Page 132 – CrossExamined

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

This section is not a commercial for the ministry of the popular American philosopher William Craig. It is intended to investigate the history of the early church, that is, have the first Christians always been irrational and anti-intellectual? Did they embrace any idea of fideism? Did they avoid the objections that were put to them? Or is it the opposite?

Well, for this section we will try to answer these questions and others that may come to mind, but our short answer to these questions and others is:

The early church like the church fathers always had a reasonable faith!

And to demonstrate this, we are going to defend two theses: the first is that the first Christians really did think about what respected their faith and the second is that God does not want ignorant or anti-intellectual followers.

Going back to the beginnings of Christianity, the early Christians were generally known for worshipping God [1] and not for venturing to resolve the great philosophical and doctrinal dilemmas of their time.

We can say that Christianity in its beginnings was a religion that was concerned with the worship of God and those who cared about helping others, however, at first Christians did not focus on answering the question of the origin and value of the world as something to be resolved, nor as a doctrine that they should defend.

Yet, strange as it may seem, even the first Christians did not consider an explanation of the origin and functioning of our world to be important. For them, creation was so important in their worship, because in some way it praised God the Creator, something like hymns or quotes in the Psalms.

Like the ancient Hebrews, Christians came to think of the same God who was their redeemer as the creator of all things. That is, they claimed that the God they worshipped was the same God to whom they entrusted their salvation . By then, the Christian doctrine of creation came from the experience of worship, not from an intellectual exercise.

The conviction in Christian worship carried with it certain guidelines towards the world, how to live in it. In the pagan and cloying world where the church was located, it was the cradle of the union of Judaism and Christianity, an action planned towards God’s saving purpose.

The doctrine of creation was not important as an explanation of the origin of the world, but rather as the foundation for life in the world and as a neat expression of faith, which the church celebrated and shared in its worship.

The early Christians had pagan culture as their neighbors, and this led them to think and reason, as well as to objections outside the ranks of Christianity. Christian leaders of that time felt compelled to think and write about creation for two reasons:

First, there was always the danger that pagan cultural views on the nature and value of the world would creep into the life of the church. This would have undermined Christian obedience in the present world, while calling into question faith in the creator and redeemer God whom the church worshipped.

Secondly, it became necessary to show society in general that what the Church celebrated in its worship, nor the way in which Christians viewed the physical world, was not irrational.

Otherwise, Jesus and faith in him would have been a source of ridicule and mockery. It was in response to this double challenge that Christians developed the doctrine of creation. A doctrine—again—that they shared with the people of Israel. That is why the official doctrine of creation was developed in response to the challenges of opposing opinions.

And with that ideal in mind, some of the first Christian theologians, or “second-century apologists,” set about seeking points of contact (or common ground) between the teachings of the Church and the opinions and most respected traditions of the surrounding Hellenistic culture.

This may come as a surprise, but it was very important to remove all obstacles from the path of unbelievers to faith. In addition, Christians had to combat many of the rumors and accusations that circulated about the supposedly “perverse” practices of their new cult [2]

Despite the struggles, not everything was bad…

The task had been greatly simplified for the benefit of Christians, thanks to the good work of a number of thinkers and philosophers of that time. They did not see the world as if it were a cruel battlefield between gods, but instead tried to explain the world in a coherent and rational way. However, Christians would take these tools with a grain of salt, as they rejected, accepted or modified the theses.

This allowed the Neonate [3] of the church to present the Christian doctrine of creation for one God in such a way that the Hellenistic world and its intellectual class could understand and respect the formulation of the creation of the world. This would answer important questions for the new religion, difficult questions such as, How is God dependent on the different places and times where people have not heard about Jesus Christ? To deny such activity would be a dagger in the heart of creation and its redemption. Therefore, Christians needed to consider the origin as the value of cultures that did not know about Jesus Christ in order to answer such questions.

But still, Christians had some difficulties in communicating the gospel to people from a different or totally different cultural background, after all, many of those cultural backgrounds differ massively from Christian doctrine.

And if we talk about the most cultured people of that time… It was difficult to converse with clever citizens who were proud of the achievements of their civilization and of their philosophers. This raised the obstacle that it would be necessary to suggest that they reject all this, or was there some way in which the Christian understanding of the world, creation and history could interpret, evaluate, accept or transform some of the most valuable achievements of civilization? Was the Christian message so radically new as to tear out such roots? To give a frivolous yes would be like falling into the Marcionism that the Church of the second and third centuries fought so hard, leaving individuals naked in their culture to embrace Christianity…

Another difficulty for the expansion of the gospel was the Roman persecution, apart from the accusations, let us see for example the relations of the Roman emperor, Trajan , with the Christians, in this case the response given to Pliny the Younger :

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting through the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down a general rule to serve as a sort of fixed standard. They should not be sought; if they are denounced and proven guilty, they should be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshipping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, should obtain forgiveness by repentance. But anonymously published accusations should have no place in any judicial proceedings. To do so is at once a dangerous sort of precedent and would not be in keeping with the spirit of our times. [4]

Adding these negatives, Christianity had it difficult at that time, this pressure led them to inquire about the faith and the culture that surrounded them, for them to use the following instrument, The doctrine of the Logos .

In the philosophical tradition it was customary to refer to a Being who was above all others and to whom all others owed their existence. Some Platonists thought that reality was the product of a series of emanations from that first being, the One . Christians soon realized the need to reject such ideas, because they led to pantheism and, therefore, to idolatry. Despite these stains, the idea that there was only one being, above all others, coincided with Christianity and this was very attractive to Christians who were trying to refute the polytheistic ideas of pagan culture.

That tradition had been reflecting on the perfections of this First and Supreme Being since the time of Parmenides of Elea (6th century BC), one of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Parmenides, and his long tradition of followers, had reached a certain consensus about those perfections. And as Parmenides, and most of the Platonic tradition, had understood them, Christian theologians adopted those perfections with slight changes. In this way they sought to show that their faith was not as irrational as some claimed and that, far from being atheistic innovators, the Christian faith was actually the culmination of the best of classical philosophy. For these perfections have become part of the Christian heritage when speaking and thinking about God. [5]

In short, the first Christians, moved by their worship, persecution and pressure, took on the task of presenting their faith as a reasonable faith.

Next part, meet the promoters of Reasonable Faith.

References

[1] Let us consider, for example, the satire made by the second-century Greek satyr , Lucian of Samosata , when he speaks of Christians in his work, The Death of Peregrine :

11. It was then that he learned of the wonderful tradition of the Christians, through association with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And – how else could it be? – in an instant he made everyone look like children, for he was a prophet, a cult leader, a synagogue chief, all of that, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they worshipped him as a god , made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him up as a protector, next to that other, to be sure, to those who still worship , the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

13. Indeed, people came even from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero . They show incredible speed whenever such public action is taken; for in a short time they squander their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them on account of his imprisonment, and he did not seek not a little of the proceeds of it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, in the first place, that they will be immortal and live for ever, consequently, whereof they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Moreover, their first lawgiver convinced them that they are all brothers among themselves after they have transgressed once, for all in denying the Greek gods and in worshipping that crucified sophist and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definitive proof. So if any charlatan and swindler, capable of taking advantage of opportunities, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing it on the simple people….

-Lucian of Samosata, The Pilgrim’s Pass, 11 and 13.

[2] Nero’s slander towards Christians for the fire in Rome:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/grandes-reportajes/neron-y-el-incendio-de-roma_6822

[3] Newborn.

[4] As you can see, it is not a witch hunt, but the fruits of rumors and heavy slander that fell on Christians in the Roman Empire are undeniable:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

[5] Paraphrase, Brief History of Doctrines , Justo L. Gonzalez, pp. 47-58)

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

November 18, 2019/by Guest

A Review of Nancy Pearcey’s Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

Nancy Pearcey knows the captivating power of secular ideas because she used to hold them herself. As a teenager, she rejected the religion of her childhood and embraced a host of “isms,” from moral relativism to scientific determinism to New Age spiritualism.

But she persisted in her quest for truth, only to find that the biblical worldview offers far better and more complete answers to the real-world questions those philosophies attempted to address. For those of us who lack such intellectual stamina, her books serve as a tour of the long and winding journey by which she arrived at that conclusion.

The Soul of Science, which she co-authored with Charles Thaxton in 1994, defied the deeply embedded cultural myth which said that faith and science occupy mutually exclusive intellectual camps, and showed how, quite to the contrary, scientific progress grew specifically out of Christian culture.

How Now Shall We Live? a joint effort with Charles Colson in 2004, fully developed the concept of worldview as an explanatory system that must fit all of reality. A worldview must therefore satisfactorily answer three foundational life questions: (1) Who am I and where did I come from?, i.e., the question of origins; (2) What’s wrong with the world?; and (3) How can it be fixed? Pearcey and Colson argued persuasively that the biblical metanarrative of Creation/Fall/Redemption provides the most excellent answers to all three.

Total Truth, Pearcey’s first solo work, built upon the core insight of Francis Schaeffer, under whom she studied as a young adult. Schaeffer had observed that modernity has erected a “two-story” view of reality, wherein objective “facts” occupy the lower story and subjective “values” occupy the upper. Total Truth showed how secularists use this fact/value split to banish biblical principles from public discourse, not by disproving them but by dismissing them out of hand.

In Saving Leonardo, Pearcey has turned her attention to the arts, and she analyzes how the fact/value split has fragmented modern thought and therefore compromised modern art. Most people view art as simply personal expression, but Pearcey says that it is much more than that: “Artists always select, arrange, and order their materials to offer an interpretation or perspective.” Art conveys ideas.

Saving Leonardo sets out to train us as consumers to thoughtfully “read” the art we take in, to analyze and interpret it. Not to make us art critics, but to make us wise and effective “change agents,” equipped “to engage in discussion with real people seeking livable answers in a world that is falling apart.”

Secular Devolution

Part One of the book examines the emerging global secularism and the toll it is exacting in human lives and dignity. Secularism is generally defined as the view that religious considerations and any beliefs based on the supernatural should be excluded from civil and public affairs. Today, secular ideologies control what our schools teach, how states govern, how economies are managed, and how (and what) news is reported. Secularism is sold on the premise that it provides a more enlightened ordering principle for social arrangements, but in reality, it works to degrade, rather than advance, a society. It leads to:

Dehumanization. The idea that human rights are universal and inherent to individuals is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept. It rests on the understanding that human beings were created by God and bear his image. Without this foundation, grounded in a transcendent reality, human rights and human dignity are demoted to just another competing interest.

To illustrate how far out on this precipice, we already stand, Pearcey paraphrases pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty: “Because of Darwin, we no longer accept creation. And therefore, we no longer need to maintain that everyone who is biologically human has equal value. We are free to revert to the pre-Christian attitude that only certain groups qualify for human rights.” What this translates into is a social order in which the strong can oppress, enslave, or exterminate the weak at will. This is how we got such twentieth-century horrors as the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet gulag.

Tyranny. Secularism preaches tolerance but practices tyranny. The biblical worldview unabashedly states that there is such a thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. The secular tenet of moral relativism is the direct converse of that principle. Simple logic says that both principles cannot be true, but secularizers try to have it both ways anyway. “If moral knowledge is impossible,” Pearcey points out, “then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance.” This explains why homosexual activists call their opponents bigots and homophobes (usually in highly moralistic tones), rather than sitting down with them for a good-faith discussion over the risks of ditching policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In fact, secularism makes its advances, not through good-faith reasoning and persuasion, but by brute hubris. Its relativistic approach to religion derives from a certain set of beliefs that are just as exclusive as the claims of any religion; the secularizers just aren’t “honest” about it. This setup enables them to dismiss opposing views, not by marshaling sound arguments against them, but by baldly excluding them or by categorizing them as private values, which are then declared irrelevant.

Double-mindedness. Secularism not only imposes a certain ideology; it also effectively changes the definition of truth by dictating what kinds of information even qualify as truth. The fact/value split, Pearcey says, is “the key to unlocking the history of the Western mind.” It has fostered a kind of double-mindedness, both for individuals and among societies. It’s reflected in the 2008 comments of a Newsweek editor: “Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don’t know)”; and in the words of Albert Einstein: “Science yields facts but not ‘value judgments’; religion expresses values but cannot ‘speak facts.'”

It’s alive and well in the churches, too. Tim Sweetman, a teen blogger, noted that many of his peers seem like “double agents.” They “are Christians in church…but have a completely secular mind view. It’s as if they have a split personality.”

Logos: Truth in Toto

In the face of this pervasive yet fragmented view of truth, Pearcey puts forward a game-changing alternative view: The nature of truth is holistic, comprehensive, and coherent. “Because all things were created by a single divine mind, all truth forms a single, coherent, mutually consistent system. Truth is unified and universal.”

This is not new. It was the predominant view in Western culture for over two millennia. The ancient Greeks had a term for the underlying principle that unifies the world into an orderly cosmos, as opposed to randomness and chaos. They called it the Logos. And well into the 1900s, American universities were committed to the unity of truth. Even the word university suggests the pursuit of the whole, integrating truth. But the crack-up has so fractured modern thought that the idea of the “unity of truth” presents a radically reoriented perspective.

This “whole truth” perspective is what Pearcey is urging us to bring to the arts.

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Part Two of Saving Leonardo begins with a crash course on how to discern worldview themes in a work of art. Using over one hundred reproductions and other images to illustrate, Pearcey traces the intellectual currents that guided modern thought and shows how the two-story recasting of truth has manifested itself in the arts, from visual arts to music to literature to architecture.

In the wake of the scientific revolution, philosophy—and therefore art—split into two opposing streams of thought. Occupying one camp was philosophical naturalism, or the materialist stream, which accepted scientism’s exclusive claim to the realm of knowledge. In the other camp coalesced Romanticism, which rebelled against science and sought to protect everything else—theology, literature, ethics, philosophy, and the arts and humanities.

