By Alisa Childers
This article is in response to this piece from The Gospel Coalition. As a past TGC contributor, as an act of good faith, I did express my concerns directly to TGC before posting my article here.
**Update** The Gospel Coalition was gracious to publish a condensed version of my article on their site.
No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist. And neither was Jesus.
Many years ago, my Christian beliefs were challenged intellectually by a progressive Christian pastor. It threw me into deconstruction that took several years to fully come out of. I would find out later that he himself had already deconstructed and had hoped to propel his congregation into deconstruction so he could convert them to progressive Christianity. He was very good at it. In fact, he was almost totally successful. A few of us came back around to a historically Christian understanding of the gospel, but most did not.
Because of this, when “deconstruction stories” started popping up in my social media newsfeed, along with hashtags like #exvangelical and #deconstruction, I paid attention. I’ve been following along… seeking to understand what people mean by those words.
I witnessed a hashtag turn into a movement.
As of today, there are 293,026 posts on Instagram utilizing the hashtag #deconstruction. The vast majority are from people who have either deconverted from Christianity, become progressive Christians, embraced same-sex marriage and relationships, rejected core historic doctrines of the faith,and/or are on a mission to crush the white Christian patriarchy. There are a few photos of deconstructed clothing (apparently this is a thing?) and a scant few sneaky posts from evangelicals attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to convince the deconstructors that Jesus is the way. A plethora of insults, mockery, and anger are hurled at the church, along with memes stating, “I regret saving myself for marriage,” and “Good morning! It’s a great day to leave your nonaffirming church.”
Online, there are countless deconstruction therapy and counseling sites which will facilitate your deconstruction and reconstruct you with mindfulness or the contemplative practices of progressive Christian favorites like Richard Rohr. There are conferences you can attend, one for which I personally paid good money (for research purposes) to be taught how to break free from toxic religion, reject Christian dogma, and learn to embrace what basically added up to warmed-over Buddhism.
Phil Drysdale, a deconstructed Christian and deconstruction researcher asked people on Instagram to name the accounts that have helped them through their deconstructions. A quick scroll reveals that the leaders and guides the vast majority are looking to are accounts/people like Lisa Gungor, Audrey Assad, God is Grey, Jesus Unfollower, Your Favorite Heretics, Jo Luehmann, The Naked Pastor, and a plethora of others dedicated to providing a space for Christians to examine, reinterpret and/or abandon their beliefs. None of these accounts are encouraging Christians to look to Scripture as the authority for truth.
My Kingdom for a Definition
In my book, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, which chronicles my own deconstruction journey, I define deconstruction this way:
In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.
I would add that it rarely retains any vestiges of actual Christianity.
Over the past year or so, it has become common for Christian leaders to begin to refer to deconstruction as something potentially positive. I get it. When I first heard that take, I thought, “Hmmm. That could work. Just deconstruct the false beliefs and line up what you believe with Scripture.” I was operating from the foundational belief that objective truth exists and can be known. But as I continued to study the movement, this understanding of deconstruction became untenable.
That’s because the way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong. Take, for example, Melissa Stewart, a former Christian now agnostic/atheist with a TikTok following of over 200k. She describes how lonely and isolated she felt during her own deconstruction, and how discovering the #exvangelical hashtag opened up a whole new world of voices who related with what she was going through. Her TikTok platform now gives her the opportunity to create that type of space for others. In an interview on the Exvangelical Podcast, she commented on the deconstruction/exvangelical online space:
My biggest experiences with it were people talking about what they went through—their stories—and it was very personal and it focused on the human beings who have come out of this, rather than on whether a certain kind of theology is right or wrong.
In my experience studying this movement, I think she nails it on the head. Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It’s built upon a postmodern-ish embrace of moral relativism. For example, if your church says a woman can’t be a pastor, the virtuous thing to do would be to leave that church and deconstruct out of that toxic and oppressive doctrine. Deconstructionists do not regard Scripture as being the final authority for morality and theology—they appeal primarily to science, culture, psychology, sociology, and history.
A Life of Its Own
Now, the narrative is evolving. I’m seeing more and more posts, including the previously mentioned Gospel Coalition article, that portray Martin Luther and even Jesus himself as deconstructionists. This, in my view, is inherently irresponsible. If deconstruction means nothing more than changing your mind, or correcting bad ideas, then I can say I deconstructed by switching from AT&T to Verizon. Martin Luther was trying to reform the church to get back to Scripture. This is most certainly not what the deconstructionists are doing. In most cases, the Bible is the first thing to go. And when people put Jesus in the deconstruction camp…it’s unclear whether they mean he deconstructed his own views or he deconstructed the views of others. Either way, it’s seriously problematic. Deconstruction is not an appropriate term to use in these contexts.
It’s as if all of the sudden no one knows what the word means anymore, and they are somehow trying to redeem it or co-opt it to represent something like changing your mind or reforming your faith. Some in the deconstruction movement will argue that the current iteration of deconstruction is not to be conflated with the postmodern philosophy of Jacque Derrida, who is often referred to as the “Father of Deconstruction.” But I’m not convinced. Ultimately, Derrida didn’t believe that words could be pinned down to singular meanings. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose put it like this: “For Derrida, the speaker’s meaning has no more authority than the hearer’s interpretation and thus intention cannot outweigh impact.”[i]
Of course, for Derrida deconstruction had to do with text and words, not necessarily the dismantling of one’s faith. But it’s only a short jump from deconstructing the text of the Bible (which, I would argue, is typically the first stop on the path to deconstruction as it is manifesting today) to the complete unraveling of one’s orthodox Christian beliefs.
Here’s the irony. If we attempt to completely detach current deconstruction from Derrida and define it subjectively, we are literally deconstructing the word “deconstruction” a la Derrida. Why are we trying to co-opt a word and spin it into a positive? And if the meaning of the word deconstruction signifies any number of different things, at best we will be equivocating. At worst, we will have bought into the assumptions of postmodernism hook, line and sinker.
Matt Chandler is Right
Recent comments by Matt Chandler have made the rounds in which he characterized deconstruction as “the sexy thing to do,” hitting on the almost trendy type of cool factor the word now carries. Aside from giving the deconstructionists endless opportunities to make him the butt of their “Matt Chandler thinks I’m sexy!” jokes and memes, his comments (along with the recent comments by John Cooper of Skillet) have revealed that many Christians are using this one word in profoundly different ways. For example, Relevant magazine claims Chandler and Cooper have a “fundamental misunderstanding” of deconstruction. I disagree. I admit I’ve had a few quibbles with points Matt Chandler has made in recent years. But on this I think he understands something they don’t. He links deconstruction with the postmodernism of Derrida, and in a subsequent Instagram post, commented, “Deconstruction doesn’t mean doubt or theological wrestle or struggling through church hurt.” (All things he said he’s been through and has tons of mercy for.) I think he’s dead right.
We are Christians, and we should be deriving our vocabulary and categories from Scripture. I see nowhere in the Bible where anything like the current movement of deconstruction is promoted or condoned. I propose we leave it with Derrida and instead use biblical words and categories like doubt, reformation, discernment, and even sometimes, (gasp!) apostasy.
Let’s save deconstruction for what it presents itself to be. Here are some characteristics to look for if you think you might be deconstructing:
1. Some type of moral relativism is assumed, whether explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture is your authority, you are not deconstructing. That doesn’t mean you’re not struggling deeply with doubt, seeking healing from church abuse, or have profound confusion over what it means to be a Christian.
2. You are detaching from the body of Christ and seeking only the community of others who are also in deconstruction. If you are working through your doubts and questions in community with other believers, or at least have the intention of doing so, you are not deconstructing. Sometimes this will mean leaving an unbiblical church environment for a time, with the goal of finding a healthy one.
3. You are looking to non-Christian religious philosophies, history, or sociology—rather than Scripture— to determine authentic Christianity. Not that things like history and sociology are without merit, but if you are honestly seeking to derive your religious beliefs from Scripture, you are not deconstructing.
This doesn’t mean there’s no hope if you find yourself in actual deconstruction. Ten years ago, I found myself spiraling into deconstruction, and God in his unfathomable mercy and faithfulness led me out.
Let’s not Deconstruct Deconstruction
As Christians, we tend to protest when progressives and secularists take words and phrases like “love,” “tolerance,’ “biblical inspiration,” and “incarnation” and change the definitions to suit their preferences. Let’s not do the same with deconstruction.
Deconstruction has taken on a life of its own, and now is the time to be extremely careful to define our words accurately. After all, if the word means everything, then it means nothing, yet it carries the potential to suck unsuspecting Christians into a very dangerous vortex of ideas from which they might not return.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Olk2Cd
Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
Recently, Curtis Evelo (Bellator Christi Podcast co-host) told me about a conversation he had with an individual about biblical interpretation. Apparently, the individual held that the wine that Jesus miraculously brought forth out of water in John 4 was merely unfermented grape juice. When asked why he held this view, he contended that to hold that the wine held fermented content was to argue that Jesus was a sinner because wine is said to be a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. Curtis asked him what this had to do with Jesus’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. The unnamed individual then said that he used the law of first mention. According to the law of first mention, the interpreter first examines the initial place where the term or doctrine is taught in the Scripture. Then, the initial usage of the term and/or doctrine serves as a guideline for interpreting other subsequent passages that teach on the issue.
Let me first say that in all my biblical hermeneutics courses, I have never heard of the law of first mention. I have had some world-class instructors who can read the Bible in its original languages without a translation in hand. To my knowledge, they never mentioned such a law of biblical interpretation. There is simply no good reason to follow the law of first mention for the following reasons. As an aside, the issue concerning the Christian’s use of alcohol is a highly controversial topic. We simply do not have space to deal with the ethical ramifications of alcohol use. For the purposes of this article, we are merely examining the efficacy of the law of first mention, or the lack thereof.
The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text
The first problem with the law of first mention is that the tactic fails to consider the literal interpretation of each biblical text. Considering the topic at hand, earlier texts really do nothing to assist the interpreter with engaging whether a historical event occurred or not. Earlier teachings may assist with understanding the thought process behind a text in question. But it cannot overrule other factors such as social practice and norms, extra-biblical historical events, word studies, and other social matters that come into play. Furthermore, the historical context of the first mention must also be an issue of investigation, as one must remember that the modern interpreter is separated from the biblical times by at least 2,000 years—more like 4–6,000 years from the Old Testament eras. Additionally, the writings of Scripture are not necessarily in chronological order. So, determining when something was first uttered may be far more complex than originally held.
The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities
Second, the law of first mention does not consider the theological complexities found in Scripture. Without considering various theological issues, one may adopt all kinds of absurdities. For instance, the first two instances where wine is mentioned in the Bible come in the book of Genesis. The first reference is in Genesis 9:21, where it is said of Noah that “He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside the tent” (Gen. 9:21) [1]. Does this then imply that each believer should drink wine, become drunk, and uncover oneself? Certainly not! Obviously, this is not what Curtis’s friend was trying to imply.
The second mention is no better for his cause, for it says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is of no help when trying to understand whether Jesus’s wine was fermented or not. Thus, as one can tell, the law of first mention fails to account for the theological complexities of the text. The first instance serves as a warning of a life that strayed from God, whereas the second shows the gift that Melchizedek gave to Abraham, which may have included fermented wine.
Does this then indicate that everyone should drink wine? Of course not! Because other texts serve as warnings, exhorting individuals to avoid drunkenness (i.e., Prov. 23:20; Isa. 5:22; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:18). Yet this shows the ineptitude of the law of first mention when used alone. The law of first mention would seem to indicate that everyone should drink wine and get drunk if the case of Noah is used; but as the specified texts suggest, this is not the case.
Finally, the law of first mention fails to account for the gradual betterment of each subsequent covenant. If one accepts the law of first mention, then the old covenants are inherently better than the newer covenants. However, the new covenant in Christ is superior to all previous covenants. The writer of Hebrews states, “By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away” (Heb. 8:13). Not only does the author note that the new covenant is better than the covenants of old, but he also proclaims that the new has made the old obsolete. Therefore, this poses a major difficulty for the law of first mention, as it shows that there may be times when the new supersedes the old. Yes, the new covenant is indeed built upon concepts found in previous covenants. However, the new covenant does not require animal sacrifices, rituals, or the keeping of certain holidays. Rather, it is built upon the sacrifice of Christ himself. The believer is no longer under the law of old. He or she is under the law of grace. The new covenant’s supersession of the old creates a cataclysmic problem for the law of first mention.
The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy
Finally, the law of first mention is seemingly built upon a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of antiquity or the fallacy of tradition. The fallacy of antiquity is a false belief that holds that something must be better if it is older. This is the opposite of what is known as the fallacy of novelty, which holds that something must be better if it is new.
Suppose a person argues that original video games are better than modern video games. If this were so in all cases, then the paddle game Pong would be better than recent sports games, since it is the very first video game developed. However, Pong can in no way match the complexities and graphics found in modern games. For instance, being a football fan, I love the Madden football series. There is no comparison between Pong and the Madden series, as Madden adds realistic graphics, color commentary, and the opportunity to call numerous plays. In contrast, Pong allows you to move a white bar on a black screen to toss a white ball to an opponent who repeats the process. It could be that some aspects of older games are better than newer games. [2] But it is a hard sale to claim that all older games are better than all newer ones.
Another misconception people hold is that times were always better in the 50s and 60s than in modern times. However, one often does not consider the racial tensions of the 50s. If a person was black and lived in some sectors of the South, then the 50s were exponentially worse than modern times. Thus, this view shows the difficulties associated with an appeal to antiquity. The reality is that such a claim is not always true. The law of first things appears to be guilty of the same fallacy. Accepting the first mention of an issue in the Bible as the linchpin for all future references is nothing more than adopting the fallacy of antiquity.
Conclusion
The law of first mention fails as a proper hermeneutic on several fronts. First, it does not adequately handle the hermeneutical complexities of each passage at hand. Second, it fails to examine the theological intricacies throughout the totality of Scripture, especially when concerned with the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Finally, the law of first mention is built upon the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity. With all this noted, one may still find some benefits in studying the first place where an idea or word is used in Scripture. Some have found it beneficial to examine the first time that the term “light” is used in Genesis. Nevertheless, such a practice should never be used in isolation. It should always accompany linguistic, historical, and theological depths to find authorial intent. The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand what the author is trying to communicate to his/her reader. As such, the law of first mention does not assist in this endeavor and can lead to absurdities if pressed too far.
Footnotes
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).
[2] One case being where old hockey games would allow you to shove a player into his team’s bench and allowed you to shatter the glass if you were to hit the puck just right. But does this indicate that the overall game is better? Probably not.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3bo21og
How to Answer Arguments for Abortion | with Frank Turek
PodcastHave you ever found yourself at a loss for words when confronted by a zealous pro-choice advocate? Or maybe when a friend or co-worker started sharing their thoughts and opinions on abortion you couldn’t think of the right thing to say, so instead of speaking up you just kept silent? Now more than ever we need to effectively make the case for life, but sometimes the task is difficult because abortion is not intellectually complex–it is emotionally complex.
Last week, Frank talked about the historic overturning of Roe vs. Wade. This week, he takes the discussion one step further and answers the most common abortion arguments, such as:
Be sure to grab a pen and some paper, because you’ll want to take some notes!
Resources mentioned in this episode:
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
¿Por qué los cristianos deben preocuparse por la lógica?
EspañolBy Andrew Cabrera
A few years ago I was at a Christmas party and someone came up to me and started talking about my beliefs about God. At one point in the conversation he asked the age-old question, “Can God make a rock so heavy that he himself can’t lift it?” Among other things, I mentioned that omnipotence doesn’t mean God can do the logically impossible. Then the conversation ended abruptly when he said, “You can’t use logic to talk about God. God is not governed by the logic of man!” He then nodded and tilted his chicken wing at me as if to say “Gotcha!” and walked away triumphantly before I had a chance to say a word. Was I right? Is God governed by logic? Can God do the logically impossible?
What are the laws of logic?
The laws of logic are not made up; they are discovered truths about the nature of reality itself. It is commonly accepted that there are three fundamental laws of logic and that all other logical principles are derived from these three laws; they are: the principle of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. Each of these is similar to, but subtly distinct from, the others. The principle of identity can be symbolized as ∀(p): (p=p), which is a fancy way of saying that “p” is what it is. The law of excluded middle can be symbolized as (pv ~p), and it means that it will always be the case that either “p” or “not p” is true (there is no third option). And finally, the law of non-contradiction can be symbolized as ~(p * ~p), and it means that both “p” and “not p” cannot be true in the same way at the same time. This may seem a bit abstract, but I just wanted to make sure we’re starting on the same footing as to what the laws of logic are before we try to apply them.
Is God governed by logic?
First we need to distinguish between what IS logically consistent and what SEEMS logically consistent. Our rational intuition can sometimes fail us. We can think of our rational intuition failing us in terms of what statisticians call Type I errors and Type II errors. A Type I error is also known as a “false positive” – this occurs when your rational intuition says something is logical when it is actually not. Conversely, when your rational intuition says something is illogical when it is actually logically consistent, this is a Type II error or a “false negative.” God is inherently rational and cannot go against His nature, but He is not limited to our “logic” when we make such mistakes. What SEEMS logical to us at the moment, may not always BE logical upon further examination. God is not bound by the laws of logic, as if they were outside forces acting upon Him; But just as Christians see goodness itself as metaphysically tied to God’s benevolence, so too can we see rationality and logic as ontologically anchored in the nature of God himself. God does not submit to external logic, nor does he arbitrarily dictate logic, but is rational by virtue of his essential nature.
Why should I care about logic as a Christian?
We are made in the image of God as moral and rational beings. Just as we must strive to imitate God’s goodness, we must also strive to imitate his rationality. Not only does logic help us gain a more solid understanding of God’s nature, it is essential to fulfilling our mandates to share the gospel and to have a ready defense of the hope within us. Far from being an opposing force, logic is at the heart of the Christian faith. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, authors (and even Jesus himself) make claims of exclusivity, identity, and ontological reality—all of which are meaningless without first acknowledging the fundamental laws of logic. Proper exegesis, historical data, every classical argument for God’s existence, every theological position taken, and even the gospel message itself all depend—in one way or another—on these fundamental laws being true. Even God’s very nature and existence must be described in terms of these fundamental laws. If the principle of identity is removed, the identity and deity of Christ are also lost. If the law of non-contradiction is removed, the exclusivity of truth itself is also lost, and any meaningful notion of God’s existence goes with it.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Cabrera is an undergraduate student currently working toward his BA in Philosophy (with plans to pursue graduate work in philosophy afterward). He was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he continues to live with his wife and son. His academic interests include: Metaphysics, Formal Logic, Political Philosophy, and Philosophy of Religion.
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
Daniel Prophesied the Timing Of The Messiah
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
How did Jesus see himself? As we learn about Jesus’ Jewish context in the first century, we find that he made some staggering claims. First of all, Jesus spoke constantly about God’s kingdom. The phrase kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven appears more than 100 times in the Gospels. Jesus begins his ministry in Mark by saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near.” (Mark 1:15)
Okay, so what’s the big deal about that? And what does Jesus mean when he says the kingdom of God is “near”? Jesus was assuming that his audience would pick up on the ideas he was laying down. When a first century Jew heard the phrase “the kingdom of God,” their minds likely turned to a very specific prophecy in Daniel 2. Let’s provide some context before reading the prophecy. Daniel 2 describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an impressive statue crafted from four precious metals. As the dream unfolds, a large mountain grows from a mysterious stone, destroying the statue.
JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Let’s read the prophecy. Daniel 2:31-35 says:
The four parts of the statue represent four pagan empires, beginning with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar is told by Daniel that he is the head of gold. Additionally, he tells him that a second kingdom inferior to Babylon will follow after him, symbolized by silver, and a third kingdom by bronze. Eventually, a fourth kingdom emerges that is initially strong like iron, but gradually weakens, as if it were a mixture of iron and clay. Note that the fifth kingdom — God’s kingdom — occurs during the time of the fourth kingdom (Daniel 2.26-43).
Here’s Daniel 2:44-45:
Daniel explains that the four majestic beasts refer to four kings who arise from the earth. (7:17) After the appearance of four beasts, a heavenly “son of man” appears who seems to share divine honors. Then Daniel 7:9, 13-14 says: “I kept looking until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire….“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”
This Son of Man is the king of the fifth kingdom, God’s eternal kingdom. Think about what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. He speaks of God’s kingdom. Then he declares that he is the Son of Man, the ruler of the kingdom that would come during the Roman Empire. An attentive first century Jew would understand that he is claiming he is the long-awaited Messiah who will end the reign of these beastly kingdoms on earth.
JESUS, THE “CUT OFF” MESSIAH
Jesus applies one more prophecy in Daniel to himself. According to him, the Son of Man must be handed over to the authorities and put to death. (Mark 8.31-32) Where does Jesus get this idea from? In a rather bizarre passage, Daniel 9 describes the Messiah being executed. Here’s Daniel 9:24-27:
There has been much ink spilled over this very difficult section of Scripture. For this video, I’m choosing to limit myself to three reasons why the passage has been interpreted as referring not only to the work of the Messiah, but when he would arrive. In the prophecy, 490 years, or about 70 weeks of time, will pass between Jerusalem’s restoration and the coming of the Messiah. The phrase cut off implies that this Messiah will die. Jesus treats the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the Messiah in Daniel 9 as one person. Additionally, the prophecy links the death of the Messiah with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, meaning Jerusalem and the Temple . As a result, animal sacrifices will cease. Jesus himself mentions the abomination of desolation coming during his Olivet Discourse and predicts that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Let’s now look at the dates for this astonishing prediction.
JESUS CAME RIGHT ON TIME
Many commentators believe that the “sending forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” happened when the Persian King Artaxerxes commanded the Temple to be rebuilt in 457 BC. (Ezra 7) From there there’s the seventy weeks of years, which equals 490 years. That’s 33 AD, that’s the year many scholars believe Jesus was crucified! This is when Daniel says Messiah will be cut off. And then by 70 AD the city and sanctuary were destroyed.
You don’t have to trust my math. Let’s look at what the Jewish historian Josephus had to say: “We are convinced…that Daniel spoke with God, for he did not only prophesy about future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time at which these would come to pass.” (Antiquities 10.267-68)
And here’s the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. (You know…the guy who came up with probability theory): “One must be bold to predict the same thing in so many ways. It was necessary that the four idolatrous or pagan monarchies, the end of the kingdom of Judah, and the seventy weeks, should happen at the same time, and all this before the second temple was destroyed.” (Pensees 11.709)
Scholars debate the exact dates of this prophecy, but regardless of how one calculates them, the 490 years between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah occurred before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The prophecy of Daniel has to be fulfilled in the first century.
Summing up, this background from Daniel gives us a glimpse into what many Jewish people in the first century longed for. Their hope was in the coming of God’s kingdom and the messianic Son of Man. Furthermore, this data explains why Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple, is so surprised by Daniel’s predictions. It also explains why a first-century Jew like Jesus could describe his own coming death-along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple-as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Daniel did more than prophesy that the Messiah would come; he also predicted when he would come, what would happen to him, and what would happen to Jerusalem and its Temple. And it came to pass. During the first century. 2,000 years ago. Jesus of Nazareth, the proclaimer of God’s Kingdom and the Son of Man’s coming, was crucified 490 years after Jerusalem was restored by King Artaxerxes. This is rather stunning. The fulfillment of the prophecy goes to show that Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic. He’s the long-awaited Messiah who came just when Daniel predicted.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original blog source: https://bit.ly/3LEzW9e
There is No Right To a Dead Baby | with Frank Turek
PodcastAfter 49 years and 63 million dead, the Supreme Court finally overturned Roe v. Wade. Do you have a constitutional right to a dead baby? Finally, the Supreme Court has answered properly… NO.
However, despite this good news, there is still much work to do, as now the decision goes back to the individual states. As Christians and concerned citizens, what do we do now? In this episode of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Frank addresses the following questions:
Politicians and citizens on both sides of this issue can no longer hide behind the excuse, “Well, the life issue doesn’t really matter because the Supreme Court has tied our hands.”
Well, they just untied them. We must make a case for our position, and we need to do it now.
Resources mentioned in this episode:
Why Does God Allow Evil? Online PREMIUM course with Dr. Clay Jones
Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
The Ethics of Abortion Self-Paced Course with Scott Klusendorf
The Case for Life with Scott Klusendorf
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
Las cinco razones principales por las que la fe no es lo que crees que es
EspañolPor Richard Eng
La definición bíblica de la fe es simple, sencilla y directa. Pero hay influencias tanto dentro como fuera de la iglesia que confunden la definición bíblica. Imagina la definición bíblica como los ingredientes de un batido de frutas. Las malas influencias son el chocolate, la sal, la pimienta y el pescado. Cuando lo mezclas todo, la bebida que antes era deliciosa se convierte en un desastre pegajoso, no precisamente apetitoso; una definición de la que el mundo se ríe. La parte engañosa de la ilustración del batido es la siguiente: la información falsa que se mezcla con la definición bíblica de la fe parece atractiva, pero al final conduce a una definición tan distinta de la original que cambia el significado. Los cristianos no podemos permitir que los falsos maestros y el mundo definan nuestros términos. Cuando perdemos nuestras definiciones, perdemos el control de la conversación. Los profesores ateos, las personalidades de youtube y los entusiastas comentaristas de las redes sociales devoran a los cristianos desprevenidos cuando preguntan: “Entonces, ¿dices que crees en un dios sin pruebas? ¿Y eso es la fe? ¿Por qué no crees en algo basado en evidencias?”.
Pero ¿es la fe una creencia sin evidencia? ¿Es otra cosa? Aquí están las Cinco Razones Principales por las que la Fe No es lo que Tú Crees que es.
La fe no es ciega
Realmente creo que este malentendido proviene de una mala interpretación de un pasaje bíblico conocido. 2 Corintios 5:7 dice, “porque por fe andamos, no por vista”. (LBLA) La gente toma este pasaje para dar a entender que la fe no tiene vista o es ciega. Como si ser cristiano fuera andar con los ojos cerrados. El mejor consejo que he escuchado sobre la lectura de la biblia es este, nunca leas un verso de la Biblia. Es decir, no leas solo un verso- siempre revisa el contexto.
Incluso echando un vistazo rápido al contexto, el apóstol Pablo está hablando de que este mundo no es nuestro hogar. Su punto en 5:7 es llevar a los creyentes a que no estén tan centrados en este mundo que llegan a olvidar que este no es su verdadero hogar. En otras palabras, no se dejen arrastrar tanto por este mundo que se olviden del siguiente, el que todavía no vemos.
La fe no es “creer sin pruebas”
Nosotros en FreeThinking Ministries citamos a menudo a los ateos para ver de primera mano lo que se dice del cristianismo. Aquí está Richard Dawkins, “La fe es la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar la evidencia. La fe es la creencia a pesar de, incluso tal vez debido a la falta de pruebas”. (nota 1) Seguramente ese es el hombre de paja que Dawkins quiere levantar, e incluso los cristianos tomarán esta definición y correrán con ella. Pero, ¿es realmente la definición de la Biblia?
Alan Shlemon, colaborador de Stand to Reason, escribe,
“Pero esta definición es ajena a la Biblia. La palabra griega para fe, pistis, se deriva del verbo pisteuo, que significa “convencer con argumentos”. Hebreos 11:1 explica que la fe es “la fe es la certeza de lo que se espera, la convicción de lo que no se ve”. Algunas traducciones sustituyen “convicción” por “evidencia”. La fe, entonces, es estar convencido de que las cosas que no podemos ver (por ejemplo, Dios, el cielo, la resurrección, etc.) son reales.” (Enlace al resto del artículo)
Shlemon señala que cuando el autor de Hebreos dice, “convicción de lo que no se ve” (Heb. 11:1) quiere decir que, sencillamente, ¡todavía no vemos esas cosas! No quiere decir que no podamos verlas, o que la única manera de saber que son reales sea viendo. Es una pregunta retórica: “¿Ves a Jesús delante de ti? ¿No? Entonces es una convicción en aquel que aún no podemos ver”.
La fe no es un salto
Soren Kierkegaard, un filósofo del siglo XIX, inventó, o al menos se le atribuye la frase “el salto de fe”. Esto se basa en nuestros puntos anteriores, porque Kierkegaard ha dado forma a nuestra comprensión de la fe en occidente, de una manera sustancial. La comprensión de Kierkegaard sobre la creencia era muy parecida a la nuestra; la creencia debe estar justificada y ser verdadera. Pero Kierkegaard separó la fe de la evidencia, e hizo que la fe fuera más una experiencia que una afirmación sobre la realidad. Decía que la fe debe ser satisfecha con una intensa auto-reflexión, y la vida de fe es en última instancia, someterse a algo que no puede ser conocido en ningún sentido real. Para Kierkegaard, la fe es cerrar los ojos y saltar de un avión. ¿Quizás aparezca Jesús y te dé un paracaídas a mitad de camino? Pero esto no es seguro. Para Kierkegaard, la fe es un salto de tipo moneda al aire: tal vez lo consigas, o tal vez no. Pero nuestra fe es segura porque Jesús es quien dice ser, y hace lo que dice hacer.
La fe no es Todo o Nada
Los predicadores y los pastores explican, explícita o implícitamente, que si usted no es 100% creyente, entonces no cree en absoluto. Pero la Biblia enseña una historia diferente.
“Jesús le dijo: “¿Cómo si tú puedes? Todas las cosas son posibles para el que cree. 24 Al instante el padre del muchacho gritó y dijo: Creo; ayúdame en mi incredulidad. 25 Cuando Jesús vio que se agolpaba una multitud, reprendió al espíritu inmundo, diciéndole: Espíritu mudo y sordo, yo te ordeno: Sal de él y no vuelvas a entrar en él.” (Marcos 9: 23-25 LBLA)
Si somos sinceros, todos podemos identificarnos con este hombre. “Creo; ayúdame en mi incredulidad“, es un resumen perfecto de la lucha interna que todo cristiano experimenta. Es como buscar a Jesús para que te saque del agua cuando tienes un peso atado al tobillo. En ese momento estás concentrado en las pesas que te mantienen debajo, pero tu corazón anhela mirar hacia arriba. Entonces, ¡mira a Jesús! El punto de este pasaje es el siguiente: incluso si sólo estás 51% seguro de que Jesús hará lo que dice, Él puede trabajar con eso. Esta es la cuestión, lo único que sabes con un 100% de certeza es que existes, porque eres un ser pensante, además de las leyes lógicas y matemáticas como “1+1=2”. Aparte de eso tenemos que estar tranquilos viviendo en la tensión de la duda y las preguntas sin respuesta. Jesús nunca promete responder a todas nuestras preguntas. La mayoría del tiempo dice algo como: “Confía en mí y déjame trabajar”. No tengas miedo de la duda o de las preguntas sin respuesta, porque Dios sale a tu encuentro. Nuestras creencias deben tener razones que las respalden, y deben corresponder lo mejor posible a la realidad. Pero si tu expectativa es que el cristianismo te lleve a un lugar de 100% de certeza, la carne te hará mucho daño cuando nunca llegues allí.
