Theology in the Raw - #644 - Evangelical Conversion to Catholicism, The Pope's View on Hell, and the Divinely Inspired Bible

Episode Date: April 23, 2018

What do I think about evangelicals converting to Catholicism? My thoughts on Pope Francis's new view of hell. And, what makes the Bible uniquely inspired? Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Follow him on Twitter @PrestonSprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

What do I think about evangelicals converting to Catholicism, my thoughts on Pope Francis' new view of hell, and what makes the Bible uniquely inspired, and much more. I'm Preston Sprinkle, and episode of Theology in the Raw. I've got a bunch of questions that were submitted through my patrons at my Patreon account. And I chose five of those questions. My Patreon supporters get to vote on which questions they want me to answer and they have cast their lots. And so I am submitting to their desires and answer the questions that they want me to answer. So thank you so much from my Patreon supporters for not only supporting the show, but also for handcuffing me with some really, really great

questions. Let's dive in to the first one here. What do I think about evangelicals converting to Catholicism? The questioner says, my question is this, how do you feel about somebody who is converting from a Bible teaching church, like a non-denominational church or an exegetical Bible teaching church to the Catholic church? What kind of response should we have to that friend? Do we exhort, rebuke, warn, or just say, God bless you. I hope it's great. Okay. So I used to not get this. I used to not understand why anybody in their right mind could ever convert from being a Bible-believing evangelical Christian and converting to the Catholic church. I used to just, it didn't make any sense to me. It made a

lot of sense to convert from Catholicism to Protestantism or convert from, you know, the Catholic church to entering into a true, you know, Bible-believing church. Now, you may be able to sense in my tone that I do not hold to that position anymore. Now, as I'll say in a second, I am Protestant for several reasons. I do think that the Protestant brand of Christianity is a more accurate representation of New Testament Christianity. I'll give a few reasons why I believe that, but I don't, I get it. I actually understand and in some ways resonate with why people are leaving, in particular, non-denominational churches to the Catholic church, or, I mean, I think there's a big trend more recently, you know, people leaving the evangelical church for Orthodox, some brand of the Orthodox church. And I understand it now. I do. I don't necessarily, well, is this an agree or disagree thing? I mean, it's not something I am going to choose,

at least not for the foreseeable future, but I can understand why some people are just tired of the evangelical church and yet aren't ready to ditch Christianity. And so, they join either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church. I mean, there is a sense of rootedness in the Catholic church, a sense of seriousness, authority, sacredness. I love the awareness of sacredness in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Plus, you know, to be honest, I mean, there's a good deal of fluff and goofiness and even anti-intellectualism in some Protestant churches. Okay. So, I, you know, I can see where somebody, especially if they're a deep thinker, if they have a huge respect for things that are sacred, if they're tired of, for instance,

the playfulness or the, if I can even say the goofiness of some, not all obviously, but some brands of evangelical Christianity. Again, I don't think my decision would be to leave evangelicalism for the Catholic church, but I can see where people would do that. It's no longer shocking to me that people would leave non-denominational Protestant churches for the Catholic church. I also think, you know, there's a lot of stereotypes that exist both on the side of Catholics and Protestants. So, Catholics have their stereotypes of Protestants and Protestants have their stereotypes of Catholics. You know, I don't make a habit of this, but I sometimes listen to, you know, Richard Rohr, who's a Catholic,

a great thinker, just a vibrant Christian and very, you know, very prophetic and challenging in many ways. But man, when he describes like the Protestant church or the Catholic church or the Reformed church, I mean, I don't even know who he's talking about. Like, you know, I heard him once say that, you know, as if he's trying to school, you know, reformed Christians saying, you know, the Bible doesn't begin in Genesis three, it begins in Genesis one and two, you know, assuming that reformed people don't have any sort of doctrine of creation,

which is just utterly insane. I mean, absolutely ridiculous. Like, have you ever read a reformed person besides, you know, some far right, you know, modern day Reformed writer with a blog or something? I mean, that's just not to say that Reformed people don't have a good theology of creation. I mean, maybe true of certain individuals, but goodness gracious. I mean, especially certain brands of, you know, the Dutch Reformed movement. I mean, they're the ones that have been bringing us back to Genesis 1 and 2 as the foundation of a biblical worldview. Anyway, there's sort of stereotypes

in the side of Catholics that, you know, they may take a really skewed, off-the-wall, uninformed brand of Protestantism and think that that represents all Protestants. Vice versa. Protestants have a habit of doing this too, especially non-denominational kind of low church protestants may think that all catholics you know don't read the bible uh they just you know and they don't like take their faith seriously and they're just in the tradition and and you know they just whatever the pope says they just believe and they sit around bowing down to mary all day long you know or whatever the stereotype may be but man man, I've met a lot of Catholics who have an incredible knowledge of scripture

and a deep reverence and submission to the Bible. They may have a different view and maybe even a slightly different view in terms of authority and ultimate authority and the role of tradition and the church. But goodness, I've been in several Protestant subcultures that would view their favorite, I've been in several Protestant subcultures that would view their favorite, I won't name any names, view their favorite preacher, teacher, pastor, authority as

having like near Pope-like status. They would never say that, but functionally, they very much operate that way. If somebody of a high status in evangelical Christianity, that's sort of your favorite pastor or preacher, if they say something, you're probably going to go along with it. And if they change their view on something, you're more than likely going to go with that. I think there is brands of popish type authority in several subcultures of evangelicalism. So, I think sometimes we get, we're a little too hard on, we Protestants can be a little too hard on Catholics thinking that they just have no, I know, like authority, no view of the authority of scripture and they just simply take whatever

the Pope says at face value and just believe it. Yes, that may be true of certain Catholics. I also know it to be true of certain Protestants. So, why am I a Protestant? Let me give you three main reasons. Number one, sola scriptura, not that scripture is the only authority, but that scripture is the ultimate authority, that scripture ultimately trumps tradition. Yes, it is informed by tradition, it is shaped by tradition. In some ways, scripture is a product of tradition, partly, but I still, at the end of the day, if I am utterly convinced of studying the scripture on a certain doctrine, then I'm willing to go against what my Reformed or Protestant tradition tells me is their understanding of scripture. And if you've followed this podcast for any number of minutes, you know that I'm more

than willing to go against the weight of tradition if scripture demands it. Number two, I do think the Pope has too much vested authority. I mean, I think, in a sense, I want to say, obviously, like, hopefully no Catholic person listening to this would be offended at that. I mean, the fact that I am Protestant means, almost by definition, that I don't, you know, agree with or really resonate with the level of authority that one individual has. I mean, just on a broader level, I think hierarchies can be very dangerous. And I do think the New Testament pushes back hard against hierarchies and people in positions of authority. And not that we shouldn't have authorities or people in authority, or, you know, I don't,

obviously I think pastors and leaders carry a level of authority, but I think the Catholic church, um, would, I think have too much invested authority into one man and, you know, other people who are under him. I don't know what's the next level. I don't even know. Is it cardinals or bishops or vice versa? Um, so, uh, number three, the big one for me is the priesthood of all believers. That's a huge one. Gosh, I just, I do see that clearly in scripture. I know I hesitate using

the word clearly. I get in trouble by saying that because it's like, well, it's clear to you, but not clear to everybody. Okay, I get it. But can I say that the priesthood of all believers is clear in scripture? That just, the idea that a human priest needs to be some, on some level, a mediator between me and God, I just, I disagree with that for several reasons. And I hope I'm not misrepresenting that. Maybe some Catholic listeners are like, wow, that's how you Protestants understand our, you know, the authority of the priest and the role of the priest, but that's not how we see it. So, if I need to be corrected on that, please let me know. So, what's my response to your friend who

has left the non-denominational church for the Catholic church? Honestly, I would want to know why. Like, genuinely want to know why. Like, come, you know, go to the person and say, man, I'm really curious. Why did you leave the Protestant church or the evangelical church for the Catholic church? Not in an interrogative way, but in a genuinely inquisitive way. Like, as in you're the learner, he's the teacher. Like, teach me why you find the Catholic church more true and compelling than the evangelical church. That'd be my first approach. I'd want to see, are the reasons legitimate? And if they are, then I would say, yes. God bless you.

I hope it's great to use your own words that you said in your question. If the reasons were lame, then I might humbly push back on some of those reasons. There's a very good chance when people leave the evangelical church to join the Catholic church, they probably had some bad experience in the non-denominational church. Maybe it's the goofiness, the fluffiness, the anti-intellectualism, the lack of rootedness, church splits every, you know, a couple of weeks or whatever it is. Like, I think it may be being just simply, at least in part, worn out from the subculture of evangelicalism. Okay. Next question. What are my thoughts on Pope Francis's new view of hell?

Now, this is a little, I'm a little bit behind on this. As you may know, the Pope said some things about, well, he said some things about hell that seemed to imply that he denies the existence of hell. Others took him to say that he believes in an annihilation view of hell. And it kind of blew up just before Easter. And here it is, you know, the middle of April, even towards the end of April. And I am now addressing this. So it may be old news to some of you, but let me give you some thoughts. I did do a bit of research looking at several

news articles and websites and looking at how the Catholic church has responded, looking at the actual words of Pope Francis, what he allegedly had said. So, here's what he had, well, let me say this. Here is what Pope Francis allegedly said. He says this, regarding those who don't know Christ, the wicked or whatever. He says, they are not punished. Those who repent obtain God's forgiveness and take their place among the ranks of those who contemplate him. But those who do not repent and cannot be forgiven disappear. Then he says, a hell does not exist or doesn't exist. The disappearance of sinning souls exists, which, and that's it.

That's, I don't have any more text from that. Maybe there's a bit more context. I didn't see any more context than that. Now, the Catholic church's position is this. Immediately after death, the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell where they suffer the punishments of hell, eternal fire.

By the way, I think they actually got it wrong, the Catholic Church there. I think that's absolutely wrong. Not just because I, well, you know what? Just to be clear, it doesn't, that statement alone that I just read, which is the official Catholic Church's position, doesn't in and of itself adhere to eternal conscious torment. The phrase eternal fire doesn't demand eternal conscious torment, as I've said a few times on this podcast. But the one main reason why I disagree with this is because it says immediately after death, the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descended to hell. Biblically, I would say that immediately after death, the soul of the unrighteous goes to a place called Hades. Maybe there's torment there. If we take Luke 16, quite literally,

maybe not. Either way, that's not hell. Hell is a place where unbelievers go after judgment, after they are resurrected from the dead, given new bodies face judgment, and then are cast into hell. So, it's not, it's explicitly not immediately after death, and it's more than just the souls of those who die who go to hell. So, I think the Catholic Church's position, for several reasons, in as much as this statement that I found online on a Catholic website accurately represents the Church's position, I think it's off for several reasons. Now, according to the National Catholic Register, this is what they said in response to the Pope's words.

Here's what they say. What is reported by the author in today's article is the result of his reconstruction in which the literal words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father. So, it seems that Eugenio Scalfari, the reporter, who's like 118 years old or something like that, he's not quite that old, but he's a really old reporter, doesn't take notes or use a recording during his interview. I read that somewhere that this is, he characteristically just kind of absorbs the

person being interviewed. So, the biggest question I have is whether he literally or he accurately represented the literal words of the Pope. And this is what the Catholic, the National Catholic Register is getting at. They said, look, this is his summary or gist of what the Pope said. And this reporter is an atheist. Apparently he's been known to not represent the Catholic church most accurately. So there is a massive question mark over people's minds and over my my mind too of whether this reporter is uh representing what the pope actually said in spec you know specifically the the phrase a hell doesn't exist like that's the one phrase that really leaps out at me um though the idea of of you know those who aren't forgiven that will disappear that would convey some sense

of annihilation, okay? But that's not denying hell. Again, just to clarify, the annihilation view of hell is not denying hell. It's a different, I would say, more biblical understanding of what hell is. It's not saying hell doesn't exist. So, it's really that one phrase, a hell doesn't exist, that we're left up to this reporter who with no recording, no actual notes to, you know, is he accurately representing the Pope's literal words? I think the jury's a bit out. So, but here is where, I guess the one fishy thing to me is if

he did misrepresent what the Pope actually said, how come we haven't seen, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't seen the Pope come right out and say, oh, I just want to clarify this. I totally believe in hell. Hell is a place of eternal conscious torment where the wicked will be thrown. Like he hasn't come out and really reaffirmed as far as I know, a real clear articulation of the nature of hell. So that, you know, and given that the Pope's, you know, somewhat progressive leanings and in several areas, you know, wouldn't surprise me that deep down he doesn't actually believe in an ECT view of hell or maybe even hell as a whole. But again, that's just, you know, that's just an assumption on my part. I'm not saying that's true,

but I'm a little curious why he hasn't come right out. And if he completely believes in eternal conscious torment and hell, then how come he has not come out and affirmed that? What makes the Bible uniquely inspired? This questioner says, you refer back to scripture a lot on your podcast. I'd like to ask, how do you know that the Bible

in its 66 part form as used by the Protestant church is God's word? What makes scripture uniquely inspired in ways that other sources are not? Okay. So, um, so let me give you several reasons and, uh, well, let me give you four main reasons. And let me say, none of my reasons are scientifically like bulletproof. In other words, I can't prove to you that the Bible is uniquely inspired in the same way that I can prove to you that I ride a 2001 Harley Sportster 1200, which I do, but it's been super cold here. And my ankles still, I don't know if you guys know, but I tore almost every ligament in my foot. And so, that was January 6th when I was still in Australia and I was on crutches for two months and then a boot for another month. And I've

just been walking for the last few weeks. So, I've not been on my Harley 2001 Sportster, but I do own one. And I can show you pictures, I can touch it, I can fly you out here, or you can fly yourself out here. And you can see that can see that I can show you the registration. I can prove to you beyond any shadow of legitimate doubt that this is a true statement. I can show you that I'm 42 years old by my birth certificate. Maybe there's a chance that my parents messed up. They lied about it. And so there it's not, there's a slight chance that,

you know, by my evidence, the evidence that I give you that I'm 42 years old might still, you may still have some loopholes and like, well, it's still not a hundred percent true, but either way, you would be more secure in those statements than when I say the Bible is inspired. Now, to be clear, I don't, the word inspired inspired when we say the bible is inspired that doesn't mean it's inspiring like harry potter might be inspiring um it's inspired in the sense that second timothy 316 says it's inspired in other words that it's phaopneustos or god breed that it is the breath or words of god now inspired the idea of the Bible being inspired also doesn't mean that it must be interpreted literally. Some people say, I believe in the inspiration of God's word, therefore creation is, you know, God created the world in six days. It's like, well, those are two different statements. One is a hermeneutical statement,

namely that Genesis 1 speaks of a literal six-day creation. And the other statement that the Bible is inspired is a different claim. The two don't go hand in hand, but I want to make that point because some people, if you say that you believe in the inspiration of scripture, they interpret that to mean, oh, so you take the Bible in a woodenly literal sense, you know, that everything's historical in the same way. And it's like, well, no, those are two different claims, inspiration and, you know, a literal interpretation. Inspiration also doesn't demand inerrancy. Karl Barth, the great German theologian of the 20th century, 21st century, no, 20th century, he believed in inspiration. He believed in the authority of scripture. He did not believe in inerrancy. Those are different claims. One does not demand the other. So, just to be clear,

you know, when I defend the inspiration of scripture, I'm not necessarily defending how to interpret it or whether there are any sort of historical or scientific errors in the word of God. So, let me give you four reasons why I believe in inspiration. The first two are, if you're an atheist or a skeptic, you're going to roll your eyes at these, but I'm just being really honest with my beliefs. I'm being honest with what has been the foundation of my belief, whether I know it or not, okay? Number one, it says, the Bible says it's inspired. Yes. I know that's circular. Yes. I know that that wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but part of me, yes, it is

circular. And I think everybody, religious people and non-religious people do have some level of circular reasoning for all sorts of beliefs. Okay. So it says it's inspired first Timothy 3, reasoning for all sorts of beliefs. Okay. So, it says it's inspired. 1 Timothy 3.16 or 2 Timothy 3.16 already read and the book of Hebrews quotes some passages from the Old Testament and says, you know, as the Holy Spirit says, implying that the biblical author was somehow moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy chapter 1 talks about biblical writers being moved by the Holy Spirit. So, it says it's inspired. Number two, the Christian church accepts this truth claim. Not just accepts it, but it's a crucial aspect of the Christian faith. To be a Christian is on some level to acknowledge, let's just say, the authority of scripture derived from the fact that

it's inspired by God. Doesn't mean it's not also written by man or, you know, it's the word of God, but it, you know, but it also comes through the pen or words of humans. But ultimately, I mean, this is a huge aspect of the Christian faith. If I was going to convert to Judaism, part of that would be receiving the Jewish belief that, at least the Orthodox Jewish belief that, you know, the Hebrew Bible is also inspired by God. It comes from God. Or if I was going to convert to Islam, I would, by definition, I would be signing off on certain views of the Quran, their holy book. And so, each religion, most religions have holy pieces of literature that are recognized as holy, set apart, different, of God, authoritative, or inspired. And so, just the fact that I am a

Christian means that I, unless I find really, really good reasons otherwise, I am going to also embrace a major tenet of the Christian faith, namely the inspiration of scripture. Okay, so those first two reasons might be considered lame if you're a skeptic. So, let me give you two more reasons that might be a little more compelling. Number three, though written by men with positions of power and privilege, the biblical worldview elevates and praises those who don't have power and privilege. This is what would be called an internal criterion for inspiration, that it doesn't seem like it is purely a human book. If all these humans who are writing the Bible, over 40 authors, I think, who are in positions of power and privilege,

most of them anyway. We know this for one, because they're all men. Number two, they can all write. I mean, by definition, if they wrote the scriptures, they can write. And so, being a man who is literate in the ancient world gives you a tremendous amount of power and privilege. And then there's other, you know, Paul is a citizen of Rome that gives them another, you know, leg up on everybody. Old Testament writers were typically prophets and they were held in high esteem than everybody else. I mean, it just doesn't make sense if this is simply a human book that people in positions of power and privilege would build into their narrative from Genesis to Revelation and elevation of people who do not have power and privilege would build into their narrative from Genesis to Revelation and elevation of people who do not have power and privilege.

That, I mean, it's just, it's astounding. It's fascinating from a purely historical perspective and even a religious perspective that their holy book would elevate, you know, women, that it would elevate the poor, that it would elevate people, you know, children. And especially, you know, you, that it would elevate the poor, that it would elevate people, you know, children. And especially, you know, you can compound that. So, foreign women who are going against the moral system of the people writing the book, the books, like Rahab or even Ruth or others, Esther. I mean, it's fascinating that the heroes of the Bible are usually people of very low social status and privilege. That at least indicates, not without a shadow of doubt, but it points towards some other author working through these human writers.

Or the biblical writers just all happen to be, just have an amazing altruistic view of other humans, which is just very unlikely. Number four, fourth reason is that the biblical worldview makes the most sense of my lived experience in the world. I mean, I could rattle off all kinds of things here, but I mean, people are a blend of good and evil, like the Bible says. Even good people do really bad things. We see this in society. We see it in the scriptures. Salvation by grace, not by human effort, makes more sense to me. It makes more sense of my own pursuit of the divine. If it were up to me and that is how salvation happens, then it just experientially doesn't feel very compelling.

The Bible has a very high view of creation, a high view of women, the centrality of Jesus Christ. Jesus is one of the most compelling religious figures in religious history, even in the eyes of people like Gandhi and other leaders who don't even confess to Christian faith. The fact that the Christian church, Christian history, Christian denominations have not represented Jesus in all of his counter-cultural expression. That's our fault, not Jesus' fault. But if you just read the life

and words and teaching and story of Jesus, the fact that the Bible puts that story, that person, that teaching at the center of its message is incredibly compelling. I can read other pieces of religious literature and it just doesn't have as compelling of a central figure as the Bible does. So, those are the four main reasons. The last two, I think, are the, I guess, the main, main reasons. Notice that I did not cite biblical prophecy. This was what I grew up with. And a lot of Christians still do this. Maybe a lot of you do this and I don't want to pass judgment, but I would like to provoke your thoughts a little bit. It's not to argue against somebody who doesn't already believe in the Bible. To argue from biblical prophecy is not going to get you

anywhere for a few reasons. Number one, well, let me give you one main reason. For biblical prophecy to work largely depends upon the dating of when these individual books were written. So, for instance, Isaiah in Isaiah 45 predicts the rise of a Persian leader named Cyrus 150 years before Cyrus even existed. So, people say, see, that's prophecy that shows that it's true and inspired. It's not just Isaiah saying that because Isaiah lived, you know, he probably penned that around 700 BC. Cyrus didn't come on the scene until 150 years later in the mid 500s BC. But here's the thing. We don't know. We can't, we assume Isaiah lived during that time, which is probably true. We have archeological evidence and we assume that he's the one that wrote that, but we don't have hard evidence that some editor didn't come in and add that after the fact in, say, the year 500 BC.

You say, well, we got the Dead Sea Scrolls that has that statement. Well, maybe, but those are still hundreds of years after Cyrus. They could have edited that in, or somebody else could have edited that in. It could have been written after the fact. Even Daniel 11 is one of the most detailed prophecies about the intertestamental period stuff going on in the second century BC. And Daniel obviously lived in, well, not obviously, sorry, I don't want to be condescending, but okay. Daniel lived during the 600s, no, sorry, during the 500s BC, sixth century BC. But a lot of scholars say that Daniel didn't write the book of Daniel.

They say it was actually written in the second century for various reasons. And so, and we can go on and on and on. There's a prophecy in Daniel, gosh, is it Daniel seven, about the 70 weeks. And people say that Daniel predicted the very, you know, day that Jesus would ride in on the donkey. That is highly disputed. And the dating

on all of that is very debated. And we can go on and on and on in almost every single prophecy, you can find, if you play the skeptic card and you don't assume a precise date of when these books were written, you can really tear to shreds that argument. And we don't have hard and fast evidence of authorship. We assume that when Daniel says, I, Daniel, wrote this book, I don't think he quite said that. We just assume because it's true that he wrote the book. And we also believe Daniel lived in the sixth century. But we take a lot of for granted there because we already believe that the Bible is true, but for a skeptic to say, wait a minute, show me the evidence that Daniel actually wrote this 500 years before these prophecies came true. Show me hard evidence, scientific evidence

that Isaiah actually predicted this 150 years before Cyrus. If you really push it, you cannot prove that. The only thing, the only times that prophecies, you know, you could maybe make an argument for prophecy is when Old Testament, the Old Testament gives prophecies that didn't come true until the New Testament. But even there, there's not, even there, you could say that the New Testament biblical writers fabricated certain events to match Old Testament prophecy. So, for instance, Zechariah, gosh, what is it? I think it's 12, Zechariah 12, talks about, you know, the Messiah riding on a donkey, yea, verily the colt, the foal of a donkey or something like that. And, you know,

it's, you know, it's a prophecy about the triumphal entry when Jesus rides in on a donkey. Well, maybe, but, or if you play the skeptic, you could say, well, wait a minute, the biblical writers just made that up. The New Testament writers made that up to make it look like it was a prophecy in, you know, in Isaiah's time. And plus it's a, you know, it could be coincidence like, okay, Isaiah prophesies he's going to ride in a donkey and then, and then yeah, Jesus happens to ride in a donkey. Or let's just say the biblical, the New Testament writers did accurately represent what actually happened. Maybe it was Jesus who said, oh yeah, there's this prophecy back there. So I have to kind of fulfill this prophecy and then he made it happen. But maybe the actual prophet or Zachariah, you know, he wasn't

actually predicting the future. He was just kind of making a statement and Jesus comes along and tries to fit in his mission or his, you know, events with that statement. So, I mean, again, if you play the skeptic card, you can come up for all kinds of other reasons why these prophecies match up even between the Old and New Testament. So, I don't, uh, I actually don't like to base my view of inspiration on prophecy. So yeah, it's the other four reasons I gave. I think those, especially the last two, I think are more compelling. Should someone identify as a gay Christian? Um, I'm going to, uh, let me just read a little bit of this question here. Just give you a little context. He says, uh, so I've been diving into this study of homosexuality for the past year and

a half, reading books, searching the scriptures and listening to all of your podcasts. It has been invaluable and coming from an all. Oh, it has been invaluable and coming from an alt-right conservative Christian homosexuals on our, our, an abomination background. I have grown so much in grace. Well, the bar is set pretty low, I guess, but yeah, well done by moving away from the alt right Christian sort of perspective here. Yeah. So, why do Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction often label themselves as gay Christians? I ask because I might struggle

with lustful thoughts, but I don't call myself a lustful Christian or a sexually immoral Christian. Okay. So, it all depends on what you mean by the term gay. The term gay can mean, or well, the term gay simply means you're attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex. That's it. It doesn't say anything about your sex life. It doesn't say anything about whether or not you're lusting or not. It doesn't even say what you believe about same-sex marriage or same-sex sexual relationships. Being gay simply means you experience an attraction to the same sex, not to the opposite sex. Now, some people, mostly straight people, when they hear the word gay, they automatically assume lust.

They automatically assume sexual behavior, but that is not demanded by the term gay. Now, I don't think that same-sex attraction, or if I can say simply being gay, is a morally culpable sin. Other people who hold the same view I do include, if you know these names, Wesley Hill or Nate Collins or Greg Coles, or if you want to Google spiritual friendship, all the people on the spiritual friendship blog would agree with me. They are, you know, people who do experience an attraction to the same sex. Many of them actually identify as gay, but they also hold to and are pursuing and submitting to a historically Christian view of sexual expression and marriage. Namely, that marriage is a union between two sexually different persons. That's what marriage is. And all sexual expression is intended by God to belong

within that covenant union of marriage being defined by the joining of two sexually different persons. So, there's a lot of gay people who believe that, who are pursuing that, who submit to that, who yet still experience same-sex attraction. So, since I don't believe same-sex attraction is itself a morally culpable sin, therefore the analogy of, you know, you say, I don't call myself a lustful Christian. Well, I don't think gay means lust. When people identify as a gay Christian, they don't, they're not saying I'm a lustful Christian, or they're not even saying, they're not even identifying as something that's intrinsically sinful, like being gay, or, you know, a sexual,

you say you don't identify as a sexually immoral Christian. Well, again, that's not what the term gay means for them. That's not how they're using the term. So, the biggest question is, what do you mean by the term gay? Let me, and again, there's, you know, the term gay simply means attraction being attracted to the same sex. It can be used as an identity label. Neither of those two things, gay as an identity or gay as same-sex attraction is a morally culpable sin, I don't believe. Now, gay could also be used to refer to sexual lust. I don't think it has to. I don't think that's not what the term means. So, if somebody who's straight assumes that gay means that, I can understand

the frustration at the label gay Christian, but again, that's not what the term gay means. Last question, have I ever experienced a miracle? The question, or I could just read this, it's another two sentences. Have you ever experienced miracles in your life? What one to three instances immediately come to mind? Now, as you can probably guess, if you're a listener to this show, I'm going to respond to this question with a question. What do you mean by a miracle? I will say, I think the term miracle is thrown around way too haphazardly. What one person means by a miracle, another person may disagree with that definition. So, we need to get on the same page of what exactly we mean by miracle. So, for instance, I have four kids. And do you

believe that childbirth is a miracle? In one sense, I guess, I mean, it depends. I wouldn't call it a miracle. I would call it an act of God, a precious gift, but there are scientific and natural explanations for why I have four kids. My wife and I had sex at least four times and sperm, seminate. I'm getting too personal. If you don't know how it works, you can Google it, but be careful on what you pull up. Okay. So, um, there, there it's, it's a, it's a miracle in the sense that it's, yeah, it's overseen by God and children are a gift from God, but it's not a miracle in the sense that it defies the laws of nature. Um, I'm a Christian. I got saved. Some people will say salvation is the greatest miracle of all. And if that's your definition of miracle, then that's your definition of miracle. I would say, no, I don't think the fact that I am a confessing Christian,

that that is my religious commitment, defies the laws of nature. There's all kinds of sociological and psychological reasons for why humans would adhere to a certain religion and not another. to a certain religion and not another. So, when I say miracle, I'm referring to something that defies the laws of nature in a way that there is absolutely no natural explanation. And the term, I use the term absolutely not for emphasis, but in its literal sense, that there is absolutely no natural explanation. So, for instance, if somebody gets healed of cancer, I don't, I personally, I don't want to, I hope I don't offend anybody. I'm happy saying that's an act of God. I'm saying, I'm happy to say that's a result of prayer. I still don't love saying miracle. Maybe the doctor misread the report. Maybe it went away. That is not scientifically impossible

for cancer to go away, even overnight. Like, that doesn't defy the laws of nature. A miracle would be somebody missing a limb, to grow a limb. I would say, you know, somebody was, for instance, with a Down syndrome or something to not have that anymore. Like that defies, as far as I know, I'm not a scientist, but I think that that would defy the laws of nature. The parting of the Red Sea on dry land, that defies the laws of nature. So, being healed from blindness, or I think even deafness, I think this would defy the laws of nature. Like the science is no, not just rare, but an actual scientific explanation for this. I don't think. Maybe your ears are clogged with earwax for 30 years. I don't know. I mean, maybe there are exceptions to that, but I want a miracle. I think miracles are evidence when the God puts his finger in the pool of human history and sends ripple effects. I think it's intended to point to God's activity in God's direct activity in, in, in history. So having said all

that, no, I've never experienced a miracle. My kid, I've prayed and my kids have been healed of a sickness. I don't consider that a miracle. Um, I I've, um, I've gotten a job and, uh, I don't consider that a miracle. My wife said yes when I asked her to marry me. So maybe that's a miracle. But I've heard a lot of secondhand testimonies, a lot of secondhand testimonies of, gosh, I've heard probably thousands of secondhand testimonies

of legs being lengthened, okay? Even secondhand testimonies of people being healed of blindness or a fatal disease or, you know, whatever. I have never had that experience on myself and I have sought them. In fact, it was last time I sought it was probably six months ago. There was somebody at a church I was at who was healing people and I'm actually deaf in my left ear. So I went forward to be healed of my hearing in my left ear, my deaf ear, which is my left ear. So I went forward to be healed of my hearing in my left ear, my deaf ear, which is my left ear.

And it didn't, I wasn't healed. So I have sought it out. I have prayed, not so much recently, but I have prayed that God would heal me of a hearing in my deaf ear. And that hasn't happened. And so, yeah, so personally on me, I haven't had anything happen to me

that I would classify as a miracle. And I haven't had anything happen to me that I would classify as a miracle and I haven't seen anything that defies the laws of nature in the strict sense that I've described above. I have heard a lot of secondhand testimonies. I don't need, let me just expand on this. He didn't actually ask about this. I don't need miracles to believe and be confident that God exists. There's only a few periods in biblical history where God actually does miracles. I mean, the whole post-exilic period for hundreds of years, we have no evidence that God did any sort of miracles. He was sort of working behind the scenes. He was working in and through human circumstances to achieve his will and to work in and through the hearts of human

people. I don't consider those miracles. I do believe it's God working. Okay, so I do think God is working, just not in a miraculous, oh, sorry, sorry. I don't need miracles to be happening to believe that God is working. So I don't, I mean, God can do miracles. I actually, I mean, I don't doubt, let me say this, I don't doubt 100%

the secondhand testimonies I hear of miracles. Neither do I 100% say that's of God, 100%, no way. There's no other explanation of us being God. Well, there are other explanations. I mean, the human mind is incredibly, incredibly powerful. The more we study neurology, the more we see how our mind is capable of creating realities and we believe them. Creating whole memories to cover up, for instance, trauma in the past. We have people, maybe you don't, but I mean, people have whole memories, narrative stories in their mind of their life that didn't exist. That's just a proven fact.

So that's very much a possibility that from secondhand reports. You know what's another possibility? That a miracle happened. I'm not doubting that. I'm not saying that that didn't happen. I'm saying maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. Praise God if it did, praise God if it didn't.

God still exists if it did. God still exists if he didn't. God is moving if it did. God is moving if it didn't. God is moving if it did. God is moving if it didn't happen. Did I get all that right? So, I don't 100% doubt that miracles happen today. In fact, I would be inclined to say I think they do happen today. Maybe not as frequent as people have said that they happen.

And again, a lot of it goes on, you know, depending on what definition people have of miracle. So, yeah, I don't feel like I'm missing out because a miracle hasn't happened. I'd be amazed to see what happened and I hope that would strengthen my faith. But again, many people throughout scriptures that witness amazing miracles, they actually didn't people throughout scriptures that witness amazing miracles, they actually didn't necessarily strengthen their faith. I mean, after walking through the parted seas on dry ground, they, within a few days, start grumbling and doubting God in the wilderness. Like, that is crazy. After seeing Lazarus be raised from the dead, people still didn't want to follow Jesus. And the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, remember at the end of Luke 16, it says, even if, you know, at the very end, you know,

the rich man says, send Lazarus to tell my brothers, tell them that, you know, this place is real and they don't want to come here. And they'll believe Lazarus because they know he died. And if he's raised from the dead, then they'll believe him. And remember what Jesus says, they have the scriptures. Well, I guess it was Abraham said in the story through Jesus told the parable. They have the scriptures, let them read them. And the rich man, hopefully I'm getting this, this is from memory. And the rich man says, you know, no, no. If somebody rises from the dead, they'll believe. And Abraham turns around and says, even if somebody rises from the dead, they will not believe. Like, I don't, I think miracles can enhance faith, but I don't think they need to.

And I think true faith is a gift of God and comes from, also from you throwing yourself on God and comes from, uh, also from you throwing yourself on God and committing yourself in allegiance to him and, uh, miracles can help that or, you know, lack of miracles hopefully won't diminish that faith. Thanks for your questions. Thanks so much to my Patreon supporters for voting on them. And thank you to all, all y'all, all y'all for submitting them. If you have any questions, you can email them to chris at press the.com. That's C-H-R-I-S at press the sprinkle.com. And thank you so much, you guys for supporting the show. If you'd like to support the show for as little as five bucks a month,

you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. That's patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw. And we will see you next time. Bye.