This Is When and How to Tell Someone They Believe a Lie
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2021
- Is it ever okay to tell someone they’ve been deceived and are believing a lie? Greg Koukl answers on the Stand to Reason podcast.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CALL IN TO THE SHOW -----
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
----- SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION -----
If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you'd like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at www.str.org/training/broadcast.
----- FIND MORE FREE TRAINING -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
----- CONNECT -----
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: www.str.org/donate
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It’s important to remember that we are ambassadors for Christ, and that we represent Jesus in everything we say and do. Therefore, we should strive to be patient, kind, and loving whenever we’re telling others about the gospel.
Here are some additional, relevant resources to help:
I Could Be Wrong...
rsn.pub/3IdD6kn
Is It Wrong to Think You’re Right?
rsn.pub/3HQCOQk
Is certainty a sin?
rsn.pub/3OU8Ka3
Is It Wrong to Claim a Religion Is True?
rsn.pub/3UueYkC
Evangelism Isn’t Disrespectful
rsn.pub/3TalFHz
Reminds me of what I once heard John MacArthur say to someone who asked him the same question, “You tell ‘em what the Bible tells you to tell them; that’s what you tell ‘em.”
So insightful. I have been giving people puzzle pieces for a long time hoping they could put it together and see the picture. Knowing what to say and when to say it takes discernment from the Holy Spirit. There's not necessarily a formula to follow because each person is different. Most of the time, people can tell when you care about them and are more likely to listen when they believe you care about them. When we don't take the time to listen to them and we just give them our talking points, it usually comes across in a negative way. It's all so tricky because we are usually limited on time, so we try to be quick and straight forward, . We have to do everything in love and trust God with the results. Knowing when to use tough love has been difficult for me.
I too am exmormon. All glory to Father God for drawing me to the true Christ of the Holy Bible ! I too, tried to gracefully, gently, tactfully write to my family about why l left. I laid out some facts very clearly. I was very supportive and grateful of members, but truthful about the deception. I was called contentious, then shunned. 😥
The idea of approaching them again really triggers the ptsd. I am willing to endure the fallout , but wow, their cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance is huge. I cannot rest within my heart. What words are enough?
Kudos to the woman on the phone as well as to Greg!
John 15:18-25 Your fruit is telling them the truth in love; they are responsible for how they hear it.
@@bethtaylor9773❤❤❤❤😢Bless you for the encouraging word.
wonderful discussion wow
My pastor told me that if they don’t believe what God has said then they won’t believe anything I have to say. It’s our responsibility to say what God has said and to help people understand by speaking the truth in love. If anyone is not receptive to us in that endeavour than they are rejecting the Lord. At that point, I think to just simply ask them what they believe and why they believe it. Sometimes we’re really not sure what we believe until we are asked to give a good reason for it. That’s why we are told to always be prepared to give the reason for the hope that is in us. 🙂
As a former new-ager (but now born again reformed Christian) coming from a Mormon dad and a Roman Catholic mom: I really feel for her and understand her zeal for the truth and the conflicting pain that comes from realizing many people who call themselves Christians are actually talking about entirely different Jesus’s than that of the Bible.
He even said he did not come to bring peace but a sword and that families will be divided because of the Truth!
Mike Winger has some solid videos teaching on LDS, JW, and RCC, and while they’ve helped me, they’re quite long so this clip was a refreshing reminder on how to conduct a discussion of theological disagreement.
Also, the idea to preach the gospel without saying words or to just be passively “nice” rather than what the scriptures say to “REPENT and believe,” how will anyone know what to repent from of you avoid pointing it out?!
Exactly, those who believe in the trinitarian god must accept that it was Jesus' hand that grabbed the heads of the little infants and submerged them under water to end their lives during the flood. That was the way, according to the Bible, that Jesus chose to get rid of them. Somehow many are unable to accept that it was Jesus who sent the flood but then they have no problem recognizing that it was Yahweh.
@@vejeke The man Jesus was not yet born at the time of the flood. Yes it was GOD who sent the flood. Jesus is GOD.
John 1: 1,14 - (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. (14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
As you can see, the Word is GOD, and the Word became flesh. Jesus is GOD in flesh. GOD is infinite. GOD cannot lose anything; He's unchanging. So GOD becoming flesh does not mean that Jesus is not GOD, but that Jesus is both GOD and man at the same time. So Jesus is 100% GOD and 100% man.
The human being Jesus was not yet born at the time of the flood. So Jesus didn't use His hand to grab the heads of little infants and submerge them under water to end their lives during the flood.
@@dchaunpalu4655 You see?
Jesus is God.
God sent the flood.
Therefore, Jesus sent the flood.
"Before Abraham Was, I AM"
@@vejeke Exactly. Spot on! Jesus is God. God sent the flood. Therefore Jesus sent the flood. I agree. So you believe the trinity?
@@dchaunpalu4655 I know how to use my brain. I don't believe in invisible magical beings. That includes Christian mythology.
Jesus said it 🙏❤️
Matt 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Thank you, Greg, for your very wise counsel. God bless you.
Heavy loaded intro conversation! So much I'm gonna have to break that down into verses.
In a time when the world is increasingly against Christ, and therefore more and more Christians are in conversations w/ family and friends who are deceived, it is reminders like this which bring great comfort to the church. Thanks brother. And thank you sister for your question. Most of all thank God for Jesus as He is in Scripture and the freedom we have in Him!!!❤
Jesus also calls them a brood of vipers. Matthew 12:24, Matthew 23:33.
I thank God for preparing and equipping men of God to preach the truth and teach sound doctrine and offer biblical wisdom. Thank you for all that you do to equip the saints
Thank you for supporting us!
beautiful video. always (to the best of your understanding) tell the truth, and do what's right (to the best of your ability) regardless of the consequences. the 'great falling away' is not people falling away from the Churches, it is the Churches falling away from sound doctrine (people falling away from the Churches is just a side effect). keep up the good work, .. and hang in there : )
Read tactic not too long ago, and just downloaded the audio version, so I can get a refresher.
Tactics is one of my top books..
Wow indeed! Just subscribed ❤🙏🏼✝️
Excellent conversation here. One thing is, there is a time for exceptional directness and boldness in telling people what may anger them. But it depends upon what they currently know and how entrenched and resistant they are to hearing the truth. So, for me, that's certainly not where I start out, but if the conversation requires it, I may say that I think they are deceiving themselves - certainly about Scripture. But if really entrenched, I might further say that I don't think they really want to know the truth - and that they'll never discover it if they don't at least desire it / don't intentionally avoid it. My other thought is, Jesus PERFECTLY knew people's thoughts, thinking and evil motivations - He was absolutely certain what needed to be said to them. And not because He thought they would eventually listen, but so others would potentially see and thus examine themselves per His brutal criticism of others. And also for believers to understand the kind of people they might well be up against - as they are often beyond reason and convincing - because, for them, understanding and seeking the truth about God was never important to them.
Some people are blinded and cannot see the truth. Jesus said my sheep hear my voice. Whoever was given to Him He will not lose.
I think this woman is her relatives, best friend, and they don’t even know it. I also think that your scripture assessment is very sound, and fortunately, I think there are some pastors that are so afraid of losing their paycheck or their flock, instead of speaking, the truth boldly Fearlessly and in love.
J Warner Wallace is great!
Tricky situation; without knowing the detail, of course, I'd take a different tack: I'd read up on Mormon literature, particularly the essays that betray historical events in Mormonism that most Mormons are ignorant of. Then, I'd start questioning their beliefs; curiously, not aggressively...how they explain the various things; that would demonstrate an irenic spirit, rather than an aggressive one. One obviously gets nowhere constantly telling people they are wrong; that will build resistance immediately. Reading up on their documents would show genuine concern and interest.
Greg repeatedly said directness is not, of itself, wrong. That hints that other methods can be used.
I’d wager that, as the conversation continued past the end of the clip, he pointed to the method you describe. After all, Tactics and Street Smarts cover it thoroughly. (*Street Smarts came out a year later.)
Except… the caller had left Mormonism and probably didn’t need to do the research as much as you and I would have to.
I brought a man to our church, I knew he has a problem with drugs & alcohol so I filled in the pastor. The man was helping around the church so got him a phone to help with planning. He got baptized, became homeless so the pastor leaves him sleep in the church with no accountability at all. First his phone disappeared then a day later the church bus was taken & careened through the neighborhood taking out bushes & mailboxes. I've tried talking to him & everyone involved & all I hear is we're praying for him & we don't want to get involved with something personal between him & you. I tell them "It's not about the phone or the bus, it's about accountability, sobriety & being right with God!". Any ideas?
Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
Be aware that you might not even have what makes it finally click for that person. That's often where the team comes in. But sometimes the click happens without human help, but simply because the person notices some tiny thing somewhere that makes all those puzzle pieces just fall into place. All of that is God. But also be aware that most people are going to end up in Hell, by their own deliberate choice. You cannot win those people over. But you also cannot know which ones those people are. The eternal God does. And those people, he does not call them. No matter how much you try, you will not convince those who are not called by the eternal God.
All false religions HATE Sola Scriptura...for sake of human authority/imposed power. Not coincidently they also ALL trust their own credentials instead of the GIFT that Jesus offers
The gift is free as it cannot be paid for by us, to have past sins before baptism forgiven is a free gift, after it is our good works of sanctification that allow past sins to be forgiven when we die. Believers are saved at baptism on many conditions, you must know that as Paul warns against hypocrisy, Jesus gives us access to grace where a believer stands unless they fall.
Wouldn't it be great if one technique worked for every Christian for every non-Christian? I have no issues challenging others, but I try to live it, not force it on others. I've heard you read "Cast no pearls before swine." I know that God does not choose everyone to be Christian. My Christianity is usually evident to everyone, and for those who are argumentative for its own sake, I let them know that I'm willing to discuss with facts and evidence, but not to waste my time with them. I'm willing to guide people to the best of my ability (to others and to resources I know are good), but evangelizing does not seem to be my gift. Hey, I'm still learning...
We're all still learning. Evangelism takes practice, and just because it's not your "gift" does not mean God cannot or will not still use you.
God offers His gift to all. It’s the response ability of the person to accept or not. Believe. Very simple good news.
Live it non-verbally and “force it on others” is a false dichotomy. One extreme is passive, the other is overly aggressive.
Problems with the silent live-it method include that some of us are so new or messed-up, nobody’s ever going to ask. And how much living can you do when you encounter people briefly and will never get another chance to start a conversation?
One alternative is to invite spiritual conversation and gauge the reaction. Another is to guide conversation. Guiding can be done through questions or through baiting.
“Baiting” needs explanation. For example, I’ve met people who could use a play on words that would stimulate questions or comments leading to a conversation about spiritual things.
Greg’s method is to “put a stone in their shoe” using a Socratic method. That isn’t passive or forced.
It’s good to have lots of tools in your toolbelt.
She needs to also understand that many times your friends and family are not going to receive the information coming from you as much as a stranger.
Jesus wasn't even accepted in his hometown.
I can’t count the number of times my wife has treated things said by others like great discoveries, after I’ve said them repeatedly. 😅
What if you asked them graciously to read the book of John 3 times asking God to show them truth?
You also have to keep in mind that Jesus knew exactly who would and who would never come to him... So perhaps maybe his words to the pharisees were not really intended for the pharisees but to those around that would see the lies and repent. ???
7:20 Matthew 5:22ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Yes, we need to refrain from angry name-calling when we speak truth to deceived people.
1 John 5:13
?
If you want to make a good argument, you should spell out what the verse says so people that don't know that verse by heart won't have to go look verse up
I heard you telling others in this video that it is OK to tell someone who is likely deceived that 'they are on their way to everlasting punishment in hell'. Could you confirm whether this is what you believe and whether this is a truthful statement that Jesus would support? Do you have any Bible verses to show Jesus' support of this statement. Thanks.
You mean like what he quoted Jesus saying in the video?
He said it is not universally wrong. He did not say it is always right or wise. If you read his books or listen to his body of teaching, you’ll know that he recommends an incremental, Socratic method in nearly all cases.
Mathew 12:34 Yeshua says, "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good?..."
What? You don't want to make them mad when you tell them the truth... What do you think is going to happen when Christ himself tells them the truth after it is to late?
I think it is far better for them to be mad at you now for telling the truth then wait until after Christ has to do it at the judgment.
However, the Pharisees were hypocrites and evil and against Jesus, but the Mormons are sincerely well-meaning good folks, with a heart toward God, and Jesus,and they’re your family so take it easy and love them and pray for them behind the scenes is the best advice.
Different god, different Jesus, different approach to their god. Copying the words does not make the beliefs the same.
That Mormons are “good” is PR. “There is none righteous, no, not one.” “All have sinned.” Thinking you’re good is a barrier to salvation.
This kind of Christianity only leads to manic-depression. You have to step out of this narrative completely. If there is love in you, then meditate on more love. Teach freedom of confusion by setting an example. Imagine yourself sitting on the moon 2000 years from now... How would you view the discussions you have with your peers, friends and family in that light? It does seem very important to you know, but it all gets this meaning in the tiny context that stretches towards your social horizon now. Jump out, into deep meditation and ask what you must do to be good? Do your parents love you? Allow them their worldview. This is all just another form of party politics. Be a force of unity.
Untruth divides. Unity based on ignoring the difference between truth and evil is a facade. Blaming division on standing for truth is an untruth.
Peace between people that ignores the need for peace with God is myopic and UNloving.
The best way to make a Mormon realize he is wrong is to use "street epistemology". There are several videos about it.
If I may ask, are you a Christian?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Of course, you can ask me anything.
No, I was never indoctrinated into any religion nor did I become part of any of them.
@@vejekeI’m confused. You seem to say “of course” to “Are you a Christian?” However, you refer to “street epistemology,” which is a term used by Prof. Bogosian for his method of converting people to Atheism (borrowed from Greg Koukl’s ‘Tactics’). You also deny being “indoctrinated” into any religion.
Could you straighten out the apparent contradiction? And are you recommending using Atheist methods to prepare Mormons for conversion into Christianity?
@@ricksonora6656 Indeed, you are quite confused.
The "of course" is an "of course you may ask", not a "of course I'm a Christian". That's why I said, _"Of course, you can ask me anything."_
I am not a Christian, as I clearly state in the following line: _"No, I was never indoctrinated into any religion nor did I become part of any of them."_
I wish I could tell you about Peter Boghossian, Greg Koukl, the Socratic method, who copied whom, and what each of them does. But if the first thing I have said has already caused you some confusion, I think it will be an almost impossible task to try to explain to you the deeper confusion that can be seen in your answer.
@@vejeke Thank you for showing us how street epistemology works. I don’t think I’ll use it; I don’t like stopping that low.
The core of the question was “Are you a Christian.” “May I ask” was a courtesy. Replying to the courtesy rather than to the question is rudely literalistic. I apologize for mistaking you for someone with a modicum of manners.
When the primary answer to the core question, “Are you a Christian?” is “Of course,” and you think that makes it clear that you are not a Christian, the confusion is in your grasp of logic.
But your conclusion is correct. Since I struggled to detect your rudeness, it would be a waste of my time to struggle to decode what you think you know about other questions. In addition, if you can’t intelligently encode information in a civil manner, it’s highly probable that you become confused decoding it, as well.
You have trampled any trust I might have been inclined to show you, but at least, I got to see how street epistemology works.
Excellent topic
both john and jesus say you brood of vipers. Mathew 12:34
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists and as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
As a former Christian and thoroughgoing secularist, I think your explanation is comprehensive and very reasonable. Related to point #6, if you haven't already read it, you might enjoy Mortimer Adler's book "How to think about God." It's a 20th. century update of the cosmological argument.
This (hunt-and-pecking on my iPhone app) is not the forum for writing a book in response to your pamphlet, so I’ll give a brief response.
Your definition merely fleshes out Dawkins’s novel definition which was designed to evade burden of proof. The camouflage has a giant hole in it where you shift the definition from its historic and etymological meaning to your personal decisions.
Your arguments (after observing the initial trend, I skipped the rest) are statements of experiences and opinions. Now, we could discuss an argument, but refuting an experience (or rather, your interpretation and application of the interpretation of an experience) or opinion would require many assumptions.
So, in summary, I don’t see any discussible content in your arguments, nor value in debating them.
I hope I haven’t violated your definition of “cordial.” I feel I have taken that risk, since you use unique, personalized definitions.
Hi! I'm a Christian.
I believe two things:
1. God will never provide such absolute proof that one cannot possess the ability to deny if he wills: meaning His nature, as I believe and scripture teaches, is love, and to force anyone to believe in, obey, or even love Him would make Him a dictator over robots, not a lover over people.
2. Your definitions for evidence is too high: meaning you seek an evidence you cannot deny, but that's why the law of "reasonable doubt" exists. You can read these words and think "I'm looking at words on a screen on RUclips typed to me by a real human being somewhere else on planet Earth," but as crazy as it sounds, that's just an assumption. It's possible, as some say, that you're being made to believe that because you're strapped into some highly advanced, realistic machine, and you really are a glorphnod on plain-3319. It's possible, but we both know that's not reasonable. The inverse is true also: you can say certain things aren't possible so as to rule out what's reasonable. Just think, hypothetically, *IF* God exists, and *IF* He made the universe and life when nothing existed beforehand as Christians say, then this God would be able (not obligated) to perform any equal or lesser supernatural act, such as raising the dead. So it's intellectually honest to say It's possible Jesus was raised from the dead, but is it reasonable?
If you are interested in hearing the reasoning and would answer "yes" to "if the God of Abraham was real, would you believe in Him?", then check out the 47 minute RUclips video "Did Jesus Really Die and Come Back to Life" by "Cold-Case Christianity - J Warner & Jimmy Wallace"
If not, no hard feelings. I wish to allow you the same freedom to disbelieve that God allows you. Have a good one!
You may reason as an Atheist that there is no chance of Evolution from the fact there is no evidence to your satisfaction, but by not allowing the supernatural abswer, such as an intelligence outside of nature, you cannot reason the most probable cause being supernatural.
Many Atheists become believers when they allow the possibility, especially as they doubt the evidence of Evolution.
God is very clear if you know the truth and you see someone in air then it will be their blood on your hands their sin. The righteous rebuke the wicked if they do not they do not love them as God loves them as Christ loves them as Apostles love them as Angels love it.
Them that greets his neighbor with a kiss kills him. He that rebukes his neighbor loves him for open rebuke is better than secret Love secret Love is no love at all.
That's what serpents use to continue their killing I love them I'm just hurting them right now because this this and it's not fidelity.
So interesting that Christians think they are correct, everyone else is wrong, AND they’re perfectly fine telling everyone that. Yet when someone calls a Christian out in their odd belief that a creator of the universe borrowed millennia-old practices from pagan peoples (sacrificial offerings, dwelling in a temple, demands for blood, odd arbitrary laws, and so on) they get in a huff and cry persecution. You guys have got to do better with your empathy and understanding of the broader culture.
When did the Creator borrow from pagan peoples? Starting in Genesis...
@@jessepolkjr7067 1) In Xtian belief, YAHWEH is the creator. 2) pagan practices such as sacrifice of animals, etc (as I mentioned above) predate Judaism by a very long period of time. 3. Therefore, the writers/creators/developers/initial practicers of Judaism adopted said practices, likely because it’s what they knew about how to relate to a god. 4. These practices were then attributed to YAHWEH as his dictates and preferences.
@@BigIdeaSeeker If animal sacrifices were pre judaic, could you equally then say pagans copied the genesis understanding simply because they shared a common ancestry with Noah and all those who preceeded him? No one would have to copy anything for they had a common biblical tradition even if some deviated from it for various reasons. I guess you could say who didn't believe in animal sacrifice in ancient times?
@@kiwisaram9373 This is precisely the sort of mental gymnastics one would have to subscribe to in order to hold the belief system together. But if that’s the route you want to take, I would think you more a student of Ken Ham or Ray Comfort than STR. You’ll now be so bound to modify historical reality to fit your narrative, that I’ll excuse myself from the conversation here, rather than contend with the many bends in reason that will necessarily follow.
@@BigIdeaSeeker I think you need to give substance to your assertion that Hebrew practices were copied from some other culture's practices. Because one thing predates another apparantly similiar thing does not establish a causal relationship between the earlier and the later.