By Jonathan McLatchie
The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?
2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,
And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.
In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:
Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?
In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.
It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:
It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.
But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:
Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.
Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.
Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.
This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.
Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury
For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:
At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.
Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:
Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).
Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.
Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.
For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:
And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.
Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.
This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.
Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence
Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.
Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:
When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things.
The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.
Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”
After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).
The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).
Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.
We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.
Conclusion
Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3PRQqMQ
Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument for Their Veracity (Part 1) — Old Testament Examples
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jonathan McLatchie
The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?
2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,
In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:
Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?
In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.
It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:
Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.
But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:
Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.
Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.
This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.
Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury
For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:
Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:
King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).
Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.
Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:
Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.
For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:
Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.
This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.
Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence
Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.
Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:
The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.
Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”
After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).
The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).
Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.
We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.
Conclusion
Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3PRQqMQ
Why Believe? | with Dr. Neil Shenvi
PodcastWhy believe in Christianity? Why believe that God exists? Aren’t there reasons NOT to believe in God? Reasons like:
For centuries, skeptics have disputed the claims of Christianity―such as the belief in an eternal God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ―arguing that they simply cannot be accepted by reasonable individuals. Furthermore, efforts to demonstrate the evidence and rational basis for Christianity through apologetics are often deemed too simplistic to be taken seriously in intellectual circles. And miracles? Ha! They’ll say anything is more probable than a miracle, even the idea that Jesus had an identical twin!
In his new book, Why Believe: A Reasoned Approach to Christianity, apologist and theoretical chemist turned homeschool dad, Dr. Neil Shenvi, engages in some of the best contemporary arguments against Christianity. He presents compelling evidence for the identity of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, his death and resurrection, the existence of God, and the unique message of the gospel. As you’ll discover in this podcast episode, Neil is no “uneducated Christian” and responds to some of the most common objections to Christianity with precision, clarity, and grace.
Neil also talks with Frank about his college days at UC Berkeley and Princeton, where he came to faith during a class nicknamed “The Faith Buster,” taught using Bart Ehrman’s textbook and other liberal religious scholarship. Talk about a miracle; you won’t believe his testimony!
Neil’s website: https://shenviapologetics.com/
Follow Neil on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi
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
¿Realmente no tuvimos un Canon del Nuevo Testamento hasta el siglo IV?
EspañolPor Ryan Leasure
¿Es verdad que los documentos del Nuevo Testamento no fueron Escrituras hasta el siglo IV? Es decir, ¿los libros no tenían autoridad hasta que los concilios de la iglesia se la otorgaron? Los eruditos liberales hacen esta sugerencia debido a que elimina cualquier explicación sobrenatural para el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Para ellos, una autoridad bíblica puede ser explicada únicamente en términos humanos.
Algunos de nuestros amigos católicos también argumentan a favor del siglo IV, pero por otras razones. Para ellos, la máxima autoridad reside en la iglesia. Por lo tanto, sin el sello de aprobación de la iglesia, el Nuevo Testamento no tendría ninguna autoridad.
Pero, ¿es ésta una representación exacta de los documentos del Nuevo Testamento? ¿No eran Escrituras hasta que la Iglesia se pronunció sobre ellos en el siglo IV? Para responder a esta pregunta, necesitamos ver cómo la Iglesia primitiva consideraba estos documentos.
Concilios de la Iglesia del siglo IV
Para empezar, permítanme decir que ningún concilio del siglo IV dio autoridad a los documentos del Nuevo Testamento. El Código Da Vinci se equivocó al decir que el Concilio de Nicea (325 d. C.), bajo la dirección de Constantino, formó el canon del Nuevo Testamento. El Concilio de Nicea no tuvo nada que ver con el canon.
De hecho, no tenemos ningún concilio eclesiástico del siglo IV que determine cuáles libros debían incluirse en el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Lo que tenemos son, en cambio, concilios eclesiásticos regionales que afirman los libros que ya habían funcionado como Escritura para la iglesia. En otras palabras, estos concilios eclesiásticos no otorgan autoridad a ningún libro del Nuevo Testamento. Más bien, se limitan a reconocer los libros que ya tenían esa autoridad. Esta distinción es crucial.
¿Quizás te estés preguntando por qué tardaron tanto tiempo? ¿Por qué la iglesia no hizo una lista mucho antes? Una explicación es que durante los primeros tres siglos, el cristianismo fue, en su mayor parte, una religión ilegal que enfrentó una persecución continua. De hecho, en el año 303 d.C., el emperador Diocleciano ordenó a todos los cristianos hacer sacrificios a los dioses paganos o de lo contrario tendrían que enfrentar el encarcelamiento o el exterminio. Además, les ordenó entregar todas sus Escrituras para que fueran quemadas.
Por estas razones, la iglesia no podía organizar concilios en todo el imperio para ratificar el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Además, no podían hacer circular sus libros ya que podrían ser confiscados por los funcionarios romanos. Una vez que Constantino legalizó el cristianismo en el siglo IV, la iglesia pudo dispersar sus libros libremente. En esta coyuntura, todas las iglesias tuvieron conocimiento de los distintos documentos y, por tanto, afirmaron la autoridad de los veintisiete libros.
Líderes de la Iglesia del siglo II
Sin embargo, la afirmación del canon del Nuevo Testamento por parte de la Iglesia en el siglo IV no venía de la nada. Los cristianos consideraban desde hacía tiempo que estos libros tenían autoridad. De hecho, varios líderes del siglo II afirman la autoridad del Nuevo Testamento en sus escritos.
Ireneo (180 d.C.)
Más que ningún otro padre de la Iglesia, Ireneo aborda cuestiones canónicas. Por ejemplo, declara que entre los muchos llamados evangelios, sólo cuatro de ellos tienen autoridad. Escribe:
“No es posible que los evangelios sean más o menos que el número que son. Así como que hay cuatro zonas del mundo en las que vivimos y cuatro vientos principales”2
Ireneo indica en otra parte por qué estos cuatro evangelios, y ningún otro, son canónicos. Confirma los cuatro evangelios porque sólo ellos están respaldados por la autoridad apostólica, mientras que los demás fueron escritos por gnósticos del siglo II. Dado que era un discípulo de Policarpo que conocía personalmente al apóstol Juan, su conocimiento de la autoría de los mismos tiene un peso importante.
Teófilo de Antioquía (177 d.C.)
Como obispo de Antioquía, Teófilo equipara compara en sus escritos a los profetas del Antiguo Testamento con los Evangelios.
“En cuanto a la justicia que la ley exigía, se encuentran declaraciones confirmatorias tanto en los profetas como en los Evangelios, porque todos hablaron inspirados por un mismo Espíritu de Dios.”3
No sólo eleva los Evangelios a la par con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento, sino que Teófilo afirma la inspiración divina para los Evangelios.
Justino Mártir (150-160 d.C)
Justino Mártir, que escribe antes que Ireneo y Teófilo, aborda los Evangelios o las “memorias” de los apóstoles en varias ocasiones. En una ocasión, aborda su papel en el culto.
“Y en el día llamado domingo, todos los que viven en las ciudades o en el campo se reúnen en un lugar, y se leen las memorias de los apóstoles o los escritos de los profetas, mientras el tiempo lo permita; luego, cuando el lector ha cesado, quien preside instruye verbalmente, y exhorta a la imitación de estas cosas buenas.”4
Esta cita lo dice todo. Justino indica que la iglesia primitiva tenía tan buena opinión de los Evangelios que los incluía en su servicio de culto junto con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento.
Policarpo (110 d.C)
Policarpo fue alumno y compañero del apóstol Juan. En uno de sus escritos, designa explícitamente los escritos de Pablo como Escritura cuando afirma:
Como está escrito en estas Escrituras: “Airaos, pero no pequéis; no se ponga el sol sobre vuestro enojo”.
Escribiendo a principios del siglo II, Policarpo cita Efesios 4:26 y lo llama Escritura – mucho antes de los concilios del siglo IV.
Otras fuentes tempranas – Ignacio, Clemente de Roma, y la Epístola de Bernabé – también discuten el canon del Nuevo Testamento.
Los escritores del Nuevo Testamento
Hasta ahora, hemos determinado que la iglesia del siglo II consideraba los escritos del Nuevo Testamento como Escritura con autoridad . Pero, ¿podemos retroceder aún más? Creo que podemos hacerlo observando los propios escritos del Nuevo Testamento.
2 Pedro 3:15-16
“y considerad la paciencia de nuestro Señor como salvación, tal como os escribió también nuestro amado hermano Pablo, según la sabiduría que le fue dada. Asimismo en todas sus cartas habla en ellas de esto; en las cuales hay algunas cosas difíciles de entender, que los ignorantes e inestables tuercen—como también tuercen el resto de las Escrituras—para su propia perdición”
En este texto, Pedro compara los escritos de Pablo con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento.
1 Timoteo 5:18
“Porque la Escritura dice: No pondrás bozal al buey cuando trilla, y: El obrero es digno de su salario.”
En este pasaje, Pablo cita Deuteronomio 25:4 “No pondrás bozal al buey mientras trilla”, y Lucas 10:7 “el obrero es digno de su salario”, y los califica a ambos de Escritura. En otras palabras, el Evangelio de Lucas estaba al mismo nivel de autoridad que el Antiguo Testamento.
1 Tesalonicenses 2:13
En esta carta, Pablo da la impresión de que es consciente de que sus escritos llevan la autoridad de Dios.
“Por esto también nosotros sin cesar damos gracias a Dios de que cuando recibisteis la palabra de Dios, que oísteis de nosotros la aceptasteis no como la palabra de hombres, sino como lo que realmente es, la palabra de Dios, la cual también hace su obra en vosotros los que creéis.”
Escritura desde el principio
Contrariamente al punto de vista escéptico y católico, los escritos del Nuevo Testamento llevaron la autoridad Bíblica desde el momento de su composición. El erudito del Nuevo Testamento, N. T. Wright, sostiene que los autores “eran conscientes de una vocación única de escribir libros con la forma de Jesús, la guía del Espíritu y que dieran forma a la Iglesia, como parte de su extraña vocación de primera generación”5 Puesto que estos libros eran tenían autoridad desde el principio, los concilios del siglo cuarto de ninguna manera les concedieron autoridad. Más bien, simplemente reconocieron su autoridad ya existente – una autoridad que tenían desde el primer siglo.
Ryan Leasure tiene una maestría en Artes de la Universidad Furman y una maestría en Divinidades del Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. También sirve como pastor en: Grace Bible Church en Moore, SC.
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/3RR6oJd
Traducido por Monica Pirateque
Editado por Jennifer Chavez
Reality Rules: The Transgender War on Women
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Bob Perry
Back in the good ‘ole days of 2015, the fight over allowing transgender women to use the women’s bathroom in Charlotte, North Carolina, took center stage in the national political debate. At the time, only a Chicken Little would suggest that mixing gender preference and sexual identity could lead to harmful outcomes. In an article titled, “‘Transgender’ Needs A Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” David Marcus pointed out that trans advocates:
David Marcus’s fear that women would get hurt was far more than a myth. It was an understatement. Today, transgender women are invading more than women’s restrooms.
Beyond the Bathroom
The move from spying on girls in the ladies’ room to the cases of sexual assault in schools we saw highlighted in last November’s Virginia Governor’s race is, by definition, an escalating threat to women.[2] But the ramifications of transgender ideology are even more far-reaching than that.
And what about women’s collegiate swimming? Traditionally, swimmers give us electrifying moments where they break records by tenths or even hundredths of a second. But recently, the University of Pennsylvania’s transgender swimmer, Lia Thomas, won the 200-meter freestyle by nearly 8 seconds, the 500-meter by over 12 seconds, and the 1,650-meter freestyle by 38 seconds. Two of those were the best times in the nation.[6]
But the reaction to Lia’s victories hasn’t been electrifying at all. Her teammates have noted that:
Women Strike Back
For all their successes, these “women” don’t seem to be getting much love from their fellow females. In fact, there has been a backlash against every one of them. And the backlash has been led by women. Take Rose McGowan, for instance, who:
Suddenly, feminism and transgenderism – both darlings of Leftist ideology – have created a new aphorism as it applies to the Patriarchy: “The enemy of my enemy … is my enemy.”
The snake, it seems, is eating its own tail.
Reality Bites
Behind Rose McGowan’s tirade is the tacit admission that transgender women are actually men. It’s the same reality that drove Cynthia Millen, a three-decade USA Swimming official, to resign her position in the wake of Lia Thomas’s record-setting achievements:
Don’t miss Cynthia Millen’s words: “Lia Thomas is a child of God.” Therein lies the transcendent reality in which the solution to all this mayhem must be grounded. Lia is a human being made in the image of God. For that, she deserves our love and respect. But that doesn’t oblige us to patronize her delusion. The stakes are too high for that.
The ascendancy of transgender ideology is harming women in more ways than even its critics could have imagined. But it is doing more than that. It’s a torpedo aimed at the foundations of a stable, healthy society. Whether it’s in the pool, on the playing field, in the boardroom, or in the sanctuary, denying reality is always destructive to those who practice it.
Footnotes
[1] David Marcus, “‘Transgender’ Needs a Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” The Federalist,
[2] Kaylee McGhee White, “Loudoun County Schools Covered Up Rape, Prosecuted a Concerned Father to Protect Transgender Agenda,” Washington Examiner,
[3] James Ellingworth & Sally Ho, “Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Makes History at Olympics,” AP News
[4] Warner Todd Huston, “Aussie Trans Athlete Hannah Mouncey Towers Above Opponents,” Breitbart News
[5] Matt Lavietes, “Rachel Levine Becomes Nation’s First Transgender Four-Star Admiral,” NBC News
[6] Charmaine Patterson, “Swimmer Lia Thomas, Who is Transgender, Continues to Shatter Women’s Records,” People
[7] “The Week,” National Review, December 27, 2021, p. 10.
[8] Jill Stark, “Call Yourself a Woman? Feminists Take on Trans Community in Bitter Debate,” The Sydney Morning Herald
[9] Yaron Steinbuch, “Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas is ‘Destroying’ Sport, Official Says,” New York Post
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
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.
The Pendulum Problem: A Warning of Extreme Beliefs
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Melissa Dougherty
I have a dog and a cat.
Max is my dog whose personality is likened to a lovable, furry, hyperactive toddler. As an anxious dog, nobody is safe from his “watchful” eye. When the doorbell rings, my ferocious dog barks an explosive cry so loud that it vibrates throughout the entire house. His hair stands up, and he aggressively pushes his nose to the door to somehow intimidate his arch nemesis: the poor Amazon delivery dude. “Don’t you hoomans see the problem!? I’m protecting you from the bomb just delivered to our door!” Is a mom walking her baby down the street? A kid riding their bike? Oh, he must inform us about this potential threat by alerting us with all the gusto he can muster because it very well could be an ax murderer, for all we know. Everything is a threat. He must always be on constant exaggerated alert because he feels like this is how he will protect his family.
Dusty is my cat, a seal-point Siamese who is calm and passive and lives for food and sleep. Her personality is like, well… a cat. When someone comes to our door, she pays no mind. She likes routine and comfort. The end.
Like one end of a pendulum to the other, both are polar opposites. Some people can relate in some way to the personality traits Dusty and Max exhibit. I use my pets as an example to show the extreme views that I sometimes see in religion. Some people are highly apathetic, while others are constantly on guard. I know it’s not as black and white as this, but I’m sure many people somewhat understand what I’m talking about. Think of a swinging pendulum. Its weight forces itself from one side to the other, making it the opposite of its previous position. When someone leaves a particular belief system where maybe they’ve been deeply hurt, they want to be so far away from the said belief that they ‘overcorrect’ and go off the rails in the opposite direction.
This is the essence of what I call the “Pendulum Problem.”
Maybe someone had a bad experience in a very legalistic religious setting that was ridgid and cultlike. So they self-heal by distancing themselves from anything that has to do with organized religion, perhaps becoming an atheist or just “spiritual” with a very fluid view of morality and truth. It could also be the opposite, where someone feels they have been deceived by the devil with their spirituality. They become so careful and scared of being deceived again that they become overly cautious, critical, and legalistic in their religious convictions. Personally, I went through both sides of the pendulum to some degree. I went through about a four to five month time period where I demonized almost everything I saw. It was “worldly” and “demonic.” I came across as judgmental… and I really was. I didn’t want to be involved with anything or anyone that seemed remotely new age on any level out of fear. Then there came a time when I didn’t want to be seen as a religious Bible thumper and became too apathetic with few spiritual boundaries. I was in error both times.
So why is this an issue? Because extreme beliefs can create confirmation bias and unhealthy echo chambers. I believe this hinders the effective spread of the Gospel.
As Christians, do we need to have discernment? Yes. But do we need to live in a state of mind that functions more out of fear of deception than a love for the lost? No, we don’t. Do we need to be loving? Yes. But do we need to conform to the world to the point that we’re indistinguishable from it for the sake of peace? No, we don’t.
Another issue is that this goes even deeper than allowing thoughts to swing too far the other way. Our thought-life reflects our actions. I have often observed a fixation with throwing punches against what they came out of and immersing themselves with people and teachers that speak against it. They filter more and more of their worldview through this new paradigm. They can’t tolerate any compromise or nuance of an opposing view. Even if there was some lousy theology in their previous group, they will go to great lengths to defend themselves and be around people they know are “safe.”In this way, they reinforce what they already believe because the only voices they hear are those that are agreeable and never challenge them. A “challenge” is seen as the Amazon delivery man dropping off your new houseshoes, but better run for cover because it might be a false teacher instead. They’re steering clear of otherwise decent people that are more nuanced than they’re comfortable with.
What the Pendulum Problem really is? It’s a theology of experience. The hermeneutic for people in this phase is based on their experience: positive or negative. That’s the lens through which they see the world and define theology and their worldview. That’s another reason why this is a major problem. It’s based on negative history.
So what do we do about this once we recognize the problem? First, It’s valuable to know why we do this and maybe what we can do about it. Have I just been hurt, and this is my way of protecting myself? Am I angry at the people whom I now disagree with? Am I functioning out of hurt? Do I need to forgive? I think it’s important to understand that, to some degree, we’ve all done this or have seen it. Once we can recognize that our interactions with people are imbalanced, we can move forward with healing from this. Second, we do this out of a sense of trying to do the right thing. We want to do what’s right. But sometimes we overcorrect and we need to stabilize. We can function out of hurt kidding ourselves into thinking we’re being protective but it’s actually causing damage. People really do experience hurts, and it’s important to be sensitive to that hurt. I don’t think people actually intend to do this. There are legitimate traumas that they’ve experienced and they need understanding, prayer, and love. Third, Scripture should be our guide and Jesus should be our example. I clearly see a healthy balance when it comes to truth in love.
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
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Is God Immoral when He Kills People? Plus Q&A | with Frank Turek
PodcastIf God made humans in His image, does that also mean we have the right to “play God” whenever we want? Many atheists and pro-choice advocates criticize God’s morality when He (ironically) “plays” God by taking life prematurely in the Old Testament. But they don’t bat an eye when advocating for abortion and call it a “moral right.” It doesn’t make sense! However, what about capital punishment? It seems like pro-lifers who support the death penalty are also contradicting themselves. What’s the difference?
In this episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist’, Frank continues the discussion from last week on how to answer some of the most common abortion arguments, including a discussion on Numbers 5:27-28, which many people mistakenly cite as an example that God is not pro-life, and the important difference between vaccines and abortions when people declare “my body, my choice”!
Frank also answers listener questions, including those on Mormonism, near-death experiences (NDEs), and whether or not it’s a good idea to use fictional and unbiblical stories as a bridge to the Gospel.
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
¿Qué ocurrió realmente en Nicea?
EspañolPor Frank Turek
Durante muchos años, el concilio de Nicea ha sido objeto de mucha confusión entre los laicos. Los malentendidos que han llegado a asociarse con el concilio de Nicea han sido alimentados, en parte, por novelas de ficción populares como el tristemente célebre Código Da Vinci de Dan Brown. Independientemente del grupo con el que estés tratando en tus hazañas apologéticas (incluyendo ateos, musulmanes, testigos de Jehová y unitarios), está casi garantizado que te encontrarás con algunos de estos malentendidos. Por esta razón, es importante que los cristianos estudien y aprendan la historia de la Iglesia para poder corregir los mitos y mentiras comunes.
El concilio de Nicea se convocó el 20 de mayo de 325 d.C., a petición del emperador Constantino. ¿Qué se discutió en el concilio de obispos? En contra de la idea errónea (popularizada sobre todo en los círculos musulmanes) que ha circulado ampliamente por Internet, el concilio de Nicea no se reunió para discutir el canon de las Escrituras, es decir, la decisión sobre los libros que debían componer el Nuevo Testamento. De hecho, no hay ni una sola prueba de que el canon de las Escrituras se planteara en Nicea. Otro concepto erróneo es que el concilio de Nicea, alentado por Constantino, “inventó” la deidad de Cristo o, al menos, que los obispos que asistieron a Nicea estaban significativamente divididos sobre el tema, y que el asunto se decidió con una votación. Sin embargo, esto también es completamente inexacto. En el año 325 d.C., cuando los obispos se reunieron en Nicea, ¡la deidad de Cristo había sido afirmada casi unánimemente por el movimiento cristiano durante casi trescientos años!
Los obispos que se reunieron en Nicea acababan de salir de una época extremadamente difícil de intensa persecución por parte de los romanos, habiendo vivido la crueldad de los emperadores Diocleciano (que gobernaba en 284-305) y Maximiano (que gobernaba en 286-305). Uno de los obispos presentes en Nicea, Paphnutius, llegó a perder el ojo derecho y a cojear de la pierna izquierda como consecuencia de su profesión de fe. Según un escritor en la antiguedad, Teodoreto (393-457),
Me resulta extraño, por tanto, que se suponga que el movimiento cristiano primitivo, salido de tiempos tan difíciles como aquellos, capitulara tan fácilmente ante las exigencias del emperador Constantino respecto a la definición de los propios fundamentos de su fe!
La historia del concilio de Nicea comienza en Alejandría, en el noroeste de Egipto. El arzobispo de Alejandría era un hombre llamado Alejandro. Un miembro de su clero superior, llamado Arrio, se opuso a la opinión de Alejandro sobre la naturaleza divina de Jesús, insistiendo en que el Hijo es, de hecho, un ser creado. De forma similar a los modernos Testigos de Jehová, Arrio sostenía que Jesús era como el Padre en la medida en que ambos existían antes de la creación, desempeñaban un papel en la creación y eran exaltados por encima de ella. Pero el Hijo, según la teología de Arrio, fue la primera de las creaciones de Dios y fue encargado por el Padre de crear el mundo.
En este punto, Alejandro no estaba de acuerdo y desafió públicamente las enseñanzas heréticas de Arrio. En el año 318 d.C., Alejandro convocó a un centenar de obispos para tratar el asunto y expulsar a Arrio. Sin embargo, Arrio fue a Nicomedia, en Asia Menor, y reunió a sus partidarios, entre ellos Eusebio de Nicomedia, que era pariente por matrimonio de Constantino, el emperador, y teólogo de la corte imperial. Eusebio y Arrio escribieron a muchos obispos que no habían participado en la destitución de Arrio. El efecto fue la creación de divisiones entre los obispos. Avergonzado por estas disputas, el emperador Constantino convocó el concilio ecuménico de Nicea en el año 325.
La principal preocupación de Constantino era la unidad imperial más que la exactitud teológica, y deseaba una decisión que fuera apoyada por el mayor número de obispos, independientemente de la conclusión a la que se llegara. Su asesor teológico, Hosius, sirvió para poner al emperador al corriente antes de la llegada de los obispos. Como Arrio no era obispo, no fue invitado a participar en el concilio. Sin embargo, su partidario Eusebio de Nicomedia actuó en nombre de Arrio y presentó su punto de vista.
La posición de Arrio respecto a la naturaleza finita del Hijo no era popular entre los obispos. Sin embargo, quedó claro que era necesaria una declaración formal sobre la naturaleza del Hijo y su relación con el Padre. La verdadera cuestión en el concilio de Nicea fue, pues, cómo, y no si, Jesús era divino.
Finalmente se elaboró una declaración formal que fue firmada por los obispos. Los que se negaron a firmar la declaración fueron despojados de su rango de obispo. Los pocos que apoyaban a Arrio insistieron en que en la declaración sólo debía figurar el lenguaje encontrado en las Escrituras, mientras que los críticos de Arrio insistieron en que sólo el lenguaje no bíblico era adecuado para desentrañar plenamente las implicaciones del lenguaje encontrado en la Biblia. Fue Constantino quien finalmente sugirió que se dijera que el Padre y el Hijo eran de la “misma sustancia” (homoousios en griego). Aunque Constantino esperaba que esta afirmación mantuviera contentas a todas las partes (implicando la completa deidad de Jesús sin ir más lejos), los partidarios de Arrio insistieron en que este lenguaje sugería que el Padre y el Hijo eran iguales, pero no explicaban cómo esto era compatible con el principio central del monoteísmo (es decir, la creencia en una sola deidad).
Sin embargo, el credo de Nicea sí incorporó este lenguaje. Decía,
Con la excepción de dos (Segundo de Tolemaida y Teonas de Marmarcia), el credo fue firmado por todos los obispos, que eran más de 300. Los partidarios de Arrio habían sido derrotados de forma abrumadora.
Los partidarios de Arrio, sin embargo, se las arreglaron para encontrar un margen de maniobra. Una sola letra iota cambia el significado de homo (“igual”) a “como” (homoi). Esto último podía ser aprovechado por Arrio y sus seguidores para describir a un Cristo creado. Además, se argumentaba que el credo podía interpretarse como un apoyo al Sabelianismo, una antigua herejía que no discrimina entre las personas de la Divinidad. Fue esta disputa interna entre obispos la que finalmente condujo al concilio de Constantinopla en el año 381.
Un grupo de obispos comenzó a hacer campaña para la restitución formal de Arrio como presbítero en Alejandría. Constantino cedió a su petición y, en el año 332, reinstauró a Arrio como presbítero. Atanasio, que acababa de suceder a su mentor Alejandro como obispo de Alejandría, recibió instrucciones de aceptar a Arrio en la iglesia una vez más. No hace falta decir que Atanasio no cumplió esta orden. La consecuencia fue el exilio. Constantino tenía poco interés en la precisión de su teología – más bien era la lucha por la unidad imperial lo que le motivaba.
En conclusión, aunque las ideas erróneas populares sobre el concilio de Nicea están muy extendidas, la idea de que el concilio de Nicea determinó qué libros componían el nuevo testamento o que inventó la deidad de Cristo para cumplir con las exigencias de Constantino son mitos. De hecho, la teología correcta le importaba poco a Constantino, que se preocupaba mucho más por la unidad imperial. Los cristianos deben hacer un serio esfuerzo por estudiar y aprender la historia de la Iglesia, para que cuando nos encontremos con tales afirmaciones en los medios de comunicación y en nuestra evangelización personal, sepamos presentar un relato preciso de nuestra historia.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
El Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) es un galardonado autor y frecuente orador universitario que presenta un programa de televisión semanal en DirectTV y un programa de radio que se transmite en 186 estaciones de todo el país. Sus libros incluyen I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) y Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case (Robando a Dios: ¿por qué los ateos necesitan a Dios para presentar su caso?) y es co-autor del nuevo libro Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God (Héroes de Hollywood: Cómo tus películas favoritas revelan a Dios).
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
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