By Natasha Crain
Regret.
It’s something I often hear from parents who are heartbroken that their teen or adult kids have walked away from Christianity.
Whether it’s through one of my online books read along groups, private emails, blog comments, Facebook messages, or at speaking events, when parents reach out to me about their kids walking away from faith, their words are laced with painful sadness and a sense that they in some way failed.
My kids are still young (ages 9 and 7), so I haven’t faced this myself, but I relate to these parents because I have so often experienced my own sense of parenting failure.
I haven’t shown enough patience, and I see them exhibiting their own impatience.
I haven’t given them enough conflict resolution skills, and I see them argue constantly.
I haven’t spent enough time showing them how to serve others, and I see them lacking perspective on how to live out their faith.
As a parent, there are so many I haven’ts. And there will always be, because none of us are perfect. We cannot flawlessly deliver all that our kids need. But there’s something about I haven’t that implies opportunity.
I haven’t implies I haven’t yet.
When our kids leave home, however, those I haven’ts will cement into regretful I didn’ts.
As Christian parents, there should be nothing more important to us than raising our kids to know and love Jesus. How could there be something more important if our kids’ relationship with Jesus has eternal implications? Yet we have to recognize that we don’t control whether or not our kids become Christ-followers. The heavy burden of I didn’ts that so often comes with a child’s rejection of faith must be tempered with grace and placed at the foot of the cross.
At the same time, parents with kids still at home can’t ignore the fact that there is much we can do to help our kids develop a lasting faith. We are called to actively disciple our kids (Deuteronomy 6)—not to sit back and see what happens. We should focus on what we can control and give the rest to God.
With that in mind, there are many regrets we can purposefully avoid. They are things that we largely have in our control and that we should be able to reasonably identify as responsibilities long before I didn’t becomes a reality. Here are five you don’t want to have if your kids walk away from faith. Unfortunately, they are five I hear from parents far too often.
- You didn’t give them a deep enough understanding of Christianity.
Research has shown time after time that at least 60 percent of kids who grew up in church walk away from their faith by their early 20s (here is an excellent summary of the studies). Don’t be jaded by the numbers—that is a crazy statistic.
Young people often turn away from Jesus, however, with a flawed understanding of the nature of truth, what Christianity even is, and what the Bible teaches.
They think that Christianity requires blind faith; that a person must choose between faith and science; that Christianity basically boils down to living with “good values”; that Christians think they’re better than others; that Christians aren’t loving if they declare something is sinful according to the Bible; and much more.
How sad to think that many turns away from what they think is Christianity, but is actually only a caricature of it based on layers of misunderstandings built from popular culture over time.
One of the most important things we can do as parents is to ensure our kids deeply understand what, exactly, Christianity is—and isn’t. This requires us to 1) study the Bible deeply with our kids and 2) be educated on how the world gets Christianity wrong so we can proactively correct those misunderstandings with our kids.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that they accurately understand what they’re rejecting.
- You didn’t expose them to the claims of skeptics.
A lot of parents are overwhelmed at the thought of helping their kids learn the case for Christianity and how to defend their faith against the seemingly ubiquitous challenges today.
Where do you start? Where do you end? How can you cover it all? How can kids ever really be sufficiently prepared? How can we even be prepared ourselves?
But here’s what you need to know: Helping your kids develop a faith that’s prepared for today’s challenges is not a nebulous, impossible task.
Skeptics make a predictable set of claims, so we have a pretty specific agenda we should be covering with our kids over time. Think of it like helping them study for a test. You might not be able to anticipate every conceivable question they’ll get, but you can make sure they know what major subject areas they’ll encounter and how to think through the most important questions in those areas. They’re not venturing out into a completely wild blue yonder. This test can be studied for.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because they were taken aback by shocking claims they hadn’t heard first from me.
- You didn’t make enough time for conversations about faith.
In their research for the book Sticky Faith, Kara Powell, and Chap Clark surveyed 11,000 church-going teenagers and asked how many of them talk with their parents about faith. They found that only 12% of kids talk regularly with their mom about faith and 5% with their dads.
What a devastating fact.
How can we help kids navigate the complexities of faith in a challenging world if we’re having zero or few conversations about it with them? Let’s be clear: This is completely in our control. It’s simply a matter of prioritizing the time needed and learning what conversations need to be had.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because I didn’t invest time consistently and continually in having meaningful and relevant spiritual conversations with them.
- You relied on the church to develop their spiritual life.
Being part of a fellowship with other believers is an important part of Christian life. But there’s no question that simply getting your kids to church each week is not enough to prepare them to be independent followers of Jesus—especially in a challenging world like this. Parents must accept responsibility as the primary spiritual influencer in the life of their child.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because I delegated the responsibility of spiritual discipleship to the church.
- You focused more on raising kids with “good values” than raising kids with Jesus.
This might be one of the mantras of this blog given how much I repeat it, but it’s so important, I need to say it over and over: good values are not the same as Christianity. None of us want to raise kids who are little terrors in the world. We want them to be pleasant people who generally exhibit what the Bible identifies as fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. It’s easy to forget, however, that those qualities are fruits of the Spirit, not fruits of how hard we try. They are the outcome of a Spirit-filled life: the fruit, not the root.
If we focus on raising kids who are simply “good people” (by whatever behavioral definition you want to assume), and not on raising kids who love Jesus as the root of the fruit, we’re just raising future secular humanists.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because they believed good values were pretty much the same as Christianity and eventually decided they didn’t Jesus.
If these points raise some I haven’ts for you, take a moment to consider right now what needs to change. Know that they don’t have to become I didn’ts. And rest in the peace of knowing you’re not responsible for your child’s ultimate decision to follow Jesus, but rather for being obedient to your calling as the primary spiritual influencer in your child’s life.
If you need a resource to help you with these points, you’ll find what you need in my latest book, Talking with your Kids about God. You’ll get equipped to help your kids understand Christianity more deeply; you’ll know specifically what claims skeptics make about God that you need to expose them to; you’ll learn how to have those conversations (every chapter has a step-by-step conversation guide); you’ll see what it means to take responsibility for their spiritual development rather than delegating to the church; and you’ll be prepared to teach why good values depend on the existence of God.
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/2EvgtpF
Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?
2. Does God Exist?Por Evan Minton
Some atheists, in an attempt to avoid the conclusion that The Big Bang origin of our universe was caused by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, supernatural Being (i.e God), have posited that perhaps our universe and everything in it is just a computer simulation being run by aliens in a laboratory. The Big Bang was the launch of the program and the development of the universe by its finely tuned laws were all a part of the program-universe’s code.
If you think I’m making this up, check out this quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson in his award-winning book Astrophysics For People In A Hurry:
“Or what if everything we know and love were just a computer simulation rendered for entertainment by a superintelligent alien species?” [1][2]
I also saw this idea flushed out in a cartoon where a couple of aliens were at this massive particle accelerator. The aliens were your typical little green men, with no hair, giant black eyes, and silvery space suits. And the picture depicts our universe as being the result of an experiment the aliens were doing with the large particle accelerator/collider.
Are these atheists right? Was The Big Bang the result of aliens messing around with a particle accelerator in their universe?[3] Or are we just a simulation in a program by beings more advanced than we are? Refuting this proposal is the aim of this blog post.
ANY UNIVERSE OF ALIENS CREATING A COMPUTER SIMULATION MUST HAVE A BEGINNING
First of all, even if we conceded this idea (which even Tyson only throws out as a bare possibility), it wouldn’t get rid of God. It wouldn’t eradicate the conceptual analysis of The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why? Because in the universe in which the computer simulating ours exists, that universe must be enduring through time. If this universe is enduring through time, then it must have a beginning and therefore a transcendent cause.
How did I reach this conclusion? From one of the same philosophical/mathematical arguments that lead me to conclude that our universe had a beginning. First of all, we know that these aliens would have to be enduring through time because the aliens are living in a world of cause and effect, of before-and-after relationships. There was a time before these alien scientists were born and a time after they were born. There was a time before they got their degrees in computer engineering and a time after they graduated. There was a time before they built the computer which caused our simulated universe and a time after they ran the simulation. Before-and-after relationships are impossible without time. According to the description of this theory, our alien creature creators are temporal beings. This leads me to my next point.
1: It is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of temporal moments.
2: If it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of moments, then the present moment cannot be reached.
3: The present moment has been reached.
4: Therefore, we have not endured through an actually infinite number of temporal moments (i.e the universe had a beginning).
This is a logically valid syllogism. If the premises are true, so is the conclusion. So, are the premises true? I think they are.
Let’s look at premise 1. If the universe of our alien creators were eternal and beginningless (unlike the universe they simulated), then that means their world endured through an actually infinite number of moments to reach the point in time in which they caused their simulation. Before the day of the simulation, the day before the simulation had to dawn. And before the day before the day of the simulation could dawn, the day before the day before the day before the simulation could dawn. Before that day could dawn, the day before it had to dawn. Before that day could dawn, the day before it had to dawn, and so on and so forth. As you can see, the day in which the alien scientists caused their universe simulation could never have arrived, because there would need to pass an infinite number of prior moments. In fact, no moment in their universe at all could dawn. Before each day in the infinite series of days, there would always have to be a day that had to dawn first.
Getting to the present moment while having to first cross an infinite number of past events is analogous to jumping out of a bottomless pit, or causing a bottomless coffee pot to overflow. No matter how much coffee you pour into the cup, it will never fill up to the brim.
But if an infinite past could not be crossed, then that means the day of the start of the simulation could not arrive. And that means our present day could not arrive. The start of our 14 billion year history could never have occurred (this is premise 2). But clearly, the present moment has arrived (premise 3). We’re here. You’re reading this blog post right now. It is self-evident that the present has arrived. This means that the universe of our alien creators could not have endured forever, but must have a beginning. And since everything that begins to exist must have a cause, it follows that the universe of our alien creators must have a cause.
BUT MAYBE WE’RE IN A SIMULATION THAT’S INSIDE A SIMULATION
At this point, the atheist might respond “Okay, but maybe the universe of our alien creators is a simulation as well. We’re in a simulation that’s inside a simulation. Just like how a nesting doll can be inside of another nesting doll”. This doesn’t solve the problem. It only pushes it back a notch. Are those aliens subject to time? It would seem so if they evolved, were born, grew up, went to universities to get degrees in computer programming, and then created a universe-simulation that would have a universe-simulation within it. In that case, you run into the same problem. That universe must also have a beginning.
But perhaps the atheist could say “Well, perhaps we’re a simulation within a simulation within a simulation?” Again, the same problems apply.
What happens is that in this alien-scientist-creating-a-universe-simulation scenario is that you get thrown into an infinite regress of aliens creating universe simulations which themselves contain aliens that create universe simulations which themselves contain universe simulations with themselves contain universe simulations ad infinitum.
As already explained above, traversing an actually infinite number of things is impossible. Our own simulation could never have arisen if a past infinite number of universe simulations had to come into being first. Before the aliens could simulate our universe, their universe had to be simulated, and before their universe could be simulated, their universe had to be a simulation, and so on ad infinitum. No simulation could ever come to past, and ergo the present simulation (and present moment within the simulation) could never come to be.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It means that even in a scenario which posits super advanced aliens creating a computer program of a universe, you eventually get traced back to a universe that is not a computer simulation, but nevertheless contains super advanced alien creatures and (wait for it….) had a beginning. In this scenario, we must come to a first universe, the first beginning, and therefore, the first cause.
But what properties would this cause have? It wouldn’t be a team of super advanced aliens since this first-universe is not itself the result of a prior team of alien scientists. The cause would transcend all physical reality, all of space and time, and therefore be immaterial and uncaused. In other words, God rears His holy head again.
God is exempt from the problems the aliens creators would have. He had no beginning and is uncaused, and therefore needs no prior cause to explain Him. God being beginningless wouldn’t imply that He endured through an actually infinite number of moments because God, sans creation of time, existed outside of time. There was no time. Once God flicked the first domino, time began. This is a bit of a heavy subject, and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has devoted an entire book the to the subject,[4] but I just wanted to point out that being timeless sans creation, God avoids the problems associated with being beginningless in a temporal manner.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately for the atheists, this alien computer simulation idea only forces God to go upstairs at most. It doesn’t get rid of Him. The conceptual analysis of The Kalam Cosmological Argument still stands.
Notes
[1] deGrasse Tyson, Neil. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (Kindle Locations 170-171). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
[2] Don’t let this wild idea deter you from getting Tyson’s book by the way. He only mentions the simulation idea in this one place. Astrophysics For People In A Hurry It is a fantastic introductory course in astrophysics. Tyson does not put forth wild theories like this throughout, and he only shows his atheistic sleeve a total of two times. The first in this part of the book, and the second, in the final chapter. It’s an overall religiously neutral work. I recommend anyone who loves science (and is especially not well read in science) to pick up the book.
[3] By the way, this happened in a Doctor Who episode (titled Extremis). I won’t describe what happened in the episode. Watch it yourself. Watch the whole series in fact. It’s an awesome show!
[4] The book is called “Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship To Time”.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ErH4n3
¿Es el universo una simulación computarizada?