La fe no es una sustancia
Creo que esto te va a doler, porque veo que los que asisten a la iglesia se tragan estas cosas. Lo triste es que no los culpo. Está de moda, es “espiritual”, ¡y se encuentra más de esta falsa enseñanza en las librerías que en las Biblias! Este es el movimiento de la fe, o de la palabra de fe. Escribiré más sobre esto más adelante, pero como un pasajero con asiento de ventanilla en un vuelo a casa, pueden mirar por la ventana y notar algunos puntos de referencia clave.
Los falsos maestros más eficaces en la iglesia utilizarán el mismo vocabulario, pero usarán un diccionario diferente. En otras palabras, usan las mismas palabras para hacer que parezca que están predicando la doctrina ortodoxa de la iglesia cuando en realidad están colando ideas que son mala filosofía.
Permítanme pintar una imagen:
Tu hijo está enfermo en el hospital. Llevas meses orando fielmente para que se cure… sabes que su vida corre peligro. Tus oraciones son fervientes y continuas, pero junto a su cama de hospital, estás al límite. En ese momento, ves a tu pastor entrar en la habitación. Te abraza en medio de la desesperación y comienzas a explicarle la situación. Después de escucharlo todo, te ofrece este consejo: “Bueno, me parece que Dios quiere curar a tu hijo a través de tus oraciones… pero no tienes suficiente fe. Si tuvieras suficiente fe, Dios lo sanaría”.
¿Has oído alguna vez eso? “¿No tienes suficiente fe?” ¿Has pensado eso? Permítanme ser claro, en ninguna parte de las escrituras hay siquiera un indicio de esta idea. ¡La fe es confianza! ¡Seguridad! ¡Creer en una persona confiable! La fe no es una sustancia o cosa, es el camino seguro hacia Jesús. El dice claramente: “porque en verdad os digo que, si tenéis fe como un grano de mostaza, diréis a este monte: Pásate de aquí allá, y se pasará; y nada os será imposible”. (Mateo 17:20) No se trata de la cantidad de tu fe, sino del objeto de tu fe. Dios creó las montañas, ¡si quiere moverlas puede hacerlo!
Entonces, ¿qué es la fe?
La fe, en su definición más pura, es casi indistinguible de la palabra creencia, excepto por un componente clave: si la fe es el 51% o más, la confianza compensa la diferencia. La fe es confianza, seguridad y firmeza, pero el conocimiento nunca puede llevarnos al 100% de certeza. Siempre hay una buena dosis de preguntas sin respuesta con las que toda persona se enfrenta. La diferencia es que el cristianismo ofrece una persona, Jesucristo, en la que depositamos nuestra confianza en las preguntas sin respuesta. El Dios del cristianismo es un ser máximamente grande, no puede mentir, no puede pecar, es fiel, es bueno, es justo, es amoroso, etc. Las preguntas sin respuesta descansano en el carácter de Dios. No tengas miedo de dudar, pero lleva esas dudas al pie de la cruz. Que tu fe se caracterice por el hombre que en plena y total vulnerabilidad de su corazón clama: “Creo… ¡ayúdame en mi incredulidad!”.
Notas de pie de página:
1. Una conferencia de Richard Dawkins extraida de The Nullifidian (Dec 94)
2. http://www.str.org/articles/is-faith-blind#.VrTQzDYrJmA (accessed 2/5/16)
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alisa Childers
This article is in response to this piece from The Gospel Coalition. As a past TGC contributor, as an act of good faith, I did express my concerns directly to TGC before posting my article here.
**Update** The Gospel Coalition was gracious to publish a condensed version of my article on their site.
No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist. And neither was Jesus.
Many years ago, my Christian beliefs were challenged intellectually by a progressive Christian pastor. It threw me into deconstruction that took several years to fully come out of. I would find out later that he himself had already deconstructed and had hoped to propel his congregation into deconstruction so he could convert them to progressive Christianity. He was very good at it. In fact, he was almost totally successful. A few of us came back around to a historically Christian understanding of the gospel, but most did not.
Because of this, when “deconstruction stories” started popping up in my social media newsfeed, along with hashtags like #exvangelical and #deconstruction, I paid attention. I’ve been following along… seeking to understand what people mean by those words.
I witnessed a hashtag turn into a movement.
As of today, there are 293,026 posts on Instagram utilizing the hashtag #deconstruction. The vast majority are from people who have either deconverted from Christianity, become progressive Christians, embraced same-sex marriage and relationships, rejected core historic doctrines of the faith,and/or are on a mission to crush the white Christian patriarchy. There are a few photos of deconstructed clothing (apparently this is a thing?) and a scant few sneaky posts from evangelicals attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to convince the deconstructors that Jesus is the way. A plethora of insults, mockery, and anger are hurled at the church, along with memes stating, “I regret saving myself for marriage,” and “Good morning! It’s a great day to leave your nonaffirming church.”
Online, there are countless deconstruction therapy and counseling sites which will facilitate your deconstruction and reconstruct you with mindfulness or the contemplative practices of progressive Christian favorites like Richard Rohr. There are conferences you can attend, one for which I personally paid good money (for research purposes) to be taught how to break free from toxic religion, reject Christian dogma, and learn to embrace what basically added up to warmed-over Buddhism.
Phil Drysdale, a deconstructed Christian and deconstruction researcher asked people on Instagram to name the accounts that have helped them through their deconstructions. A quick scroll reveals that the leaders and guides the vast majority are looking to are accounts/people like Lisa Gungor, Audrey Assad, God is Grey, Jesus Unfollower, Your Favorite Heretics, Jo Luehmann, The Naked Pastor, and a plethora of others dedicated to providing a space for Christians to examine, reinterpret and/or abandon their beliefs. None of these accounts are encouraging Christians to look to Scripture as the authority for truth.
My Kingdom for a Definition
In my book, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, which chronicles my own deconstruction journey, I define deconstruction this way:
In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.
I would add that it rarely retains any vestiges of actual Christianity.
Over the past year or so, it has become common for Christian leaders to begin to refer to deconstruction as something potentially positive. I get it. When I first heard that take, I thought, “Hmmm. That could work. Just deconstruct the false beliefs and line up what you believe with Scripture.” I was operating from the foundational belief that objective truth exists and can be known. But as I continued to study the movement, this understanding of deconstruction became untenable.
That’s because the way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong. Take, for example, Melissa Stewart, a former Christian now agnostic/atheist with a TikTok following of over 200k. She describes how lonely and isolated she felt during her own deconstruction, and how discovering the #exvangelical hashtag opened up a whole new world of voices who related with what she was going through. Her TikTok platform now gives her the opportunity to create that type of space for others. In an interview on the Exvangelical Podcast, she commented on the deconstruction/exvangelical online space:
My biggest experiences with it were people talking about what they went through—their stories—and it was very personal and it focused on the human beings who have come out of this, rather than on whether a certain kind of theology is right or wrong.
In my experience studying this movement, I think she nails it on the head. Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It’s built upon a postmodern-ish embrace of moral relativism. For example, if your church says a woman can’t be a pastor, the virtuous thing to do would be to leave that church and deconstruct out of that toxic and oppressive doctrine. Deconstructionists do not regard Scripture as being the final authority for morality and theology—they appeal primarily to science, culture, psychology, sociology, and history.
A Life of Its Own
Now, the narrative is evolving. I’m seeing more and more posts, including the previously mentioned Gospel Coalition article, that portray Martin Luther and even Jesus himself as deconstructionists. This, in my view, is inherently irresponsible. If deconstruction means nothing more than changing your mind, or correcting bad ideas, then I can say I deconstructed by switching from AT&T to Verizon. Martin Luther was trying to reform the church to get back to Scripture. This is most certainly not what the deconstructionists are doing. In most cases, the Bible is the first thing to go. And when people put Jesus in the deconstruction camp…it’s unclear whether they mean he deconstructed his own views or he deconstructed the views of others. Either way, it’s seriously problematic. Deconstruction is not an appropriate term to use in these contexts.
It’s as if all of the sudden no one knows what the word means anymore, and they are somehow trying to redeem it or co-opt it to represent something like changing your mind or reforming your faith. Some in the deconstruction movement will argue that the current iteration of deconstruction is not to be conflated with the postmodern philosophy of Jacque Derrida, who is often referred to as the “Father of Deconstruction.” But I’m not convinced. Ultimately, Derrida didn’t believe that words could be pinned down to singular meanings. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose put it like this: “For Derrida, the speaker’s meaning has no more authority than the hearer’s interpretation and thus intention cannot outweigh impact.”[i]
Of course, for Derrida deconstruction had to do with text and words, not necessarily the dismantling of one’s faith. But it’s only a short jump from deconstructing the text of the Bible (which, I would argue, is typically the first stop on the path to deconstruction as it is manifesting today) to the complete unraveling of one’s orthodox Christian beliefs.
Here’s the irony. If we attempt to completely detach current deconstruction from Derrida and define it subjectively, we are literally deconstructing the word “deconstruction” a la Derrida. Why are we trying to co-opt a word and spin it into a positive? And if the meaning of the word deconstruction signifies any number of different things, at best we will be equivocating. At worst, we will have bought into the assumptions of postmodernism hook, line and sinker.
Matt Chandler is Right
Recent comments by Matt Chandler have made the rounds in which he characterized deconstruction as “the sexy thing to do,” hitting on the almost trendy type of cool factor the word now carries. Aside from giving the deconstructionists endless opportunities to make him the butt of their “Matt Chandler thinks I’m sexy!” jokes and memes, his comments (along with the recent comments by John Cooper of Skillet) have revealed that many Christians are using this one word in profoundly different ways. For example, Relevant magazine claims Chandler and Cooper have a “fundamental misunderstanding” of deconstruction. I disagree. I admit I’ve had a few quibbles with points Matt Chandler has made in recent years. But on this I think he understands something they don’t. He links deconstruction with the postmodernism of Derrida, and in a subsequent Instagram post, commented, “Deconstruction doesn’t mean doubt or theological wrestle or struggling through church hurt.” (All things he said he’s been through and has tons of mercy for.) I think he’s dead right.
We are Christians, and we should be deriving our vocabulary and categories from Scripture. I see nowhere in the Bible where anything like the current movement of deconstruction is promoted or condoned. I propose we leave it with Derrida and instead use biblical words and categories like doubt, reformation, discernment, and even sometimes, (gasp!) apostasy.
Let’s save deconstruction for what it presents itself to be. Here are some characteristics to look for if you think you might be deconstructing:
1. Some type of moral relativism is assumed, whether explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture is your authority, you are not deconstructing. That doesn’t mean you’re not struggling deeply with doubt, seeking healing from church abuse, or have profound confusion over what it means to be a Christian.
2. You are detaching from the body of Christ and seeking only the community of others who are also in deconstruction. If you are working through your doubts and questions in community with other believers, or at least have the intention of doing so, you are not deconstructing. Sometimes this will mean leaving an unbiblical church environment for a time, with the goal of finding a healthy one.
3. You are looking to non-Christian religious philosophies, history, or sociology—rather than Scripture— to determine authentic Christianity. Not that things like history and sociology are without merit, but if you are honestly seeking to derive your religious beliefs from Scripture, you are not deconstructing.
This doesn’t mean there’s no hope if you find yourself in actual deconstruction. Ten years ago, I found myself spiraling into deconstruction, and God in his unfathomable mercy and faithfulness led me out.
Let’s not Deconstruct Deconstruction
As Christians, we tend to protest when progressives and secularists take words and phrases like “love,” “tolerance,’ “biblical inspiration,” and “incarnation” and change the definitions to suit their preferences. Let’s not do the same with deconstruction.
Deconstruction has taken on a life of its own, and now is the time to be extremely careful to define our words accurately. After all, if the word means everything, then it means nothing, yet it carries the potential to suck unsuspecting Christians into a very dangerous vortex of ideas from which they might not return.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Olk2Cd
A Way To Simplify The Big Picture
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Being able to make the case for the truth of Christianity means you have to understand it yourself. There are plenty of resources out there that can help you do that. I always try to share the best ones I know about. But right now, I want to offer you a visual tool as a way to simplify the “big picture.” This diagram helps categorize the facts supporting Christian Theism. It’s a way to organize the evidence for Christianity in your mind’s eye.
Confident Christianity
Last year, I developed this model into a book-length summary of the evidence for Christian theism. It is available now in both paperback and Kindle formats. You can order it here:
This book doesn’t make any claims about the theological nuances that are required to understand Christianity in detail. And it doesn’t address denominational differences between Christians. It is a simple summary of the evidence for “Mere Christianity” that we find in the real world. It’s a challenge to skeptics who may have dismissed Christianity as just another blindly-followed religious myth. And it’s an easy-to-read distillation of that evidence for Christians who may never have been exposed to all of it in one place. My goal in writing this book was to provide a basic, “big picture” overview for those who may have never been exposed to apologetics.
What Is Theism?
There are many different views of God. But they fall into three basic categories:
Christianity is a theistic religion. That means we should have evidence for some kind of theistic God who is separate from, but involved in, the universe. This is a God who created, sustains, and interacts with the world. Our diagram is a summary of the evidence for that kind of God.
First Things First – God Exists
I’ve summarized the case for God’s existence into three basic categories: Origins, Ethics, and Life. Here’s what I mean:
If this God exists, we must have evidence for the type of God who is a personal, moral agent. In order to create the physical universe, that God must exist outside of that universe. That means God can’t be part of the matter, energy, space, or time that makes up our world. He must be transcendent and non-physical. But it doesn’t stop there. Theism requires that God is also able to act within the universe he created.
These three foundational categories (origins, ethics, and life) contain all the evidence that explains things we know about our universe:
Obviously, there is a lot to each of these topics and I will provide resources to support each of them, but the takeaway is simply that our claim to believe that there is a God is not based on some kind of wishful thinking or irrational hope. It is based on evidence — concrete evidence about the way the world actually is.
Since we have evidence that there is a God and that this God’s attributes must be consistent with the evidence listed above, it follows that one of the theistic religions must be true. In order to determine which of the theistic religions is true, we need more specific information.
Specific Evidence For Christianity
The blue categories at the top of the diagram are what allow us to differentiate Christianity from the other theistic religions. Here, we look at data from archaeology and history. We can also compare the manuscript evidence from each of those religions in order to identify which of them is true. This is where the strength of the case for Christianity shines. No other religion even comes close to having the amount of evidence to support it:
That’s the case for Christian Theism in a nutshell. We can be confident that our faith is justified, not because it makes us feel good about ourselves, or because it “works for us,” but because it is actually true!
Now for the hard part.
The Ultimate Apologetic
If you aren’t already familiar with the information above, it won’t seep into your brain through osmosis. You have to be dedicated to familiarizing yourself with it. In the posts that follow, I will give you resources — videos, articles, and books — to help fill in the details of each of these categories of evidence. But remember, you don’t have to become a biblical scholar and master every subject listed above in order to prepare yourself and those you love to use them. Remember, the purpose of True Horizon is to look at the world with a view from 35,000 feet.
You simply have to understand the basics and be willing to go find answers. In the meantime, here are some fundamental things to understand about what this all means and how to use it:
Finally, always remember that you are not meant to convince people to agree with you. That’s not your job. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads them to the truth. You are not the one who saves them. That’s Jesus’ job.
Your mission is simple: know and speak the truth. “Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have” (1 Peter 3:15). You are only meant to train those in your little corner of the world to be prepared to engage people in a winsome way.
That’s your “job.” And when you’ve done it, relax … and let God do His.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3OvYYZk
The Babylon Bee vs. Postmodernism | with Kyle Mann
PodcastAre you ready to laugh and think your way through a timely update of a classic tale?
Kyle Mann, editor-in-chief of The Babylon Bee, joins Frank to discuss his new book, The Postmodern Pilgrim’s Progress (co-authored with Joel Berry). Part novel and part “sci-fi fantasy allegory”, The Postmodern Pilgrim’s Progress is a modern-day version of John Bunyan’s classic book and tackles subject matter that is unique to our culture today–including the prosperity gospel, deconstruction, humanism, evolution, skepticism, abortion, and more.
Here’s a short excerpt from the beginning of the book:
“On this journey, Ryan will learn something, which is more than most people who go on journeys can say. When he wakes up, he won’t remember the dream, but he will be a changed man. He will be made new somehow, even if he can’t explain exactly how. This will be the first in many thousands of dreams, interactions, moments, and strange coincidences that lead him to a moment every created being was created for: reconciliation with the Creator.”
In this episode, Frank and Kyle also talk about how The Babylon Bee got started, and the controversy surrounding their recent Twitter censorship. You don’t want to miss it!
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
La duda emocional y cómo combatirla
EspañolBy Brian Chilton
In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted that 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for all people, but it seems to be a more difficult concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men refrain from talking about their emotions. Many suppress emotional doubt and ignore it. However, these actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt can deal with issues related to the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.
Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated with a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some will say, “Wait, Brian! You’re talking about that psychology mumbo jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is a pretty good practice. Paul argues as follows:
“ Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any excellence or anything worthy of praise—think about these things.” (Phil. 4:6-8 ESV) [1]
The believer should focus on the things that strengthen his faith and not on the worries and fears that cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.
1.- Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You might say, “I’m sure I’m going to fail this test even though I studied hard for it. I’m too dumb to pass it.” Realize that these statements don’t correspond to reality. If you’ve studied hard for the test, then you’ve learned the information that will appear on it. You’re certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
2.- Eliminate your lies by arguing against them and giving reasons for your optimism. Secondly, argue against the lies you tell yourself with a positive and encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the exam it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, it is better to remind yourself that you have studied the material and that you have learned it quite well. Even if the worst happens and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it is, it is not as bad as you are making it out to be.
3.- Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and last, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I can do all things through Him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13, parenthesis mine). Understand this as well ” And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28 ESV). With these truths in mind, doubts and anxieties begin to lose their control.
CBT is a biblical practice that all believers should embrace. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. We are often our own worst enemies by being too scared to take risks, by playing the “what if” game. Don’t let fear and anxiety steal the grace God has given you any longer. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7).
Note
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
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 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 a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in Liberty University’s doctoral program in Theology and Apologetics. Brian has been in ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original blog source: https://bit.ly/39MVToY
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque