Did God Create Evil_

Did God Create Evil?

,

By Brian Chilton

After Bible study, one evening, a good friend of mine and I discussed the problem of evil. He asked an excellent question, “Did God create evil?” I said, “No, I don’t think he did.” However, my friend objected because he said, “God created everything, so he must have created evil.” This conversation was quite good, and we found common ground by the end of our discussion. This article relates some of the issues that we discussed.

One of the first issues we needed to define was the nature of evil. What do we mean when we say something is evil? He was using the term to define any type of disaster or bad thing. I was using to term to define immoral behaviors, such as torturing babies. How do we answer this question? Did God create evil? In this article, I would like to look at four common tricky areas that need to be dissected in order to answer the question.

Ontology and Epistemology of God and Evil. The terms ontology and epistemology are philosophical terms but are important to this area of conversation. One cannot neglect philosophy because bad philosophy often leads to bad theology. First, let me define the terms and how they play a role in this discussion.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It deals with how we know something exists. For instance, does a pizza exist? How do we know a pizza exists? These are ontological questions that deal with the nature of pizza’s existence. And oh, how tragic life would be without the existence of pizza!

Epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge[1]. This area deals with how we know something to be true. What is the nature of such and such? To use our illustration of pizza, ontology would ask, “Does pizza exist?” whereas epistemology would ask, “Is pizza good? Can we know that pizza is tasty?” So, a created thing would deal with the area of ontology, whereas the nature of the thing would deal more in the area of epistemology more or less.

When we talk about God creating all things, we must understand that God created everything that exists including the potentials to do certain things. However, if we grant the existence of human freedom, then God is not responsible for the actions that people take. Yes, God provides the means and conditions that can lead to a person’s actions and God knows the free actions that a person will take, but the person is responsible for his or her own actions[2]. Therefore, God created all things and created the conditions where a person could do good or evil. But, God did not create evil, because evil is not a thing to be created. It is not like a virus or slab of concrete. Evil is an attribute. It is a personal rejection of the good, the good which is an attribute of God.

The Moral Character of God. God is thoroughly identified in the Scriptures as being the ultimate good. John tells us that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). Scripture also indicates that God is absolutely holy, which means that he is set apart and absolutely pure (1 Sam. 2:2; 6:20; Ps. 99:9; 1 Cor. 3:17; Rev. 4:8). Since God is the absolute good and absolutely pure, it is false to claim that God does evil. James says that “No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (Jms. 1:13-15). James answers the question for us in great detail about God’s relationship to evil. God cannot do evil because God is the absolute good[3].

So, how do we know what is evil and what is good? If you are driving down a highway, you will see a sign that posts the speed limit. In town, the speed limit will most likely be 35 miles per hour. How do you know that you’re breaking the speed limit driving 55 miles per area in that zone unless there is a speed limit posted stating that one should only go 35 miles per hour? The law must exist before you can know if you’re breaking the law. Moral standards must exist before one can know that he or she is doing evil. Objective moral standards come from God. Again, evil is not something to be created. Evil stems from a rejection of God’s moral goodness.

Ra’ah, Disaster, and Evil. Let’s face it. Biblical interpretation is tough especially when it comes to the original languages. Some individuals have spent their entire lives seeking to master the biblical languages but are still left with questions. If that is the case, should those of us with less training in the biblical languages not have much more humility when it comes to such terms? I think so.

Often, Hebrew words can take several different meanings depending on context. I remember when taking Greek that Dr. Chad Thornhill would often emphasize context, context, context when interpreting a confusing term. In Hebrew, one such example is the confusion that occurs with the term ra’ah. Ra’ah describes a disaster, but it can also be used to describe something evil. Ingrid Faro explains with the following:

“For example, the Hebrew root “evil” (ra’; ra’ah; r’ ’) occurs 46 times in Genesis and is rightly translated into English using at least 20 different words, and nuanced in the Septuagint by using eight Greek forms (11 lexemes). Yet English-speaking people often incorrectly assume an underlying meaning of “sinister, moral wrong” and interject that into each use of the Hebrew word.”[4]

In Amos 5:3, it is noted that “If this is a judgment announcement against the rich, then the Hebrew phrase עֵת רָעָה (’et ra’ah) must be translated, “[a] disastrous time.” See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.”[5] Thus, the term ra’ah can indicate a disaster that has befallen a group of people and does not necessarily mean “evil” as some older translations have indicated.

But, doesn’t disaster indicate something evil? If God brings disaster, does that not indicate that God does something evil? No, not at all! God is holy. If a people are unrepentant and are unwilling to stop doing evil, then God is completely justified in bringing judgment. The disaster is not evil if it is due to justice. Like a parent disciplining a child or a judge executing judgment against a convicted criminal, disasters are sometimes the judgment of God poured out upon an unrepentant people. I think it was good that the Allies stormed into Germany to overtake the evil Adolf Hitler. Likewise, it is actually good for God to bring judgment as it coincides with his holy nature.

