Page 90 – CrossExamined

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what seems to be a universal and deeply ingrained human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to jump on the bandwagon, somehow believing that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and accepting of bad behavior.

But if you think about it, that’s not entirely accurate. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and seen as lacking. Whether in sports, school, or work, time and again we see that people want to compete, they want to be praised for their performance , and they want to come out on top. What they want to avoid is losing—being told that they haven’t measured up or that they’ve done something wrong.

This inclination to seek praise and avoid condemnation is evident from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he will smile, scold or reprimand him and he will cry. He doesn’t have to be taught how to react, he just knows. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively understand is that there is a thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will use it early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “It’s not fair!” he will exclaim, not fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it is okay to be unfair, but will say that he is being fair, while trying to justify his behavior. Only when he grows up will he learn the now popular trick of claiming that judging is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to be free from judgment and free to do as they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling compelled to act in a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we don’t want to feel guilt. We don’t want to have that nagging feeling that, as C.S. Lewis said, we are aware of a law pressing down on us, a law we did not create and cannot evade, for it resides in our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit could there be from feeling guilty for not acting as we should? Wouldn’t this inhibit us from future acts that might directly and personally benefit us at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, early humans who lacked guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their own self-interest—to enhance their ability to survive and procreate—in contrast to their peers who held back because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes with harming other people. With survival of the fittest as the norm, behaviors that limit our options and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we were simply an accident of evolution, the pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We know intuitively that there is right and wrong, that there is goodness and evil and justice and injustice, because the absolute standard of goodness made us in his image. He left within us—written on our hearts, so to speak—an intuitive access to this standard and a desire—a need—to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from fully achieving this, but knowledge of this law, and of our need to conform to it, is woven into the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us a desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Even if we don’t realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a heartfelt “well done, my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear final condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us with the way home, the way of redemption. But we cannot get there on our own, and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid the feeling of guilt does no good to anyone.

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to the works of C.S. Lewis sparked his interest in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/XY1TdAT

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia

December 31, 2021/by Guest

Who is your authority?

Podcast

As we enter 2022, how do you make decisions about the biggest issues in life? Who or what is your authority? What doctrines are you following? Everyone believes in certain doctrines—truths about reality. Even atheists. These doctrines govern not only what we think but what we do, how we act. Paul wrote to his disciple, Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:15-16). Are we really watching our lives and doctrine closely? Join Frank as he examines that question and the ultimate question, who is your authority? Is it you? Your parents? Your culture? Your government? Your church? Or is it Jesus? This show has some very practical insights and questions you can ask to help you follow Christ and make better decisions. Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!! Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9 Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

December 30, 2021/by Frank Turek

Why God May Place More on Us Than We Can Endure

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Have you ever heard the phrase, “God will not place more on you than you can endure.” Another way of phrasing the statement is by saying “God will not place more on you than you can bear.” Christians are known for such platitudes. These cliches are well-intentioned as they do not come from malice. Rather, they come from an attempt to condense Christian truths into short, memorable memes or Twitter-worthy statements. But is it true that God will not place more on us than we can bear/endure?

A careful reading of Scripture shows this not to be the case. For instance, Paul writes to the Church of Corinth,

“We don’t want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of our affliction that took place in Asia. We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength—so that we even despaired of life itself. ⁹Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a terrible death, and he will deliver us. We have put our hope in him that he will deliver us again ¹¹while you join in helping us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gift that came to us through the prayers of many” (2 Cor. 1:8-11).[1]

Did you catch the phrase in verse 8, “We were completely overwhelmed—beyond our strength.” From the passage of Scripture, it can be adduced that Paul and his companions were allowed to be tested in a manner that was beyond their ability to handle. This counters the thought behind the aforementioned platitude. It appears that the benevolent God of creation does allow his children to endure hardships that exceed their ability to stand for three reasons.

Affliction Provides the Ability to Comfort (1:3-4, 6-7)

Back in verses 3-4, Paul writes, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. ⁴He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any kind of affliction, through the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Cor. 1:3-4). He continues by saying, “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation. If we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings that we suffer. ⁷And our hope for you is firm, because we know that as you share in the sufferings, so you will also share in the comfort” (2 Cor. 1:6-7). Paul says that their afflictions serve as an example to others. By their suffering and affliction, they are better able to minister to the suffering and afflicted.

Paul denotes a truth that was foreign to the Greco-Roman world in that suffering is not always a bad thing. David Garland writes,

“Suffering comes for anyone who preaches the gospel in a world twisted by sin and roused by hostility to God. If God’s apostle experienced so much distress in carrying out his commission, then we can see that God does not promise prosperity or instant gratification even to the most devoted of Christ’s followers.[2]

Roman philosophy presented a different view of their gods. Roman philosopher Cicero believed that the gods produced health, wealth, and security, certainly not affliction.[3] Oddly, many modern Christian circles resemble Roman philosophy more than Christian theology.

Since God is the epitome of the Good, he holds good reasons for permitting afflictions, even those that overwhelm us. Later, the faithful child of God will realize that they were only able to minister to those in need because of, not despite, the afflictions they were allowed to endure. The late Dr. Randy Kilby used to say at Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute, “You have to get under the spout where the glory comes out.” By that, he noted that the child of God can only spiritually give what they have been given. Thus, the comfort they receive from God during times of affliction can be used to minister to others in need.

Affliction Portrays God’s Strength (1:5)

Furthermore, Paul holds that overwhelming affliction demonstrates God’s strength working through the believer. Paul writes, “For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also through Christ our comfort overflows” (1:5). God may allow a person to experience overwhelming problems so that God’s strength is shown through that person. Paul held out hope that as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also the blessings of God will overflow. Paul noted to the Roman Church that “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). That is to say, faithfully enduring hardships while remaining faithful to Christ produces a wealth of rewards that will be fully demonstrated in heaven.

It is often thought that the most important Christians in heaven are those who have the fattest wallets, the fanciest suits, and the biggest homes. However, God’s kingdom is an upside-down kingdom as fully illustrated in Jesus’s Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). On the one hand, the story holds that the man faithful man named Lazarus—though he was poor, downtrodden, and abused by the world—would be greatly rewarded in eternity. On the other hand, a rich man who had everything that money could buy but who neither had any love and compassion for his fellow man nor God landed in the most precarious of eternal circumstances.

But why did a good God design the world in this manner? Paul later answers the question in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 12, he describes an instance where he pleaded with the Lord to remove a thorn in his flesh. He begged the Lord three times to remove his affliction. However, the Lord responded by saying, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). Consider why God chose Israel. The Hebrew people were not mighty like the Egyptians or Philistines. However, through Israel, God’s power was exhibited to the world (Gen. 12:1-3). Bethlehem Ephrathah was chosen as the birthplace of the Messiah even though it was a small and minute town on the edge of nowhere (Micah 5:2). As the prophet Zechariah noted, “‘Not by strength or by might, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord of Armies” (Zech. 4:6). Overwhelming affliction may be used by God to demonstrate his power through his vessel to others as an evangelistic tool.

Affliction Promotes Divine Trust (1:8-11)

Finally, affliction promotes divine faith and trust in the Sovereign God. Verse 9 is critical in understanding the passage. Paul denotes that “we felt that we had received the sentence of death, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead” (1:9). If a person relied only on one’s strength, where is the need for faith in God? For example, with great practice, a person can become a pool shark. They can run the table on their adversaries. The person trusts in one’s skill set to help the person succeed in the game. However, overwhelming affliction creates a dire need to trust One higher. Since enduring hardships with trust in God produces the fruit of endurance, proven character, and divine hope (Rom. 5:30); it is actually a good thing that God allows us to face overwhelming situations where one’s trust must be placed in the God of creation. Certainly, it will not seem like a good thing while enduring the circumstance. But when God comes through as only God can, then trust is developed. Trust is crucial in healthy relationships. It must be remembered that through the process God is still working out everything for the good of those who love and trust him (Rom. 8:28). The endgame is the most important. Just as parents teach their children hard lessons to help them grow, so God must teach and train us to be the people he desires us to be by permitting hardships in our lives.

Conclusion

I must admit, I have used the phrase “God will not place more on us than we can bear” in my early days as a pastor. While at the time it was thought that the statement was positive and encouraging, it does not necessarily mesh with the teachings of Scripture. In some circles, it is believed that God only provides riches, health, and blessings for his children. Ironically, such belief systems find a home more in the camp of Roman philosophy rather than Christian philosophy. The goodness of the Anselmian God—that which nothing greater can be conceived—may require him to place his children in circumstances that are far beyond what they may endure to produce future blessings that would have only come through their trials of fire. Through the trials of Joseph, God led him to success in Egypt which would eventually be used to save his family and nation from certain doom as a famine ravaged through their land. Through the heartaches and despair of Job, he encountered God in a personal fashion and was eventually blessed double from what he previously owned. Through the horrific execution of Jesus, salvation was offered to the world, and death was defeated. With this in mind, the words of one of my mentors ring true. When facing overwhelming trials, rather than asking, “What are you doing to me, God?” we should rather ask, “What are you doing for me, God?” Therefore, rather than saying, “God will not place more on us than we can endure,” perhaps we would be better served in saying, “God will not place more on us than he can endure.”

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2007, 2020).

[2] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary, vol. 29 (Nashville: B&H, 1999), 62.

[3] See Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.36, 87.

Confrontando la homosexualidad en una cultura de identidad (parte 2)

Español

Por Josh Klein

Anteriormente, examinamos la dicotomía entre lo que significa declarar la actividad homosexual como un pecado y cómo lidian con ella los que creen en la ortodoxia cristiana. Abordamos las raíces del movimiento cultural actual e introdujimos la idea de identidad en el argumento.

Era necesario hacer esto para que podamos tener una base sólida donde construir los siguientes argumentos. Primero debemos saber por qué los teólogos liberales buscan glorificar la homosexualidad como identidad para entender por qué la interpretación de las Escrituras ha pasado de condenar un comportamiento pecaminoso obvio a condonar ese mismo comportamiento.

Si no has leído la primera parte puedes hacerlo aquí.

El objetivo del creyente no debe ser convencer al incrédulo de pecados individuales, como la homosexualidad, sino tratar de persuadir, con el poder del Espíritu Santo, a ese individuo de que él mismo es un pecador y necesita la gracia salvadora de Dios.

Pero una vez que esta persona se convierte en creyente, ¿cómo continúa la conversación sobre la homosexualidad? Si se les anima a mantener esta identidad además de su nueva identidad en Cristo nos encontramos con que hemos creado creyentes esquizofrénicos que buscan cumplir con el patrón de ser definidos como homosexuales así como hijos de Dios. Esto puede ser y es una existencia miserable.

En las partes dos y tres de esta serie, examinaremos lo que la teología liberal ha tratado de hacer para aliviar el dolor de esta transición, y en la cuarta parte, examinaré la posibilidad de ofrecer una mejor manera de tratar esta cuestión particular a los que están en línea con la ortodoxia cristiana.

La Iglesia liberal ha tratado de aliviar esta tensión redefiniendo, reinterpretando y reenganchando con las Escrituras el tema.

La nueva teología no suele ser una buena teología y, en mi opinión, así es en este caso.

Los siguientes son sólo una muestra de los argumentos que rondan en TikTok, Instagram, y en la iglesia liberal en relación con el movimiento LGBTQ + (por razones de longitud nos centraremos sólo en la actividad homosexual aquí). Estas interpretaciones se basan en una cosmovisión de la nueva tolerancia, el amor y la empatía y no sólo son perjudiciales para la cultura, sino, y lo que es más importante, son perjudiciales para la Iglesia y para los individuos que están siendo llevados por tal enseñanza teológica de juego de manos.

Creo que este es el tipo de enseñanza al que se refería Jesús en Mateo 18:6 cuando dijo: “6 Pero al que haga tropezar a uno de estos pequeñitos que creen en mí, mejor le sería que le colgaran al cuello una piedra de molino de las que mueve un asno, y que se ahogara en lo profundo del mar”.

Al repasar estos argumentos es importante recordar que, para los fines de este artículo, estamos teniendo una discusión con supuestos miembros de la misma fe. Hay que utilizar un criterio diferente con los que están fuera de la fe (1 Corintios 5:12).

Las excepciones a la visión histórica de la homosexualidad en la iglesia vienen bajo el nombre de amor y aceptación y la erudición comienza con esta línea de base.

Seré el primero en admitir que muchos más instruidos que yo llegarán a una comprensión más profunda de la homosexualidad en las Escrituras que no coincide con la mía. Dicho esto, creo que su punto de partida es encontrar una excepción donde no la hay. Y como dice el refrán: ”Si buscas algo con la suficiente intensidad, probablemente lo encontrarás”. Parece que parten de la suposición de que si Dios es amor, entonces ciertamente no permitiría que los que ama tuvieran una existencia tan miserable como para vivir con una identidad hostil a su creador.

Podrían estar en parte en lo correcto. Nuestra identidad como pecadores es sin duda ofensiva y profundamente triste para Dios. Sin embargo, Él hizo algo al respecto: nos ofreció una nueva identidad en Cristo, en lugar de en Adán, mediante la muerte y resurrección de Jesús a favor nuestro.

Tal vez ahora entendamos por qué es tan primordial comprender nuestra identidad aparte de la sexualidad para abrazar verdaderamente el evangelio. Jesús no promete arreglarnos completamente durante esta vida e incluso garantiza que tendremos problemas (1 Cor. 13:10-12; Juan 16:33). En pocas palabras, esto significa que cualquier identidad que tengamos aparte de Cristo debe ser sacrificada para ser identificados con y en Cristo.

La teología liberal trata de resolver este problema trasladando los actos particulares de pecado al ámbito de lo sagrado y así, ratificar la identidad anterior como ordenada por Dios.

La nueva teología de la aceptación del pecado hace el truco de convertir una cosa definida como pecado en algo totalmente distinto. Como veremos, reduce el alcance del pecado sexual de modo que una interpretación de las Escrituras que incluya el acto sexualmente pecaminoso de la homosexualidad o la promiscuidad se considera demasiado amplia.

También hay muchos argumentos simplemente ingenuos en contra de la idea de la homosexualidad como pecado que son fácilmente desmentidos y explicados con un simple estudio de las Escrituras. Abordaremos primero la objeción más técnica, y en el tema de la próxima semana, pasaremos al resto para ir cerrando esta serie de cuatro partes.

Nota: Cuando me refiero a la homosexualidad, hablo del ACTO, no de la disposición o la atracción. Creo que la atracción no es un pecado en sí mismo, pero los pensamientos lujuriosos y las actividades sexuales asociadas con la homosexualidad y con la heterosexualidad (fuera del matrimonio) son definidos bíblicamente como actividades pecaminosas.

La palabra griega traducida como Homosexual debería ser traducida como Pedófilo, por lo tanto la Biblia no habla en contra de las relaciones entre personas del mismo sexo en los idiomas originales.

Pongámonos técnicos.

Esta afirmación hace un argumento sobre las decisiones de traducción sin tener en cuenta la doctrina del pecado históricamente.

Hay algunas palabras traducidas como homosexual en la New American Standard Bible que podrían ser traducidas para significar diferentes cosas. Un nuevo libro que se publicará en el verano de 2021 llamado Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] (Forjando un arma sagrada: Cómo la Biblia se convirtió en antigay) argumenta que una traducción errónea de 1 Corintios 6:9-10 (junto, presumiblemente, con los otros pasajes de las Escrituras que se traducen como homosexual) es lo que estimuló a toda una generación a la homofobia puritana. Incluso hay un documental que se estrenará sobre el tema a finales de 2021.

Estos son probablemente los argumentos que mi amigo ha visto en Tik Tok. La pregunta, entonces, debe ser formulada, ¿es la homosexualidad un pecado y por qué la palabra sería traducida de manera diferente en 1946 de lo que fue antes?

En primer lugar, abordaremos la principal Escritura que nos ocupa en este nuevo libro. 1 Corintios 6:9 dice lo siguiente

“¿O no sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os dejéis engañar: ni los inmorales, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales“

Por cierto, esta misma palabra ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) se utiliza también en 1 Timoteo 1:10 y parece ser una palabra acuñada por el propio Pablo para indicar una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo.

Es una palabra griega compuesta que combina ἄρρην (arrēn), que significa “varón” u “hombre” y κοίτη (koy’-tay) que significa cama y que a menudo se utiliza como eufemismo para referirse a las relaciones sexuales. Así, la palabra significa literalmente dos “hombres” que están “en la cama”.

Comúnmente, antes de 1946, este término había sido traducido como sodomita. Aquellos que desean glorificar las relaciones homosexuales como una actividad aceptable para que los creyentes cristianos participen, leen más profundamente la palabra y creen que Pablo está hablando del uso significativo y repugnante del amor hacia niños en el antiguo mundo griego. No es un secreto que muchos de los griegos practicaban la pedofilia (amor hacianiños) con chicos jóvenes como procesos de preparación para hombres mayores.

Pero este argumento falla en múltiples aspectos. En primer lugar, el argumento indica que el lenguaje en torno a la palabra es transaccional, y por lo tanto, el acto sexual es claramente transaccional también (señalando a la prostitución de hombres jóvenes en el templo), pero ese no es el caso. Los tiempos son claramente conductuales, se trata de personas que realizan actos sexuales y/o adoración de forma voluntaria. El segundo problema es que la suposición de que arrēn significa niño es simplemente incorrecta. παῖς (pais) es la palabra para niño, y la palabra de la que obtenemos pedofilia (literalmente: amor hacia niños). Sí, en el Apocalipsis muchas traducciones insertan la palabra “niño” para aclarar el significado, pero esto no es inherente a la palabra. Por ejemplo, Apocalipsis 12:13 podría (y posiblemente debería) traducirse igualmente como “persiguió a la mujer que había dado a luz al hijo varón” sin la palabra niño insertada al final.

La palabra que Pablo acuñó en estos dos pasajes se entiende correctamente y se ha entendido a lo largo de la historia, como una relación sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo sin importar la edad.

Por lo tanto, estoy a favor de que la traducción refleje la vasta amplitud de la palabra, en lugar de su limitado alcance. ¿Condena este pasaje las relaciones sexuales homosexuales? Sí. ¿Condena también la pedofilia? Sí.

Dado que Pablo está acuñando el término, parece que está buscando crear un paraguas para un acto sexual que es considerado pecaminoso por Dios. Muchos defensores de la teoría de la pederastia indican que Pablo podría haber utilizado un término diferente, el problema con esta sugerencia es doble. Ambas palabras griegas comunes para hombre son demasiado genéricas para indicar lo que Pablo estaba tratando de transmitir. Tanto Anthropos como Anēr pueden utilizarse como términos genéricos para todas las personas. Arrēn, sin embargo, no puede serlo.

El otro problema de esta teoría radica en el contexto del Antiguo Testamento. Hay un problema de “pérdida en la traducción” para muchos cuando estudian el Antiguo Testamento y el Nuevo. Piensan que Pablo habría leído el Antiguo Testamento hebreo. Y lo habría hecho, pero en sus escritos, Pablo cita casi exclusivamente la Septuaginta (la traducción griega de las Escrituras hebreas). Esto proporciona otro obstáculo para la teoría de la pederastia. En la traducción griega de Levítico 18:22, encontramos que el término utilizado para varón es arrēn y el término utilizado para “acostarse con” es koitē. Es razonable deducir entonces, que Pablo está juntando estas dos palabras como resultado directo de su uso en la traducción de la LXX (el AT griego) de Levítico 18. Lo que indicaría que Pablo creería que sus lectores se dirigirían a ese pasaje. Y esto tiene sentido, ya que Pablo no explica la palabra recién acuñada, sino que creía que sus lectores simplemente entenderían a qué se refería.

Sin embargo, el problema sigue siendo cómo traducir mejor esta palabra en español.

Creo que una mejor traducción para usar en la situación es Sodomita o ir completamente a lo concreto con “los hombres tienen sexo con los hombres”. Cuya etimología proviene de las ciudades de Sodoma y Gomorra en el Génesis. Es probable que conozcas la historia, pero aquí tienes un resumen: Dios va a destruir Sodoma y Gomorra por su orgullo y arrogancia y su cultura degenerada y malvada. Él envía ángeles para investigar y Lot (sobrino de Abraham) los salva de ser violados sexualmente por los lugareños, incluso ofreció sus propias hijas a los hombres de la ciudad (que, por cierto, tampoco estaba bien para Dios, pero me estoy apartando del tema principal) en Génesis 19.

Es en este punto donde muchos toman la sodomía como una violación anal, pero no es tan simple. Aunque el pecado original de Sodoma y Gomorra no era la homosexualidad, la consecuencia de su pecado original se tradujo en la homosexualidad y la depravación sexual en general. La sodomía, entonces, ha sido comúnmente vista a lo largo de la historia como el acto sexual realizado entre dos personas del mismo género.

Sodomía es un término mucho más amplio y duro que el de homosexual, y creo que llega mejor al corazón de lo que Pablo está hablando en sus cartas.

Sin embargo, una de las cosas que hace el autor del libro mencionado es redefinir la palabra sodomía para que signifique “sexo que no se utiliza con fines procreativos”. Sin embargo, ese no ha sido el entendimiento general de la sodomía durante generaciones. De hecho, actualmente, la Britannica define la sodomía de cuatro maneras: homosexualidad, coito anal, zoofilia y pedofilia[2].

Entonces, si la mejor traducción de la palabra en 1 Corintios y 1 Timoteo sería Sodomita, ¿indica eso que el comportamiento homosexual se considera bueno a los ojos de Dios? Un observador objetivo se vería obligado a admitir, en mi opinión, que no, sino que simplemente sería uno de los múltiples comportamientos sexuales que se consideran pecaminosos según la naturaleza de la palabra de Dios.

El otro problema que tengo con este argumento es que deja completamente fuera de consideración a Levítico y Romanos. De hecho, Romanos 1:26-27 es posiblemente una de las condenas más claras del sexo homosexual en el Nuevo Testamento.

Esto también llega al corazón de Génesis 19. Muchos creen que el problema de Génesis 19 no era el sexo homosexual, sino la violación implícita que tendría lugar. Sin embargo, encontramos en Romanos 1 que este no es del todo el caso.

Cuando una cultura rechaza a Dios y se niega a adorarle a él y sólo a él, él responde dándoles lo que quieren: su depravación. Romanos 1:26-27 indica que la culminación del pecado original de rechazar a Dios y adorar lo creado en lugar del creador (nací así por lo que es santo y bueno podría verse como adorar lo creado en lugar del creador) viene con ambos, hombres y mujeres intercambiando el orden creado de la relación sexual con la pasión interna y el deseo del otro. La palabra utilizada para los hombres en este pasaje es la misma que Pablo utilizó para combinar con una cama que se traduce como homosexual en las traducciones actuales.

En una de sus grandes obras literarias C.S. Lewis dice lo siguiente: “Al final sólo hay dos clases de personas: los que dicen a Dios: “Hágase tu voluntad”, y aquellos a los que Dios dice, al final, “Hágase tu voluntad”. Todos los que están en el infierno, lo eligen”[3] No estoy usando esta cita para plantear que aquellos que son homosexuales van a ir al infierno, sino para reforzar el punto de vista de que Romanos 1 indica claramente que la autogratificación es la línea que lleva a la rebelión y a la destrucción y el comportamiento homosexual es parte de esta concesión de Dios.

Esto nos lleva a continuación, a las objeciones más populares. Las abordaremos la próxima semana. La razón por la que estamos dedicando dos semanas a las objeciones es esta: Es importante establecer cuál realmente es la verdad para poder avanzar con verdadera compasión, gracia y misericordia. Lo mismo puede decirse para entender cualquier otro comportamiento pecaminoso en nuestras vidas. Aunque trataré estas objeciones académicamente, quiero tomarme un momento al final del artículo de esta semana para reconocer que los argumentos académicos son una cosa, y son importantes, pero el trato con las personas es algo totalmente diferente y de suma importancia. Por ello, al final de esta serie de cuatro partes pretendo ofrecer una forma mejor. Mi objetivo es tratar el tema con sensibilidad, respeto y amor, pero basando todo ello en el firme fundamento de la verdad. Manténgase atentos la próxima semana para la respuesta final a lo que parecen ser las objeciones más populares para llamar a la actividad homosexual un pecado.

Referencias

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es un pastor de Omaha, Nebraska, con 12 años de experiencia ministerial. Se graduó con un MDiv en 2016 del Seminario de Sioux Falls y pasa su tiempo libre leyendo y comprometiéndose con temas teológicos y culturales actuales y pasados. Está casado desde hace 12 años con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos pequeños.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/AYPpO8i

December 24, 2021/by Guest

The Fascinating Origin of Christmas Traditions | with Bill Federer

Podcast

How did we go from the birth of Jesus to Santa, stockings, reindeer, the North Pole, Christmas trees, and Kris Kringle? Does any of this come from Christianity or real-world historical events? The surprising answer is “YES” (well, much of it anyway)! Join Frank as he welcomes the ever insightful historian Bill Federer onto the show to share the fascinating story of how so many Christmas traditions originated and have been passed down to us today.

If you want to see a visual presentation of this, be sure to watch the Hope ONE Livestream from December 23rd with Bill Federer. It is posted on our YouTube Channel.

And thanks for considering us as you make your year-end donations. This podcast, all of the events we conduct on college and high school campuses, and everything you see on TV and online are funded by your generous donations. Your support goes 100% to ministry and 0% to buildings! Thank you for donating here.

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

December 23, 2021/by Frank Turek

How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This is part three of a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part one addressed the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Part two explained the formation and preservation of the Old Testament text. This post will address issues surrounding the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha.

Canon

Before going any further, we must first establish what we mean when we say “canon.” We are not, of course, referring to the weapons of bygone eras. Rather, canon refers to an ancient measuring stick cut from a reed-like plant which was used as an infallible standard—much like a yardstick. The term was later applied to the biblical texts that the church received in its collection of authoritative books.

The Tanakh

The Jewish order of the Old Testament was and is radically different from how we typically order our books. From an early time, it appears that the Jews had a threefold division of the Hebrew canon. This threefold division is often referred to as the Tanakh based on the three divisions—Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). This final division could sometimes be called “the Psalms” since Psalms was the first and largest book among the writings and was often representative of the whole. Also, note that Jews combined several books. So while their canon contains the same content as our protestant Bibles, their Bible only has twenty-four books instead of thirty-nine. Consider the breakdown below from Genesis to Chronicles:

The Septuagint (250-150 BC)

After Alexander the Great Hellenized the known world, Jewish scholars realized they needed to translate the Hebrew scriptures into Greek so that more people could read them. Legend has it that seventy-two Jewish translators (six from each of the twelve tribes), over the course of seventy-two days, each translated the text from Hebrew to Greek independently, and all seventy-two translations came out the exact same. The translation, therefore, came to be known as the Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta meaning “seventy”) and is often represented by the Roman numerals LXX.

A couple of points are worth noting about the Septuagint. First, this translation changed the order of the books to the order that we are more familiar with today. That is to say, it changed from the threefold division of the Tenakh to our current order of law, history, poetry, major prophets, and minor prophets. Furthermore, the Septuagint also included the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha

The Apocrypha consists of a dozen or so Jewish books written during the intertestamental period. These books contain history, poetry, wisdom literature, and prophecy. Probably most famous among the Apocrypha are the first and Second Maccabees. These books detail the Jewish rebellions and reclamation of the temple from the Syrians. While these works contain much historical value, they also contain disputable material. This is especially true of second Maccabees which teaches that saints in heaven intercede for people on earth (15:11-16) and that prayers and sacrifices can be offered for the dead (12:39-46). Roman Catholics us this last text to justify belief in purgatory and the practice of indulgences.

Tobit, another Apocryphal book, contains a fanciful story about a devout Jewish man in exile who is blinded by bird droppings in his sleep. His wife Sarah, also had troubles of her own. A demon had killed seven of her previous husbands on her wedding night. So God sent the angel Raphael to help Tobit and Sarah conquer the demon. Ultimately, they use a fish heart and liver to drive out the demon from the wedding chamber. Finally, Tobit’s son rubs fish gall on Tobit’s eyes to heal his blindness. This story is entirely fanciful.

Another book, known as Judith, describes God’s deliverance of the Jewish people. In this story, Judith seduces an Assyrian king only to cut off his head during his drunken stupor. We have no evidence that this story ever occurred. Moreover, this book erroneously states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, not Babylon.

Other Apocryphal books include Sirach (wisdom literature similar to Proverbs), Baruch (not written by Baruch), Wisdom of Solomon (not written by Solomon), and additions to Daniel (Susanna and Bel and the Dragon).

Why The Bible should not Include the Apocrypha

You are probably familiar with the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox debates over whether the Apocrypha belongs in our modern Bibles. In the remaining space, I’d like to offer five reasons why I don’t believe the Bible should include the Apocrypha.

1. The Apocrypha Acknowledges that Prophets Weren’t Speaking during its Time

Consider the following texts from 1 Maccabees:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when the prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise (1 Macc. 14:41).

And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them (1 Macc. 4:46).

Notice how all three of these verses indicate God was not speaking through prophets during their time.

2. Jews Never Accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture

Consider the following quotation from first-century Jewish historian Josephus:

From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.¹

Josephus indicates that after the time of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), Jews continued to write books (the Apocrypha), but these books were not on par with Scripture, because the prophets had stopped speaking.

Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud, which is a sacred collection of Rabbinical traditions, notes that “after the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel” (Yoma 98). In other words, special revelation ceased after the time of these prophets. Therefore, we should not consider the Apocrypha as Scripture since it followed after these prophets.

Finally, around the year AD 90, a council of Jewish leaders gathered at Jamnia to figure out how to reconstruct Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. As they discussed their sacred books, they merely reaffirmed the universal practice of all Jews that the Apocrypha did not belong in their Bible.

3. The New Testament Never Refers to the Apocrypha as Scripture

The New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament hundreds of times. Often they preface their quotes with phrases such as “it is written” or “Scripture says.” Consider the following examples:

As it is written: None is righteous, no, not one (Rom 3:10).

Scripture says, They will look on him whom they have pierced (John 19:37).”

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion (Heb 3:7-8).

Never once do the New Testament authors do something similar with an Apocryphal text. This omission is telling considering the fact that the New Testament authors usually quoted from the Septuagint which contained the Apocrypha. Meaning, the New Testament authors were well aware of the Apocryphal texts. They simply never refer to them as Scripture.

4. Jesus Affirmed the Three-Fold Division of the Tanakh

Two quotations from Luke indicate that Jesus believed in a closed Old Testament Canon that did not include the Apocrypha. Consider Luke 24:44:

Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

In this text, Jesus makes a clear affirmation of the threefold division of the Old Testament—Apocrypha not included. Also consider Luke 11:51:

From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

By speaking of Abel (the first biblical martyr) and Zechariah (the last biblical martyr), Jesus indicates that the Old Testament canon concluded with Chronicles (traditional order of the Tanakh). It is worth noting that several martyrs died in the Maccabees. Jesus doesn’t mention them because he didn’t consider Maccabees as part of his Bible.

5. The Catholic Church didn’t Grant Authority to the Apocrypha until Later

The earliest Old Testament canonical list from a Christian comes from Melito of Sardis (AD 170). His canon leaves out the Apocrypha. Origen’s canonical list in the mid-third century also leaves out the Apocrypha. Additionally, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Council of Laodicea leave the Apocrypha out of their canon.

Sometime in the fourth century though, the Apocrypha started to gain acceptance in some circles as demonstrated by some of the canonical lists (St. Augustine and the Council of Hippo) and biblical manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Of course, St. Augustine also persuaded his friend Jerome to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate in AD 404. That said, Jerome prefaced the Apocryphal writings by stating:

Therefore as the church indeed reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical books, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.²

Jerome made a clear delineation between Scriptural texts and the Apocrypha. Scripture established church doctrine. The Apocrypha was for mere edification alone.

For the next thousand years, the Catholic Church was hardly unified on the Apocrypha. William of Ockham, influential medieval theologian, echoed Jerome’s sentiments when he wrote that apocryphal texts “are read for the edification of the people, but not for the establishment of doctrine.³ Even Cardinal Cajetan, a chief opponent of the Protestant Reformers and appointee of Pope Leo remarked:

The Latin church is greatly indebted to Jerome on account of his separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books. . . . those books and any others there may be like them in the Canon of the Bible are not canonical in the sense of establishing point of faith; yet they can be called canonical for the edification of the faithful.⁴

Despite being far from unified, the Council of Trent official granted canonical status to the Apocryphal text in what can only be seen as a counter-Reformation move.

Moving On to the New

The next post will transition to the New Testament. Specifically, the post will address two key question. First, would the early church have expected more Scriptural books? And second, what clues tipped off the early church that certain books were authoritative Scripture while others were not?

God and Evil

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tony Williams

Evil, or some derivation of it, is one of the more popular reasons people cite when they walk away from believing in God or choose not to believe in Him in the first place. The most popular atheists who have most recently driven the conversation on why one should not believe in God talk about the existence of evil in the world as a reason no god, and certainly no good god, could possibly exist.

The argument essentially says that: first – bad things happen, second – a good god would not allow bad things to happen, and third – therefore there must be no god at all. But how do these philosophers identify what evil is? What is their objective source to label evil, evil?

I would ask you to consider one simple idea that may change the way you see evil; You can’t know what is evil unless you first know what is good. In other words, there can’t be wrong without right. This is common sense, but it must be pointed out to bring the thought all the way to its conclusion.

Rust is a bad thing when it develops on your vehicle. If you were to see a spot of rust on your car, you would not be excited. Rust is corruption of what was originally made to serve a good purpose. Without perfections, there can be no imperfections. Without good, there can be no evil.

In atheism, there can be no objective evil or objective good. There is, at most, what can be thought of as an agreement among the majority of current humans that certain behaviors like murder, theft and adultery are bad because they somehow lower our odds of survival. Ultimately, these standards can change with time, and we certainly see that taking place on a regular basis in the 21st century.

The biblical story, on the other hand, says that “good” is how the world was originally ordered by a perfect God to be, and it was corrupted by evil that sought to go against the order that God established. That doesn’t apply just to morality (murder, theft, etc.) in the Bible. It indicates that all creation was affected by this “fall”. The physical world has fallen into disrepair and death in all the forms of natural evil that we see today (natural disasters, diseases, etc.).

The narrative of the Old and New Testaments is the story of a perfectly ordered creation falling into decay and death as a result of the choice by the first humans to defy God. In order to save the broken from their brokenness and be reconciled to Himself, God sent His Son to die for the sins of all mankind because only God Himself could bring things back into the order that He had set in place at the beginning.

One of my pastors used to use the popular Southern Illinois phrase, “you can’t get there from here” when examining bad ideas. The idea that evil disproves God is turned on its head when one thinks the thought to its conclusion. Like you can’t have shadows without light, you can’t have objective evil without objective good. The best explanation available for a source for objective good is described in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible; God is Good!

3 Razones por las que los cristianos deben ser investigadores de la evidencia en lugar de adictos a la experiencia

Español

Por Alisa Childers

Dos hombres.

Ambos crecieron en hogares cristianos en los suburbios de Estados Unidos. Ambos tienen padres evangélicos famosos. Ambos tomaron decisiones personales porCristo y se involucraron de forma activa y se volvieron reconocidos en el ministerio. Uno se alejó de su fe y se convirtió en un humanista secular. El otro se ha convertido en uno de los principales apologistas y defensores de la fe cristiana.

¿Quiénes son estos dos hombres? El primero es Bart Campolo, hijo del evangelista y escritor Tony Campolo, y el otro es Sean McDowell, hijo del evangelista y escritor Josh McDowell. ¿Por qué sus caminos, bastante similares, los llevaron a destinos tan radicalmente diferentes?

Recientemente, los dos se reunieron para tener una discusión en Premier Christian Radio titulada “Por qué Bart perdió su fe, por qué Sean mantuvo la suya”. Fue una discusión fascinante, y lo que más me llamó la atención fue la razón que cada uno dio para haberse convertido en cristiano en primer lugar. Campolo describió cómo se convirtió al cristianismo tras encontrar un grupo de jóvenes con el que conectó y asistir a uno de sus retiros:

Hay cientos de niños allí. Es sábado por la noche, hay velas y fogatas y todos cantan “Nuestro Dios es un Dios impresionante” y “Te amamos Señor”. Y en medio de ese tipo de ambiente tuve lo que supongo que se llamaría un momento trascendente… sentí algo. Sentí que había algo que sucedía en esa sala que era más grande que el grupo. Sentí que me conectaba con algo. Y en ese momento… era Dios.

Escuché algo. Fue real para mí. La gente que no cree en las experiencias trascendentes siempre piensa: “No has ido al concierto adecuado… No has consumido las drogas adecuadas. No te has enamorado de la pareja adecuada”.

Estas experiencias son reales, y creo que cualquiera que sea la narrativa en la que te encuentres cuando tienes una, confirma esa narrativa. Si hubiera tenido ese mismo momento trascendental con mis amigos en una mezquita en Afganistán, me habría confirmado el Islam. Pero yo estaba en el mundo cristiano, así que, a partir de ese momento, Jesús era real para mí.

En palabras del propio Campolo, se hizo cristiano por una experiencia trascendente… un sentimiento que resonó profundamente en su corazón.

Más adelante en la conversación, McDowell dio su razón para convertirse en cristiano. Habiendo creído en el cristianismo desde que tiene memoria, experimentó algunas dudas serias sobre su fe cuando era un estudiante universitario. Cuando compartió sus dudas con su padre, éste le animó a no creer en algo simplemente porque es lo que le han dicho. Le instó a investigar por sí mismo las pruebas de la veracidad del cristianismo y a rechazar todo lo que no fuera cierto.

Tras realizar una importante investigación de evidencias, McDowell llegó a la conclusión de que el cristianismo es verdadero… y ésta es la razón por la que él es cristiano. Su fe no se construyó sobre un “momento trascendente”, sino sobre una dolorosa búsqueda de la realidad objetiva.

El cristianismo de Campolo fue confirmado por la experiencia, mientras que el de McDowell fue confirmado por la evidencia. Aquí hay 3 razones por las que los cristianos deben ser investigadores de la evidencia, en lugar de adictos a la experiencia:

1. Se le puede convencer de abandonar una experiencia.

Al igual que Campolo, el actor Brad Pitt fue criado en un hogar cristiano por ministros cristianos evangélicos. En una entrevista con la revista GQ, recordaba haber experimentado en los conciertos de rock algunas de las mismas sensaciones que sentía en los cultos cristianos:

Recuerdo haber ido a algunos conciertos, a pesar de que nos decían que los espectáculos de rock eran el diablo, básicamente. Nuestros padres nos dejaban ir, no eran neo al respecto. Pero me di cuenta de que el ensueño y la alegría y la exuberancia, incluso la agresividad, que sentía en el espectáculo de rock era lo mismo en el avivamiento. Uno es Jimmy Swaggart y otro es Jerry Lee Lewis, ¿sabes? Uno es Dios y el otro es el Diablo. Pero es lo mismo. Se sentía como si estuviéramos siendo manipulados. Lo que estaba claro para mí era: “No sabes de lo que estás hablando…”

Pitt se preguntó si todo era una farsa manipuladora, lo que le llevó a plantearse algunas preguntas serias a una edad muy temprana.

Si la fe de una persona se basa en un sentimiento o experiencia, puede ser fácil reinterpretar esa experiencia o explicarla, especialmente cuando se enfrenta a los argumentos de un escéptico inteligente, o a la aplastante realidad del sufrimiento y el mal.

2. Tu corazón y tus sentimientos mienten.

El profeta Jeremías describió el corazón humano como “engañoso sobre todas las cosas y desesperadamente enfermo”. Proverbios 3:5-7 nos dice que no “nos apoyemos en nuestro propio entendimiento”. Jesús describió el corazón humano como lleno de pensamientos como el asesinato, el adulterio, la inmoralidad sexual, el robo, el falso testimonio y la calumnia. Proverbios 28:26 nos dice que quien confía en su propia mente es un necio.

En otras palabras, no sigas, bajo ninguna circunstancia, a tu corazón.

Esto, por supuesto, contrasta con los temas que encontramos constantemente en el entretenimiento y en las redes sociales. Sin embargo, cuando se trata de creencias espirituales, confiar en nuestros corazones y seguir nuestros sentimientos puede conducir a todo tipo de teología aberrante, elecciones pecaminosas y una distorsión de la verdadera fe cristiana.

3. Puedes recurrir a la evidencia en momentos de duda o sufrimiento.

Uno de los mayores apologistas y evangelistas de los últimos tiempos es un hombre llamado Nabeel Qureshi. Qureshi creció en un hogar musulmán, y después de años de probar las afirmaciones del cristianismo y las del islam, dejó el islam y se hizo cristiano. Pagó un alto precio por su obediencia a Cristo, dejando a su devota familia musulmana con el corazón roto y las relaciones tensas.

En la cúspide de un ministerio respetado, creciente y fructífero, Qureshi recibió la noticia de que tenía un cáncer de estómago en fase 4… a la edad de 33 años, y con un nuevo bebé a bordo. Creía que Dios le iba a sanar, que habría una intervención milagrosa y un testimonio asombroso que contar sobre el poder sanador de Dios. Poco más de un año después de recibir su diagnóstico… murió.

Qureshi documentó su trayectoria contra el cáncer en YouTube, y en uno de los primeros vídeos, expresó que estaba un poco perturbado por esta terrible noticia. Sin embargo, repasó su teología y las pruebas de su creencia en Cristo. En su lecho de muerte, con un aspecto desgastado y como una sombra de su antiguo ser, glorificó a Dios haciendo exactamente lo mismo. Expresó su asombro y decepción por no haber sido sanado, pero dio testimonio de la existencia de Dios y de la veracidad del cristianismo basándose en lo que sabía que era cierto.

Qureshi fue fiel hasta el final, a pesar de su sufrimiento y de las dudas que se deslizaron en su mente en sus últimos días. Esto se debió a que tenía una firme comprensión de la verdad a la que sometió sus sentimientos. Su fe no fue desmantelada por la duda, el sufrimiento o incluso el dolor insoportable.

A fin de cuentas, el cristianismo no siempre va a ser agradable. Pregúntale al apóstol Pablo, que fue secuestrado, golpeado, azotado, encarcelado, ridiculizado, naufragado y apedreado, antes de ser decapitado. El cristianismo no siempre se va a sentir que “funciona”.

Convertirse en un investigador de pruebas en lugar de un adicto a las experiencias llevó al ex ateo J. Warner Wallace a una conclusión inquebrantable:

No soy cristiano porque me “funciona”. Tenía una vida antes del cristianismo que parecía funcionar bien, y mi vida como cristiano no siempre ha sido fácil.

Soy cristiano porque es verdad. Soy cristiano porque quiero vivir de una manera que refleje la verdad. Soy cristiano porque mi alta estima por la verdad no me deja otra alternativa.

En momentos de profunda duda o gran sufrimiento, es maravilloso saber que el cristianismo es verdadero, ¡lo sintamos o no!

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers es una cantante y compositora estadounidense, más conocida por formar parte del grupo femenino de música cristiana ZOEgirl. Ha tenido una lista de los diez mejores sencillos de la radio, cuatro lanzamientos de estudio y recibió el premio Dove durante su tiempo con ZOEgirl. Años más tarde, Alisa experimentó un profundo desafío a su fe de toda la vida cuando empezó a asistir a lo que más tarde se identificaría como una iglesia cristiana progresista. Este desafío empujó a Alisa hacia la Apologética Cristiana. Actualmente se puede leer, escuchar y ver el trabajo de Alisa en línea, así como adquirir su libro recientemente publicado sobre el cristianismo progresista, titulado Another Gospel.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/LYaqFTi

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado

December 17, 2021/by Guest

Why Grace is the True Meaning of Christmas

Podcast

What is the true meaning of Christmas? As Christians, we know it has little to do with trees, presents, and reindeer. But what is it really about? Why is there a Christmas at all? Frank goes to an unlikely place to highlight why Christmas exists — the book of Galatians. There, the Apostle Paul fights for the truth of the gospel — the “good news”— the news that Christ has come to take our sin upon Himself and offer us forgiveness and righteousness for free. The greatest news in the history of the world is that God saves us by grace. Christianity would not be unique if it was just another works-based way to get to God. Grace sets people free from guilt, from rituals, from anxiety, and, most importantly, from our sins. Join Frank as he unpacks this from the first book of the Bible Paul ever wrote, with the most important message he ever wrote.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

December 16, 2021/by Frank Turek

3 Reasons Why Jesus Is The Only Way

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By Tim Stratton

Sermon Outline

Riddle me this: What’s black and white and RED all over?

I remember the first time my dad posed that question to me when I was a young child. Even as a little boy – untrained in philosophy – I knew something was amiss.

I intuitively understood that if something was literally black and white . . . like a news paper . . . then it could not be the COLOR RED all over. After all, something cannot be the colors RED and Black and White simultaneously and in the same sense. There’s a contradiction here – nothing can actually be black and white AND the color red ALL OVER.

Then my dad explained to me that there was a “play on words” going on here – a “word game!” The “read all over” doesn’t refer to a color, but refers to the fact that someone can read the entire newspaper, and thus, the black and white newspaper will be READ all over.

Now, why can’t a newspaper actually be black and white AND the COLOR RED all over? Because this statement violates the logical law of non-contradiction.

The Laws of The Logos

How many of you know about the laws of logic?

I actually discuss the laws of logic in my book (my doctoral dissertation which was published last year). The first chapter is focused on how to properly interpret The Bible. Think about it: Interpreting Scripture correctly presupposes and depends upon the laws of logic. There are three fundamental Laws of Logic that are always required in rational discussion – and in interpreting Scripture:

The Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Things that exist have specific properties that identify them.

Let’s talk about God. Christians typically recognize God as a Maximally Great Being who possesses certain properties such as omnipotence (perfect power), omniscience (perfect knowledge), and omnibenevolence (perfect love for all people). Some theologians claim that God does not love all people and thus, based on the Law of Identity, worship a different God. I have noted that this is dangerously close to idolatry (see this short video for more).

The Law of Excluded Middle: A well-defined proposition is either true or false. There is no middle position. For example, the proposition that “A proposition is either true or false” is either true or false.

I’ve often said that the Law of the Excluded Middle is my favorite logical law! Think about it this way: God either exists or He doesn’t (there is no middle position). Jesus either physically rose from the dead, or He didn’t.

The Law of Non-Contradiction: When two claims contradict one another, one must be false.For example, if one person claims that God exists and another asserts that God does not exist, we can know that one of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. When two propositions contradict one another, one must be false and the other must be true; they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.Similarly, when two contrary statements are made (not to be confused with contradictory statements) we can know that at least one of them must be false (even though both of them could be false). If Bill says that “the moon is made entirely of green cheese” and Bob says “the moon is made entirely of blue cheese,” then these contrary statements cannot both be true. Either Bill or Bob must be wrong. In fact, both Bill and Bob are wrong.Now, let’s talk about contradictions: As Wayne Grudem puts it, “Contradictions aren’t acceptable in the study of systematic theology, since there aren’t any contradictions in the Bible.”

This presupposition is supported by Scripture itself. For example, Psalm 119:160 states that the sum of your words is truth and this implies, in turn, that God’s Word, which Christians believe is true in all that it teaches, will be logical when studied in the context as a whole.

Wayne Grudem continues:

“There are many times we need to acknowledge mystery, paradox, and things we can’t fully understand. But that’s different from saying there’s a [logical] contradiction. God never asks us to believe a contradiction.”

These laws are just as necessary to keep a person grounded in rationality as the law of gravity is necessary to keep them grounded on the earth. The laws of logic are tools which help a person to objectively determine true or false propositions, inferences, and deductions.

In my book I wrote the following:

“Logical laws apply to everyone regardless of when or where he lives, that is to say, the laws of logic transcend humanity and are objectively true. In fact, truth and logic are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. Thus, if Christians claim that Christianity is true, then the affirmations of Christianity must be logical.”

Now, many people these days assert that “all religions are true!” Based on the laws of logic, however (namely, the law of non-contradiction), we KNOW this cannot be true! Consider statements made from different worldviews/religions:

Mohammad VS Jesus

Love those who consider you to be an enemy VS. Kill the infidel! (Which one is it?)

Hinduism VS Islam

“There are multiple gods” VS. “Allah is the one true God.” Both cannot be true

Buddhism VS Judaism

These religions contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive. They might both be false, but they cannot both be true. (BTW: They are both false).

Atheism VS Theism

Based on the logical law of the excluded middle, God either exists or He doesn’t. Since atheism says God does not exists and Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim that God does exist, one might not know what worldview is true, but one can KNOW – with certainty – that both views cannot be true simultaneously.

These views are mutually exclusive.

Every other view VS Mere Christianity

“God raised Jesus from the dead.” If those six words comprising that one statement is true, then some flavor of Christianity is true. CS Lewis described this as “Mere Christianity.” This leads us to what has been called “the most hated words in the Bible.” This verse is contained within today’s passage of Scripture.

READ: John 14:1-14

14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God^[a]; believe also in me. ²My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. ⁴You know the way to the place where I am going.”

⁵Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

⁶Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷If you really know me, you will know^[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

⁸Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

⁹Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. ¹¹Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. ¹²Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. ¹³And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let’s pray . . .

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, but by me.”

In 1998 the great theologian and philosopher known as Madonna confidently declared (on MTV):

“All ways lead to God!”

Madonna, although I don’t remember her saying anything about Jesus at the time, was directly opposing Jesus. Well, based on the laws of logic, we must ask the question:

“Who is right!? Madonna or Jesus?”

If Madonna is right, then Jesus is wrong. But if Jesus is right, then Madonna is wrong.

In fact, just a couple weeks ago a survey was published showing that over 60% of self-described “born-again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 do NOT believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to Heaven — and that Buddha and Muhammad also are valid paths to salvation, the Christian Post reported.

The Church (at large and across our nation) is in BIG TROUBLE!

Today, I’m going to give you reason to put your trust in the words of Jesus (as opposed to Madonna) and provide reasons as to WHY Jesus is THE ONLY WAY. In fact, all people should see that Jesus is the only way – the only way to eternal life in Heaven – for three reasons.

Reason #1: God raised Jesus from the dead!

God raised Jesus from the dead (thus, seemingly placing His divine stamp of approval on everything Jesus said, taught, and exemplified – and upon those Jesus chose to continue His teachings).

I don’t have time to unpack all of this right now, but based on the historical method – the same historical method that historians employ to find out facts about the past – the same historical method that historians have employed to find out facts about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and so many more – is the same historical method historians have employed to find out certain facts about the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

If you’d like to learn more please watch four videos I recorded about the historical resurrection on my YouTube channel:

Part 1- Historical Facts: https://cutt.ly/KYPicUq

Part 2- Examining the Evidence: https://cutt.ly/0YPibBB

Part 3- Hallucinations, Aliens, and Other Silly Ideas: https://cutt.ly/FYPiQ9e

Part 4- The Good News of the Resurrection: https://cutt.ly/mYPiRH5

Historians seek independent sources, such as, eyewitness accounts, both positive and embarrassing. These sources are plentiful when it comes to the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Mike Licona states that we have as much evidence of the resurrection, if not more, than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC.

He notes that even the harshest skeptical and atheistic historians admit several things as historical fact about Jesus. For example:

Jesus existed.
Jesus died by crucifixion.
Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.
The church persecutor, and Christian hunter, Saul was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.
The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the gospel.
The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Licona makes his case even stronger by utilizing a “minimal facts” approach that does not even reference the Gospels, meaning that even if the Gospels did not exist these facts about Jesus remain:

Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
Paul taught what the disciples taught.
They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
They and Paul taught (and believed) Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

Points one through four are accepted facts regarding Jesus and the fifth, although not accepted by many skeptics, remains unrefuted. So, when it comes to the historical method we need to ask the following question:

What hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts?

In Licona’s book, he demonstrates that the resurrection hypothesis accounts for all of these facts – while no other scientific hypothesis offered accounts for all of these together. The best explanation of the facts is the hypothesis which makes sense of all of them together.

The resurrection hypothesis is the only one left on the table.

For a deep dive into this study, I recommend Licona’s book: “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Bottom line: if God raised Jesus from the dead, then some flavor of Christianity has gotta be true. And if God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems that God has given His divine stamp of approval to the words and life of Jesus . . . and we have no reason to think He has done so for Madonna.

Thus, a rational and logical person should follow Jesus on this matter and believe what He says in John 14:6 – Jesus is the ONLY WAY and NO ONE gets to the Father except through Jesus!

So, the first reason why you should believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY, is because we have historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead (that’s great reason to celebrate Easter)! This seems to be a divine stamp of approval upon the life and teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus taught that He is the ONLY WAY, we have good reason to believe Him.

But this raises the philosophical question: WHY is Jesus the only way to God? This leads us to the next point:

Reason #2: Jesus is God!

Jesus is the only way to God because He is God.

Hold up! You might be thinking: Doesn’t saying that Jesus IS God violate the logical law of identity or the law of non-contradiction? Isn’t this some kind of a logical error?

A few months ago I led a youth group to Salt Lake City and BYU was kind enough to host our group, give us guided tour of their beautiful campus, they gave each one of us a nice BYU ball cap, and then we had a time of Q&A with one of the top Mormon leaders in Salt Lake.

One thing my Mormon friend said was that our view of Christianity had to be false because it is non-sensical to say that we worship ONE person and THREE persons at the same time.

I respectfully interrupted him and said,

“That’s not an accurate description of the Trinity, sir. We worship ONE WHAT and THREE WHOS. When one distinguishes between the WHAT and the WHOS one can see that there is no logical contradiction in saying that Jesus IS God . . . He is just not God the Father. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, known as “The Son.”

So, the concept of “Jesus being God” is logically coherent . . . but do we have biblical reason to think Jesus actually is the Creator of the universe? Consider what both John and Paul say about Jesus. Since we are in the Gospel of John, let’s start there and rewind to the beginning . . .

John 1: states the following:

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Now, I just mentioned Easter, but this is the message of Christmas — God “dwelt among us” (Immanuel)!

What I want you to see here is that The Bible refers to Jesus as “The Logos” and implies that not only is Jesus God, but also gives us some insight into the Trinity. From a theological perspective, this passage of scripture carries much weight.

Science Supports Scripture

Do you know that we actually have scientific evidence supporting this scripture?

To quickly summarize: The current scientific consensus strongly supports the theory that all nature (the stuff that scientists can test and discover) had an absolute beginning (big bang cosmology, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem of 2003).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the evidence demonstrates that the universe (all nature) began to exist. It follows that since nature began to exist, nature cannot be the cause of nature itself. Therefore, the cause of nature must be something other than nature (supernatural).

This is exactly what the first chapter of John is stating about Jesus – he is the supernatural cause of the natural universe, and he entered into his creation so that we could know him. Think about that! The Creator of the universe entered into the universe to save the people within the universe. This is what Christmas is all about. This is why we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

To survey some of the science supporting scripture (and more), click here!

“The Logic”

Another thing to keep in mind when reading the first Chapter of John is that the Greek word for “word” – “Logos” – is used synonymously with Jesus in the text. It is interesting to note that “logos,” in Greek, means, “the principle of reason.” This is where we get the word “logic.”

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God and seems to suggest that He is the grounding of logic and reason. You see, logic is grounded in the essence of God. Therefore, when we choose to think and behave logically, we are godly (approximating to or being like God).

On a side note: it’s quite interesting to note that Critical Race Theorists reject logic and exclaim that “appealing to logic and reason is racist!” However, God commanded us to “be reasonable” in Isaiah 1:18 . . . so, I’m gonna stay reasonable and appeal to logic no matter what anyone might call me.

See, “The Great Commission Is Racist!” https://cutt.ly/IYPiwoC

Bottom line: if you were thinking that we should not place so much emphasis on logic, then – according to John – you are not putting enough emphasis on the nature of Jesus!

Jesus is “The Logic” – the only way to make sense of reality!

With that said, what does the Apostle Paul say about Jesus in Colossians 1:16 . . .

The Preeminence of Christ

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. ¹⁷And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. ¹⁹For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Wow! According to Paul, if one can say that the creation of the universe “flowed” (as it were) through one person of the Trinity, it would be through the Second Person of the Trinity – Jesus Christ Himself!

The Creator of the universe, entered into the universe, to save the people within the universe. How cool is that? With that in mind, let’s talk about HOW Jesus saved the people within the universe.

This is our last point about WHY Jesus is the ONLY WAY!

Reason #3: The atonement of Jesus just makes sense.

Why did Jesus have to die? Why is the wages of sin death? Why can’t the wages of sin be five bucks or seven years of hard labor?

Why did Jesus have to die?

Before addressing that all-important question, first understand two things: 1- who we are, and 2- who God is.

According to Westminster Confession, the objective purpose of mankind is to know and enjoy God. I like to “tweak” it ever so slightly, and state: The objective purpose of mankind is to grow in our knowledge of God, to grow in love with God, and to enjoy a personal relationship with our Creator for all eternity (Hosea 6:6; Luke 10:27; Col 1:9; 1 Tim 2:4).

Or to say it this way: You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose of enjoying a true love relationship with God into the eternal future.

Scores of humanity have considered the meaning and purpose of life. The fact remains, if God does not exist, then there is no objective purpose in life (Atheism Catch-22). Christians, however, do not suffer from this sort of conundrum. In fact, we have a ready answer. We know the objective meaning and purpose of life: God created every human to know, love, and enjoy God into the eternal future. This is why God created the universe and all of its contents. This is why you exist, so that you could know him. We were created on purpose and for that exact and specific purpose.

Like Oil & Water

By definition, God is a maximally great being and necessarily perfect in every way. Moreover, God created you to enjoy a perfect, holy, and pure love relationship with him.

But we’ve got a problem — a big problem! As a result of sin, now we as humans are anything but holy and pure. Now we are guilty, alienated, and corrupt in nature. Since we are corrupt and imperfect, we are unequally yoked with a maximally great being.

Like oil and water, now, we are “unmixable” with a perfect God. He is necessary perfection and we are infection. The two simply do not mix and that is a major problem for humanity.

So, humanity needs a savior. With a savior we can be justified instead of guilty, adopted instead of alienated, and have a purified and regenerated nature instead of a corrupt nature.

We were created for one objective purpose – to be the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27) in a perfect and true love marriage. We were created to love and to be loved by our Creator. However, now, because of sin, we are infected and do not mix with necessary perfection any longer (i.e., oil and water). As a result, we are necessarily separated from God.

Our hearts were created to be “pointed” to God, but now they are dysfunctional, sick, and twisted because of this separation. Our hearts are now “curved in” on themselves, they are self-centered, selfish, and sinful. We have completely “missed the mark” (the objective purpose of human existence). This is literally what the word “sin” means in the original Greek. The “mark” is God, but we are separated from him; we do not even know God exists apart from his revelation. Due to this separation, we cannot even “aim” at God and of course we will “miss the mark” and sin.

We are infected, self-centered creatures – but we are not supposed to be. God created you for a specific purpose and gave you a job description: BE HOLY! (Namely by loving God and others.) Being holy means to be God focused instead of self-focused. The problem is, all of us have “missed the mark” and have become “infection.” Therefore, we have a damaged relationship with perfection – God.

Is Restoration Possible?

The question remains: how is a broken relationship restored? Two things must occur if a damaged relationship is to be restored: 1) The offended party must choose to bear the harm. 2) The offending party must choose to confess and repent. In our relationship with God, he is the offended party as we sinned against him. We are the offending party, and are thus powerless to restore this relationship on our own. Our works are meaningless unless God, as the offended party, chooses to bear the harm. Left to our own devices, our work does not work (Isaiah 64:6).

God is life! He is the author and giver of life. He invented it and life comes from him. In the well-known Bible verse, John 14:6, Jesus claims he is “the life.” If God is life, then separation from life is death. Since sin separates us from God (like oil and water), then, consequently, sin equals death. Therefore, in every aspect that you have life, you will die if you are separated from the source of life. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

If our relationship with God is to be restored, then God must bear the harm as the offended party. If the harm is death, then, God must die. One small problem though: it is logically impossible for a necessary being to die. God cannot die physically because he is immaterial and spirit. God cannot die spiritually because he cannot be separated from himself (although Jesus felt like it on the Cross).

You are a soul (an immaterial thinking thing) with one set of cognitive faculties. God is one soul with three sets of cognitive faculties. Just as your cognitive faculties cannot be separated from you as a spiritual substance (soul), God’s cognitive faculties (all three of them) cannot be separated from his “spiritual substance.”

If God is going to bear the harm, he has to die because the wages of sin is death. God cannot die as God. Therefore, if humans are to be saved, God had to become human so he could bear the harm and experience death. We need Christmas, we need Good Friday, and we need Easter to have a restored relationship with our Creator (Happy Holy-Days)!

Why do we need Easter (the Resurrection)? It took more than just executing Jesus, because if death was punishment, if Christ is still dead, then he is still being punished. The Resurrection is proof that God is satisfied with Jesus’ atoning work. Therefore, Christianity is true!

Remember, we were created on purpose and for the objective purpose to love God with our entire being. We see this demonstrated in multiple Bible verse such as Luke 10:27 and Matthew 22:37, we are to love God with all of our mind/soul, and body/strength.

The reason why you exist is to LOVE! You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose to love God . . . AND . . . to love our neighbors (and even those who consider you to be an enemy as our very selves!

Taken together—love God and love others—comprises the WAY of Jesus. We’re talking this morning about why we believe in the TRUTH of Jesus. But He also says that He is the WAY to live… and this is His way: “Love God and love everyone!”

The purpose of life is all about LOVE!

To do anything other than that is to miss the mark (the very definition of sin).

If we ever choose not to love God in any way that we have life, then our lives ought to be terminated because we are objectively broken. This is an appropriate outcome. If something breaks, we either throw it away, or we fix it. Now, as far as our broken relationship with God goes, we have the choice to either be “thrown away” or to be “fixed.” Because of the work of Jesus (the Atonement) all people can be “fixed” and restored — as we ought to be in an objective sense — if we choose to be.

Justice is Good

Consider the nature of God to gain understanding of these issues. Psalm 97 states, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” This is not referring to God’s chair; rather, this is stating the essential attributes and the essence of God. This describes who God is! In other words, if God did not exist, there would be no such thing as objective righteousness, goodness, wickedness, or justice. God is perfect love (1 John 4:8). Thus, perfect justice must be part of his essential omni-benevolent nature as well. After all, justice is good and loving.

When someone escapes justice, we intuitively know that it is a bad thing. God created the universe, and part of the fabric of His creation is a moral universe. There are also natural laws, mathematical laws, and logical laws that govern the universe. Similarly, there are moral laws that we are obligated to obey (Paul says they are “written on our hearts” in Romans 2:15).

Perfect justice demands punishment, or it is not really justice. God cannot turn a blind-eye to our sin and say, “Oh well, boys will be boys, girls will be girls, humans will be humans.” That is not justice; it is injustice and ignoring crime and ignoring evil is bad. Therefore, God cannot ignore our sin and remain worthy of worship.

If a criminal commits a crime, we know that he deserves to be punished. We also know that the punishment should be fair and that it ought to fit the crime. If a seventeen-year-old shoplifts a pack of bubblegum from the gas station, there should be an appropriate punishment – we don’t give him the death penalty! However, moral monsters like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden deserve a much greater punishment than the bubblegum burglar.

Now think about our crimes; we might not be a Ted Bundy, or a Hitler; however, we have all committed crimes against the very essence of morality, love, goodness, and justice – God! Because of this fact, we do not “mix” or relate with God. One may object and state that they are generally a “good person.” This may be true; however, they are not perfectly good, and cannot “mix” with a necessarily perfect God. Our lives are broken and infected, and therefore, we need a savior so that we can have a relationship with our creator. This brings us to Jesus; this brings us to the cross.

Conclusion

Some have falsely accused God the Father of some form of “cosmic child abuse” because he took out his wrath on his innocent son, because we sinful humans made him so angry. This is bad theology (remember the doctrine of the Trinity). We worship one God (not three); Christians are monotheists. Jesus is God. It logically follows that Jesus *is* the offended party. Therefore, Jesus, at the cross, satisfied his own righteous wrath – his own justice (which is good), for us! This is amazing love! This is amazing grace (the Cross was enough)!

Do you see the beauty? The offended party (a sinless, holy, pure, and morally perfect God) became human to pay our gruesome debt, to bear the harm, to satisfy his morally perfect justice. Wow! Because God has chosen to bear the harm, now, we have a choice to make. We can either choose to accept God’s act of love on the cross, or we can reject God’s grace and deal with his justice (separation from God and all that is good). Do you want perfect justice or perfect love? Perfect love is Heaven and perfect justice is separation from the Creator of the universe (Hell).

Because of what Jesus has done, we can have a restored relationship with our Creator. All you have to do, as the offending party, is freely choose to confess, repent, follow, and fall in love with Jesus. This is the essence of the message of the Gospel.

You see, we have THREE very good reasons to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, just as He claimed to be.

God raised Jesus from the dead (a divine “stamp of approval”).
Jesus is the only way to God because Jesus IS God.
The atoning life, death, and resurrection just makes sense – no other religion or worldview offers anything similar.

Have you put your trust in Jesus? Do you love Jesus?

Pray . . .

Outro: What is black and while and SHOULD be READ all over? Your Bible!

Spend time in your Bible. That’s a great way to fall in love with Jesus.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Affliction Provides the Ability to Comfort (1:3-4, 6-7)

Affliction Portrays God’s Strength (1:5)

Affliction Promotes Divine Trust (1:8-11)

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Referencias

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Canon

The Tanakh

The Septuagint (250-150 BC)

The Apocrypha

Why The Bible should not Include the Apocrypha

1. The Apocrypha Acknowledges that Prophets Weren’t Speaking during its Time

2. Jews Never Accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture

3. The New Testament Never Refers to the Apocrypha as Scripture

4. Jesus Affirmed the Three-Fold Division of the Tanakh

5. The Catholic Church didn’t Grant Authority to the Apocrypha until Later

Moving On to the New

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recursos recomendados en Español:

The Laws of The Logos

Reason #1: God raised Jesus from the dead!

Reason #2: Jesus is God!

Science Supports Scripture

“The Logic”

The Preeminence of Christ

Reason #3: The atonement of Jesus just makes sense.

Why did Jesus have to die?

Like Oil & Water

Is Restoration Possible?

Justice is Good

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic: