Stand to Reason Blog

Challenge: God Is Only Forgiving When He Smells Blood?

Here’s a challenge from a Hindu:

So let me get this straight: the rules are that if people screw up, they have to brutally murder an innocent animal. God is omnipotent, so presumably these are his rules. But it’s been changed. Because a couple thousand years ago humans killed a man in one of the most savage manners imaginable it was enough sacrifice for everyone for all time. What I don’t understand is why a sacrifice was necessary at all. God is only in a forgiving mood when he smells fresh blood?

This is obviously a huge topic—sin, evil, God’s holiness, justice, and more are involved with this one. How would you go about responding to it? Tell us what you would say in the comments below, and Brett will be here on Thursday to respond to this challenge.

[Update: View Brett's video response. Explore past challenges here and here.]

Are Clergy Held to Higher Moral Standards Than Laypersons?

Greg discusses what the Bible says about moral standards for leaders in the church compared to those of laypersons.

The Gospel’s Answer to the Problem of Evil

In “A (Very) Brief, Gospel-Centered Defense against the Problem of Evil,” Derek Rishmawy explains how we can know, through the Gospel, that God is indeed all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, despite the existence of evil:

1. If God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, I have good reason to believe both that he exists, and that he is unfathomably powerful.

2. Furthermore, if he is good enough to send his only-begotten Son to die on behalf of a sinful, rebellious world he loves, he is unfathomably good.

3. Next, if God is wise enough to use what is objectively the most horrifying, and initially apparently pointless, event in human history—the unjust murder of the Godman—for the salvation of the world, then it is entirely reasonable to trust he has a good enough reason for allowing the evil that he currently does.

4. Finally, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the promise that ultimately evil will be judged, removed, and made right. There is comfort and hope for the future.

I love this. Read the rest of his post.

Does Having Homosexual Friends Mean You're Unequally Yoked?

I had the privilege – and was humbled by the opportunity – to preach to a congregation of 3,000 believers at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley this past Sunday morning on “Homosexuality: Truth and Compassion.” One of the points I made during my message was that Scripture doesn’t teach that we have to cut ties with family, friends, and co-workers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). In fact, I argued, we should make our relationships with them a high priority.

Notice, I didn’t say we should make them the “highest” priority. Our relationship with God comes first, followed by our relationships with our spouse and/or children if we have them. My point, though, was that relationships are the bridge by which we can show love, share truth, or explain the Gospel to those who identify as LGBT. We should do what we can to nurture them.

Someone asked me after my sermon how my point applies in light of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to “not be yoked together with unbelievers.” She wanted to know if there are instances where we don’t want our relationship with those who identify as LGBT to be too close. I thought that was a great question.

In the passage, Paul paints a picture of two oxen that are yoked together with a wooden harness to enable them to pull a load together. If one ox steers to the right, though, it can pull the other ox in the same direction. Paul warns believers not to be bound – yoked – with unbelievers because of the possibility they might be pulled in an unbiblical direction.

My colleague Greg Koukl gives a few examples of such relationships: “I think certainly marriage would be an example of that. Certain types of business deals and partnerships would be examples of that. Wherever you're in a circumstance where you're tied together so much that their way of life, their values, and their worldview will function to pull you off the straight and narrow either in your beliefs, convictions, or in your behaviors.”

It’s also important to remember that Paul gives us freedom to maintain a type of relationship with unbelievers, to “associate” with them (1 Corinthians 5:9-11). His concern, though, is that we don’t become yoked with them.

The question is, could a close relationship with a friend, family member, or co-worker who identifies as LGBT qualify as being unequally yoked? Yes. Would every relationship qualify? No.

You have to determine if your relationship is one where you are yoked – strongly connected – together with them. One question you can ask yourself is, Am I moving towards the other person’s position, views, or behaviors? If you don’t find yourself pulled towards values and behaviors, then it’s possible you’re not yoked with them and your relationship isn’t a problem. If you find yourself changing to be more like them (not necessarily in acting out homosexual behavior, but in adopting their values, beliefs, and convictions), then being yoked with them is a problem. You should probably back off or build some healthy boundaries.

This, though, is not a special rule only for your relationships with those who identify as LGBT. This applies to any relationship, including those with heterosexuals. As Greg suggests, even a relationship with a business partner could be a problem. If their unbiblical practices are steering you away from conducting your business ethically, you should reconsider your partnership.

Determining which relationships are a problem might be clear in some cases but not in others. When it’s not clear, I would ask for input from those who know you well and can give you an objective assessment of your relationships. Also, pray and ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), and seek counsel from trusted friends (Proverbs 12:15, 15:22) or wise leaders in the church.

Could Acceptance of Abortion Be a Matter of Ignorance?

I was reading Eric Metaxas’s Amazing Grace (a book about William Wilberforce), and I came across this passage:

The popular attitude toward abolition was another story [i.e., in contrast to the political setbacks]. Among the nonpolitical classes, abolition was more and more accepted…. The change in popular sentiment toward abolition had been rapid. Just a few years before, there had been widespread and genuine ignorance of the horrors of the slave trade, but now suddenly the trade and all of its varied horrors were on everyone’s lips. Posters of the Brookes [a diagram showing how people were transported on the slave ship] were everywhere, as were images of Josiah Wedgwood’s imploring African in chains. Cowper’s poem “The Negro’s Complaint” was not only well known as a poem, but had been set to music and was sung in the streets; also that year, a nineteen-year-old poet named Samuel Taylor Coleridge won a gold medal at Cambridge for his “Ode Against the Slave Trade.” [Links added.]

The abolitionists worked hard to reveal to people the truth about what slavery was, and public sentiment turned against it as ignorance dwindled. But hearing about their success actually depressed me because I couldn’t help but compare it to our situation today. Never before have we had a more public revelation of what abortion is than this past year’s Planned Parenthood videos (see also here and here), yet we saw no “rapid change in popular sentiment” toward abortion. We saw all of its ugliness laid bare, and we remained frighteningly unmoved. The hardness of our nation’s soul was impenetrable.

Or so I thought. But then I saw this video. Could it be that our acceptance of abortion, like acceptance of the slave trade, is still mainly a matter of ignorance?

If the reactions in that video are typical, maybe we really haven’t done enough revealing yet. I pray that’s the case.

Links Mentioned on the 5/25/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Pulling at My Words (0:00) / Who Knows What Else (0:10)

• The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between – Greg's upcoming book
• The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan
• John Bunyan's introduction to The Pilgrim's Progress (where he comments on the process of writing)
• Jesus: The First Transgender Man by Suzanne DeWitt Hall (Greg will be commenting on this more next week)

Questions:

– Announcements:

• STR Cruise to Alaska – August 6–13, 2016 
• CrossExamined Instructor Academy in Southern California – August 18–20

1. Is it God or Satan who is doing things to Job? (0:21)

2. Should young children be taught about God slaughtering the Canaanites? (0:49)

• The Canaanites: Genocide or Judgment? by Greg Koukl
• The New Atheists and the Old Testament (The story needs to be understood in its context) – See Peter Williams's comments in the post. You'll find more links on the judgment of the Canaanites at the end of the post.

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Argue Rationally and Take Responsibility for Your Arguments

In a New York Times op-ed titled “Stop Saying ‘I Feel Like,’” Molly Worthen says we need to pay attention to a recent evolution in language. In the last decade, people have begun to preface their claims with “I feel like.” And, she says, “[M]ake no mistake: ‘I feel like’ is not a harmless tic.” She argues that our shift towards couching our claims as subjective opinions reflects, and will increase, our inability to engage in “civilized conflict.”

Natasha Pangarkar, a senior at Williams College, hears “I feel like” “in the classroom on a daily basis,” she said. “When you use the phrase ‘I feel like,’ it gives you an out. You’re not stating a fact so much as giving an opinion,” she told me. “It’s an effort to make our ideas more palatable to the other person.” …

This linguistic hedging is particularly common at universities, where calls for trigger warnings and safe spaces may have eroded students’ inclination to assert or argue. It is safer to merely “feel.” …

Yet here is the paradox: “I feel like” masquerades as a humble conversational offering, an invitation to share your feelings, too — but the phrase is an absolutist trump card. It halts argument in its tracks.

When people cite feelings or personal experience, “you can’t really refute them with logic, because that would imply they didn’t have that experience, or their experience is less valid,” Ms. Chai told me.

“It’s a way of deflecting, avoiding full engagement with another person or group,” Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, a historian at Syracuse University, said, “because it puts a shield up immediately. You cannot disagree.”

Democracy is premised on civilized conflict. The greatest advance of the modern age has been our ability to argue about society’s most pressing questions without resorting to physical violence (most of the time). Yet the growing tyranny of feelings in the way Americans talk — about everything from how to fund public education to which presidential candidate to support — exerts a subtler kind of coercion on the public sphere….

We should not “feel like.” We should argue rationally, feel deeply and take full responsibility for our interaction with the world.

Read the rest of the article.

Special Broadcast Time Tomorrow – Call Early with Your Questions!

Greg is back from vacation and doing the broadcast tomorrow, but we're doing it early so he can get to the airport. Give him a call 1:00–3:00 p.m. PT Tuesday with your questions and comments: (855) 243-9975.

Is It Possible That God Permits Homosexuality Today Even If It Wasn't Permitted in the Past?

Alan responds to the claim that the Bible takes a progressive stance on past prohibitions, so therefore homosexuality is permissible today. 

 

 

An Invitation from Greg to Join Us on the STR Cruise

Our August 6–13 cruise is rapidly approaching. If you’ve never heard John Stonestreet and J. Warner Wallace speak before, you’re missing out; I always find them absolutely riveting. The topics we've planned the cruise were chosen to reflect Stand to Reason’s mission statement: “Confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter.” You can read more about the topic descriptions here.

Take a minute to watch Greg’s invitation below, and then sign up! We all look forward to meeting you there.