The materialistic view is reflected in such styles as Picasso’s intersecting lines, arcs, and geometric shapes and Jack London’s “tooth and claw” narratives of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Meanwhile, the Romantics produced such styles as Expressionism, the goal of which was the pure expression of the artist’s “inner self,” indifferent to any outer reality. Consider Van Gogh’s dreamlike paintings, or composer John Cage’s piano piece titled 4’33”, which is “performed” by playing absolutely nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. Both streams deny the existence of any transcendent reality or truth beyond the artist or the work itself. If art is whatever you deem it to be, “nothing” qualifies.

But the definition of art as personal expression was a historical novelty. The traditional purpose of art, Pearcey stresses, was to convey “some deeper vision of the human condition.” Modern art has become disconnected from this purpose, and we must fill in the missing elements that can restore the vision of transcendent reality.

Can These Bones Live?

Doing that can take many forms. Here’s an example taken from Fox TV’s crime drama, Bones. Dr. Temperance Brennan, a forensic anthropologist, is the quintessential scientific rationalist. She’s called “Bones” because she solves murders by examining human remains. Her colleague, FBI Special Agent Seeley Booth, possesses all the social finesse she lacks, believes in God, and mistrusts science. As a father, he values relationships, and as a former army sniper, he’s haunted by guilt—two emotions utterly foreign to a materialist.

The relationship between Bones and Booth dances along a perpetual impasse because the two characters operate from completely different—in fact, mutually exclusive—philosophical and intellectual universes. They are an excellent example of the dichotomized understanding of human existence. Their ongoing worldview clashes make for good TV drama, but real humans do not fall into one category or the other. More important, we don’t have to choose one or the other. We are both. “The biblical worldview fulfills both the requirements of human reason and the yearnings of the human spirit,” Pearcey writes, supplying the truth that’s missing from the Bones-style depiction of humanity.

In the modern era, ideological idols have led to dictatorships and death camps. Beliefs shape history, Pearcey says, and worldview questions are a matter of life and death. Saving Leonardo calls us to be prepared with worldview answers that preserve life and human dignity for all and that restore art as a means of conveying truth. Integrated truth that can even make dry bones live.

Guilty by Reason of Insanity with David Limbaugh

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

How do you get informed as to what is going on in our crazy political discourse right now? I can’t keep up with it all. I not only can’t keep up with it all, but I also forget what happened politically last week, and last month, and last year. I need someone to document it all for me so I can make informed decisions as we enter an election year. New York Times best-selling author, David Limbaugh, has done so with his new, exquisitely researched book, Guilty by Reason of Insanity. David covers a wide range of topics—racism, gender, intersectionality, socialism, capitalism, abortion, immigration, religious freedom, etc.— that should be important to all people, especially Christians. No matter what you believe politically right now, you should read David’s amazingly insightful book and listen to this interview!

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

November 16, 2019/by Guest

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

I had a conversation with my mentor Darrell Bock about this on an episode of the Table Podcast focusing on the works of Jesus mentioned in the Nicene Creed—a collaborative statement of essential Christian beliefs crafted in 325 AD. This creed was based on the Apostle’s Creed and various Scriptures. Early creeds are a good reminder that the essentials of the Christian faith were not just made up recently but actually go back to the earliest memories of Jesus and the teachings of his official spokespeople.

Let me share a couple of things we mentioned while talking about a line that that mentions Jesus’ historic death and burial:

“For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.”

The Nicene Creed makes historical claims about Jesus but also includes theological interpretations of the facts. In this post, I’ll define what Christians mean when we say Jesus died “for us.” Then, I’ll touch on the historical evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. At the end of this post, you can check out the complete podcast to hear our full conversation on the works of Jesus described in the Nicene Creed. So what’s it means to say Jesus “was crucified for us?”

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

First, the Nicene Creed highlights a kind of substitution where Jesus bears the penalty for human sin. As Anselm of Canterbury explained, Jesus paid an infinite debt no mere human being could pay.

Second, understanding the Jewish context of the earliest Christian thought brings a couple of pictures to mind: The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 who “bears our reproach” and the way Jews understood an animal suffering in the place of a sinner. In some cases, Jews put their hands on the sacrifice to symbolize a transfer of responsibility in the sacrificial system. When you wonder about the significance of something Jesus said or did, remember that themes from the Hebrew Scriptures are often the background, and it pays to see Jesus in his cultural context.

So that’s a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. But what about the event itself? The Nicene Creed mentions Jesus’ suffering on the cross. What’s the historical evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is well-attested: It’s mentioned not only in the Gospels but in a snippet of something the Jewish historian Josephus wrote in his Antiquities, which verifies Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate. The Roman historian Tacitus alludes to Jesus’ crucifixion as well in The Annals. As even a rather skeptical scholar like John Dominic Crossan recognizes, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” [1]

“That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

But what happened to Jesus’ body? The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried, just like we read about in Mark 15 and Luke 23. But what about this?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

Some skeptics ask, “Weren’t crucifixion victims thrown into shallow graves? How do we know Jesus was put in a tomb?” First, we have reports of Jesus’ burial from the time when people who knew about it were still alive. Second, ancient Jewish sources never say Jesus’ body was thrown to the dogs in a shallow grave. There are good reasons to believe Jesus was really buried in a location that was known and that he was buried in a way that by sensitive to Jewish culture.

For example, convicted felons weren’t buried in family tombs. That’s why Jesus wasn’t buried in a family tomb. He was buried in the tomb of a fellow Jew: Joseph of Arimathea. So Jesus’ burial honored what Jewish tradition says about the way a Jewish crucifixion victim should be buried.

So Christian belief operates on two levels: The historical and the theological. As Christians, we believe historical things about Jesus—events you can actually look into like other events in ancient history. But Christians also believe theological things about Jesus—the stuff that makes historical things really matter in our lives.

Like many Christians, I affirm my belief in both the historical and theological truths of the Nicene Creed as I recite it along with my brothers and sisters in the church.

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day, he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

Watch the Table Podcast

We cover a lot more about the works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed during our conversation. What are the essential Christian beliefs? Why should we believe this stuff? Check out the complete podcast:

Book Review: Time for Truth: Living Free in A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness has been on my reading list for several years now. It is a relatively short book, so I popped it in my bag to read during downtime on a trip to see family. By the time I had made it through the first chapter, I wished that I had made time to read it sooner!

In today’s cultural and political climate that seems to twist and spin reality to fit certain narratives, it is vital that people be able to distinguish between truth from falsehood. The history of the East demonstrates the implications of denying truth as an accurate reflection of reality. In “Time for Truth,” sociologist Os Guinness takes the reader through the philosophies and events that led to the fall of the East and compares them to current philosophies and events in the West. He warns that if the West continues on its current trajectory, it is headed for a similar collapse.

As usual, this review will take the form of a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Guinness opens his book by recalling the revolutionary event of the fall of communism in eastern Europe and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The significance of this at the time was that under communist rule, propaganda was taught instead of truth so much so that the populace believed what was false to be true. But it was only when some members of the populace pointed out that what was being taught by their government were lies told in order to maintain power and control. The taste of and for truth grew and grew until finally, the purveyors of false narratives were overthrown, and the truth set these nations free from the lies and tyranny.
Ironically, at the same time, this revolution of truth took place in the East, the West was busy relativizing truth the way the communists already did in the East. Guinness sets up the rest of his book by pointing out that such a postmodern view of truth violates reality and morality (why it was overthrown in the East), and the West is on the road to accepting the same view of truth. However, if the West does not recognize the mistakes of the past (in the East), then it will suffer a similar fate. But it is not enough to merely make observations about the past; the people of the West must take action now and become “people of truth” to prevent a repeat of history.

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

In order to show that the West is, in fact, on this same path, Guinness takes a look at the change in students’ reactions to the morally repugnant practice described in the story “The Lottery.” The 70s, 80s, and 90s saw a dramatic shift in the schools regarding moral judgments. The 70s and 80s saw students gradually shift their focus from outrage over the most heinous human behaviors (human sacrifice, in the case of “The Lottery”) to focusing on the more trivial aspects of the same tale. Fewer moral judgment were made, and more stylistic critiques became the main focus. In the 90s, this shift seemed almost complete, to where students were allergic to giving moral judgments about another’s cultural practices, no matter how heinous the action.

Guinness observes too that ethical training in today’s higher academy has also shifted from making any moral judgments to merely providing information about cultures and how to avoid punishments if one does not agree and wishes to participate in prohibited practices. On this new view, no one is truly deviating from any objective standard; they just act differently from others. Guinness ties this to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. These writings take the idea that “God is dead” and vehemently attacked the very concepts of knowledge and morality- stating that nothing can be known or trusted, and nothing is as it seems. Nietzsche supports a radical skepticism and distrust about everything and everyone, and thus, a meaningless and purposeless existence is all that any individual has.

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

With Nietzsche’s idea that with God’s death comes the death of all knowledge and truth about anything, people are free to tell whatever stories they wish that will accomplish their personal goals (or a “greater truth”)- whether the stories are true or not. As multiple people tell their own contradicting stories and these lies are discovered, others’ trust in these people and those who support them dwindles. This causes a vicious cycle of skepticism that self-perpetuates. The singular truth stands alone in a multitude of lies promoted by their own multitude of untrustworthy sources. In this sea of “spin,” the truth ultimately becomes unidentifiable by the individual and even outside their grasp. The individual has nothing solid to grab onto to ground themselves in reality, so they are forced to make up stories of their own and live their own lie of a life.

Guinness illustrates this in practice with the very public figures of Mark Twain and Rigoberta Menchu. The stories that were told by both (Samuel Clemens, in the case of “Mark Twain”) were false, but they each acted as if they were true, and the culture responded accordingly. Clemens’ false story had more pop-cultural effects, while Menchu’s lies had political and educational ramifications. Even after the lies were discovered, both held firm saying that these were “their truths.” Guinness makes the point that when knowledge is not attainable, lies can perpetuate like this easily in a culture, and the culture is eager to accept them even if the stories are discovered to be false. On this postmodern view of truth, everyone is free to make up their own truth from moment to moment, all depending on their feelings at the moment or whatever they feel will accomplish their goal at that moment.

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Quite often, this battle for the concept of truth has been seen as an “East vs. West” battle. Where the eastern philosophies held to relative and subjective views of truth and western philosophies held to the objective view of truth. Guinness observes that Geoge Washington and the other Founding Fathers saw their newly formed country as an experiment with “ordered liberty”- freedom exercised within the confines of objective truth. But postmodern views of truth have sneaked their way into western culture, not unlike a Trojan horse. This attack has been so successful since the formation of America that even the President of the United States in the 1990s saw and exercised the liberty to attempt to adjust truth to fit his own desires.
Guinness takes the time to demonstrate how seven unique characteristics of a postmodern mind were exhibited in President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal. Because of Clinton’s public face and the respect of Americans for the office of the President of the United States, his postmodern actions shifted western thinking more permanently toward postmodern views of truth. This view of truth has become so ingrained in western thought now that the battle is now the older western though versus, the newer western thought. The west is engaged in a war against itself for itself.

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Unfortunately, many people do not see why it makes a difference in what view of truth one holds. Guinness explains that the way one views truth can have great implications. He takes the atheist survivor of Auschwitz, Primo Levi, and the theist Russian revolutionary, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to compare and contrast the views’ implications. Levi held that no God exists to ground truth. He tasked himself with ensuring that Auschwitz was never forgotten or repeated, but the weight of such a task, without any ultimate purpose or truth to ground his claims in, ultimately led to his suicide. On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn merely publically promoted his view of truth to release Russia from the shackles of the communist regime, that made a habit of presenting falsehood to its people as truth in order to subjugate them. Solzhenitsyn had an ultimate purpose and objective truth behind his actions that made them meaningful. Levi had no purpose and only relative truth behind his actions that made them meaningless.

These differences are not trivial; rather, they are impactful. Guinness offers that the West has become so hypnotized by the supposed “freedom” that having no objective truth brings, that it has not been able to experience true freedom. True freedom requires identity and limits. But if there is neither (what relative views of truth assert), then the individual must endlessly wrestle with their identity and what limits exist before they can even begin to experience true freedom. Because there is no objective truth about identity or limits, there is no end to their wrestling; thus they never will experience true freedom, and their pursuit becomes a prison. It is only when one recognizes that objective truth exists and the Foundation of Truth (God) that objective identity and objective limits can be discovered and freedom is even possible to experience.

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

So far, Guinness has argued against relativistic views of truth by demonstrating the implications of such a view. But that is not always the most effective way to argue. It tends to be more effective if one argues on the skeptic’s own grounds. Guinness proposes two strategies for argumentation: one negative and one positive. The negative approach takes the relativist’s own relativism and follows it to its logical implications until it violates something of great value to the relativist. This usually doesn’t take long since the relativist values their own objectivity. While they desire that everyone else be a relativist, they do not apply such a requirement and fate to themselves. Seeing that their own views may be thought but not lived may be enough to jerk their thinking about truth back to reality.

Guinness argues that it is often not until a person is brought face-to-face with the dire implications and emptiness of their view of truth that they are willing to entertain an alternative. Ironically, when an individual or even a nation is at its philosophical and ethical breaking point, is when the opportunity to argue for the alternative is most effective. This opens the door to the positive approach. It also appeals to what the relativist values. With the inability for relativism to produce what the relativist values now in place, the positive approach shows how the objective view of truth genuinely provides what the relativist values. Guinness encourages the reader to consider that while it may seem that darkness has overtaken the individual relativist or a relativistic culture, that darkness may actually be an indicator that a new day is coming.

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

In Guinness’ final chapter, he encourages the reader to be a seeker of truth. As one is seeking objective truth, though, it is important to realize that there are subjective perspectives that do cause people to come to different conclusions about reality. While this is no excuse for seeing things inaccurately, it is an explanation for such and a beginning point to recognize in our own search for truth to guard against. One more thing can keep people from seeing reality as it is.
The biblical worldview holds that by nature, we are not just truth-seekers; we are truth-twisters. It is a sin in our lives that pushes us towards false narratives and rationalizations. Interestingly enough, it is the dual nature of man that explains both the successes and failures of modern and post-modern views of truth. Guinness explains that is it only the biblical worldview that can provide a foundation for not just the pursuit of truth but also how and why such a pursuit can go wrong. He encourages the reader to accept, because of its explanatory power, the biblical worldview of our sinfulness and our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth; thus it is in accepting Him that will allow us to truly be “people of truth,” and it is only as true “people of truth” that we can experience real freedom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Time for Truth” was a fascinating read. I have to admit that I had picked up the book a couple of times in the past and (re)started before I was able to make it through this time. The introduction was a little slow, but once I passed that, it picked right up, and I was hooked! I really enjoyed how Guinness took the reader through several events in recent history that have led to the crisis of truth in American culture. I found myself stopping many times to reflect on events in my own lifetime that Guinness described and older events’ effects on what I experience today. The way that Guinness connects modern events with the crisis of truth that he speaks against is what will draw the reader in. This is not merely a theoretical treatise on truth; it is an analysis of events in our lifetimes and a warning of what will come if the West follows in the footsteps of the East regarding the ideas of truth.

Post-modernism has saturated our culture, and its effects are being played out before our eyes and in ways that are so subtle that we may not even recognize it. For anyone who is concerned about modern western culture’s treatment of truth, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is fed up with the claims of “fake news,” this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is tired of seeing politicians change the truth for their own agendas, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with history, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with their children’s future, this book is highly recommended. Needless to say, this book is highly recommended for all serious readers and those who are fascinated by politics and modern culture. It will enhance your perspective on what is taking place today and give you not only an explanation for what is taking place but also provide a solution. Go get this book!

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte I

Español

Por Xavier González

No les ha pasado que cuando están debatiendo con un ateo e intentas dar sus mejores argumentos, un hermano en Cristo o un desconocido que se meten en la discusión y comienza a dar sus argumentos. Pero cuando te das cuenta es pura tontería lo que proponen, dicen cosas como “La filosofía va en contra de las escrituras” o “Jesús no vino a discutir”.

Bueno, me ha pasado y debo de decir que a veces me provoca darles un cabezazo para que no vuelvan a argumentar tantas tonterías…

En éste escrito vamos a tratar un tema que tal vez muchos cristianos desconozcan o alguna vez han oído, pero no han profundizado en él. Este artículo fue escrito con la intensión de corregir a ciertos hermanos en la fe que, por alguna razón en sus falsas o descuidadas congregaciones, se les ha enseñado que la Fe y la Razón no se juntan o que “no son compatibles”, en pocas palabras, Fideísmo.

Irónicamente, esto también lo “predican” la gran mayoría de ateos (Principalmente los Nuevos Ateos), pero vamos a demostrar que esto es falso y que realmente tanto en la historia de la iglesia como en la misma biblia nos dan razones suficientes para concluir que la Razón y la Fe son compatibles.

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

«Sistema de pensamiento y de interpretación de los valores y hechos religiosos mediante el cual se da la primacía absoluta la fe con menosprecio de los otros rasgos que apoyan las creencias, la razón, la tradición, la autoridad.

En general el fideísmo roza el misticismo exagerado de quien, con motivos y actitudes afectivas más que racionales, deposita una confianza ciega en lo que se cree ser revelación divina. Sin embargo, sabemos que Dios ha hecho al hombre libre para creer y desea que también reflexione sobre su fe».

«Error que dice que la fe es la única fuente del conocimiento de Dios; la razón no lo puede conocer».
«El fideísmo es cualquiera de los varios sistemas de creencias que sostienen, sobre variados argumentos, que la razón es irrelevante a la fe religiosa. De acuerdo a algunas versiones de fideísmo, la razón es la antítesis de la fe».

De hecho, Alvin Plantinga define el fideísmo como “la exclusiva o básica dependencia sobre la fe sola, acompañada por un consecuente menosprecio de la razón y utilizada especialmente en la persecución de una verdad filosófica y religiosa”.

Con estas definiciones, se nos da a entender que simplemente la Fe de cualquier creencia (sobre toda la cristiana) es ciega e irracional. Pero antes de desmontar eso, vayamos por unos breves antecedentes históricos.

Historia del Fideísmo

Para eso, debemos viajar a la historia de la teología católica, el fideísmo como un movimiento de pensamiento se desarrolló en Francia a mediados del siglo XIX:

Este movimiento nació para ser antítesis hacia racionalismo y el liberalismo del siglo pasado y sus principales representantes suelen enlistarse a el abate Bautain (1867), A. Grahy (1872). A. Bonnettv (1879), fundador de los Annales de pílilosophie chrétienne, Bonald (1840) como Lamennais (1854).

La principal característica del movimiento fue una crítica cerrada contra la razón humana convertida por los enciclopedistas en el criterio único de verdad, en favor de una exaltación exagerada de la fe, fundamento de sí misma y capaz de reconocer la verdad de la revelación sin ninguna necesidad de signos exteriores o de motivos de credibilidad.

Aunque las desviaciones del fideísmo fueron condenadas varias veces por el Magisterio, sobre todo con Gregorio XVI (DS 2751-2756), con pío IX en la encíclica Qui pluribus de 1846 (DS 2778-2780) y finalmente por el concilio Vaticano I, -donde se reconoció expresamente la posibilidad de conocer a Dios “con la luz natural de la razón humanan (DS 3004; DS 3008-3009), todavía hoy siguen estando presentes ciertas formas larvadas de esta actitud en muchos católicos (como protestantes), que no conceden ninguna importancia a los problemas de credibilidad de la revelación.[1]

Por otro lado:

…estas fórmulas sistemáticas de fideísmo, nos encontramos a través de toda la historia de la filosofía desde la época de los sofistas hasta la actualidad una actitud fideísta de la mente, que se volvió más o menos conspicua en diferentes períodos. El fideísmo debe su origen a la desconfianza en la razón humana, y la secuencia lógica de esta actitud es el escepticismo. Es para escapar de esta conclusión que algunos filósofos, aceptando como principio la impotencia de la razón, han hecho hincapié en la necesidad de la creencia por parte de la naturaleza humana, ya sea afirmando la primacía de la fe sobre la razón o, de otro modo, afirmando una separación radical entre la razón y la creencia, es decir, entre la ciencia y la filosofía por un lado y la religión por el otro.

Tal es la posición adoptada por Kant, cuando distingue entre la razón pura, confinada a la subjetividad, y la razón práctica, que sola es capaz de ponernos por un acto de fe en relación con la realidad objetiva. También es una actitud fideísta que es la ocasión del agnosticismo, positivismo, pragmatismo y otras formas modernas de anti-intelectualismo

No es de sorprender, por lo tanto, que la Iglesia haya condenado tales doctrinas. En 1348, la Santa Sede proscribió ciertas proposiciones fideístas de Nicholas d´Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10ma. ed., núms. 553-570). En sus dos encíclicas, una en septiembre de 1832 y la otra en julio de 1834, el Papa Gregorio XVI condenó las ideas políticas y filosóficas de Lamenais. El 8 de septiembre de 1840 se le requirió a Bautain que suscribiera varias proposiciones directamente opuestas al fideísmo, la primera y la quinta de las cuales leen como sigue:

“”La razón humana es capaz de probar con certeza la existencia de Dios; la fe, un don celestial, es posterior a la revelación, y por lo tanto no se puede utilizar adecuadamente contra el ateo para probar la existencia de Dios “; y “El uso de la razón precede a la fe y, con la ayuda de la revelación y de la gracia, conduce a ella.” Y, finalmente, el Concilio Vaticano I enseña como un dogma de la fe católica que “un verdadero Dios y Señor puede ser conocido con certeza por la luz natural de la razón humana por medio de las cosas creadas”.[2]

Es bastante evidente que el despreciar las enseñanzas de los sabios, los descubrimientos científicos del pasado, y la voz de común acuerdo sería condenarnos a una infancia perpetua en el conocimiento, hacer imposible cualquier avance en la ciencia, ignorar el carácter social del hombre y hacer la vida humana intolerable: pero, por otro lado, es un error hacer de estos elementos el criterio supremo de la verdad, ya que son sólo reglas particulares de certeza, cuya validez está cimentada sobre una norma más fundamental. En efecto, es cierto que la certeza moral difiere de la matemática, pero la diferencia no reside en la firmeza o la validez de la certeza que ofrece, sino en el proceso utilizado y las disposiciones requeridas por la naturaleza de las verdades con las que tratan respectivamente.[3]

Promotores del Fideísmo

En la actualidad todavía hay ciertos cristianos siguen con este pensamiento irracional y que para nada concuerda ni con la historia de la iglesia primitiva ni con la misma biblia, de hecho, vamos a citar a ciertas personas que promulgan esto, no obstante, hasta un reformador se une a esta penosa lista:

«Si quieres moverte en lo sobrenatural tienes que dejar a un lado la razón»

—Guillermo Maldonado.

«No te pierdas en medio de tanto conocimiento de la Palabra. ¡Cree! Eso es lo importante.»

—Cash Luna.

«No Seas un Cristiano Razonable»

—Otoniel Font.

«Los hechos pueden decirte una cosa. Pero, Dios no está limitado por los hechos. Elige la fe a pesar de los hechos.»

—Joel Osteen.

Decepcionante… ¿Verdad? Y como pueden ver, en general son los predicadores de un evangelio a lo “pare de sufrir” o el evangelio de la prosperidad los que predican estas ideas.

Ahora bien, esta pequeña lista no trata de ser exhaustiva y tampoco trata de exponer un remanente del anti-intelectualismo en el protestantismo. Pues el catolicismo, por lo menos en el área popular también existe este tipo de ideas, así que, si es de una denominación u otra, es irrelevante, lo que nos importa discutir es el problema del fideísmo.

Por otro lado, los promotores y defensores del Ateísmo y principalmente del Nuevo Ateísmo, aplaudirían y se levantarían de sus sillas de lo más felices por escuchar estas palabras, de hecho, hasta comparten dichos pensamientos, aquí algunas citas:

«La fe es la gran excusa, la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar las pruebas. La fe es creencia a pesar, incluso tal vez por la falta de evidencia».[4]

—Richard Dawkins.

«La fe es la rendición de la mente; es la rendición de la razón, es la rendición de lo único que nos diferencia de otros mamíferos».[5]

—Christopher Hitchens.

«La fe generalmente no es más que el permiso que las personas religiosas se dan mutuamente para creer las cosas fuertemente sin evidencia».[6]

—Sam Harris.

Debo de decir que, si un cristiano que va en esta línea de pensamiento (aunque lo desconozca y lo haga inconscientemente) se le pone en duda su creencia o doctrina, muy posiblemente pasen 4 cosas:

Ignorará las objeciones en contra de su fe o doctrina.
Insultara a su replicante.
Dara una excusa para no replicar con versículos de la biblia y con mucha seguridad, serán citas sacadas de contexto.

O en el peor de los casos…

Se alejará de su fe o doctrina.

De hecho, este tipo de cristianos se basan más en sus experiencias emocionales que en la misma biblia y debo de mencionar que esto es lo que asombra más de ellos, por varios motivos. La primera razón obviamente, es que a medida que estas personas crecen en su fe, prefieren vivir en un éxtasis que conocer y asegurar que la biblia es verdadera como también si su Fe es verdadera.

La segunda razón es que este tipo de cristianos, le tienen miedo al conocimiento de la palabra de Dios (Su estudio formal y sistematizado).

Y la tercera razón, más extraño aun, es un delirio que no quieran profundizar y conocer su fe, porque piensen que la “letra mata”. De las tres razones presentadas, creo que esta es la más disparatada.

Próxima parte, la historia que hay de cristianos con una fe razonable.

Referencias:

[1] R. Latourelle, Fideísmo y tradicionalismo, en DTF, 483-486: R. Aubert, El acto de fe, Barcelona 1965:

https://mercaba.org/VocTEO/F/fideismo.htm

[2] PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5ta ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Critériologie générale (4ta. ed., Lovaina, 1900), III, ch. I; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4ta. ed., Londres, 1901), chs. XII, XIII.

Párrafo 4 al 8.

[3] Ibíd, párrafo 9.

[4] Discurso del Festival Internacional de Ciencia de Edimburgo (1992)

[5] Penn y Teller: ¡Mierda! (Temporada 3, Episodio 5: “Holier Than Thou”)

[6] Carta a una nación cristiana (Vintage Books, 2008), 110.

Xavier González es de Venezuela, se dedica al estudio de la filosofía, cristianismo primitivo y teología. Se convirtió al cristianismo a los 15 años. Administró la página de Me Lo Contó Un Ateo y es el encargado de la sección de apologética de la página de la Iglesia cristiana la gracia (http://www.iglesialagracia.org).

November 11, 2019/by Guest

You Might Be a Deist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Atlanta native Jeff Foxworthy made a name for himself as a stand-up comedian doing a routine called “You might be a redneck.” Some of these classic one-liners include, “If you have a set of salad bowls and they all say Cool Whip on the side, you might be a redneck … If you have ever been accused of lying through your tooth, you might be a redneck … If you ever use your ironing board as a buffet table, you might be a redneck.” Foxworthy is a masterful comedian.

A theological system known as deism is no laughing matter. Deists hold that God is transcendent but is impersonal and has no dealings with the world. Therefore, deists deny such things as special revelation (that God can communicate with human beings) and miracles. Problematically, it seems as if many professing Christian theists are practicing deists. The following are three ways in which modern Christianity seems to be drifting towards a form of deism.

You might be a deist if you reject divine communication. Undoubtedly, many people abuse and misuse the phrase, “The Lord told me.” Some have claimed that the Lord told them that they needed to raise so many millions of dollars for a new jet or for a new building. While many of those claims are greatly suspect, the reaction to the extreme charismatic movement tends to move too far in the other direction. For instance, John MacArthur notes that “The truth is, there is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God does not need to give private revelation to help us in our walk with Him” (quoted in Buettel, “The Lord Told Me,” GTY.org, https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160122/the-lord-told-me). The problem with MacArthur’s response is that he is gravitating towards an implicit deism. John Morrison warns that modern theology has greatly been influenced by a cosmological dualism which tends to shut God out of the world from all “spatio-historical action and objective self-declaration” (Morrison, Has God Said, 2). Is it not then possible, at least, that God could communicate with individuals on a personal level? I think so. Furthermore, I think God communicates with us often, although not in an audible voice necessarily. Yet, I would caution that we do need to check everything by Scripture as God does not lie and, thereby, would not contradict what he has said in his word (Titus 1:2).
You might be a deist if you reject divine miracles. While it would be difficult to imagine that any Christian would dismiss God’s ability to perform miracles, the anticipation that God could work a miracle has seemingly declined in a modern rationalistic belief-system. This, too, comes from a philosophical ideology that holds that God cannot interact with space and time. However, is God not the one who created and developed the laws of nature that govern the universal system? If God is the one who created all things, including the laws that bind things together, then one could certainly hold that God continues to perform miracles as God sees fit. The rejection of God’s ability to perform miracles in the current age shows a bent towards deism rather than classical Christian theism.
You might be a deist if you reject divine relationships. Finally, it seems that some writers and scholars (and I use general language intentionally) have popularized a notion that divine relationships are not biblical. That is, a person should simply accept a theological truth and not pursue an intimate relationship with a holy God. However, that again leans towards a deistic understanding of God. Jesus says, “On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you” (John 14:20, CSB) before saying, “Remain in me, and I in you” (John 15:4, CSB). Paul writes, “The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8:16–17, CSB). A covenantal relationship with God is deeply personal. Thus, we should not think that our journey is one that is walked alone. Rather, the believer has the promise that God will be with them until the very end (Matt. 28:20).

This article is not to badmouth any theologian or writer. Certainly, the individuals who wrote against certain practices did so with a concern that certain people were abusing the name of God. Nothing could be worse than that. Yet, the history of humanity reveals that individuals typically have the uncanny ability to take issues to its extreme end. My concern is that by guarding individuals from New Age philosophies and radical forms of Christianity—some which have become quite cult-like—many are leading individuals into a form of deistic theology. Throughout the pages of Scripture, individuals have encountered God personally and radically. Their walk with God was quite personal and relational. While God is mighty and awesome, he is also tender, compassionate, and near to all of us. May we never forget that.

The Devil’s Delusion with Dr. David Berlinski

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank interviews one of his favorite authors, the provocative and articulate Dr. David Berlinski. Dr. David Berlinski is an author, thinker, professor, and self-described secular Jew, who with wit and elegance dismantles the assumptions and assertions of Darwinists and other atheistic materialists in his interviews and his books. Berlinski has his Ph.D. from Princeton University, has taught at Stanford and Rutgers, and is a fellow at the Discovery Institute (along with frequent guest Dr. Stephen Meyer). He lives in Paris but did this interview from Los Angeles where he was for an interview with Ben Shapiro. Join Frank for a far-reaching discussion with Dr. Berlinski who is incapable of being boring.

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

November 9, 2019/by Guest

How to Work through Doubt and Uncertainty

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Matthew Slama

In the guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement from JCGM, it defines uncertainty as meaning doubt. It specifically defines uncertainty of measurement as meaning doubt about the validity of the result of a measurement.

I recently presented at a technical conference on methods of computing measurement uncertainty and was thinking about the applicability of these concepts to other areas of knowledge. We don’t see doubt and uncertainty in science the same as we do in religion. In religion, it is often viewed as a bad thing. But in science, it is often viewed as a good thing. The reason for this is in scientific endeavors; you are trying to achieve an end result – knowledge. In the scientific community, when one realizes that there is uncertainty, that is not the end. You do not just drop everything and realize you can’t go anywhere. That would be antithetical to the human tour de force or spirit. No, when we arrive at some level of doubt or uncertainty, we create a new test, we develop new methods, we try harder, we think smarter. We realize that we want to know something and use our innovative and inventive mind to reach that goal. When we have spent that effort, we end up with more confidence and more certainty in our end goal – knowledge.

But in the religious community for some reason, we think that if we have doubt it is something unpardonable and we must stop doubting. So instead of taking some guidance from the thinking faculties that God gave us (reason), we take our guidance from the pre-enlightenment era. This is a cultural affliction in many believing groups and has caused many to fall away. I have seen it first-hand.

Why has religion not followed up with science in terms of how we behave and respond to uncertainty or doubt?
Why is it that we don’t see uncertainty or doubt in religion as a stepping stone to the next breakthrough in our lives?
Why do we not plunge forward with the resolve that investigating uncertainty and doubt will result in something better, something stronger, or something greater?

I think that this is from the sinful nature of man – slothfulness and fear.

I should note that the scientific community is far from perfect… I have seen this slothfulness and fear time and time again in the scientific community. I’ve seen organizations run tests with no uncertainty analysis and make decisions off faulty data. They didn’t address the doubt or rather uncertainty that they had their measurement. I’ve seen this go sour many times and cost corporations millions of dollars. It’s because people didn’t do the due diligence of finding out what their uncertainties really are. I get it. I really do. It’s difficult to be prudent. It takes a lot of effort to survey the weak points in our systems. Sometimes it takes great humility. It’s hard to put together one’s uncertainties and find out what and where you need to improve

However, I see clients that do the hard work of finding out where there are uncertainties are then address these areas of uncertainty. These corrective actions result in measurement and knowledge that has lower uncertainty and results in moving forward in confidence that they’re making the right decision for their product development. I think it’s time we do the same in the Christian church community.

To do this, we need communities that are able to open up and share the struggles that they’re going through in their relationship with God. It takes asking the hard personal questions.

Do I know the core concepts of Christianity? Write down a core Christian concept without consulting a guide. How did you do?
Can I defend my faith? Look up a common Atheist, Muslim, or Jewish attack on Christianity and answer it without consulting a guide. Afterward find a theological solution and learn it
Why do I think that Christ is God? Describe a historical fact that gives credence to the authenticity of Christ as God without consulting a guide
Are there emotional issues I have that prevent me from Evangelizing? Go and share Christ with someone. If you are too afraid, find out why. Ask why am I scared? Create one action step to work on that “why” and do it.
What emotional issues am I bringing into my faith? Take the survey howwelove.com to find any childhood links that shape how we love and receive love. Anxiety can also drive mad amounts of doubt. This and other mental illnesses can shape very impoverished views of God.
What distortions of Christianity do I believe? Think of our cultural Christianity that did not exist in 1st or 2nd century Christianity. Think of how our country’s wealth shapes our thinking. Are you in the 1% of the world? ~43% of Americans are ( data from ASEC data 2017-2018)
What habitual sins do I need to talk with someone about? Find a close friend, pastor, or counselor to confess and work through sins and emotional baggage.

That only happens in small groups and communities that are showing the love of God because it takes a lot of patience and love to work through other people’s issues (and our own). We need to work on these things if we want to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Yes, it is difficult, but it’s totally worth it.

This week, ask yourself one of the questions above and ask a friend a question. You might be surprised.

Racism, Racial Reconciliation & The Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Carter Keller

In recent years, America has once again become susceptible to racial prejudice on a cultural scale. It is difficult, however, to determine how widespread racism is in the nation. Especially since those currently in the spotlight, politicians, media, cultural influencers, etc., are constantly making charges of racism at every turn. However, it is undeniable for all of us that, at least, racial suspicion has come back with a vengeance. Often we ask the questions of “How?” and “Why?” and go down rabbit trails of factors such as poverty, institutional racism, white privilege, etc. I am not interested in getting lost in the weeds. I am interested in the core issue, how to fix the core issue, and then moving on to fry bigger fish. I ask you to join me, and our first step, naturally, is to define racism. Once we have done so, we can then discuss the core issue which drives racism and how to solve it.

Racism is the idea where one person or people group is superior to another person or people group based solely on the fact they are a member of this particular group. When we “dig a little deeper,” (to borrow a phrase from Mama Odie), we learn racism is another spawn of a deeper problem: hatred. Hatred takes many forms, and racism is just another rotten incarnation. And yet, this is still not enough. Where does hatred come from? Why does hatred exist in any form?

Without going too far into another topic for another paper, it is undeniably clear God exists. No man can escape him. C.S Lewis presented one of the greatest arguments against atheism in human history when he wrote in The Case for Christianity;

“‎Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” (C.S Lewis; The Case for Christianity p. 32)

We are able to learn who this God is through the Bible. Among an infinite number of things, He is the Source of Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. If one were to reject God, they reject everything about Him, including Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. When one rejects Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace, the resulting world will be marked with Death, Hatred, Lies, Evil, and Chaos. Thousands of years ago, we rejected God in the Garden of Eden. Hatred came with sin, and sin separates us from God. When I drop a ball from the top of a building, it is only a natural consequence the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. Just as falling is the natural consequence of gravity, death and hatred are the natural consequence of sin, as Scripture clearly states, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)

However, God did not want us to be slaves to such a fate! It is possible to be reconciled with God, as 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 states: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf: “Be reconciled to God.” He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God.” God made a way through His Son, Jesus, as Scripture declares over and over again:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“A thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.” (John 10:10)
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live.” (John 11:25)
“If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9).

God wants us to be reconciled to Him in a perfect relationship with Him. God wants humanity to be saved from our fate of death and separation so we can live forever and abundantly with God. It is through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection from the dead alone we can be saved. There is no other name under Heaven by which we may be saved, as God has also stated in His Scripture (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel, or Good News, is the truth which tells us we may be reconciled with God the way the Prodigal Son was reconciled with his father in the book of Luke, (Luke 15:11-32). So how, now, shall we live? Once we are reconciled with God, immediately, God indwells us as “temples” walking around the earth (1 Corinthians 6:19). Once we are reconciled with God, we are reconnected to God, and therefore we begin to live as such. Since God is the source of Life, Love, Truth, Good and Peace, in communion with Him, we begin to live our lives spreading Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace. Since God is love, we as believers and reconciled children who are saved by grace through faith must love our brothers and sisters, neighbors, and even enemies (1 John 4:7-21; Ephesians 2:8-9; Matthew 5:43-47). There is no room for hatred at the feet of Jesus, nor is there room for division at the foot of the Cross, for all of us equally have sinned against God (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; Romans 3:23).

When we are reconciled with God, we are reconciled with each other. This reconciliation is expressed in its fullness through our actions in fulfillment of Jesus’ words, “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34-35). And how did Jesus love us? By laying down His life for us. Sacrificing His life as a ransom for our souls in order that we may have His righteousness and perfection placed on us to fulfill His desire where we “may be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). There is no special love or any rituals we must perform to be reconciled to one particular group of people. The mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel concerning reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). When we are reconciled to God, we are able to be reconciled to each other.

Racial reconciliation should not be a special category of reconciliation. Racism and all other forms of hatred are utterly defeated and crushed when we just love each other without any goals, agendas, and without making a point about the skin color of the people in the room. Believe it or not, if we are reaching out to a specific people group because they are a specific people group, (for example, if we engage with a community outreach program just to reach a neighborhood because it is predominantly African-American), this is simply compounding and multiplying the problem. You are still focused on the color of their skin and not on the state of their souls. You are still focused on achieving diversity when, by default, humanity is already diverse because no two people are alike. You are still focused on racial division, and by acknowledging there is something different about them, you are simply exacerbating the issue. Children only learn racism from those who teach about it, and only act as if there is division if others tell them division exists. We do not make “black” friends, or “white” friends, or “red” friends. We just make friends. If we say “blackness” or “whiteness” is a “part of who I am,” then we have misunderstood what God says when He calls us to abide in Him and find our identity in Him and nothing else (John 15:4-5; Exodus 20:3).

Christ did not call us to reconcile the races. He called the one race named Mankind to be reconciled to God, and then be reconciled to each other. If we simply live out the Gospel in our lives, racism will die, hatred will retreat, and Love will win the day. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the child-like innocence which follows (as Jesus used when talking of how to enter the Kingdom of God) are the only real and lasting cures for racism and its root causes. The Church needs to stop focusing on race. Our primary job is not social justice reform on this side of Heaven, nor is it our job to pursue diversity as a goal to be achieved. Our job is to spread the Gospel to the corners of the Earth and pray the Holy Spirit would move in the hearts of the lost so they would repent and be reconciled to God through Christ. Our only desire should be to see as many people as possible be saved by the blood of Jesus, the Messiah, King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of peace, the great I AM and Creator, and Sustainer of all things. All other messages, mantras, and ideals fall to the wayside, and they pale in comparison to the glory and freedom of Jesus of Nazareth, risen from the dead, and ascended at the right hand of God. Our priority is the Gospel, and we have no other. We must abandon racial reconciliation as the goal. We must recognize diversity already exists, and abandon the pursuit of what we already have attained. We must embrace our only true mission, the only reconciliation which truly matters in all of human history: the lost sheep with the Shepard, the lost souls to the Creator, and the sinners to the Savior.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Character, not circumstances, makes the man.”

Booker T. Washington

“I know that my Redeemer lives. Thank God I love humanity; complexion doesn’t interest me one single bit.”

George Washington Carver

Scripture references are from the following sources:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 – English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

John 3:16 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 10:10 -Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 11:35 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 10:9 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

1 John 4:7-21 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 3:23 – New International Version (NIV)

Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan Company, 1942.

King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Strength to Love. 1963.

Washington, Booker T., “Democracy and Education.” Institute of Arts and Sciences, 3o

September 1896, Brooklyn, NY. Address

The Washington Standard. “George Washington Carver: ‘Thank God I Love Humanity;

Complexion Doesn’t Interest Me One Single Bit.”.” The Washington Standard, 14

July 2016, thewashingtonstandard.com/george-washington-carver-thank-god-love-humanity-complexion-doesnt-interest-one-single-bit/

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

References

Secular Devolution

Logos: Truth in Toto

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Can These Bones Live?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Watch the Table Podcast

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

Reviewer’s Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Definición

Antes de profundizar en el tema, creo que es importante dar una definición apropiada a lo que el Fideísmo es realmente:

Historia del Fideísmo

Promotores del Fideísmo

—Guillermo Maldonado.

—Cash Luna.

—Otoniel Font.

—Joel Osteen.

—Richard Dawkins.

—Christopher Hitchens.

—Sam Harris.

Referencias:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture references are from the following sources:

Recommended resources related to the topic: