Mientras revisaba uno de los tantos correos que recibimos, en uno de ellos se planteaban dos objeciones en contra del argumento cosmológico Kalam, en específico al argumento ofrecido para Dios como la causa del comienzo del universo. Una versión del argumento cosmológico kalam se puede formular de la siguiente forma:
1. Todo lo que comienza a existir tiene una causa de su existencia.
2. El universo comenzó a existir.
2.1. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de un infinito actual:
2.1.1. Un infinito actual no puede existir.
2.1.2. Una regresión temporal infinita de eventos es un infinito actual.
2.1.3. Por lo tanto, una regresión temporal infinita de eventos no puede existir.
2.2. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de la formación de un infinito actual por adición sucesiva:
2.2.1. Una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas no puede ser actualmente infinita.
2.2.2. La serie temporal de eventos pasados es una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas.
2.2.3. Por lo tanto, la serie temporal de eventos pasados no puede ser actualmente infinita.
2.3. Confirmación basada en la expansión del universo.
2.4. Confirmación basada en las propiedades termodinámicas del universo.
3. Por lo tanto, el universo tiene una causa de su comienzo a la existencia.
4. Si el universo tiene una causa de su existencia, entonces existe un Creador personal incausado del universo que, sin la creación, es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial, y enormemente poderoso.
4.1. Argumento de que la causa del universo es un Creador personal:
4.1.1. El universo fue creado por un conjunto de condiciones necesarias y suficientes de funcionamiento mecánico o por un agente libre personal.
4.1.2. El universo no pudo haber sido creado por un conjunto mecánico de condiciones necesarias y suficientes.
4.1.3. Por lo tanto, el universo fue creado por un agente libre personal.
4.2. Argumento de que el Creador sin la creación es incausado, inprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.
4.2.1. El Creador es incausado.
4.2.1.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de causas (2.1.3, 2.2.3).
4.2.2. El Creador es imprincipiado.
4.2.2.1. Cualquier cosa que no esté causada no comienza a existir. (1)
4.2.3. El Creador es inmutable.
4.2.3.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (2.1.3, 2.2.3)
4.2.4. El Creador es inmaterial.
4.2.4.1. Lo que sea material implica un cambio en los niveles atómico y molecular, pero el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)
4.2.5. El Creador es atemporal.
4.2.5.1. En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe, y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)
4.2.6. El Creador es inespacial.
4.2.6.1. Lo que sea inmaterial y atemporal no puede ser espacial, y el Creador es inmaterial y atemporal (4.2.4, 4.2.5)
4.2.7. El Creador es enormemente poderoso.
4.2.7.1. Él creó el universo de la nada. (3)
5. Por lo tanto, existe un Creador personal e incausado del universo, que sin la creación es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.
Ahora veamos la siguiente objeción a la que he llamado Argumento de la Inmutabilidad Contra una Causa Personal (AICCP):
1.Si Dios es atemporal, entonces es inmutable.
2.Si Dios es inmutable, entonces Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia.
3.Dios es un ser personal que sin la creación es atemporal (otorgado por el Kalam).
4.Dios es inmutable (de 1 y 3)
5.Por lo tanto, Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia (de 2 y 4).
Como pueden ver, el argumento ataca las premisas (4.1.3), (4.2.3) y (4.2.5) de nuestra versión del Kalam al intentar demostrar que existe una incoherencia entre las propiedades de Dios de ser personal, inmutable y atemporal.
¿Qué tan sólido es el argumento? Pues no mucho. Primero, el detractor parece pensar que, dado que no hay tiempo sin el universo, Dios es inmutable, pero este no es el caso. Lo que al argumento realmente dice, es lo siguiente:
(a) En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.5.1.)
(b) Por lo tanto, Dios es atemporal (4.2.5.)
Y
(c) No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (4.2.3.1)
(d) Por lo tanto, Dios es inmutable (4.2.3)
Observa que el argumento no dice que la inmutabilidad de Dios se infiere de su atemporalidad; sino que la inmutabilidad se infiere de la imposibilidad de una regresión infinita de cambios, y la atemporalidad se infiere de su inmutabilidad. ¿Pero qué queremos decir por “ausencia de todo cambio”? Simple, es no hacer algo diferente. Es claro que hay actividades que no requieren ni cambio ni tiempo, por ejemplo, tener conocimiento de algo (Dios puede conocer todas las verdades en ese estado inmutable sin tiempo). Y lo mismo podrías decir sobre nuestras intenciones: mientras estas no cambien, podemos sostenerlas atemporalmente. Por lo que podemos decir que (1) del AICCP es falsa.
Segundo, (2) es falsa también. La premisa parece afirmar que la inmutabilidad de Dios es equivalente a inmovilidad, lo cuál sería cierto si habláramos de una causa impersonal, pero hemos visto que podemos inferir que la causa es personal, por lo que tiene volición para simplemente decidir crear el universo desde la eternidad. Tal como William Lane Craig explica cuando utiliza el ejemplo de un hombre sentado desde la eternidad:
[…] mi experimento mental sirve para ilustrar un punto sobre el libre albedrío. Una persona puede existir inmutable y entonces libremente ejecuta una cierta intención porque el libre albedrío no requiere alguna condición antecedente determinante. La misma naturaleza del libre albedrío es la ausencia de determinantes causales. Así que una acción libre tiene la apariencia de un evento puramente espontáneo. El hombre puede simple y libremente desear levantarse. Por lo que puedes obtener un efecto atemporal de una causa inmutable, si esa causa es un agente libre. Ahora, en el caso de Dios, Dios existe inmutablemente sin el universo. La creación es un acto del libre albedrío que, cuando ocurre, trae el tiempo a la existencia junto con el universo. Por lo tanto, decir que “desde un tiempo finito un Creador dotado de libre albedrío podría haber querido traer el mundo a la existencia en ese momento” no implica que había tiempo previo a ese momento.[1]
Ahora, en este punto existe la objeción de que entonces el tiempo no comienza con el inicio del universo, sino en el momento en que Dios decide traer el universo a la existencia, lo cual es contradictorio que las implicaciones del inicio del universo del Big Bang. Ahora, incluso cuando el Dr. Craig no sostiene que Dios tenga que deliberar temporalmente, él ha respondido a objeciones similares haciendo distinción entre el tiempo físico y el tiempo metafísico:
El tiempo metafísico es independiente de los procesos físicos, por ejemplo, si Dios estuviera haciendo una cuenta regresiva, él podría decir: “3, 2, 1, ¡que se haga la luz!” Y en este caso tendríamos una secuencia de eventos mentales, tendríamos tiempo previo al comienzo del universo. Lo que iniciaría al comienzo del universo sería el tiempo físico, el tiempo que es objeto de estudio en el campo de la física.[2]
Así que, con todo esto, podemos decir que el AICCP no es un argumento sólido después de todo.
Ahora pasemos al siguiente argumento al que he llamado Argumento de la Atemporalidad Contra la Causación (AACC):
1.Causa y efecto requieren intervalos temporales respectivamente para que pueda darse dicha relación.
2.El estado en el que se encuentra Dios no existen los intervalos temporales (otorgado por el kalam).
3.Por lo tanto, en el estado en el que se encuentra Dios no puede darse la causa ni el efecto.
Cuando uno analiza este argumento, notará que en esencia es similar al primero, solo se omite la inmutabilidad, pero el factor de atemporalidad sigue ahí, en específico, que se requiere de intervalos de tiempo para que exista una causa y efecto del tipo Dios tomando la decisión de crear el universo y luego otro momento en el que el universo llega a existir. Para esto William Lane Craig ha respondido en otra ocasión que:
[…]me parece que esta suposición es falsa. Porque en virtud de su omnisciencia, las elecciones de Dios no son eventos, ya que Él no delibera temporalmente ni Su voluntad se mueve de un estado de indecisión a uno de decisión. Simplemente tiene determinaciones libres de la voluntad para ejecutar ciertas acciones, y cualquier deliberación solo puede decirse que es explicativa, no temporalmente, antes de sus decretos.[3]
Regresemos ahora al asunto de que la causa debe preceder al efecto. Aunque el Dr. Craig ya abordando antes de que no existe ninguna razón para aceptar esa condición y de que es posible tener causa y efecto simultáneamente[4], también existe la posibilidad de que, de hecho, toda causa y efecto es en última instancia, simultaneo:
No veo ninguna incoherencia conceptual al pensar que una causa y su efecto pueden ser simultáneos. De hecho, los filósofos a menudo hablarán sobre cómo se percibe la dirección de la influencia causal entre A y B cuando A y B son simultáneos. A y B pueden ser al mismo tiempo, pueden ser simultáneos, pero ¿de qué manera trazas la línea de influencia causal? ¿Es A lo que está causando B, o B lo que está causando A? Los filósofos discutirán sobre eso. Así que no veo ninguna incoherencia en la noción de causación simultánea. De hecho, algunos metafísicos han argumentado que todas las causas son en última instancia simultáneas porque hasta que la causa realmente incida en algún otro objeto para producir un efecto, no hay forma de que la influencia causal pueda saltar a través del tiempo, desde t2 hasta t1, para producir el efecto en t1. Esa causa debe durar hasta el momento t1 y luego producir su efecto en ese momento. Pero no hay forma de que una influencia causal pueda viajar a través del tiempo y saltar de t2 a t1 para producir el evento. Así que muchos filósofos dirán que toda causación es, en última instancia, simultánea.
Creo que es un argumento muy persuasivo. No puedo ver cómo puedes tener influencia causal saltando en el tiempo. Me parece que el efecto no se producirá hasta que la causa realmente incida sobre la cosa para producir su efecto; por ejemplo, el taco debe golpear la bola de billar para ponerla en movimiento. Y hasta que no lo haga, no hay forma de que la influencia causal del movimiento del taco vaya a saltar en el tiempo para hacer que la bola se mueva.[5]
Conclusión
Hemos visto que el AICCP falla debido a un mal entendimiento del significado de inmutabilidad y de como se infiere la inmutabilidad. Por otro lado, aunque el AACC es un argumento mejor, no es del todo sólido; ya que no existen buenas razones para rechazar la simultaneidad de la causa y el efecto.
Notas
[1] William Lane Craig, “God and Time” en William Lane Craig: A Reasonable Response.
[2] An Explanation of Physical Time and Metaphysical Time.
[3] William Lane Craig, “Timelessness and Creation”.
[4] William Lane Craig, “Causation and Spacetime”.
[5] Misunderstandings About God and the Big Bang.
Jairo Izquierdo es parte del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística. Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
Dos argumentos contra el Kalam
EspañolMientras revisaba uno de los tantos correos que recibimos, en uno de ellos se planteaban dos objeciones en contra del argumento cosmológico Kalam, en específico al argumento ofrecido para Dios como la causa del comienzo del universo. Una versión del argumento cosmológico kalam se puede formular de la siguiente forma:
1. Todo lo que comienza a existir tiene una causa de su existencia.
2. El universo comenzó a existir.
2.1. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de un infinito actual:
2.1.1. Un infinito actual no puede existir.
2.1.2. Una regresión temporal infinita de eventos es un infinito actual.
2.1.3. Por lo tanto, una regresión temporal infinita de eventos no puede existir.
2.2. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de la formación de un infinito actual por adición sucesiva:
2.2.1. Una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas no puede ser actualmente infinita.
2.2.2. La serie temporal de eventos pasados es una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas.
2.2.3. Por lo tanto, la serie temporal de eventos pasados no puede ser actualmente infinita.
2.3. Confirmación basada en la expansión del universo.
2.4. Confirmación basada en las propiedades termodinámicas del universo.
3. Por lo tanto, el universo tiene una causa de su comienzo a la existencia.
4. Si el universo tiene una causa de su existencia, entonces existe un Creador personal incausado del universo que, sin la creación, es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial, y enormemente poderoso.
4.1. Argumento de que la causa del universo es un Creador personal:
4.1.1. El universo fue creado por un conjunto de condiciones necesarias y suficientes de funcionamiento mecánico o por un agente libre personal.
4.1.2. El universo no pudo haber sido creado por un conjunto mecánico de condiciones necesarias y suficientes.
4.1.3. Por lo tanto, el universo fue creado por un agente libre personal.
4.2. Argumento de que el Creador sin la creación es incausado, inprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.
4.2.1. El Creador es incausado.
4.2.1.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de causas (2.1.3, 2.2.3).
4.2.2. El Creador es imprincipiado.
4.2.2.1. Cualquier cosa que no esté causada no comienza a existir. (1)
4.2.3. El Creador es inmutable.
4.2.3.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (2.1.3, 2.2.3)
4.2.4. El Creador es inmaterial.
4.2.4.1. Lo que sea material implica un cambio en los niveles atómico y molecular, pero el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)
4.2.5. El Creador es atemporal.
4.2.5.1. En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe, y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)
4.2.6. El Creador es inespacial.
4.2.6.1. Lo que sea inmaterial y atemporal no puede ser espacial, y el Creador es inmaterial y atemporal (4.2.4, 4.2.5)
4.2.7. El Creador es enormemente poderoso.
4.2.7.1. Él creó el universo de la nada. (3)
5. Por lo tanto, existe un Creador personal e incausado del universo, que sin la creación es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.
Ahora veamos la siguiente objeción a la que he llamado Argumento de la Inmutabilidad Contra una Causa Personal (AICCP):
1.Si Dios es atemporal, entonces es inmutable.
2.Si Dios es inmutable, entonces Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia.
3.Dios es un ser personal que sin la creación es atemporal (otorgado por el Kalam).
4.Dios es inmutable (de 1 y 3)
5.Por lo tanto, Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia (de 2 y 4).
Como pueden ver, el argumento ataca las premisas (4.1.3), (4.2.3) y (4.2.5) de nuestra versión del Kalam al intentar demostrar que existe una incoherencia entre las propiedades de Dios de ser personal, inmutable y atemporal.
¿Qué tan sólido es el argumento? Pues no mucho. Primero, el detractor parece pensar que, dado que no hay tiempo sin el universo, Dios es inmutable, pero este no es el caso. Lo que al argumento realmente dice, es lo siguiente:
(a) En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.5.1.)
(b) Por lo tanto, Dios es atemporal (4.2.5.)
Y
(c) No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (4.2.3.1)
(d) Por lo tanto, Dios es inmutable (4.2.3)
Observa que el argumento no dice que la inmutabilidad de Dios se infiere de su atemporalidad; sino que la inmutabilidad se infiere de la imposibilidad de una regresión infinita de cambios, y la atemporalidad se infiere de su inmutabilidad. ¿Pero qué queremos decir por “ausencia de todo cambio”? Simple, es no hacer algo diferente. Es claro que hay actividades que no requieren ni cambio ni tiempo, por ejemplo, tener conocimiento de algo (Dios puede conocer todas las verdades en ese estado inmutable sin tiempo). Y lo mismo podrías decir sobre nuestras intenciones: mientras estas no cambien, podemos sostenerlas atemporalmente. Por lo que podemos decir que (1) del AICCP es falsa.
Segundo, (2) es falsa también. La premisa parece afirmar que la inmutabilidad de Dios es equivalente a inmovilidad, lo cuál sería cierto si habláramos de una causa impersonal, pero hemos visto que podemos inferir que la causa es personal, por lo que tiene volición para simplemente decidir crear el universo desde la eternidad. Tal como William Lane Craig explica cuando utiliza el ejemplo de un hombre sentado desde la eternidad:
Ahora, en este punto existe la objeción de que entonces el tiempo no comienza con el inicio del universo, sino en el momento en que Dios decide traer el universo a la existencia, lo cual es contradictorio que las implicaciones del inicio del universo del Big Bang. Ahora, incluso cuando el Dr. Craig no sostiene que Dios tenga que deliberar temporalmente, él ha respondido a objeciones similares haciendo distinción entre el tiempo físico y el tiempo metafísico:
Así que, con todo esto, podemos decir que el AICCP no es un argumento sólido después de todo.
Ahora pasemos al siguiente argumento al que he llamado Argumento de la Atemporalidad Contra la Causación (AACC):
1.Causa y efecto requieren intervalos temporales respectivamente para que pueda darse dicha relación.
2.El estado en el que se encuentra Dios no existen los intervalos temporales (otorgado por el kalam).
3.Por lo tanto, en el estado en el que se encuentra Dios no puede darse la causa ni el efecto.
Cuando uno analiza este argumento, notará que en esencia es similar al primero, solo se omite la inmutabilidad, pero el factor de atemporalidad sigue ahí, en específico, que se requiere de intervalos de tiempo para que exista una causa y efecto del tipo Dios tomando la decisión de crear el universo y luego otro momento en el que el universo llega a existir. Para esto William Lane Craig ha respondido en otra ocasión que:
Regresemos ahora al asunto de que la causa debe preceder al efecto. Aunque el Dr. Craig ya abordando antes de que no existe ninguna razón para aceptar esa condición y de que es posible tener causa y efecto simultáneamente[4], también existe la posibilidad de que, de hecho, toda causa y efecto es en última instancia, simultaneo:
No veo ninguna incoherencia conceptual al pensar que una causa y su efecto pueden ser simultáneos. De hecho, los filósofos a menudo hablarán sobre cómo se percibe la dirección de la influencia causal entre A y B cuando A y B son simultáneos. A y B pueden ser al mismo tiempo, pueden ser simultáneos, pero ¿de qué manera trazas la línea de influencia causal? ¿Es A lo que está causando B, o B lo que está causando A? Los filósofos discutirán sobre eso. Así que no veo ninguna incoherencia en la noción de causación simultánea. De hecho, algunos metafísicos han argumentado que todas las causas son en última instancia simultáneas porque hasta que la causa realmente incida en algún otro objeto para producir un efecto, no hay forma de que la influencia causal pueda saltar a través del tiempo, desde t2 hasta t1, para producir el efecto en t1. Esa causa debe durar hasta el momento t1 y luego producir su efecto en ese momento. Pero no hay forma de que una influencia causal pueda viajar a través del tiempo y saltar de t2 a t1 para producir el evento. Así que muchos filósofos dirán que toda causación es, en última instancia, simultánea.
Creo que es un argumento muy persuasivo. No puedo ver cómo puedes tener influencia causal saltando en el tiempo. Me parece que el efecto no se producirá hasta que la causa realmente incida sobre la cosa para producir su efecto; por ejemplo, el taco debe golpear la bola de billar para ponerla en movimiento. Y hasta que no lo haga, no hay forma de que la influencia causal del movimiento del taco vaya a saltar en el tiempo para hacer que la bola se mueva.[5]
Conclusión
Hemos visto que el AICCP falla debido a un mal entendimiento del significado de inmutabilidad y de como se infiere la inmutabilidad. Por otro lado, aunque el AACC es un argumento mejor, no es del todo sólido; ya que no existen buenas razones para rechazar la simultaneidad de la causa y el efecto.
Notas
[1] William Lane Craig, “God and Time” en William Lane Craig: A Reasonable Response.
[2] An Explanation of Physical Time and Metaphysical Time.
[3] William Lane Craig, “Timelessness and Creation”.
[4] William Lane Craig, “Causation and Spacetime”.
[5] Misunderstandings About God and the Big Bang.
Jairo Izquierdo es parte del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística. Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.
What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
There are two opposing ways to view the history of the canon. One would be to believe that the church, in its entirety, uniformly accepted all twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical from the very beginning. The other would be to suggest that the canon didn’t exist until an arbitrary church vote in the fourth or fifth century.
While either view might fit one’s preconceived agenda, the fact of the matter is that both views are terribly naive. The truth is, neither adequately deals with what history tells us.
I believe there’s a better, more balanced approach to the canon. It’s one that recognizes the canon’s development wasn’t as neat and tidy as some conservative scholars might think. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t a wild free-for-all like some other liberals suggest.
Instead, we find that the church affirmed a majority of the New Testament books at the beginning stages of Christianity. We might call these books the canonical core. Then as time progressed, the church, likewise, affirmed the peripheral books of the canon. To demonstrate this balanced approach, I want to highlight some of the early canonical lists from the first few centuries.
Irenaeus (AD 180)
While earlier church fathers quote New Testament books as Scripture, our first clear canon list comes from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. While he doesn’t include all twenty-seven books, Irenaeus gives us most of the New Testament. His canon includes:1Michael Kruger, The Canon Revisited, 228.
While Irenaeus’ list excludes four New Testament books (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude), his list is impressive nonetheless. He’s clear on the Gospels as evidenced by his famous yet unscientific quote, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.”2Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.
Moreover, his list contains the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Revelation, and about half of the shorter general epistles.
Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)
Named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, this canonical list dating to the later part of the second century also confirms a core group of canonical books. The list includes:
Notice the similarity to Irenaeus’ list. Both include the four Gospels, Acts, and the entire Pauline corpus. It also includes 1 and 2 John and Revelation.
It’s worth noting that the Muratorian Canon includes the Apocalypse of Peter but with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.”3Muratorian Fragment, Line 72. Additionally, the fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.4Muratorian Fragment, Line 74, 80.
There’s an important observation here. Both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment indicate that the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon. And with that core agreement came an established theology.
Think about it. Almost all of Christian theology can be established using the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and Revelation. Not to downplay the importance of books like 3 John or Jude, but Christian theology doesn’t hang in the balance without them. This canonical list, then, should give us confidence that the early church agreed on key Christian doctrines (Trinity, creation, fall, salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc.).
Eusebius (AD 320)
While much canonical development occurred over the next hundred years — especially with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — we now turn our attention to Eusebius of Caesarea. Known for writing the first church history, Eusebius gives us a canonical list recognized by the church. What’s interesting about his list is that he breaks it down into four distinct categories.5Eusebius, Church History, 3:25.
The Recognized Books
This list includes the books universally received by the church:
Disputed Books
Some disagreement surrounded the following books:
While Eusebius included these books in his disputed list, he makes an important statement about their validity. He writes that these books “are disputed yet known to most.”6Eusebius, Church History, 3.25. In other words, Eusebius indicates that most regarded these books as canonical even if a few were doubtful. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that most were on the fence with respect to these books — just a small minority.
What we find here, then, is the complete New Testament canon when you combine both the recognized and disputed books. The recognized books are essentially the same canonical core from the second century, plus the disputed books which most recognized as canonical.
Spurious Books
These books were ones that early Christians found helpful, but not canonical. They included:
These books would have been considered orthodox in their theology (much like a modern book by an orthodox Christian writer), but they weren’t backed by apostolic authority, and thus not canonical.
Heretical Books
These books were universally rejected by the early church:
Eusebius goes so far to argue that these books “ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”7Eusebius, Church History, 3:25. His sentiments seem to fly in the face of modern liberal scholars who argue that the Gospel of Thomas is just as credible and authoritative as our four Gospels.
The Canon and Beyond
Following Eusebius, Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon.
You might ask what took so long to get all twenty-seven books affirmed? There could be a couple of reasons for the delay.
First, the peripheral books were generally shorter and made less of an impact on the church than the core books. It’s not hard for us to see how the church read Romans or Luke more than 3 John. For this reason, peripheral books didn’t circulate around the Roman Empire with the same frequency as the core ones. The truth is, many in the early church probably never read Jude or 3 John.
Another possible reason for the peripheral book’s late acceptance is the persecution of the early church. For example, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods and to hand over all their biblical texts to be burned. It’s easy to see how Christians couldn’t just circulate their books willy-nilly.
Once Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313); however, Scripture circulation came much easier. And quickly after that, we start finding complete canon lists.
So, did the early church have a neat and tidy agreed-upon canon at the end of the first century? No. But was the canon like the wild-wild West? No again. Instead, the church recognized a core canon from the very early stages, and they came to recognize the peripheral books later once all the books had time to circulate the Empire.
Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OsHxhX
Leaving Christianity For Sex?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Pastor and author Joshua Harris recently announced that he has divorced his wife and left Christianity. He also has denounced Christian sexual morality. What can we learn from this? Here are some of the questions Frank addresses:
· What reasons did he give? Did he cite evidence that Christianity is false?
· By leaving Christianity hasn’t he adopted a new faith?
· By what standard does he support his new beliefs?
· Should we call out false teachers?
· According to the Apostle Paul and Thomas Aquinas, how does sexual immorality make us stupid and dismissive of those who disagree with us?
· Is this a choice between Christianity and the religion of sex?
· How is Mr. Harris being just as exclusionary as the Christians he now blames?
We need to pray for Mr. Harris and his family. But all of us have to make a choice: Are you going to trust your life and eternity to the sinless Jesus or the sinful culture?
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Should Christians Abandon Social Media?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.
The Liberal View of “Tolerance” and “Diversity”
I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of “tolerance” and “diversity.” They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically, social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today’s public squares may do more harm than good:
Christians Should Master The Media
The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,” J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.
Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have…with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15):
Posts:
Books:
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GsTqy5
Legado del apologista Norman Geisler, quien ‘no tenía la fe suficiente para ser un ateo’
EspañolPor Kate Shellnutt
El magistral teólogo deja tras sí casi 130 títulos y un impacto mundial.
Solo dos meses después de haberse retirado del ministerio público, el teólogo evangélico Norman Geisler falleció el lunes a la edad de 86 años. Había sido hospitalizado durante el fin de semana después de sufrir un accidente cerebrovascular.
Descrito como “una mezcla entre Tomás de Aquino y Billy Graham”, Geisler fue un escritor prolífico, apologista y profesor, además de ser el cofundador y expresidente del Seminario Evangélico del Sur (SES, por sus siglas en inglés) en Carolina del Norte y el cofundador de la Universidad Internacional Veritas en California.
Muchos líderes evangélicos consideran a Geisler uno de los pensadores cristianos más importantes de las últimas décadas, entre ellos el pastor Derwin Gray, quien lo consideraba “uno de los más grandes filósofos, apologistas y teólogos cristianos” y el presidente de Colson Center, John Stonestreet, quien lo recuerda como “una figura sobresaliente de la apologética y la filosofía cristiana”.
Geisler fue respetado debido a la amplitud y la profundidad de su carrera de más de 70 años y por su modelo de defensa de la fe y de la Biblia por medio de la apologética clásica.
“Cuando Geisler comenzó, había pocos filósofos que abrazaran la fe cristiana. Pero resultaba aún más raro encontrar a un filósofo capacitado que estuviera comprometido a ayudar a los creyentes comunes en la defensa del evangelio”, dijo Gregory E. Ganssle, profesor de filosofía de la Escuela de Teología Talbot de la Universidad de Biola. “Geisler preparó el camino para la apologética sofisticada que hoy disfrutamos”, al combinar el rigor académico con el deseo de capacitar a la iglesia y de escribir libros que “pudieran ser leídos y utilizados por los creyentes de todas las condiciones sociales”.
El presidente actual de la SES, Richard Land, lo describió como una voz potente y refrescante que inspiraba a los eruditos conservadores, a los ministros y a los colegas apologistas.
“Para nosotros, la más reciente defensa de la fe realizada por el Dr. Geisler fue como un largo trago de agua fría en medio de lo que a menudo era un paisaje teológico árido y estéril”, escribió Land. “El Dr. Geisler ha sido la autoridad a quien acudir para más de dos generaciones de estudiantes del seminario evangélico que buscaban una defensa firme, inteligente e implacable de la inerrante e infalible Palabra de Dios y de las doctrinas históricas de la fe cristiana”.
Él formó parte del equipo de teólogos que escribió la Declaración de Chicago sobre la Inerrancia Bíblica en 1978 y fue el coautor del popular libro “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) en el 2004.
“Norman Geisler fue una de las cuatro o cinco personas de mayor influencia en mi vida. Fue conocer a Norm y leer sus obras lo que despertó mi interés en la filosofía y el resto es historia”, dijo el profesor de filosofía del Seminario Talbot, J. P. Moreland a CT. “Él fue un trabajador incansable para el Reino y un hermano que fue fiel hasta el final. Hemos perdido a un gigante y el mundo estará peor por su partida”.
Además de su erudición y enseñanza, Geisler participó en debates teológicos con colegas eruditos, entre ellos un debate en el 2011 con Michael Licona con respecto a la resurrección corporal de los santos, que fue cubierto por Christianity Today.
Él es el autor, coautor o editor de 127 títulos, entre ellos un libro sobre el transhumanismo, previsto para el año que viene. Su libro “The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” (La Enciclopedia Baker de Apologética Cristiana) fue nombrado por CT en el 2002 como uno de los libros sobre religión más importante, de entre los teólogos aún vivos.
Las obras de Geisler han sido traducidas a más de una docena de idiomas, y se han rendido homenajes en Internet por todo el mundo, desde Kenia hasta Brasil. El teólogo brasileño Roney Cozzer escribió: “A menudo, digo que Geisler fue una fuente de la cual bebí muchísimo” y alabo a Dios por su legado.
El erudito, quien nació en Michigan, recibió títulos del Wheaton College, William Tyndale College y del Loyola University.
William C. Roach, presidente de la Sociedad Internacional de Apologética (el cual Geisler fundó en 2007), fue apadrinado por Geisler y compartió lo siguiente en un homenaje:
Luego de la noticia de su fallecimiento, su ministerio publicó 1 Tesalonicenses 4:13-14, uno de sus pasajes favoritos que solía citar cuando se enteraba de la muerte de alguien del cuerpo de Cristo: “Pero no queremos, hermanos, que ignoréis acerca de los que duermen, para que no os entristezcáis como lo hacen los demás que no tienen esperanza. Porque si creemos que Jesús murió y resucitó, así también Dios traerá con El a los que durmieron en Jesús”.
Publicado originalmente en Christianity Today: http://bit.ly/2Z0Oxnl
Traducido por Natalia Armando
Editado por María Andreina Cerrada
There’s No Need To Apologize
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alex McElroy
As an apologist, the most common joke I hear from Christians unfamiliar with Apologetics is, “do you go around apologizing to everyone?” In case you are wondering too, no, I don’t. In fact, I believe having a Christian worldview is nothing to apologize for. So, what does an apologist do? We provide credible answers to some of life’s most difficult questions and seek to uphold the Christian worldview through scientific, historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence.
If you are unfamiliar with the term apologetics or have never heard of an apologist, that is understandable as we constitute a small portion of the total church. That being said, if you want to get your feet wet go read or listen to some of the most notable apologists – Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Sean McDowell or Jim Warner Wallace. I’m always blessed and enlightened by their robust and well-prepared thoughts and teachings.
Sometimes I do meet Christians who seem to feel as though they have something to apologize for because they are not equipped to answer questions their critics raise. This doesn’t mean an answer doesn’t exist. It just means they haven’t fully thought through the question. This is where apologetics comes in. Furthermore, the questions cannot simply be laid at the feet of the Christian as though they are the only one who needs to provide an answer. Everyone, whether they are Christian, atheist, or pluralist, needs to have a coherent answer to some foundational questions.
Let’s look at 3 of them.
Are There Reasons to Believe That God Exists?
Scientists largely agree that the universe had a definite beginning – meaning it is not eternal. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics and the radiation afterglow discovered in the early universe are all evidence that the universe had an uncaused first cause. This is also supported by general logic – something cannot come from nothing.
That being the case, there are two options: either something came from nothing or something came from someone. The issue is that there has never been an observed instance where something sprang forth from nothing. Aristotle defined ‘nothing’ as “what rocks dream about”. This leaves us with the other option: something came from someone. This is also supported by general logic – every creation has a creator. If the universe didn’t come from nothing, it had to have a creator, someone that pre-existed the universe and exists outside of the universe…that sounds a lot like God to me.
Is There an Objective Moral Standard?
I’ve talked with many people from many different worldviews. I’ve found that this line of argument seems to be the most overlooked by those that don’t believe in the God of the Bible. I know many atheists, most of whom are great, morally upright people. The issue isn’t that disbelief in God makes you evil, or that belief in God makes someone good. The issue is that in purely naturalistic worldview terms like good and evil are meaningless and at best, purely subjective.
C.S. Lewis, who called himself England’s most reluctant convert wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Likewise, if objective evil exists, then an objective moral law must exist in order to have a basis upon which to differentiate between good and evil. In order for that law to remain objective, it must originate from a source that transcends those (us) that it governs. The only option here is God. There is no way to arrive at objective moral values from a naturalistic worldview. In the case for morality, it seems there is no reason to apologize for having a Christian worldview.
Does Life Have Meaning?
I like to play basketball. The shoes that I find work best for me are the “Kobe’s” (named for Kobe Bryant). If I go to the store and they have them for $100, I’ll probably buy them if I’m in the market for new shoes. However, if they were to tell me that the cost was $1,000, I would decline because that would not be an accurate assessment of their value. Only two people determine the value of an object – the creator or the purchaser. Value can never objectively be self-determined. If we apply this concept to humans, then the Christian worldview is wholly unique. Only in a Christian worldview are the purchaser and the Creator the same person. We have been redeemed (bought back) by our Creator. In an atheistic framework, we are the culmination of a random, unguided assortment of molecules. How can there be any value in that? This also means that only in a Christian worldview can we even begin to discuss concepts such as intrinsic value and inherent worth.
This understanding of our value is pivotal because without value, there can never be meaning. In other words, if something is of no value or no legitimate value can be attributed to it, then it in effect becomes a meaningless item. So, the fact that humans are given value by a Creator and a purchaser (redeemer) who is in the legitimate position to impute value to us is of utmost importance. Therefore, there is no need to apologize for adherence to a Christian worldview because only in this worldview does life have meaning because we are eternally connected to the One who gives meaning to all things.
Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.
Handling Bible Questions You Can’t Answer
Apologetics for ParentsBy Natasha Crain
During my Bible time with the kids, we turned to a story they hadn’t heard before – the passage from John 9 of Jesus healing the man born blind.
My 3-year-old twins, Kenna and Nathan, started laughing hysterically. “He didn’t put mud on his eyes!” They started running around the room, cracking up at what they thought was mommy’s joke.
At first, I thought they were just being silly, but then I realized that putting mud on someone’s eyes isn’t something you would expect, having never heard the story before! Still, I tried to preserve the point at hand.
“That does sound funny, doesn’t it? But can you imagine if you couldn’t see? Can you imagine how excited the man must have been to finally see after he met Jesus?”
They looked at me blankly.
Kenna: “Mommy, WHY did he put mud on his eyes?”
Sigh… Back to the mud! Hmmm. Why DID Jesus use mud? He certainly didn’t need to.
“Jesus could heal people any way he wanted. He could have used mud or water or nothing at all. What’s exciting about this story is not the mud, but the fact that Jesus made the man see!”
I missed a great teachable moment by brushing off their question. It’s a fantastic opportunity when our kids ask a WHY question about the Bible… especially one we don’t know the answer to! There are (at least) two major things they can learn from us at those times.
1. It’s important to continually grow in our knowledge of the Bible.
When the answer to a question is not obvious, it’s tempting to brush it off as a simple fact of what happened. But we are to be spiritual warriors, ever-growing “in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). We need to look for answers we don’t know (use a Study Bible or go online!). How wonderful that, as parents, we have the opportunity to consider questions from our kids that make us look at passages with fresh eyes. When we look deeper into a passage with and for our kids, we are teaching them that we can ALWAYS learn something new about God’s Word.
2. We can’t always know answers for certain.
There are many things in the Bible that have multiple or uncertain interpretations. That doesn’t mean we should give up on seeking a deeper understanding of what those possible meanings are. In fact, we do a disservice to our children if we raise them to believe that there are always black and white answers. They will be better equipped to navigate faith questions when they grow older if they understand that some things will never be known for sure… And that this fact does not negate the truth of God’s Word.
Today’s Thought:
What is a Bible question you’ve always had but had never taken the time to find answers to? If you’re like me, there are many!
Today’s Action:
Find the answers to your question! Use a Study Bible, go online, or buy a book (if it’s a topic that requires a lot of thought!). The more we seek answers for our own spiritual development, the more we’ll be prepared to seek answers with and for our kids.
If you want to know the interpretations of Jesus’ use of mud, you can read several commentaries here (scroll to the bottom of page): http://bible.cc/john/9-6.htm
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Lno6VB
We Live In A Beautiful World
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
In classical thinking, saying that something is beautiful is not a matter of subjective opinion. It’s a way to identify an objective feature of the world. We don’t construct beauty; we discover it. And we try to mimic it. A lot of ink has gone to a paper discussing this view when it comes to truth and goodness. In fact, Christians make the case that truth and goodness are grounded in the character of God. But there’s more to the story. The ancient philosophers who talked about those also included a third feature with them. They called it beauty. For some reason, we don’t talk the same way about beauty anymore. But don’t be confused. Beauty is in the same category. Classical thinkers have always linked truth, goodness, and beauty together as interdependent, objective features of the world.
The Ancient Idea of Beauty
The ancient Greek philosophers saw beauty in objects that displayed symmetry, order, balance, unity, and proportion. In fact, the Greek word we translated into “beauty” was hora. This is the root from which we have derived the word hour. That’s because beauty includes a sense of timing. It takes into account what we know about the purpose for which the object exists.
Think of a flower. The ancients saw beauty not only in the symmetry of the flower’s petals or the vivid colors it displayed. They also recognized that these properties became most prominent when the flower reached its prime – when it bloomed. In the same way, fruit was most beautiful when it ripened. A mature woman was beautiful – and a young girl was beautiful – each in a way that fulfilled their purpose for that stage of their being. There was no beauty in an older woman trying to look younger than she really was. Nor was it beautiful when a young woman tried to look older than she should.
In other words, the characteristics that made something beautiful were built into the object one was observing. Beauty was dependent on an object’s nature and purpose.
It had nothing to do with an observer’s opinion of it.
Recognizing Beauty
Scientists uncover evidence of this kind of beauty everywhere in nature. We see it in “eerie proportional coincidences” like the “Golden Number,” Phi (1.618), and the “Golden Triangle” derived from it. The ratio shows up in commonly-accepted shapes of rectangles used to frame pictures and in the triangle-faced sides of the Great Pyramids. Humans design things using these proportions because they make them look pleasing to the eye. The mathematician Fibonacci derived his infamous Fibonacci Sequence from it.
But this ratio also shows up in nature all on its own. The radius of a spiraling Chambered Nautilus shell expands in relation to it. The similarly appealing geometry of flower petals — and the radiating pattern of combs in a honey bee hive — grow by the same proportions. These kinds of forms and patterns appear so often in nature; we use them to our benefit … and for our pleasure.
Leveraging Beauty
In their book, A Meaningful World, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt show how “the arts and sciences reveal the genius of nature.” One of the examples they use to demonstrate this is the Periodic Table of Elements. That table, we all learned about in junior high school is a snapshot of nature’s beauty. The chemists who developed it did so by finding “elegant mathematical relationships between atomic weights of elements and the properties of elements.” Doing so drove them to predict the existence of elements we didn’t even know to exist. It was the beauty that led them to fill the table in.
Resonant Beauty
The same type of patterns and relationships that led to the Periodic Table bring meaning and transcendence to our lives. Consider the relationship between mathematics and music, for instance. We can describe musical harmony using mathematical equations. But it works because it resonates with our souls.
The philosopher Leibniz described music as “the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.” But music has a way of moving more than just our feet to the beat of a song. It stirs our emotions. Tradition has it that when Handel was composing his epic Messiah, one of his servants walked in on him while he was writing the famous “Hallelujah Chorus.” The composer was weeping.
Handel is said to have remarked, “I do believe I’ve seen the gates of Heaven.”
Beauty Inspires Us
The God-glorifying nature of music is just one of the many ways beauty is manifested in our world. The symmetry, form, and vivid colors of a butterfly enchant us. We marvel at the complexion and immensity of a rainbow, or at the power and majesty of a grand landscape.
These things elicit involuntary reactions in us when we experience them. They can take our breath away. They can make our feet start tapping. They can bring us to tears. They are the kinds of things that add richness and depth to our lives.
Reproducing Beauty
We discover beauty in our world and then try to reproduce it in the things we create. And we long to create things because we are made in the image of the ultimate Creator. Part of what it means to be “made in the image of God” is that we attempt to mimic Him. And when we’re successful, the results are stunning.
Today, we are beginning to use the digital capabilities we have discovered in biology to revolutionize our computers. We design airplanes based on the features we see in birds. We write literature and poetry that elevates our aspirations and invokes the divine. We paint landscapes to reflect the majesty of the world we live in.
We build cathedrals that point to the heavens.
And that’s the point.
Beauty Transcends Us
This all makes sense inside the Christian worldview because beauty is just another form of truth. And like truth itself, we don’t make it up. It draws us in. The character of God is the common reality that explains the trinity of truth, goodness, and beauty. They are the essence, character, and reflection of Him.
Beauty is not subjective. It’s part of the fabric of the universe. It inspires us to think outside ourselves.
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30TeZzO
Ethical Or Expedient? The True Philosophy Behind Abortion
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Madelyn Wood
An American outcry has erupted recently in response to newly legislated restrictions on abortion in certain states. Outraged, public figures have gone so far as to boycott Georgia, an entire state, in protest. Why have the American people fought so hard against abortion restrictions and pushed so vehemently for full-term, easily accessible abortions for all?
They claim it is a woman’s right to choose, and granted; no one acquiesces to being stripped of their rights. Their opposition, however, claims that fetuses should be protected under the label of human rights as well. At the end of the day, both sides appeal to the greater authority of Human Rights, but whose rights are right?
Before analyzing the touchy, and often even the personal, subject of abortion, we must cover the common ground between both sides. Abortion is defined as the “deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” Pregnancy is divided into three trimesters: the first spanning weeks one to twelve, the second, weeks thirteen to twenty-seven, and the third, week twenty-eight to birth. Again, both sides appeal to Human Rights as lending weight to their respective arguments.
Aside from these few facts, however, disagreement, and even name-calling or personal attacks, abound. Though the recent public backlash seems to be in response to legislation, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate (these are arguably poorly chosen titles, but for the sake of commonly-used terms, they will be used here) represents a deeper philosophical impasse. First of all, each must answer the question, when does life begin?
Three major theories about the beginning of life are in play. The first, commonly held by pro-lifers but widely dismissed, holds that life begins at conception. The next view claims that life begins when a heartbeat is detected, which occurs around eight weeks; additionally, during week eight, “the embryo becomes a fetus, all structures present in rudimentary form.” (Geneticist Ricki Lewis, Ph.D. on DNA Science Blog, When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints) Finally, others hold that when a fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, around 21 weeks, it is living. Notice that all of these definitions of life indicate life begins before the 22-week mark.
So how does abortion work? There are two main types of abortions: medical and surgical. Medical abortion offers a pill, causing the woman to bleed and lose the embryo or fetus, which would otherwise — had it not been intentional — be considered a miscarriage. Surgical abortion removes the fetus by a vacuum or manually. According to an experienced ex-abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, “A second-trimester D&E abortion is a brutal, inhumane procedure… Let’s just say that they call it dismemberment abortion for a reason.” (Fox Host at Point of Tears as Former Abortionist Describes 2nd-Trimester Abortion, CNS News)
~D&E Abortion Process~
Purposeful termination of a human life has a name: killing. According to all three of the above definitions of life, termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester is killing an innocent human being. To deny that is to deny that the fully-formed fetus, with a heartbeat and even the ability to feel pain, is a person. Yet somehow, seven states offer third-trimester abortions, and over 25 states offer second-trimester abortions. As Levatino explains so clearly, these babies are being dismembered, and their body parts reassembled on a doctor’s tray; simply because they are surrounded by amniotic fluid and a political dispute, they are not protected by this great authority we call human rights. It’s inhumane. It’s unacceptable.
We live in a society where soldiers who sacrifice their lives for their country and its people are applauded as heroes; those same hands applaud women who sacrifice their children’s lives for personal convenience. How does that happen? At best, our culture is confused about its values. At worst, it’s decisive about its values and chooses to ignore them.
Modern Western culture values expedience over ethics. Such moral depravity is not limited to an abortion problem. In fact, it affects everyone. When one lies about a colleague to gain a promotion, for instance, expedience is valued over ethics. The fact that it is accepted, even celebrated, to terminate second- and third-trimester pregnancies, and with them, innocent children points to the ethical corrosion of an entire society. It screams through a megaphone, “I’m more important than you! My happiness, convenience, comfort, etc. are more important than the next person’s.” In some cases, even more, important than the next person’s life.
Such a mindset actually implicates all of us. After all, the lying coworker subscribes to the same philosophy as the aborting mother. This truth should change the way we hold pro-life vs. pro-choice conversations. First of all, pro-choice supporters and activists must face the “when does life begin?” question head-on; otherwise, they are blindly endorsing killing, and if they aren’t, they need to prove it. It would also benefit them to appeal to statistics and reason rather than appeals to emotion or petty personal attacks.
Secondly, pro-lifers must be just that: pro-life. The other side has made it explicitly clear that pro-lifers are often hypocrites, supporting fetuses in the womb but neglecting them afterward. Granted, people cannot be perfect, but they can be consistent. They must also support the lives of mothers who feel they want or need an abortion; many of them have suffered domestic or sexual violence, or they are entrapped in poverty, or they feel unsupported and unprepared for a child. Most importantly, if anyone dares advocate for the lives of the unborn, they must root out the expedience-over-ethics ideology from their own lives– the philosophy that says personal convenience is more important than what is right.
Remember, both sides of this argument feel they are standing up for human rights: pro-choice, for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and pro-life, for a baby’s right to live. Because these sides are opposed to one another, they often fall prey to the either-or myth. Human rights is a wide umbrella, wide enough for both sides to take shelter from the rain of injustice. In other words, a child’s right to live and a woman’s right to health care can coexist– so long as the woman does not encroach upon, or end, the life of another.
The only way to remedy the injustice of abortion is to protect life at all stages and to fight against a mentality which prefers oneself over others. As George Orwell put it when describing injustice in his allegorical satire, Animal Farm,
In this clear, satirical wording, it is easy to agree that inequality is wrong. But can we adopt this mentality when it applies to the abortion debate?
All lives are equally valuable: no, a woman does not have the right to kill her child at any stage of its life. Likewise, all lives are equally valuable: no, it is not acceptable to dismiss or attack someone because their opinions differ from your own. All lives are equally valuable. A philosophical reform which values the sanctity of all human lives and respects human rights is the only hope to protect the unborn and overcome our selfishness-saturated society.
Madelyn Wood loves Jesus and gets excited about sharing the reality of Him with other people. Because she grew up in split families with opposing worldviews, she became a skeptic from a young age. When one of those worldviews taught her that Jesus was a made-up, mythical character, she decided to investigate for herself. After spending about one and a half years researching the person of Jesus, God revealed the real Jesus to her via apologetics and the Holy Spirit. Madelyn is so thankful that God is allowing her to use her passion for writing to impact other seekers through apologetics.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XMeF8L
Can Science Explain Everything? Featuring Dr. John Lennox
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
There’s nobody on the planet better at answering these questions than Dr. John Lennox of Oxford University. He joins Frank to share some wonderful illustrations and discuss his new book Can Science Explain Everything?
Don’t know who Dr. Lennox is? Go to YouTube and search for his two debates with Richard Dawkins. Dr. Lennox is the best blend of truth and grace out there!
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher