Page 54 – CrossExamined

Why Does God Hide? | with Michael Jones and Eric Hernandez

Why does God hide? If God loves us and truly desires that none should perish, why doesn’t He make His existence more obvious? Wouldn’t a loving God want us all to be saved? Divine hiddenness is a problem that puzzles many believers and non-believers, and in this midweek podcast episode, Christian philosophers + apologists Michael Jones and Eric Hernandez tackle it head-on! Other issues they discuss with Frank include Hell, torture vs. torment, non-resistant non-belief, and Molinism.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

Where to find Michael and Eric:

Michael’s website: https://inspiringphilosophy.org/

Michael’s YouTube channel: http://bit.ly/3BXKTjA

Eric’s YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3PNY1xl

Texas Apologetics: http://texasapologetics.org

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

December 27, 2022/by Frank Turek

Can We Agree to Disagree on Predestination?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By RYAN LEASURE

At Grace Bible Church, we have a statement of faith that all members must affirm. It’s a fine statement of faith (though a little long if you ask me). And it provides a nice summary of basic Christian belief. That said, not all doctrines are created equal. Some doctrines are absolutely essential while others are less important. How, then, should Christians “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) without contending for too much or too little?

In other words, how do we know which doctrines are worth fighting for and which ones are not? To help with these matters, we have adopted what Al Mohler once dubbed a “Theological Triage.”

Theological Triage

The word “triage” comes from a French word which means “to sort.” And if you’ve ever been to an emergency room, you’re familiar with the sorting process that takes place. If someone shows up with the sniffles, they’re most likely put at the back of the line. If someone shows up holding their decapitated leg, they’re put up front.

Doing theological triage follows a similar principle. As Christians, we must think through doctrine and decide which doctrines get sorted to the front (first-order issues) and which ones get pushed to the back (third-order issues).

At every membership class, I explain this concept and teach newcomers which doctrines are essential and which ones we can agree to disagree on. Let’s consider the three categories in turn.

First-Order Doctrines

First-order doctrines are the absolute essential doctrines to the Christian faith. These are doctrines that every true believer should affirm without hesitation. These doctrines include:

God is a Trinity
God is the creator of all things
Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Jesus is both God and man
Humans are made in God’s image
All humans are sinners and they must repent of their sin
Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose again from the dead
People are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
The Bible is God’s inspired word
Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead

You get the idea. These beliefs are so fundamental to the faith that if someone were to deny them, we would say that person belongs to a different faith system altogether.

Second-Order Doctrines

Second-order doctrines are not essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but they are essential for church membership. That is to say, even though people may disagree with us on these issues, we would not call into question their standing with God. We may think they’re wrong and think they should reconsider their views. But we would not question their faith altogether. That said, if people are going to be part of the same church, they need to agree on these second-order issues:

The recipients of baptism
Women Pastors
Revelatory gifts (speaking in tongues or prophecy)

Our statement of faith is clear on the first two points. We baptize believers and believe God has ordained for qualified men to serve as pastors. Our statement of faith doesn’t speak to revelatory gifts in the same way. So one could technically classify it as a third-order doctrine. But I suspect if someone felt strongly about publicly prophesying or speaking in tongues before the church, they would feel compelled to go to a different church where those types of practices were more accepted.

Third-Order Doctrines

Third-order doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, nor are they essential for church membership. That is to say, church members are free to disagree on these matters. This does not mean, however, that these doctrines are unimportant (we can think of less important beliefs). It does not mean that we should not study the Scriptures to try and make sense of them as best as we can. What it does mean is that we are not going to divide over these issues.

Now sadly, it’s these third-order issues that have led to more church splits than anything else. But at Grace Bible Church, we are committed to remaining unified around the main things while allowing charitable disagreement around the not-so-main things. These third-tier doctrines include:

Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Age of the Earth
Millennial or tribulation views

Our statement of faith does not take a hard stand on any of these issues. Therefore, one does not need to affirm Calvinism or Arminianism in order to be a member in good standing at Grace Bible Church. In fact, our church leadership has disagreements on these matters! The same goes for one’s understanding of the age of the earth and the millennium. Good faithful Christians throughout history have disagreed on these matters which leads us to believe the issues aren’t as clear as the first and second-order doctrines.

What we encourage, then, is for each member to act charitably towards others with whom they disagree. We should never ridicule someone or call their faith into question because they land in a different place on one of these third-tier issues. We can agree to disagree or even study the topic together with the hopes of learning from one another. Let’s remember, though we’re all trying to get it right, none of us are infallible.

Dividing Over Doctrine

Placing doctrines in their proper tiers allows the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It protects the church from contending too much or too little.

Liberals have historically contended for too little. They have tended to press first-tier doctrines down to the third tier. They’ve adopted an “agree to disagree” mentality when it comes to important matters such as Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead! On the flip side, fundamentalists have historically contended for too much. They have pushed third-tier issues up to the first tier and have divided over less-than-critical matters.

Doing theological triage protects us from both of these errors.

Joshua’s Conquest and God’s Moral Consistency

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By (Josh Klein)

If God is so good, why did he command the Israelites to utterly destroy everyone and everything in the Old Testament?

Is God a moral monster?[i] Particularly in the conquest of the land of Canaan? God calls for the complete and utter destruction of men, women, and children (as well as animals) multiple times[ii]. How could a moral God do this? Is that not genocidal malevolence? Would we not condemn a national leader today if they said “God told me to do murder thousands of children and women in His name” as a lunatic and a monster?

I believe these are important questions.

The question is a thoughtful one. When asked honestly, it takes seriously the biblical claims of God’s goodness, righteousness, love, and grace. The question, better asked, is like this: If God is who the rest of scripture says he is then how could he act in such a manner here? If God’s morality is inconsistent, then he really is not a god at all is he?

How we answer this question says a lot about who we believe God to be and what we believe scripture to be.

When I was in seminary, I took a class on Old Testament theology. I enjoyed the class because it came from a different perspective than I was used to. The professor in the class insisted that much of the narrative was mythological and/or allegorical in a way that was intended to set up Judaism’s religious structure and, ultimately, their need for a Messiah. He went so far as to say that Israel was likely a people that “emerged” from within the land of Canaan only to create a mythological origin story at a later date. In other words, the inerrancy of scripture is dubious at best.

One of the main issues brought to bear during the class was the violence in the Old Testament scriptures, particularly in the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I remember responding to the question with this statement: “If God is the author of life and death can’t God remove life at his will, and it be just? Especially considering man’s sin nature?”

This response alone fails to take the question seriously. The question is not about God’s power or his creative authority. It is about God’s consistency and biblical inherency. Why would God, out of one side of his mouth, condemn the Canaanite people to death, and then out of the other side of his mouth say things like “pray for those who persecute you?”

If God is not consistent then he is not moral. If God is not moral then he is not good, and if God is not good then he is not God.

Another unhelpful response is to use Romans 9[iii] as a justification in and of itself to proclaim that God creates some people to be killed for something they had no choice in doing. This sort of Exhaustive Divine Determinism[iv] unwittingly plays into the question’s premise. If God is creating people merely to smite them with his chosen people, then God seems to be a sadist. And while we can argue for God’s divine authority to do so until we are blue in the face, it does not, in fact, address the argument. Nor does it bring the skeptic closer to understanding God.

There are many responses to this question that are biblically and philosophically sound, and I cannot articulate all of them at length in this space. However, I believe we can provide a short answer that both takes the question seriously and remains faithful the biblical text without having to become an expert on ancient middle eastern civilizations.

For more on this objection check these out: Tim Stratton,[v] John Piper,[vi] William Lane Craig[vii]

To be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God. The argument only follows once God’s existence has been established. This is also not an answer to the Euthyphro[viii] or Epicurean[ix] dilemmas. Perhaps I will tackle those another time, but I find them pedantic and shallow and easily refuted.

This is an argument for the consistency of the Judeo-Christian God, and a defense of his ethical consistency relying on the very thing he used to reveal himself: scripture.

To understand why God is a good God even (and perhaps especially!) within the context of the conquest of Canaan we need to go back to the very beginning to understand God’s relationship with creation in a post-fall world. I do not endeavor to provide a comprehensive breakdown in the limited space available here. Suffice it to say that entire books have been, and still could be, written on the topic and each line of thinking through the scriptures that I will provide could be expounded on ten-fold.

The foundation of God’s morality in this issue stems from a theology of sin that is introduced in the early part of Genesis. We find the penalty for sin, in general, is death[x]. However, we also find that the judge of the matter is God[xi] not man. The first human death recorded in scripture does not come from the hands of God, but from the hands of one brother to another. Cain feels slighted by Abel because his offerings to God are taken seriously while Cain’s are not. Cain’s response is to murder his brother in a fit of jealous rage. What Cain thought was justice we find to be injustice, and thus, punishable. The ethical keys to using death as discipline are only ever in the hands of God. Unless God proclaims death as consequence, death ought not be a consequence. We see this as well in God’s handling of Cain after the fact. It is God’s choice to allow Cain to live, despite the murder of his brother, and to give him a mark to indicate that this judgement is final and cannot be undone by human hands. Divine justice, from the hands of God is wielded for specific reasons upon specific people and we find this to be true throughout the scriptures.

Fast forward to the story of Noah[xii] and we find that God’s declaration of death upon all creation is due to the fall in the beginning of Genesis. While many will focus on the unfathomable act of judgement that occurs with a global flood in Genesis 6-11, one aspect that is often overlooked is God’s patience in the matter. A common theme throughout scripture is God’s patience with evil over time but swift rendering of justice when it reaches its fullness. God waits until “every intent of the thoughts of their (humanity’s) hearts was only evil continually” before he enacts divine justice through death with the global flood.

In the first 11 chapters of the Bible, we are reminded that God is just, loving, gracious, and merciful with his creation and God’s character in that regard does not shift in the time of the conquest of Canaan. Nor has it shifted since. Someday, the Lord will return with the keys to the second death, the real penalty for sin[xiii], and his judgement will be swift, righteous, and eternal!

But what make’s God’s judgement of humankind just? Using scripture as the barometer we find that humanity is corrupt from birth. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners.[xiv] Thus, all of humanity is deserving of death from the moment we are born. Living any part of life is a gift. God then, can take human life at his will because it is perfect and just for him to do so. The beginning of Genesis teaches us this. Every person that dies is experiencing judgement from the first sin, and every person that lives experiences grace.

But what about when God uses other humans as his tool for judgement? Up until now we have seen only instances of God’s divine intervention. However, soon, in biblical history, we are introduced to God’s use of human vessels to enact his judgement on the sins of humanity.

God’s judgement is just when it comes to taking human life, and God can and will take human life by utilizing human actors. Innocence cannot be claimed to the divine by a fallen being. The taking of “innocent” human life then, must be ordained by God as judgement for a wicked and theocratic people.

As Cardinal Manning once remarked, “all human conflict is ultimately theological.” So it is with biblical history between nations. Starting with the nation of Egypt at the end of Genesis and into the opening chapters of Exodus, we find that nearly every nation God’s chosen people interact with is a theocratic nation. Thus, God’s judgement on those nations reflects their devotion to a god that does not exist. They must be punished as a group, not merely as individuals lest they lead the nation of Israel astray into a different theocracy. We find this to be true with the flood[xv], Sodom and Gomorrah[xvi] the plagues of Egypt[xvii], and so it is with the conquest of Canaan. God waits until sin has reached its apex to blot it out and he erases demonic deities in the process.

We find this convergence between God’s divine patience and his need to exact justice on nations that worship non-deities in Genesis 15:16 when God says, “…the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

God’s patience is such that he will note strike against an entire nation of people unless their wickedness has been made complete. At this point in time, he will hand them over to their sin and punish them accordingly[xviii]. At the time that Israel is poised to enter the promised land we find that the wickedness of the Canaanite peoples in the land were at a fever pitch.

But God’s grace still abounds, prior to Israel’s arrival God promises to drive people from the land himself, “little by little” to make the conquest of Canaan easier for the Israelites but also because of his righteous judgement.[xix]

What constitutes completed wickedness? Why was God’s patience running out upon the entrance into the land of Canaan? Believe it or not, God’s law, specifically in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy gives us an answer.

God is very clear in Deuteronomy 9 that he is using Israel as a vessel for judgement. That the land is not a reward for Israel, but the conquest is a punishment for the wicked nations inhabiting the land.

We find that the nations in Canaan were engaged in all sorts of abhorrent, deviant, and evil behaviors. Incest, rape, child sacrifice, temple prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality, witchcraft, and profane violence to name only a few[xx]. After listing all of these behaviors as unlawful and worthy of the death penalty in Leviticus 18 God goes on to say this about the nations inhabiting Canaan at that time, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you have become defiled,” and again in Leviticus 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”

There are many extra-biblical accounts of the evil practices of the Canaanite theocratic city-states as well. Particularly found in the Archaeological record (Archaeology and the Old Testament)[xxi] (Moloch and Canaanite Worship).[xxii]

The judgement that God foretold in Genesis 15 came to fruition through the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan. God’s judgement on a theocratic people was swift and severe lest the “gods” of the Canaanites be said to have “saved” select people to maintain the faith. And we know that this happens because the Israelites ultimately fail to live up to the billing and allow Canaanite religions not only to remain, but to thrive in their midst. Likewise, the violent judgement of Israel foretold by Yahweh in Deuteronomy[xxiii] came true with the conquest of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

We find that Joshua did all that he was told at the beginning of the book, but the Israelites failed to carry that mantle after his death. There is a common misconception by some that this means either Joshua used hyperbole to indicate he accomplished his task or that God was using hyperbole when he commanded Joshua to utterly destroy certain Canaanite cities. I believe neither viewpoint to be accurate.

It is clear from the beginning of the book of Joshua that he and the Israelites took very seriously God’s command. Otherwise Achan would not have been destroyed along with his family for violating the commandment after the Israelite defeat at Ai.[xxiv]

A careful reading of God’s rules for engagement in Deuteronomy 7 indicates that God anticipates survivors and even makes it clear to the Israelites that these survivors must not be allowed to prosper.[xxv] Elsewhere, in Deuteronomy 20, we find that there are other options for cities not placed under the “ban”. Israel was to first offer terms of peace, and if peace was rejected then they were to only destroy the men.[xxvi] Thus, the conquest of Canaan was primarily a judgement upon the kings of Canaan for their wicked and perverse structures.

God’s character remains the same in each of these events, and will remain the same in the consummation of time when God deals once and for all with sin and death. What does this mean? It means that the conquest of Canaan is no different than the flood story or the judgement of the world at the end of time. God’s divine ethic remains unwavering, and while it can seem unsettling for us to engage, we must understand the curse of Genesis 3 is what leads to the conquest in Joshua and the seat of judgement in Revelation.

Finally, while the divine ethic does not change, how that ethic is accomplished on earth does shift as God’s sovereign story continues to unfold. Just as God promised to never judge the world by a flood in Genesis[xxvii], he likewise shifts the focus of judgement from temporal to eternal through the establishment of his church through Jesus Christ. Could God still use nations to rain judgment down on each other? Absolutely, the heart of every human conflict is theological and current wars are no different. However, the time that God articulates a judgement on a people through the conquest of another people has long since passed. Not because it was wrong for God to do so, but because his choice in displaying his justice to the world now simply looks different.

God has released his final Word in the world and judgement rests on what the world does with Him[xxviii]. Thus, the idea that a current nation could legitimately use the idea that God is using them as a tool for judgement is refuted in scripture itself. But that’s another topic for another time.

In the end, the divine ethic survives severe scrutiny when placed within the framework of the biblical text. The Canaanite cultures were among the most abusive and evil cultures to have ever been established on the earth and God’s judgement of them was certainly just. The conquest is certainly unpalatable to our western minds, and for good reason. What matters most in this instance is not whether or not it makes us feel uneasy but whether or not this action is consistent with the character of God throughout history and scripture. I believe, that even in this short treatment we have found this to be right and true.

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.christianbook.com/moral-monster-making-sense-old-testament/paul-copan/9780801072758/pd/072758?event=ERRCER1

[ii] Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 20:17; Joshua 6:21, 8:26, 10:28

[iii] Romans 9

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/3-reasons-why-exhaustive-divine-determinism-edd-is-not-redundant/

[v] https://freethinkingministries.com/ten-problems-with-the-canaanite-objection/?fbclid=IwAR1exRdFZkfyooD9VdxxgClonAsPVnkcNZzBuBv2tY_TNZ1XFN37tlxD2MI

[vi] https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-conquest-of-canaan

[vii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

[viii] https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/ethics/morality-objective-without-god-page5.html

[ix] https://epicurus.today/the-epicurean-paradox/

[x] Genesis 3, Romans 3:23

[xvii] Each plague refutes an Egyptian god including the taking of Pharoah’s son – Exodus 9

[xviii] Romans 1:23-30

[xix] Exodus 23:30; Deuteronomy 7:21-23

[xx] Leviticus 18-20

[xxi] https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Old-Testament-Merrill-Unger/dp/0310333911

[xxii] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[xxiii] Deuteronomy 28-30

[xxiv] Joshua 7-8

[xxv] Deuteronomy 7:2-6

[xxvi] Deuteronomy 20:10-15

[xxvii] Genesis 9:11

[xxviii] Hebrews 1

Is God a Vindictive Bully? | with Paul Copan

Podcast

Is God a vindictive bully? Is the God of the Old Testament different than the God of the New Testament? Critics outside the church often accuse the Old Testament God of genocide, racism, ethnic cleansing, and violence. But a rising tide of critics within the church claim that Moses and other “primitive,” violence-prone prophets were mistaken about God’s commands and character. Both sets of critics dismiss this allegedly harsh, flawed, “textual” Old Testament God in favor of the kind, compassionate, “actual” God revealed by Jesus. But are they right to do so?

There’s no better person on the planet to discuss this issue than our good friend and noted apologist, Dr. Paul Copan! Following his popular book, Is God a Moral Monster?, his new book, Is God a Vindictive Bully?: Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments, contains brand new content and takes on some of the most difficult Old Testament challenges and places them in their larger historical and theological contexts to help us dispute these emerging claims that are creating a destructive gap between the Testaments.

On today’s podcast episode, Frank and Paul discuss the following questions:

Who are these critics “from without and from within” the Church?
Did Jesus really repudiate the laws of Moses?
What’s the deal with imprecatory psalms like Psalm 137 and “dashing babies against the rocks”?!
What can the Old Testament law still teach us today?
What is incrementalism, and how does God use it?
Does “utter destruction” really mean what we think it does?

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.

Paul’s new book: https://a.co/d/7gB1YLZ

Paul’s website: http://www.paulcopan.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

December 23, 2022/by Frank Turek

Verdad, percepción y realidad

Español

By Brian Chilton

Can truth be found in individual perceptions or is it dependent on an independent, transcendent reality? Many businesses and even churches tend to use the phrase “perception is reality” when talking about meeting customer needs. If a customer feels that they are not receiving the kind of service they expected, then their perception of the service provided will cause them to walk away from the establishment. My intention is not to endorse or censure businesses or churches that use this phrase, but as someone who is drawn to theology and philosophy, every claim and concept must be put to the test. Therefore, one must ask whether a person’s opinions about a certain activity and/or thought make that belief real or even true.

This phrase was coined by the mind of political strategist Lee Atwater who worked for George Bush Sr. in the 1988 political campaign. Atwater died three years after coining the phrase due to brain cancer, but with it he managed to help Bush obtain the 17 points with which he won the 1988 presidential elections. Atwater argued that if someone were able to lead the population to believe that something is true, then each individual’s perception of the truth becomes real by belonging to that group. So, it matters little what the truth is compared to what people assume about what is true.

Others have taken Atwater’s statement further by claiming that perception is more real than reality itself. This means that personal belief about truth matters more than demonstrable truth. If we understand this statement correctly, then we are approaching a situation where truth is manipulated to suit the interests of the person who supports a certain perception. But what is the difference between doing this and deception?

This article is not intended to debate politics. And as such, it will not endorse any political party or its candidates. The only reason for discussing political figures is that the phrase originated in that realm. As I mentioned before, this article is not intended to defame those who have used this phrase. However, the seeker of truth must ask himself if the logic of the phrase holds up philosophically, since the philosopher questions everything.

It is undeniable that the wars that have arisen and the political compromises and undertakings that have been made have been based on the perceptions of one person or group. But do such perceptions automatically guarantee that the perception promoted matches reality as it actually exists? Certainly, the perceptions of Hitler and other radical extremist groups do not match reality. Furthermore, is the course of reality going to change according to what we assume rather than following its natural course? There are quite a few logical problems with the statement, far more than I assumed when I began my research.

We have two ideas being debated: One is reality drives perception (i.e. reality has greater consequences than the individual’s perception) versus perception shapes reality (i.e. everything that exists in space and time is easily redefined by the individual’s perception). The theory of reality drives perception seems to be a better viewpoint. Before we examine this debate we must define what the words reality and perception mean. Then, we must establish differences between these two concepts in order to demonstrate, with facts, why reality is better at driving perception than shaping reality solely from perception. Finally, we will discuss the dangers that arise when perceptions are chosen instead of truth and reality.

The Nature of Reality and Perception

The main issue is knowing what makes something true. Does truth exist independently of the individual? Or is truth something relative that depends on each person’s belief system? This is the crossroads that shapes the main difference between the perception-directing theory of reality and Atwater’s perception-shaping theory of reality. What is truth? The answer determines how each person will approach the debate.

Truth (i.e., reality) was well defined by Aristotle: “To say that what is is not or that what is not is is false, but to say that what is is and that what is not is not is true; and therefore he who says that something is or is not will say either the truth or the false.” In other words, truth is that which corresponds to external reality. Therefore, truth is something transcendent. And it exists separate from the opinion and whims of the person. If a person claims that the sky is red when the wavelengths match the color identified as blue, it cannot be said that that person is telling the truth. Likewise, if a student claims that 5+5=15 he is remarkably wrong, even though his convictions tell him that he is right.

On the other hand, perception is the way a person takes in reality as it is filtered through their senses. Philosophically, this encompasses what is known as qualia , which means “sensory experience—the way things look, feel, smell, taste, and make sounds.” A person’s qualia can differ depending on their experience of reality. For example, some Protestants support the work of Martin Luther as he led the Protestant Reformation during the 1500s. In contrast, some Catholics abhor his work, believing it unnecessarily divided the Church. The beliefs of each group influenced their perception of their qualia, and vice versa.

Why the Natural Transcendence of Reality Far Outweighs Perception

To recap, truth is a transcendent reality that exists outside of personal experiences, whereas perception is how an individual or group interprets their qualia. However, reality necessarily displaces individual perception due to the nature of truth.

We recently gave the example of the color of the sky. Some would argue that a person with average vision would see almost the same color, while those who are color-blind would perceive that color in a different shade. This is a sign that each person’s qualia is different. But the argument is not as strong as it seems, because even though the color is perceived differently, the wavelength of the visible electromagnetic spectrum for that color is still the same. So even though a person’s qualia leads them to believe that the color they see is purple when it is actually blue, the wavelength of the color in question is the same even though it is perceived differently.

Another example we saw was what happened with the Protestant Reformation. Protestants and Catholics judge the work of Luther and the Reformation differently, the common and transcendent reality is that Luther and other reformers led this movement in the 16th century. One person’s perception of the event does not change the historical realities found in the work of Luther and other reformers of the time.

Finally, you’ve probably heard the philosophical riddle about the tree in the forest. If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, would it make a sound if no one is around to hear it? We know from the laws of physics that sound waves are generated when vibrations are transmitted through a medium such as air or water. Therefore, the impact of the tree when it fell propagated the vibrations that generate the sound regardless of the number of witnesses who audibly heard the vibrations. Even if no one was around, the propagation of the vibrations has the potential to be heard. As these examples show, reality does not depend on the perception of the individual. Rather, the perception of the individual is based on the contact that he or she has with external reality.

Consequences of Elevating Perception Above Reality

If people begin to elevate perception over reality, then the foundations on which historical and scientific studies are conducted crumble. No one could postulate what happened before the time in which we are living and there would be no scientific progress because everything would be a personal assessment. Medical services would enter into crisis because each person would claim that he or she does not suffer from any disease, even though the evidence shows the opposite. So the individual would not accept the treatment that will cure him or her of that disease because he or she is convinced that he or she does not have it.

Theologically, matters of faith would become imaginative inventions rather than encounters with divinity. Utopian cults would emerge whose leaders could persuade countless people to perform reprehensible acts for the leader’s own benefit. The leader would claim that his perception is true even when reality does not unfold as he says. People could not be charged with any crime, and judges could never convict criminals. In the written word, the author’s intent is replaced by the reader’s misrepresentation, and other such things would occur. Disregarding the truth of external reality will create a downward spiral that will lead to a host of problems.

Conclusion

Truth matters. Truth allows us to stand on something firm and immovable. Jesus highlighted the liberating nature of truth when he said, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). It is not surprising that businesses and churches revolve around Atwater’s phrase. These institutions want to create the best experience for their customers, and rightly so. The intention behind this phrase is therefore understandable and justifiable. However, the philosophical implications of the phrase are quite problematic. Therefore, I propose that we should replace the phrase “reality is what you can perceive” with the phrase “perception is a personal perspective on reality.” In this way, the nature of truth is not diminished and at the same time, individual perception of reality is considered. The provider of a service seeks to deliver the best possible experience to its customers. However, it is very risky to eliminate the essential value of truth.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Jennifer Chavez

December 23, 2022/by Guest

Christmas: The Cure For Our Two-Storied World

CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Even people who don’t celebrate Christmas seem to know what it’s about — the birth of a Savior who comes to rescue us from the consequences of our rebellion against Him. Ultimately, that means it’s part of God’s rescue plan and where we go when we die. But there’s another aspect to Christmas that I think is important too. It’s also about showing us how to live. And right-living depends on how we think. Unfortunately, our thinking is infused with lies that we’ve accepted as being part of “the human condition.” And believing those lies results in dissension, oppression, racism, political wrangling, class struggle, economic strife, and war. Sadly, it’s all part of the gravest story ever told. Christmas offers an antidote to the effects of that story too.

The story started in The Garden. And we’ve been repeating it to each other ever since. It thrives on divided minds. But we are designed to be united. God and man. Husband and wife. Body and soul. Physical and spiritual. The division we experience is a symptom of wrong thinking about the nature of reality. But there is a way to fix it. Christmas shows us how. It’s the cure for our two-storied world.

Focus On The Physical World

There is an assumption in our contemporary society that all of us have tacitly accepted, even if we claim to be “religious.” It is an assumption born in the Enlightenment and nurtured through four-hundred years of modern philosophy, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The assumption is this: That the physical world is all that really exists. And, since science is the study of the physical world, the logical assumption is that it will give the answers to our most profound questions. This is called Naturalism or Materialism. And many of us claim not to accept this view. We may even argue vehemently against it. But it is a difficult assumption to overcome because it is embedded in the fabric of our culture.

When we hear of an inexplicable healing, or an answered prayer, or an eerie “coincidence,” or a Christmas Star, our initial reaction is to seek a scientific explanation. Even those of us who take our faith seriously secretly wonder if the walls of Jericho really just fell down; if the Red Sea really parted, or (though we would be loathe to admit it) if Jesus really rose from the dead. We are hard-wired to be skeptical of those kinds of claims. In a thousand different ways we have assimilated, accommodated, and capitulated to the materialistic world. And with each baby step in that direction, the idea of the miraculous diminishes into a faintly held belief we have little hope of defending.

Non-Physical Reality

The Apostle Paul told us to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, we take him up on it. But in our knee-jerk reaction to do so we sometimes forget that a Christian view of the world is not limited to physical things. In fact, science is impotent when it comes to answering our biggest questions. And that’s because Ultimate Reality is not physical. It’s transcendent. It’s spiritual.

The Christian worldview encompasses both the physical and the non-physical. Alone, neither is adequate to describe us as persons. And neither can explain the makeup of all we know and experience. Ideas. Values. Reason. Mind. Morals. Love. None of these things are physical. But all of them are real. Life would be meaningless without them.

Creating The Two-Storied World

The modern, materialistic culture we live in disdains such a view. It does its best to belittle and destroy it. The result is that we are constantly engaged in the battle of ideas that this kind of philosophy has created. Francis Schaeffer addressed this conflict many decades ago. He didn’t originate the idea. But he identified its roots in a kind of “split” thinking. And he popularized the notion in a phrase we all recognize when we talk about taking a “leap of faith.”

On Schaeffer’s view, we have created a two-storied vision of reality. And we all live in it. Think of it as a two-story house. Non-physical realities like values, spirituality, religion, faith and the like, reside upstairs. Downstairs we find things like the physical world and science.

UPPER STORY: Values – Spiritual – Religion – Faith — Private

LOWER STORY: Facts – Physical – Science – Knowledge — Public

Living In The Two-Story World

When you think this way, the lower story is where we are told to go when we want to know the true things. Only science can help us. It is public and verifiable. The culture tells us this is where we should be living our lives. It’s the force behind the exhortation we hear every day to “trust the science.”

Conversely, upper story ideas are private and subjective. We are free to take an irrational “leap of faith” to the upper story if we want to. But we must realize that to do so is to ignore rational thought. That kind of stuff has no business seeping into the “real world.” We take the leap upstairs on faith alone. And while no one is permitted to question the thoughts or ideas of your “private world,” neither are we free to allow those ideas to influence how we understand the lower story.

The Consequences Of A Two-Storied View

Unfortunately, most of us go along with this program unwittingly. We tacitly accept the idea that our personal faith and religion are disconnected from, and have little value in, a fact-based world. But this doesn’t fit with what we know and experience. There is no way to understand meaning and purpose.

The lower story is right in front of us. But it contains no hope. Nothing in it can save us. And our world is filled with people who are wallowing in this disconnected reality. They live in the lower-story, but they long for the upper.

Wrong Solutions

Some religions just accept the disconnect. The secularists deny the upper-story. They try to construct a replica of it downstairs using only lower-story stuff. Conversely, the New Age, Gnostic, and eastern religions try to deny or escape the lower-story. They’re happy to float around upstairs with no attachment to the ground.

Both of these are dismal failures because they can’t make sense of the whole show. They don’t even try. All they can offer is a truncated view of the reality.

Christianity is a house where the two stories meld into one. A place where it all makes sense. Facts and values. Spiritual and physical. Religion and science. Faith and knowledge. All of these make up an integrated view of reality.

The two-storied world is not meant to be divided. It never was. There are stairs right in the middle of the house. But they’re too tall for us to climb.

So, God comes down.

Christmas

This is the other Christmas message. The Author steps onto the stage to offer His ultimate revelation. He shows us that human-centered thinking is inadequate to address the human condition we created shortly after we arrived on the scene. We came up with the flawed philosophy that exacerbated those problems. We’re the ones who manufactured a “two-story” view of the world. Our humanistic thinking divided that which was meant to be indivisible.

Christmas reminds us that it all can be fixed in only one way. God gives us the ultimate example of how the world was meant to be through the Incarnation. That’s what it means. God’s essence quite literally “puts on meat.” “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

The spiritual is united with the physical right in front of our eyes.

At Christmastime, the floor joists shatter and a thundering shock wave pierces the night. The ceiling above our human-centered world collapses. And the spirit Who has been rattling around in the attic comes crashing into our living room.

The divine unites with the human in one person. A person who offers us the perfect example of what it means to bear His image. What it means to function as an integrated whole. That person offers us a way out of our self-made morass of idiotic ideas and worldly wisdom. The infinitely perfect man comes downstairs to rescue us. But He also shows us how to live.

Only He can do such a thing. And when He does, the world makes sense again.

The Apologetic and Intellectual Adventures of Douglas Groothuis

Podcast

People are hungry for hope. They want to understand our human condition–its origin, nature, purpose, and destiny. The Christian faith offers hope for individuals and the entire universe, grounded in absolute truth. But how can we effectively communicate to others that Christianity is true, especially the “deep thinkers” who believe becoming a Christian will lead to their intellectual doom?

Dr. Douglas Groothuis is a gifted communicator and Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. He has the unique ability to challenge the highest-level thinkers while remaining accessible to those who are not as academically inclined. The author of 16 books has written, spoken, and preached on a wide range of topics–and that range seems to keep growing daily!

In this midweek episode, Dr. Groothuis sits down with Frank to discuss the additions he made recently to his most classic and voluminous work, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, and introduces us to not one but TWO other books he penned this year–Fire in the Streets, and The Knowledge of God in the World and the Word: An Introduction to Classical Apologetics. You’ll quickly learn that Dr. Groothuis is a walking + talking Rolodex of Christian apologetics and can speak knowledgeably on any given topic from lament, propitiation, the ontological argument, slavery, CRT, affirmative action, and everything in between!

Dr. Groothuis’ website: https://douglasgroothuis.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

December 20, 2022/by Frank Turek

The Miracle of Christmas

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Later this week, Christians throughout the world will celebrate the birth of the Savior. But to the growing number of atheists, this celebration makes little sense. Having accepted the materialist’s view of reality, they have limited themselves to thinking that nature is all there is, or was, or ever will be. Largely oblivious to the futility of such a barren worldview, they think they have the corner on reason as they insist that miracles like the Incarnation are simply not possible.

But the thinking underlying this worldview is circular: they begin with the assumption – the working hypothesis – that nature is all there is, and that all things and events must be explained by natural processes. Is it any wonder, then, that they end up where they began, with the conclusion that miracles do not occur? And without the possibility of miracles, they conclude Christianity must be false, without ever bothering to examine the historical evidence that supports it. But, of course, for a Creator powerful enough to create the universe from nothing -as the Big Bang corroborates occurred – and intelligent enough to create practically infinite varieties of life through the assembly of amino acids into DNA, entering this world as a flesh and blood creature isn’t really an obstacle. Insisting that this is impossible is roughly similar to a fish in an aquarium insisting that nothing exists beyond the tank. To the fish, the tank may seem to define the limits of reality, but that is simply because its frame of reference is so limited.

This Christmas season, it’s worth remembering that the real miracle of Christmas is not that God became man, but the manner in which He did it. When Jesus came into this world, Augustus Caesar ruled a Roman Empire that was making its might felt in all directions of the compass. But Jesus wasn’t born into wealth, power or privilege. Swaddled in rags, He drew his first breath in the lowliest of circumstances, welcomed by parents who could barely care for Him and who needed to flee the country in order to protect Him. He was born to a people that were themselves powerless. Defying expectations of a conquering messiah, He walked among men and women as a simple carpenter, seeking neither to form a church nor raise an army. Instead, He spoke of God’s great love for us, our need to repent and the consequence of remaining in our rebellion. The new “Adam,” he lay down his life to restore what was lost through the original Adam, to fix what was broken…to re-balance the scales of justice through an unmerited act of mercy.

In so doing, he showed us the meaning of real love – love that seeks neither reward nor return, love that is given selflessly and without limit – the kind of love we each long for but seek in the wrong places. He emptied himself so that he could fill us with the love that could restore the relationship broken when man chose to use his free will to defy God. Possessing infinite power, he chose to serve, rather than be served. Without ever putting quill to parchment, his teachings nonetheless reverberate down to us 2000 years later, with the same transformative power that rocked the Roman Empire, and then the world.

The Psalmist says:
“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?”

What is man?

To the atheist, nothing more than an animal. An intelligent animal, to be sure, but nothing more.

But to the Creator of the universe, man holds a much-revered place. That he would bother with us, that he would express such love to us and for us, that, indeed, is the true Miracle of Christmas.

Stealing Standards from God

Podcast

It’s that time of year again! You’re sitting around with family at the Christmas dinner table, and Uncle Joe insists on picking apart your Christian faith. What’s the best way to respond? Ignore him while you play with your mashed potatoes? Or do you try to refute his objections? You know you need to give the reason for the hope that you have, but how can you engage with his statements without starting a family feud?

In this week’s episode of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Frank explains that every objection to the Christian faith assumes a standard beyond the person who is making the objection and gives examples of simple questions you can ask Uncle Joe (and others like him!) to place a seed of doubt in his assertion that something is wrong with the Christian worldview.

Frank addresses some of the most common objections to Christianity, including:

God does immoral things in the Old Testament
There’s too much evil in the world
Christians are hypocrites and do evil things
Christianity is too exclusive
God doesn’t show himself enough
The Bible doesn’t recognize LGBTQ+ rights
there’s no evidence for God

PLUS–Frank shares testimonies from three people whose lives have been transformed by the Holy Spirit through the work we do here at Cross Examined! As you listen to these amazing stories, we hope you will prayerfully consider donating to the ministry so we can effectively reach even more people with the truth in 2023. Thanks to a group of incredibly generous donors, you have until 12/31 to DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT. For every dollar you donate, another donor will MATCH your dollar up to $150,000. So, if you donate $10, we’ll receive $20. It’s as simple as that!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

December 16, 2022/by Frank Turek

Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 4)

Español

Por Josh Klein

Lil Nas X
De vuelta a donde empezamos.

¿Qué pensarías si te dijera que el problema con Lil Nas X no es que sea homosexual, sino cómo percibe la respuesta de la Iglesia por ser homosexual?

De alguna manera ha llegado a la conclusión de que debería odiarse por tener una tendencia natural a la atracción por el mismo sexo. Por alguna razón, el señalar un estilo de vida pecaminoso se ha equiparado a señalar la maldad de la persona. Y creo que la razón está fundamentada en la idea de la identidad. En esta última sección de esta serie, intentaré mostrar un “mejor camino” para lidiar con estas problemáticas.

Debo destacar, que estas ideas no se me ocurrieron a mí. Ha habido muchos otros antes que yo, como Cristopher Yuan, Rachel Gilson, Preston Sprinkle, Leadthemhome.org y otros, defienden los mismos principios, pero mi intención es plantear una estrategia simple, directa y aún así difícil de implementar.

En un intento de aliviar la penosa unión entre pecado y pecador, los cristianos han inventado una frase concisa que tal vez hayas escuchado (o quizás la has dicho): “Odia el pecado pero ama al pecador.”

Como ya dije en la parte uno de esta serie, la sexualidad es un asunto completamente diferente. No se trata de un vicio universalmente aceptado que debe ser enfrentado como la drogadicción o el alcoholismo. El mundo se ha esforzado por hacer inseparables la sexualidad y la identidad, y la Iglesia, por alguna razón, está de acuerdo con las condiciones de ese concepto. Así que, cuando un cristiano dice: “Odia el pecado pero ama al pecador”, el que no es cristiano lo resistirá con indignación. ¿Por qué? Porque el que no es cristiano solo tiene una identidad y a esa se le cataloga como pecado. Por ello, el no cristiano cree que el cristiano sutilmente está diciendo, “odia su identidad pero ama lo que llegarían a ser si tan solo pudiéramos cambiarlo”, pero ellos son felices con la identidad que tienen actualmente.

Por supuesto, esa no es la intención de la frase, pero su uso ha tenido consecuencias inesperadas para con la comunidad LGBTQ+ por décadas. Toda una generación de seres humanos que toman su identidad de sus inclinaciones sexuales tienen la creencia que los cristianos les odian por el simple hecho de “ser quienes son.”

Ante esto las soluciones son, odiarse a sí mismos y tratar de ser algo que no son, o dejar atrás las miradas intolerantes de quienes dicen amarlos y perseguir un estilo de vida que parece ofrecer satisfacción y felicidad.

La iglesia liberal hizo bien en reconocer esta reacción como algo inaceptable. Después de todo, Dios quiere que todas las personas lleguen al conocimiento de la fe salvadora en Él, ¿no es así (1 Timoteo 2:3-4)?

Si bien su diagnóstico del problema es probablemente acertado, en la parte dos y tres de esta serie mencioné que su respuesta al problema (afirmar a la gente en su pecado) no fue acertada y está haciendo más daño que bien.

¿Y qué sigue?

¿De qué manera puede la Iglesia afirmar la santidad de Dios y su marco moral para la creación y al mismo tiempo ministrar a quienes se identifican estrechamente con el pecado que impulsa su sexualidad?

Hace poco escuché un podcast del experto conservador Andrew Klavan, quien es cristiano. Klavan tiene un hijo gay que afirma tener fe en Cristo Jesús, esto metió a Klavan en el dilema de tildar como pecado la homosexualidad.

No voy a criticar los ideales de Klavan en esta área; sin embargo, creo que su respuesta a la pregunta que la madre de un hijo gay le hizo merece cierta consideración. En medio de la respuesta a la pregunta de esta madre, Andrew dice algo así como:

“La homosexualidad es el único pecado que no permitimos en nuestras iglesias. Al que es obeso no le decimos que deje la comilona, pero al gay le decimos que deje de ser gay. Mi consejo es que ames a tu hijo con el amor de Cristo y ores para que dentro de las plegarias que su hijo le haga a Dios le presente su sexualidad de la misma manera en que todos deberíamos presentar nuestra sexualidad a Dios” (parafraseado).

Creo que Andrew ha expuesto algo importante aquí. Tratamos al pecado de la homosexualidad de manera diferente al resto de pecados.

Ahora bien, algunos podrían rebatir la declaración de Andrew diciendo (atinadamente) que el pecado sexual es más grave y deja consecuencias internas que otros pecados no (1 Cor. 6:18). Por lo tanto, la glotonería no es el mejor ejemplo, pero la respuesta a otros pecados sexuales entonces debe ser considerada.

¿Cuántos jóvenes en tu iglesia han tenido sexo prematrimonial?
¿Cuántos hombres (y mujeres) tienen la costumbre de ver pornografía?
¿Cuántos matrimonios se han roto debido a la infidelidad o al abuso?
¿Cuántos adolescentes luchan con deseos pecaminosos con personas del sexo opuesto?

¿Qué sucedería si a éstas personas les diéramos el mismo trato que damos a quienes luchan contra (o aceptan) la homosexualidad?

¿Y si creyéramos que la respuesta a la homosexualidad no es obligarle a ser heterosexual sino ayudar a la persona a dedicar su vida a Cristo?

En la misma respuesta Klavan menciona un concepto que es bastante extraño en nuestras conversaciones sobre la homosexualidad. Dijo algo como dejar que Dios sea el que se oponga al pecado en la vida de las personas, ya que todos estamos sumidos en algún pecado.

En esa línea de razonamiento, al notable teólogo y decano en teología de la African Christian University (Universidad Africana Cristiana) en Zambia, Voddie Baucham, se le atribuye la siguiente frase en lo que respecta al evangelio:

“El mensaje del evangelio es más sobre el pecado que sobre los pecados. El punto es que no necesito conocer el pecado en específico que comete la persona para después acercarme y decirle que debe dejar de hacerlo, sino que me acerco porque su naturaleza necesita ser cambiada” (el énfasis es mío).

¿Qué tan seguido le pedimos a una persona que lucha contra la mentira que primero deje de mentir antes de venir a Cristo? ¿Cuántas veces le hemos dicho a alguien que es adicto a las drogas o a la pornografía que primero renuncien a su adicción antes de acercarse a Cristo?

Pero la forma en que tratamos la homosexualidad en la iglesia es muy diferente, pues casi obligamos al homosexual ya sea hombre o mujer a dejar su comportamiento homosexual antes de presentarse delante de Cristo.

¿Y si en vez de gastar tiempo para convencer a la gente de cada pecado que tenga, lo usáramos para demostrar que nuestra propia naturaleza pecaminosa es la razón por la cual necesitamos un salvador?

Esto no significa que debemos aceptar que los comportamientos pecaminosos son algo bueno. Si eso hiciéramos estaríamos limitando la obra del Espíritu Santo para convencer a los individuos de los pecados individuales. Decirle a un adicto que su adicción no es algo problemático sino que es parte de su identidad y que debe aceptarla, ¿por qué iba a buscar el adicto una salida a su adicción?

La iglesia tiene una historia desagradable de manejo deficiente de los asuntos sexuales y es algo que debemos reconocer.

Creo que el mensaje que el mundo necesita escuchar es que cada individuo está roto y no que se les tache de malvados, y no pueden oír este mensaje a menos que primero les digamos cuán rotos estamos cuando permanecemos separados de Cristo. En otras palabras, no se trata de cuánto deseamos convencer a la cultura post cristiana sobre cuán hundidos están moralmente, sino mostrarles que no tienen esperanza así como nosotros no teníamos esperanza.

En vez de gritarle a las personas que es seguro que morirán por estar dentro de un edificio en llamas, deberíamos mostrarles una salida, “¡Si no quieres morir, sigue este camino!”

Esto es lo Voddie Bauchman nos dice en lo que respecta a cómo deberíamos predicar el evangelio. El evangelio no son las buenas noticias sobre modificar el comportamiento. El evangelio son las buenas noticias que anuncian que el Dios Todopoderoso del universo ¡ha mostrado un camino que conduce a la vida!

En mi plática con una ex estudiante respecto a estos temas me expresó su preocupación por el “odio en el internet” de supuestos cristianos hacia la comunidad LGBTQ+. Su preocupación provenía de dos lados, uno tenía que ver con ella y era el malentendido de lo que realmente significa odio, eso seguro, y el otro está relacionado con los cristianos y su falta de pericia para adentrarse en la sociedad y guiarla hacia Cristo.

Tomemos como ejemplo el sermón de Pablo en Atenas o el Areópago (Hechos 17).

Pablo pudo haber pasado por Atenas y elaborar un discurso acerca de su politeísmo e idolatría. Pero, él sabía que esta manera no era conveniente para expresar las buenas noticias de Jesús. Por ello, prefirió elogiar su espiritualidad y su pasión, y así es cómo encontró la oportunidad para hablar del evangelio.

Fuera de las paredes de la Iglesia debemos buscar oportunidades de conversación con la cultura americana post cristiana similares al diálogo en el Aerópago y no enfocarnos en las reprensiones como vemos en la carta a los corintios.

¿Cuál es la diferencia?

En este lado, Pablo se estaba dirigiendo a no creyentes (Areópago) pero en el otro lado les estaba hablando a supuestos creyentes que sabían más. (1 Corintios).

La Iglesia ha pasado mucho tiempo argumentando que la homosexualidad es una amenaza que hemos perdido la oportunidad (en muchos sentidos) de ministrar la gracia y la verdad. ¡No existe tal amenaza contra la Iglesia! ¡Las puertas del mismo infierno no son una amenaza! (Mateo 16:17-19)

La iglesia liberal les ha mostrado gracia y ha reforzado la verdad, y por ello el trabajo de la iglesia ortodoxa se ha vuelto más difícil. Ahora distintos evangelios compiten por los homosexuales. Este es un fracaso de la Iglesia, no de Dios y tampoco es el fracaso de quienes están siendo desorientados.

Hay un evangelio que afirma que pueden existir sin problemas la identidad sexual y la identidad de ser hijo de Dios y otro evangelio afirma que cualquiera puede ser adoptado para ser hijo de Dios pero insiste en que debe existir un dominio propio en lo que tenga que ver con sus comportamientos y apetitos.

Pero en nuestra tendencia de perseguir con pasión la verdad no nos dimos cuenta que en muchas situaciones atropellamos a la gracia.

No es necesario convencer a los homosexuales que debido a ese pecado en específico es que deben acudir a Cristo, lo que necesitamos es convencerles de que son pecadores (sin importar si son homosexuales o no) y porque son pecadores es que necesitan un Salvador. En otras palabras, nuestra conversación debería ser la misma para un joven que está viviendo con su novia y para un joven que está viviendo con su novio, sin embargo solemos manejar ambas situaciones de manera muy diferente.

Las personas no necesitan renunciar a todos sus pecados antes de conocer a Jesús, solo a su naturaleza pecaminosa. Renuncian a la esclavitud del pecado y acepta la esclavitud a la justicia en el momento en que ponen su fe en Cristo. Y luego el Espíritu Santo comienza a trabajar y, como todos sabemos, ¡es muy probable que sigan luchando!

Si llegan a la conclusión de que deben odiarse por lo que son, es muy probable que los argumentos de nuestra conversación fueron deficientes.

Así que, ¿qué significa este “camino más excelente”? ¿Debemos permanecer callados ante la homosexualidad culturalmente? No, pero debemos cubrir la verdad con amor. La homosexualidad no es el principal asunto a encarar, al igual que la promiscuidad y la adicción a la pornografía no son las principales cuestiones a tratar. El verdadero asunto a tratar es un corazón que urgentemente necesita ser limpiado, reparado y renovado. ¡Señor, danos un corazón de carne y quítanos el corazón de piedra! (Ez. 36:26) Con frecuencia, la Iglesia actúa desde un corazón de piedra para quienes pertenecen a la comunidad LGBT+.

Considero que la siguiente lista son algunas (aunque no todas) de las maneras en que la Iglesia puede ver progresos en sus diálogos sobre la sexualidad en la cultura de nuestros días. No son fáciles, pero creo que no son complicados y están alineados con las Escrituras y con el Evangelio.

No uses la palabra “identidad” cuando hables de sexualidad. Simplemente no lo hagas. Si dos personas llegan a tu iglesia y te dicen “somos una pareja gay”, trátalos como lo harías con una pareja heterosexual que sin estar casados viven juntos.
Deja de decirles que Dios les quitará sus tendencias homosexuales cuando se rindan a Cristo. Esto les pone una carga imposible de llevar a un grupo específico de personas. Es posible que Dios no elimine mis deseos lujuriosos, pero puedo orar para que Él los someta a su voluntad. Lo mismo aplica para las personas que tienen tendencias homosexuales. Es posible que Dios no los transforme (y probablemente nunca lo hará) y eso está bien. ¡Incluso es algo que debemos celebrar y por ello debemos coadyuvar! Estos hermanos y hermanas necesitarán en todo tiempo más de nuestra ayuda que el resto de la congregación porque ellos siempre se sentirán atrapados entre dos mundos que son opuestos.
Reconforta a los homosexuales con el evangelio, ofrécete para estar pendiente de ellos (si te lo piden) y no los trates como si hubiera algo mal con ellos porque no tratarías de esa manera a cualquier otra persona que estuviera luchando con cualquier otro pecado.
Aliéntales a estudiar constantemente la Palabra, no solamente los lugares donde hable de la homosexualidad, sino que observen todo el consejo de Dios. Si desean información sobre el tema, diles que juntos lean los libros de Christopher Yuan o de Preston Sprinkle. (¡Primero leelos tú!)
¡Ora, ama y sé amigable! Recuerda que no debes cambiar la verdad, pero eso no implica que debes eliminar el amor y la amistad.
Aconseja al liderazgo de la iglesia que se acerquen a esta problemática desde la perspectiva del evangelio, no desde la perspectiva moralista. Muéstrales nueva información como la que está en el punto 4, y específicamente acude a la página leadthemhome.org.
Sé consciente de tu comportamiento en las redes sociales en lo que respecta a estos temas y proponte mejorar.

Finalmente, date cuenta que esta es una batalla cuesta arriba. Por hacer las cosas de diferente manera tendremos ataques en ambos frentes. Podríamos perder amistades, quizá ofendamos a otros sin habérnoslo propuesto, y es posible que nos difamen con todo tipo de adjetivos por quienes creen que la homosexualidad es un pecado y por aquellos que creen que es algo normal. Trabaja para mantenerte firme en la verdad sin importar las consecuencias, pero no olvides la gracia y el amor mientras lo haces (Mat. 5:10).

Creo que el comportamiento homosexual es pecado, pero no creo que que sea un pecado que exceda al conocimiento de un Dios todopoderoso. La iglesia debería dejar de creer que la oscuridad entrará por sus puertas por no erradicar prontamente este pecado. ¡Que Dios nos conceda a todos gracia y favor en nuestro esfuerzo por glorificar su nombre y para traer a otros al pie de la cruz!

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es un pastor de Omaha, Nebraska con más de una década en el ministerio. Se graduó con un MDiv (Maestría en Divinidad) del Sioux Fall Seminary y pasa su tiempo libre leyendo y enfrentando problemas culturales y teológicos del presente y del pasado. Desde hace doce años está casado con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos.

Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo
Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado

December 16, 2022/by Guest

Why Does God Hide? | with Michael Jones and Eric Hernandez

Can We Agree to Disagree on Predestination?

Theological Triage

First-Order Doctrines

Second-Order Doctrines

Third-Order Doctrines

Dividing Over Doctrine

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Joshua’s Conquest and God’s Moral Consistency

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is God a Vindictive Bully? | with Paul Copan

Verdad, percepción y realidad

The Nature of Reality and Perception

Why the Natural Transcendence of Reality Far Outweighs Perception

Consequences of Elevating Perception Above Reality

Conclusion

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Christmas: The Cure For Our Two-Storied World

Focus On The Physical World

Non-Physical Reality

Creating The Two-Storied World

Living In The Two-Story World

The Consequences Of A Two-Storied View

Wrong Solutions

Christmas

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Apologetic and Intellectual Adventures of Douglas Groothuis

The Miracle of Christmas

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Stealing Standards from God

Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 4)

¿Qué pensarías si te dijera que el problema con Lil Nas X no es que sea homosexual, sino cómo percibe la respuesta de la Iglesia por ser homosexual?

¿Y qué sigue?

Recursos recomendados en Español:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED