#STRask - What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Believes in a Higher Power?

Episode Date: May 26, 2025

Questions about what to ask someone who believes merely in a “higher power,” how to make a case for the existence of the afterlife, and whether or not we can use Revelation 22:18 as evidence that the Book of Mormon isn’t divinely inspired.   What questions should I ask someone I’m working with to help him think beyond a belief in a “higher power”? How would you make a case for the existence of the afterlife, and is it necessary to use the Bible in order to do so? How would you respond to Mormons who objected to my using Revelation 22:18 to explain why I don’t think the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired?

You're listening to Greg Kochel and Amy Hall on the Stand to Reason hashtag SDRask Podcast. We're not going to edit that. Go ahead. It's the first time I've ever heard you stumble coming in, Amy. Good for you. People need to know you're human. I ever heard you stumble coming in, Amy. Good for you. People need to know you're human. I'm glad you've forgotten those other times.

All right. Okay. So we have some apologetics questions about interacting with people with other views today. And this first one comes from anonymous. I am working with someone who claims to believe in a, quote, higher power. My question relates to how to question him, engage him, to think beyond this generalized response. Well, what first comes to mind is a question for clarification.

It's the basic Colombo questions. What do you mean by that? That's the first one. And the second one is how did you come to that conclusion? So this is part of the tactical approach. If people raise points like that, they're utterly ambiguous. What does that mean, a higher power? Well, I mean, obviously it helps us to know they think about something outside of the physical realm. And it's higher than us, I presume, and it has power.

But that's not much to work with. And it may be that, you know, this is a phrase people use because it comes from alcoholics anonymous, that might be the source of it. Or maybe they're just using it generally without thinking about the specific words. I don't know if it's higher, I don't know if it's powerful,

but something's out there, maybe that's it. So it won's higher, I don't know if it's powerful, but something's out there. Maybe that's it. So it won't help, I think we won't be able to navigate in a conversation with that person unless we have some clarity. By the way, that's a good thing. If they say that, I mean, it's a good start because that takes them out of the natural realm. They're acknowledging something other than them in the spiritual realm.

So I want to know more about that. So when you say higher power, do you mean powerful and higher than you are? Or what is it that you have in mind? Now, maybe they don't have any clarity on it because they don't have any more detail. I mean, that might be the case. It does remind me of what Paul said in Athens, in the book of Acts, I don't know, 17 or 18. And he's beheld a idol to an unknown God. That sounds kind of like a higher power, you know? And what he said to the Athenians is that, what you worship in ignorance, I'm going to tell you about, I will declare to you. So it might be the case that something like that can be used in this circumstance, okay? Well, you worship a higher power, so do I, and I know something about the higher power.

And he's very powerful, and he's really high. And that's good, and that's bad. Because it's good, because he's the great ruler of the universe, but he's higher than us morally, and that puts us in an awkward position. So anyway, you can pursue the conversation like that, but you need to get some detail about what it is they believe about. What does it mean when they say higher power and just ask him questions and any ambiguities that you hear in the responses can be approached with another question. And it's because you're genuinely inquisitive.

You can't really speak intelligibly with this person on an issue that you don't understand what they're talking about. It might be that they don't understand, well, that's okay. But at least you can kind of figure that out. And then the next question is, well, then why is it, whatever it is, the higher power that you believe in, why is it you believe there is such a thing?

And see what they say. I don't know what they'd say, you know, but that's, those are two questions that will allow you to move forward from the standstill at the beginning, where a person simply announces that they believe in a higher power. You have two ways to make more progress. Now, there's no guarantee that these two questions are going to be productive in the long term for spiritual ends in a conversation with a person.

productive in the long term for spiritual ends in a conversation with a person. The key is that it gets you moving, and it gets you moving in a productive direction. And I mean, my experience has been that these two questions have helped a lot to open up doors and create environments where there can be a productive conversation as you gather more information from this person of those two sorts, the ideas and the reason for the ideas that they hold. And then see what happens. A lot of times just those two questions without any other fancy footwork will be a powerful incentive or it will be a powerful influence in a person's life to think more carefully about God.

Now I call that putting a stone in their shoe, but this is what you're after. You just want to get them thinking. And these two questions will help. Well, what's nice is that you're working with Him, which means you don't have to have a lot of pressure to go really far every time. You can ask simple little questions over time and then get back into the conversation later. So that takes some of the pressure off. I was thinking about particular questions you could ask as you were gathering information with the first Colombo question.

Do you think the higher power is personal or some kind of force. Do you think he's morally good? Do you think he cares about justice? Do you think he judges? Can you think of any other questions that... No, that's a good start. I mean, you're just trying to get a profile if they can give you one. One of the liabilities here that you might be facing, if this is an AA person, is the 12-step program does have this role, well, I'll just call it of God, small g, because the reference is simply to a higher power.

Now, they don't want to be more specific about the higher power because they don't want to isolate people who've come to AA for help with a problem. But the idea there is that you can't do this yourself. That's one of the steps. You have to make an appeal. You've got to get help from quote unquote God, the higher power, which that's, I think it's a great start. But if the higher power has no definition to it, then all it turns out to be is a psychological boost for you. We're just going to imagine something that is beyond me that's going to help me.

Well, that's just a psychological trip to get you to help yourself, which is what the first step says you can't do. You can't do it by yourself. So I think there's there what it has come to be a built-in kind of contradiction I don't think that that's the way it starts, you know, you need God and God can help you So you're gonna have to turn to God. All right, but then okay. Well, which God who's God, you know, and so no Okay, the higher power let's keep it general So anybody's conception can fit in but if it's not the accurate conception of who God is, then you're trusting in something that's a phantom.

It has no power. It has no power, right, and isn't higher. So anyway, I'm just offering that because the phrase higher power is an operative phrase in the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous. And I think it has a – the way it is being used in many cases has a built-in liability. Okay. Let's go to a question from Sam. How would you make a case for the existence of the afterlife, and is it necessary to use the Bible in order to do so?

I don't think so. There are a couple of lines of reasoning that one can use. One is what C.S. Lewis did. And he called this the argument from desire. And what he observed is that every hunger has a, in principle, at least a satisfaction. Okay, so we're hungry for food, but food to satisfy it. We're hungry for food, but there's food to satisfy it. We're hungry for water, or there's water to slake our thirst. There's things like that. Okay, we are hungry for love because love exists to be, to satisfy that hunger. I think it's a fair observation, but he says there are some things that we hunger for that are not satisfied in this world. And can it be a satisfied? The hunger for justice, for example,

it is never satisfied in this world. There might be acts of justice, incidental acts, but it's not satisfied in this world. This intimates that we are made for another world and that there is a world where justice will be done. Okay, so that is a very powerful argument for him, had a strong influence on him, and I think it's a clever argument, and it has a lot of merit. But so this is an argument, not biblical, but a reflection that allows us to infer a state after this life where some of these hungers that are not even in principle

to be satisfied in this life will be satisfied. He actually thinks that's true about the deeper existential hungers we have about life, that the things that we really hunger for are not to be satisfied in this life. He says that in mere Christianity. So I think I cite that actually in the story of reality because it's an important part of the whole big picture of Christianity. We were not made for this world. We were made for another world. And there are different ways you could argue that point and make observations about this life that point to another world. So that's one line of arguing.

Another one is near death experiences. Now near death experiences actually fall in two different categories. And D E's, um, some of those, the first category is where your body dies and your soul is separated from your physical body, but it doesn't go away. It doesn't go into the next world. It just hangs around and looks at stuff. And this is called remote viewing. And after the body is resuscitated, the soul rejoins with the physical body, and the person becomes conscious, and then talks about what he saw. And so this has evidential value because you can test what he said he saw against the circumstances that he saw what he saw.

And it's also pretty obvious that many of the things that people report they saw are not kinds of things that their physical body could ever have had access to. Now there's some screwy stories that may not be verifiable or have been falsified, but there's so many other stories that are clearly evidenced that it is, that I think, NDEs of that first sort are enough to tell us that your body is, you are not your body, there is a spiritual immaterial self that is united with your body until this experience and then you're separated. And this in principle then allows for the possibility of this self living on after death. Okay, but it's only the possibility, it's not the eventuality, of this sort of thing. So these remote viewing NDEs can show us that materialism is false the soul exists but it doesn't tell us

how long it exists after death and And and though it that does open the door for the possibility if you're a strict physicalist there's not going to be any no possibility of life after death because it's it's the possibility is is not forbidden, but it is constrained by the philosophy itself. Okay? It won't allow for that possibility, physicalism, materialism.

Now there's another type of NDE, and that is people actually die and go somewhere, and they have radical experiences in this place. Now it turns out that these experiences are wildly varied and some of them seem like they comport with the Christian view. Some people say they went to hell, but most people, and then came back, but most people have a positive experience,

even ones that don't seem to be Christian. And so it's difficult then what kind of theological conclusions you draw from those experiences. And this is where Doug Guyver, over at Talbot, one of my mentors over there many years ago, philosopher, he doesn't like any of this stuff at all, because he says what happens is people are more attached to what Tim Nothing goes even a minute calls Was he calling me calls him of heaven to heaven tourism books? Yeah Tim's chalice Chalice calls him heaven tour tourism book and I think that's actually a fair moniker there because

And I think that's actually a fair moniker there because people will read these things to find out all about heaven and get themselves encouraged. But the question is, which one of these accounts do we trust? Some of them we know are false. We have discovered the little boy that goes to heaven and comes back to—that's just been completely falsified. But that's not the case with others. People have veridical experiences, but what theological conclusions is it appropriate to draw from that? And this is why Doug says,

hey, just go to the scriptures are going to tell us the truth. And we should be satisfied with that and not, you know, buy a bunch of heaven tourism books to get, to boost our faith or whatever. So I think there's a place in the discussion for those kinds of experiences demonstrating that there is an afterlife. Because I know you want to jump in here, but one other thing that Gary Habermas, who has specialized in this, has written in NDE, he's very careful about things, but there's evidential, there's content

that verifies the afterlife. And this is when, for example, one example, but there are other reports like this, where you have two brothers that die in the same car wreck and they go to separate hospitals. And the one boy has an NDE where he goes beyond, meets his brother who has died, and then comes back and says, well, now he's here, he's alive again, you know, whatever. And he says, yeah, but Johnny's, Johnny's in, you know, I saw Johnny, he's in heaven

or whatever he says, you know. We didn't know that Johnny had died, but Johnny had died. So there are occasions like that that have evidential value, testable things that indicate that there is an existence after this life. And so I think there's a place for that, but we have to be careful. Right. So your point is that those things only go so far. They can show that your soul can exist apart from your body.

Of course, Christians believe that we will be resurrected and reunited with bodies, but that there is something beyond our bodies. But as far as the— We are beyond our bodies. Yes. But as far as any details about what it will be like there, that's dangerous ground to use in these. So I would say there's nothing wrong with going through the Bible, but you don't have

to go directly there and just say, well, the Bible says there's an afterlife, therefore there's an afterlife. There are a lot of, you know, the afterlife comes as part of the whole Christian story. So wherever you enter making a case for the Christian worldview, you'll end up making a case for the afterlife. So one way you might want to go about it is through Jesus' resurrection. Because if Jesus really did die and he was raised again, and the eyewitness testimonies in the Bible are reliable and true, and you can make a case for that, then whatever Jesus

says about the afterlife, you should accept. So that's another way there. If you don't just want to say, well, the Bible says this, if you want to make an argument, you can make an argument for the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of what Jesus said about the afterlife and then go through it that way. Let me underscore one aspect of that. You said the eyewitness testimony. So you're treating the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, that report, and even maybe some of the Pauline epistles,

that report the resurrection of Christ. We are not citing these as wholly writ as the Bible. We are citing them as historical accounts, primary sources, historical information Bible, we are citing them as historical accounts, primary sources, historical information from the early sources about what they saw and experienced and were witness to. So this is not kind of circular reasoning. You said, hey, without using the Bible, well, we are using the historical text in a different way than most people use the Bible. The Bible says so because it's God's word. But that's not your approach in this particular point.

No, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. If you want to make a case for the inspiration of the Bible first and then go that way. Well, he said not using the Bible, so that's … Oh, he says, is it necessary? Oh, I see. So, you can go this way. What I'm saying is I think even with somebody who doesn't think that the Bible is inspired Word of God, there are other ways to use the information we find in the Bible and to make a case for Christianity and from that to make a case for the afterlife. So you don't have to pretend

like we're not Christians in order to make your case. All right, let's go to a question from Ali. Recently, some Mormons came to my door. I quoted Revelation 22, 18 when pressed about why I didn't think the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired. They responded with, that verse doesn't apply to the whole of the Bible, but rather, John was specifically talking about Revelation. How would you respond? I think they're right.

Now that doesn't justify Mormonism, but I think that's an inappropriate use of that passage, okay? It doesn't, actually when you read the words of the passage, it doesn't say the whole corpus of scripture. Because when that was written, there wasn't, well, there was a corpus of scripture that did exist, and the divinely inspired books were divinely inspired the minute the ink hit the parchment, you know, even if people didn't recognize it. But the verse itself says, and this is what's, I mean, this is where I want Christians to be careful. By the way, this verse has been used many times in this way.

I get it, all right? So here I am at the text. I testify to everyone, verse 18 and verse 19. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. Well, the author is restricting what follows to this revelation. And he says, if anyone adds to them, God will add to them the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, etc., etc. So, it's almost as if you read the verse the way that was just suggested by Ali, that you are kind of adding

to a meaning to the text that is not intended by the author. You don't want to do that. It refers to Revelation and that's all. And I think there are much better ways to deal with Mormonism. We don't disqualify their books because of that verse, we disqualify them on theological grounds. You know, I wrote a piece on the canon, I think it was November 24. Yeah, it's called the New Testament canon, which books and why. And there are three tests or three factors that were involved in recognizing authoritative Scripture by the early church. One was apostolic,

okay? And when I say apostolic, it isn't any old Joe who calls himself an apostle or elects himself as an apostle. It's those who were trained by Jesus. Those ones who Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring to you, remembers everything I've taught to you, and will guide you unto all the truth. This is the upper room discourse, and so that's Jesus' acknowledging. You're the guys who we can count on. So Jesus—canon simply means rule. What is the authoritative rule? Now when Jesus was around, it was the Old Testament that Jesus acknowledged, and Jesus! He was the authority, okay? And then he passed that authority to the disciples, and the early church understood if any text

was written by an apostle, part of the apostolic band, which by the way, would include Paul because Paul wasn't part of the original band, but Jesus did appear to him and taught him. And Galatians chapter 1 makes this point, and the others, Peter, James, and John, received him and gave him the right hand of fellowship. So Paul would be in that. If any of those people wrote a book, the early church simply accepted it as authoritative, whatever they said. Now once they died, it was the writings that they left behind.

And the writings had to be apostolic, they had to have apostolic authority, and they had, whatever might be in question, had to be orthodox. And when I say orthodox, that means the, whatever they weren't sure about, they tested against what they were sure about. And that's the apostles' writings. And so, I mean, just those two tests, by those two tests, all of the Mormon so-called revelation fails. It was not written by the original band of apostles who were authorized by Jesus. It was provided by people who made themselves into prophets and apostles or whatever.

And secondly, it's not Orthodox. It does not fit the doctrine, which they know, and they acknowledge, which is why you have an LDS church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We're the Latter-day Saints because the gospel was lost, and now we're restoring it. We're the true church. So even though they make a lot of noise like, we're really Christians like you're Christian, that is not really what their doctrine teaches.

So I'm just making the point that their teaching is disqualified because it doesn't satisfy the requirements that the early church had for canon. Which canon, by the way, the Mormon church acknowledges as legitimate. And they usually read the King James Bible, but nevertheless, I don't care, but they acknowledge the scripture. So their new views have to match with scripture, or they don't satisfy the requirement of orthodoxy and their author reservation. And what do they appeal to in return? An emotional experience with the Book of Mormon.

That's it. Of course, Greg, they would say that since Jesus did visit the Americas that he did train them, the writers of the Book of Mormon. I would say— But that's circular, though, because what's in question is the authority of the Book of Mormon. I would say if... But that's circular though, because what's in question is the authority of the Book of Mormon in the first place, and they can't even go to that book as historically sound because there's no evidence that it is.

And that is the problem. I think if somebody asked me, well, why don't you think the Book of Mormon is inspired? I would say because I have no reason to think it is. You have to... I don't have to prove it isn't inspired. You have no reason to think it is. I don't have to prove it isn't inspired. You have to show me that it is.

And the problem I have is that it fails the test of history, just the very basic thing that what it's describing as history doesn't match actual history. So why should I think it's inspired? And then if they offer the test of reading it and experiencing a burning in the bosom, I would say, look, we both agree the Bible is inspired. And there are two tests there. Deuteronomy 13 says, if a text, the era of prophet teaches a God who is different from our God, then he is accursed. And Galatians 1 says, if anyone, even an angel of light teaches a gospel that is not our gospel, then he is to be accursed. So what

we need to do is look at the LDS God and gospel and see how those things match up with the Bible's God and gospel. And if they do, then it's possible that the Book of Mormon is inspired, and we'll look at that. If they don't, then I already know the Book of Mormon is not inspired. But as of now, I don't have a reason to think so. I don't have to disprove it. Incidentally, you mentioned all history. I only learned this relatively recently, I'd say with the last 10 years or so, and I was riding back to the airport from the New Orleans Baptist Seminary after a conference,

and there was a fellow that was in the car, also a presenter, and he presented on Mormonism, and he told me something that really surprised me. In the Book of Mormon, you have horses pulling chariots. Now the reason that's significant is because in that period of time, allegedly, the period of time that's covered by the Book of Mormon, there were no horses in America. They were not native to America. They were brought over by the Spaniards. And there were no wheels. Sometimes you'll see horses dragging sleds, you know, a Native American depiction in a movie. Yeah,

no wheels. Dragging sleds because they didn't have the wheel in North America. So here you've got horses in North America with chariots with wheels. This is completely anachronistic for that period of time in that country. It's just false. There are a lot of problems with the Book of Mormon. So I would recommend checking out Mormonism Research Ministry. That's MRM.org, and I'm sure they have a lot of information about problems with the Book of Mormon.

But again, they have to make their case to you. So I would start with that. All right. Thank you so much. We appreciate hearing from you. Send us your question on X with the hashtag,ask or go to our website at str.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kockel for Stand to Reason.