Español

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what seems to be a universal and deeply ingrained human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to jump on the bandwagon, somehow believing that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and accepting of bad behavior.

But if you think about it, that’s not entirely accurate. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and seen as lacking. Whether in sports, school, or work, time and again we see that people want to compete, they want to be praised for their performance  , and they want to come out on top. What they want to avoid is losing—being told that they haven’t measured up or that they’ve done something wrong.

This inclination to seek praise and avoid condemnation is evident from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he will smile, scold or reprimand him and he will cry. He doesn’t have to be taught how to react, he just knows. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively understand is that there is a thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will use it early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “It’s not fair!” he will exclaim, not fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it is okay to be unfair, but will say that he is being fair, while trying to justify his behavior. Only when he grows up will he learn the now popular trick of claiming that judging is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to be free from judgment and free to do as they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling compelled to act in a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we don’t want to feel guilt. We don’t want to have that nagging feeling that, as C.S. Lewis said, we are aware of a law pressing down on us, a law we did not create and cannot evade, for it resides in our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit could there be from feeling guilty for not acting as we should? Wouldn’t this inhibit us from future acts that might directly and personally benefit us at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, early humans who lacked guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their own self-interest—to enhance their ability to survive and procreate—in contrast to their peers who held back because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes with harming other people. With survival of the fittest as the norm, behaviors that limit our options and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we were simply an accident of evolution, the pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We know intuitively that there is right and wrong, that there is goodness and evil and justice and injustice, because the absolute standard of goodness made us in his image. He left within us—written on our hearts, so to speak—an intuitive access to this standard and a desire—a need—to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from fully achieving this, but knowledge of this law, and of our need to conform to it, is woven into the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us a desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Even if we don’t realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a heartfelt “well done, my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear final condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us with the way home, the way of redemption. But we cannot get there on our own, and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid the feeling of guilt does no good to anyone.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to the works of C.S. Lewis sparked his interest in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/XY1TdAT 

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia 

 

Por Josh Klein

Anteriormente, examinamos la dicotomía entre lo que significa declarar la actividad homosexual como un pecado y cómo lidian con  ella los que creen en la ortodoxia cristiana.  Abordamos las raíces del movimiento cultural actual e introdujimos la idea de identidad en el argumento.

Era necesario hacer esto para que podamos tener una base sólida donde construir los siguientes argumentos.  Primero debemos saber por qué los teólogos liberales buscan glorificar la homosexualidad como identidad para entender por qué la interpretación de las Escrituras ha pasado de condenar un comportamiento pecaminoso obvio a condonar ese mismo comportamiento.

Si no has leído la primera parte puedes hacerlo aquí.

El objetivo del creyente no debe ser convencer al incrédulo de pecados individuales, como la homosexualidad, sino tratar de persuadir, con el poder del Espíritu Santo, a ese individuo de que él mismo es un pecador y necesita la gracia salvadora de Dios.

Pero una vez que esta persona se convierte en creyente, ¿cómo continúa la conversación sobre la homosexualidad?  Si se les anima a mantener esta identidad además de su nueva identidad en Cristo nos encontramos con que hemos creado creyentes esquizofrénicos que buscan cumplir con el patrón de ser definidos como homosexuales así como hijos de Dios.  Esto puede ser y es una existencia miserable.

En las partes dos y tres de esta serie, examinaremos lo que la teología liberal ha tratado de hacer para aliviar el dolor de esta transición, y en la cuarta parte, examinaré la posibilidad de ofrecer una mejor manera de tratar esta cuestión particular a los que están en línea con la ortodoxia cristiana.

La Iglesia liberal ha tratado de aliviar esta tensión redefiniendo, reinterpretando y reenganchando con las Escrituras el tema.

La nueva teología no suele ser una buena teología y, en mi opinión, así es en este caso.

Los siguientes son sólo una muestra de los argumentos que rondan en TikTok, Instagram, y en la iglesia liberal en relación con el movimiento LGBTQ + (por razones de longitud nos centraremos sólo en la actividad homosexual aquí).  Estas interpretaciones se basan en una cosmovisión de la nueva tolerancia, el amor y la empatía y no sólo son perjudiciales para la cultura, sino, y lo que es más importante, son perjudiciales para la Iglesia y para los individuos que están siendo llevados por tal enseñanza teológica de juego de manos.

Creo que este es el tipo de enseñanza al que se refería Jesús en Mateo 18:6 cuando dijo: “6 Pero al que haga tropezar a uno de estos pequeñitos que creen en mí, mejor le sería que le colgaran al cuello una piedra de molino de las que mueve un asno, y que se ahogara en lo profundo del mar”.

Al repasar estos argumentos es importante recordar que, para los fines de este artículo, estamos teniendo una discusión con supuestos miembros de la misma fe.  Hay que utilizar un criterio diferente con los que están fuera de la fe (1 Corintios 5:12).

Las excepciones a la visión histórica de la homosexualidad en la iglesia vienen bajo el nombre de amor y aceptación y la erudición comienza con esta línea de base.

Seré el primero en admitir que muchos más instruidos que yo llegarán a una comprensión más profunda de la homosexualidad en las Escrituras que no coincide con la mía.  Dicho esto, creo que su punto de partida es encontrar una excepción donde no la hay.  Y como dice el refrán: ”Si buscas algo con la suficiente intensidad, probablemente lo encontrarás”. Parece que parten de la suposición de que si Dios es amor, entonces ciertamente no permitiría que los que ama tuvieran una existencia tan miserable como para vivir con una identidad hostil a su creador.

Podrían estar en parte en lo correcto. Nuestra identidad como pecadores es sin duda ofensiva y profundamente triste para Dios.  Sin embargo, Él hizo algo al respecto: nos ofreció una nueva identidad en Cristo, en lugar de en Adán, mediante la muerte y resurrección de Jesús a favor nuestro.

Tal vez ahora entendamos por qué es tan primordial comprender nuestra identidad aparte de la sexualidad para abrazar verdaderamente el evangelio.  Jesús no promete arreglarnos completamente durante esta vida e incluso garantiza que tendremos problemas (1 Cor. 13:10-12; Juan 16:33).  En pocas palabras, esto significa que cualquier identidad que tengamos aparte de Cristo debe ser sacrificada para ser identificados con y en Cristo.

La teología liberal trata de resolver este problema trasladando los actos particulares de pecado al ámbito de lo sagrado y así, ratificar la identidad anterior como ordenada por Dios.

La nueva teología de la aceptación del pecado hace el truco de convertir una cosa definida como pecado en algo totalmente distinto.  Como veremos, reduce el alcance del pecado sexual de modo que una interpretación de las Escrituras que incluya el acto sexualmente pecaminoso de la homosexualidad o la promiscuidad se considera demasiado amplia.

También hay muchos argumentos simplemente ingenuos en contra de la idea de la homosexualidad como pecado que son fácilmente desmentidos y explicados con un simple estudio de las Escrituras.  Abordaremos primero la objeción más técnica, y en el tema de la próxima semana, pasaremos al resto para ir cerrando  esta serie de cuatro partes.

Nota: Cuando me refiero a la homosexualidad, hablo del ACTO, no de la disposición o la atracción.  Creo que la atracción no es un pecado en sí mismo, pero los pensamientos lujuriosos y las actividades sexuales asociadas con la homosexualidad y con la heterosexualidad (fuera del matrimonio) son definidos bíblicamente como actividades pecaminosas.

La palabra griega traducida como Homosexual debería ser traducida como Pedófilo, por lo tanto la Biblia no habla en contra de las relaciones entre personas del mismo sexo en los idiomas originales.

Pongámonos técnicos.

Esta afirmación hace un argumento sobre las decisiones de traducción sin tener en cuenta la doctrina del pecado históricamente.

Hay algunas palabras traducidas como homosexual en la New American Standard Bible que podrían ser traducidas para significar diferentes cosas.  Un nuevo libro que se publicará en el verano de 2021 llamado Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] (Forjando un arma sagrada: Cómo la Biblia se convirtió en antigay) argumenta que una traducción errónea de 1 Corintios 6:9-10 (junto, presumiblemente, con los otros pasajes de las Escrituras que se traducen como homosexual) es lo que estimuló a toda una generación a la homofobia puritana.  Incluso hay un documental que se estrenará sobre el tema a finales de 2021.

Estos son probablemente los argumentos que mi amigo ha visto en Tik Tok.  La pregunta, entonces, debe ser formulada, ¿es la homosexualidad un pecado y por qué la palabra sería traducida de manera diferente en 1946 de lo que fue  antes?

En primer lugar, abordaremos la principal Escritura que nos ocupa en este nuevo libro.  1 Corintios 6:9 dice lo siguiente

“¿O no sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os dejéis engañar: ni los inmorales, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales

Por cierto, esta misma palabra ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) se utiliza también en 1 Timoteo 1:10 y parece ser una palabra acuñada por el propio Pablo para indicar una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo.

Es una palabra griega compuesta que combina ἄρρην (arrēn), que significa “varón” u “hombre” y κοίτη (koy’-tay) que significa cama y que a menudo se utiliza como eufemismo para referirse a las relaciones sexuales.  Así, la palabra significa literalmente dos “hombres” que están “en la cama”.

Comúnmente, antes de 1946, este término había sido traducido como sodomita.  Aquellos que desean glorificar las relaciones homosexuales como una actividad aceptable para que los creyentes cristianos participen, leen más profundamente la palabra y creen que Pablo está hablando del uso significativo y repugnante del amor hacia niños en el antiguo mundo griego.  No es un secreto que muchos de los griegos practicaban la pedofilia (amor hacianiños) con chicos jóvenes como procesos de preparación para hombres mayores.

Pero este argumento falla en múltiples aspectos.  En primer lugar, el argumento indica que el lenguaje en torno a la palabra es transaccional, y por lo tanto, el acto sexual es claramente transaccional también (señalando a la prostitución de hombres jóvenes en el templo), pero ese no es el caso.  Los tiempos son claramente conductuales, se trata de personas que realizan actos sexuales y/o adoración de forma voluntaria. El segundo problema es que la suposición de que arrēn significa niño es simplemente incorrecta. παῖς (pais) es la palabra para niño, y la palabra de la que obtenemos pedofilia (literalmente: amor hacia niños). Sí, en el Apocalipsis muchas traducciones insertan la palabra “niño” para aclarar el significado, pero esto no es inherente a la palabra.  Por ejemplo, Apocalipsis 12:13 podría (y posiblemente debería) traducirse igualmente como “persiguió a la mujer que había dado a luz al hijo  varón” sin la palabra niño insertada al final.

La palabra que Pablo acuñó en estos dos pasajes se entiende correctamente y se ha entendido a lo largo de la historia, como una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo sin importar la edad.

Por lo tanto, estoy a favor de que la traducción refleje la vasta amplitud de la palabra, en lugar de su limitado alcance.  ¿Condena este pasaje las relaciones sexuales homosexuales?  Sí.  ¿Condena también la pedofilia? Sí.

Dado que Pablo está acuñando el término, parece que está buscando crear un paraguas para un acto sexual que es considerado pecaminoso por Dios. Muchos defensores de la teoría de la pederastia indican que Pablo podría haber utilizado un término diferente, el problema con esta sugerencia es doble.  Ambas palabras griegas comunes para hombre son demasiado genéricas para indicar lo que Pablo estaba tratando de transmitir. Tanto Anthropos como Anēr pueden utilizarse como términos genéricos para todas las personas.  Arrēn, sin embargo, no puede serlo.

El otro problema de esta teoría radica en el contexto del Antiguo Testamento.  Hay un problema de “pérdida en la traducción” para muchos cuando estudian el Antiguo Testamento y el Nuevo.  Piensan que Pablo habría leído el Antiguo Testamento hebreo.  Y lo habría hecho, pero en sus escritos, Pablo cita casi exclusivamente la Septuaginta (la traducción griega de las Escrituras hebreas). Esto proporciona otro obstáculo para la teoría de la pederastia.  En la traducción griega de Levítico 18:22, encontramos que el término utilizado para varón es arrēn y el término utilizado para “acostarse con” es koitē. Es razonable deducir entonces, que Pablo está juntando estas dos palabras como resultado directo de su uso en la traducción de la LXX (el AT griego) de Levítico 18.  Lo que indicaría que Pablo creería que sus lectores se dirigirían a ese pasaje.  Y esto tiene sentido, ya que Pablo no explica la palabra recién acuñada, sino que creía que sus lectores simplemente entenderían a qué se refería.

Sin embargo, el problema sigue siendo cómo traducir mejor esta palabra en español.

Creo que una mejor traducción para usar en la situación es Sodomita o ir completamente a lo concreto con “los hombres tienen sexo con los hombres”.  Cuya etimología proviene de las ciudades de Sodoma y Gomorra en el Génesis.  Es probable que conozcas la historia, pero aquí tienes un resumen: Dios va a destruir Sodoma y Gomorra por su orgullo y arrogancia y su cultura degenerada y malvada.  Él envía ángeles para investigar y Lot (sobrino de Abraham) los salva de ser violados sexualmente por los lugareños, incluso ofreció sus propias hijas a los hombres de la ciudad (que, por cierto, tampoco estaba bien para Dios, pero me estoy apartando del tema principal) en Génesis 19.

Es en este punto donde muchos toman la sodomía como una violación anal, pero no es tan simple.  Aunque el pecado original de Sodoma y Gomorra no era la homosexualidad, la consecuencia de su pecado original se tradujo en la homosexualidad y la depravación sexual en general.  La sodomía, entonces, ha sido comúnmente vista a lo largo de la historia como el acto sexual realizado entre dos personas del mismo género.

Sodomía es un término mucho más amplio y duro que el de homosexual, y creo que llega mejor al corazón de lo que Pablo está hablando en sus cartas.

Sin embargo, una de las cosas que hace el autor del libro mencionado es redefinir la palabra sodomía para que signifique “sexo que no se utiliza con fines procreativos”.  Sin embargo, ese no ha sido el entendimiento general de la sodomía durante generaciones.  De hecho, actualmente, la Britannica define la sodomía de cuatro maneras: homosexualidad, coito anal, zoofilia y pedofilia[2].

Entonces, si la mejor traducción de la palabra en 1 Corintios y 1 Timoteo sería Sodomita, ¿indica eso que el comportamiento homosexual se considera bueno a los ojos de Dios?  Un observador objetivo se vería obligado a admitir, en mi opinión, que no, sino que simplemente sería uno de los múltiples comportamientos sexuales que se consideran pecaminosos según la naturaleza de la palabra de Dios.

El otro problema que tengo con este argumento es que deja completamente fuera de consideración a Levítico y Romanos.  De hecho, Romanos 1:26-27 es posiblemente una de las condenas más claras del sexo homosexual en el Nuevo Testamento.

Esto también llega al corazón de Génesis 19.  Muchos creen que el problema de Génesis 19 no era el sexo homosexual, sino la violación implícita que tendría lugar.  Sin embargo, encontramos en Romanos 1 que este no es del todo el caso.

Cuando una cultura rechaza a Dios y se niega a adorarle a él y sólo a él, él responde dándoles lo que quieren: su depravación.  Romanos 1:26-27 indica que la culminación del pecado original de rechazar a Dios y adorar lo creado en lugar del creador (nací así por lo que es santo y bueno podría verse como adorar lo creado en lugar del creador) viene con ambos, hombres y mujeres intercambiando el orden creado de la relación sexual con la pasión interna y el deseo del otro.  La palabra utilizada para los hombres en este pasaje es la misma que Pablo utilizó para combinar con una cama que se traduce como homosexual en las traducciones actuales.

En una de sus grandes obras literarias C.S. Lewis dice lo siguiente: “Al final sólo hay dos clases de personas: los que dicen a Dios: “Hágase tu voluntad”, y aquellos a los que Dios dice, al final, “Hágase tu voluntad”. Todos los que están en el infierno, lo eligen”[3] No estoy usando esta cita para plantear que aquellos que son homosexuales van a ir al infierno, sino para reforzar el punto de vista de que Romanos 1 indica claramente que la autogratificación es la línea que lleva a la rebelión y a la destrucción y el comportamiento homosexual es parte de esta concesión de Dios.

Esto nos lleva a continuación, a las objeciones más populares.  Las abordaremos la próxima semana.  La razón por la que estamos dedicando dos semanas a las objeciones es esta: Es importante establecer cuál realmente es la verdad para poder avanzar con verdadera compasión, gracia y misericordia.  Lo mismo puede decirse para entender cualquier otro comportamiento pecaminoso en nuestras vidas.  Aunque trataré estas objeciones académicamente, quiero tomarme un momento al final del artículo de esta semana para reconocer que los argumentos académicos son una cosa, y son importantes, pero el trato con las personas es algo totalmente diferente y de suma importancia.  Por ello, al final de esta serie de cuatro partes pretendo ofrecer una forma mejor.  Mi objetivo es tratar el tema con sensibilidad, respeto y amor, pero basando todo ello en el firme fundamento de la verdad. Manténgase atentos  la próxima semana para la respuesta final a lo que parecen ser las objeciones más populares para llamar a la actividad homosexual un pecado.

Referencias

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/ 

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es un pastor de Omaha, Nebraska, con 12 años de experiencia ministerial. Se graduó con un MDiv en 2016 del Seminario de Sioux Falls y pasa su tiempo libre leyendo y comprometiéndose con temas teológicos y culturales actuales y pasados. Está casado desde hace 12 años con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos pequeños.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/AYPpO8i

 

Por Alisa Childers

Dos hombres.

Ambos crecieron en hogares cristianos en los suburbios de Estados Unidos. Ambos tienen padres evangélicos famosos. Ambos tomaron decisiones personales porCristo y se involucraron de forma activa y se volvieron reconocidos en el ministerio. Uno se alejó de su fe y se convirtió en un humanista secular. El otro se ha convertido en uno de los principales apologistas y defensores de la fe cristiana.

¿Quiénes son estos dos hombres? El primero es Bart Campolo, hijo del evangelista y escritor Tony Campolo, y el otro es Sean McDowell, hijo del evangelista y escritor Josh McDowell. ¿Por qué sus caminos, bastante similares, los llevaron a destinos tan radicalmente diferentes?

Recientemente, los dos se reunieron para tener una discusión en Premier Christian Radio titulada “Por qué Bart perdió su fe, por qué Sean mantuvo la suya”. Fue una discusión fascinante, y lo que más me llamó la atención fue la razón que cada uno dio para haberse convertido en cristiano en primer lugar. Campolo describió cómo se convirtió al cristianismo tras encontrar un grupo de jóvenes con el que conectó y asistir a uno de sus retiros:

Hay cientos de niños allí. Es sábado por la noche, hay velas y fogatas y todos cantan “Nuestro Dios es un Dios impresionante” y “Te amamos Señor”. Y en medio de ese tipo de ambiente tuve lo que supongo que se llamaría un momento trascendente… sentí algo. Sentí que había algo que sucedía en esa sala que era más grande que el grupo. Sentí que me conectaba con algo. Y en ese momento… era Dios.

Escuché algo. Fue real para mí. La gente que no cree en las experiencias trascendentes siempre piensa: “No has ido al concierto adecuado… No has consumido las drogas adecuadas. No te has enamorado de la pareja adecuada”.

Estas experiencias son reales, y creo que cualquiera que sea la narrativa en la que te encuentres cuando tienes una, confirma esa narrativa. Si hubiera tenido ese mismo momento trascendental con mis amigos en una mezquita en Afganistán, me habría confirmado el Islam. Pero yo estaba en el mundo cristiano, así que, a partir de ese momento, Jesús era real para mí.

En palabras del propio Campolo, se hizo cristiano por una experiencia trascendente… un sentimiento que resonó profundamente en su corazón.

Más adelante en la conversación, McDowell dio su razón para convertirse en cristiano. Habiendo creído en el cristianismo desde que tiene memoria, experimentó algunas dudas serias sobre su fe cuando era un estudiante universitario. Cuando compartió sus dudas con su padre, éste le animó a no creer en algo simplemente porque es lo que le han dicho. Le instó a investigar por sí mismo las pruebas de la veracidad del cristianismo y a rechazar todo lo que no fuera cierto.

Tras realizar una importante investigación de evidencias, McDowell llegó a la conclusión de que el cristianismo es verdadero… y ésta es la razón por la que él es cristiano. Su fe no se construyó sobre un “momento trascendente”, sino sobre una dolorosa búsqueda de la realidad objetiva.

El cristianismo de Campolo fue confirmado por la experiencia, mientras que el de McDowell fue confirmado por la evidencia. Aquí hay 3 razones por las que los cristianos deben ser investigadores de la evidencia, en lugar de adictos a la experiencia:

1. Se le puede convencer de abandonar una experiencia.

Al igual que Campolo, el actor Brad Pitt fue criado en un hogar cristiano por ministros cristianos evangélicos. En una entrevista con la revista GQ, recordaba haber experimentado en los conciertos de rock algunas de las mismas sensaciones que sentía en los cultos cristianos:

Recuerdo haber ido a algunos conciertos, a pesar de que nos decían que los espectáculos de rock eran el diablo, básicamente. Nuestros padres nos dejaban ir, no eran neo al respecto. Pero me di cuenta de que el ensueño y la alegría y la exuberancia, incluso la agresividad, que sentía en el espectáculo de rock era lo mismo en el avivamiento. Uno es Jimmy Swaggart y otro es Jerry Lee Lewis, ¿sabes? Uno es Dios y el otro es el Diablo. Pero es lo mismo. Se sentía como si estuviéramos siendo manipulados. Lo que estaba claro para mí era: “No sabes de lo que estás hablando…”

Pitt se preguntó si todo era una farsa manipuladora, lo que le llevó a plantearse algunas preguntas serias a una edad muy temprana.

Si la fe de una persona se basa en un sentimiento o experiencia, puede ser fácil reinterpretar esa experiencia o explicarla, especialmente cuando se enfrenta a los argumentos de un escéptico inteligente, o a la aplastante realidad del sufrimiento y el mal.

2. Tu corazón y tus sentimientos mienten.

El profeta Jeremías describió el corazón humano como “engañoso sobre todas las cosas y desesperadamente enfermo”. Proverbios 3:5-7 nos dice que no “nos apoyemos en nuestro propio entendimiento”. Jesús describió el corazón humano como lleno de pensamientos como el asesinato, el adulterio, la inmoralidad sexual, el robo, el falso testimonio y la calumnia. Proverbios 28:26 nos dice que quien confía en su propia mente es un necio.

En otras palabras, no sigas, bajo ninguna circunstancia, a tu corazón.

Esto, por supuesto, contrasta con los temas que encontramos constantemente en el entretenimiento y en las redes sociales. Sin embargo, cuando se trata de creencias espirituales, confiar en nuestros corazones y seguir nuestros sentimientos puede conducir a todo tipo de teología aberrante, elecciones pecaminosas y una distorsión de la verdadera fe cristiana.

3. Puedes recurrir a la evidencia en momentos de duda o sufrimiento.

Uno de los mayores apologistas y evangelistas de los últimos tiempos es un hombre llamado Nabeel Qureshi. Qureshi creció en un hogar musulmán, y después de años de probar las afirmaciones del cristianismo y las del islam, dejó el islam y se hizo cristiano. Pagó un alto precio por su obediencia a Cristo, dejando a su devota familia musulmana con el corazón roto y las relaciones tensas.

En la cúspide de un ministerio respetado, creciente y fructífero, Qureshi recibió la noticia de que tenía un cáncer de estómago en fase 4… a la edad de 33 años, y con un nuevo bebé a bordo. Creía que Dios le iba a sanar, que habría una intervención milagrosa y un testimonio asombroso que contar sobre el poder sanador de Dios. Poco más de un año después de recibir su diagnóstico… murió.

Qureshi documentó su trayectoria contra el cáncer en YouTube, y en uno de los primeros vídeos, expresó que estaba un poco perturbado por esta terrible noticia. Sin embargo, repasó su teología y las pruebas de su creencia en Cristo. En su lecho de muerte, con un aspecto desgastado y como una sombra de su antiguo ser, glorificó a Dios haciendo exactamente lo mismo. Expresó su asombro y decepción por no haber sido sanado, pero dio testimonio de la existencia de Dios y de la veracidad del cristianismo basándose en lo que sabía que era cierto.

Qureshi fue fiel hasta el final, a pesar de su sufrimiento y de las dudas que se deslizaron en su mente en sus últimos días. Esto se debió a que tenía una firme comprensión de la verdad a la que sometió sus sentimientos. Su fe no fue desmantelada por la duda, el sufrimiento o incluso el dolor insoportable.

A fin de cuentas, el cristianismo no siempre va a ser agradable. Pregúntale al apóstol Pablo, que fue secuestrado, golpeado, azotado, encarcelado, ridiculizado, naufragado y apedreado, antes de ser decapitado. El cristianismo no siempre se va a sentir que “funciona”.

Convertirse en un investigador de pruebas en lugar de un adicto a las experiencias llevó al ex ateo J. Warner Wallace a una conclusión inquebrantable:

No soy cristiano porque me “funciona”. Tenía una vida antes del cristianismo que parecía funcionar bien, y mi vida como cristiano no siempre ha sido fácil.

Soy cristiano porque es verdad. Soy cristiano porque quiero vivir de una manera que refleje la verdad. Soy cristiano porque mi alta estima por la verdad no me deja otra alternativa.

En momentos de profunda duda o gran sufrimiento, es maravilloso saber que el cristianismo es verdadero, ¡lo sintamos o no!

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers es una cantante y compositora estadounidense, más conocida por formar parte del grupo femenino de música cristiana ZOEgirl. Ha tenido una lista de los diez mejores sencillos de la radio, cuatro lanzamientos de estudio y recibió el premio Dove durante su tiempo con ZOEgirl. Años más tarde, Alisa experimentó un profundo desafío a su fe de toda la vida cuando empezó a asistir a lo que más tarde se identificaría como una iglesia cristiana progresista. Este desafío empujó a Alisa hacia la Apologética Cristiana. Actualmente se puede leer, escuchar y ver el trabajo de Alisa en línea, así como adquirir su libro recientemente publicado sobre el cristianismo progresista, titulado Another Gospel.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/LYaqFTi 

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado

 

Por Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

¿Conoces el nombre? Desconozco el porqué lo sabrías, pero Lil Nas X se ha convertido en un pequeño ícono cultural en recientes años. Escribió una exitosa canción country/hip-hop en 2019 llamada “Old Town Road” con la estrella del country Billy Ray Cyrus. El éxito de este éxito impulsó a Lil Nas X a la fama moderna. La canción, y su remix, ganó catorce premios desde los Grammys hasta los “Kids’ Choice Awards”[1].

Como resultado, Lil Nas X estuvo de gira por el país cantando para niños de primaria y fueron citadas sus palabras cuando dijo que los pequeños eran su “audiencia coro”[2] a inicios del 2021.

¿Por qué estoy escribiendo acerca de Lil Nas X en un sitio web Cristiano?

Bueno, este hombre que compite por la atención de ojos y oídos de los niños hace poco sacó un nuevo video musical que es todo menos “apto para los niños”. En su canción Montero, se puede ver a Lil Nas X coqueteando con el Diablo, el Diablo lame su ombligo, baila en un tubo que desciende al infierno, y le hace un baile erótico a Satán sobre su regazo en el inframundo. Al final del video, Lil Nas x le rompe el cuello a Satanás y le quita la corona, declarándose como el rey del infierno (lo cual sabemos que es inexacto, teológicamente hablando… Satanás no gobierna el infierno -lee Rescuing Hell [Salvando el infierno]).

Para capitalizar el éxito viral del video, Lil Nas X se asoció con una empresa de mercadeo llamada MSCHF (un juego de letras para escribir engaño -en inglés-) para sacar a la venta unos tenis con la etiqueta de Nike (Nike ya demandó a MSCHF por infracción a los derechos de autor) dedicados a Satanás[3].

Lil Nas X también resulta ser un hombre gay . Lo cual no sería relevante en la lista de problemas con las maniobras publicitarias antes mencionadas, pero como Lil Nas X utilizó su educación como catalizador para el lanzamiento de la nueva canción y el vídeo, es pertinente para la conversación[4].

Aunque este artículo no es acerca de Lil Nas X, o los tenis de Satanás, o la cada vez mayor carga de los dogmas de la izquierda sobre nuestros niños.

Quería analizar la cuestión central en torno a la canción de Lil Nas X, y una cuestión central que se da en los círculos evangélicos desde hace más de una década.

Homosexualidad.

Hace algunas semanas, recibí un texto de una persona joven  con preocupación sobre este tema:

“Quiero investigar el punto de vista de Dios acerca de la homosexualidad porque he visto muchas posturas diferentes en TikTok e Instagram y otras redes pero podrían ser herejías o interpretación errónea o algo más y quiero averiguarlo por mi cuenta”.

En el libro de Sean y Josh McDowell The Beauty of Intolerance[5] (La belleza de la Intolerancia), ambos intentan derribar el problema de la Verdad y del Amor y usan de ejemplo el argumento de la familia acerca de la sexualidad como motor para la discusión. Si no has leído el libro, es una buena lectura y va al grano de la cultura actual de una nueva tolerancia que busca complicidad, en lugar de aceptación, a la narrativa de valores morales subjetivos.

Pero el argumento sobre la homosexualidad dentro de la Iglesia se remonta a décadas, así que ¿Qué es lo nuevo? La novedad del problema proviene de la pobre aproximación al problema de la homosexualidad en las décadas de 1970 a 1990 por parte de la iglesia evangélica conservadora. Se hablaba poco de la homosexualidad y a menudo se consideraba una cuestión política más que de pecado. Resalto algo de esto en un artículo anterior en el sitio web Free Thinking Ministry’s[6] (belleza de artículo) así que no voy a entrar en toda la historia aquí.

Sin embargo, creo que es más importante notar que el argumento que los cristianos no atendieron durante ese tiempo fue si la homosexualidad era o no algo de elección o genético.

El argumento decía que si era algo de elección, podríamos corregir la homosexualidad; pero si era genético, entonces no podríamos. Este argumento también implicaba que la inclinación natural podría ser un comportamiento establecido por Dios.

Recuerdo haber crecido en los años 90 escuchando a muchos evangélicos hablar como si fuera absolutamente imperativo que nunca se encontrara un “gen gay”. .  Casi como si el descubrimiento científico pudiese hacer temblar miles de años de ortodoxia en el tema.

Pero en el caso bíblico contra el comportamiento homosexual no es genético.

Es espiritual y bíblico.

La genética fue afectada por la caída tanto como nuestro estado espiritual, y lo sabemos. Cuando decimos algo como “al final, ya no habrá más enfermedad o muerte” no solamente nos estamos refiriendo a la Escritura (Ap. 21:4 LBLA) pero estamos afirmando que hay un componente físico en la naturaleza caída del hombre.  En otras palabras: Nuestro ADN, disposiciones físicas, e inclinaciones naturales están tan caídas como nuestra alma.

Quiero ser claro, no estoy diciendo que la homosexualidad sea una enfermedad, al menos no una enfermedad mental. Pero, como otros “pecados de disposición” es una enfermedad del alma.

La homosexualidad es consecuencia de la caída[7] tanto como lo es mentir, engañar, o la promiscuidad heterosexual. Si es o no natural no tiene relevancia dentro del tema teológico.   Hay muchos comportamientos naturales que estamos llamados a frenar como cristianos.  Codicia, lujuria, avaricia, y orgullo son algunas de las muchas inclinaciones naturales con las que los seres humanos nacen con las cuales debemos lidiar con tiempo extra en el proceso de santificación cristiano.

La homosexualidad está dentro de muchos de esos pecados de inclinación natural. La Iglesia argumenta contra la genética cuando no tiene necesidad de hacerlo, ya que argumentar contra la genética está permitiendo que la narrativa de la identidad socave la naturaleza del problema.

Y ahora tenemos un problema más grande.

Ya no estamos hablando de la actividad, estamos hablándole  a lapersona, en sus mentes les estamos pidiendo que no sean ellos mismos. Les estamos diciendo que dejen ir, no solo la inclinación natural humana sino toda su identidad de pertenencia.

En cierto sentido, les estamos diciendo que se llamen malvados.

Pero ningún cristiano que se precie de serlo afirmaría que ser gay condena a una persona al infierno.  No, nosotros no somos pecadores porque pecamos, nosotros pecamos porque somos constituídos pecadores, y por ello, ya estamos condenados (Juan 3:17), En un sentido, no es el pecado lo que nos hace malos, es la maldad de nuestro corazón la que nos hace pecar. Dios nos rescató de nuestra consumada disposición moribunda. Todos somos básicamente malos y todos necesitamos una nueva identidad para superar esta maldad.

Sin embargo, se puede ver por qué alguien que se identifica como homosexual encontraría difícil seguir a un Dios que le dice pecado a lo que ellos consideran como la definición de su naturaleza distintiva. Si una persona es básicamente buena, entonces el centro de su identidad también es básicamente bueno.

Pero la doctrina ortodoxa cristiana enseña, de manera correcta y lógica, que todos somos básicamente malos y con la necesidad de ser salvos. Nuestra identidad es entonces el pecado y necesitamos un cambio de identidad ¡para ser buenos! todos nosotros.

La teología ortodoxa, le grita a la comunidad LGTBQ+, que Dios cometió un error cuando los creó. Y como Lil Nas X, ellos o se odian a sí mismos o se rebelan contra la fe en general.

TW Screenshot

Traducción:

“Tweet Montero @LilNasX

pasé toda mi adolescencia odiándome por toda la mierda que ustedes predicaban que me pasaría porque era gay. así que espero que ustedes estén enojados, permanezcan enojados, y sientan la misma ira que nos enseñaron a tener contra nosotros mismos. 1:09 PM – Mar 27,2021″

El resultado de predicar cambio de comportamiento en vez de transformación de la identidad es el autodesprecio y angustia, no una convicción.

El resultado natural de esto, entonces, es aprovecharse de los ofendidos; y el movimiento teológico liberal buscó hacer justamente eso. Ellos buscaron facilitar un punto teológico para que llegaran los heridos homosexuales al cuerpo de Cristo.

Dios es amor, por ello, Él no desearía que nadie se odiara a sí mismo por su identidad. Así que, debemos mejorar nuestra hamartiología (el estudio del pecado) para permitir un comportamiento que fue entendido como pecaminoso a lo largo de la historia de la Iglesia porque Dios no comete errores.

Es cierto que Dios no comete errores, pero no es cierto que Su creación en este momento está perfeccionada. Así que, somos intrínsecamente defectuosos y pecaminosos. Si no fuese así, ¿Por qué necesitaríamos un salvador?

El error de los teólogos liberales es asumir que es aceptable otra identidad además de la de “hijos de Dios”[8].

Soy un hombre al que le atrae el sexo opuesto, pero mi identidad no está en función de la atracción.

Mi identidad es pecador o santo. Bendito sea Dios que me invitó a Su familia, puedo decir que soy un hijo de Dios y como resultado le atraen las mujeres. Sin embargo, el resultado de esta  inclinación natural de atracción debe estar acotada de manera que refleje el diseño de Dios.

Una mujer para toda la vida.

He aceptado esta limitación gozosamente, porque no es ninguna limitación, sino que es realización de la libertad basada en la divinidad a través de Cristo. Y creo, firmemente, que aquellos que son homosexuales pueden experimentar esta misma contraintuitiva libertad. Más sobre esto en las próximas semanas.

Responder satisfactoriamente a la homosexualidad en este aspecto debiera ser simple. Puedes ser un hombre o una mujer que se siente atracción al mismo sexo (independientemente si es una elección o una inclinación genética) pero si eres un hijo de Dios (creyente de Jesús como tu Salvador) entonces la inclinación de la atracción debe ser frenada  para que refleje el diseño de Dios.

Lo cual, desafortunadamente para la persona con naturales inclinaciones homosexuales, sería una negación de sí mismo al actuar en esa atracción.

Mi corazón se duele por esa persona de manera muy sincera y mi empatía se extiende hacia ellos de más maneras de las que se pueden imaginar. Pero la verdad es la verdad, y el pecado es el pecado. No hay tal cosa como la compasión basada una mentira, estar de acuerdo con la mentira y dejarla continuar no es compasivo ni misericordioso. La verdadera compasión es cariñosa, pero firme, confronta el pecado y la falsedad en el nombre de Cristo y ofrece libertad en Su nombre.

De la misma manera que cualquier hombre heterosexual lucha con la pornografía puede atestiguar, esta autonegación del placer sexual está más allá de lo difícil y no debe pasarse nada por alto. Pero no  negamos el placer sexual como forma de castigarnos, lo hacemos para glorificar a Dios. Los límites no están para evitar ir al infierno, están puestos para glorificar el cielo. Cuando cometemos el error de establecer los límites alrededor del pecado para evitar el pecado en lugar de glorificar a Dios nos ponemos a nosotros mismos, y a otros, enfrente de un fracaso monumental.

Y es cuando hacemos esto qué  somos tentados a ser empáticos con una batalla que no se puede ganar. Tengo empatía por aquellos que luchan por evitar el pecado. Sé lo difícil que es, pero una empatía errónea puede guiar por caminos teológicos peligrosos y de esto estaremos hablando la siguiente semana. ¿Cómo mostrar empatía manteniéndonos firmes en la verdad? Porque eso es verdadera misericordia y compasión. Y esa es la misión del cristiano.

Referencias

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es Pastor en Omaha, Nebraska con doce años de experiencia en el ministerio. Se graduó con una MDiv (Maestría en Divinidad) en 2016 del Seminario Siux Falls y usa su tiempo libre para leer y confrontar problemáticas culturales y teológicas del presente y del pasado. Lleva casado 12 años con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/lYpElf8

Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo

Editado por Yatniel Vega García

 

Por Brian Chilton

Mientras que Dios utilizó la apologética para devolverme la fe, Dios utiliza la teología para humillarme, asombrarme y reconfortarme ante su asombrosa presencia. La teología es una de mis pasiones. Mi currículum muestra cuánto amo la teología. Como mencioné en un post anterior, me di cuenta de que las escuelas que contratan profesores desean que los solicitantes posean 18 horas de estudio de posgrado en el campo elegido. Con la curiosidad de saber qué horas tenía, empecé a investigar cuántas horas poseía en diferentes campos. Me di cuenta de que cuando termine mi doctorado, tendré 30 horas de estudio teológico. Supongo que se me puede llamar un superdotado. Desde luego, no digo esto para parecer fanfarrón. Simplemente lo menciono para señalar el gran impacto que la teología ha tenido en mi vida.

Aunque he dedicado gran parte de mi tiempo a los estudios teológicos, me siguen pareciendo ciertas las palabras del Dr. Daniel Mitchell, profesor de teología de la Universidad Liberty: “Cuanto más estudiamos a Dios, más grande se vuelve”. Le pregunté qué quería decir con esa afirmación en una clase que tuve con él. Mitchell señaló que no quería decir que hiciéramos a Dios más grande en nuestra imaginación, sino que empezamos a comprender cuan grande es realmente Dios cuanto más lo estudiamos. Cuando comprendemos la grandeza de Dios, nuestras preocupaciones tienden a desvanecerse en los cálidos y fuertes brazos de Dios.

Un atributo divino que proporciona tanto asombro como serenidad es la omnipresencia divina de Dios. La palabra omnus significa “todo”. Todos entendemos lo que significa el término presencia. Así, Dios tiene la capacidad de estar en todos los lugares y en todo momento. No hay un lugar donde no se encuentre la presencia de Dios. La Escritura indica la naturaleza omnipresente de Dios en muchos lugares, pero se encuentra más explícitamente en el Salmo 139. David escribe mientras habla con Dios,

“¿A dónde me iré de tu Espíritu? ¿Y a dónde huiré de tu presencia? Si subiere a los cielos, allí estás tú; Y si en el Seol hiciere mi estrado, he aquí, allí tú estás. Si tomare las alas del alba y habitare en el extremo del mar, Aun allí me guiará tu mano, Y me asirá tu diestra. Si dijere: Ciertamente las tinieblas me encubrirán; Aun la noche resplandecerá alrededor de mí. Aun las tinieblas no encubren de ti, Y la noche resplandece como el día; Lo mismo te son las tinieblas que la luz.” Salmo 139:7-12 (RVR60)

A partir del texto que nos ocupa, se demuestra que Dios está presente en todos los lugares en el mismo momento. Wayne Grudem define la omnipresencia de Dios de la siguiente manera: “Dios no tiene tamaño ni dimensiones espaciales y está presente en cada punto del espacio con todo su ser, aunque Dios actúa de forma diferente en diferentes lugares” (Grudem, Teología Sistemática, 178). La omnipresencia divina impacta al creyente de múltiples maneras, pero por razones de espacio, me concentraré sólo en cinco.

  1. Dios está contigo cuando nadie más puede estarlo. A menudo, las personas se sienten solas. Los viudos que han perdido a sus cónyuges pueden sentir una abrumadora sensación de pérdida. Cuando mi esposa se fue en un viaje de negocios, me sentí abrumado por la sensación de soledad que me invadió, aunque fuera por un tiempo. Las personas que tienen que vivir en residencias asistidas o en centros de cuidados pueden sentir que son las personas más solitarias de la tierra. Sin embargo, cuando entendemos la naturaleza omnipresente de Dios, comprendemos que ninguno de nosotros está realmente solo. Dios promete que estará contigo ahora y por toda la eternidad. Jesús dice: “he aquí yo estoy con vosotros todos los días, hasta el fin del mundo.” (Mateo 28:20, RVR60). Dios le prometió a Abraham que estaría con él, diciendo: “He aquí, yo estoy contigo, y te guardaré por dondequiera que fueres” (Gn. 28:15, RVR60). La presencia de Dios nos acompaña a donde vayamos. Esto sólo es posible gracias a la naturaleza omnipresente de Dios.
  2. Dios está con tus seres queridos cuando tú no puedes. La naturaleza omnipresente de Dios sostiene que Dios puede proteger a tus seres queridos desde lejos. Israel (es decir, Jacob) le dijo a su hijo José que sabía que Dios cuidaría de él aunque estuviera a punto de morir (Gn. 48:21). Considera también al centurión romano. Tuvo fe en que Jesús podía sanar a su siervo incluso cuando Jesús no estaba presente (Mateo 8:5-14). El centurión tenía fe en el poder omnipresente de Dios para sanar. Tal vez ésta fue una de las cosas que sorprendió a Jesús por la profundidad de la fe del centurión. Incluso cuando no estás presente con tus familiares, Dios sí lo está. Dios puede ayudar a los que sufren en zonas lejanas mucho más de lo que tú o yo podríamos.
  3. Dios está con tus seres queridos que ya han fallecido. Dios es el Dios de Abraham, Isaac y Jacob (Éxodo 3:6). Jesús utiliza este argumento para defender la realidad de la vida después de la muerte (Mateo 22:32). Jesús comprendió que Abraham, Isaac y Jacob seguían vivos bajo la vigilancia espiritual de Dios. Algunos de sus seres queridos pueden haber muerto. Sin embargo, con Dios, la muerte ha muerto. Para los que murieron en Cristo, viven en la eternidad. Esto indica que Dios está con nuestros seres queridos en la eternidad. Si captamos esta realidad, incluso el miedo a la muerte muere en el amor omnipresente de Dios.
  4. Dios está trabajando en la creación incluso cuando no puedes verlo. Dios está más allá de la esfera de la creación, pero siempre está trabajando en la creación (Sal. 147:4). Dios es quien estableció el sol, la luna, las estrellas, las galaxias e incluso el propio universo (Jer. 31:35). La naturaleza omnipresente de Dios indica que está en todos los lugares y en todo momento en el universo e incluso más allá del universo. Él no depende del universo, mas el universo depende de Dios. No hay un cambio molecular en los confines del universo que coja a Dios desprevenido. Dios sabe cuándo, si, cómo y dónde la estrella Betelgeuse explotará en una supernova o se transformará en una estrella de neutrones.
  5. La presencia de Dios está con el creyente de forma personal. Aunque Dios está en todas partes, se relaciona personalmente con los que reciben a Cristo (Juan 5:38; 8:31; 15:4-9). Considere lo siguiente: El Dios de toda la creación -el trascendente, magnífico, santo, justo, amoroso y omnipresente Creador de todas las cosas- desea tener una relación contigo. Oh, esto es tan profundo y a la vez tan difícil de entender. ¿Por qué Dios desearía amar a alguien como nosotros? Yo no lo sé. Pero Dios lo hace.

Escribo esto sin saber a qué se enfrenta usted, el lector, al leer esta entrada. Pero la faceta asombrosa de este atributo divino es que no importa dónde estés, Dios está ahí contigo. Pablo dijo a los atenienses en el Areópago que Dios había establecido a partir de un hombre cada persona, nación y lengua. Dios estableció las fronteras y determinó los tiempos y las estaciones. Dios hizo esto, dice Pablo, “para que busquen a Dios, si en alguna manera, palpando, puedan hallarle, aunque ciertamente no está lejos de cada uno de nosotros.” (Hechos 17:27, RVR60). Sorprendentemente, Dios ha bendecido al Ministerio Bellator Christi para que lleguen a casi todas las naciones de nuestra querida Tierra. No importa dónde estés leyendo esto, Dios está cerca de ti. Dios está dispuesto a recibir tu adoración. Dios está dispuesto a perdonarte por el sacrificio que Jesús hizo en tu nombre. Por su naturaleza omnipresente, Dios puede llenarte con el Espíritu de Dios. Dios está contigo. Dios está siempre cerca de ti. ¿Qué puede ser mejor que eso?

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor del Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción), su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores), y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Sociedad Teológica Evangélica y de la Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica. Brian ha estado en el ministerio durante casi 20 años y sirve como el Pastor Principal de la Iglesia Bautista de Westfield en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/pTZkIRJ 

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García 

Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado

 

By Alisa Childers

“YOU SHOULD NOT JUDGE”

A couple of years ago, there was a very popular book written by an author who declared himself a Christian. It was published by a Christian publisher and marketed on Christian platforms and websites. It was a fairy tale come true. It reached the top of the New York Times Best Seller list and won the hearts and minds of millions of women, and was presented at countless small group Bible studies and conferences across the country.

The only problem is that the central message of the book is exactly the opposite of the biblical gospel. So I decided to write a little review of the book and post it on my blog. I didn’t expect this “little review” to go viral, nor did I predict the amount of hate mail that would arrive in my inbox in the following weeks.

Some of the emails cannot be repeated in the company of polite people. But most of the reactions can be summed up in three fateful words: “You. Should. Not. Judge.”

The message I received loud and clear was that it was wrong of me to criticize unbiblical ideas in a popular book. After all, Jesus would never be a “McJudge.” With love redefined as the affirmation of a desire or an idea, it’s easy to see how “judging” has become the unforgivable sin in our culture.

But Christians live by a different standard than the world. When someone says, “You shouldn’t judge,” they are actually contradicting real love, the Bible, and plain common sense. So, the next time someone brings up this particular argument to cut off the conversation, remember these three things:

SAYING “DO NOT JUDGE” IS NOT BIBLICAL

It seems like everyone’s favorite Bible verse (at least when they’re trying to avoid being told they’re wrong) is Matthew 7:1. The words “Judge not, that you be not judged” come from the lips of Jesus himself.

The microphone drops. End of conversation, right?

Well, that only works if you cross out the next six verses, along with other things Jesus said, and a good portion of the New Testament. In fact, right after saying “do not judge,” Jesus lets his audience know that when they judge, they must be very careful to make sure their judgment is not hypocritical . “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye,” Jesus instructs in verse five. In other words, don’t point out a sin in your sister’s life before confronting a bigger sin in your own.

Rather, it is about helping your sister remove the speck from her eye, which requires you to judge that it is there. Therefore, Jesus is not saying that it is always wrong to judge. In fact, verse six tells us to “do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.” How can one identify the “dogs” and the “swine” if one does not first judge correctly?

JUDGE THE FRUIT

If there is still any confusion, just a few verses later, Jesus tells us to recognize wolves, or false teachers, by their fruits. Again, this requires us to judge whether these teachers are speaking truth or deception. Then, in John 7:24, Jesus couldn’t say it more clearly. He directs his listeners to “Do not judge according to appearances, but judge righteous judgment.”

Later, in Matthew 18:15-16, Jesus gives instructions on how to confront a fellow believer if he or she has sinned against you. (The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment in Galatians 6:1, telling Christians how to deal with a brother who is caught in sin. He writes, “You who are spiritual”—thinking without a plank in your eye—“restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.”)

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the Corinthian believers that their job is actually to judge other believers. He writes, “Why should I judge those outside? Do you not judge those inside? For God will judge those outside.”

Telling someone not to judge is not biblical. In fact, Scripture commands us to judge, but to do so carefully, correctly, humbly, and without hypocrisy.

SAYING “DO NOT JUDGE” IS NOT LOGICAL

Imagine you’re home alone and the doorbell rings. You look out the window and see a very large man with a gun in his hand, dressed in an orange uniform. He’s sweating and looking around nervously. Be honest. Are you going to open the door for him? My guess is… probably not. But wait. Why are you judging him? Maybe he’s not an escaped convict, but he just enjoys dressing up in an orange uniform and carrying his gun while he goes for a run. Who are you to judge?

Obviously, this is an extreme example. No one would open the door to that guy. But it just goes to show that literally everyone is judgmental. We all judge people every day. It would be more than illogical, and sometimes unsafe, not to judge.

Furthermore, even telling someone that they should not judge is judging that they are judging, which is considered judgment, which requires making a judgment about whatever is being judged. You get the point. But all that logical mess can be avoided by simply following Jesus’ advice to “judge with righteous judgment.”

SAYING “DON’T JUDGE” IS NOT LOVING

When I was younger, I was trapped in a toxic cycle brought on by an eating disorder. One of my good friends, a perpetual people-pleaser, worked up all the courage she could to confront me. To put it mildly, it didn’t go well for her. I invited her, not very politely, to stop “judging” me and get out of the way.

But he persisted. His determination to make sure I was not only being helped, but also held accountable, literally changed my life. I ended up confessing my secret and getting psychological help when my recovery began. To this day, it brings tears to my eyes when I think about how much he loved me to do something so difficult.

According to the Bible, love is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude. 1 Corinthians 13:6 goes on to tell us that “love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth.” My friend could not rejoice in my wrongdoing. If I had simply ignored the “speck in my eye” and chosen not to judge, my life might have taken a very different path.

He judged me because he loved me. And quite possibly he saved my life. Judging with fair judgment is not only biblical and logical, but it is also the most loving thing you can do.

BRAVE JUDGMENT

Culture will always have its slogans, mantras, and catchphrases. But haven’t we Christians always been countercultural? Sometimes Jesus calls us to judge others. As difficult as it may be, obeying his commands will keep you from being swayed by the whims of a fickle culture. After all, that culture won’t be there for you when your life (or the lives of your loved ones) falls apart because you followed its advice. Jesus will.

And that is something you can rightly judge as true.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is a wife, mother, author, blogger, speaker, and worship leader. She was a member of the award-winning MCC recording group ZOEgirl. She is a popular speaker at Christian apologetics and worldview conferences, including STR’s Reality Conference . Alisa has published in The Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, The Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine , and The Christian Post. Her book, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity , is now available. You can also connect with Alisa online at alisachilders.com.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/UTUiGGi

Translated by Jennifer Chavez 

Edited by Elenita Romero

 

Por Brian Chilton

En las últimas semanas, hemos examinado varias líneas de evidencia que apoyan la noción de que Jesús literalmente resucitó de entre los muertos. Al finalizar la serie, puede resultar beneficioso describir algunas pruebas arqueológicas que apoyan la resurrección de Jesús. La evidencia arqueológica no puede probar ni refutar un evento de la historia.[1] Sin embargo, puede prestarse a probabilidades de que un evento ocurrió o no. La resurrección plantea un problema adicional, ya que nadie estaba presente cuando el evento ocurrió. Aun así, ciertos artefactos dan credibilidad a la creencia de que Jesús resucitó de entre los muertos.

El hueso del tobillo con clavos de Jehohanan

En 1968 se descubrió un osario que contenía el hueso del talón de un joven llamado Jehohanan. Hace 2.000 años, Jehohanan murió crucificado a manos de los romanos. Las pruebas sugieren que sólo tenía veintitantos  años cuando murió. La descripción de su crimen se ha perdido. Sin embargo, la naturaleza de su ejecución se conservó gracias al hueso del talón del joven. Un clavo tradicional romano atravesó el talón de Jehohanan. Pero, a diferencia de otros clavos que se reutilizaban para crucificar a las víctimas, este clavo se dobló probablemente tras golpear un nudo en la madera. El hueso del talón, el clavo doblado e incluso un trozo de madera confirman que los clavos se utilizaban, al menos en ocasiones, para sujetar a las víctimas a la cruz. En el caso de Jehohanan, sus ejecutores clavaron sus tobillos en los lados exteriores opuestos de la viga vertical en lugar de hacerlo a través de los pies. El hueso del talón conservado del joven revela dos cosas sobre la muerte, el entierro y la resurrección de Jesús.

En primer lugar, el hallazgo demuestra que los romanos sí clavaban a las víctimas en la cruz, lo que confirma los detalles de los relatos evangélicos relacionados con la muerte de Jesús. La crucifixión era una forma desagradable de ejecución. La víctima moría lentamente por asfixia, lo que provocaba un fallo cardíaco. Las posibilidades de que Jesús sobreviviera a la crucifixión, como proponen algunos, son escasas o nulas.

En segundo lugar, el hallazgo también demuestra que los romanos permitían a las familias conceder a las víctimas crucificadas un entierro adecuado. En la antigua cultura israelita, un cuerpo era enterrado en una tumba. Un año después, los huesos se recogían en las envolturas de lino y se colocaban en un osario familiar común (caja de huesos). No fue hasta la época del emperador Calígula cuando cesó la práctica de conceder una sepultura adecuada a las víctimas crucificadas. Calígula comenzó su reinado en el año 37 d.C., es decir, entre 4 y 7 años después de la crucifixión y resurrección de Jesús. Por lo tanto, la afirmación de que Jesús fue simplemente enterrado en una tumba poco profunda en lugar de una tumba pierde su impacto a la luz del descubrimiento del hueso del talón de Jehohanan.

Decreto de Nazaret

El Decreto de Nazaret es un hallazgo fascinante. En 1878, un erudito francés adquirió una losa de piedra en Nazaret que data del año 44 d.C.[2] El decreto fue dictado por el emperador Claudio (41-54 d.C.), quien ordena que si se encuentra a alguien extrayendo o exhumando cuerpos de las tumbas, los sepultureros sean acusados y ejecutados con prontitud. Curiosamente, el decreto también menciona a los que muevan las piedras que cierran las tumbas. El Evangelio de Mateo señala que los líderes judíos tramaron con engaño el rumor de que los discípulos habían robado el cuerpo de Jesús (Mateo 28:11-15). Aunque no puede establecerse una correlación directa entre el decreto de Nazaret y el rumor organizado por el sanedrín judío, todavía encontramos una fuerte probabilidad de que el crecimiento del cristianismo acompañado del rumor pudiera haber hecho necesario dicho decreto en la mente del emperador[3].

Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro

Los protestantes suelen preferir la localización serena de la Tumba de Gordona la naturaleza icónica y litúrgica de la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro. Sin embargo, si se busca la verdad por encima de las preferencias, es mucho más probable que la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro sea la tumba real de Jesús que la contraparte irénica. En el año 132, el emperador Adriano prohibió a los judíos la entrada a Jerusalén e intentó erradicar las evidencias del judaísmo y el cristianismo construyendo templos y estatuas romanas sobre los lugares sagrados. En el año 313, Constantino legalizó el cristianismo. Su madre, Helena, una cristiana devota, trató de descubrir los lugares más sagrados del cristianismo. Adriano había colocado una estatua de Venus sobre la tumba de Cristo en un esfuerzo por profanar la tumba. Cuando Helena preguntó a los creyentes locales dónde se encontraba la tumba, éstos le señalaron la tumba con la estatua de Venus erigida. Helena ordenó inmediatamente la remoción de la estatua y la conservación de la tumba. Más tarde se construyó la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro alrededor de la tumba y del lugar de la crucifixión. Hace unos años, en un esfuerzo por restaurar secciones clave de la santa iglesia, se permitió a los investigadores asomarse al interior de la losa de mármol utilizada para proteger el lecho. Se retiró la parte superior. Debajo, descubrieron una pieza de metal rota con una cruz de Las Cruzadas grabada. Bajo el metal, encontraron un lecho de piedra que databa del siglo I. El descubrimiento demostró que el Edículo de la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro ha sido venerado como lugar de sepultura de Cristo durante dos milenios. Esto añade un peso considerable a la idea de que la tumba vacía de Jesús está en el Edículo o muy cerca. Personalmente, el Edículo tiene una gran probabilidad de ser el lugar de sepultura real de Jesús, una probabilidad superior al 95%.

Sudario de Turín

Por último, terminamos con uno de los hallazgos arqueológicos más misteriosos de todos los tiempos. Justo cuando los escépticos parecen desacreditar el Sudario de Turín, aparece algo que luego lo confirma. El muy controvertido Sudario de Turín es una tela de lino que mide 14 pies y 5 pulgadas por 3 pies y 7 pulgadas. Lleva una imagen tridimensional en negativo de un hombre crucificado de unos treinta y tantos e incluye manchas de sangre de hemoglobina AB real.[4] Otros descubrimientos han encontrado granos de polen de plantas originarias de Israel y que datan del siglo I, junto con pruebas de que el Sudario había sido expuesta a una alta dosis de radiación, tal vez del propio evento de la resurrección.[5] Aunque el Sudario había sido datado en la Edad Media en una prueba de carbono 14 realizada en 1988, esas pruebas han resultado ser falsas. El debate en torno al Sudario de Turín continuará con toda seguridad hasta el regreso del propio Cristo. El Sudario de Turín no es necesario para demostrar que Jesús resucitó, como se ha demostrado en esta serie. Sin embargo, si el Sudario de Turín es auténtico, no sólo demuestra que Jesús resucitó, sino que también proporciona una imagen del aspecto que pudo tener Jesús.

Conclusión

Es cierto que las pruebas arqueológicas de la resurrección de Jesús son en gran medida circunstanciales. La única prueba arqueológica directa de la resurrección sería el Sudario de Turín, si fuera auténtica. Sin embargo, el Sudario está rodeado de misterio (juego de palabras). Debido a la naturaleza del acontecimiento de la resurrección, no hay que esperar que se produzca un descubrimiento fulminante. ¿Por qué? Porque Jesús ya no está en la tumba. La evidencia más directa ha sido eliminada y ya no está disponible. Sin embargo, los datos proporcionados, en su conjunto, permiten afirmar que algo misterioso y sorprendente ocurrió el primer domingo de Pascua. Los artefactos descritos demuestran la alta probabilidad de que Jesús murió por crucifixión, fue enterrado en una tumba, la tumba fue encontrada vacía, y que la tumba fue venerada durante dos milenios. En conjunto, es un caso convincente para el evento de la resurrección. Para más información sobre las pruebas arqueológicas de la Biblia, véase el capítulo 13 de Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, y no deje de visitar la página de Ted Wright EpicArchaeology.com.

Notas

[1] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, 26.

[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 48; Ted Wright, “10 Significant NT Archaeological Discoveries,” EpicArchaeology.com. 

[3] Para leer la transcripción completa del Decreto de Nazaret , véase Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 123.

[4] Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 127-128.

[5] Ibid., 128.

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor de Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian es candidato a doctorado en el programa de Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty. Recibió su Maestría en Teología y Divinidades  de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Evangelical Theological Society (Sociedad Teológica Evangélica) y de la Evangelical Philosophical Society (Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica). Brian ha servido en el ministerio pastoral durante casi 20 años. Actualmente sirve como capellán de hospital.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/aTjYha0

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García

Editado por Elenita Romero

 

Por Brian Chilton

Aunque la apologética es uno de los principales objetivos de mi vida, sólo se ve eclipsada por el amor a la teología. Soy un tipo de visión general. Por eso la teología sistemática siempre me ha intrigado. La teología sistemática examina los principales temas de las Escrituras y los organiza en patrones y estructuras. Se podría decir que me he vuelto un poco loco con mis estudios teológicos. Mientras que tengo más de 18 horas de posgrado en apologética, estudios bíblicos e historia de la iglesia; tendré más de 30 horas en estudios de posgrado de teología para cuando termine mi doctorado. Se podría decir que me gusta un poco la teología.

Otro aspecto de mi vida que es importante señalar para este artículo es que también sufro ataques de ansiedad. Mi ansiedad no es grave. Sin embargo, es algo que he combatido durante años. La agorafobia es uno de ellos. Me encanta la gente. Me encanta estar en el ministerio. Sin embargo, las reuniones sociales prolongadas me agotan, especialmente si esas reuniones son ruidosas y bulliciosas.

Quizá te preguntes: “¿Por qué este tipo habla de teología y de ansiedad?”. La teología tiene un gran efecto tranquilizador cuando una persona comprende ciertos aspectos de la naturaleza de Dios. Uno de esos atributos calmantes es la omnisciencia de Dios. Omnisciencia es una palabra compuesta por dos palabras latinas: Omnis, qué significa “todo” o “de todas las cosas”, y Scientia, que significa “conocimiento”. Así, la omnisciencia indica la capacidad de conocer todas las cosas. Dios es el único Ser que puede poseer este nivel de conocimiento. Millard Erickson relaciona la omnisciencia de Dios con la naturaleza infinita de Dios. Por infinito, quiere decir que “No solo que Dios no tiene límites, sino que es imposible de limitar”. En este sentido, Dios no se parece a nada de lo que experimentamos” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243). Cuando se vincula el conocimiento de Dios con su naturaleza infinita, se observa que el “entendimiento de Dios es incalculable” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243).

La omnisciencia de Dios significa que Dios conoce todo lo que hay que conocer y todo lo que se puede conocer. Entonces, ¿Cómo ayuda la comprensión de la naturaleza divina omnisciente de Dios con la ansiedad? Sostengo que ayuda en tres áreas.

  1. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento que Dios tiene de los acontecimientos en el tiempo. En primer lugar, Dios no está limitado por el tiempo. Por lo tanto, el conocimiento de Dios no está limitado al tiempo presente. David escribe: “Pues aún no está la palabra en mi lengua, Y he aquí, oh Jehová, tú la sabes toda.” (Salmo 139:4 RVR60). Dios sabe lo que David diría antes de que lo dijera. Las personas que sufren de ansiedad suelen temer lo que pueda venir. Sin embargo, cuando una persona asocia el conocimiento de Dios de lo que va a suceder junto con la bondad y el amor de Dios, entonces la ansiedad debería desvanecerse en los brazos divinos de Dios. ¿Por qué preocuparse por lo que podría pasar cuando Dios ya sabe lo que va a pasar?
  2. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento que Dios tiene de las injusticias. En segundo lugar, la ansiedad de una persona disminuye cuando se reconoce el conocimiento omnisciente de Dios sobre todas las personas. Dios sabe lo que todas las personas hacen siempre. La gente suele colocar cámaras de seguridad para atrapar a los delincuentes en sus fechorías. Aunque estoy a favor de las medidas de seguridad, como señala el grupo de vigilancia comunitaria que apoyo, es un pensamiento redentor considerar que Dios conoce todo lo que hacen todas las personas. Salomón señala que “Los ojos de Jehová están en todo lugar, Mirando a los malos y a los buenos.” (Prov. 15:3 RVR60). Muchas personas que sufren de ansiedad se preocupan por lo que alguien pueda hacerles. Tal vez estas actitudes provienen de una imaginación hiperactiva o de ver con demasiada frecuencia a los psicópatas enloquecidos de Lifetime Movie Network. Sin embargo, el creyente puede estar tranquilo sabiendo que Dios ve las acciones de todos. Ninguna mala acción escapa a su vista. Como juez supremo de la humanidad, Dios pedirá cuentas a cada persona en algún momento (Rom. 14:12). Esto no quiere decir que una persona no deba usar la razón, establecer medidas de seguridad y ser proactiva en entornos peligrosos. Más bien, una persona puede estar tranquila sabiendo que toda persona se presentará ante Dios algún día.
  3. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento del propósito de Dios. En tercer lugar, la gente suele preocuparse por si sus vidas tienen algún propósito o valor. Los medios sociales han aumentado esta preocupación. La gente suele compararse con los demás mediante una competencia autoimpuesta. El problema es que nadie gana nunca esas competiciones comparativas. La persona debe preguntarse finalmente: “¿Hasta qué punto es suficientemente bueno? ¿Cuánto éxito necesito? ¿Cuánto dinero me hace ganador?”. No hay respuesta. En marcado contraste, cuando uno comprende el valor que Dios otorga a todas las personas, entonces tales preocupaciones deberían desvanecerse, y las competencias autoimpuestas deberían cesar. Dios le dijo a Jeremías que lo conocía antes de que naciera (Jer. 1:5).

Jesús enfatizó en la paz que se deriva de la comprensión de la omnisciencia de Dios, señalando que si Dios podía vestir a las flores del campo y alimentar a las aves del cielo, entonces Dios seguramente cuidaría de los suyos de manera más intensa (Mt. 6:25-34). Si Dios sabe todo lo que hay que saber, si Dios conoce todo lo que hace todo el mundo, si conoce nuestro futuro y se preocupa por nosotros; entonces ¿Qué tenemos que temer? Porque, si Dios está por nosotros, ¿Quién puede estar contra nosotros? (Rom. 8:31) La ansiedad humana se derrite ante la brillante seguridad de la naturaleza omnisciente de Dios.

Recursos

Erickson, Millard J. Teología cristiana. Tercera edición. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor del Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Sociedad Teológica Evangélica y de la Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica. Brian ha estado en el ministerio durante casi 20 años y sirve como pastor principal de la Iglesia Bautista de Westfield en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Fuente Original del Blog: https://cutt.ly/fR4s0ZH 

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García

Editado por Carlos Flores

 

By Richard Howe

A distinctive feature of Southern Evangelical Seminary that the reader has seen displayed throughout the argument of this pamphlet is a commitment to Classical Apologetics [1] . To say that an apologetic method is “classical” is to say something about how SES does apologetics. It offers an answer to the question “what is the proper way for Christians to defend the truth of the Christian faith?” The SES commitment to Classical Apologetics arises from what SES believes about the nature of God and how he has created us in his image, including how we reason as humans and how we know truths not only about God, but about the rest of his creation.

The Biblical Basis of Apologetics

In a slight irony, Christian apologists sometimes find it necessary to make an apologia for apologetics. Sometimes we are asked to defend the fact that defending the faith is actually biblical .

The Bible is clear about defending the faith

In several places, the Bible commands us to defend the faith. I Peter 3:15 tells us to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you, but do so with gentleness and respect; ” (NASB) [2] . Jude 3 says, “ Beloved, while I was eagerly waiting to write to you about our common salvation, I felt compelled to write to you and exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (NASB). Another passage that is rarely cited in this context is Titus 1:10-11. Now there are many rebels, charlatans, and deceivers, especially those who are partisans of circumcision. Their mouths must be stopped …” (NIV). The pressing question here is exactly how we are going to stop the mouths of the unsubmissive. I maintain that it is through sound argument that He can leave them with nothing to say in response. We see several examples of this very thing in Jesus’ encounter with the Sadducees. Matthew 22:23-24 recounts the incident in which Jesus was challenged to explain whose wife a woman would be in the afterlife if she were married to more than one man in this life. After instructing them in sound reasoning and biblical interpretation, the narrative observes that He had “ silenced the Sadducees ” (NIV). In another instance we find, “ So they could not catch Him by what He said in public. Instead, they were astonished at His answer and fell silent” (Luke 20:26 ESV).

Being able to respond convincingly in certain situations is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a church elder. In the passage from Titus, just before the passage quoted above, we learn that the overseer must be able “ both to exhort and to convince those who contradict ” (Titus 1:9 ESV). Convincing those who contradict involves defending the truth claims of Christianity [3] .

The Apostles dedicated themselves to defending the faith

We can also see that the Apostles themselves served as a model for us in defending the faith. A chain of references throughout the book of Acts shows how they often confounded, tested, had dissensions and disputes, reasoned, explained, demonstrated, spoke boldly, persuaded, and solemnly testified with Jews and Greeks in the synagogues, the marketplace, and the schools about things pertaining to the Kingdom of God [4] . Several observations can be made about how the apostles reasoned. Note that they were confronted both by those who took into account the authority of God’s written word (the Jews) and those who did not (the Greeks). Sometimes that biblical authority was appealed to (Acts 17:2) and other times by other sources (Acts 17:22-33). Reactions ranged from some who believed (Acts 17:4, 12), to others who did not believe (Acts 17:5), to others who wanted to hear more (Acts 17:32).

The anatomy of classical apologetics

Since the biblical mandate for apologetics is clear, how exactly is the task to be undertaken? Classical Apologetics is characterized by three levels of demonstration: the philosophical foundation, the existence of God, and the truths of Christianity. The order is deliberate, as the first level makes possible the second and third steps, and the second step makes possible the third.

Philosophical foundation

The first level holds that philosophy is essential in establishing the foundation for dealing with unbelievers who might raise certain challenges, including the challenge that truth is not objective or the challenge that only the natural sciences are the source of truth about reality. Thus, when encountering the unbeliever (and sometimes even a fellow believer), the Christian should (if the occasion demands) argue that reality is knowable, that logic applies to reality, and that morally fallen human beings have some capacity to intellectually understand (even if they morally reject) certain claims of the Christian faith. It might also be necessary, depending on the unbeliever’s assumptions, to delve into questions concerning the nature of reality itself . [5] The apologist would not necessarily have to deal with these questions insofar as many unbelievers (and believers) already work with these normal, rational commitments. Only in those cases where the unbeliever (or believer) has been unduly influenced by postmodernism (the idea that truth is relative to the individual or culture or is in some way qualified from its classical understanding) [6] or by scientism (the idea that only the hard sciences can offer the truth about reality) [7] or by some other false philosophical system, would the apologist need to address these issues. Thus, unless his listener is open to the tools and principles of objective logic and reasoning, it will be impossible to engage with him in a defense of the faith.

Philosophy is also essential in dealing with certain issues of Bible interpretation. Two areas readily come to mind. The first has to do with the principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), considered in general. The second has to do with specific interpretive issues having to do with the nature of God himself.

Every reader of the Bible has some method (conscious or unconscious) for interpreting the Bible, that is, every reader of the Bible has some hermeneutic. The question is this: Where do you get the principles of hermeneutics? It is impossible to get the hermeneutical principles from the Bible itself. This is because, if you could understand the Bible in order to get these hermeneutical principles, then you understand the Bible before you have your principles of understanding the Bible (which means you would not need the principles you sought to get from the Bible). On the other hand, if you think you cannot understand the Bible without some principles of understanding the Bible (I would say you have to), then that means you could not understand the Bible well enough to get the principles themselves (if you were committed to the notion that you get those same principles from the Bible). In either case, you are in an impossible situation. So we see that it is impossible to get all the principles of interpreting the Bible from the Bible itself, even if you can get some of them. Instead, they have to come from somewhere else.

The reader might expect me to argue here that these principles must come from philosophy. This is not my position. Rather, these principles of hermeneutics are grounded in the nature of reality itself. Certainly, reality is what it is because God is who He is, and creation is what it is because of how God created it. In all of this, I am not suggesting that one has to do an in-depth examination of reality in order to somehow excavate the principles of hermeneutics in order to then begin to understand one’s Bible. Rather, I am arguing that in many (if not most) cases, such principles of understanding are quite natural to us as rational creatures created in the image of God (analogous to how we naturally perceive the physical world around us with our sensory faculties). However, there are times when a deeper philosophical examination of the issues is warranted. This is increasingly the case as false philosophies increase their influence on people’s thinking.

The second interpretive issue has to do with the details of what the Bible says about the nature and attributes of God. As we have said, without a sound philosophy, the student of the Bible would be unable to substantiate the classic attributes of God, including his immateriality and infinity. The problem is not merely academic. There are teachers within the ostensive Christian community who embrace such heresies as that God is a finite and limited being. Consider these words from Word of Faith teacher Kenneth Copeland:

“The Bible says [Isa. 40:12] that He measured the heavens with a span of nine inches. Now the span is the difference, the distance between the end of the thumb and the end of the little finger. And the Bible says—in fact, the Amplified Translation translates the Hebrew text that way—that He measured the heavens with a span of nine inches. Well, I took a ruler and I measured mine and my span is eight and three-quarters of an inch. So God’s span is a quarter of an inch longer than mine. So you see, that faith didn’t come waving out of some giant monster somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very strange in the way that it looks a lot like you and me—a being that’s about six-two, six-three, that weighs about a couple hundred pounds, a little better, has a wingspan of eight and, I mean, nine inches across—he stood up and said, ‘Let there be!’ and this universe was created.” placed, and it was set in motion. Glory to God! Hallelujah!” [8]

The same problem is also exemplified by Finis Jennings Dake, the editor of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. [9] Dake is of the opinion that God is a person “with a personal spiritual body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit, like that of the angels and like that of man, except that His body is of spiritual substance instead of flesh and bones” [10] . Dake also argues that “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are present wherever there are beings with whom they have dealings; but they are not omnibodies, that is, their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go about bodily, as do all other beings in the universe” [11] . This is no doubt said by how he takes the verses that speak of God in bodily terms. He argues,

“God has a personal spiritual body (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19); form (Jn. 5:37); shape (Phil. 2:5-7); image and likeness of a man (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Ezek. 1:26-28; 1 ​​Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). He has bodily parts such as, parts of the back (Ex. 33:23), heart (Gen. 6:6; 8:21), fingers and hands (Ps. 8:3-6; Heb. 1:10), mouth (Num. 12:8), lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27), feet (Ex. 24:10), eyes and eyelids (Ps. 11:4; 33:18), ears (Ps. 18:6), hair, head, face, the arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1-7; 22:4-6) and other parts of the body” [12] .

One should take careful note of how many verses of Scripture Dake has cited. I suspect that if one were to challenge Dake that God does not literally have these body parts, his response would be that he is the one who is taking the testimony of Scripture seriously, since that is what the text seems (to Dake) to clearly say. The only way to answer Dake is by appealing to sound philosophy [13] .

The existence of God

The second level of the Classical Apologetics method holds that God’s existence can be proven by a series of proofs and arguments. The way this step figures in the general case of Christianity should not be overlooked. Classical Apologetics holds that God’s existence must be affirmed before specific evidence for the truth of Christianity in particular can be made sense of. Demonstrating the specific truths of Christianity involves, among other things, appealing to miracles. This is because God used miracles to vindicate the message proclaimed by his prophets and apostles and by his own Son. But miracles are only possible because God exists. This is because miracles are supernatural acts of God. There can be no acts of God if there is no God who can act. Therefore, God’s existence must be demonstrated (in those cases where his existence is doubted or denied) before specific arguments for Christianity can be advanced. If the metaphysics of Thomism is employed, it is not simply a general theism. On the contrary, such sound metaphysics is the only way to prove the classical attributes of God that the Church has cherished throughout its history. Moreover, as sound philosophy has been eroded from the broader Christian philosophical community, so too are these classical attributes being eroded.

The truth of Christianity

Once the existence of God is demonstrated (and thus the possibility of miracles established), specific arguments are given for the truth of the Christian faith, including arguments from manuscript evidence, archaeology, and other historical evidence corroborating the historical reliability of the Bible, arguments from the Bible and other sources for the identity of Jesus as the Son of God, and arguments from the teachings of Jesus for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. [14]

In conclusion, it can be seen that there is, in fact, a scriptural mandate to engage in apologetics. According to the Classical Apologetics approach, demonstrating the truth of Christianity requires the tools of sound reason and logic that can be employed to build the case that God exists and has certain attributes and that God has revealed himself in history through his prophets, apostles, and ultimately through his Son Jesus Christ. This mandate has been built into the very DNA of Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Grades

[1] Some of the material in this article appeared in Richard Howe’s “Classical Apologetics and Creationism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 5–31.

[2] The context of this passage is important. Peter is encouraging his readers to endure suffering and persecution. He apparently expected his readers’ godly response to that suffering to engender questions from others about what enables them, as Christians, to endure suffering. Peter expected observers to ask what the reason for their hope is. In response, Christians should be prepared to defend their response.

[3] I am indebted to Simon Brace for helping me see the apologetic application of this verse.

[4] Acts 9:22, 15:2, 17:2-4, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-10, 28:23-24.

[5] These questions would include the nature of universals, the essence/existence distinction, the hylomorphic (form/matter) composition of sensible objects, and the relations of the metaphysical constituents of sensible objects, including substance, accidents, and properties.

[6] Some postmodernists mistakenly think that any contemporary emphasis on logic and reason (as can be found, for example, in contemporary disputes over the inerrancy of the Bible or in Classical Apologetics) is due to the unfortunate influence of Modernism (as they mistakenly understand it). Robert Webber claims that “the question of modernity has been one of reason.” [Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 98.] The fact is that Classical Apologetics’ commitment to sound reason finds its roots back to (and indeed, beyond) Aristotle, who said (regarding the definition of “true” and “false”), “To say of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, is false, while to say of what is, that it is and of what is not, that it is not, is true.” [Metaphysics, IV, 7, 1001b26-29, trans. W.D. Ross in Richard McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941).

[7] Atheist Richard Dawkins argues: “The presence or absence of a creative superintelligence [i.e., God] is unequivocally a scientific question, although it is not practically—or not yet—a settled question.” He continues: “There is an answer to every one of these questions [about miracles], whether we can practically discover it or not, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the question, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods.” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 58, 59.]

[8] Kenneth Copeland, Christianity in Crisis Audio Tape (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1993).

[9] Finis Jennings Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1991).

[10] Dake, Reference Bible, New Testament, 97.

[11] Dake, Reference Bible, in the “Complete Concordance and Cyclopean Index,” 81.

[12] Dake, Reference Bible, New Testament, 97.

[13] Lest anyone think these examples are extreme, this question of God’s attributes is increasingly troubling even within evangelical circles. A survey of systematic theologies and other sources dealing with theology proper over the past 150 years shows a marked shift away from the classical attributes of God. This drift (or, in some cases, deliberate migration) is illustrated by the dispute over open theism. Gregory Boyd, in discussing certain passages of Scripture that describe God as experiencing regret or uncertainty about future outcomes, comments: “It is, I hold, harder to conceive of God’s experiencing such things if the future is exhaustively set in his mind than if it is partly composed of possibilities.” [Gregory A. Boyd, “Neo-Molinism and the Infinite Intelligence of God,” Philosophia Christi 5, no. 1 (2003): 192.] Time and space will not permit me here to examine the status of other attributes of God that are fading in evangelical circles, such as simplicity and impassibility. Nor will time and space permit me to go into the details of why they are important. The question one must ask, however, is how one might respond to the aberrant or heretical thinking of Finis Jennings Dake and others. I submit that it can be answered only by sound philosophy and sound principles of hermeneutics (which are in turn defended by sound philosophy).

[14] I am indebted to R. C. Sproul for this template (basic reliability of the New Testament, who Jesus is, what Jesus teaches about the Bible) in his “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis,” God’s Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1974), 242-261.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Richard G. Howe is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.) Dissertation: A Defense of Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He holds a B.A. in Bible from Mississippi College, an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Mississippi, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Howe is a past president of the International Society for Christian Apologetics (ISCA). He is a writer as well as a speaker and debater at churches, conferences, and college campuses on topics related to apologetics and Christian philosophy. He has spoken and/or debated at churches and colleges in the United States and Canada, as well as in Europe and Africa, on topics related to the defense of the Christian faith.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/1RLwKH4

Translated and edited by Yatniel Vega García

 

I have been publishing a series of articles on how best to interpret the early chapters of Genesis and how science can illuminate biblical texts and guide our hermeneutics.

In this article, I will explore the text of the first chapter of Scripture, Genesis 1, with a view to determining whether this text commits to a young-Earth interpretation of origins or, at least, the extent to which the text tends to support such a view, if at all.

It is common for young-earth creationists to assume that if a young-earth interpretation of the text can be shown to be the most valuable or simplest hermeneutical approach, then this is the view one should prefer, and therefore the scientific evidence should be shoehorned into a young-earth mold. However, as I have argued in previous articles, this does not necessarily follow, since we have to deal not only with special revelation, but also with general revelation. In view of the independent considerations that justify the belief that Genesis is inspired Scripture and those that compel us to affirm an ancient earth and cosmos, interpretations that result in harmony between science and Scripture should be preferred over those that put them in conflict. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), a conservative 19th-century Presbyterian, put it this way [1] :

It is admitted, of course, that taking the [Genesis creation] account by itself, the most natural thing would be to understand the word [“day”] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with the facts, and another sense avoids that conflict, then it is obligatory to adopt that other sense….The Church has been forced more than once to modify her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing violence to the Scriptures or in any way undermining their authority.

As I have argued before, ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses regarding either science or Scripture can reasonably be invoked only if the overall evidence for Christianity is sufficient to support it. In my view, the evidence for Christianity, strong as it is, is insufficient to support the weight of a young-Earth interpretation of cosmic and geological history. However, I believe it is sufficient to support the weight of an old-Earth interpretation of Scripture (though I realize that a certain level of subjectivity is necessary in making this assessment). Therefore, if the text of Scripture compels one to subscribe to a young-Earth view, then the hypothesis that Scripture is wrong should be preferred to concluding that the Earth and cosmos are, in fact, young (i.e., on the order of thousands of years). However, before reaching such a conclusion, alternative interpretive approaches that do not entail a manifestly false implication should be fairly evaluated.

An important consideration in evaluating harmonizations, and one that is often overlooked, is that the evidentiary weight of a proposed error or contradiction in Scripture relates not so much to the probability of any one proposed harmonization, but rather to the disjunction of the probabilities associated with each candidate harmonization. To take a simplistic example, if one has four harmonizations that each have a 10% chance of being correct, then the evidentiary weight of the issue is significantly lower than if one had only one of them, since the disjunction of the relevant probabilities would be 40%. Thus, the text would be only slightly more erroneous than null (and inductive arguments for substantial reliability may tip the balance in favor of giving the author the benefit of the doubt). In reality, of course, the mathematics is rather more complicated than this, since one must take into account whether any of the harmonisations overlap or imply each other in such a way that the probabilities cannot be added to one another. This principle can be applied to our analysis of the text of Genesis 1 – the disjunction of the various interpretations that can be offered reduces the probative value of those texts’ case against the reliability of the text. Of course, if some of the disjuncts have a very low probability of being correct, then they will not be of much help.

If the biblical text were found to be in error, then the ramifications of that discovery would need to be explored. Admittedly, a demonstration of the falsity of inerrancy would constitute evidence against inspiration and in turn against Christianity, since there is admittedly a certain impulse toward inerrancy if a book is held to be divinely inspired in any significant sense, although I am not convinced that inspiration necessarily implies inerrancy, depending on which model of inspiration is adopted (perhaps a topic for a future article). However, since inerrancy is an “all or nothing” proposition, once a single error (and thus falsified inerrancy) has been admitted, the evidentiary weight against Christianity of subsequent demonstrations of similar types of errors is substantially reduced. Some of the proposed errors would be more consequential than others. Some errors (such as the long-life reports discussed in my previous article) would affect only the doctrine of inerrancy (as well as being epistemically relevant to the substantial reliability of particular biblical books), while others (such as the nonexistence of a robust historical Adam), being inextricably linked to other central propositions of Christianity, would be far more serious. Another factor that influences the epistemic consequence of scriptural errors is the source of those errors. For example, deliberate distortions of the facts have a far greater negative effect on both the doctrine that the book is inspired and the substantial reliability of the document than errors introduced in good faith.

Did God create a mature universe?

A common mistake made by proponents of young-Earth creationism is to assume that if evidence can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with one interpretation of young-Earth cosmic and geologic history, then that evidence does not support an old-Earth view and therefore should not concern them. However, this is quite wrong. Evidence can tend to confirm a hypothesis even if it can be interpreted consistently with an alternative view. To count as confirmatory evidence, the hypothesis in question only needs to be more likely to be true than false. The more such evidence has to be reinterpreted to align with the young-Earth view, the more ad hoc and therefore implausible the young-Earth origins model becomes.

One attempt to salvage young-earth creationism that I often encounter from secular creationists (though less frequently from academics) is to posit that the earth and universe were created already mature, similar to Christ’s transformation of water into mature wine (John 2:1-11). To many, this positing has the appeal of allowing evidence of vast age to be dismissed as saying nothing about the actual age of the earth, much as Adam, having been created mature, would appear to be much older than he really was. However, this explanation will not work because the geological record seems to tell a story of historical events, including the existence of the death of animals long before man, something that young-earth interpretations of Scripture typically exclude (though I find no compelling biblical arguments for this).

Furthermore, there is a remarkable correlation between the dates given by radiometric dating methods and the types of organisms found in the strata. For example, if you were to give a paleontologist a date given by radiometric dating techniques (say, for example, a rock dated to the Cambrian Period), he could predict, with precision, what organisms you might expect to be preserved in rocks dated to that age, as well as what you might not expect to find—regardless of where in the world they were identified. This remarkable correlation is quite unexpected in an interpretation of the geologic history of the young Earth, but entirely unsurprising in an interpretation of the ancient Earth.

Our observation of distant galaxies, often millions of light years from Earth (meaning that the light leaving those stars takes millions of years to be observed by an observer on Earth), is also something quite expected in an old Earth interpretation, but quite surprising in a young Earth interpretation. The claim that light is created in transit will not help here, since we are able to observe events in deep space (such as supernovae) that, from that point of view, would be merely illusory (since the light would never have actually left those events in the first place). This would mean that much of our stellar observations are illusory, an implication that I find very problematic. While one can try to posit complex ad hoc rationalizations for light from distant stars, as some have done, it should still be recognized as much less surprising in an old Earth view than in a young Earth view, and therefore the evidence confirms the old Earth view.

Another major difficulty is the need to postulate that all meteorite impacts with the earth have taken place within the last six thousand years, including the one that caused the meteorite crater in the Gulf of Mexico, thought to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, as well as the meteorite that caused the Vredefort Dome, thought to be the largest impact crater in the world, located in Potchefstroom, South Africa. The latter is thought to have taken place over two billion years ago. If any of those impacts had occurred within the last six thousand years (as young Earth creationism demands), the effect on human civilization and animal life worldwide would have been devastating, and yet there is no evidence that such impacts have occurred in recorded history. Although some geologists have historically held that the Vredefort Dome is the result of a volcanic event, this is a minority view that is not widely accepted today. The consensus view is that this is a meteorite impact zone, and several lines of evidence support this, including evidence of shock on quartz grains and evidence of rapid melting of the granite into glass.

This is just the beginning of the scientific challenges to young-Earth creationism. Taken together, the numerous lines of evidence that point convergently in the direction of an old earth and cosmos are quite overwhelming. While I could talk for some time about the scientific challenges to young-Earth creationism (perhaps a topic for a future article), the main purpose of this article is to assess to what extent, if any, the Genesis text inclines us toward a young-Earth interpretation of cosmic and terrestrial history. To this I turn now.

Can the days of creation be interpreted as literal and consecutive while rejecting young earth creationism?

Before addressing the question of whether the “days” of the creation week are best understood as literal and consecutive, I will first assess whether it is possible to take the “days” as literal and consecutive while rejecting the implication of young-earth creationism. There are two major schools of thought that answer this question in the affirmative, so I will offer a brief analysis of these approaches here.

In 1996, John Sailhamer proposed the view (which he calls “historical creationism”) that while Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the universe, Genesis 1:2–2:4 describes a one-week period (i.e., seven solar days) during which the promised land was prepared and human beings were created therein. [2] Sailhamer’s book has some notable endorsements, including John Piper [3] , Mark Driscoll [4] , and Matt Chandler [5] .

Sailhamer argues that the meaning of “earth” in verse 1 is different from the meaning in verse 2. He argues that in verse 1, its connection to the word “heavens” indicates that it is being used to refer to the cosmos. According to him, “When these two terms [heaven and earth] are used together as a figure of speech, they take on a distinct meaning on their own. Together, they mean much more than the sum of the meanings of the two individual words.” [6] When these words are used together, Sailhamer argues, “they form a figure of speech called a ‘merism.’ A merism combines two words to express a single idea. A merism expresses “wholeness” by combining two contrasts or two extremes.” [7] Sailhamer uses the example of David’s claim that God knows the way he sits and rises . [8] This claim expresses the fact that God has exhaustive knowledge of everything he does (Ps 139). Thus, Sailhamer concludes, “the concept of ‘all’ is expressed by combining the two opposites ‘my sitting down’ and ‘my rising up.'” [9] Sailhamer draws the parallel between this and the reference to heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1. He notes that “by uniting these two extremes in a single expression – ‘heaven and earth’ or ‘heavens and earth’ – the Hebrew language expresses the totality of all that exists. Unlike English, Hebrew does not have a single word to express the concept of ‘the universe’; it must do so by a merism. The expression ‘heaven and earth’ thus represents the ‘totality of the universe.'” [10] Sailhamer argues (correctly in my view) that Genesis 1:1 is not, as some have suggested, a title or summary of the chapter, but refers to a distinct divine act that took place before the six days described in the remainder of the chapter . [11]

If Genesis 1:1 alone describes the creation of the universe, what is the rest of the chapter about? Sailhamer suggests that it describes God preparing the promised land for human occupation. He points out, correctly, that the Hebrew word אֶ֫רֶץ (“eretz”) generally refers to a localized region of the planet, rather than the Earth as a whole, so it is quite legitimate to translate the word as “land” rather than “Earth.” For example, the very word “land” is contrasted in Genesis 1:10 with the seas. Sailhamer notes that “‘seas’ do not cover the ‘land,’ as would be the case if the term meant ‘Earth.’ Rather the ‘seas’ lie adjacent to and within the ‘land’ . ” [12]

Sailhamer argues that the expression תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ (“tohu wabohu”) is best translated not as “formless and void” (suggesting that the earth was a formless mass) but as “desert,” which he argues sets the stage for God to make the earth habitable for mankind.

One concern I have about Sailhamer’s thesis is that while it is true that the phrase “the heavens and the earth” is a merism referring to the entire universe, this merism appears not only in Genesis 1:1, but also in 2:1, which says “So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their host.” This verse seems to indicate that the entirety of Genesis 1 refers to the heavens and the earth, that is, to the universe as a whole, and not just to a localized region of the earth. The Sabbath command also refers to God making in six days “the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11). This also seems to strongly suggest that the perspective of Genesis 1 is global rather than local. Another problem is that it seems quite unlikely that the word “Earth” refers in Genesis 1 to any specific “land,” since “Earth” is contrasted with the seas (Gen 1:10). Furthermore, the waters of the fifth day are populated by the great sea creatures (Gen 1:21), indicating that it refers to the oceans.

A more recent attempt to harmonize an interpretation of the days of creation that takes them to be literal and consecutive, known as the cosmic temple view, has been proposed by Old Testament scholar John Walton of Wheaton College. [13] Walton interprets the days of creation as a chronological sequence of twenty-four-hour days. However, he writes that these days “are not given as the period of time during which the material cosmos came into existence, but rather the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual re-creation . ” [14]

Walton argues that Genesis 1 is not concerned with material origins at all. Instead, he claims that the text is concerned with the assignment of functions. Walton argues that, during the days of the creation week, which he takes to be regular solar days, God was “establishing functions” [15] and “installing his functionaries” [16] for the created order. Walton admits that “theoretically it could be both. But to assume that we simply must have a material account if we are to say anything meaningful is cultural imperialism.” [17] Walton argues that the thesis he proposes “is not a view that has been rejected by other scholars; it is simply one that they have never considered because its material ontology was a blind presupposition to which no alternative was ever considered.” [18] However, as philosopher John Lennox rightly notes, “Surely, if ancient readers thought only in functional terms, the literature would be full of it, and scholars would be well aware of it?” [19 ]

Furthermore, it is not clear what exactly is involved in God assigning functions to the sun and moon, and to land and sea creatures, if, as Walton argues, this has nothing to do with material origins. Analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew also notes that [20] ,

…it is difficult to understand what Walton means by God establishing functions and installing officials in a sense that has nothing to do with material origins! Perhaps the most charitable thing to do would be to throw up one’s hands and conclude that the book is radically confusing. What could it mean that all the plants were already growing, providing food for animals, the sun was shining, etc., but that these entities were nonetheless functionless prior to a specific set of 24-hour days in a specific week?

What would the creation week have been like from the point of view of an earthly observer? According to Walton, “The observer in Genesis 1 would see day by day that everything was ready to do for people everything it had been designed to do. It would be like visiting a campus just before the students were ready to arrive, to see all the preparations that had been made and how everything had been designed, organized, and built to serve the students.” [21] Furthermore, Walton asserts, the “major elements missing from the ‘before’ picture are therefore humanity in the image of God and the presence of God in his cosmic temple . ” [22]

Walton claims that in the ancient worldview it was possible for something to exist materially but not to exist functionally. He claims that “people in the ancient world believed that something existed not in virtue of its material properties but in virtue of its function in an ordered system. Here I am not referring to an ordered system in scientific terms, but to an ordered system in human terms, that is, in relation to society and culture.” [23] Walton places much emphasis on the meaning of the Hebrew verb בָּרָ֣א (“bara”), meaning “to create.” He gives a list of words that form objects of the verb בָּרָ֣א and claims that the “grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identifiable in material terms.” [24] Walton lists the purpose or function assigned to each of the created entities. He then attempts to suggest that “a large percentage of contexts require a functional understanding.” [25] This, however, does not preclude a material understanding. Even stranger is Walton’s claim that “this list shows that the grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is questionable whether the context reifies them.” [26] However, the chart Walton presents lists objects of the verb that are material entities—including people, creatures, a cloud of smoke, rivers, the starry host, and so on. It is true that not all of these uses of the verb בָּרָ֣א refer to special creation de novo . For example, the creation of Israel (Isaiah 43:15) was not a special material creation de novo by divine decree. However, even our verbs “create” and “make” can have this flexibility of meaning, and their precise usage can be discerned from context. If I say I am going to create a new business, I do not mean that I am going to create employees and office space de novo . Similarly, when the psalmist calls upon God to “create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Ps 51:10), although “create” is not used here in a material sense, the gender is clearly poetic, so one must be careful in extrapolating the meaning from a metaphorical use of the word to its ordinary usage. A further problem with Walton’s interpretation of the verb בָּרָ֣א as having only a functional interest in Genesis 1 is the fact that, as C. John Collins has pointed out, “1:26–31 are parallel to 2:4–25; this means that the ‘forming of man from dust’ (2:7), and the ‘building’ of woman from man’s rib (2:22), are parallel descriptions of the ‘creation’ of the first human of 1:27. Hence it makes sense to read 1:26–31 as if it were of only functional interest in Genesis 1.”27 as a description of a material operation” [27] .

Michael Jones, a popular Christian apologist on YouTube, has in recent years defended Walton’s thesis. To Walton’s arguments in support of his claim that Genesis 1 does not refer to material origins, Jones adds a very strange argument [28] : he quotes Jeremiah 4:23-26, which says of Israel

23. I looked at the earth, and behold, it was formless and void, and the heavens were without light . 24. I looked at the mountains, and behold, they trembled, and all the hills quaked. 25. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. 26. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were laid waste before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

Jones comments [29] ,

If Genesis 1 is about the material creation of all things, we should expect the same language in reverse to be the disintegration of the materials being spoken of. However, when Assyria conquered Israel and deported all the elites, we are not suggesting that the fabric of space/time was torn open and the land of Israel disappeared. Rather, we understand that the kingdom went from a functioning, productive society to a chaotic land. The sunlight did not literally stop shining in that region. It was just part of the cultural expression to say that the kingdom went from an ordered society to disorder. And so the reverse in Genesis 1 would only suggest that God took a disordered chaos and ordered it to be a functioning temple for himself and the humans in it, not the beginning of all matter as we know it.

Although Michael Jones has a brilliant mind and has made very welcome contributions to the field of apologetics, this interpretation reflects a total disregard for Jeremiah’s rhetoric. The prophet is using a representation as if the sun had gone out, and “there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled.” He is not making an ontological claim.

Furthermore, the arguments Walton adduces in support of his claim that in the ancient worldview it was possible for something to exist materially but not exist functionally seem to me to be very weak, and even seem to undermine his position. Walton, for example, claims that in Hittite literature there is a creation myth which speaks of “cutting up heaven and earth with a copper cutting tool.” [30] He also cites the Egyptian Insinger Papyrus which states concerning the god: “He created food before those who are living, the wonder of the fields. He created the constellation of those in heaven, for those on earth to learn of. He created in it the sweet water which all lands desire.” [31] Walton also says that the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish , has Maduk “harnessing the waters of Tiamat in order to provide the basis for agriculture.” It includes the piling up of earth, the freeing of the Tigris and Euphrates, and the digging of wells to handle the water catchment.” [32] It is not clear to me, however, how these texts support Walton’s thesis. No argument is offered as to why the ancients did not believe that the gods physically separated the heavens from the earth. The fact that we as modern readers take at face value the reading of these texts as manifestly false does not mean that an ancient audience necessarily would have done so. Nor does Walton offer any argument to support the conclusion that the author or audience of the Tigris and Euphrates text did not interpret the text to say that Marduk physically freed the rivers and built the wells to handle the water catchment.

Another key issue here is that there is no reason to believe that functional assignment and concern for material origins are mutually exclusive. It is not logical to think that since the word בָּרָ֣א is often associated with a mention of functional assignment, it does not have any connotations about material origins. Functional assignment and material origins go hand in hand, as material design is what enables an entity to perform its function.

Having rejected interpretations that propose to harmonize an old earth view with an interpretation of the creation week as a series of six consecutive solar days, we must now address the question of which interpretive paradigm best makes sense of the text of Genesis 1, and it is to this question that I now turn.

In the Beginning

In Genesis 1:1-3, we read,

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light .

It has often been pointed out that verse 3 marks the first occurrence of the phrase “And God said…”. This expression is used to denote the beginning of each of the six days of creation week (vv. 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24). Therefore, it can be argued that the first day of creation week actually begins in verse 3, not verse 1. Therefore, by the time the first day of creation week is reached, the heavens and the earth are already in existence. Therefore, regardless of what one thinks about the age of the biosphere (a separate discussion), Scripture is completely silent on the age of the Universe and the Earth – even if the days of creation week are taken as literal and consecutive. Furthermore, when God says “let there be light” (Gen 1:3), marking the beginning of the first “day” of the creation week, this can be understood as God calling forth the dawning of the first day, since the expression “let there be…” does not necessarily indicate that something has come into existence – for example, the psalmist says ” let your mercy, O Lord, be upon us” (Ps 33:22), which does not imply that God’s mercy had not been with them before.

This argument is not without objection. For example, some authors view verse 1 as a summary of the entire narrative, rather than describing an event that took place some indeterminate time before the first day of the creation week . [33] However, Hebrew scholar C. John Collins points out that this interpretation is less likely, since “the verb created in Genesis 1:1 is in the past perfect, and the normal use of the past perfect at the beginning of a pericope is to denote an event that took place before the narrative gets going.” [34] John Sailhamer also adduces some reasons that make it more likely that Genesis 1:1 describes an event that occurred before the creation week, rather than being a summary title . [35] First, Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence and makes a statement, which is not how titles are formed in Hebrew. For example, Genesis 5:1 serves as a heading for the verses that follow, and reads, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” Second, verse 2 begins with the conjunction “and.” This, however, is surprising if Genesis 1:1 is intended to be a summary heading for the entire chapter. Sailhamer notes that if 1:1 were a summary heading, “the section that follows it would not begin with the conjunction ‘and.'” [36] Third, there is a summary statement of chapter 1 found at its conclusion, in 2:1, which would make a summary heading at the beginning of the chapter redundant. It seems highly unlikely that the account would have two summary headings.

Perhaps the strongest argument for understanding Genesis 1:1 as a summary title for the entire passage has been put forward by Bruce Waltke. [37] He argues that the combination “the heavens and the earth” is a merism referring to “the organized universe, the cosmos.” [38] He argues that “this compound never has the meaning of disordered chaos, but always of an ordered world.” [39] He further argues that “disorder, darkness, and depth” suggest “a situation not tolerated in the perfect cosmos and are never said to have been called into existence by the word of God.” [40] However, C. John Collins responds to this argument by pointing out that the expression “formless and void” (Gen. 1:2) is not a phrase referring to “disordered chaos,” but rather describes the earth as “an unproductive and uninhabited place.” [41] And he notes that “there is no indication that the ‘deep’ is any kind of opponent to God; in fact, throughout the rest of the Bible it does God’s bidding and praises Him (cf. Gen. 7:11; 8:1; 49:25; Ps. 33:7; 104:6; 135:6; 148:7; Prov. 3:20; 8:28). And since God names the darkness (Gen. 1:5), there is no reason to believe that it opposes His will either . ” [42]

In any case, although there is an ongoing scholarly debate between those opposing interpretations, the reading of Genesis 1:1 as describing events taking place before the creation week is at the very least plausible, if not the most favorable as the most likely meaning. Thus, there is certainly no room for dogmatism that Genesis 1 commits us to a young Universe or Earth, regardless of what one thinks about the age of the biosphere (which will relate to how one understands the “days” of the creation week).

Some scholars argue that Genesis 1:1 should be translated as follows: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void…” [43] This reading would be consistent with Genesis 1 not referring to the special creation of the Universe out of nothing, but to bringing order and organization to a chaotic, formless void. However, C. John Collins claims that “the simplest rendering of the Hebrew we have is the conventional one (which is how the ancient Greek and Latin versions took it).” [44] The main argument for this alternative translation is the lack of a definite article in the opening words. The text we have reads בְּרֵאשִׁית (“bere’shit”), while proponents of the translation in question would argue that the traditional rendering would make more sense if it read בָּרֵאשִׁית (“bare’shit”). However, as C. John Collins notes, “Since we have no evidence that any ancient author found this to be a problem, the conventional reading stands.” [45] This is also a matter of ongoing scholarly debate. Even if the alternative reading is correct, however, we would not lose anything, since many other biblical texts indicate that the Universe is temporally finite, and that God brought it into existence ex nihilo .

Are the “days” of Genesis 1 literal?

The debate over the interpretation of Genesis 1 has tended to focus on the correct translation of the Hebrew word יוֹם (“yom”). Perhaps the best-known representative of the old-earth position is Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, although I often find his interpretations somewhat forced and far-fetched. Hugh Ross notes that “the Hebrew word yom, translated ‘day,’ is used in biblical Hebrew (as in modern English) to indicate any of four periods of time: (a) some portion of daylight (hours); (b) from sunrise to sunset; (c) from sunset to sunset; or (d) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch.” [46] This is correct, but, as in modern English, context allows the reader to discern which of these literal meanings is at play.

In Genesis 2:4, we read,

These are the origins of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens .

Here, the Hebrew word יוֹם refers to an indefinite but finite period of time, corresponding to definition (d) offered by Hugh Ross above. However, the context makes it apparent that this is the reading under consideration. In English, we also use expressions like “in those days” to refer to an indefinite but finite period of time, and there is no ambiguity about whether it refers to a literal day or a longer period of time. Likewise, we could say “the day was about to end,” and that would make it clear that the word “day” is to be understood as referring to daylight hours, corresponding to definition (a) of Ross’s literal set of meanings. Young-Earth creationists often respond to Ross’s proposed translation, rightly in my view, by observing that the use of the words “evening” and “morning,” combined with an ordinal number, in referring to the days of the creation week, makes it clear that a solar day is meant, whether 12 or 24 hours long. [47] What is often overlooked, however, is that settling the question of the translation of the word יוֹם does not in itself indicate whether it is intended to be understood literally or figuratively. Nor does it indicate whether the days are strictly consecutive, or whether there may be gaps between each of them. These are questions logically arising from the issue of translation and must be addressed separately.

Is there any instance in Scripture where the word יוֹם is clearly translated as “day” in the usual sense and yet is not meant to be understood literally? Indeed, it is. In Hosea 6:2, we read,

Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, and He will heal us; He has wounded us, and He will bind us up. 2. After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, and we will live before Him.

The context here is that Israel has been subjected to God’s judgment. This text is a call for Israel to return to the Lord for healing and restoration. While the Hebrew word יוֹם is used here (the same word translated “day” in Genesis 1) in conjunction with an ordinal number, the word “day” is clearly used in a non-literal sense and almost certainly refers to a longer period of time. The use of the word “day,” when combined with an ordinal number, in a non-literal sense makes it possible that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is used in a non-literal sense as well. This does not make it probable by itself, but it at least opens up the possibility.

So what is the best way to understand the days of Genesis 1? There are a number of clues in the text that indicate the days are not to be understood literally. C. John Collins observes that while each of the six work days has the refrain “and there was evening and there was morning, the nth day,” this refrain is missing on the seventh day [48] . Collins suggests that this can be explained by positing that the seventh day on which God rested has not come to an end, like the other six days, but continues even to the present. In support of this, Collins appeals to two New Testament texts: John 5:17 and Hebrews 4:3-11. In the first reference, Jesus gets into trouble for having healed a man on the Sabbath. Jesus responds by saying that “But He said to them, ‘Hitherto my Father worketh, and I also work. ’” Collins suggests that Jesus should be interpreted here as saying, “My Father is working on the Sabbath, even as I am working on the Sabbath.” [49] Collins concludes that “we can explain this most easily if we take Jesus to be speaking to mean that the Sabbath of creation is still continuing.” [50] In Hebrews 4:3-11, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95:11, which indicates that unbelievers will not enter God’s “rest” (v. 3). The author then notes that God “rested” on the seventh day (v. 4). The author claims that Joshua gave the Hebrews no “rest.” Since the context of Psalm 95:11 is that God forbade the Hebrews who had left Egypt to enter the promised land, the author of Hebrews’ claim that Joshua gave the people no true “rest” indicates that he does not understand Psalm 95:11 literally. Rather, there is a Sabbath rest that God’s people can enter. And how can God’s people enter God’s rest? Resting from your works as God did from His (v. 10). Collins concludes, “This makes sense if ‘God’s rest,’ which you entered on the Sabbath of creation, is the same ‘rest’ that believers enter, and therefore God’s rest is still available because it is still continuing.” [51] This interpretation is not modern. In fact, Augustine of Hippo wrote in his Confessions that the seventh day of creation “has no evening, nor does it have sunset, for you sanctified it to last forever.” [52] What are the implications of this idea? Collins notes, “If the seventh day is not ordinary, then we can begin to wonder if perhaps the other six days need to be ordinary . ” [53]

John Collins also points to Genesis 2:5-7, in which we read

5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, nor had any plant of the field yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. 6 But a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Collins points out that this text “does not agree with the sequence of days in the first account: there God made the plants on the third day, as we find in 1:11-12” [54] . Furthermore, “in 2:5-6 these plants are said not to be there because it had not yet rained (which is the ‘ordinary providence’ reason for the plants not being there), whereas in Genesis 1 He created them (which is a special situation) [55] . “The best way to harmonize these texts is to consider that Genesis 2:5-7 refers to a localized region of the earth, not the globe as a whole, i.e., that in a specific region of the planet “not a single plant of the field had yet sprung up,” because it had not yet rained. That the origin of plants described in Genesis 1:11-12 refers to a different event than that described in Genesis 2:5-7 is evident, since Genesis 2:5 states that the reason the bushes and plants of the field had not sprouted was because there had been no rain, implying that the growth of plants relates to God’s ordinary providence, not to their special creation by divine decree, as in 1:11-12. In other words, it was the dry season. Collins notes that “in Palestine there is no rain during the summer, and the fall rains cause an explosion of plant growth. So verses 5-7 would make sense if we assume that they describe a time of year when it has been a dry summer, so plants are not growing; but the rains and man are about to come, so plants will be able to grow in the ‘ground’ [56] . Collins concludes: “The only way I can make sense of this explanation of ordinary providence given by the Bible itself is if I imagine that the cycle of rain, plant growth, and dry season had been going on for some number of years before this point, because the text says nothing about God not having yet made plants” [57] . If this is the case, then this would suggest that the length of the six days of creation could not have been that of an ordinary week, since it would imply that the cycle of seasons had been going on for some time.

It can be seen that Genesis 1:11-12 does not necessarily imply that God created fully developed plants de novo , since the text indicates that “The earth brought forth vegetation…” This would allow one to consider that the growth of plants was brought about by God’s establishment of the cycle of ordinary providence. However, since vegetation and fruit trees take more than a day to grow and develop by ordinary providence, this would still imply a creation week quite different in terms of length than our typical week. In my view, positing that Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5-6 refer to distinct events, the latter being more local in scope, is the simplest and most natural explanation of the relevant data. This, for the reasons stated above, tends to suggest a creation week that is not identical in length to our regular seven-day week.

There are still further indications that the length of the creation week is not like our typical weeks. For example, many have pointed to the large number of events said to have taken place on the sixth day, which presumably would have taken longer than a single solar day. Collins lists the various things said to have occurred on the sixth day: “God makes the animals of the earth, forms Adam, plants the Garden and brings the man there, gives him instructions, sets him on a search for ‘a helper suitable for him’ (and during this search Adam names all the animals), puts him into a deep sleep, and makes a woman from his rib” [58] . Furthermore, when Adam joins the woman, Eve, whom God had formed, Adam replies, “This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” [59] suggesting that Adam has waited a long time for a helper suitable for him.

In addition to the discussion of whether the “days” of the creation week are to be understood literally or not, there is also the question of whether there is any reason to exclude the possibility of there being gaps between the days, even if those days are taken as regular days. Indeed, John Lennox suggests “that the writer did not intend for us to think of the first six days as days of a single earthly week, but rather as a sequence of six creation days; that is, days of normal length (with evenings and mornings, as the text says) in which God acted to create something new, but days that might well have been separated by long periods of time. We have already seen that Genesis separates the initial creation, “the beginning,” from the sequence of days. What we now further suggest is that the individual days might well have been separated from each other by unspecified periods of time” [60] . I am not aware of any linguistic reason to exclude this possibility.

To recap, although young-earth creationists are correct that the best translation of the Hebrew word יוֹם in the context of Genesis 1 is “day,” the text of Genesis 1 is consistent with the creation week being quite different from our ordinary weeks with respect to length. However, what is the best way to understand the nature of the creation days? It is to this question that I now turn.

An analog days approach

My view is closest to that advocated by C. John Collins, which he calls the analogical days view. [61] Collins notes that “the best explanation is one which sees these days as not being of the ordinary kind; they are, instead, ‘God’s work days.’ Our work days are not identical with them, but analogous. The purpose of analogy is to establish a pattern for the human rhythm of work and rest. The length of these days is not relevant for this purpose.” [62] One advantage of this approach is that one can understand the word “day” in its ordinary sense, but apply its meaning analogically, just as one does with other analogical expressions such as the “eyes of the Lord” (in that case, we need not propose an alternative translation of the Hebrew word for “eye,” but rather understand its ordinary meaning in an analogical sense).

The interpretation of analogical days also allows us to make sense of the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, where we read,

8. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10. but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. In it you shall not do any work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your livestock, nor the stranger who is with you. 11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Young Earth creationists argue that this text indicates that the creation week consisted of six ordinary days, since it is said to set a pattern for an ordinary work week. However, as Collins notes, “This misses two key points: the first is what we have already noted about creation’s rest being unique. The second is that our work and our rest cannot be identical to God’s; they are like God’s in some ways, but they are certainly not the same” [63] . Collins notes that there are obvious points of disanalogy between God’s work week and our own: “For example, when was the last time you spoke and made a plant grow? Rather, our planting, watering, and fertilizing are like God’s work, because they operate on what is there and make it produce something it would not have produced otherwise. Our rest is like God’s, because we stop working to look with pleasure at his works” [64] . On the other hand, God is said to have rested on the Sabbath. Collins notes that “That last word in Hebrew, ‘rested,’ has the sense of catching one’s breath after being exhausted (see Ex. 23:12; 2 Sam. 16:14); and I can assure you that you don’t mean that God needs that kind of respite (see Isa. 40:28-31 – God does not get tired). Rather, we need to view it as an analogy: there are points of similarity between the two things, but also points of difference” [65] . Of course, there is also an analogy between God’s work week and the six years of sowing the land followed by a seventh year of rest (Ex. 23:10-11).

One consideration I would add to Collins’ case is that the ancients often used numbers symbolically rather than literally. For example, the evangelist Matthew refers to three sets of “fourteen generations”—from Abraham to David, from David to the exile, and from the exile to Christ (Mt 1:17)—even though he has to double up and skip generations to make the math work. He probably does this because fourteen is the numerical value of David’s name in Hebrew, and Matthew intends to convey that Jesus is the promised Davidic heir. So it seems to me that it is not too far-fetched to speculate that perhaps something similar is going on in Genesis 1, where the number seven is used in a symbolic rather than literal sense.

There may also be other reasons, besides the analogy with the human work week, why the author of Genesis chose to use the number seven. Earlier in this article, I have criticized the cosmic temple view of Genesis 1 advocated by John Walton. However, one useful insight from Walton’s analysis is the parallel he draws between the biblical account of creation and that concerning the building of the tabernacle and temple. For example, he observes that “Isaiah 66:1 clearly expresses the function of the temple/cosmos in biblical theology, as it identifies heaven as God’s throne and earth as His footstool, providing Him with a place of rest. God also rests on the seventh day of creation, just as He rests in His temple . ” [66] The assertion that God rests in His temple is derived from Psalm 132:13-14, where we read: “For the LORD has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His dwelling place. This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

Walton further observes that “heavenly bodies are referred to using the unusual term ‘lights,’ which throughout the rest of the Pentateuch refers to the lights of the tabernacle’s lampstand” [67] . Furthermore, “the idea of ​​rivers flowing from the holy place is found both in Genesis 2 (which we will suggest portrays Eden as the Holy of Holies) and in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 47:1)” [68] . In a similar vein, Michael Fishbane further argues that [69] ,

Indeed, as Martin Buber long ago pointed out, there are a number of key verbal parallels between the account of the creation of the world and the description of the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness (compare Genesis 1:31; 2:1; 2:2; 2:3 with Exodus 39:43; 39:32; 40:33; and 39:43, respectively). Thus, “Moses saw all the work” that the people “did” in building the tabernacle; “and Moses completed the work” and “blessed” the people for all their labors.

… Itis evident, then, that the construction of the tabernacle has been presented in the image of the creation of the world, and signified as an extension of a process begun at creation.

Walton also points to Exodus 40:34 and 1 Kings 8:11, which indicate that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle and the temple respectively . [70] Walton compares these texts with Isaiah 6:3, which describes Isaiah’s vision in the temple, where the seraphim are shouting to one another, saying “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” Another connection between creation and the temple is Psalm 78:69, which says, “He built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which he has founded forever.”

Now this is where it gets interesting in relation to the seven “days” described in the creation account. G.K. Beale observes that [71] ,

More specifically, both the creation and tabernacle-building accounts are structured around a series of seven acts: cf. “And God said” (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26; cf. vv. 11, 28, 29) and “the LORD said” (Ex. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12) (Sailhamer 1992: 298-299). In light of observing similar and additional parallels between the “creation of the world” and “the building of the sanctuary,” J. Blenkinsopp concludes that “the place of worship is a cosmos on a scale” (1992: 217-218).

Levenson also suggests that the same cosmic significance follows from the fact that Solomon took seven years to build the temple (1 Kgs. 6:38), that he dedicated it in the seventh month, during the Feast of Tabernacles (a seven-day festival [1 Kgs. 8]), and that his dedication speech was structured around seven petitions (1 Kgs. 8:31–55). The building of the temple thus appears to have been inspired by the seven-day creation of the world, which also coincides with the seven-day construction of temples elsewhere in the Ancient Near East (Levenson 1988:78–79). Just as God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, when the creation of the tabernacle and especially the temple is finished, God takes a “resting place” in it.

Perhaps, therefore, the organization of the creation account around seven days is one aspect of the intended parallelism between creation and the temple or tabernacle, which would provide another reason why the number seven may be used in a symbolic sense in Genesis 1.

Are the days of creation ordered chronologically?

Another question we must address is whether the text of Genesis 1 requires us to take the days as being in chronological sequence, and if so, whether that poses any problems. The major problem with the chronological interpretation of the days of creation is that photosynthetic plants are created before the sun. In fact, the sun is not created until the fourth day. Hugh Ross points out that technically, the text does not indicate that the sun and moon arose on the fourth day. Rather, the text only reports that God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, for days and for years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth.” [72 ] Furthermore, “Genesis 1” employs a set of verbs for the creation of birds, mammals, human beings, and the universe. These verbs —bara, asa, and yasar— mean ‘to create,’ ‘to make,’ and ‘to design’ or ‘to form,’ respectively. Another verb, haya , means ‘to exist, be, occur, or happen’ and is used in conjunction with the appearance of ‘light’ on the first day and of ‘lights in the expanse of the sky’ on the fourth day . ” [73] Ross suggests that this is “consistent with the starting point of the creation week at the advent of light on the Earth’s surface – that divinely orchestrated moment when light first penetrated the opaque medium enveloping the primordial planet.” [74] Ross further argues that on the fourth day “God transformed the Earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. At that point, the Sun, Moon, and stars became visible from the Earth’s surface as distinct sources of light.” [75] I am not convinced by this proposal, since it seems to run into the problem that photosynthetic plants were deprived of light for a significant portion of Earth’s history.

An alternative scenario, proposed by C. John Collins, seems more appealing to me. Collins points out that the Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1:16, יַּ֣עַשׂ (“asa”), meaning “to make,” “does not specifically mean ‘create’; it may refer to that, but it may also refer to ‘working on something that is already there’ (hence the ESV margin), or even ‘appointed’.” [76] He therefore argues that “verse 14 focuses on the function of the luminaries rather than their origin: the verb there is is completed by the purpose clause, ‘set apart. ’ The account of this day therefore focuses on these luminaries fulfilling a function that God appointed for man’s welfare, and that they fulfill that function at God’s command, implying that it is foolish to worship them . ” [77]

Apart from the issue that the sun, moon, and stars did not appear until the fourth day (which I think Collins has satisfactorily resolved), I see no further chronological incompatibilities between the Genesis 1 account and the scientific evidence.

However, if we are not convinced by either Ross’s or Collins’s proposal, would it be a valid alternative approach to posit that the “days” of creation are arranged without regard to chronology? I will now examine this question.

Many have pointed out that days one through three form a triad that corresponds to that formed by days four through six. On day one, God creates light and distinguishes it from darkness; while on day four, God creates the sun, moon, and stars. On day two, God separates the sky and the sea; while on day five, God creates birds and sea creatures. On day three, God brings dry land into view; while on day six, God creates land animals and human beings. Some have argued that this pattern indicates that the exact chronological sequence of events is not in mind. This observation forms the basis of the literary frame view, first proposed by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) [78] . Mark Throntveit also argues that this structural organization of the text suggests that the sequence of days is not intended to express a chronological sequence [79] . However, as many have rightly pointed out in response to this argument, literary setting and chronological sequence are not necessarily mutually exclusive . [80]

Otro argumento para considerar que los días están ordenados anacrónicamente  son las supuestas contradicciones entre la secuencia de acontecimientos descrita en Génesis 1 y 2. Ya he abordado una de ellas mostrando que Génesis 2 se centra en una región geográfica concreta. La otra contradicción que a veces se alega es que Génesis 2:19 indica que la creación de los animales tuvo lugar después de que la humanidad entrara en escena, como sugieren algunas traducciones. Sin embargo, Collins sostiene que el verbo hebreo debería traducirse por el pluscuamperfecto “había formado”, lo que resuelve este problema[81].

No obstante, hay que reconocer que los antiguos no siempre narraban cronológicamente. A veces narraban los acontecimientos anacrónicamente (aunque, hay que señalar, sin utilizar marcadores cronológicos como “al día siguiente”). Por ejemplo, en la tentación de Cristo, que se narra en Mateo 4 y Lucas 4, los dos relatos no cuentan las tres tentaciones en el mismo orden. Mateo relaciona los acontecimientos utilizando la palabra Τότε (que significa “entonces”), mientras que Lucas relaciona los acontecimientos utilizando la palabra Καὶ (que significa “y”). Por esta razón, me inclino a creer que Mateo representa los acontecimientos en orden cronológico, mientras que Lucas los representa anacrónicamente. Así pues, la clave para determinar si Génesis 1 compromete a sus lectores a interpretarlo como un relato cronológico de los acontecimientos es dilucidar si hay algún marcador cronológico concreto en el texto que lleve a su audiencia original a creer que se está describiendo una sucesión secuencial de acontecimientos.

En 1996, David A. Sterchi publicó un artículo en el Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. En este artículo argumentaba que, aunque la estructura y la sintaxis de Génesis 1 no excluyen la secuencia cronológica, tampoco la exigen[82]. Señala que los cinco primeros días de la creación carecen de artículo definido, aunque los días seis y siete sí lo tienen. Así, estas frases se traducen más adecuadamente “un día… un segundo día… un tercer día… un cuarto día… un quinto día”. Sterchi sugiere que “el texto no está implicando una secuencia cronológica de siete días. Por el contrario, simplemente presenta una lista de siete días”[83]. Además, argumenta que “por un lado, había un compromiso con la verdad al informar sobre el relato en el texto. Por otro, el deseo de utilizar una estructura literaria para reforzar su mensaje. Una forma de lograr la libertad literaria y seguir manteniendo la verdad en el proceso era eliminar los límites de la sintaxis cronológica. Así, el autor optó por dejar los días indefinidos y utilizó el artículo en los días seis y siete para enfatizar, no para determinar”[84].

Si los acontecimientos se narran cronológicamente, ¿hay alguna hipótesis plausible de por qué la creación del sol y la luna no se menciona hasta el cuarto día? Yo creo que sí. Johnny Miller y John Soden señalan que el orden de los acontecimientos entre el relato de la creación del Génesis y el de los egipcios es sorprendentemente similar, aunque hay diferencias clave, una de las cuales es que la aparición del sol es el acontecimiento inicial y principal en el mito egipcio de la creación, mientras que el sol se retrasa hasta el cuarto día en el relato bíblico[85]. Señalan que “la problemática no es tanto el cambio de orden (sigue siendo el mismo, salvo por la aparición de la vida vegetal). Más bien el uso de la ‘semana’ en la creación en lugar de un solo día retrasa el acontecimiento de la salida del sol de la primera mañana hasta el cuarto día. El sol ya no es la fuerza dominante o el rey sobre los dioses (aunque debía “gobernar el día”; Gn. 1:16). El sol es una más de las creaciones sumisas de Dios, que cumple sus órdenes y sirve a su voluntad. La imagen resultante resta importancia al sol, el actor principal de Egipto. En cambio, Dios brilla claramente como el soberano y trascendente gobernador de la creación. El clímax es la creación de la humanidad como representante de Dios”[86]. En relación con este motivo también está la omisión de los nombres del sol y la luna, que eran venerados como deidades por los egipcios; en su lugar, estos cuerpos celestes se denominan “la lumbrera mayor” y “la lumbrera menor”.

Resumen

Para concluir, no se puede, a mi juicio, sostener que los “días” de la creación son una serie de seis días solares consecutivos y rechazar al mismo tiempo una interpretación de la Tierra joven. Aunque Sailhamer y Walton, entre otros, han intentado hacerlo, mi evaluación de sus respectivos enfoques es que no logran armonizar esta interpretación con una Tierra antigua. Además, el relato del Génesis no dice nada sobre la edad del Universo o de la Tierra, ya que éstos son creados antes del comienzo del primer día de la semana de la creación. Por lo tanto, la única cuestión que debe evaluarse es la edad de la biosfera. Además, hay algunas pistas en el texto de Génesis 1 que son consistentes con que la semana de la creación fue más larga que nuestras semanas regulares. Se puede armonizar el texto de Génesis 1 con una interpretación de la Tierra antigua planteando la presencia de brechas entre cada uno de los “días” o planteando que los “días” no son literales. La interpretación analógica de los días sugerida por Collins y otros es la interpretación no literal más plausible de los días. Aunque la estructura y la sintaxis del pasaje son consistentes con que los días estén ordenados cronológicamente, no lo requieren.

Notas de páginas

[1] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 570–571.

[2] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 1996), kindle.

[3] John Piper, “What Should We Teach About Creation?” Desiring God, June 1, 2010 (http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-should-we-teach-about-creation)

[4] Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2011), 96 (Doctrina: Lo que cada cristiano debe creer)

[5] Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel (Wheaton, IL, Crossway, 2012), 96-97 (El evangelio explícito)

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).

[14] Ibid., 91

[15] Ibid., 64

[16] Ibid., 92

[17] Ibid., 170.

[18] Ibid., 42.

[19] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 132. (El principio según el Génesis y la Ciencia)

[20] Lydia McGrew, “Review of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One,” What’s Wrong with the World, March 12, 2015. http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/03/review_of_john_h_waltons_the_l.html

[21] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 98.

[22] Ibid., 96.

[23] Ibid., 24.

[24] Ibid., 41.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] C. John Collins, “Review of John Walton, The Lost World Of Genesis One,” Reformed Academic, May 22, 2013.

[28] Michael Jones, “Genesis 1a: And God Said!” Inspiring Philosophy, June 7, 2019, YouTube video, 22:42, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R24WZ4Hvytc

[29] Ibid.

[30] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 30.

[31] Ibid., 32.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (July–September 1975), 216–228.

[34] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011), kindle.

[35] John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 1996), kindle.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Bruce Waltke, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (July–September 1975), 216–228.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011).

[42] Ibid.

[43] The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) se opta por esta traducción.

[44] C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 160–161.

[45] Ibid., 161.

[46] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (San Francisco, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 74.

[47] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross (Creation Book Publishers; 2nd edition, 2011), kindle.

[48] C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 62.

[49] Ibid., 84-85.

[50] Ibid., 85.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Saint Augustine Bishop of Hippo, The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans. E. B. Pusey (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996) (San Agustín de Hipona, Confesiones)

[53] C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 85.

[54] Ibid., 87.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Ibid., 88.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., 89.

[59] Ibid.

[60] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 54. (El principio según el Génesis y la Ciencia)

[61]  C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 90.

[62] Ibid., 89.

[63] Ibid., 86.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 148.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York: Schocken, 1979).

[70] John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 149.

[71] G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 17, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL; England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2004), 61.

[72] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (San Francisco, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 80-82.

[73] Ibid., 82.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid.

[76] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2011), kindle.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Johann Gottfried von Herder, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, trans. James Marsh (Burlington, Ontario: Edward Smith, 1833), 1:58. See also Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 6–7.

[79] Mark Throntveit, “Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No,” The Genesis Debate (ed. R. Youngblood; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986) 36–55.

[80] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), (El principio según el Génesis y la Ciencia)

[81] C. John Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why?” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (1995): 117–40.

[82] David A. Sterchi, “Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (December 1996), 529-536.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning … We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2012), 106.

[86] Ibid.

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a BSc (Hons) in Forensic Biology, an MSc (Research Masters) in Evolutionary Biology, a second MSc in Medical and Molecular Biosciences, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie contributes to several apologetics websites and is the founder of Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular webinars, as well as to assist Christians struggling with doubt. Dr. McLatchie has participated in over thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has lectured internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, thoughtful and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/ERkWVCH

Translated by Elias Castro

Edited by Elenita Romero