¿Por qué los pastores deben ser apologistas

¿Por qué los pastores deben ser apologistas?

If you search the pages of Scripture looking for a list of “offices” (leadership positions within the Church), you are likely to find eight roles described in the New Testament: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers (Ephesians 4:11), elders, deacons, and bishops (1 Timothy 3:1-7, 1 Timothy 3:8-13, Titus 1:6-9). One thing you will never find on any biblical list of leadership positions is the office of “apologists.” Why is this position missing from the scriptural list? Wouldn’t it be wise for every church to have a trained and qualified  advocate for the Christian case ?

I can tell you from personal experience: as I travel around the country, very few church leaders seem to be interested in apologetics, and even fewer have studied in this area. In fact, many seminaries do not even offer apologetics courses as part of their Master of Divinity programs (the bachelor’s level sought by pastors). The reason the role of apologist is not found in New Testament leadership listings is not because it is not important enough to be represented in a separate office within the Church. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The responsibility to be an apologist is assigned to all of us as Christians .

God wants each and every one of us to be “always prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Peter 3:15). Our personal responsibility to be an advocate of a case for Christianity is not set aside in an office for the same reason that our personal responsibility to pray is not set aside in an official office within the church. There are no churches with official “prayers” for the same reason that there are no official advocates of the church; this responsibility is given to all of us as Christians. It is fundamental to our identity. If you are a Christian, you are an advocate . Not every Christian must be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, elder, deacon, or bishop, but every Christian must be an apologist.

The New Testament assumes that every apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, elder, deacon, and bishop will be a good advocate of the Christian case, and the assumption (outlined in 1 Peter 3:15) is so fundamental that it is not assigned as a separate office. Sadly, we have failed to see the fundamental nature of advocating the Christian case (despite the directive in 1 Peter and the numerous examples of the discipline offered in the book of Acts). Few pastors have embraced the study of apologetics as part of their daily spiritual discipline, and even fewer have modeled this important aspect of the Christian life to their congregations. I do not write this as an abstract criticism, but as a reflection of my own personal experience.

By the time I graduated from seminary, I was already pastoring. Although my personal journey to faith was largely dependent on my own investigation of evidence, my seminary experience did not confirm the importance of apologetics as a Church leader. In fact, my home Baptist seminary did not offer a single course in Christian Case-Making. For the first few years as a youth pastor, I did not explore apologetics with my students. After a year or so, I realized that my students were not prepared for college and struggled easily once they left the safety of our youth group. I committed to returning to apologetics as a primary responsibility, and for the next ten years (as both youth pastor and senior pastor) I taught and modeled Christian Case-Making in my group on a weekly basis.

There are  some pastors who understand the fundamental nature of apologetics and have modeled this responsibility to their congregations. They have preached, written, and even taken their message online as apologetic pastors. I have been compiling a list of these pastors so you can see what this type of leadership looks like in the Church (thanks to Frank Turek, Brett Kunkle, Greg West, and Brian Auten for helping me with this list):

Anthony Weber, Church of the Living God  in Traverse City, Michigan.

Bobby Conway, Life Fellowship Church  in Huntersville, North Carolina. 

Brian Chilton, Huntsville Baptist Church in Huntsville, North Carolina.

Carl Gallups, Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Florida.

Christopher Brooks, Evangel Ministries in Detroit, Michigan.

Dan Kimball, Vintage Faith Church  in Santa Cruz, California.

David Robertson, St. Peter’s  Free Church, Dundee, Scotland.

Derwin Gray, Transformation Church  in Indian Land, South Carolina.

Edgar Andrews, Campus Church  in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK.

Erwin Lutzer, Moody Church  in Chicago, Illinois.

Jack Wellman, Mulvane Brethren Church  in Mulvane, Kansas.

Joe Boot, Westminster Chapel  , Toronto, Ontario.

Mark D. Roberts, Laity Lodge  in Leakey, Texas.

Matt Rawlings , Christ ‘s Community Church  in Portsmouth, Ohio.

Mike Spaulding, Calvary Chapel  in Lima, Ohio.

Phil Fernandes, Trinity Bible Fellowship  in Silverdale, Washington.

Rice Broocks, Bethel World Outreach Church  in Brentwood, Tennessee.

Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church  in New York City, New York.

Todd Wagner,  Watermark Community Church in Dallas, Texas .

Voddie Baucham, Grace Family Baptist Church  in Spring, Texas.

I’m sure there are many more apologetic pastors, but in putting together this list, each of us lamented its brevity. Wouldn’t it be nice if a blog like this couldn’t even be written? Would it be great if the potential list of apologetic pastors were so long that it couldn’t be succinctly outlined? Perhaps it’s time for all of us, as members of congregations across the country, to encourage our pastors to develop a discipline and practice of personal apologetics. But before we demand this of others, let’s make sure each of us accepts our personal responsibility to be the best advocates of the Christian case we can be.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold Case Detective , Cold Case Christian Advocate , Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview , and the author of Cold-Case Christianity , Cold-Case Christianity for Kids , God’s Crime Scene , God’s Crime Scene for Kids , and Forensic Faith .

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2NWpnkn

Translated by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Lógica 03_ Lógica Proposicional y Las Leyes de la Lógica

Lógica 03: lógica proposicional y las leyes de la lógica

El uso de simbología especial al hablar sobre las reglas de inferencia lógica es necesario, por lo que primero hablaremos sobre la lógica proposicional, de manera que te familiarices con la simbología.

¿QUÉ ES LA LÓGICA PROPOSICIONAL?

La lógica proposicional es el nivel más básico de la lógica, se encarga de analizar las relaciones entre proposiciones, así como la verdad o la falsedad de estas.

Vimos en el blog anterior que un enunciado es una entidad lingüística compuesta por palabras y una proposición es la información contenida en el enunciado declarativo.

Los enunciados (o proposiciones) son atómicos o simples cuando no se pueden descomponer en otros, y moleculares o complejos cuando sí. Para los propósitos de esta serie de lecciones utilizaré los términos simples y complejos a menos que se indique lo contrario.

Elementos de la Lógica Proposicional

Variables

Las variables proposicionales son los símbolos que sustituyen a las proposiciones. Se llaman de ese modo porque su significado cambia en las diferentes argumentaciones o expresiones donde se utilicen.

Las letras para las variables son p, q, r, s, t, y se utilizan subíndices si se requieren más: p1, q1, r1, s1, t1 (aunque también se pueden utilizar las demás letras del alfabeto en mayúscula).

Cada variable sustituye a una proposición; por ejemplo, “Los números existen” puede ser simbolizada con la variable p, y “Lo que existe posee propiedades” puede simbolizarse con la variable q.

Conectores

Los conectores/conectivas/constantes proposicionales alteran, relacionan o conectan enunciados simples haciéndolos complejos. Los más frecuentes son la negación (¬), la conjunción (^) la disyunción (v), el condicional (→) y el bicondicional (↔). Existen otros símbolos para las conectivas mencionadas, en este caso se utilizarán los que se han presentado a menos que se indique lo contrario.

Auxiliares

Cuando son muchos los enunciados complejos en un solo reglón, se utilizan los símbolos auxiliares. No tienen ningún significado lógico, pero se usan con el objetivo de clarificar la comprensión de los enunciados. Los símbolos auxiliares son los paréntesis (…) y los corchetes […].

Un ejemplo de la utilidad de los auxiliares para enunciados complejos es el siguiente: “Si [(corres y cantas) o (comes y bailas)], entonces no puedes hacer ambas cosas bien”.

Reglas De Formación De Fórmulas

Una fórmula es una secuencia ordenada de símbolos, por lo que los símbolos del lenguaje lógico no se pueden escribir de cualquier manera. No toda formulación es admitida como fórmula bien hecha.

Una fórmula es una fórmula bien formada (fbf) si cumple alguna de las siguientes condiciones:

  1. Una variable proposicional es una fbf.
  2. Una fbf precedida de una negación es una fbf.
  3. Una fbf seguida por cualquiera de las constantes, seguida de una fbf, haciendo buen uso de los auxiliares es una fbf.

Por ejemplo, p¬ no cumple con (2), por lo que no es fbf; tampoco lo es →pq ni pqv al no cumplir con (3).

LA LÓGICA BIVALENTE

La lógica bivalente o aristotélica, es un sistema lógico que admite solo dos valores de verdad para sus enunciados. En este sistema lógico no existen valores intermedios de verdad; una proposición solo puede ser verdadera o falsa.

La lógica bivalente se sustenta en tres principios básicos: Principio de Identidad, Principio de No Contradicción y Principio del Tercero Excluido.

Los Tres Principios Lógicos

Ley de Identidad: Para cualquier x, x es idéntico a x.

Forma lógica: ∀x: x=x

Este principio nos dice que toda entidad es idéntica a sí misma.  Ejemplo:

Jorge Alejandro es idéntico a sí mismo (a Jorge Alejandro), el Sol es idéntico a sí mismo, esta manzana es idéntica a sí misma, etc.

Ley de No Contradicción: No es el caso que p y no p.

Forma lógica: ¬ (P ^ ¬P)

Principio según el cual una proposición y su negación no pueden ser ambas verdaderas al mismo tiempo y en el mismo sentido, ​ por lo que nos permite juzgar como falso todo aquello que implica una contradicción. Ejemplo:

Es falso que “Sócrates es filósofo” y “Sócrates no es filósofo”.

Ley del Tercero Excluido: Ya sea que P o no P.

Forma lógica: P v ¬P

Este principio afirma que la disyunción de una proposición y de su negación es siempre verdadera. Ejemplo:

Es verdad que “es de día o no es de día”.

Sólo uno de los enunciados debe ser cierto, por lo que juicios medios como “La existencia de Dios ni es posible ni es imposible” carecen de todo sentido, excluyéndose así de la lógica bivalente.

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Actualmente trabaja como Director de Social Media para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
borders

Why Everyone Believes in Secure Borders and Why America Needs Them

,

If you say you’re for open borders, you’re not.  Not completely.

Do you have locks on your doors?  How about on your car?  Got a fence so your kids can play safely?  Do you have passwords on your computers?  How about your bank accounts? Do you protect your credit card numbers?  Your social security number?  How about your medical records?  Do you think curbs, guardrails, and traffic lines are a good idea, or should people be able to drive any where and any way they want?  How about security borders at the airport—necessary or optional?

The truth is everyone believes in secure borders.  In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.  The only question is “Where am I going to draw the borders for my own security?”

You may not want to secure the border of the United States, but you certainly want to secure the border of your home.  The problem is the security of your home is affected by the security on your street, which is affected by the security in your town, which is affected by the security in your state and your country.

And I’m not just talking about your physical security, but also your economic security.

People want to come here for the freedoms and prosperity we have in America. This has become the land of opportunity and the most prosperous nation on earth, which would have been impossible without secure borders. Open borders would destroy the very reasons people want to come here in the first place.

Why?  Because prosperity can only be achieved when people feel secure enough economically and personally to take risks to innovate, invest, and extend themselves into the market.  That security requires safe streets, reliable and adequate infrastructure, environmental protection, and a welfare base kept to a sustainable limit.  Such security also requires the rule of law which helps create a predictable and level playing field.  Without the rule of law, you don’t get the security and prosperity of America—you get the corruption and poverty of, say, Venezuela (where annual inflation is now 43,378%!).

People flee countries that don’t have this unique combination of security and freedom.  That’s why communist countries build walls to keep people in.  We need walls to keep people out!

While it would be great to give everyone the same opportunities we have in America, it’s impossible to do by bringing everyone here. If we opened our borders, millions of people would flood this country and overwhelm the very things necessary to keep it prosperous, including our strained safety net.  And even extremely high immigration levels would do virtually nothing to ease world poverty as this video graphically demonstrates.

Then there’s the fact that some illegal immigrants would harm Americans.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying all illegal immigrants would be terrorists or criminals (although some surely would be).  What I’m saying is that controlled immigration and secured borders are as necessary to a country as they are to your home.  You don’t let just anyone and everyone into your home. If you did, your home would be destroyed, possibly by a criminal element, but most definitely by the fact that your home couldn’t physically handle a large influx of people. In a similar way, open borders would kill the golden goose called America—it would destroy the very environment which entices people to come here in the first place.

So while an open borders policy may sound compassionate, it actually leads to disastrous results.  That is because—like so many other utopian leftist ideas—it ignores reality and misdiagnoses human nature.

Finally, contrary to the media narrative, Scripture doesn’t mandate open borders or prohibit walls.  As Dr. Wayne Grudem unpacks here, the Bible actually affirms that borders are legitimate and walls are good things. God Himself scattered people by language (Gen. 11), and the promised land of Israel had definite borders as did its surrounding nations.  In fact, Moses respected the border of Edom by asking permission of the King of Edom to pass through that country (Moses was denied as you’ll read in Num. 20:17-21).  Jesus acknowledged that nations need to be reached (Matt. 28:17-20), and Paul declared that God intends nations to have legitimate rulers (Rom. 13:1).  Paul even used his status as a Roman citizen to protect himself from harm (Acts 22:25-26).  And the scriptural commands not to steal presuppose borders and the right to private property.

(Remarkably, there will even be a border in the afterlife between Heaven and Hell because God can’t force free creatures to love Him or one another.  Forced love is impossible.  Love requires freedom and freedom requires the security that your choices will be respected, even if it means that you want an eternal border between you and God.)

We are blessed to live in America.  But we need to recognize that it’s impossible to have everyone live here.  The best way to protect America and help people outside of our country is to control immigration at a sustainable level while exporting our ideas of economic and political liberty to other nations.

We can’t bring everyone to America, but we should try to bring America to everyone.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case.

/by
Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

,

By J. Brian Huffling

A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.

First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.

Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.

Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.

Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).

One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.

Forgiveness

If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W

/by
Apologetics Is About Love (1)

Apologetics Is About Love

By Ryan Leasure

Apologetics is about love. Wait, what? Apologetics? About love? You mean to tell me that apologetics — making a defense for the Christian faith — isn’t about academic scruples that few people care about? Don’t apologists thrive off arguments and heated discussions? How could it be about love?

While I can’t speak for my fellow Christian apologists, love motivates me to study apologetics. Jesus tells us the greatest commandments are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. I believe one way we can obey these commands is to grow in our understanding of apologetics. Make no mistake about it; apologetics can be intellectually fulfilling. Love, however, must be the primary motivation. The goal needs to be winning people’s hearts, not winning arguments. And it’s my love for the following people that compels me to do apologetics.

LOVE FOR NON-CHRISTIANS

Like everyone else, I have friends who aren’t Christians. Some of these friends belong to other faiths while others are atheists. I love these friends and want them to receive salvation. Yet they, like me, are deeply entrenched in their worldviews. Quoting Bible verses to them often doesn’t persuade them because they don’t believe the Bible. They don’t care that Genesis says God created the world. For them, the Bible is a mixture of bad history and old wives’ tales.

I could respond to these friends in one of two ways. I could throw my arms up in the air and say what’s the use? They’re on their own. Or, I could try to learn about their worldview and do my best to show them why it doesn’t square with reality. Furthermore, I could also try to answer any objections they have to my worldview. I chose the latter.

Because I believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for our sins, I desperately want my non-Christian friends to trust in him. I want them to receive forgiveness of sins. I want them to have eternal life and experience true and lasting joy that only Jesus can give. And because I love these friends deeply, I’m committed to studying apologetics with the hopes that God might use it to draw them to himself.

LOVE FOR MY CHURCH

The reason I emphasize apologetics in my local church is because I love my fellow church members. We live our lives to the fullest when we pursue a dynamic relationship with Jesus. And in my experience, apologetics has bolstered my relationship with him.

Not only do I possess greater assurance for my faith — it’s reasonable to believe what I believe — I am also prepared to share my faith with more boldness. Trepidation doesn’t overwhelm me anymore. I’m prepared to answer most questions and objections people have about my faith. In a very real way, apologetics has increased my ability to fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20).

Whether people realize it or not, apologetics is the evangelism of today and of the future. While we should never avoid sharing the simple Gospel message — that Jesus died and rose for our sins — we must be able to provide good reasons for believing that Gospel message to be true. After all, we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic, skeptical culture that distrusts any form of religion. They don’t take the Bible at face value. They think religion is a personal matter — your truth is good for you, but not for my kind of mentality.

Most Christians struggle navigating these kinds of conversations. As a result, they feel defeated because they didn’t know how to respond to the skeptic’s objections. Or even worse, they begin to lose their faith. For these reasons, I make it my aim to emphasize apologetics in my local church. This emphasis equips my church to more faithfully live out their life on mission for Jesus.

LOVE FOR OUR YOUTH

Multiple studies report that a majority of students leave the church when they head off to college. In fact, one Southern Baptist study reports that 88% of children born in evangelical homes leave the church at age eighteen.1 According to most of these studies, the main reason students leave the faith is because of intellectual doubt.

It’s no secret that professors at secular universities are more disposed toward atheism and skepticism than the general public.2  In fact, many of these same faculty have a general dislike for evangelical Christianity. How then do we prepare our students in the youth group for the onslaught? With more games? By focusing more on inviting friends than personal discipleship? With short lessons on moral purity?

We throw our youth into the lion’s den with little more than a butter knife to defend themselves and wonder why they don’t make it out. We’re failing our youth if we don’t change our approach. Fortunately, excellent resources exist for equipping our youth in apologetics. Currently, our youth director is taking our students through The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

We have some great students in our church. I don’t want to see them become another statistic. I love them too much.

LOVE FOR JESUS

Jesus proclaims, “If you love me, keep my commands” (Jn. 14:15). I don’t know if most Christians recognize this, but God commands us to do apologetics. First Peter 3:15 asserts, “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Occasionally I’ll hear someone say Matthew 28:18-20 isn’t the “Great Suggestion,” it’s the “Great Commission.” In other words, Jesus was serious when he told his disciples to go spread the Gospel message. It’s not optional.

In the same sense, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t offer a suggestion, but a bona fide command to do apologetics. And doesn’t love for the Lord manifest itself in obedience? Christians aren’t simply hearers of the word, but doers also (Js. 1:22). I don’t always obey God’s commands as I should, but my love for Jesus compels me to do apologetics.

APOLOGETICS IS ABOUT LOVE

It’s not merely an academic exercise. It’s not about silencing your opponent. Apologetics is about persuasively sharing the Gospel to win people to Christ. It’s about fulfilling the greatest commandments to love God and our neighbor. In fact, Jesus tells us in the greatest commandment that we are to love God with all our “mind.” That is, loving God necessarily includes mental engagement. If you’re ever tempted to think that apologetics is unloving, I hope you’ll be reminded of Jesus’ words and think again.

 

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N8bbUr

/by

The Big Questions in Life: Part IV

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank closes our current “Big Questions in Life” series answering some really tough questions. In this last installment of our 4 part series, Frank discusses the following questions: What is the source of objective moral obligations? Where does evil come from? Why do we have free will? What is the purpose or meaning of life? How should we live? Why do we feel guilt? How do we atone for our bad moral behavior? Why is there a New Testament? How did Christianity arise out of Judaism in first century Jerusalem if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? & What happens when you die Don’t miss the episode that brings this series to a close!

 

/by
Why Yahweh Why Not Zeus Why Not Thor Why Not Zoidberg

¿Por qué Yahveh? ¿Por qué no Zeus? ¿Por qué no Thor? ¿Por qué no Zoidberg?

Por Evan Minton

Una pregunta frecuente que suelen hacer los ateos a los cristianos como yo es por qué creemos en el Dios de la Biblia en lugar de todos estos otros dioses en todas estas religiones inventadas. Ellos preguntarán “¿Crees en un solo Dios? ¿Por qué no crees en Thor, Zeus o Atenea? ¿Afirmas que todos estos dioses no existen? Sin embargo, ¿dices que tu dios sí? ¿Cómo sabes la diferencia?

En realidad, esta pregunta es una de las primeras cosas que me hizo dudar de mi propia fe cristiana. Hace años, no tenía manera de saber la diferencia entre el cristianismo y otras religiones. ¿Cómo sé que Yahveh es el único Dios verdadero? Si estos otros son inventados, ¿cómo sé que mi Dios no lo es? Afortunadamente, el Señor me mostró la Apologética Cristiana y me dio una buena manera de discernir entre ellos. Ahora, no voy a entrar en detalles con toda la evidencia del Dios de la Biblia en este momento. Si lo hiciera, esta publicación del blog sería extremadamente larga, increíblemente verboso. Más bien, voy a enlazar estos argumentos y pruebas que demuestran la verdad del cristianismo, y cuando termines de leer esta publicación en el blog puedes hacer clic en esos enlaces y estudiar los argumentos individualmente si lo deseas. Los enlaces resaltarán en color.

Una forma de saberlo es con el mismo Big Bang. De acuerdo con el Big Bang, ¡el universo entero surgió de la nada! Y según personas que han realizado estudios exhaustivos de las religiones del mundo (por ejemplo, Hugh Ross), las únicas creencias en las cuales Dios ha creado de la nada son el judaísmo, el cristianismo, el islam y el deísmo. Todas las otras religiones tienen a Dios o dioses creando dentro del espacio y el tiempo donde han existido desde la eternidad pasada. Entonces, el mismísimo origen del universo lo reduce a 4 posibilidades. Además, el origen del universo demuestra que la existencia de él debe haber sido creado por un agente causal. Un agente causal cuya existencia no está confinada al espacio, ni tiempo, inmaterial, poderoso, sin causa primera, sobrenatural y personal (ver el argumento cosmológico Kalam).

Si la evidencia científica del Diseño Inteligente pasa (por ejemplo, el ajuste fino del universo, ajuste fino local, la evidencia del ADN, la complejidad irreducible), puedes descartar el deísmo. Porque lo que argumentos como los argumentos teleológicos muestran que este Dios está moldeando activamente el universo y la vida para hacer que esté habitada por criaturas. Eso descarta el deísmo y se ajusta mejor al teísmo.

Además, debo agregar que el argumento ontológico demuestra que existe un ser muy parecido al Dios de la Biblia. El argumento ontológico, si pasa, demostraría que existe un ser que es Omnisciente, Omnipresente, Omnipotente y Omnibenevolente. Esto contradice a muchos dioses como Thor y Zeus. Las únicas religiones consistentes con un ser como este son las 3 religiones monoteístas. Los dioses politeístas como Thor son simplemente súper humanos (Stan Lee se aprovechó de este hecho). Pero no son omnipotentes ni omnipresentes ni nada por el estilo. La belleza del argumento ontológico es que no solo demuestra que Dios existe sino que presenta todas sus cualidades superlativas que no puedes derivar de otros argumentos de la teología natural.

De hecho, los argumentos de la teología natural pueden decirnos no solo que Dios existe, sino que pueden demostrar muchos atributos acerca de Dios. Atributos que la Biblia describe que Él tiene. El argumento cosmológico Kalam muestra que Dios es un agente afuera del espacio, del tiempo, es inmaterial, poderoso, sobrenatural y personal. Los Argumentos del Ajuste Fino (universales y locales) demuestran que Dios es increíblemente inteligente, al menos lo suficientemente inteligente como para saber cómo fabricar un universo adecuado para que puedan habitar las criaturas. Los otros argumentos teleológicos (ADN y Complejidad Irreducible) hacen lo mismo. El Argumento Moral demuestra que Dios es moralmente perfecto, ya que demuestra que Dios es el estándar por el cual medimos a las personas para determinar cuán buenas o cuán malas son en realidad. Demuestra que, en ausencia de la existencia de Dios, no habría nada que pudiéramos llamar objetivamente bueno y malo porque no habría nada con qué compararlo. ¿A quién o qué exactamente estamos comparando a Hitler o Bin Laden cuando los llamamos malos?

El argumento ontológico demuestra las cualidades superlativas de Dios (como ya lo mencioné anteriormente). Si pasa (es decir, si cumple los 3 requisitos para ser un buen argumento, que son: la conclusión debe seguir desde las premisas por las leyes de la lógica, todas las premisas deben ser verdaderas, y debemos tener buenas razones para pensar que son verdad), si este argumento cumple esos 3 requisitos, demuestra que existe un ser que es omnipotente, omnipresente, omnisciente, omnibenevolente y necesario en su existencia (aseidad).

Estos argumentos de la teología natural/revelación general, cuando se unen, nos dan poderosas razones para creer en la existencia de un Ser que se asemeja mucho, muy cercanamente, al ser que la Biblia describe como Dios. Además, lo bello de la teología natural es que derivan la existencia de este Ser sin apelar a ninguna escritura en absoluto. Entonces el ateo no puede acusarte de razonamiento circular (apelando a la Biblia para probar la Biblia). Podemos concluir que este ser existe basado solamente en la ciencia y la lógica.

Pero si quieres llegar al cristianismo y eliminar las otras 2 opciones, podemos revisar la evidencia de la resurrección de Cristo. Para mí, la resurrección de Cristo resuelve todo. Si se puede establecer históricamente que Jesús hizo afirmaciones de ser Dios, y luego resucitó de entre los muertos, entonces esa es una buena evidencia de que estaba diciendo la verdad. La resurrección significa que Dios puso su sello de aprobación en todo lo que dijo e hizo Jesús. Significa que Él es el Mesías y el Señor. Por lo tanto, cualquier cosa contradictoria a las enseñanzas de Cristo debe ser falsa. Pienso que la evidencia histórica de la resurrección de Jesucristo es muy poderosa. Te aconsejo que mires las publicaciones del blog Cerebral Faith (Fe Cerebral) en el que escribí sobre este tema. En la PARTE 1, doy la evidencia de los 5 hechos mínimos; (1) que Jesús murió por crucifixión, (2), que la tumba de Jesús se encontró vacía, (4) que los discípulos creyeron haber visto a Jesús vivo después de su muerte, (4), que un perseguidor llamado Pablo se convirtió sobre la base de lo que él creía era una aparición del Jesús resucitado, y (5) que un escéptico llamado Santiago se convirtió basado en lo que él creía que era una aparición del Jesús resucitado. En la PARTE 2, examino cuál de las explicaciones mejor argumenta esas hipótesis y muestro que solo la hipótesis “Dios resucitó a Jesús de la muerte” explica mejor los 5 hechos, mientras que las explicaciones naturalistas fallan.

Pero si quieres sumergirte en el estudio de este tema profundamente, te sugiero los libros El Caso de Cristo de Lee Strobel, “The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus” (El Caso por la Resurrección de Jesus) de Gary Habermas y Mike Licona, y también “On Guard” (En Guardia) de William Lane Craig (el libro de Craig también profundiza en 4 de los argumentos de teología natural que he enumerado anteriormente, pero también tiene un capítulo sobre las declaraciones de Jesús a la deidad y un capítulo sobre la evidencia de su resurrección).

Ahí lo tienes. Las razones por las que creo en el Dios bíblico en lugar de cualquier dios politeísta o panteísta. Espero que aunque seas cristiano como yo o un ateo, hagas clic en los enlaces de arriba y tómate el tiempo para leer esos artículos enlazados. Si eres un ateo, puede convertirte en un creyente. Si eres cristiano, es probable que fortalezca tu fe. Dios te bendiga.

Para un estudio más completo sobre esto, mira el libro de Evan  “Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero: por qué creo en Jesús en lugar de otros dioses).

 

Evan Minton es un apologista cristiano y bloguero en Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). Es el autor de “Inference To The One True God” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero) y “A Hellacious Doctrine” (Doctrina infernal) . Ha participado en varios debates que pueden ser visto en la sección “Mis debates” de Cerebral Faith. El Sr. Minton vive en Carolina del Sur, EE. UU.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2qBOgI7

Traducido por JanLouis Rivera

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
How Does Christianity Differ From Other Religions On Homosexuality

¿En qué se diferencia el cristianismo de otras religiones en el tema de la homosexualidad?

Por Terrell Clemmons

Probablemente no es lo que tú piensas.

Salvando la Verdad en la Sexualidad Humana.

“Perdone si esto está fuera del tema”, la joven tartamudeó en el micrófono, “pero, um, he buscado respuestas, y parece que no logro encontrar ninguna, así que pensé en venir esta noche y preguntarle a ustedes. ¿En qué aspecto difiere el cristianismo, si es que lo hace, sobre la homosexualidad en contraposición a otras religiones, y si es así, cómo?”. Sus labios temblorosos y sus manos temblorosas revelaron la magnitud de la lucha que tenía solo al expresar la pregunta.

El auditorio quedó en silencio mientras todos los ojos tornaron a Abdu Murray, quien había tomado parte en un foro abierto de la universidad sobre las religiones principales del mundo.

Abdu, mantuvo silencio por un momento. Él sabía que ella no estaba en busca de otra opinión. Ella necesitaba una respuesta que la validara como ser humano. ¿Qué podría decir que no comprometiera la sexualidad bíblica y a la misma vez mostrara que Dios se preocupa por ella sin medida?

“Solo hay tantas visiones del mundo para elegir”, comenzó. Y ninguna de ellas proporciona una respuesta que valide incondicionalmente la humanidad de ella. Ninguna, excepto una. Pero antes de llegar a ella, él inspeccionó a las demás.

Considere el ateísmo naturalista, la visión del mundo que impulsa el secularismo progresivo. De acuerdo con el secularismo naturalista, los seres humanos son una vida animal altamente evolucionada. Esta visión es doblemente deshumanizante con respecto a la homosexualidad. En primer lugar, de acuerdo a la narrativa evolucionista darwiniana, no hay nada especialmente significativo sobre los seres humanos.  “Una rata es un cerdo, es un perro, es un niño”, en palabras de Ingrid Newkirk, fundadora de Personas por el Trato Ético de los Animales (PETA), a tal punto que la única cosa que nos distingue de las moscas en el cristal de nuestra ventana es que estamos por encima de ellas en la cadena alimenticia. En segundo lugar, si, como nos dicen, la evolución darwiniana surge a través del proceso evolutivo, entonces la homosexualidad falla evolutivamente porque el sexo entre personas del mismo sexo no reproduce. De manera que, desde el punto de vista naturalista, los que practican sexo entre personas del mismo género son, como todos los demás, nada especiales, y los fracasos darwinianos no se pueden iniciar.

¿Qué hay de los sistemas panteístas orientales, como el hinduismo o el budismo o una espiritualidad a la  manera de Deepak Chopra? Bueno, los fundamentos éticos de estas visiones del mundo son, en el mejor de los casos, ambiguos, ya que enseñan que la moralidad es relativa. Y entonces, ninguno de ellos proporciona una base objetiva para el valor o la identidad humana. Es peor para esos que luchan buscando respuestas sólidas, sostienen que el sufrimiento es una ilusión, lo cual es totalmente insultante para una persona con dolor. No ofrecen nada más que una psicología barata autorreferencial para el que lucha con su identidad.

¿Qué hay del Islam? Si bien ofrece solidez, con su base monoteísta y reglas claras que circunscriben el comportamiento sexual, el Islam es abiertamente hostil a la homosexualidad. En algunos países islámicos, los actos homosexuales se castigan con prisión, flagelación y, en algunos casos, muerte.

Finalmente, entonces, Abdu vino al cristianismo. Presentó dos puntos al respecto. Primero, todos intuitivamente sabemos que hay algo sobre el sexo que lo hace más que un simple acto físico. ¿Por qué el abuso sexual es tratado de manera diferente a un simple ataque físico? Como dijo, hay algo sagradamente frágil en la sexualidad, y las cosas sagradas son tan especiales que merecen protección. Dios quiere proteger lo sagrado de la sexualidad para que no se convierta en algo común, y los límites que se otorgan a través de la ética sexual bíblica protegen la especialidad sagrada de la sexualidad.

Pero, admitió, que eso no explica la proscripción que limita el sexo al matrimonio del sexo opuesto. Ese fue el tema de su segundo punto. Para abordar el principio del matrimonio masculino-femenino, se refirió al relato de la creación bíblica en Génesis, donde dice que Dios creó al hombre y a la mujer a su imagen. El hombre y la mujer creados a la imagen de Dios es un concepto blasfemo por el Islam, un concepto extraño en cualquier panteísmo y absurdo en cualquier secularismo naturalista. Solo el punto de vista bíblico, sostiene que todos los hombres y todas las mujeres llevan la imagen divina de Dios, proporciona una base objetiva para la dignidad y el valor humanos inherentes.

Y esta es la razón por la cual la sexualidad humana vale la pena limitarla a un matrimonio entre el hombre y la mujer: el sexo es la forma en que la vida humana llega al mundo. “El sexo entre un hombre y una mujer es el único medio por el cual un ser tan precioso llega a este mundo”, dijo. “Y debido a que un ser humano es el producto sagrado del sexo, el proceso sexual por el cual esa persona está hecha también es sagrado”. La ética bíblica limita la expresión sexual al matrimonio monógamo, masculino y femenino porque “Dios está protegiendo algo sagrado y hermoso”. A medida que nos sometemos a la guía de creación, “se nos concede el honor de reflejar un aspecto del esplendor divino”.

Concluyó su respuesta a la problemática joven diciéndole que Dios asegura toda la dignidad humana, incluyendo la de ella, y lo sagrado en su naturaleza eterna e inmutable. Se nos concede la dignidad supremamente elevada de reflejar la gloria de Dios en el mundo.

Entonces, ¿dónde difiere el cristianismo de otras religiones en lo que respecta a la homosexualidad? Resulta que, difiere bastante profundamente de todos los demás, pero no de la manera en que las voces culturales dominantes dicen que sí. Abdu relata esta escena en su libro recientemente publicado, Saving Truth: Finding Meaning and Clarity in a Post-Truth World (Salvando la verdad: encontrando significado y claridad en un mundo post-verdad). Aunque tenía mucho más que decir acerca de la naturaleza sublime de la sexualidad en el matrimonio natural, Saving Truth (Salvando la verdad) no se trata solomente de sexualidad. Ese solo es el tema de un capítulo, pero espero que te dé una idea de la belleza que la claridad bíblica puede traer a un área plagada de confusión.

Saving Truth (Salvando la verdad) examina todo un panorama de confusión cultural, ofreciendo refrescantes dosis de claridad para que podamos dar sentido a muchas otras confusiones:

  • ¿Qué significa la “post-verdad”?
  • ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre la autonomía y la liberación de la libertad?
  • ¿Cómo se puede navegar el supuesto conflicto entre la ciencia y la fe?
  • ¿Y qué hay del pluralismo religioso? ¿Pueden todas las religiones realmente coexistir?

Abdu nunca dio el nombre de la joven que hizo la profunda pregunta sobre sexualidad, pero sí concluyó la historia al notar que después de responder su pregunta, “parecía saber que ella había ‘comprendido’ la respuesta. Las lágrimas comenzaron a fluir, y ella me concedió el honor de orar con ella”. La verdad tiene una forma de calmar el clamor y provocar momentos profundos. Espero que revises el nuevo libro de Abdu, “Saving Truth”, y aún más, espero que busques la verdad ahí donde te encuentras. No importando lo que cueste, ni cuantas lágrimas pueda provocar, busca la claridad, busca la verdad. Allí es donde encontrarás tu significado.

 

Terrell Clemmons es una escritora y bloguera independiente que escribe sobre apologética y asuntos de fe.

Blog original: http://bit.ly/2utgbv5

Traducido por JanLouis Rivera

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

,

By Wintery Knight

Salvo magazine is my favorite magazine for the discussion of issues related to the Christian worldview. They focus on the most interesting topics; sex and feminism, intelligent design and evolution, marriage and family, abortion and euthanasia, etc. One of their writers, Terrell Clemmons, has just about the best Christian worldview I’ve ever encountered. She interviewed well-known Christian writer Nancy Pearcey in Salvo magazine.

The first part of the interview has Nancy explaining what happened to her when – as a teen – she asked her family and church and Christian leaders for reasons why she should take Christianity seriously. She ended up having to construct her entire worldview herself. She spent an entire year and a half reading nothing but Christian apologetics books. And from that, she moved on to connect Christianity to every other subject that you can possibly imagine.

The part of the interview I liked best was when Terrell asked Nancy what the consequences would be in real life to the popular secular ideas that the universe is an accident, that human beings are just robots made out of meat, that there is no free will and no way that humans ought to be objectively.

Excerpt:

What do you see as the greatest threat to the next generation?

The greatest threats are the issues covered in Love Thy Body because they involve the family—and children who grow up without a secure, loving family do not do as well in any area of life, including their spiritual and intellectual lives. Practices like contraception, abortion, and artificial reproduction are already creating an attitude that having a child is merely a lifestyle choice, an accessory to enrich adult lives and meet adult needs. The hookup culture is destroying people’s ability to form the secure, exclusive relationships they need to create stable, happy families. Porn is decimating a generation of young people who are literally being trained to objectify others for their own sexual gratification. When they marry, they are shocked—shocked—to discover that they are unable to experience a sexual response with a real live person. They are only able to respond to pornography. Homosexuality and transgenderism are both creating a gender-free society by denying the value and purpose of biological sex as the foundation for gender identity and marriage.

We are often told that these issues won’t affect anyone else, but that is not true. As the law changes, we are all affected. In a free society, certain rights are honored as pre-political rights. That means the state does not create them but only recognizes them as a pre-existing fact. For example, the right to life used to be a pre-political right—something you had just because you were human. But the only way the state could legalize abortion was by first deciding that some humans are not persons with a right to legal protection. The state now decides who qualifies for human rights, apart from biology. That is a huge power grab by the state, and it means we are all at risk. No one has a right to life now by the sheer fact of being human, but only at the dispensation of the state.

In the same way, marriage used to be a pre-political right based on the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing species. But the only way the state could legalize same-sex marriage was by denying the biological basis of marriage and redefining it as a purely emotional commitment, which is what the Supreme Court did in its Obergefell decision. The state no longer merely recognizes marriage as a pre-political right but has claimed the right to decide what marriage is, apart from biology.

Gender used to follow from your biological sex. But the only way the state can treat a trans woman (born male) the same as a biological woman is by dismissing biology as irrelevant. That’s why public schools are enforcing policies telling teachers whom they must call “he” and “she,” regardless of the student’s biological sex.

Same-sex activists say the next step is parenthood. In a same-sex couple, at least one parent is not biologically related to any children they have. So the only way the state can treat same-sex parents the same as opposite-sex parents is by dismissing biology as irrelevant and then substituting a new definition of “parent” (perhaps based on emotional bonds). You will be your child’s parent only at the permission of the state.

And what the state gives, the state can take away. Human rights are no longer “unalienable.” These issues are sold to the public as a way of expanding choice. But in reality, they hand over power to the state.

You can see examples of the state stepping in to “fix” the problems caused by the decline of lasting, stable marriages. Divorce courts control a man’s salary and his rights to communicate with and visit his children. Civil rights commissions bully anyone who doesn’t celebrate they LGBT agenda. Universities punish men for real or imagined bad treatment of women without any criminal investigation or criminal trial. And we are all on the hook for the costs of the breakdown of the family, which results in more crime (for fatherless boys), and more unwanted pregnancies (for fatherless girls). In 2008, it was $112 billion per year, no telling what it is up to now when the out-of-wedlock birth rate is now up to 42%.

Although the secular left’s new view of the body and sexuality seemed to be all goodness and happiness – at least to them –  it’s actually caused a lot of problems, and increased the intervention of the state into our affairs.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zqWutv

/by
Evil, Suffering and Evidence for God

Evil, Suffering and Evidence for God

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

On November 13, 2015, coordinated terrorist attacks rocked Paris, France: A shooting rampage, explosions, and a mass hostage-taking that leftover 100 people dead and over 300 more badly injured; people who went out to see a band, a soccer game, grab a bite to eat or just enjoy the evening. The Islamic State claimed responsibility and the media called it the deadliest attack in France since World War II.

Many around the world mourned for those who lost their lives in this tragedy. Many Christians called for prayer via social media, punctuating their posts with #PrayforParis.

Still, some skeptics say prayer is nothing but an empty act of desperation or sentimentality. Like wishing upon a star. In fact, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science posted a “Pray for Paris” graphic on Facebook altered to read, in part, “Don’t Pray for Paris…” Why? Because of the naturalistic worldview, there is no deity who hears a thing people are praying. After all, how could God exist when stuff like this happens?

But what about this?

Does evil disprove God? In this post, I’ll share three reasons that evil and suffering in the world point us to the existence of God. First, we know objective evil is real. Second, this points us to an objective standard of goodness. And third, objective moral laws are real communications from God.

Something’s Wrong

First, skeptics who challenge the existence of God because of evil and suffering in the world have to assume that evil is real; that something’s terribly wrong with our world today. It’s pretty obvious that murder and terrorism aren’t just examples of people breaking social norms. No, these things are really, objectively wrong. Objective evil is real, and everyone knows this isn’t the way things should be.

Hit up your favorite news app or Web site, and you’ll find tons of examples of evil happening right now: stories of racism, human trafficking, you name it. But what is evil itself? What all these instances of evil have in common is that they represent a departure from the way things should be. St. Augustine wrote in The Enchiridion:

For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?

Think about it like this. Evil is kind of like a donut hole. I don’t mean a little, bite-sized ball of dough and frosting. I mean, an actual hole that was cut out in the middle of a donut that was intended to be a solid one. And so you get a spot where there’s nothing, instead of more donut.

Kind of like this, evil is the lack of good—it’s when the good that should be there isn’t there. We all know people should be loving each other, not hurting each other. But the question is: “Where’s this idea of should come from?”

There’s no way you’re going to somehow trace the idea of should back to matter behaving according to law. But that’s basically what everything boils down to if atheism is true. No, it seems evil came as a result of free creatures using their free will badly; the total opposite of the way human beings were designed to function in a community.

“Should” Points to God

Second, the fact that we know there is a should point us to an objective standard of goodness. See, in order to even bring up this whole issue of God and evil, the skeptic has to borrow the idea of objective evil from theism; the worldview of people who believe in God. If there’s really such a thing as evil, it’s just more evidence for God.

Why? Because if you’ve got objective evil, then you’ve got to have an objective good. Not just something our culture made up, but something beyond us that actually establishes what good is—God’s own nature.

C.S. Lewis, a former skeptic, said:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line

An Objection to the Moral Argument

But wait. What do we say to the skeptic who challenges this idea by saying, “How can you say there are objective moral values when Muslim terrorists sincerely believe it is right to kill innocent people?”

William Lane Craig gave a good answer to this: Just because terrorists think terrorism’s a good thing, that doesn’t mean objective moral laws aren’t real. It just means the terrorist’s got it all wrong. Here’s what Craig says about terrorists:

If they sincerely believe it’s right, then they also believe in objective moral values. There’s no contradiction here at all. It’s just that we have a disagreement about what the objective moral truths are. To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean that there won’t be moral disagreements. Or that there won’t be moral growth as you come to see that maybe you were wrong in the past and now you have a clearer perspective on things.

Don’t confuse the reality of moral values with the knowledge of them.

To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean we are infallible in our moral apprehensions. I think we do apprehend objective moral values, but many times, we can make mistakes.

I think the Muslim terrorists have made a terrible mistake. And the reason is: I think they have the wrong god. The god that they think has commanded them to do this doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are terribly, and tragically mistaken. But there’s no contradiction at all here between someone believing that something is objectively right and there being objective moral values and duties.

Objective moral laws are real, and that fact doesn’t change, even if people disagree about whether or not a certain action’s good or evil.

Evil Requires a Good God

Third, objective moral laws don’t just come out of nowhere. They are a communication of one mind to another. This is totally different from some Scrabble letters that fall on the ground and happen to spell out a word. Totally different from what a Magic 8 Ball might tell you when you shake it up.

Objective moral laws have an undeniable force that you feel obligated to obey. That’s because they come from a moral lawgiver who has authority over you and me; a being whose jurisdiction is the universe he created.

In order for evil to exist, there must be an objective standard of goodness. Did you know you could have good without evil? But you can’t have evil without good; without a standard of goodness. Think about it like this: You can have a standard with nothing falling short of that standard, but you can’t have something falling short of a standard without a standard! Get it? Reminds me of an old Switchfoot song, “The Shadow Proves the Sunshine.” Objective moral laws are real communications from a good God.

Conclusion

We mourn with those who mourn. Christianity is very real about the problem of evil. This isn’t the way things should be. But the very concept of “should” points us to an objective standard of goodness: God’s own nature. Turns out, evil and suffering are evidence for God and not against him–a God who hears our prayers and to whom all people are accountable for their actions.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KZNsrR

/by