EspañolPor Evan Minton
Algunos ateos, en un intento de evitar la conclusión de que el origen del Big Bang de nuestro universo fue causado por un ser sin espacio, intemporal, inmaterial, sin causa, poderoso, sobrenatural (es decir, Dios), han postulado que tal vez nuestro universo y todo lo que hay en él es solo una simulación computarizada dirigida por extraterrestres en un laboratorio. El Big Bang fue el lanzamiento del programa y el desarrollo del universo por sus leyes finamente ajustadas formaba parte del código del programa-universo.
Si crees que estoy inventando esto, revisa esta cita de Neil deGrasse Tyson en su galardonado libro Astrophysics For People In A Hurry (en español: Astrofísica para la gente que tiene prisa):
“¿O qué pasaría si todo lo que conocemos y amamos fuera solo una simulación computarizada hechos para el entretenimiento por una especie de alienígena supe inteligente?”[1][2]
También vi esta idea arrojada en una caricatura donde un par de extraterrestres estaban en este enorme acelerador de partículas. Los extraterrestres eran tus típicos hombrecillos verdes, sin pelo, ojos negros gigantescos, y trajes espaciales plateados. Y la imagen muestra nuestro universo como el resultado de un experimento que los extraterrestres estaban haciendo con el acelerador/colisionador de partículas grandes.
¿Estos son estos ateos, verdad? ¿Fue el Big Bang el resultado de extraterrestres jugando con un acelerador de partículas en su universo? [3] ¿O solo somos una simulación en un programa de seres más avanzados que nosotros? Refutar esta propuesta es el objetivo de esta entrada en el blog.
CUALQUIER UNIVERSO DE SIMULACIÓN COMPUTARIZADA CREADO POR EXTRATERRESTRES DEBE TENER UN PRINCIPIO
En primer lugar, incluso si admitimos esta idea (de la cual Tyson solo descarta como una posibilidad), no se desharía de Dios. No erradicaría el análisis conceptual del Argumento cosmológico Kalam. ¿Por qué? Porque en el universo en el que la computadora simula nuestro existir, ese universo debe perdurar en el tiempo. Si este universo perdura en el tiempo, entonces debe tener un comienzo y, por lo tanto, una causa trascendente.
¿Cómo llegué a esta conclusión? De uno de los mismos argumentos filosóficos/matemáticos que me llevan a la conclusión de que nuestro universo tuvo un comienzo. En primer lugar, sabemos que estos extraterrestres tendrían que perdurar en el tiempo porque los alienígenas viven en un mundo de causa y efecto, de relaciones de antes y después. Hubo un tiempo antes de que estos científicos alienígenas nacieran y un tiempo después que ellos nacieran. Hubo un tiempo antes de obtener sus títulos en ingeniería informática y un tiempo después que ellos se graduaran. Hubo un tiempo antes de que construyeran la computadora que causó nuestro universo simulado, y un tiempo después que funcionara la simulación. Las relaciones de antes y después son imposibles sin tiempo. Según la descripción de esta teoría, nuestras criaturas alienígenas creadores son seres temporales. Esto me lleva al siguiente punto.
Este es un silogismo lógicamente válido. Si las premisas son verdaderas, también lo es la conclusión. Entonces, ¿son ciertas las premisas? Creo que lo son.
Veamos la premisa 1. Si el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas fuera eterno y sin comienzo (a diferencia del universo que simularon), eso significa que su mundo soportó un número infinito de momentos para llegar al momento en el que causaron su simulación. Antes del día de la simulación, el día antes de la simulación tenía que comenzar. Y antes del día anterior al día de la simulación podría amanecer, el día anterior al día antes del día anterior a la simulación podría amanecer. Antes de que ese día pudiera amanecer, el día anterior tenía que amanecer. Antes de que ese día pudiera amanecer, el día anterior tenía que amanecer, y así sucesivamente. Como puedes ver, el día en que los científicos alienígenas causaron su simulación del universo nunca pudo haber llegado, porque habría que pasar un número infinito de momentos previos. De hecho, ningún momento en su universo en absoluto podría comenzar. Antes de cada día en la serie infinita de días, siempre tendría que haber un día que tuviera que amanecer primero.
Llegar al momento presente mientras se tiene que cruzar primero un número infinito de eventos pasados es análogo a saltar de un pozo sin fondo, o hacer que se desborde una cafetera sin fondo. No importa cuánto café vierta en la taza, nunca se llenará hasta el borde.
Pero si un pasado infinito no se puede cruzar, entonces eso significa que el día del inicio de la simulación no pudo llegar. Y eso significa que nuestro día actual no pudo llegar. El comienzo de nuestra historia de 14 mil millones de años nunca pudo haber ocurrido (esta es la premisa 2). Pero claramente, el momento presente ha llegado (premisa 3). Estamos aquí. Estás leyendo esta publicación en el blog ahora mismo. Es evidente que el presente ha llegado. Esto significa que el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas no podría haber perdurado para siempre, sino que debe tener un comienzo. Y dado que todo lo que comienza a existir debe tener una causa, se deduce que el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas debe tener una causa.
PERO QUIZÁS ESTEMOS EN UNA SIMULACIÓN DENTRO DE UNA SIMULACIÓN
En este punto, el ateo podría responder: “Está bien, pero tal vez el universo de nuestros creadores alienígenas es también una simulación. Estamos en una simulación que está dentro de una simulación. Así como una muñeca que hace su nido puede estar dentro de otro nido de muñeca”. Esto no resuelve el problema. Solo lo empuja hacia atrás otro nivel. ¿Están esos extraterrestres sujetos al tiempo? Parecería ser así, si evolucionaran, nacieran, crecieran, fueran a universidades para obtener títulos en programación de computadoras y luego crearan una simulación universal que tendría una simulación de universo dentro de ella. En ese caso, te encuentras con el mismo problema. Ese universo también debe tener un comienzo.
Pero tal vez el ateo podría decir: “Bueno, ¿tal vez somos una simulación dentro de una simulación dentro de una simulación?”. Nuevamente, se aplican los mismos problemas.
Lo que ocurre es que en este escenario de simulación-alienígena-científica-creadora-de-un-universo es que te lanzas a un retroceso infinito de alienígenas creando simulaciones universales que contienen alienígenas que crean simulaciones del universo que contienen simulaciones del universo consigo mismas que contienen simulaciones del universo indefinidamente.
Como ya se explicó anteriormente, atravesar un número realmente infinito de cosas es imposible. Nuestra propia simulación nunca podría haber surgido si un número pasado e infinito de simulaciones del universo tuviera que surgir primero. Antes de que los extraterrestres pudieran simular nuestro universo, su universo tendría que ser simulado, y antes de que su universo pudiera ser simulado, su universo tendría que ser una simulación, y así sucesivamente hasta el infinito. Ninguna simulación podría llegar al pasado, y ergo la simulación actual (y el momento presente dentro de la simulación) nunca podría llegar a ser.
¿QUÉ SIGNIFICA TODO ESTO?
Significa que incluso en un escenario en el que los alienígenas súper avanzados creen un programa informático de un universo, eventualmente se remonta a un universo que no sea una simulación por computadora, pero sin embargo contiene criaturas alienígenas súper avanzadas y (espera…) tuvo un comienzo. En este escenario, debemos llegar a un primer universo, el primer comienzo y, por lo tanto, la primera causa.
Pero, ¿qué propiedades tendría esta causa? No sería un equipo de extraterrestres avanzados ya que este primer universo no es en sí mismo el resultado de un equipo anterior de científicos alienígenas. La causa trascendería toda la realidad física, todo el espacio y el tiempo, y por lo tanto sería inmaterial y no causada. En otras palabras, Dios levanta Su santa cabeza otra vez.
Dios está exento de los problemas que los creadores de alienígenas tendrían. Él no tuvo comienzo y no es causado, y por lo tanto no necesita una causa previa para explicarlo. El hecho de que Dios no tenga principio no implicaría que Él haya aguantado a través de un número realmente infinito de momentos porque Dios, sin la creación del tiempo, existió fuera del tiempo. No había tiempo. Una vez que Dios movió el primer dominó, el tiempo comenzó. Este es un tema un tanto pesado, y el filósofo cristiano William Lane Craig ha dedicado un libro completo al tema, [4] pero solo quería señalar que siendo intemporal y sin haber sido creado, Dios evita los problemas asociados con el hecho de no tener un principio de manera temporal.
CONCLUSIÓN
Desafortunadamente para los ateos, esta idea alienígena de simulación por computadora solo hace a Dios subir las escaleras al máximo. No se deshace de Él. El análisis conceptual del Argumento Cosmológico Kalam sigue en pie.
Notas
[1] deGrasse Tyson, Neil.Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (Ubicaciones Kindle 170-171). W. W. Norton & Company. Versión Kindle.
[2] Por cierto, no dejes que esta idea descabellada te impida obtener el libro de Tyson. Solo menciona la idea de simulación en este lugar. “Astrophysics For People In A Hurry” es un fantástico curso de introducción a la astrofísica. Tyson no presenta teorías salvajes como esta, y solo muestra su manga atea un total de dos veces. El primero en esta parte del libro, y el segundo, en el capítulo final. Es una obra religiosamente neutral en general. Recomiendo a cualquiera que ame la ciencia (y sea especialmente no muy letrado en ciencias) adquirir el libro.
[3] Por cierto, esto sucedió en un episodio de Doctor Who (titulado Extremis). No describiré lo que sucedió en el episodio. Míralo tú mismo. Mira toda la serie de hecho. ¡Es un espectáculo increíble!
[4] El libro se llama “Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship To Time” (Tiempo y eternidad: explorando la relación de Dios con el tiempo).
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ErH4n3
Traducido por María Andreina Cerrada
How To Become a Better Apologetics Communicator
Theology and Christian ApologeticsTimothy Fox
So you want to be an apologetics writer or speaker. Or maybe you already are one. How can you be a better communicator? Here are five quick pointers:
No, I don’t mean profanity. I mean your vocabulary. If you’re like me, you’re immersed in the apologetics world. You read apologetics books, you listen to apologetics podcasts, you devour all things apologetics. So you’re used to the language, the ideas, the jargon. But your audience may not be. Find ways to communicate without using “insider” language. Always imagine what someone completely new to apologetics would think of your writing or talk. Have an “outsider” review your material (more on this later). And if you absolutely must use special apologetics vocabulary, be sure to carefully – and simply– define your terms.
Did you ever have a teacher who was a genius but terrible at teaching? It’s easy for apologists to fall into the same boat. Knowledge is not enough. Sincerity is not enough. If you want to be an effective Christian apologist, you must hone your craft. Read books or blogs on communication. Attend writing workshops or public speaking conferences. A book that has impacted my writing tremendously is On Writing Well by Howard Zinsser. If you’re a writer, buy a copy. Now. And make sure you proofread! Nothing will bring you from professional to amateur in a reader’s eyes faster than spelling and grammatical mistakes. Give your best in all you do. Hone your craft.
One of the best pieces of communication advice I’ve ever received is to make one point and make it well. Everything you say should strengthen or reinforce your one point. I’ve read many apologetics articles where I was halfway through and wondered “What was the point again?”
You may have an awesome quote or anecdote. But does it really strengthen your point? If not, remove it. You have an objection that kinda, sorta relates to your topic. Delete it. If you have more to say about a subject, write another article. Stay on target so your audience always knows exactly what your point is. Make one point and make it well.
I hate criticism. Hate it, hate it, hate it. But getting others’ feedback has improved my writing greatly. Have other people review your material and give their honest opinion. You need someone to tell you “this doesn’t make sense,” “your logic is faulty here,” or “this is worded poorly.” I have apologetics “insiders” check my argumentation and logic and I have “outsiders” make sure my content is understandable and readable. Both are important!
The rise of apologetics is a wonderful thing, showing that there is a place for logical types (such as myself!) within a Church that has been largely feelings-driven. However, we apologists run the risk of being too cold and rationalistic, turning into emotionless “apolo-bots.” But not everyone is like us. Some will never be argued into the kingdom of God through evidence and logic. They want to see that Christianity is good and beautiful, that it meets humanity’s greatest needs and desires.
Apologetics doesn’t need more syllogisms. It needs more stories! There’s a reason why C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton have withstood the test of time. They engaged the imagination to bridge man’s reason and passions. If we apologists truly want to impact the culture, we need to reach both the head and the heart.
Conclusion
These are just some pointers on how to be a better apologetics communicator. It takes work, but stay at it. Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Hone your craft and get feedback. Target both the head and the heart of your audience.
For more advice on being a better apologist, check out Sean McDowell’s articles “Why Apologists Need to ‘Lower the Bar’” and “Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name.”
This article originally appeared at SeanMcDowell.org.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Cf3FBb
The Omnipotence of God
CrossExaminedBy Tim Stratton
One of my primary goals is to help others comprehend God accurately. I have previously written about the attribute of God’s perfect love for all people (See The Omnibenevolence of God). I spend much time on this specific attribute because so many people (Christians and non-Christians) have a faulty and low view of God. While understanding God’s perfect love is vital, it is also of importance to grasp other truths about the Maximally Great Being! The next attribute of God that is vital to comprehend is called omnipotence. This is referring to the power of God. If you do not like the word “omnipotence,” you can simply say, God is “all powerful!”
What do we mean when we say that God is “all powerful”? Does this mean that God can do anything and everything?
Many people in the church today think that is the case, but they are wrong! In fact, it was not until just a few years ago that I realized that although God is omnipotent, this does not mean that God can do ALL things!
Allow me to clarify by offering some questions for you to consider: Can God create a married bachelor? Can God create a triangle with four corners? Can God create a stone that is so big that even He cannot lift it? Can God create something that is not contingent upon Him? Can God sin?
In Titus 1:2 the Bible indicates that God cannot lie.
What about this: Can God force someone to freely choose to love Him? Of course not — that is logically impossible!
So, if there are clearly things that God cannot do, then why do we say He is all-powerful or omnipotent? Let me give you a good definition of omnipotence:
God can do all things that are logically possible.
So, if a being can do all things that are logically possible, that would include many things that are scientifically impossible (these are different categories) – like creating a universe from nothing and raising a man from the dead. These are called miracles (See Are Miracles Metaphysically Impossible?)!
The Bible teaches that God is All-Mighty. It says,
“Oh, Lord God, it is you who made the heavens and the Earth by Your great power! Nothing is too hard for You” (Jeremiah 32:17).
The Bible is clear that “nothing is too hard for God.” But when you contemplate and study “triangles with four corners” and “married bachelors,” they are not really things at all. As William Lane Craig states, “they are nothing but an inconsistent combination of words.”
So, when thinking about it *that way*, then, God can do ALL things, but if it helps, just remember that God can do all things that are logically possible.
Do you know what is exciting about God’s omnipotence? If you have a personal love relationship with God then the omnipotence of God lives within you too! Think about that — this means you practically have super-powers! As my parents used to teach me:
“The same power that created the universe and raised Jesus from the dead is the same power that lives in you through the Holy Spirit! That is the ultimate Force.”
With God’s power working in you and through you, you can do “all things” that are logically possible too (Philippians 4:13)!
This passage of Philippians is often taken out of context (for a short and humorous example click here). However, the truth of my prior statement remains: If an omnipotent God chooses to use you — and you do not choose to resist His will — then God can use you to do all things that are logically possible.
It is important to realize that this is only in regards to the things that God wants you to accomplish. For example, you cannot choose to use God’s power to rob the bank, but if God desired you to walk on water or to simply love an unlovable neighbor then God’s power is available for you, and He wants you to choose to use it!
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).
Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BqLdsJ
Do God’s Commands Change?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
After several presentations in different universities across the U.S. Frank unpacks some of the most commonly asked questions by his audience during the Q&A section of his I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist presentations. He also answers some questions from his live audience during the last segment of the show.
¿Quién escribió el libro de Apocalipsis?
EspañolPor Brian Chilton
Cuando era adolescente, recuerdo haber estado un poco asustado con el libro de Apocalipsis. El olor del limpiador facial para el acné llenó la habitación mientras me zambullía en misteriosas representaciones de ángeles de cuatro caras, bestias del mar y de la tierra, de enormes ángeles y granizo de 100 libras arrojados a la tierra. Mientras que Apocalipsis contiene imágenes misteriosas y atemorizantes de los tiempos del fin, el libro de Apocalipsis fue escrito para animar a los cristianos de todos los tiempos. Pero, ¿quién fue el que escribió la Palabra de Apocalipsis? Este artículo concluirá nuestra serie titulada “¿Quién escribió el Nuevo Testamento?” mientras investigamos al autor del libro de Apocalipsis.
Autor: La tradición ha sostenido durante mucho tiempo que el apóstol Juan, a quien hemos visto que escribió el Cuarto Evangelio y las tres cartas que se le atribuyen, escribió el último libro de las Escrituras. Si es así, Juan escribió gran parte del Nuevo Testamento, con solo Pablo y Lucas escribiendo más que él. Si bien hubo escépticos, incluso desde el principio, sobre la autoría del texto (muy probablemente debido a la naturaleza apocalíptica del libro), el consenso general fue que Juan el apóstol era el autor. Existen cuatro razones de por qué uno debería aceptar la autoría joánica de Apocalipsis.
1) El autor se identifica a sí mismo como “Juan” en Apocalipsis 1:4; 1:9; y 22:8. Esto no necesariamente indica que este Juan fue Juan el apóstol. Sabemos de un Juan Marcos, que escribió el Segundo Evangelio, y un posible Juan el Viejo (aunque es posible que Juan el apóstol también fuera conocido como Juan el Viejo en algunos casos, sin embargo, hay razones para creer que otro Juan podría haber vivido como líder de la iglesia, especialmente porque “Juan” era un nombre popular).
2) El autor del libro claramente tuvo una fuerte conexión con las siete iglesias de Asia Menor como se evidencia en Apocalipsis 2: 1-3: 22. La tradición dice que Juan el apóstol fue el pastor de las iglesias en Éfeso.
3) Las circunstancias del autor coinciden en gran medida con las de Juan el apóstol. Fuentes del segundo siglo indican que Juan fue exiliado a la Isla de Patmos. Ignacio (35-107 d.C.) escribe sobre hechos concluyentes particulares en que “¿Pedro fue crucificado; Pablo y Santiago fueron asesinados con la espada; Juan fue desterrado a Patmos; Esteban fue apedreado hasta la muerte por los judíos que mataron al Señor? Pero, [en verdad,] ninguno de estos sufrimientos fue en vano; porque el Señor realmente fue crucificado por los impíos”[1]. El exilio de Juan el apóstol concuerda con lo que encontramos del autor de Apocalipsis (1: 9).
4) A lo largo del texto, las imágenes del Antiguo Testamento indican que uno ha estado completamente inmerso en una educación y crianza hebrea. Juan el apóstol coincide con ese requisito.
5) El Diccionario de la Biblia Lexham discute un hallazgo llamado los Fragmentos de Harris. En consecuencia, estos fragmentos dan una mayor comprensión de los escritos de Policarpo (69-150 DC), un discípulo de Juan. Los fragmentos “ofrecen una visión única para reconciliar el martirio de Juan su larga vida y muerte natural reportadas en eso:
De lo que hemos reunido, Juan el apóstol es el candidato más claro para la autoría de Apocalipsis. Atribuyo a la mentalidad: “Si no está roto, no lo arregles”. Las tradiciones de larga data solo deberían revocarse si hay pruebas claras de lo contrario. No veo eso con la tradición de que Juan el apóstol fue autor del último libro de las Escrituras. Honestamente (como has visto si has leído todas mis entradas sobre este tema), no veo ninguna razón convincente para rechazar la autoría tradicional adscrita a cualquier libro del Nuevo Testamento canónico.
Fecha: Curiosamente, algunos eruditos están asignando una fecha a Apocalipsis antes de lo que se ha sostenido tradicionalmente debido a las imágenes completamente judías encontradas en el texto. Los que tienen una visión más antigua para la datación de Apocalipsis promueven los finales de los años 60 como el momento en que se escribió el libro. Sin embargo, la opinión de que el libro fue escrito más tarde en el primer siglo, muy probablemente a finales de los 80 o principios de los 90 tiene una mayor fuerza.
Propósito: Como se mencionó al principio del artículo, Apocalipsis no fue dada para asustarnos. Más bien, fue escrito para alentar a los creyentes de todos los tiempos a que, a pesar de los problemas enfrentados, Dios gana al final. El bien triunfará sobre el mal. Los poderes de la oscuridad serán confinados por los poderes de la luz. Apocalipsis nos dice mucho sobre Dios, Cristo, la humanidad, el pecado, la iglesia, los ángeles, así como a Satanás y sus fuerzas demoníacas.
El libro contiene una introducción (1:1-8); cartas dadas a las siete iglesias de Asia (2: 1-3:22); representaciones de lo que sucederá en los últimos tiempos por parte de tres septetos, siete sellos que conducen a siete trompetas que conducen a siete copas de ira, que en última instancia conducirán a un cielo nuevo y una tierra nueva (4: 1-22: 5); y una conclusión (22: 6-21).
¡Sea animado por Apocalipsis! Dios le dio a Juan el apóstol esta visión por una razón. Fue para hacernos saber que el creyente debe tener una perspectiva eterna entendiendo que Dios ha ganado, está ganando, y que va a ganar al final.
Para su disfrute auditivo, Gaither Vocal Band interpreta a “John the Revelator”.
Notas
[1] Pseudo-Ignacio de Antioquía, “La Epístola de Ignacio a los Tarsos, Capítulo III”, en Los Padres Apostólicos con Justino Mártir e Ireneo , ed.Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson y A. Cleveland Coxe , vol.1, Los Padres Ante-Nicenos (Buffalo, Nueva York: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 107.
[2] Tracee D. Hackel, “Juan el Apóstol, Temas críticos” ed.John D. Barry y otros, El diccionario de la Biblia Lexham (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
Brian Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast.Recibió su Maestría en Teología en la Universidad Theology from Liberty (sobresaliente); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics de la Universidad de Biola .Brian es actualmente un estudiante del Ph.D. programa en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian es miembro de pleno derecho de la Sociedad Internacional de Apologética Cristiana y la Alianza Cristiana de Apologética. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 14 años y se desempeña como pastor de Huntsville Baptist Church en Yadkinville, Carolina del Norte.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2zaWZYj
Traducido por María Andreina Cerrada
Nancy Pearcey’s Love Thy Body and Integrating Truth about the Body
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politicsby Terrell Clemmons
Have you heard of intersectionality? Unless you’ve been hanging around the rarified halls of academia lately, this may be a new term for you.
Intersectionality theory was introduced by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in a 1989 paper with the unwieldy title, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.”
Ms. Crenshaw is an African American law professor who identifies as both a feminist theorist and critical race theorist. In political theory, feminism says laws need to change because men oppress women, while critical race theory says laws need to change because whites oppress blacks.
If you’re a black woman then, how do you balance the competing demands of anti-sexism and anti-racism? The question does present something of a quandary, and in the paper, Crenshaw introduced the concept of intersectionality, which effectively said the two concepts should remain independent and be seen as forces that interact with one another.
To be fair, I have not read the full paper, but what this seems to imply is, somewhere within the identity of women of color like her, there is – and should be – an intersect, a division, a point at which the two aspects of the self-collide.
The paper was published in 1989, roughly a decade before LGBT politics added four more identity categories based on sexuality. With these added identity categories, you can see how the intersections rapidly multiply. At what point, we might ask, does a cluster of multiplying intersections disintegrate into a chaotic, confused inner mess?
Welcome to the modern millennial mind.
Thoughtful Christians must learn how to navigate all of this, sorting out our culture’s manifold incoherencies with clarity and compassion. I don’t know of anyone doing a better job of helping us do that today than Nancy Pearcey, whose newest book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, shines a much-needed light on the most pressing category of confusing ideologies today, the sexual ones. Think of it as a training guide for comprehensive, clear thinking about the biological and sexual deconstructivist movements of our day – abortion, euthanasia, casual sex, homosexuality, and transgenderism.
“Every practice comes with a worldview attached to it,” she writes in the first chapter, “one that many of us might not find true or attractive if we were aware of it. Therefore it is important to become aware.”
Love Thy Body is about a lot more than just awareness, though it will give you that. Returning to the concept of intersectionality, you should be able to see how intersectionality fragments one’s own identity inwardly, and perspective on the world looking outward. By contrast, as Pearcey writes, the biblical view of the human person is wholly unifying. Grounded in our identity as human beings created by God, who made us, knows us, and loves us, This understanding of the human person leads to a wholistic integration of identity and personality. It fits who we really are.
Rather than shake our heads at the incoherence of a man being elected a city’s first female mayor or a man winning a women’s weightlifting title, Christians need to learn how to respond helpfully in order to engage with secular culture in terms it can relate to. In ancient times, ministers of the gospel traveled to foreign lands geographically. Today we may have to go where they are conceptually in order to offer them the gospel that sets people free. “In the wasteland,” Pearcey writes, “we can cultivate a garden.”
In a fragmented world where people are desperately in need of answers to hard questions about life and sexuality, Love Thy Body brings clarity, coherence, and integrity.
Love Thy Body is now available. Click here to order.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BihL7V
Will There Only Be 144,000 People in Heaven?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian G. Chilton
At our church, we recently began a new series of messages on heaven. After the service, I received a wonderful question from one of our members, Allison Mathews. Allison said that she had heard that only 144,000 people would be in heaven, and wondered if that was true. Some groups, especially among the Jehovah Witnesses, have espoused that only a select group of individuals (that is, 144,000) throughout all of history will be in heaven. Ironically, more than 144,000 Jehovah Witnesses attend Watchtower Bible studies worldwide, so someone is in trouble. While that is said tongue-in-cheek, the number of 144,000 has brought great interest to individuals wondering whom John is referencing, and how many people will be in heaven. This article will identify the 144,000 and discuss the number of people that one can expect to find in heaven as given in the book of Revelation.
Who are the 144,000?
The concept of the 144,000 comes from Revelation 7. John mentions the 144,000 after describing the Lamb of God (i.e., Jesus) opening up a scroll of which no one else is found worthy (Rev. 5:8-14). When the Lamb opens the seven seals of the scroll, a series of judgments come from the unsealing of the scroll, including the infamous Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Rev. 6:1-8), a group of martyred souls awaiting their vengeance (Rev. 6:9-11), and a massive earthquake (Rev. 12:9-17).
After all these events have completed, four angels standing at the four corners of the earth (symbolically speaking), and the angels hold back the judgments until 144,000 are sealed on the earth. The 144,000 are identified in verse four as those “sealed from every tribe of the Israelites.”[1] There are two primary options for identifying this group.
Metaphorical: The number 12 is symbolic of God’s government (e.g., 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples). 12,000 x 12= 144,000. In this case, some hold that 144,000 symbolically represents the entire church, but would not hold a precise numerical value as to the number of individuals in heaven.
Literal: In this view, the 144,000 are redeemed Israelites who are saved during the time of global tribulation after the church has been resurrected. This view is the most plausible and relates best to the text at hand. Therefore, the 144,000 are Jewish individuals who are saved during the time of tribulation and not the number of all heavenly citizens.
How Many People Will Be in Heaven?
If the 144,000 is not a representation of the number of heavenly citizens, then how many people will be in heaven? Interestingly, the number of heavenly citizens is given in the verses following the description of the 144,000. John looks and sees a “vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: Salvation belongs to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev. 7:9-10).
So, how many people will be in heaven? Only God knows. It is a number greater than any person could count. The citizenship of heaven will include men and women who are white and black, Jews and Arabs, Americans and Russians, Iraqis and Iranians, North and South Americans, Africans and Asians, Europeans and Oceanians. Heavenly citizens will transcend from points across time itself! As Cordie Bridgewater poetically wrote in her classic hymn, “How beautiful heaven must be, sweet home of the happy and free; fair heaven of rest for the weary, how beautiful heaven must be.”[2]
Notes
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[2] Cordie Bridgewater, How Beautiful Heaven Must Be, https://hymnary.org/text/we_read_of_a_place_thats_called_heaven, retrieved January 22, 2018.
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Blog Original Source: http://bit.ly/2FZP2Ef
¿Quién escribió el libro de Judas?
EspañolPor Brian Chilton
En los últimos meses, hemos estado examinando a los autores y la información de los antecedentes para los libros del Nuevo Testamento. Para este artículo, examinaremos un pequeño libro hacia el final del Nuevo Testamento conocido como Judas. ¿Qué sabemos sobre este libro y quién lo compuso?
Autor: Judas abre el libro indicando que él es un “siervo de Jesucristo y un hermano de Santiago” (vs. 1)[1]. La búsqueda de la identidad de Judas está intrincadamente relacionada con la identidad de Santiago que figura como el hermano de Judas. Uno puede fácilmente eliminar a Santiago el hijo de Zebedeo porque fue martirizado temprano en la historia de la iglesia (Hechos 12:1-5). El único otro Santiago viable es el hermano de Jesús. Cuando las personas de Nazaret estaban interrogando a Jesús, le preguntaron: “¿No es este el carpintero, el hijo de María y el hermano de Santiago, José, Judas y Simón? ¿Y no están sus hermanas aquí con nosotros?” (Marcos 6:3).
Marcos 6:3 resalta algunos hechos. Primero, Santiago y Judas fueron los hermanos de Jesús. En segundo lugar, ambos eran conocidos por la iglesia. Si este es el caso, entonces es lógico pensar que Judas se identificaría a sí mismo como el hermano de Santiago, ya que Santiago era un líder influyente en la iglesia de Jerusalén. Por lo tanto, Judas, el hermano de Santiago y Jesús, es el candidato más viable para haber escrito este pequeño libro. Judas humildemente se designó a sí mismo solo como el hermano de Santiago y un siervo de Cristo en lugar de elevarse como el hermano de Jesús.
Fecha: Judas es un libro difícil de fechar. Ya que Judas trata con las falsas enseñanzas que habían entrado a la iglesia, uno pensaría que una fecha posterior sería más factible. Sin embargo, el libro no discute directamente el gnosticismo. Por lo tanto, muchos han postulado una fecha entre 65 y 80 d.C.
Propósito: Por la propia advertencia de Judas, él había deseado escribir una carta alentadora sobre la salvación común de los creyentes a los “amados por Dios el Padre y guardados para Jesucristo” (vs. 1). El amado de Dios se refiere a los destinatarios que probablemente fueron creyentes judíos de la época. Sin embargo, debido a las falsas enseñanzas que habían entrado a la iglesia, Judas se sintió obligado a escribir una carta “apelando [a ellos] para contender por la fe que fue entregada a los santos de una vez por todas” (vs. 3).
La carta de Judas es una carta polémica que advierte a los creyentes a que eviten a los falsos maestros. Después de dar el propósito de su carta en los versículos 1-4, Judas describe a los apóstatas del tiempo pasado y presente (vs. 5-11), la condenación de los apóstatas (vs. 12-19), entrega una exhortación (vs. 20 -23), antes de dar su bendición (vs. 24-25).
Conexión de Judas con 2 Pedro: Lo más exclusivo del libro de Judas es su vínculo con 2 Pedro. Gran parte del contenido de Judas coincide con el de 2da Pedro, incluida una cita del seudopigráfico libro 1era de Enoc (vs. 12-13) y una alusión al libro apócrifo La Asunción de Moisés. ¿Tomó prestado Judas de 2da de Pedro, pidió Pedro prestado de Judas, o ambos tomaron prestado de una fuente común?
Como se mostró previamente en el artículo “Quién escribió las cartas de Pedro”[2], Simón Pedro es un buen candidato para haber escrito 2da de Pedro. Si 2da de Pedro tomó prestado de Judas, entonces el libro habría sido demasiado tardío para haber sido escrito por Simón Pedro. Si Pedro es un buen candidato para la autoría de 2da Pedro, entonces Judas tomó prestado de Pedro o ambos tomaron prestado de una fuente común. Hay menos problemas que indican que Judas tomó prestado de 2da de Pedro o que ambos tomaron prestado de una fuente común. Es probable que debido a que Judas toma prestado mucho del Antiguo Testamento y la tradición judía, lo más probable es que haya tomado prestado de la segunda carta de Pedro, ya que fue recibida por la iglesia en su día.
Notas
[1] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las Escrituras citadas provienen de la Biblia Cristiana Estándar (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[2] Brian Chilton, “¿Quién escribió las cartas de Pedro?”, Bellator Christi.com (23 de agosto de 2017), obtenido el 14 de septiembre de 2017, https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/08/23/who-wrote -the-letters-of-peter /.
Brian Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast.Recibió su Maestría en Teología en la Universidad Theology from Liberty (sobresaliente); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics de la Universidad de Biola .Brian está en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en la Universidad Liberty. Brian es miembro de pleno derecho de la Sociedad Internacional de Apologética Cristiana y la Alianza Cristiana de Apologética. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 14 años y se desempeña como pastor de Huntsville Baptist Church en Yadkinville, Carolina del Norte.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2nR9Wh8
Traducido por María Andreina Cerrada
5 Regrets You Don’t Want to Have If Your Kids Walk Away from Faith
Apologetics for ParentsBy Natasha Crain
Regret.
It’s something I often hear from parents who are heartbroken that their teen or adult kids have walked away from Christianity.
Whether it’s through one of my online books read along groups, private emails, blog comments, Facebook messages, or at speaking events, when parents reach out to me about their kids walking away from faith, their words are laced with painful sadness and a sense that they in some way failed.
My kids are still young (ages 9 and 7), so I haven’t faced this myself, but I relate to these parents because I have so often experienced my own sense of parenting failure.
I haven’t shown enough patience, and I see them exhibiting their own impatience.
I haven’t given them enough conflict resolution skills, and I see them argue constantly.
I haven’t spent enough time showing them how to serve others, and I see them lacking perspective on how to live out their faith.
As a parent, there are so many I haven’ts. And there will always be, because none of us are perfect. We cannot flawlessly deliver all that our kids need. But there’s something about I haven’t that implies opportunity.
I haven’t implies I haven’t yet.
When our kids leave home, however, those I haven’ts will cement into regretful I didn’ts.
As Christian parents, there should be nothing more important to us than raising our kids to know and love Jesus. How could there be something more important if our kids’ relationship with Jesus has eternal implications? Yet we have to recognize that we don’t control whether or not our kids become Christ-followers. The heavy burden of I didn’ts that so often comes with a child’s rejection of faith must be tempered with grace and placed at the foot of the cross.
At the same time, parents with kids still at home can’t ignore the fact that there is much we can do to help our kids develop a lasting faith. We are called to actively disciple our kids (Deuteronomy 6)—not to sit back and see what happens. We should focus on what we can control and give the rest to God.
With that in mind, there are many regrets we can purposefully avoid. They are things that we largely have in our control and that we should be able to reasonably identify as responsibilities long before I didn’t becomes a reality. Here are five you don’t want to have if your kids walk away from faith. Unfortunately, they are five I hear from parents far too often.
Research has shown time after time that at least 60 percent of kids who grew up in church walk away from their faith by their early 20s (here is an excellent summary of the studies). Don’t be jaded by the numbers—that is a crazy statistic.
Young people often turn away from Jesus, however, with a flawed understanding of the nature of truth, what Christianity even is, and what the Bible teaches.
They think that Christianity requires blind faith; that a person must choose between faith and science; that Christianity basically boils down to living with “good values”; that Christians think they’re better than others; that Christians aren’t loving if they declare something is sinful according to the Bible; and much more.
How sad to think that many turns away from what they think is Christianity, but is actually only a caricature of it based on layers of misunderstandings built from popular culture over time.
One of the most important things we can do as parents is to ensure our kids deeply understand what, exactly, Christianity is—and isn’t. This requires us to 1) study the Bible deeply with our kids and 2) be educated on how the world gets Christianity wrong so we can proactively correct those misunderstandings with our kids.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that they accurately understand what they’re rejecting.
A lot of parents are overwhelmed at the thought of helping their kids learn the case for Christianity and how to defend their faith against the seemingly ubiquitous challenges today.
Where do you start? Where do you end? How can you cover it all? How can kids ever really be sufficiently prepared? How can we even be prepared ourselves?
But here’s what you need to know: Helping your kids develop a faith that’s prepared for today’s challenges is not a nebulous, impossible task.
Skeptics make a predictable set of claims, so we have a pretty specific agenda we should be covering with our kids over time. Think of it like helping them study for a test. You might not be able to anticipate every conceivable question they’ll get, but you can make sure they know what major subject areas they’ll encounter and how to think through the most important questions in those areas. They’re not venturing out into a completely wild blue yonder. This test can be studied for.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because they were taken aback by shocking claims they hadn’t heard first from me.
In their research for the book Sticky Faith, Kara Powell, and Chap Clark surveyed 11,000 church-going teenagers and asked how many of them talk with their parents about faith. They found that only 12% of kids talk regularly with their mom about faith and 5% with their dads.
What a devastating fact.
How can we help kids navigate the complexities of faith in a challenging world if we’re having zero or few conversations about it with them? Let’s be clear: This is completely in our control. It’s simply a matter of prioritizing the time needed and learning what conversations need to be had.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because I didn’t invest time consistently and continually in having meaningful and relevant spiritual conversations with them.
Being part of a fellowship with other believers is an important part of Christian life. But there’s no question that simply getting your kids to church each week is not enough to prepare them to be independent followers of Jesus—especially in a challenging world like this. Parents must accept responsibility as the primary spiritual influencer in the life of their child.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because I delegated the responsibility of spiritual discipleship to the church.
This might be one of the mantras of this blog given how much I repeat it, but it’s so important, I need to say it over and over: good values are not the same as Christianity. None of us want to raise kids who are little terrors in the world. We want them to be pleasant people who generally exhibit what the Bible identifies as fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. It’s easy to forget, however, that those qualities are fruits of the Spirit, not fruits of how hard we try. They are the outcome of a Spirit-filled life: the fruit, not the root.
If we focus on raising kids who are simply “good people” (by whatever behavioral definition you want to assume), and not on raising kids who love Jesus as the root of the fruit, we’re just raising future secular humanists.
If my kids reject their faith, I want to know that it’s not because they believed good values were pretty much the same as Christianity and eventually decided they didn’t Jesus.
If these points raise some I haven’ts for you, take a moment to consider right now what needs to change. Know that they don’t have to become I didn’ts. And rest in the peace of knowing you’re not responsible for your child’s ultimate decision to follow Jesus, but rather for being obedient to your calling as the primary spiritual influencer in your child’s life.
If you need a resource to help you with these points, you’ll find what you need in my latest book, Talking with your Kids about God. You’ll get equipped to help your kids understand Christianity more deeply; you’ll know specifically what claims skeptics make about God that you need to expose them to; you’ll learn how to have those conversations (every chapter has a step-by-step conversation guide); you’ll see what it means to take responsibility for their spiritual development rather than delegating to the church; and you’ll be prepared to teach why good values depend on the existence of God.
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/2EvgtpF