← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
Tiffany
Sa.
- [00:29]
Greg Kokel
All right, friends, welcome to Stand A Reason. It's Craig Kokel here. I love that bird, though. It's not a bird, as many of you know. It's me sounding like a bird. But it's been part of our show since the KBRT days, and that was, like, 30 years ago, I think. I think this year is 30. This is my 37th year, 1990-26. Man, I'm old. I'm amazed that I'm still behind this microphone, but glad to do it, and I'm glad you're with us. By the way, today begins the first official week of our Be One of the 100 campaign that I talked with you about last week. And today I am formally extending our invitation to you to join our financial support community as a strategic partner. Now, one of the cool things of being part of STR is occasionally getting to hear how God has used this work in someone's life. And typically, most of the time, we don't get to see or hear about what happens in someone's life years later because of our efforts and many of your examples of that. Occasionally people will talk to us and say some things that have happened, but most of the good things we won't know until, you know, eternity kind of thing. But every once in a while, we get a glimpse. And that's exactly what happened with a young woman named Bridget. Let me tell you about her. She attended one of our Reality conferences as a high school student, and Megan Allman's talk on advocating for the unborn had a really profound influence on her. But the biblical worldview training that Bridget received at Reality didn't stay in the classroom. It moved her to action, and she became involved in sidewalk counseling and later traveled to college campuses, engaging students in conversations about abortion, and eventually returned to Seattle, where she started her own sidewalk counseling ministry outside of abortion clinics. And now there's a video on our website that you can watch where Bridget shares how she is in her words, seeing children saved through the work that she's doing now. Her story is a really great reminder that one person is reached with the truth. And when that happens and she's equipped to live it out, God can use that one life to reach many others. I guess they call it paying it forward. Right. And that's what Bridget's been doing. That's really what Stan to recent has always been about. You know, the best compliment anyone could give me is to say, because of what you have done, Greg or the other team members stand to reason corporately in my life, I'M able to do these things in other people's lives. And, boy, that's fabulous. That's, like I said, the best compliment that I can receive. Because what we're doing is we're helping Christians to think more clearly about their biblical convictions so that they're prepared to engage the people and the culture around them. And we invest in people. You know, a lot of organizations would say, okay, we're giving money to you, but how much is going to ministry as opposed to administration and that kind of stuff. And the answer, if someone asks me, is that it's all going to ministry. Because our core administration group, our content providers, our team is the whole thing that we do on your behalf. We're investing in people. We're trusting that God will use them in ways that we'll probably never see. And we rarely know where God will take someone after they've been reached and equipped. Through the show, through reality, through our other podcasts, through going to their churches, through red pen logic, RPO with Mr. B, there's all these ways that we are here to serve you. And it turns out Bridget's story actually gives us one of those rare opportunities to see where God can take a life that STR has had an influence on. Now, every August, we invite 100 new friends to become strategic partners. Pretty simple. We want you to be one of the 100. That's why we call this recruitment effort be one of the 100. Strategic partners are the financial lifeblood of Stand To Reason, and they commit to giving $25 or more. Some give a lot more every month. It's a monthly commitment. That's what makes you a partner. And for the month of August, we're looking for 100 new strategic partners, these faithful monthly partners who provide steady support that allows us to continue reaching and training and equipping Christians throughout the year, just like we've been doing right here on the show. As you listen for however long it is, it's kind of interesting. Some people say I've been listening a long time, three whole years. Just discovered you. And I went back and I listened to three years, and I'm thinking I got 30 years logged. Although not all of that's available. I'm glad for anyone listen to anything. But if you've ever thought about becoming a strategic partner, August is the time to join up. And I say join up because like at Kadri, you're soldiers. You're joining our troop, our battalion. And the strategic partners for Stand to Reason are making a huge difference. So here's how it works. Very simple. Just go to str.org partner str and just follow the prompts. Easy. Now, if you become a new strategic partner and you begin to give $25 a month or more, we're going to send you a copy of Made in Our Image by Stephen Driscoll as our way of saying thanks. And here's what Made Our Image is about. It's a Christian perspective on living with artificial intelligence. Now let's touch on something that everybody needs to know about. Right? It explores the biblical insights and practical tips for using AI technology while maintaining Christian values. And I hope you take a few minutes, just watch Bridget's story again. Str.org partner it's all there. And not only do I think you'll be encouraged by what God has done in her life, I hope you'll see what, in a certain sense, with God's help, obviously what we've done in her life. And if you become a strategic partner, then you will be part of that line of influence. So I hope you'll prayerfully consider becoming one of the 100. Str.org partner very simple. Str.org I'm sorry str.org we got that partner. So you can be one of the 100. Do it today. Okay. Just go there. Do it. We want you on the team. All right, let's take some open mic calls today. And I'm looking at the list here, Mr. Bearded Beast. And how about Tiffany? He has a question about Freemasonry. All right.
- [08:24]
Tiffany
Hi, Greg, Tiffany here with another question. Clearly I took seriously when you said you needed more.
- [08:30]
Greg Kokel
You did.
- [08:31]
Tiffany
Anyways, this is regarding Freemasonry or free the Freemasons. We have a church here in our area that was planted by a larger church and they planted this church with the pastor knowing that he, he was no longer an active member of the Freemasons, but he was still affiliated with them. And my question to you are just basically kind of what your thoughts are on that and then how we should personally come alongside our friends that we have that are attending this church or want to attend this church. Some I think are aware and they don't care. Others, I don't think they understand in my opinion how severe this is. This is a very big deal. Even to the point where if the pastor was to denounce it and no longer be. I still don't, I don't know if he should still be the pastor. Not saying he needs to leave that body, but that I don't, I don't know. Anyways, would like to hear what your thoughts are regarding this and how my husband and I can maybe come.
- [09:33]
Greg Kokel
Sure.
- [09:34]
Tiffany
Alongside our friends regarding this topic. Thanks so much.
- [09:40]
Greg Kokel
All right, Tiffany, thank you for that question. And there's a little bit of complexity here, but there isn't any complexity about the issue of Freemasonry itself. Now, this isn't something that I've done a deep dive into, but others have whose research I trust. In fact, I had my younger brother on the air and we did a whole, what, I don't know how long was it an hour interview or maybe half hour or whatever it was. But Dave was on Dave Koukl and had done a deep dive on this because he was engaged in conversation with somebody who thought that Freemasonry was somehow innocuous in its spiritual content or impact. And by the way, spiritual is the right word because Freemasonry has a spiritual element. And when I just say has, it isn't like. Like, as a side deal. The whole enterprise entails worldview notions and spiritual notions that are contrary to Christianity. Now, if there are people that had been Freemasons, then became Christians, and then. Okay, they're not doing that anymore. Well, that's right. That's leaving an enterprise or a belief system or an organization that advances a worldview that is inconsistent with Christianity now. It's not just a bunch of guys hanging out, being buddies. It isn't like the Elks or some of these other fraternal organizations, those who are involved. And maybe, by the way, when people get around at the very first level, it looks kind of innocuous, but it isn't. And if you're careful to go to some Christian sources that have done research on this, and I'm sorry that right off the cuff, I can't recommend a particular source, but it shouldn't be hard to find it with the Internet. Or you could go back and, I don't know, find the interview and maybe Amy has access to the information and can put it in the show notes. But when you could listen to what my brother Dave had to say. And that is a fairly thorough analysis. What, I mean, thorough. It could go a lot deeper, but it's adequate to see exactly what the nature of the organization of Freemasons is and those who belong are and what ultimately they're seeking to do, and especially on deeper levels, there's more of a requirement to be committed to their religious or spiritual objectives. Okay, so simply put, Freemasonry, bad from a spiritual perspective, nice people maybe doing good work in other areas, but the core of it is. Is at odds with the Christian worldview. And if you're a Christian, you should have nothing to do with it. Okay, that's the first part. That's the easier part. Now, what about in this situation? What would I advise regarding a church where the pastor is still affiliated with Freemasonry? Now, I don't know what that means. And this is a question that I would ask you, Tiffany, if we were chatting together. What's the nature of that affiliation? Now, in the Book of Acts? I can't tell you exactly where it is, but you can find it easily in Ephesus. I think that's where it was when the Gospel was preached and people readily engaged the gospel, they realized that they were committing themselves to a different worldview than they had had before. And by the way, that's what the word repentance means. It means a change of mind. It doesn't just mean turning from your sin. And unfortunately, though, turning from your sin is important. Unfortunately, it has gained that meaning in Christian thinking now that every time the word is repent is used in Scripture, that always means to stop sinning. Well, I'm over 50 years in Christ and I haven't repented like that yet. I haven't stopped sinning. I haven't turned from all my sin, or if I turn from it, I turn to it sometimes willfully and sometimes I'm not even thinking. And all of a sudden I'm doing what I shouldn't be doing or saying what I shouldn't be saying. And of course, I got to straighten that out with God. But nevertheless, repentance means metanoia, change of mind. And given the change of mind, it has a ramification in your actions. And so what happened to those in Ephesus who had been involved in occultic. In that case, occultic spiritual practices are those practices that were in enterprises that were clearly inconsistent with their repentance, their change of mind, their adopting of a different worldview that accurately reflected reality. What did they do? They took all of their books and paraphernalia and et cetera, and put it in a big pile and burned it. And I guess there were a lot of people because there were a lot of stuff that needed to be destroyed. Maybe they didn't have books back then. That's anachronistic. But they had stuff and all that stuff. Acts records, they destroyed. They put it behind them. It's gone. They are now walking anew. They have repented from that. Their mind has now changed. No, we don't need that stuff anymore. And it wasn't just a casual walking away in their case. They destroyed it. So in light of that, Tiffany, I think that if there is a pastor who was involved in Freemasonry and who is not actively involved, what he ought to do is cut every single tie that he has with Freemasonry. Leave it completely, get rid of all the Freemasonry stuff or the little badges or symbols or pins that they wear with the. They have a little icon that is displayed identifying them with Freemasonry. You don't want to be identified with something contrary to the truth of the gospel. And I think, as I recall, there may be some lip service that is given to God and Jesus in the Bible and Christianity or whatever. So at least initially, it sounds like there's no conflict, but when you probe deeper, you learn that there is conflict. And that's when you should say, nope, nothing. I'm not having anything to do with it. So in the case of this pastor, I think it's entirely appropriate for him to be asked to cut all ties with Freemasonry and get rid of all whatever paraphernalia, iconic pins that he has. You know, I wish I had the passage in Acts. You didn't know what it is. Bearded beast. Now, if Amy was here. Not here right now, but she'd. Yeah, right. She'd be right on it. But I can pretty much guarantee it'll be in the show notes. There was a lot of money that went up in smoke because the value of that pile of stuff was identified right in the book of Acts. So I don't do the math, but it was a lot of money and they didn't care because their allegiance was now with the Lord Jesus Christ. So it may be that the pastor in question needs to be informed and possibly with some detail. He might not know how deeply invested Freemasonry is in a spirituality that is contrary to Christianity. Maybe he needs to be told that. Now, my suspicion is, if he's a good pastor, a faithful Christian, why would he want any connection in any way with any group that that's like that? I don't know. So I'm just saying I think it's appropriate to say, hey, this ain't good. Now what if he says, oh, it's not a problem for me. I'm just going to leave it as it is? Well, that would be a problem for me, but I guess I'm equivocal right now. I'm not sure if that should disqualify him from pastoring. I guess if he says, I'm not willing to disconnect like I just suggested, I'd want to know why. Why would you want to in any sense, even informally maintain a connection with an organization that is. Look, if there's a guy who's a former Jehovah's Witness or maybe lds, and neither of those Christian like religions are Christian and the LDS is worse. And by the way, I'm not speaking of the people in either case. They're nice people. And in fact, it's hard to outlive some Mormon. They're great. But what they, what they teach and what they communicate, their doctrine, never mind the Book of Mormon, that's not the problem. That's not where the doctrine is at. The problem is with Doctrine of Covenants, Pearl Gay Price and those kind of things. If anybody's involved in those organizations and then becomes a real Christian, especially a pastor, why would they maintain an affiliation with those organizations whose teaching it ultimately is hostile to Christianity? I mean, I don't know why the comparison is not apt. It's not appropriate. I think it is appropriate. So if the pastor says, I'm not messing with that, I'm not going to quit. I'm not going to sever my ties and get rid of my. Then I would wonder, well, why not? And to me, that would be an issue. Now, just to be charitable and take the kind of. The charitable look, Tiffany, I'm thinking if he is the good man that he seems to be, though he's got this kind of thing in the closet a little bit that he's not pursuing, I'd like to think he would say, you know what? Good point. I never thought about that. I'm done. I'm. I'm cleaning house, whatever that entails. In this case, I no longer have any affiliation of any kind with Freemasonry. Now, he might mean he might talk to Freemasons and witness to them. I mean, that's not affiliation with the organization. That's affiliation with Christ as a kind of missionary of sorts to those people. But if he has a formal attachment to the organization so that he thinks he can witness to others, I have a problem with that. You can still witness even if you sever. And again, I'm going back to the Book of Acts and the Ephesians and how they destroyed all of those things and repented, that has changed their mind. So much so that all those other things that were part of their old beliefs now are not just left behind, so to speak. But destroyed. That's what they did. They burned them. All right, let's take a quick break here and we'll be back with more questions. But Tiffany, thanks for that. I hope my response was helpful.
- [22:33]
Amy Hall
Do you want to become a more knowledgeable Christian ambassador without sitting through a formal course on apologetics? Well, we've made that possible for you through our STR Quick Reference app. Available for free on itunes and Google Play, the STR Quick Reference app holds a wealth of information summarizing what you need to know on a range of topics. Learn how to defend the faith, see how other worldviews compare to Christianity, and master the biblical view of morality all through short, engaging videos. Before you know it, you'll be well versed on a number of important apologetics topics. In addition, the Quick Reference app also includes a Bible with text and audio, as well as some featured STR resources, all to enhance your learning experience. The STR Quick Reference app will equip you to engage in thoughtful conversation about the key issues of life from a classical Christian perspective. Visit itunes or the Google Play Store today and download the STR Quick Reference app. And if you enjoy the app, make sure you give it a five star review.
- [23:30]
Greg Kokel
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 Strask.
- [24:21]
Amy Hall
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.
- [25:55]
Greg Kokel
Once again, don't forget str.orgforward/partner to become one of our strategic partners this month. Be one of the 100 and we'll send you the book Made in our Image that's about a Christian perspective on living with AI. All right, more calls. More of our open mic calls. By the way, these are calls that people actually go online and leave their question. As you heard in the last segment from Tiffany, you can go to our homepage@str.org and look up the podcast. I think that's either at the top or a dropdown, something like that. And then under live broadcasts you'll see a prompt for mic open mic calls and then you can leave your questions. Now this time we want to hear from Chad. Okay? He has a question about circular reasoning. Hey Greg, this is Chad from Louisville, Kentucky. I have gotten fairly decent at recognizing some informal fallacies like genetic fallacies or self defeating statements. However, I seem to have an issue with recognizing circular reasoning and I really can't put my finger on the cause for that. I was wondering if you had any tips that may help me to recognize this fallacy. Love what you do, pray for your ministry. Thank you for everything. Been listening to you for years now and my wife and I are strategic partners. So keep up the good work and God bless. Thank you, Chad. By the way, just notice, just saying, boy, that happens a lot. People call in and say, hey, we love what you're doing, we learn a lot and we're part of what you're doing as well. We're on the team and you can just hear the, the satisfaction in Chad's voice when he says that. Thank you Chad. And just a thought for those of you thinking about being one of the 100 this month, signing up str.org let me see if I can find partner. There it is. All right, Chad, Circular reasoning. And I think you know this, but let me just offer it to the rest is when you reason in a circle, which means that you're trying to give some reasons for a conclusion. Remember, when you have an argument, formally you have a point of view that you are supporting or buttressing with reasons. So you are giving the reasons. And then in your view, the reasons lead to the conclusion, the point of view that you're advancing. So very simply, if I said that all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, therefore we could properly conclude bada boom, Socrates is mortal. Okay? Notice that the conclusion is kind of captured in the premises, but it is not presumed by the premises. So you flow from one premise to the other to a conclusion that fits what the premises say, but the premise, but the conclusion is not built into a given premise. Circular reasoning is when one assumes the truth of the thing that needs to be proven as some of the evidence for the thing that needs to be proven. Now sometimes this is very easy to see and that sometimes it's so easy. I mean, it's just right there. Somebody says, well, the Bible is God's word and is inspired, so it doesn't have any flaws in it. And so somebody might push back and say, well, how do you know it doesn't have any flaws? Because it's God's word and if God has written it, then he's not going to lie. So notice that the idea that the Bible is God's word that is without error is based on a presumption that needs to be established and not just assumed. Well, God wouldn't lie. How do you know he's telling the truth? Well, because he wouldn't lie. Well, that presumes the truth of what it is that you're trying to prove. And that would be circular. Okay, now sometimes circularity is really subtle. And Chad, I guess the thing to look for if I give you kind of a guidance or operational way of going about it, you just have to pay attention to see if they are. If the person making a point is assuming as true the point that he's trying to demonstrate or to prove or to establish. And sometimes it's a little subtle. Okay, here's a good example of a subtle exam, a subtle case of circular reasoning. Many times when someone advances scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design, they are accused of imposing the God of the gaps into this circumstance just because there is a gap in explanation about how something could take place. And generally it's a A sophisticated, what appears to be design feature. I mean, just think, for example, of the. I always thought this was amazing, particularly when I. I saw kind of laid out in front of me in a wonderful video by Illustra Media called Metamorphosis. But if you haven't seen that, get it online. There's a package of them there. Living Waters comes with it, and so does flight. They're great. And in this Metamorphosis, they talked about butterflies and how it goes from an egg to a larva to a pupa. And keep in mind, when it goes to the pupa stage, its whole body structure is emulsified. And what comes out is a butterfly that flies. So you have a larva that crawls, can't even see, and it transforms into a flying machine that sometimes can fly a thousand miles. And it's only the last stage that reproduces. Do you ever think about that? There's no possible way that Darwinian evolution can explain this. Not the mechanics of it. Oh, okay. Oh, so you want to say that God did that. Oh, well, that's God of the gaps. So the charge is what we're doing is we have an unknown. How could that happen? And then we're just asserting God fills the hole. But of course, that's not what we're doing at all. What we're doing is giving an explanation of the evidence that points to an intelligent designer, an intelligent agent. We're not just sticking God in the gap. And now to the issue of circular reasoning. My point would be, in this case is there is no gap. There's no gap. What looks like a gap is easily filled with an adequate explanation that doesn't appeal to materialist types. But it certainly answers the challenge. If we're just trying to explain what looks like it happened, it fits wonderfully. The gap appears to be a gap only because there is no naturalistic explanation. Now, here's the circularity. What's in question here is whether God or nature, unguided nature, is capable of explaining this dynamic that we see in the biological world. In this case, I'm talking about the metamorphosis from a larva to a pupa to a butterfly, a flying machine, and from an eating machine to a flying machine. Okay, and. And when they say that there's a gap there, you're sticking God in the gap. There's only a gap if you presume the truth of materialism, metaphysical materialism, that there's got to be a naturalistic explanation appealing to the laws of nature. And maybe Darwinism or Something like that. But notice how that is presuming the truth of materialism and then forcing it into the equation against intelligent Design. Oh, that's a gap. And you're just trying to put God in the gap and that's illicit. But there's only a gap if you presume the truth of materialism. Because there's no materialistic explanation. The gap is no materialistic explanation. Not no explanation that's adequate to the task. Because the Intelligent Design explanation is wonderful and nobody's sticking it in there. They're looking at the evidence and inferring from the evidence an intelligent designer. Now that's a little more sophisticated example of circular reasoning, but it is circular because of the presumption of metaphysical naturalism that's intruding against intelligent design by claiming there is a gap there when there is no gap. There is a good explanation that fits all the evidence. It's just not an explanation that fits with metaphysical naturalism. And therefore it's being just dismissed with a wave of the hand and a little thumbing of the nose. And that's. It can't do that. That's God of the gaps. And by the way, there are. I have actually read pieces by Christians who claim that this appeal is God of the gaps. And I don't understand that. I ask myself, are you looking at these arguments by the Christian ID guys? Are you looking at the arguments? Can't you see that this is not a God of the gaps? What it is, is, if anything, it's a materialism of the gaps. It's the claim that on a materialistic worldview, since that's true on their view, since that's true, eventually we'll be able to find a materialistic explanation that's materialism of the gaps. Because they don't put anything in the hole to justify or in the so called gap to justify that claim. Just have faith that materialism will eventually explain it. Look at it. There is no way. And all it takes. You don't have to even be a scientist. I appreciate Doug Axe of the whole ID crowd for his tremendous observation that our ability to recognize something that's designed is an intuition that we have that even kids can draw on. You don't need to be a scientist to know that something is designed. And you look at the process, from egg to larva to pupa to beautiful monarch butterfly, who after a few generations up north, knows where to fly south to Mexico and how to get there. To be on the very same tree that its ancestor of maybe multiple generations, wintered at Go figure. That whole thing, there's no explanation. Oh, no explanation we've come up with. Look it, I'm not an idiot. I may be stupid, but I'm not dumb. I can tell by looking at it that it's designed. It's just like a simple thing like John loves Mary in the sand with inside of a heart in the sand. You look at that, you say accident of nature. Not an accident of nature. Somebody drew that, it's got propositional content. So nobody in their right mind would challenge your conclusion on observation that that is designed by an agent. It's the same thing here. Well, we just haven't figured it out yet. You're not going to figure it out naturalistically because naturalistic forces are not adequate to produce this. It doesn't spell out words, complicated words that make machines. And now I'm referring to the DNA molecule and the code on it which makes protein molecules that fold in a very particular way based on the sequence of the amino acids. So they form little machine parts that join with other machine parts and then do machine kind of things. It's not an accident. Okay, so I've talked a lot about this example of circular reasoning, but that is an example that if you think about it for a little bit, it becomes really obvious that the only way the objection against intelligent design explanations that are well justified by the evidence can be rejected as a God of the gaps is if you are presuming the truth of materialism. And what you don't have there is a materialistic explanation. That's why there's a gap. But the whole thing in question is whether materialism is a sound way of looking at the universe. Anyway, that's the background assumption that's in place here. And what the ID people are doing is giving evidence from observation that an agent, a supernatural agent outside of the natural system is, is the one that's responsible for the feature that we see in the biological realm. And that's disqualified because there must be a naturalistic explanation because naturalism is true. That's circular. Okay, I don't have a bunch of other examples. You know, in my mind, the one about the Bible is this one. Sometimes what Christians do, you want to be careful. Some people say you can't prove the Bible from the Bible because that's circular. But it all depends on how one is proving the Bible from the Bible. If what we can do is go back to the text and see prophecies that have been fulfilled, that becomes evidence that those prophecies were a result of God speaking in some sense. And so then we say it's the word of God because there are prophecies we see in the text that are fulfilled that give evidence for the Bible being the word of God. If you want a syllogism there. Modus tollens. I think if the Bible is God's word, it would have fulfilled. If there are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, then the Bible is God's word. There are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, therefore it is God's word. So now that's modus ponens, I guess. But nevertheless, that's a valid way of arguing it's not circular. Even though you're using the Bible to prove the Bible, that needs to be clarified. Not always. Not every attempt of using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular because we are not assuming the Bible is God word, at least in that way of arguing. We are going with the idea that it might be in asking what evidence from the word of God, from the text gives us reason to believe it's the word of God. Okay, so that's the best I could do right now, Chad. Thank you for the question. Let's see, we're going next to avoid the Lloyd. That's a good one. What do you got? Avoid. The Lloyd. Yeah. Hey, Greg, this is Jason from Oklahoma. And a lot of Easter coming up. I had a quick question. I'm reading through the crucifixion account, and on the cross, Jesus says, father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. And I'm wondering what the ramifications of that are. Is anybody forgiven as a result of that statement? Because it seems to be directed at those who are crucifying him, mocking him, rejecting him there on. On the scene. Anyway, be curious to see what your thoughts are. Alrighty. Thank you for that. Avoid the Lloyd. Is Jason okay? Jace, I'm glad you raised this issue because I've had the same concerns about that verse. It seems like it's not theologically sound. Can forgiveness simply be given in that way? Just declared on someone like that? It seems like repentance. And I talked about this earlier. A change of mind that leads to a change in life. That's the crux. That is the pivot point. And that one turns, changes their mind and receives, believes, confesses. There's lots of ways the New Testament characterizes with a verb, the faith that is expressed that results in salvation. Nothing like this. Just father, forgive them. And the other concern is they are forgiven because they don't know what they're Doing that raises another concern. Because maybe they didn't realize they were crucifying the Savior. They're just following orders. Okay, crucify. This guy's a criminal. They don't understand all of what's going on. It doesn't. If that's the case, then what sin is there? So these are different reasons why this is a troublesome verse. And over the years I've kind of pondered this. I learned something that was very helpful. This particular verse is a variant, which means that this saying, of the seven sayings, I think there were seven that Jesus uttered from the cross. This one is a variant, which means that not all the manuscripts have it. And I actually don't have it in front of me. If I went to the gospel where this verse was in my New American Standard, marginal rendering kind of Bible, it almost always makes a reference to these verses that are questionable, that they are variants. Or maybe they'll say this verse does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. So there becomes now a discussion about, is that. Is that a sound Bible verse or is that an addition? We know, for example, that the account of Jesus in John, I think seven and beginning of eight of the woman caught in adultery, this is not canonical. I've talked about in the past why I think it actually happened, but it's not canonical because it shows up late and it shows up in different places in different Gospels. So we know that even though it's included, because it's included in a lot of Bibles, so we just include it. But there's a notation. This is not in the earliest manuscripts. The long ending of Mark is the same way. And so my thinking about this, Jace, is that this is a variant that wasn't in the original. Now, if it wasn't in the original, then we don't have a theological problem. Jesus did say something kind of nutty, and that's the direction I'm going to go with it. There is a fair question about how did it get in there then? And sometimes scribes add things. I mean, this is well known. And usually we can figure that out because there are telltale signs that a scribe has messed with the text, which also tells us that it's not a problem because we can figure these things out. I know Bart Urban has written extensively attacking the authority and the reliability of the text. And one of them has to do with scribal. Not just scribal errors, but scribal intentional changes. But the fact that Bart Ehrman can see and find, using his skill as a textual critic, he can Find the mistakes tells us that this can be remedied and we can restore the original in any event. One explanation that I heard about this, notice they said seven sayings. Well, if Jesus only said six things, well, seven is the number of perfection. So somebody's going to try to find something to throw in there to make the sayings count seven. And maybe that's why they did. Now, it might be that this variant is part of oral tradition that is not part of the text. Now, just because it's part of oral tradition, in other words, the things that were passed on, doesn't mean that it's accurate. Oral tradition is not divinely inspired. But our Bibles are properly recorded and handed down. And there's question about that in this particular verse. So I take it that this is a variant. It's not theologically sound. It's a sweet thing. It's a sweet thing to find there. And then we have Stephen in the Book of Acts saying something like that regarding those who are stoning him. I don't know what to do with that either, unless he's just expressing his sentiment. Stephen's not Jesus. If Jesus is praying it, well, that's the kind of prayer it kind of has to be answered, right? So how does that work? But if Stephen says it, that's the expression, the sentiment of his heart, not to hold this against anyone. So let's see. I think we have time for one more question. Okay, let's see. We have Jason, we have Gail about Jesus appearance in Acts 23. Hi, Greg. My question is on Acts 23:11. This is when Paul, the night after he confronts the council, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, is visited by Jesus. It is said that Jesus stood near him. My question is, was Jesus physically there or was this more a spiritual or a spiritual apparition or a vision? I would tend to believe the language lends itself to him being physically there. But I wonder if that's even possible following the Ascension. Some insight on this would be lovely. Thank you, Greg. Well, thank you for this. And it's not impossible. I don't know why the Ascension precludes the possibility that Jesus could appear physically to someone. Now we have a voice talking to Saul on the road to Emmaus. I think the text says that maybe people saw the light but they didn't hear the voice, or they heard the voice, but they didn't understand. There's a couple of places where God speaks from the heaven and there's a phenomenology that people are aware of, but it's not entirely clear to them, but it is clear to the one to whom the message is directed. This is my beloved Son. Hear him, or whatever it happens to be in whom I am well pleased, or Saul. Saul, why are you persecuting me? I'm with you on this one, Gayla. I think that when you read the text, and I'll read it right now, it just seems unequivocal. But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, take courage, for as you have solemnly witnessed to my cause in Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome. Also interesting. He says, take courage. By the way, this isn't the first time that Jesus appeared to Saul. And he also appeared in chapter 18:9. And there you got a little different characterization. It says here that the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city. And so he stayed a year and a half there and and had productive ministry. So in chapter 18 it explicitly says that the Lord appeared to Paul in the night by a vision and encouraged him not to be afraid. And here in Acts 23:11, he's also told to take courage. So, you know, if you ever feel a little out of it, a little frightened, so did Paul. And in two cases, Jesus directly encouraged him. In one case it was a vision, Acts 18. And the second case, it seems to me, I'm with you on this scale, it seems Jesus stood by his side. I'm looking at it again here. Take courage for. Okay, here it is. The Lord stood at his side pretty direct. So the rule here is when the plain sense makes common sense, you don't add any other sense to it. Now I think this makes common sense. There are a number of occasions on the Book of Acts where God did something and other places in scripture where something happened. There was an apparition and it seems so real. It's kind of described as if it's actually happening in third person public. In other words, in this case, if Jesus physically stood next to Paul, then if Silas was there in the room and woke up when this was happening, he would be able to see Jesus too. But if it's first person private, like a vision, only the one who's having the vision sees the apparition. Okay, so you have a little different circumstance there. And there are occasions where people were following something and it turned out it was a vision. It was still real, but it was not. It had a different phenomenology. And you know, in Peter's case, when he got out of prison, he saw the angel. The angel told him, take off, blah, blah, do this, that and the other thing. It might have happened a couple of times, but he thought he was dreaming. And then all of a sudden he's outside of the prison and he realized it really happened. So sometimes the vision can feel real, and sometimes the first person private vision can feel like it's a third person public. And other times, third person public can feel like it's first person private vision. In this case, I think Jesus was standing there. I have no reason to think otherwise, but I'm open to it just being a vision. It doesn't trouble me because sometimes things like a vision are described as if they were first person, not first person private, but third person public. So you know Mary, when she talked with Gabriel, he talked with her at the Annunciation. Of course, that's first person private. And all she could do is say, here's what I saw. And nobody else saw it. And she told her parents, right? And they didn't believe it. But he also gave her some information that was in principle third person public, that Elizabeth was with child in her sixth month. So this is an opportunity for her then to demonstrate the truth of her first person private encounter with the angel that explains why she's pregnant by confirming it for others. I don't know if this was done, this wasn't in the text, But I knew the very first thing that she did, at least the text says after her encounter with the angel is go see Elizabeth. Now she's got a third person public verification of the first person private encounter. Anyway, there you go. Good questions today. Don't forget, we just launched our be one of the 100. You want to be an ambassador for Christ financially as a partner with us? Go to str.orgpartner and be one of the 100. I'm Greg Kokel for Stand a Reason. Give him heaven. Okay, friends, and be one of the 100. Bye bye.
- [57:35]
Tiffany
Now it.