By Natasha Crain
My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.
Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.
In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.
Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.
In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.
Understanding Christian “Extremism”
Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)
The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.
The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.
When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?
While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.
More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.
First, we’re extreme in our source of authority
The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.
In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.
This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.
When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.
And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.
Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.
It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.
For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!
When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.
But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?
Absolutely.
But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.
If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”
Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”
Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.
But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.
Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.
This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.
In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.
But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.
From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.
Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.
When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/2QJ0e0X
A Short History of Tyranny
PodcastHow do you take power from the people and consolidate it in a dictator or government? There are known tactics to do this, and they have been demonstrated since the time of Plato. Historian Bill Federer joins Frank and identifies these tactics. He then takes us on a fascinating ride through history to show us how these tactics have been used in the past and how they are being used right now. Among the questions they discuss are:
Don’t miss this podcast. History is repeating itself! Bill’s new book here. His website is: www.AmericanMinute.com The first of his recent presentations at CCCH can be found here. If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org. Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!! Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Se está desvaneciendo Dios?
EspañolBy Mia Langford
The “omnis” of theology – omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. – are coming under attack with increasing frequency, and not only from the more well-known theologically liberal camps of Christianity. Examples abound – even within evangelical communities – of these attacks on various attributes of God, which seem to have been “shot down” by the fire of academics, or are altered by laymen to the point that the essence of the word is lost, and along with it, the force that would inspire in the individual worship and wonder.
What is causing the traditional understanding of God to “fade away”? It seems as if the nail holding all these attributes in place has been removed.
In this week’s episode of Why Do You Believe?, Dr. Richard Howe gives that nail a name: classical theism.
Classical Theism
Classical theism is a theology about God that denotes His simplicity. The word classical must be understood within the boundaries and categories of Western thought that emerged with the ancient Greeks, followed by the Christian church fathers, and then the medieval scholastics.
Within this framework, God is uninterrupted or infinitely present, invariable existence, not a being composed of metaphysical parts like the rest of creation (for example, angels are composed of form and existence, human beings have a mixture of form, matter and existence, etc.).
All of God’s attributes, such as omnis, immutability, and others, are derived from this metaphysical principle of simplicity (the quality of the attribute describes a characteristic of God’s nature or of His actions, and both can be known through creation [general revelation] and through His Word [special revelation]). God’s attributes are not independent, but are in such harmony that they are all involved and collaborate at all times and moments; by eliminating or altering one attribute, the others simply collapse.
Put another way, representing God’s attributes individually has to do with our finite, human understanding attempting to segment God’s magnitude and majesty into pieces that are easier to perceive, and when we misuse the cornerstone of divine simplicity, or any other essential attribute of God, the whole house falls into jeopardy.
Who removed the nail?
So, if simplicity is the foundation of many of God’s attributes, why has simplicity been neglected in modern times? Dr. Howe attributes this omission primarily to a lack of skill in hermeneutics . And he demonstrates in these few lines that an insufficient and erroneous view of the nature and attributes of God will result in the omission of this precious and firm theological principle, and will end in an absurd and incorrect interpretation of the text. In classical theism, God is honored as unique in his kind because he is a necessary and simple being, but other philosophical systems are capable of imposing human, finite, and inexact characteristics on God very often.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/sQJ8OJP
Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia
Edited by Gustavo Camarillo
Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.
Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.
In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.
Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.
In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.
Understanding Christian “Extremism”
Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)
The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.
The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.
When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?
While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.
More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.
First, we’re extreme in our source of authority
The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.
In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.
This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.
When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.
And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.
Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.
It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.
For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!
When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.
But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?
Absolutely.
But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.
If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”
Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”
Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.
But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.
Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.
This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.
In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.
But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.
From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.
Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.
When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/2QJ0e0X
Why People Hate Being Judged
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.
But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. 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 found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised for their performance, and want to come out on top. It is losing – being told that they didn’t measure up or that they did something wrong, or bad – that they seek to avoid.
This inclination to seek praise and to avoid condemnation is apparent from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn’t need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “That’s not fair!” he will exclaim, without 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’s okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It’s only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.
What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling constrained to act a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we do not want to feel guilt. We don’t want that nagging sense that, as CS Lewis put it, we are aware of a law that is pressing down upon us, a law that we did not create and that we cannot evade, for it resides within our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit would possibly derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? Would this not inhibit us from future acts that might benefit us in a direct and personal way at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, then those early humans who lacked a sense of guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their self-interest – to enhance their ability to survive and to procreate – as contrasted with their fellows who were inhibited because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes from hurting other people. With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution, pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.
The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us – written upon our heart as it were – intuitive access to this standard and a desire – a need – to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieving this, but the knowledge of this law, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.
God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.”
What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear ultimate condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us the way home, the path to redemption. But we cannot make it there on our own and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid feelings of guilt does no one any good.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned 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 CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Proving Jesus without the Bible
PodcastSuppose none of the New Testament survived to this day. Would we know anything about Jesus and his teachings? Yes, much of what we know today about Jesus and his teachings we would know even without any of the New Testament documents. How? Cold-Case Homicide Detective J. Warner Wallace joins Frank to show you how. Drawing from his amazing new book, Person of Interest, Wallace shows the unparalleled impact Jesus has had on culture in six different areas: literature, art, science, music, education, and even other world religions. To cite just one example from art, you could reconstruct the entire Gospel of Mark just from paintings and drawings done in the first several hundred years following Jesus. Wallace lays out several other examples. And the conversation is just getting started. This is just the first show on this topic. Check back in September for the next one. In the meantime, if you pre-order the book, you’ll get some free stuff that you can get nowhere else! If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org. Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!! Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Lo que nos dice nuestra lucha perpetua con la entropía
EspañolPor Al Serrato
Hace muchos años, cuando era más joven y mucho menos sabio, decidí que sería un buen proyecto de padre e hijo invertir en un coche antiguo que pudiera restaurar. (Nota para los padres: es mucho mejor encontrar algo que les guste a tus hijos que al revés). Así que, después de buscar, y teniendo en cuenta mi escaso presupuesto, encontré un Mustang convertible del 87 que, en general, se encontraba en buenas condiciones. No me resultó difícil imaginar que, con un poco de esfuerzo y un sitio web especializado en piezas de Mustang, podría hacer que este coche tuviera calidad de sala de exposición en poco tiempo.
Después de que la novedad desapareciera, y el interés de mis hijos disminuyera de poco a nada, me encontré con que tenía un proyecto solitario entre manos que tenía esa molesta costumbre de progresar negativamente. Así es. No importaba cuántos elementos tachara de la lista de tareas, se seguían añadiendo más. Y descubrí que las cosas siempre pasaban de buenas a malas, de funcionar a estar rotas, de estar limpias a estar sucias. Los interruptores de las ventanas que funcionaban un día, dejaban de funcionar al siguiente. Los motores que hacen que las ventanas se muevan suavemente hacia arriba y hacia abajo comenzaron a rechinar y luego se detuvieron. Los fusibles se fundieron, una y otra vez. Sorprendentemente, el proceso nunca funcionaba al revés. No importaba el tiempo que esperara, los interruptores rotos nunca se arreglaban solos. Las piezas agrietadas de las molduras, o una luz trasera rota, nunca se reparaban solas. El óxido en el metal siempre aparecía donde antes no estaba, y nunca daba paso a un metal limpio y brillante. Sí, la ley de la entropía estaba plenamente vigente, y la única manera de revertir ese proceso era invertir tiempo, energía y dinero.
Esto, por supuesto, no es una sorpresa para cualquiera que haya tenido algo. Tampoco es una sorpresa para quien haya considerado el funcionamiento de la naturaleza. Los científicos nos dicen que esta ley -la entropía- es una característica del universo. La entropía es, sencillamente, una medida del desorden, y parece que una ley universal está en funcionamiento moviendo todo desde estados de mayor a menor orden. En otras palabras, la naturaleza tiene una dirección particular, y esa dirección es hacia abajo.
El cristianismo y el ateísmo son cosmovisiones que compiten entre sí. Cada una de ellas pretende dar sentido al mundo para explicar cómo son realmente las cosas. Y a pesar de la creciente popularidad del ateísmo, y del creciente desprecio por el cristianismo histórico, la cosmovisión atea es totalmente incapaz de dar sentido al mundo. En relación con la entropía, el ateísmo debe explicar por qué la “evolución” de la vida ha escapado a esta ley universal. ¿Cómo es que seres humanos increíblemente complejos evolucionaron a partir de formas de vida inferiores? Cuando el ADN se somete a cambios aleatorios, el resultado suele ser letal: se llama cáncer. Pero de alguna manera, insisten los ateos, dado el tiempo suficiente, una simple forma de vida unicelular adquirió las instrucciones necesarias para producir una vida humana completa, instrucciones que deben dirigir perfectamente el ensamblaje y el inter-funcionamiento de docenas de sistemas. Y si eso no fuera suficientemente difícil, ¿cómo puede haber surgido la vida a partir de un material inerte -sin vida-? Si se deja una roca sola durante unos milenios, se acaba teniendo, bueno, una roca.
La cosmovisión cristiana , por el contrario, puede proporcionar esa explicación. El acontecimiento del Big Bang que inició este descenso en el progreso, es el resultado de un ser masivamente poderoso e inmensamente inteligente, que proporcionó las leyes que vemos en la naturaleza, y que escribió las instrucciones que los científicos están empezando a descifrar dentro del ADN. La razón por la que la vida “evolucionó” en la tierra es porque un Diseñador Inteligente la diseñó y proporcionó la fuente de energía para impulsar el proceso. Reconocer la necesidad de esa “primera causa” no es algo anticientífico. De hecho, la ciencia moderna comenzó con la presuposición de que las mentes inteligentes podían desentrañar los misterios de la naturaleza porque estos misterios no eran aleatorios, sino que eran el producto de una mente ordenada, de la inteligencia.
Luchar contra lo evidente, como hacen los ateos, tiene aún menos éxito que luchar contra la entropía. Estarían mejor empleando su tiempo en actividades más productivas.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato se licenció en Derecho por la Universidad de California en Berkeley en 1985. Comenzó su carrera como agente especial del FBI antes de convertirse en Fiscal en California, donde sigue trabajando. Una introducción a las obras de CS Lewis despertó su interés por la Apologética, que ha seguido durante las últimas tres décadas. Comenzó a escribir Apologética con J. Warner Wallace y Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/8QUxzYS
Traducido por Yatniel Vega García
Editado por Ámbar Porta
What did Jesus think about the Old Testament?
4. Is the NT True?, Jesus ChristBy Ryan Leasure
It’s not uncommon for Christians to throw shade on the Old Testament. These Christians say they love Jesus, but they could do without those primitive Jewish texts. In fact, many Christians suggest that much of the Old Testament is ahistorical. Events such as the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, or the fiery judgment of Sodom and Gomorra never happened. And then there’s the infamous quote that Christians simply need to “unhitch themselves from the Old Testament” because much of it is embarrassing or difficult to understand. Why can’t we just focus on Jesus instead?
We can certainly sympathize with these sentiments. After all, the flood and Sodom’s judgment seem pretty incredible and kind of harsh to boot! Wouldn’t it just be easier to disregard this ancient corpus? This position seems reasonable until one realizes that the same Jesus these Christians adore also happens to hold the Old Testament in high regard. Not only does he affirm the Old Testament’s inspiration, he also affirms its historicity and authority.
The Old Testament is Inspired
Historically, Christians have affirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That is to say, they recognize that every word of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17). At the same time, God spoke through human agency. Therefore, Scripture not only has a divine author, it has human authors as well.
Jesus affirmed the human authors of the Old Testament. Repeatedly, he recognizes that Moses is the one who gave the Law (Matt 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He’ll say things like “do what Moses commanded” (Mark 1:44). Or “Moses said, Honor your father and your mother” (Mark 7:10). With respect to other Old Testament authors, Jesus declares, “Well did Isaiah prophesy . . .” (Mark 7:6). Also, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared . . .” (Mark 12:36). And “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel . . .”(Matt 24:15). It’s worth noting that just about all critical scholars call into question the authorship of these individuals in clear contradiction to Jesus.
At the same time, Jesus affirms that these individuals wrote divinely inspired Scripture. As was just alluded to, Jesus noted in Mark 12:36, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, . . .” In other words, David wrote, but his writings were the result of the Holy Spirit’s work (2 Pet 1:20-21). He also declared “Well did Isaiah prophesy . . .” (Mark 7:6). The mere mention of prophecy suggests that Isaiah wrote from God. Prophecy, after all, is by definition “a word from God.” The same could be said for Matthew 24:15 when Jesus refers to Daniel as “the prophet.” Moreover, when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus asserts, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He then goes on to clarify that the commandment of God was what Moses wrote in Exodus 20.
As John Wenhan notes, “To [Jesus], Moses, the prophets, David and the other Scripture-writers were truly inspired men with a message given by the Spirit of God.”1
The Old Testament is Historically Accurate
While many are willing to grant the Old Testament’s inspiration, many of these same individuals deny that it’s historically accurate at every point. They might affirm its historical nature in general (God created the world, called Abraham and the Jewish people, the Jews were exiled, etc.), but they balk at some of the more challenging texts (the flood, Sodom, Jonah, etc.). That said, Jesus has no qualms about affirming the historical nature of the Old Testament—even the most difficult texts to believe. Here are a few examples:
He believed that Cain killed Abel (Luke 11:51), that God sent a flood but spared Noah in the ark (Matt 24:37-39), and that God destroyed Sodom because of their wickedness (Matt 11:23-24). He even adds, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). Additionally, Jesus believed that God sent down manna from heaven (John 6:31), the Israelites were healed by looking at the serpent (John 3:14), and that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish only to be regurgitated three days later (Matt 12:39-41).
The last text about Jonah is especially significant because it demonstrates that Jesus didn’t simply view these events figuratively. For the end of the text reads, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matt 12:41). It’s hard to imagine how Jesus could assert that Ninevah would rise up in the final judgment against the people who rejected him if they were make-believe. The same could be said for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37: “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” In other words, just as God’s judgment was poured out in the days of Noah, so it will be again in the final judgment.
Again, Wenham remarks, “It is evident that [Jesus] was familiar with most of our Old Testament and that he treated it all equally as history.”2
The Old Testament is Authoritative
Because Jesus believed the Old Testament was divinely-inspired, he also affirmed its full authority. He demonstrated this authority by appealing to the scriptures dozens of times.
When asked what were the greatest commandments, he declares that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind. . . And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:37-39). Jesus said that these two commands (Deut 6:4-6; Lev 19:18) sum up the totality of the Old Testament and are the guide to all ethical matters.
When facing temptation, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture to do battle against Satan. He repeatedly declares, “it is written, it is written, it is written” (Matt 4:1-11). Even as he was facing death, the final words on his lips were words from the Old Testament (Psalm 22:1; 31:5).
Jesus appeals to Genesis 1-2 when speaking about marriage and divorce. He asks, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:4-6). By alluding to Genesis 1-2 here, Jesus asserts that his position on marriage and divorce is rooted in the authority of the Old Testament text. By contrast, Jesus’ opponents rooted their position in different Rabbis (Shammai and Hillel).
When disputing with the Sadducess about the resurrection, Jesus scolds them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29). In other words, the Scriptures give us the definitive, authoritative word about the resurrection. Jesus goes on to question them, “Have you not read what was said to you by God, I am the God of Abraham . . .?” (Matt 31-32) Again, Jesus appeals to the Old Testament text to assert God’s power over the resurrection.
Jesus goes so far as to state that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). For Jesus, Scripture is so powerful, nothing can undo it.
Jesus and the Old Testament
All the evidence taken together suggests that Jesus held a high view of the Old Testament. Those who claim to hold Jesus in high regard but reject some of the Old Testament’s teachings are being inconsistent. If you hold Jesus in high regard, you must hold the Old Testament in high regard as well. As John Wenham notes:
“To Christ the Old Testament was true, authoritative, inspired. To him the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God. To him, what Scripture said, God said.” 3
*For more on this topic, see John Wenham’s book Christ and the Bible.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Old Testament vs. New Testament God: Anger vs. Love? (MP3 Set) (DVD Set) (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure is a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC. For more on his background and interests, click here.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/rQYMyUQ
The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Jason Jimenez
All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?
Not so fast.
On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.
There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.
To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”
The Unequal Treatments of Equity
Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.
The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”
The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.
Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.
The Injustice of Equity
In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”
The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.
On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”
To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.
The Inconsistencies of Equity
“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”
But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?
Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?
What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?
Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.
Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.
However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.
As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries, a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the Church.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/zQYXmZA
What’s the Solution to the Identity Crisis?
PodcastWhy are people denying that there are differences between men and women? Why are people struggling with their identity? What’s the solution to all this?
Join Frank as he addresses these questions and others. Along the way he points out how transgender ideology presupposes fixed genders: how living “my truth” is self-defeating; and why “following your heart” is usually unwise. There is a better way forward, not only in this life but right into eternity.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Dos tipos de personas que han tratado de avergonzarme para que me aleje del cristianismo
EspañolPor Wintery Knight
En mi último trabajo, tuve dos encuentros interesantes, el primero con un hombre judío de izquierda y el segundo con una mujer cristiana feminista del evangelio de la prosperidad de la Nueva Era.
Hablemos de las dos personas.
El hombre que piensa que los cristianos conservadores son estúpidos
El primer tipo de persona que trató de avergonzarme por ser cristiano es la persona que piensa que el cristianismo es estúpido. Este tipo de personas recurre a las cosas que él escucha en la cultura pop secular de izquierda como si fuera de conocimiento común que el teísmo en general, y el cristianismo en particular, es falso. Ha visto un documental en Discovery Channel que decía que la cosmología de la oscilación eterna era cierta. O tal vez vio un documental en History Channel que decía que Jesús nunca se presentó a sí mismo como Dios al entrar en la historia. Él presenta estas cosas que lee en el New York Times, ve en la MSNBC, o escucha en la NPR con el tono de autoridad que Ben Carson podría tener cuando explica medicina moderna a un curandero.
Así es como suelen ir las cosas con él:
> Yo: aquí hay dos argumentos en contra de la evolución naturalista, el origen de la vida y la explosión Cámbrica.
> Él: pero tú no crees en una Tierra Joven, ¿verdad? Es decir, crees en la evolución, ¿no?
> Yo: hablemos de cómo las proteínas y el ADN son secuenciadas, y el origen repentino de los planos corporales Cámbricos
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en la evolución? ¿Crees en la evolución?
Y esto:
> Yo: no ha habido calentamiento global desde hace 18 años, y las temperaturas eran más cálidas en el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: pero no niegas el cambio climático ¿verdad? Todos en la NPR están de acuerdo
que el cambio climático es real
> Yo: hablemos de los últimos 18 años sin calentamiento, y las temperaturas durante
el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en el cambio climático? ¿Crees en el cambio climático?
Él hace estas preguntas para etiquetarme de loco o para que concuerde con él, sin tener que sopesar la evidencia que le estoy presentando.. Se trata de ignorar la evidencia, de modo que él pueda regresar a su ocupada, muy ocupada vida práctica, y volver a sentirse engreído por ser más inteligente que los demás. Creo que muchos hombres son así, ellos no quieren desperdiciar su valioso tiempo estudiando, solo quieren saltar a la conclusión correcta y luego volver a hacer lo que sea que quieran, como correr maratones, o llevar a sus hijos a su práctica de hockey, etc.
Así que ¿cómo respondes a un hombre que obtiene toda su cosmovisión de la cultura,
pero nunca se ocupa de la evidencia revisada por expertos y especialistas? Bueno, creo que solo derrotas sus argumentos con evidencia, luego presentas tu propia evidencia (revisada por expertos), y luego lo dejas así. Si la persona solo quiere saltar a la conclusión que todas las personas “inteligentes” sostienen, sin hacer ningún trabajo, entonces no puedes ganar. Existen ateos que creen en la oscilación eterna del universo de la que vieron hablar a Carl Sagan en su escuela primaria. Podrías tratar de argumentar por un origen del universo citando nueva evidencia como el CMB y la abundancia de elementos ligeros. Pero a veces, a ellos no les importará. Carl Sagan lo dejó muy claro hace 50 años. No importa que la nueva evidencia anule las viejas teorías, a ellos no les interesa.
¿Crees que el cristianismo hará que los no cristianos sean como tú?
Considera 2 Tim 4:1-5:
1 Te encargo solemnemente, en la presencia de Dios y de Cristo Jesús, que ha de juzgar a los vivos y a los muertos, por su manifestación y por su reino:
2 Predica la palabra; insiste a tiempo y fuera de tiempo; redarguye, reprende, exhorta
con mucha paciencia e instrucción.
3 Porque vendrá tiempo cuando no soportarán la sana doctrina, sino que teniendo comezón de oídos, acumularán para sí maestros conforme a sus propios deseos;
4 y apartarán sus oídos de la verdad, y se volverán mitos.
5 Pero tú, sé sobrio en todas las cosas, sufre penalidades, haz el trabajo de un evangelista,
cumple tu ministerio.
Y 1 Pedro 3:15-16:
15 sino santificad a Cristo como Señor en vuestros corazones, estando siempre preparados
para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia;
16 teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo.
Si tienes creencias teológicas ortodoxas en esta época, entonces serás
avergonzado, humillado, y vilipendiado por las personas. Y no es solo tener una visión ortodoxa de quién es Jesús lo que les molesta (por ejemplo – la deidad, la exclusividad de la salvación, moralidad, etc.). No, su desaprobación se extiende hasta en la política, especialmente el aborto y el matrimonio gay – básicamente cualquier tipo de reglas acerca de la sexualidad. Eso es lo que realmente molesta a estas personas, creo.
La mujer que piensa que el cristianismo mejora la calidad de vida
Esto es especialmente difícil cuando eres un hombre joven porque naturalmente buscamos la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres. Te encuentras sentado en la iglesia o en el grupo de jóvenes, esperando la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres cristianas por tu sólida teología y tu eficaz apologética. No sabes que muchas mujeres cristianas entienden al cristianismo como una mejora de calidad de vida, diseñado para producir sentimientos de felicidad. Dios es su mayordomo cósmico cuya principal responsabilidad es satisfacer sus necesidades y hacer que sus planes funcionen. Aunque te guste la sana teología y buenos argumentos apologéticos, ella no piensa que eso es importante.
Entonces, ¿cómo lidiar con esta necesidad insatisfecha de aprobación y respeto por parte de las mujeres en la iglesia?
En primer lugar, ten cuidado de no asistir a una iglesia en la que el pastor está predicando y escogiendo himnos que te den la idea de que Dios es tu mayordomo cósmico. En segundo lugar, lee la Biblia cuidadosamente, y entiende que respecto a los propósitos de Dios para ti en este mundo, tu felicidad es prescindible. No puedes buscar a mujeres cristianas atractivas que conozcas de casualidad en la iglesia para que te apoyen, ya que muchas de ellas hace tiempo que se han vendido a la cultura. No están interesadas en aprender apologética evidencial para defender la reputación de Dios, o defender al no nacido, o defender el matrimonio natural, o defender el sistema de libertad empresarial que apoya la autonomía de la familia frente al estado, etc. Esas cosas son difíciles e impopulares, especialmente para aquellas mujeres que fueron educadas para pensar que el cristianismo es para mejorar la calidad de vida y aprobación de sus compañeros.
Aquí está 1 Cor 4:1-5 para aclarar este punto:
1 Que todo hombre nos considere de esta manera: como servidores de Cristo y administradores de los misterios de Dios.
2 Ahora bien, además se requiere de los administradores que cada uno sea hallado fiel.
3 En cuanto a mí, es de poca importancia que yo sea juzgado por vosotros, o por cualquier tribunal humano; de hecho, ni aun yo me juzgo a mí mismo.
4 Porque no estoy consciente de nada en contra mía; mas no por eso estoy sin culpa, pues el que me juzga es el Señor.
5 Por tanto, no juzguéis antes de tiempo, sino esperad hasta que el Señor venga, el cual sacará a la luz las cosas ocultas en las tinieblas y también pondrá de manifiesto los designios de los corazones; y entonces cada uno recibirá su alabanza de parte de Dios.
Y 2 Tim 2:4:
4 Ningún soldado en servicio activo se enreda en los negocios de la vida diaria, a fin de poder agradar al que lo reclutó como soldado.
O, ya que me gusta tanto Ronald Speirs de Band of Brothers:
Esta es la situación en la que nos encontramos, así que acostúmbrate a ella. Y créeme, tengo que lidiar con esto también. Así que tengo toda la empatía del mundo por ti. Resígnate al hecho que nadie te aprobará por ser fiel al evangelio de Jesucristo; ni los hombres seculares, ni las mujeres cristianas. No hay caballería que venga a rescatarte.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Blog original: https://cutt.ly/MQmljwn
Traducido por Elenita Romero
Editado por Eduardo Álvarez