? Well, if it's growing, it must be alive, because the only things that grow that aren't alive are like crystals and stalagmites and stalactites and stuff like that. So certainly have biological growth. Okay? If it's growing, it's alive. Duh. Pretty straightforward. So whatever's in there is alive. And by the way, that is the problem, isn't it? It's growing and it's growing bigger and bigger and becoming therefore a bigger and bigger problem. And we need to act, they think, as quickly as possible to remove the thing that's growing so it doesn't grow in there anymore. Okay? So now whatever that thing is, we know it's alive. It is biologically alive. Okay, now what is it that's growing, that's alive? Well, it's part of the mother's body, really. If we wanted it, if we found some human material at a crime scene and we wanted to know the body that it came from, how do we find that out? We do a DNA test. So if we did a DNA test on the thing that was growing and alive in Mom's body, would the DNA test show us that that thing growing was the same body or body material as the mother? Well, the answer is no, obviously, because the mom has a different set of DNA than the child does. Okay. Or let me put it this way, not to get ahead of myself. The thing growing inside of mom, it's not going to have the same DNA. So if it does not have the same DNA, then it isn't Mom's body. Is it in Mom's body? Yes, but it isn't Mom's body. It is in, but not is. So it is something foreign in a certain fashion. That is not Mom's body growing inside of Mom's body. Okay, then great. Then what kind of thing? What kind of separate thing? We had two things. It's alive and it's separate from Mom's body. Then what kind of separate thing is it? And back to the DNA. You look at the DNA of the thing growing there, and the DNA is human. It's human DNA, but it doesn't match Mom's human DNA. It has half of Mom's human DNA because it's Mom's offspring. Now we know it's Mom's offspring. That's not the question we're answering. We're asking the question, what kind of thing is it? And now we know that it is a separate individual, living, growing human being. By the way, that's all science. It's not religion. Now, that's unequivocal. And it's also based. And you don't need to go through the DNA stuff because it's really obvious to everyone concerned that the thing growing is Mom's offspring. And the fact is that all creatures reproduce after their own kind. So dogs have puppies and cats have kittens. And it isn't like a big surprise, you know, Mom's pregnant again. Sixth time. Wonder what it's going to be. She gives birth to a human child. Oh, my goodness. Six in the row. Human being. What are the chances? I mean, obviously the unborn is a living, growing human being. I don't know how anyone can take exception with that. That line of thinking and the way I've offered it, even though I've compressed it a little bit for the show here, the way I've offered it is in a series of questions that all have common sense answers that lead to the common sense conclusion that that which is growing inside of mom's body is her offspring, her human offspring. Now, you can call it whatever you want. A fetus, a zygote, a baby. You know, a lot of people don't like the baby language because it sounds too human. But no matter what stage of development it's at, it's human. It's a human in the zygote stage, or a human in the fetal stage, or a human in the almost ready to deliver stage. But it's still human. I know people will say, well, look at it, acorns on an oak. Yes it is. No, it's a seed. Okay, what kind of seed? It's an oak seed. So it's an oak in the seed form or at the seed stage of growth. And a sapling is an oak in the sapling stage, and the full grown oak is an oak in the mature stage. But there are oaks all throughout. And all that points out, or all that signifies, indicates is that living things change as that living thing grows. And so you can be a zygote, you can be a fetus, you could be a newborn, you could be a toddler, you could be a youngster, you could be a teenager, you could be a young adult, you can be a little guy. But they're human all throughout. That doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the individual growing. And we have different words that describe the level of development, but those are arbitrary. There is no such thing as a fetus in itself. Well, that is a fetus. Then it becomes something else. No, it's always itself. And the itself that it is is a living, growing human being. I just was going to toss invaluable, but now there's a judgment that's made there. We don't need that. It seems pretty obvious that it's not appropriate to arbitrarily take the life of. Let me back up and get rid of arbitrarily take the life of a human being. For the reasons people give to justify abortions, that's the best way to do it. So I hope that helps, Joseph. And if your friend, if you get them to this point and they're willing to acknowledge it, and I've had people say this too, I know it's a human being, but I don't care. In fact, I. I used to say this when I was in college back in the early 70s, and I got in discussions with people. I was pro abortion because of the convenience. You make a problem, you get rid of the problem. But I wasn't willing to engage any meaningful discussions about the humanity because I just said, well, if it is a human being, so what? That doesn't change anything. Now when people tell me that, I remember a young man who was there with his girlfriend saying that I don't care if it's a real human being. I still think it's okay to kill it. And I looked at his girlfriend, I said, did you just hear what your boyfriend said? You guys plan to have children. This is his view. It's a bit bizarre when you think about it. Any event, there you go. I hope that's helpful. And that line of thinking I have written about in a number of places, but most recently in the book Street Smarts, you said you have things that I've written, so you might want to check. Street Smarts, I think it's the first of two chapters on abortion where I go through those details and in fact I have a sample conversation like I just offered you. So that's all there if you want that. So thank you for your call, Joseph. Let's hear from Nathan. We got that. Okay, we're ready with Nathan. What's up? Hi, Greg, this is Nathan from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I first wanted to say that I am a strategic partner and your ministry has meant so much to my faith and has given me so much more confidence in sharing it with others. So thank you and your entire team for that. My question has to do with speaking with people who don't feel they need God. So a little background. I'm a physician, so I work with many people who are well off. They feel they are good people, culturally speaking. So I do find it challenging at times talking with them about church and Christianity in general because they think they don't need church or need God. So how do you approach these types of people and these kinds of objections? Thanks again for your ministry and for your advice. Well, thank you, Dr. Melton. Dr. Nathan, I should say. And yes, I've encountered this more than I like and it's very frustrating. It is interesting though that you're a doctor because that puts you in a, in a beneficial place for another line of, of conversation and see where it goes. Because what I wrote down in my notes here is before, you know, I knew we were bringing you on or entertaining your Question is this question, do you need a doctor? Oh, I don't need God. Do you need a doctor? Now, you can ask them that because you are a doctor. And if you're talking to them there, wherever you know, where you do business, they're there for a reason. Do you need a doctor? No, I don't need a doctor. How do you know? You see, doctors are there for a reason. They're there to help you deal with a health problem, usually. And that the doctor presumes that there's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Now, I think what is going on with people in a circumstance like you've just described, Nathan, is they are not thinking about the God question like an insulin kind of question, but an ice cream kind of question. They are thinking, what are things I could add to my life to help me feel more satisfied. They think, well, I'm pretty satisfied. I don't need God. I'm plenty satisfied. I certainly don't need church. That messes with my schedule. Now, by the way, you mentioned church twice, Nathan. I don't bring church into the equation when I talk about people because they don't need church. What they need is Christ. Okay? So once you bring church into the conversation, you are introducing a factor or a detail that they maybe object to for different reasons, bad experiences or whatever it is. So the deal is in the church. Now, sometimes if you're in the south, you can talk that way and people will get away with that. But I just characteristically, I don't think it's a good idea. I don't want people to come to church. There's plenty of people in church that don't know 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, because that's part of the package, the practical part of the package. So I wouldn't even bring the church thing up. But when people say I don't need God, it's because they don't have a felt need. Their felt needs are being satisfied in other ways until they're not satisfied. And then sometimes it's a crisis that helps them to realize the need that they always had. I do not want somebody entertaining Christ because in the moment they're feeling the need because of some tragedy in their life. And then when their need gets met or that issue gets resolved, then they go on with their life without Christ. Okay, I mean, lots of people as foxhole Christians, right? And okay, not in the foxhole anymore, don't need. The thing I felt like I needed when I was in the foxhole. What the foxhole often does is, and this would be the value of it, is it helps people see the need they always had. And that's what we're after. So as a doctor, maybe when a person says, well, I don't need God, you can say, well, do you need a doctor? Well, no. Well, how do you know? The only way you could know that you don't need a doctor is if you know that you're completely healthy. But of course, there are. There are things like silent tumors. I mean, I have a friend that maybe a year ago went to the doctor, got a little assessment and found out, I think he found out that he had bone cancer or some problem with bone. And if he didn't get a successful bone marrow transfusion within a week or so, he'd be dead. It was like he's feeling fine. All of a sudden, he finds out he's not fine and he's on the brink of death. Now, thankfully, that all worked out, but it doesn't for everybody. My understanding is the first sign for the majority of people that they're going to have a heart attack. This first sign of a heart attack is instant death. That's the sign. Too late. You never know. Now you might know if you have a thorough examination and all the proper tests are taken and the doctor says, you got a clean bill of health. But in our case, as human beings, the need that we have isn't always a felt need. The fact is, we are broken. And when we look, when we get the advice from someone who knows about it, like a doctor, for example, in physical health, we find out that we're not as healthy as we thought. This is one of the values of the Ten Commandments, say, or any moral code that's a sound one or accurate one. Biblical code. Jesus said, here's the two greatest commandments, all the laws included in these two great commandments. If you fulfill these two great commandments, you don't have to worry about the others. What are they? Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. And remember, the parable of the Good Samaritan was told in the context of this discussion about the great commandments. Because the person who Jesus was talking to when he gave that parable said, who is my neighbor? And the text identifies why he said that, because he was seeking to justify himself. Oh, I think I got the God thing down, but what about my neighbor thing? And so Jesus essentially Says, okay, your neighbor that you have to love as yourself is your worst enemy. It's the person you despise the most. Okay, how are you doing on that one? And you see, this is the point of the two great commandments. Jesus just sums it all up to show that we cannot keep what God requires, even when it's reduced to the two basic ones. 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. I mean, I'm so far from that, it's almost laughable. But that's not the criteria in which I'm being judged by. I'm being judged by the fact that I am in Christ. There have been a few times that maybe I've selflessly loved my neighbor, even an enemy, not many. But what God requires is consistency. And that means, spiritually, I am sick. And I need the kind of help that the healer, the great healer can give the spiritual healer. So, look, I understand, Nathan, the frustration with this kind of person. Sometimes it's hard to rock them out of their kind of ice cream mentality when it comes to religion or church or spiritual things. Yeah, I'm doing fine. Don't need that. They're thinking about it in the wrong way because you're not asking them if they want a flavor, if they want to feel better. You're asking them about their spiritual condition. And the best way to give an accurate picture of the spiritual condition condition is to have them look into a mirror that reflects their brokenness. And that mirror is the law. So there you go. I hope that helps, Nathan. Let's see. I have another question here. How about Caleb? Yeah, Caleb, AKA the guy who calls in a lot. Okay, you found it. All right, let's hear from Caleb.

[E]

Hello, Mr. Kalkel, my name is Caleb and I am from Ohio. I've called in before, and so I have a question about fallacies, a specific fallacy only, actually. And so I've been learning about fallacies, and I had a question about the fallacy of reification. So the fallacy of reification states that it's committed when you apply concrete characteristics to something that is abstract. An example of this would be if we were to say something is true because science says so. Or if you were to say the evidence says that this is true. That would be the fallacy of reification, because science can't say anything and evidence can't say anything either. So my question is, how would you respond to somebody? And if a person Said this, I feel like it would probably likely come from agnostic. But how would you respond to somebody who says, how could we know? Or like, we can't know what is true because everyone is just interpreting the evidence biasly based off of what they want to be true. So they are interpreting the evidence. It's just everybody's interpretation. And so how do you respond to somebody is like, we can't know what is true because it's just everyone's interpretation. That's my question. I try to put it in the clearest way possible. Thank you for answering this and God bless.

[A]

Okay, thanks, Caleb. Greg Kokel, by the way, and the words reification, and that means to take an abstract thing and make it concrete. So if you reify an abstract concept, you are helping people to understand what you're talking about. Okay, so it's a totally legitimate way of communicating to take something that is not so tangible and make it more tangible. That's called reifying it. Okay, now I never heard that there was a fallacy of reification. I never heard that maybe there is, but it doesn't strike me that that's what's going on when somebody says the evidence says this or the science says this. I follow your point. When you say that evidence doesn't say anything, science doesn't say anything. But I think it's a manner of speaking. When we say science says or the evidence says, those are basically the same thing. We're saying that there is a conclusion that is properly drawn from the things that we know. And here are people who are scientists and they've studied and they've drawn certain conclusions based on evidence, and the conclusions are this. Okay, now I don't have any difficulty with that process. I don't think that's a fallacy, not on the face of it. Now, it might be a fallacy of expert witness if you're just simply citing, here's the expert. The scientist says so. So it must be right. Okay, now in the tactics book, I talk about a tactic called Rhodes Scholar. And that's the tactic you apply when you have a circumstance like an expert witness or science says or the evidence says or whatever. And that is you don't take the conclusion just because somebody says that somebody says, just because a person says this is what scientists say. Just because a person says this is what the evidence reveals. That's not enough. You have to take it a step further. When you have a. A trial where an expert witness is called in to testify, they give their expertise under oath as testimony. In the trial. But they don't get up and leave. After they do that, there's a next step. And the next step is called cross examination. That is a hostile witness now, so to speak, comes in to challenge the so called expert witness in order to determine whether the expert witness got it right. And that's what we need to do. That's the Rhodes scholar tactic, is we are trying to figure out, okay, that's what they say. I get it. Science says this. All right, what I want to know is not what science says, that is the conclusions that scientists have come to. That's what that means. But rather I want to know why they came to that conclusion. So I am looking at the reasons for the claim. That's the second step of the tactical game plan. I am not personally troubled, Caleb, by somebody saying, well, this is what it says or this is science. I don't mean maybe that's a fallacy of reification. It doesn't seem to be problematic. So I'm going to ask the question, okay, what is is the evidence for this apparent conclusion? The evidence says, really, what is that evidence? Science says, okay, what are their reasons? And that's what I'm going to be looking at and that's what I'm going to assess. Now, if it turns out that there is an illicit appeal to authority, then you do have a fallacy. The fallacy of authority, I guess, or whatever they call that. But that's only because I've come to the conclusion that the authority is not speaking accurately or soundly on the issue. And I can only determine that by looking at the rationale that's involved. So that would be my recommendation. Okay. I wouldn't worry in this particular case about the so called fallacy of reification. I actually don't even understand. Even if you explained it, it's not even clear to me what could be fallacious about that. Applying concrete characteristics to something that's abstract. If you're actually trying to characterize the abstract, I've got to find a different way to say it. If you're actually trying to assert that something abstract has concrete qualities, well then it's just a mistake. And that's called a category error. That's like saying, what is the sound of the color blue? Well, sounds are physical, but blue doesn't make sounds. The color doesn't. That's a category error. So maybe that's also an example of the fallacy of reification. But the bigger issue, and it's easier just to ask the reasons why people hold the views they do and then take it from there. That's what I would suggest. Now, I just have a few minutes here, but I want to say something about fallacies in general. You can get books on fallacies. I have one called the Fallacy Detective. It's actually made for kids, middle schoolers or whatever, so they can learn how to think better. And I'm glad that books like that exist. But they're really only about three or four fallacies that most people need to be concerned with. Okay? Because these are the ones that are the favorite of people in our culture right now who have bad ideas or attack good ideas for the wrong reasons. Okay? And the first one is ad hominem. Now, that's just a fancy Latin word for to the man. Ad hominem. To the man. And what that means is instead of dealing with the. The issue, people instead change the subject and they attack the person, okay? They attack the individual who's speaking. So if I say same sex marriage is wrong and then somebody says you're just filled with hate, that's a hateful response. Or something to that effect. Notice how they change the topic. Instead of asking me why I think it's wrong, or dealing with the reasons, I maybe give them why I think it's a wrong thing to do, it's not good for society, it's morally wrong or whatever it is. Instead, they just turn to me, they take their gaze off of the issue, and they come to attack me personally to the man ad hominem. So they just are engaging in unhelpful name calling. And I heard somebody say, maybe it was Rush Limbaugh many years ago said that name calling is not an argument. Oh, no. He said ridicule is the way he put it, which is another form of name calling. Ridicule is not an argument. You can make fun of somebody all day long, you can call them all kinds of names, but you are not addressing the thing that needs to be addressed, and that is the issue itself. You cannot defeat an argument by addressing something else. But this happens all the time. It is the most most common way of addressing challenges in our culture today, and that is by name calling. Ad hominem. Here's another one. Just got a minute or so. And that's called the genetic fallacy. Now, this is faulting a view based on its origin. By the way, the claim that, that the only reason you say same sex marriage is wrong is because you're hating, you're hateful. That is an ad hominem. But it's also an example of this, that it's your hate that causes you to believe that therefore it's wrong because it's motivated by hate. Well, it's not even an accurate statement, first of all. But it's irrelevant if it were. Can a person who's hateful still have a correct view on something? Atheists will say, well, you're a Christian because you were born in America. If you were born in India, you wouldn't be a Christian, ma'. Am. You're probably right. But if he was born in India, he wouldn't be an atheist. See, that's the genetic fallacy, faulting the idea based on its origin. Or pro choicers will say, well, you're a man. Well, last time I checked, yes. How is that relevant to whether abortion is right or wrong? It's not relevant. It's a distraction. They call these things red herrings. Red herring is a fish they drag across the trail when bloodhounds are trying to follow a scent and they get distracted by it. All of these are another type of fallacy of red herring. Anyway, there you go. Couple of thoughts. Hopefully will help you. Greg Koukl here for Stan A reason. Give him heaven, friends. Bye bye.

[B]

Sam.