Evil Allowed to Permit the Ultimate Good. So, the final question that must be tackled is this: If God is good, then why would he allow evil to exist in the first place? Why would he create a condition where evil could exist? The answer to this is quite simple. God’s allowance of evil is to allow a greater good. What is that greater good? Love. For love to truly exist, it must be free. It must be freely given, freely received, and reciprocal between both parties. God could have created us as robots or automatons. But, that would not provide true love. The ultimate love was given in Jesus, who experienced the horrors of torture and experienced the just punishment that we deserve. He did so that we would have life eternally. The penalty of our eternal punishment was paid on the cross at Calvary. God lovingly confers his grace to all who would willingly receive. His grace is freely offered and is freely received. This kind of love would not be possible if God did not allow the conditions that would allow evil to exist. A greater good has come. One day, those who have trusted Christ for their salvation will no longer need to worry about evil because evil will be vanquished. The redeemed of Christ will be transformed. We will experience the bliss and glory of the heaven that awaits us. To God be the glory!

So, did God create evil? It depends on what you mean. God created the conditions for evil to exist but did so to allow a greater good which is the free love that is experienced between the Lover (God), the beloved (us), and the spirit of love between the two. Evil is not a thing to be created. Rather, it is a condition that exists when a person or group of people reject God’s goodness and his holy moral nature.

Notes

[1] “Epistemology is the discipline that deals with the theory of knowledge. The term can be broken down into epistem-ology (Gk. episteme, “to know; logos, “study”). It is the study of how we know.”[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Epistemology,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 215.

[2] In Ezekiel, God notes that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. “But suppose the man has a violent son, who sheds blood and does any of these things, though the father has done none of them… [The son] will not live! Since he has committed all these detestable acts, he will certainly die. His death will be his own fault” (Eze. 18:10-11,13). It is true that God has control over history and the like. But remember, a person is responsible for his or her actions. God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility. God does not force a person to do anything. His Spirit may woo a person to receive his salvation, but he will not force a person to do so. Unless otherwise noted all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[3] The Bible makes clear that God cannot operate in a manner that betrays his moral nature. For instance, Paul writes, “God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Ti. 1:2).

[4] Ingrid Faro, “Semantics,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[5] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Am 5:13.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

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

/by
Sexually Transmitted Unease_ How Casual Sex Works Bad Chemistry From Good

Sexually Transmitted Unease: How Casual Sex Works Bad Chemistry From Good

,

By Terrell Clemmons

“Want a Capri Sun?”

Those were the first words he said to her afterward. Rachel White, age fifteen, had been anticipating this moment for at least a year. She’d sneaked out on a snowy school night, shoes in hand. Then, wearing nothing but her wet socks,  Ginuwine playing in the background, it was finally happening! Oh my god, she told herself, this is sex! Just move your hips to Ginuwine. When it was over, he locked eyes with her, opened his mouth … and offered her a kiddie drink in a disposable bag.

Nevertheless, delirious in the afterglow, Rachel shared all the details with her friends the following day at school. Soon though, her delirium morphed into a strange agitation. ‘He’ wasn’t her boyfriend or anyone particularly special. They had been “just talking” – her lingo for “just friends” – and since he was cool and good-looking, Rachel had picked him to be the one to whom she would lose her virginity. Once the deed was done, “I wanted something from him. I thought about him every five minutes.” She called him repeatedly, several times a day until finally, his weary mother asked her to please stop calling. Then depression set in. “I didn’t want to go to school. I didn’t want to eat. And if Ginuwine came on the radio—forget it.”

Rachel later blogged about her experience and found she wasn’t alone in suffering a post-sex funk. Kate responded, describing her first time this way, “He just sort of rolled off me, he was drunk and probably also high, and I just sat there for awhile and stared at the ceiling while he snored. I remember I got up … thinking, ‘That’s it? What the hell just happened?’” Others recounted stories of writing long embarrassing love letters or drunken explosions at parties. Clearly, joining the sexually initiated doesn’t always pan out as expected.

The Neurology of Sex

Any Grandma or psychotherapist worth her salt could have told them that this was bound to happen. In Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children, OB-GYNs Dr. Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., and Dr. Freda McKissic Bush explain, from a neurobiological perspective, why it happens and how. “Scientists are confirming that sex is more than a momentary physical act. It produces powerful, even lifelong, changes in our brains that direct and influence our future to a surprising degree,” they write. A single sexual encounter sets off a cascade of changes in a young brain, and modern imaging technology allows researchers to observe those changes more thoroughly than ever before. Hooked explains what they are discovering.

Three neurochemicals, in particular, are especially involved in sex:

Oxytocin. Oxytocin is the “bonding” chemical. While it is present in both sexes, it’s much more predominant in females. When a boy and girl touch in a meaningful way, even something as simple as a lingering hug, oxytocin is released in the girl’s brain, causing her to desire more of his touch and to feel an increasing bond to him. It also produces feelings of trust in him, whether or not he actually merits it. When sexual intercourse happens, her brain is flooded with oxytocin, causing her to feel connected to him and to continue to need this connection with him, as Rachel discovered. Oxytocin is also released when a mother nurses her newborn, causing similar, though non-sexual, feelings of deep attachment. “The important thing to recognize,” the doctor’s stress, “is that the desire to connect is not just an emotional feeling. Bonding is real… a powerful connection that cannot be undone without great emotional pain.”

Vasopressin. Vasopressin is the bonding chemical for males. Often referred to as “the monogamy molecule,” it hasn’t been as thoroughly studied as oxytocin but is known to play a role in bonding, both to the female sexually and to the children that result. In an article titled, The Two Become One: The Role of Oxytocin and Vasopressin, Dianne S. Vadney explained it this way,”Essentially, vasopressin released after intercourse is significant in that it creates a desire in the male to stay with his mate, inspires a protective sense (in humans, perhaps this is what creates almost a jealous tendency) about his mate, and drives him to protect his territory and his offspring.”

Dopamine. Dopamine is the “feel-good” or “reward” chemical. When we do something exciting, dopamine floods our brain and produces feelings of exhilaration and well-being. Not surprisingly, it also makes us want to repeat the behavior that produced it. Active in both males and females, dopamine is values-neutral, meaning it rewards pleasurable or exciting behaviors without distinguishing between those that are beneficial and those that may be harmful.

Hooked by Sex

“Sex is one of the strongest generators of the dopamine reward,” the Hooked authors point out. This is not inherently bad, but overstimulation can cause the brain to become relatively resistant to it, leading the indiscriminate to engage in more and more of the same behavior to regain the high, not unlike the spiral of addictive drug use. “For this reason, young people particularly are vulnerable to falling into a cycle of dopamine reward for unwise sexual behavior – they can get hooked on it.” But when the relationships are short-lived, the losses due to breakup are felt in the brain centers that feel physical pain and can actually be seen on a brain scan. It’s not hard to see how multiple relationships, each with its own cycle of bonding and breaking, can lead to profound pain, anxiety, and confusion, especially among teens still far from emotional maturity.

The results can be devastating. A series of studies published between 2002-2007 showed that sexually initiated youth are three times more likely to be depressed than their abstaining peers. The girls were three times as likely to have attempted suicide, and the boys were a whopping seven more likely to have done so. The studies accounted for other mitigating factors in their lives, ensuring an accurate comparison with their peers.

Natural Chemistry

Rachel White, who now writes for Cosmopolitan, Jezebel, and other sex-focused outlets, offers this suggestion for avoiding the pain of disappointment after first-time sex: “Maybe we need to throw out the idea of virginity altogether. Maybe we need to toss away the idea that you ‘lose’ something from a single act… Perhaps teaching this would help with those depression stats.” In other words, devalue the sex act altogether, starting with the very first one. Lower your expectations; the dismal thinking goes so that you won’t suffer the pain of disappointment.

Rachel can promote disposable sex until the cows come home, but it will never improve the depression or suicide stats. In fact, it will probably make them worse. It’s impossible for the neurochemical aspects of sex to be turned off. Here’s a better idea: Ponder deeply the remarkable work of oxytocin and vasopressin. Consider how the biochemistry of sex appears to be marvelously fashioned for the purpose of forging marriage and family bonds. See sex that way. And then act accordingly. Go with instead of against your natural chemistry.

And finally, lest the cheap sex authors convince you that sexual restraint equals sexual repression, reflect on the serendipitous, dual sex ministrations of dopamine. Only regular, monogamous sex keeps the dopamine rushes coming, strengthening the marital bond, infusing feelings of personal well-being, and smoothing the inescapable bumps that come with living together and, if fortune smiles, raising children. All that without the pain and fear of breakup.

 

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

/by

The Big Questions in Life: Part III

Podcast: Play in new window

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

After a quick break (previous episode) from our current “Big Questions in Life” series, Frank is back with another great installment. In this podcast, he discusses the following questions: Why can our minds discover truths about the external world? What is the source of the laws of logic and mathematics? Why is there such a thing as probability? Why are we conscious? and more!

/by
Is Christianity useful anymore

¿Sigue el cristianismo siendo útil? Las generaciones más jóvenes no parecen pensarlo así

Por Michael Sherrard

De acuerdo con un estudio reciente, las generaciones venideras ya no le ven el sentido al cristianismo. Estoy seguro que has visto lo que estos estudios sociológicos han descubierto: mientras más joven la generación, más post-cristiana es. Los jóvenes americanos están menos inclinados a creer en el cielo o en el infierno, que la escritura es la palabra de Dios, que Satanás es real o que incluso Dios existe. Ellos oran menos, van con menor frecuencia a la iglesia y dan menos ofrendas a la iglesia que las generaciones pasadas.

Muchos están abandonando el cristianismo por completo.

Uno de cada cinco adultos se consideran a sí mismos ser “Ex-cristianos”. Y para poner esto en perspectiva, eso significa que hay cuatro ex-cristianos por cada nuevo convertido al cristianismo. De hecho, los “ex-cristianos” combinados con los ateos y agnósticos ahora componen uno de los grupos religiosos más grandes en América, los religiosos no afiliados. Y un gran porcentaje de ellos son jóvenes adultos. Uno de cada de tres jóvenes adultos afirma no tener alguna afiliación religiosa.

Entonces, ¿por qué las generaciones jóvenes se están marchando de la fe? Y ¿qué podemos hacer al respecto? ¿Es simplemente porque ya no creen que sea verdad o útil?

Creo que podemos encontrar una respuesta en Deuteronomio. El sexto capítulo nos enseña que es la responsabilidad de las generaciones pasadas pasar la palabra de Dios a la nuevas generaciones. Particularmente es el trabajo de los padres. Nuestros niños deben aprender de nosotros qué es lo que significa seguir a Dios.

¿Lo han hecho? ¿Han aprendido de nosotros?

Nuestros niños han aprendido muchas cosas de nosotros, estoy seguro. Les hemos enseñado la importancia de la educación. Hemos pagado para que tengan tutores y clases de piano. Los hemos conectado con los deportes y también hemos pagado por entrenamientos privados. Hemos hecho muchísimo por ellos para prepararlos para la adultez. Pero ¿les hemos transmitido la cosa de más importancia?

En este punto, puedo responder con mucha confianza la pregunta ¿por qué las nuevas generaciones han abandonado el cristianismo? La respuesta es que nosotros lo hemos hecho.

O si nosotros no la hemos abandonado, ciertamente no la hemos pasado a la siguiente generación. Estudio tras estudio nos muestra lo que ya sabemos. Virtualmente ningún joven adulto sabe lo que la Biblia enseña. Los jóvenes adultos simplemente no saben nada acerca del cristianismo. Entonces no estoy seguro si es correcto decir que los jóvenes adultos se están alejando del cristianismo. Parece ser que nunca fueron realmente introducidos al cristianismo.

Entonces, ¿qué hay que hacer? Es simple. Conoce la palabra de Dios por ti mismo y enséñalo a la siguiente generación, pero no solamente tenemos que enseñarlo, debemos vivirlo también. Una de las cosas más impresionantes de las nuevas generaciones es que pueden detectar a alguien falso a un kilómetro de distancia. Las generaciones jóvenes necesitan ver el cristianismo, no solo escuchar acerca de él.

Enseñé en la escuela secundaria por siete años, “fue el mejor de los tiempos; fue el peor de los tiempos”. Estoy bromeando, amo a los estudiantes de secundaria. ¿Sabes qué es lo que preguntan los estudiantes con más frecuencia? Es, “¿cuándo voy a usar esto?”. Y esta es precisamente la pregunta correcta que un estudiante debe hacer.

Me pregunto, ¿han visto nuestros jóvenes adultos una respuesta a “cuando van a utilizar el cristianismo? ¿Han visto que nos fue bien porque hemos obedecido fielmente la palabra de Dios? De nuevo, si queremos que la siguiente generación acepte la bondad de seguir a Jesucristo, ellos deben ver su bondad en nosotros. Por lo tanto, no solo les enseñe la palabra de Dios sino muéstresela. Muestre su poder con la forma en que vives.

Finalmente, junto con el conocimiento de la palabra de Dios y con que nos vean usarla, la siguiente generación debe entender la palabra de Dios. Deuteronomio 6:20 nos dice que tenemos que darles a nuestros niños una respuesta cuando ellos pregunten ¿qué significa la palabra de Dios? Tristemente, muchísimos niños y adolescentes se encontraron con un Shh y un “solo ten fe” en vez de una respuesta cuando ellos tienen una duda acerca del cristianismo.

Pero Dios no espera que tengamos una fe ciega. Además, Él no quiere eso. Él no nos pide seguirlo porque Él simplemente lo dice y fin de la historia. Él espera y nos permite hacer preguntas sinceras y humildes. Porque al hacer preguntas genuinas, uno busca el entendimiento. Dios quiere que lo amemos con nuestra mente también. Él quiere seguidores sinceros y verdaderos, no máquinas programadas.

Entonces los jóvenes adultos, deberían preguntar ¿por qué Dios deja que malas cosas le sucedan a personas buenas?

Deberían preguntar ¿cómo sabes que la Biblia es la palabra de Dios y no es algún fraude?

Deberían preguntar ¿cómo sabes si Jesús en verdad resucitó de entre los muertos?

Deberían preguntar ¿por qué debería seguir la enseñanzas de Dios?

Y adultos, será mejor que se preparen para darles una respuesta. Pero anímate porque hay respuestas. Ahora, no se sientan abrumados por esto. Está bien si no tienes todas las respuestas. Nadie las tiene, bueno, excepto Google. Puedes confiar lo que sea que encuentres en Google.

En serio, “no sé” es una respuesta perfectamente aceptable a una pregunta que no sabes la respuesta. Pero “solo ten fe” no lo es. No le digan a las nuevas generaciones que se queden en silencio, que dejen de hacer preguntas, que solo crean y que mantengan la línea. Si lo haces, eventualmente caerán. Y esto precisamente estamos viendo a diario.

Iglesia, adultos, padres — acepten las preguntas de las nuevas generaciones y encuentren respuestas. ¡Sí las hay! El cristianismo es razonable. Es verdad. Concuerda con la realidad. Es la mejor explicación por la forma en que son las cosas.  Es la respuesta por todo lo que está mal.

Entonces, conoce la palabra de Dios. Enseña la palabra de Dios. Vive la palabra de Dios. Y crece en su entendimiento. Y que tú y tu hijo y el hijo de tu hijo cosechen todas las bendiciones que provienen de seguir fielmente a Jesucristo.

 

Michael C. Sherrard es pastor, director de Ratio Christi college prep, y autor de Relational Apologetics. (Apologética relacional). Información personal y otros se puede encontrar en michaelcsherrard.com

Blog original: http://bit.ly/2L1HXGf

Traducido por Italo Espinoza Gómez

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
How Ancient Eyewitness Testimony Became the New Testament Gospel Record

How Ancient Eyewitness Testimony Became the New Testament Gospel Record

, ,

By J. Warner Wallace

I often wonder precisely when the disciples of Jesus realized their important role in Christian History. As these men sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to everything He had to say, did they realize they would someday testify to everything He said and did? Most eyewitnesses I’ve interviewed in my casework had no idea they would later be called into a jury trial to testify about what they heard or observed. As a result, they sometimes regret not paying better attention when they had the opportunity. But the disciples of Jesus had a distinct advantage over modern eyewitnesses in this regard. They were students of Jesus. Unlike spontaneous, unprepared witnesses of a crime, the disciples were desperately attentive to the words and actions of Jesus, and I imagine their attention to detail became even more focused with each miraculous event. For this reason, the authors of the gospels became excellent eyewitnesses and recognized the importance of their testimony very early.

While Jesus walked here on earth, His followers studied and learned from His actions and words. They were often mesmerized, confused and challenged by what they saw and heard. In spite of this, Jesus taught them and occasionally sent them out on their own. They memorized His teaching and relied on his wisdom when they weren’t with Him. We don’t know how much (if anything) these eyewitnesses wrote down during this time. Did the disciples take notes? Did they keep a journal? While Jesus was alive, the disciples likely felt no need to write down his words. The Word was witnessed in these incredible days, as men and women stood in awe of the Master, watching Him perform miracles and listening carefully to what He taught about God and eternal life.

During the first years following Jesus’s ascension, the apostles still may not have written immediately about Jesus. Why not? A careful reading of the Scripture will reveal a common theme: Many of the early authors of the New Testament expected Jesus to return before there would ever be a need for a multi-generational eyewitness record. They worked urgently to tell the world about Jesus, believing He would return to judge the living and the dead within their lifetime. In the days of the Apostles, the Word was heard, as the apostles preached to the world around them. But as the Apostles began to be martyred (and those who remained realized Jesus might not return in their lifetime), the need for a written account became clear. James, the brother of John, was killed in 44AD (Stephen was killed even earlier), and not long afterward, the gospels began to emerge. The eyewitness gospel authors wrote down what they had seen so the world would have a record.

Following the deaths of the apostles, the early believers and leaders received the apostolic eyewitness accounts and regarded them as sacred. They knew the original eyewitnesses had vanished from the scene and they wanted to retain a faithful record of their testimony. From the earliest of times, these Christians coveted the New Testament writings. In the days of the early Church Fathers, the Word was read, as the sacred Gospels and letters were carefully protected. The earliest believers accepted the gospels and letters of the New Testament as eyewitness accounts because the authors of these texts considered their own writing to be authoritative, eyewitness Scripture:

1 Peter 5:1

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…

2 Peter 1:16-17

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 John 1:1-3

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…

The apostles understood their experiences as eyewitnesses were unique, and they called for these eyewitness accounts to be read by all believers. Paul recognized both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings were sacred and God-given. He considered both to be Scripture:

1 Timothy 5:17-18

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’

In this passage, Paul quoted both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 (“The worker deserves his wages”). He referred to both passages as Scripture. It’s clear the New Testament Gospels were already in place at the time of this writing, and it’s also clear that believers were reading these Gospels as Scripture. Peter also attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture when writing his own letters to the early Church:

2 Peter 3:14-16

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

In addition to this, it is clear the New Testament letters were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative eyewitness Scripture and revelation from God:

Colossians 4:16

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you, in turn, read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27

I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The eyewitness authors of the New Testament gospels and letters understood the power of their testimony. They witnessed the Word in the days when a written record was unnecessary, spoke the Word when they thought Jesus would return imminently, and wrote the Word when they realized their eyewitness record would become Scripture for those who followed them. That’s how the ancient eyewitness accounts became the New Testament Scripture we cherish today.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, 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 Source: http://bit.ly/2lSuplm

/by
Why Do You Believe In God_

Why Do You Believe In God?

, ,

by Justin Steckbauer

If someone asks me, “Why do you believe in God?” I don’t necessarily say “I just have faith.”

Many might say that. But for someone who asks that question, I need to know how to defend my faith. So my response is this:

I think it’s very reasonable to believe in God. Let me tell you why:

  1. The universe exists, and it must have a cause, everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist. Evolution can’t create, neither can science. The universe needs a first cause that is timeless, outside the system and infinitely powerful.  God is the logical first cause (cosmological argument).
  2. The universe is finely tuned, there is order in the universe at work that allows for planets, stars, and galaxies. There are laws in the universe, constants like gravity, relativity, and so on. It’s reasonable that when we find mathematical laws and cosmological laws in the universe, that there is a powerful being that created those systems (argument from design).
  3. Within the human cell, we find massive amounts of information. When we look at the human eye, we see a system so incredibly complicated that it could never come about by chance. When scientists look into the human body, they see a complex yet harmonious system of machinery. We see cells and tissue, and DNA and systems that all function as one, and are irreducibly complex. (specified complexity, irreducibly complexity).
  4. The human mind intuitively knows that there is good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad. Objective moral laws exist, they are universal. If objective morals exist, then an objective moral lawgiver must exist; therefore God exists (moral argument).

 

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

/by
supreme court

Why Is The Supreme Court Important To Christians?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

After the big announcement by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy of his retirement many questions arise. Frank tackles some of the following questions in this podcast: How does the Supreme Court affect you as a Christian? What are the implications if a conservative justice is appointed to the Supreme Court? What about Roe vs. Wade, will it be overturned? Tune in to hear the answers to these questions. Don’t miss this podcast!

/by
Lógica_ la argumentación

Lógica 02: la argumentación

¿QUÉ ES LA LÓGICA?

La lógica es la disciplina que estudia los métodos y principios que se usan para distinguir el razonamiento bueno (correcto) del malo (incorrecto).

EL ARGUMENTO

Antes de entrar en el tema de la argumentación, reconozcamos primero algunos términos que son utilizados en la práctica de la lógica:

Inferencia. Proceso por el cual se llega a una proposición y se afirma sobre la base de una o más proposiciones. La relación entre las proposiciones es vital para no incurrir en una mala inferencia.

Enunciado. Entidad lingüística conformada por palabras.

Proposición. Información contenida en un enunciado que es verdadera o falsa, distinguiéndose así de las preguntas, órdenes y exclamaciones.

Argumento. En el sentido filosófico, es un conjunto de proposiciones que sirven de premisas que conducen a una conclusión.

Premisa. Proposición aseverada o supuesta que sirve de apoyo o razón para aceptar la conclusión de un argumento.

Conclusión. Es la proposición aseverada con base en otras proposiciones (premisas) del argumento.

Dicho esto, es importante mencionar cuatro puntos con respecto a las premisas y conclusiones de un argumento.

1. Un argumento puede consistir únicamente en una premisa y una conclusión. Ejemplo:

Puesto que el hombre tiene la facultad de pensar, pero está sujeto a sus necesidades animales, de ahí qué, no sea completamente libre.

Premisa: Puesto que el hombre tiene la facultad de pensar, pero está sujeto a sus necesidades animales.

Conclusión: De ahí que, no sea completamente libre.

2. Las premisas y la conclusión no tienen un orden estricto en el discurso. En cualquier discurso, uno puede encontrar que la premisa precede a la conclusión, que la conclusión precede a la premisa, que la conclusión se encuentra entre las premisas o a veces ambas se pueden encontrar en el mismo enunciado. Ejemplo:

Las mascotas rescatadas de la calle son más apegadas que las que no. Esto es así, porque tienen en la memoria el que el rescatador los haya sacado de la miseria a cambio de un hogar.

Premisa: [Los animales rescatados] tienen en la memoria el que el rescatador los haya sacado de la miseria a cambio de un hogar.

Conclusión: Las mascotas rescatadas de la calle son más apegadas que las que no.

3. Los términos “premisa” y “conclusión” son relativos. A veces la conclusión de un argumento puede servir de premisa para otro. Ejemplo:

  1. Todo lo que Dios enseña es verdad.
  2. Evidencias históricas, profecías y otras evidencias muestran que Jesús es Dios.
  3. Por lo tanto, lo que Jesús enseña es verdad.

Aquí la proposición (3) es la conclusión y las proposiciones (1) y (2) son sus premisas. Pero en el siguiente argumento la conclusión anterior es una premisa:

  1. Lo que Jesús enseña es verdad.
  2. Jesús enseñó que las Escrituras son la inerrante Palabra de Dios.
  3. Por lo tanto, las Escrituras son la palabra inerrante de Dios.

4. Una proposición considerada de forma aislada, no es una premisa ni una conclusión. La proposición será una premisa cuando sea el supuesto de un argumento, y será una conclusión solo cuando aparezca en un argumento fundamentándose en otras proposiciones.

Discursos que contienen varios argumentos

Está claro que existirán pasajes o discursos que contendrán varios argumentos, por lo que el lector deberá prestar atención al número de conclusiones que contenga el pasaje, ya que, como hemos visto, a veces una sola premisa puede servir de apoyo para dos conclusiones distintas, la conclusión puede encontrarse en medio de las premisas o una conclusión puede servir de premisa para otro argumento. Es recomendable siempre extraer los argumentos del discurso y estructurarlos en su forma lógica utilizando el método que mejor le convenga (enumerar las proposiciones, usar diagramas, restructurar todo el pasaje de forma ordenada, etc.).

¿QUÉ SE HACE PARA TENER UN BUEN ARGUMENTO?

Los argumentos pueden ser deductivos o inductivos:

Argumento deductivo. Aquél cuyas premisas garantizan la veracidad de su conclusión. Ejemplo:

  1. Todos los políticos son corruptos.
  2. El diputado S es político.
  3. Por lo tanto, el diputado S debe ser corrupto.

Argumento inductivo. Aquél cuyas premisas solo ofrecen cierto apoyo a la conclusión (hacen que sea más probable que otras). Ejemplo:

  1. La pantalla se descompuso luego del apagón en la colonia.
  2. La computadora se descompuso después del apagón.
  3. Es probable que continúen averiándose artefactos en la casa.

Para que un argumento sea bueno, primero dependerá de si es deductivo o inductivo.

El Argumento Deductivo

Existen al menos cinco criterios para que un argumento deductivo sea bueno.

1. Un buen argumento debe ser formalmente válido. Cuando hablamos de la validez formal de un argumento, nos estamos refiriendo a su estructura lógica; es decir, la conclusión debe derivarse de las premisas de acuerdo con las reglas de la lógica (las cuales abordaré en el siguiente blog).

Cuando un argumento no está estructurado correctamente, que la conclusión no se siga por medio de ninguna regla lógica, se dice que es inválido, incluso si la conclusión resulta ser verdadera. Por ejemplo,

  1. Si Juan recibe un “10” en filosofía, va a estar orgulloso de su trabajo.
  2. Juan está orgullosa de su trabajo.
  3. Por lo tanto, Juan obtuvo un “10” en filosofía.

Aunque todas las proposiciones de este argumento sean verdaderas, (3) no se sigue lógicamente de (1) y (2), por lo que este es un argumento inválido. A partir del conocimiento de (1) y (2), no se puede saber que (3) también es verdadera.

2. Un buen argumento debe ser informalmente válido. Cuando hablamos de la invalidez informal de un argumento, éste no tiene que ver con la estructura lógica del mismo, sino con aquellos errores del razonamiento (falacias) que, sin romper ninguna regla lógica, provoca que el argumento sea malo. Ejemplo:

  1. Si la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios, entonces es la Palabra de Dios.
  2. La Biblia es la Palabra de Dios.
  3. Por lo tanto, la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios.

Este es un argumento lógicamente válido, pero asume lo que tiene que demostrar y por lo tanto no prueba nada nuevo.

3. Las premisas en un buen argumento deben ser verdaderas. Un argumento puede ser formal e informalmente válido, y, sin embargo, llevar a una conclusión falsa porque una de las premisas es falsa. Por ejemplo,

  1. Todos los mamíferos tienen alas.
  2. La ballena es un mamífero.
  3. Por lo tanto, la ballena tiene alas.

Este es un argumento lógicamente válido, pero la premisa (1) es falsa. Hay mamíferos que no tienen alas. Por lo tanto, éste no es un buen argumento para la verdad de la conclusión.

4. Un buen argumento tiene premisas que son más plausibles que sus contradictorias o sus negaciones. Pedir certeza absoluta para la verdad de una premisa nos llevaría al escepticismo.

5. La conjunción de las premisas deben ser más plausibles que su negación. La probabilidad de la conjunción de las premisas del argumento solamente establece una probabilidad mínima de la conclusión. La probabilidad de la conclusión del argumento no puede ser más baja que la probabilidad de la conjunción de las premisas del argumento.[1] Así que, si las premisas combinadas de un argumento deductivo válido tienen una probabilidad de >50%, entonces la conclusión tiene una garantía de al menos >50%, por lo que debemos creerla.

Un argumento que cumpla con todas estas condiciones será un argumento sólido.

Bibliografía Recomendada:

Irving M. Copi y Carl Cohen, Introducción a la Lógica.

J. P. Moreland y W. L. Craig, “Logic and Argumentation” en Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview Second Edition.

Nota

[1] Para un mayor desarrollo de este punto, ver “Natural Theology and the Uses of Argument” por Timothy McGrew y John Depoe, en Philosophia Christie 15/2 (2013) 299-309.

 

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
Truth and Tone in Cultural Engagement

Truth and Tone in Cultural Engagement

,

By Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, some evangelicals have seen cultural engagement as fighting a culture war for Christ. But the landscape has changed in a way that most people who graduated from seminary forty years ago might never have imagined. Today, we as Christians find ourselves in the position of a cultural minority in the United States. How should we engage with a society that is increasingly hostile to the Christian faith?

This Table briefing explores what the New Testament teaches about honoring God through our message—and our tone—as we minister in a world that often pushes back against the gospel. This ethos of balancing invitation and challenge has been a key emphasis since the beginning of the Table Podcasts.

First, we consider how the example of the early church should inform our cultural engagement as a church today. Then we examine how the Apostle Paul’s example should inform our interpersonal interactions with unbelieving friends and neighbors. [Download the full-length article]

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tvEkl5

/by
The Wounded Healer_ Finding Ultimate Purpose in Your Suffering

The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose in Your Suffering

By Luke Nix

Introduction

The other day, I heard a podcast that I want to highlight for anyone who is a victim of the evil and suffering of life and questions God’s purposes, His love, or even His existence. Whether our experiences are singular traumatic events, day-in and day-out pain, or a combination of the two, suffering often feels completely unbearable. These experiences can be so painful that many people are compelled to honestly question and seek legitimate answers to how an all-loving and all-powerful God could and would permit the suffering that we experience in our lives and see others experience in our world. This is called the logical problem of evil and has been long recognized as having been resolved, even by atheists (click or tap the link to see how).

Some, though, have wondered if that given the amount of evil and suffering, it is likely that an all-powerful and all-loving does not God exist. Simply stated: “There is too much gratuitous suffering in the world for an all-loving and all-powerful God to exist.” While this is a more modest concern that seems reasonable, if it is to be granted, such a denial of God’s existence based upon gratuitous suffering is necessarily reliant upon the idea that God does not have reasons to allow the amount of suffering that He does. Further, that depends upon knowing God’s purposes (or lack thereof) and how those purposes could (not) be accomplished. However, both the purposes of God and the methods of their fulfillment would have to be extremely limited for one to reasonably conclude that the amount of evil and suffering in the world is gratuitous. God’s purposes and methods are not so limited, so evil and suffering cannot be used to reasonably conclude that God does not exist. Yet, even though this answer is reasonable, it does not really answer the question of what the purpose of evil and suffering actually is. That is where I believe that Dr. Emerson Eggerichs picks up from the logical answer to the problem of evil and suffering and makes a deeply personal connection to their purpose.

Evil, Suffering, and the Great Commission

Our experiences of evil and suffering are deeply personal, so it makes sense that their purpose is personal as well. What are the purposes for which we are placed in different situations of suffering? We need to look not much further than Matthew 28:19a- “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Suffering is no respecter of one’s status, deeds, or even worldview, so all people experience it. Suffering reveals weakness; thus it is an experience that forges bonds of trust-trust of one another that is grounded in the knowledge that the other person has an intimate understanding of the anguish of their suffering.

Two Perspectives and the Cross

From the perspective of the moment, suffering is painful; yet from the perspective of eternity, suffering is trivial. The perspective of the moment instills in us a strong desire for relief for not only ourselves but for those who suffer like us. The perspective of eternity instills in us a strong sense of purpose and encouragement to know that the relief we desire for ourselves and others in the moment will be realized.

These two perspectives converged nearly two thousand years ago at the Cross. Jesus saw his suffering the torcher of crucifixion in the light of the rest of eternity for those who would choose to accept Him. He understood that that time of suffering was finite and could not be compared to the infinite time of bliss that it would provide to those He would reconcile to the Father. Three days later, this convergence was verified as Jesus overcame His suffering and conquered death in His Resurrection. It is this historical event that demonstrates the ultimate purpose of our suffering.

Suffering Is Only Gratuitous If We Allow It To Be

While suffering can strengthen the trust of the Christian in Christ, Christians can turn those same experiences into many opportunities to bring unbelievers into a loving, trusting, and healing relationship with Christ and share the relief with us. The Apostle Paul wrote, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18). It is through our own suffering of tragedies and evil in this world that the Great Commission can be accomplished- that unbelievers, who we love and comfort through our own personal experiences of the same suffering, can live pain-free and for want of nothing for eternity with their Creator, Savior, and Healer.

As the Body of Christ, we are His representatives in the physical world; it is through us that those who suffer can see, hear, and feel the heart of our suffering Savior- the One who lives so that they may live also (John 14:19). Every bit of suffering in our lives can have an ultimate purpose. It is our choice, though, if our suffering will be more than gratuitous and have an ultimate purpose. That purpose is to allow us to come alongside someone else who is also in that suffering and be trusted and permitted to speak the truth, hope, love, and healing of Christ into that life. We are wounded by suffering so that we have the opportunity to heal others wounded by suffering by pointing them to the ultimate Healer who was wounded for us.

Conclusion

Dr. Eggerichs describes in this podcast how he was wounded but uses those wounds to heal others and point them to the ultimate Healer. Please listen to the podcast and be encouraged that the evil and suffering that you experience in your life can be used to guide someone else to an eternity free from those experiences and full of unspeakable joy. Our suffering is only gratuitous if we allow it to be, and why would we want to allow that? Click or tap this link: Love and Respect Podcast: The Wounded Healer, then choose to speak life to the broken hearted.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MZW3cf

/by