Tag Archive for: Apologética

Mis cielos – no están en las estrellas

By Josh Klein

The Four Horsemen of atheism burst onto the cultural, philosophical and spiritual scene at the beginning of the 21st century. Their dogmatic atheistic (or even anti-theistic, depending on who you talk to) positions immediately gained popularity.

The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris were part of the team. They took their vitriol against religious thought into the mainstream, seeking, for what seemed to be the first time, to proselytise religious people into conversion to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backward.

Simple believers in myths.

Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion , sent ripples through Christianity and the religious mainstream, as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” had the world laughing and ridiculing Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to banish the epistemic belief that only religion could explain consciousness as a reality, going so far as to suggest that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Good sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not cause the waves that the seemingly even-tempered Sam Harris did.

Sam Harris, with his quiet, understated personality, approached debates differently from his peers. Hitchens indulged in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins in nasty denigration, and Dennett in condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting, and their arguments were either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but boring. But Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I think what attracted me was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he assessed different religions. Harris has been honest in praising what he sees as positive about Christianity, while at the same time holding Christians to the fire . [i]

I found his style engaging, even if his words were not, and his reasoning sensible and unemotional. He was, in a word, compelling. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape , sought to address a substantial problem in the atheist realm. Without God as the bearer of moral standards, are we left with moral subjectivism? [ii] And if so, who is to say that the Nazis were, in fact, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the most powerful arguments for theism [iii] , but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and so an effort was born to promote objective moral values ​​based on atheism. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say should be) established using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he says, the facts.

“Controversies about human values ​​are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values—about the meanings, morality, and larger purpose of life—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be understood scientifically: about positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of particular laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, and so on . ” [iv]

Sam’s commitment to objective moral values ​​based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible account of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation, one realizes that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality, he can never come up with an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed just a few years ago. [v] What are those objective moral values? Well, they are what Sam says they are. They certainly could not be based on Nazism or Islamism. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Sam has inadvertently hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of scientific facts not adequately explaining human flourishing.

It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the far left of the political spectrum and extremely anti-Donald Trump, had this to say regarding the 2020 election cycle silencing of the Hunter Biden computer story:

“[It was] a conspiracy by the left to deny Donald Trump the presidency. Of course it was. Absolutely, but I think it was justified” [vi] .

When pressed about his statement by the podcast hosts, one of whom had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy should be used to deny any political candidate office, Sam Harris upped the ante, comparing the conspiracy to a room full of scientists meeting to steer an asteroid off a collision course with Earth. Some might be surprised that Sam would say such a thing, given his distaste for subjectivism. However, if you examine his work closely, it becomes abundantly clear that he finds it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To put it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.

Sam Harris is a consistent communicator, but his positions are often conflicting. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable, but his claim that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are agents morally culpable for their actions, and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence resists scrutiny. On their own, his arguments seem coherent. Combined, they often directly oppose each other. One cannot live life according to the philosophy Harris espouses consistently, so Sam often suggests that one must live within the illusion.

This is how Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for example, Sam’s openness to the multiverse theory:

“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible” [vii] .

To be fair to Sam, he himself doesn’t advocate the multiverse, but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements about the idea of ​​heaven all the more puzzling:

As I said on Twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (if flawed) and that he was willing to engage in dialogue about faith rather than just debate it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building up ridiculous theological strawmen only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.

Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (the dwelling place of God) has never (in the mainstream Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This criticism of heaven theology is intended to denigrate its intellectual opponents as being as ignorant as the Greek theologians who believed in a literal Mount Olympus.

This has not been the orthodox understanding of the celestial kingdom for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:

“The present and intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, clearly separated from the Earth.”

Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Even though Sunday school may make silly representations of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as being “above” us, this is not reminiscent of real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.

One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist, so he is assuming that if there is a heaven it must be in outer space, where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when you are addressing the theology of a religion, you have to address its meaning for the debate to make sense. For example, if I were to debate a Muslim about the nature of Allah, I cannot bring in my interpretation of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine to Allah, I will have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it existed; he must interact with what Christians say heaven is. He can deny its existence (as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so on the basis of false premises.

The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multiverse. If one can see the multiverse as plausible, how can one so easily dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and attribute the characteristics of this realm to it? Sam would not do a believer in the multiverse the disservice of this uncharitable assumption regarding other universes, and therefore he need not do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.

The Scriptures teach that the present heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20, and John 18:36 indicate this. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.

In Acts 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly kingdom. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Meaning that the kingdom, although it exists physically and spiritually, is outside of our concept of this physical plane.

When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many who might say that Jesus ascended into heaven. This could mean physical heaven! But it does not. A careful reading of the passage in question will note that the writer says, “After he had said these things, he was taken up as they looked on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” This brings us to the image of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.

In all of these cases, there is no indication that the angelic/celestial realm is in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was superficial and misrepresents, or misinterprets, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one representing the sky and the stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious even to the casual observer. Sam’s irregularity in handling this subject undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this brief interview, Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is meaningless and why his objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not bona fide. And so his credibility is shaken.

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian

[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/

[iii] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

[iv] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values , Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

[vi] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/

[vii] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with over a decade of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.

Translated by Elenita Romero
Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3mYnzhm

 

/by

¿Podemos legislar la moral?

By Melissa Dougherty

Since the 1960s, there has been a dramatic decline in moral ethics here in the United States. Some would argue that it has been in a steady decline since the beginnings of humanity, as I would put it. However, here in the United States, the phrase “legislating morality” has come up more and more. Depending on the generation, many people have not heard this phrase or even understood what it means. Some use it as a cliché term to throw at the person who tries to promote certain morals that should or should not be permissible.

 I say that, like the argument that there is “no absolute truth,” saying that we cannot legislate morality is simply self-refuting. Everyone everywhere knows intrinsically what is right and wrong. Many people would realize that it is obvious to enforce the law to distinguish right from wrong. As Romans 2:15 says, God’s law is written on our hearts. This is echoed in our Declaration of Independence as well. However, what morality are we talking about? First, one must determine whether morality can and should be legislated.

How can morality be legislated?

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to avoid the inevitable pendulum swing that many governments fall victim to by finding a middle ground. Instead of appealing to religion or a secular government, they appealed to the moral law to make their case. They then legislated those unalienable laws and rights into the Constitution. What makes this so clever is that it prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, but it does not prevent it from establishing a national morality. Their appeal to the moral law is not limited to just the United States. They appeal to an authority that many cultures and peoples have appealed to in the past. The Founding Fathers believed that these freedoms were morally right and needed to be preserved through legislation. This is literally legislating morality! This is also in the First Amendment. The government cannot establish a state-supported religion and will not force people to practice a particular religion. Unlike the popular political rhetoric we hear, this is not meant to shut up religious people.

Spoiler alert

No one needs the Bible to distinguish right from wrong. We know this intrinsically. That is why we see cultures appealing in some way to the moral law. They did not get together and decide this. Separated by thousands of miles, across all continents, without ever communicating, people knew this law.

Fascinating!

However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a suppression of this within us. This is where it gets muddy. This is not only true for the far-left secular humanist, but also for the far-right. When making rules around society or individually, we appeal to this law. But it’s not always black and white. There are those who want to enact Old Testament law in the United States. At the other extreme, secular humanists want to restrict any religion in our country. They want to eliminate any appeal to a Higher Being. Both are wrong.

What should be legislated is the moral law.

These self-evident truths are consistent with many biblical principles because of their common source: God. The purpose is not to create a Christianized country. The purpose is to create a moral one. This raises a question about whose morality. Should the individual decide for himself what is right and wrong? Or should we appeal to a higher standard than our own? This is a central question in this debate.

The thing is, without God… All we have left is the self.

As history has shown, forcibly establishing divine rule over non-believers does not work and is quite damaging. The same idea applies to forcing people to abandon their moral compass for vices. Secular humanism reinforces the desired authority of the “self.” As Natasha Crain says in her book Faithfully Different, feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. For example, this is why when we debate someone who is pro-choice, they cannot ultimately say when life begins or what exactly is in the mother’s womb. They must appeal to the mother’s subjective perspective and say that it is up to her to decide what that is. Ultimately, they must suspend truth and reality to be consistent with secular humanism.

Right and wrong are not determined. They are discovered. The moral law is self-evident, but people have a way of suppressing this when it interferes with their own desires. As already stated, when our country was founded and the Declaration of Independence was written, Thomas Jefferson appealed to the moral law. This avoids the intolerance of a highly religious government and the moral relativism of a secular government. It is clear which way the pendulum is swinging in our country and why appealing to the moral law on which our country was founded is the obvious answer. This only works if people actually follow these rules.

The moral law is not an invented morality, but an inherited one. If we take away this law, there is no objective standard norm. In other words, relativists do not really have “morality.” Morality is doing what is right, not what someone finds desirable for their particular life or situation. 

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian apologist best known for her YouTube channel as a former New Ager. She holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in Multicultural Early Childhood Education and another in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Translated by Yatniel Vega García
Edited by Mónica Pirateque

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3o0VZQo

 

 

/by

¿Quién hizo a Dios?

By Bobby Conway

Have you ever talked to a skeptic and he or she comes up with the timeless trick question: “So, who made God?” Asking “Who made God?” is like asking “What does Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata taste like?” The question just doesn’t make sense. This question is a classic category mistake. God was not created and Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata cannot be appreciated with the palate. Adding to this nonsense is the famous atheist Bertrand Russell with his famous phrase: “If everything has a beginning, then God must have one.” However, it is not true that everything has an beginning. Only that which will come into existence has an beginning. And in this God is unique in a category that belongs only to him.

God is the uncreated Creator.

He is the origin without beginning.

He has no beginning but is the Beginning of everything that has existed.

Think about it for a moment. Everything that has had a beginning also had an origin. And in every beginning there is the Initiator. And behind every product there is a Producer. And for every work there is an Artificer. If something has an origin, it is certain that there is also an inventor. And since there is a genesis, there is also the Author.

And that author friend of mine is, well, you guessed it.

God.

The Scriptures declare from the very first verse, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). God was not created, He is the creator of all that exists.

Let me explain it to you in another way, pay attention. The difference between God and everything else is that all of that came into existence at a certain point in time, whereas God just exists. Do you remember what God said to Moses when he appeared to him in the midst of the burning bush? Moses posed the following scenario.

Then Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ what shall I say to them?” Then God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you. ’” (Exodus 3:13-14)

What was God showing Moses? He reveals Himself to Moses as the self-existent One. The One who was not created. In other words, God was saying, “Moses, go and tell them that the One who had no beginning has sent you. The One who is uncreated.”

Unlike us, God is what philosophers call a necessary being, an independent being. And each of us, except for God, is a contingent being and therefore dependent. The universe is also in the contingent category because God spoke it into existence. This means that all things that had a beginning in order to exist depend on God to continue existing.

All of the above shows that there is an inconsistency with the question “Who created God?” The phrase created cannot be linked to God, since God is the uncreated Creator. As expected, He is in a category where He is the only subject.

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby is the senior pastor of Image Church in North Carolina and is well known for his ministry on the One Minute Apologist YouTube channel, which remains online but now under the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also co-hosts the national call-in radio show Pastor’s Perspective on KWVE in Southern Carolina. Bobby earned his Master’s degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctorate of Ministry Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Doctor of Philosophy in the area of ​​Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was mentored by David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Boby has written several books including The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible, and the upcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He is married to his loving wife Heather and they have two grown children: Haley and Dawson.

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia

 

 

/by

Cuando tu oponente hace trampas, ¿qué debes hacer?

By John D. Ferrer

You may have heard the phrase “fair play is trade.” If your opponent on the football or basketball field pushes and elbows you, it’s only fair that you push back, right? As they say, fair play is trade. And as long as it’s not against the law, immoral, or physically harmful to someone, that principle can work well, at least in ball and board games. But what about politics?

Frank and I had a podcast on this topic as well. You can check it out at: 

When your opponent cheats, what should you do? | with Dr. John Ferrer

How far should we take this idea that “fair is unfair”? A gentleman from Nigeria named Austin sent us a question about this last week.

“Imagine you are in the boxing ring with an opponent who breaks all the rules and no one calls him out on it, would you still play by the rules? To be more concrete, this analogy is meant to capture the political power imbalance between the Muslim north and the Christian south of Nigeria. As I am sure you already know, the survival of Islam depends on political power and domination. Our Muslim brothers are extremely political while the Christians are mostly passive. But apart from the political docility of the Christians, our Muslims do not really play fair. For instance, the Muslims go to the extent of registering underage voters. This is one of the main reasons why the northern votes beat the southern ones in federal elections, not that the Muslims outnumber the Christians. There are many more of their misdeeds that I prefer not to name here. The situation is much uglier than I have chosen to portray at this point… So how do you see this? How do you play fair with an opponent who does not play fair?”

Austin is clearly concerned about more than just apologetics. He yearns for justice. Under the looming weight of political corruption and injustice, he faces one of the biggest militant fronts in modern Islam. He worries, and rightly so, that religious and political adversaries have rigged the system. Of course, he wants to do something about it.

If their opponents in the Muslim north are cheating and abusing the system to stay in power, perhaps Christians in the south can use the same tactics to oppose the expanding Islamic caliphate. The Christians would have good reasons. The others cheated first. So is it okay to lie and cheat if the other does?

In short, no.

While I sympathize with Austin in Nigeria, I cannot condone such behavior. He is raising a practical question, whether “the end justifies the means.” That axiom is the centerpiece of Utilitarianism [i] , a non-Christian ethical theory formulated by Jeremy Bentham. Sure, lying and cheating may help you win elections. And you may cheat in the same way as your opponents. But the end does not justify the means. The means must justify themselves.

Furthermore, lying and cheating will not preserve the integrity of the church or show the light of Christ to the world. We will discuss some exceptional cases later. But at this point, if you are not literally being forced to lie and cheat, then you should not lie or cheat.

Heart check-up

Perhaps the best starting point to understand this answer is to do some soul searching. Ask yourself: Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?

 “Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?”

That is, do you fear God as your sovereign judge and king more than anyone else? And do you love God as your heavenly Father more than you love anyone else? When we can answer this heart check with a resounding “Yes!” then we are in a good position to face the difficulties and do the hard work of apologetics.

This heart-checking was Peter’s advice to first-century believers. Apologists love to quote it in 1 Peter 3:15b: “Always be prepared to give an answer.” But just before that classic call to defend the faith, Peter places it within a context of persecution. In verse 14 he says, “But even though you suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not be afraid of their threats; do not be terrified.” Responding to how to do this, Peter says to put Jesus first. “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord” (vs15a). The surrounding passage, 1 Peter 3:9-17 [ii] reinforces this point by saying, “do not repay evil with evil,” “nor insult with insult,” “repay evil with blessing,” “keep your tongue from evil and your lips from deceitful words,” and “suffer for doing good” rather than “for doing evil.”

It’s easy for you to say it.

Of course, it is easy for me to say all this. My job, my family, my way of life, are safe. There are no political enemies or religious invaders knocking on our door. My church faces no real danger of conquest at the hands of radical Muslims, militant Hindus, or even sarcastic atheists. It is easy for me to tell people to endure persecution heroically when it is their persecution and not mine. That is why I do not speak on my own authority. The apostle Peter said it first. I only agree with him. If I am ever faced with persecution like that suffered by my brothers and sisters in Nigeria, I pray that I will have the courage to follow my own counsel, I pray that I will follow Peter in honoring Christ as Lord and suffering well.

 “Love and honor Christ as Lord, and then suffer well.”

How do we do it?

At this point, you might be saying to yourself, “Well, be fair and don’t ‘stoop down to their level.’ I get that. But how do we do that?” That’s a great question. I’m glad you asked. Stay tuned for part 2, where I explain seven principles we should all follow when our opponent isn’t fighting fairly.

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. A diplomate of Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he is currently active in the pro-life community and his home church in Pella, Iowa. When not assisting his wife Hillary Ferrer with her Mama Bear Apologetics ministry, John can usually be found writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia
Edited by Jennifer Chavez

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3U9AOYv

 

/by

Cinco señales de la madurez espiritual

By Melissa Dougherty

We all want to be wise in our spiritual walk. We want to progress and make good decisions that will pay off in the long run. We long to live wisely in all areas of our lives and be an example to others. But what I have seen is that the path to get there is not always the easiest. In my experience, I have witnessed what we would consider mature Christians who truly live according to these characteristics. But I have also seen others who lack them. Today I want to share with you five signs of what I consider to be proof of spiritual maturity. These characteristics have a biblical basis and are observable by the way some Christians behave in certain situations.

1.) They react according to the Scriptures and based on the character of God and not according to their feelings and emotions.

The most spiritually mature people I know are also the most emotionally mature. They make their decisions in accordance with the wisdom of Scripture and logic, and the fruit of the Spirit is visible in their lives, especially the part about self-control. They take time to think and evaluate situations and treat others the way they want to be treated. They do not project their faults on others and are conscious of this in their interactions and when expressing their judgments and opinions. They think before they act. They usually have a witty and intentional sense of humor but without humiliating or offending others. They are an example of what is written in James 1:19, where it says to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. They obtain their values ​​from the Scriptures and also follow them. All of this is placed above their emotions and with this they avoid making hasty decisions or having emotional outbursts. Did you know that there is an IQ to measure general intelligence? Well, there is also an IQ for “emotional intelligence,” and I have found that spiritually mature people also have a high IQ for emotional intelligence. Costi Hinn once said, “A mark of maturity and self-control is having enough control over your emotions to be able to understand those who disagree with you.”

2.) They listen more and talk less.

In the previous point I referenced James 1:19. People who live by this passage tend to be more interested in the person they are talking to and avoid unnecessary arguments. And they don’t get offended by everything. I read a post on social media that said, “An immature Christian is hard to please and easy to offend.” Luke 6:45 says that people show good or bad things depending on what is in their heart. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Restraining your mouth is directly related to what is in your heart, and it is especially seen in what is said on social media. If you only have a hammer, everything will look like a nail. But spiritually mature Christians are different. They are people who seek first to understand and then to be understood. They try to respond to their listeners from a place of love grounded in love for God. They weigh the other person’s perspective even when it is contrary to their own. But they are not condescending when theological errors appear. They can sort out and decide which topics to avoid and which to delve into, and they are able to engage in deep conversations without arguing every time. Proverbs 15:1 says that a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. They look to others for spiritual advice and answers, and they welcome their shortcomings to be pointed out to them.

3.) They have a marked sense of humility.

They don’t seek to be above others. After observing them I realized that they live to serve, and they live like that in ministry too. They are like strangers or go unnoticed (even though everyone knows who they are!) They have a healthy self-confidence, and it is normal for them to be interested in others. They don’t always do it with the intention of teaching them something, but they instinctively know how to ask questions, they are easy to get to know others, and they treat everyone with respect because everyone is made in the image of God, especially when they don’t agree with them. They don’t tend to rebuke those who have a different opinion than them, nor do they demonize things they don’t approve of. They show love as described in 1 Corinthians 13. They are kind, patient, not boastful, they rejoice in the truth, and they seek God’s glory, not their own. In my experience, these Christians don’t brag about “having discernment” or “being humble.” They just show it off. They don’t need people’s praise for what they do. They do what they do to please God and God alone. But without being indifferent to others. This is easily visible by the way they treat, converse with, and love others. When they make mistakes, they have enough awareness and humility to recognize that it is necessary to make amends and admit their mistake. They don’t get defensive and if necessary, they take steps to change.

4.) They are self-aware.

A spiritually mature person can read an audience and is aware of how others perceive them. They show restraint in their social behavior. They are people who are able to control themselves during conversations and know when and in what situations they should step back to reconsider their feelings. They are aware that they represent Jesus and that their actions and words have consequences. And more than that, they are sharp-witted enough to understand how their words and actions will affect others. James 3 tells us a lot about controlling our tongue. He compares the tongue to the rudder that steers a great ship. In verse 5 it says, “So the tongue is a small member, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how a great forest is set on fire by a small fire!” James 1:26 says, “If anyone thinks he is religious but does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.”

5.) They set healthy boundaries and have authentic discernment.

Not every occurrence or feeling is attributed to a sign from God or interpreted as the movement of the Holy Spirit, nor do they consider that everything they think, feel or hear is the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They do not boast about their ability to discern. They just do it. They learn to develop discernment without resorting to paranoia. They are not conceited about the vast spiritual experiences they have lived, or how intense they were, or even about their great intelligence. They are like any person who comes to listen to a conversation believing that they can learn something from the other person, even though they know more than the one who is speaking! They do not listen to them in order to ridicule them later. They also know when to say no and when to say yes. A spiritually mature person knows that the word “no” is a healthy response. They know how to honor God with their time and they know their personal limits. They have enough common sense to know when to enter into a conversation, event or activity and when to leave. And they are equally aware of where God wants them to be. They prefer to trust in what God will do as they persevere in prayer and reading the Scriptures rather than being carried away by their moods that change every day.

In short, they are the living example of what Galatians 5:22-23 says: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” And they also live out what we find in Hebrews 3 regarding living a life of obedience.

So by their fruits, you will recognize them.

 

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian apologist best known for her YouTube channel where she features content from a former New-Ager . She holds two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education and another in Liberal Arts . She is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary .

Translated by:

Translator Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Monica Pirateque

 

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/41fvOEj

 

/by

¿Nacemos todos siendo hijos de Dios?

By Melissa Dougherty

Many believe that all human beings are born as children of God. Isn’t that true? I want to find out what the Bible says about this beautiful theological truth.

Many believe that all human beings are born as children of God. Isn’t that true? I want to find out what the Bible says about this beautiful theological truth.

Spoiler alert : That’s true. But according to what the Bible says, we are not born as children of God. The belief that we are all children of God has no biblical support and has generated many theological errors. The Scriptures show us that we are all created by God, but we become children of God through spiritual adoption. However, at birth we all have the image of God. All human beings are valuable because we are creations of God, and He loves us. And it is because of that love that He became part of His creation to save us and redeem us. Because of this, it was necessary for Jesus to become incarnated. If we were all already born as children of God, there would be no reason for Jesus to have to die to redeem us and adopt us. What did He redeem us from or where did He get us from to be adopted? This is the terminology that the Bible constantly uses when speaking about the death of Jesus: He “redeemed” us, because we were “slaves” to sin, and we are “adopted” into His family.

I want to expand on this point. There are many passages in Scripture that speak to us of the new birth, of being adopted into God’s family, of being a new creation in Christ, and all of them clearly show what we were—slaves to sin—and what we are no longer when we are called children of God. To be born again means to be made anew, to go from being children of wrath to being adopted as children of God.

John 1:12-13 says, “But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God , to those who believe in his name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The bold is mine.

To be born of God means to be reborn spiritually.

Romans 8:14-17: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to return to fear, but you have received a Spirit of adoption as sons , by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father! ’ 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs […]” Bold is mine.

We become children of God when we are saved by being adopted into God’s family through our relationship with Jesus Christ. Galatians 4 also speaks to us about this. In chapter 3, Paul has explained that we are all children of God through faith in Jesus. It is our faith in Jesus that makes us his children. If we belong to Christ, then we are descendants of Abraham and as children, we are heirs . This is important because Paul puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that only the heir, the son, can receive the inheritance.

He exemplifies this by comparing someone who is a servant of the world to someone who is a child of God.

There are two categories.

At the beginning of chapter 4, Paul writes this:

Galatians 4:1-7 “I say then, that as long as the heir is a minor, he is no different from a servant, even though he be the owner of all things; 2 but is under guardians and tutors until the age appointed by the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were subject to bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a servant, but a son ; and if a son, then an heir through God.” Bold is mine.

This is truly amazing, the promise God made to Abraham is our inheritance. We were slaves to the “elementary things” of the world. In verse 5 Paul says that Jesus purchased our freedom, for we were slaves of the law and of the world! And He adopted us .

This is explained in more detail in John chapter 3, where we find that Jesus did not come to condemn the world but to save the world, but people preferred darkness and rejected the light. Now, many of us know John 3:16 by heart, so we’ll start there:

John 3:16- “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Let’s continue reading, although, usually, many people don’t.

“ 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, so that his deeds will not be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be made manifest, that they have been done in God.”

This is important: people don’t understand what this passage is showing us, and that is that the world has already been condemned. People usually interpret it the other way around. They think that God is the one who condemns us, but that is not what John 3 says. Sin is what condemns us. And since we are all born into condemnation, we need to be saved from it.

If we are adopted into God’s family through Jesus, you must ask yourself what or who we were separated from if God is not already our Father. How could we be adopted into God’s family if we already belong to it from the moment we are born? To whom does the world belong? Who is our father?

In John 8 and 1 John, the Bible shows us that our father is the devil. That is why we need to be “born again” because we were born in condemnation for being children of the devil.

We are with the wrong father!

Galatians 3:22-25 says:

“But the Scripture has imprisoned all under sin , so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to all who believe. 23 And before faith came, we were kept under the law , being kept in custody until the faith which was later to be revealed. The bold is mine.

1 John 3:10 shows us the dualistic view of our condition. If we are not children of God, we are by default children of the devil.

1 John 3:10 “This is how you can tell the children of God and the children of the devil : Anyone who does not do what is right is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” Bold is mine.

Jesus calls the Pharisees children of the devil in John 8. In this passage the Pharisees are in a heated argument with Jesus, and claim to be heirs of Abraham, but Jesus puts them in their place when they make this claim.

John 8:39-44 “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye be children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. […] 41 Ye do the works of your father.” They said unto him, We were not born of fornication: we have one Father, that is, God. 42 Jesus saith unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth from God, and came from him; for I came not of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why understand ye not what I say? Because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye desire to do. […] The bold is mine.

Just as we are not literally “born” again, which is what Nicodemus was asking, we are not literally “born” children of the devil either. Rather, it is a spiritual bondage and a spiritual rebirth. If you are a child of God, it means that you have experienced the new spiritual birth, you have been born again, and you are saved.

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian apologist best known for her YouTube channel where she features content from a former New-Ager . She holds two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education and another in Liberal Arts . She is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary .

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Monica Pirateque

Original Source: https://bit.ly/3nJvC1t

 

/by

Cosas que dicen los ateos: “Creer en Dios es como creer en Santa”

Por Timothy Fox

Bienvenidos a la segunda entrega de mi serie “Cosas que dicen los ateos”[i]. (Lea la parte 1 aquí.) Esta serie está dedicada a los malos argumentos y declaraciones que algunos ateos (el tipo de troll de Internet) hacen para desviar una conversación y evitar tener que presentar argumentos o pruebas propias.

Mi intención no es desprestigiar a todos los no creyentes, ya que hay muchas preguntas reflexivas y honestas que los escépticos hacen y que necesitan respuesta. De hecho, ¡hay muchos ateos que están tan cansados como yo de estas afirmaciones sin sentido! Por eso quiero aclarar de una vez por todas algunos de estos eslóganes sin sentido. Pasemos a la segunda:

Mal “argumento” Nº 2: Creer en Dios no es diferente de creer en Papá Noel.

O tal vez lo hayas oído decir: “No necesito refutar a Dios más de lo que necesito refutar la existencia de los duendes”. O de las hadas. O cualquier otro tipo de criatura mítica. El sentido de esta afirmación es igualar a Dios con cualquier otro ser imaginario en el que es ridículo creer seriamente.

El espejismo de Papá Noel

¿Creer en Dios es lo mismo que tener un amigo imaginario? ¿Un papá invisible del cielo? Tal vez, si creer en un hombre gordo con un traje rojo que reparte regalos en un trineo tirado por renos voladores a todos los niños del mundo es lo mismo que creer en un Dios que creó el universo de la nada, trajo la vida de la no vida y fundamenta valores y deberes morales objetivos. Si es así, entonces sí, son exactamente lo mismo.

Pero si creer en Dios es tan ridículo, ¿sabes qué es aún más ridículo? Dar conferencias en contra de su existencia. Debatir sobre ello. Trollear blogs y salas de chat de internet. Escribir libros populares promoviendo la incredulidad. Mientras tanto, no veo a nadie escribiendo “El espejismo de Papá Noel” o “El hada de los dientes no es genial”.

Y supongo que la inmensa mayoría de los seres humanos de todos los tiempos son tan ingenuos como los niños pequeños. Porque todas las culturas a lo largo de la historia han tenido algún tipo de religión o han creído en una deidad de algún tipo.  Discutimos sobre la existencia de Dios en las aulas, en la mesa y tomando un café (o una cerveza). Desde filósofos hasta científicos, pasando por creyentes, escépticos y todos los demás. Humanos tontos.

No, en serio

Pero tomémonos este argumento en serio. ¿Creer en Dios no es realmente diferente a creer en Papá Noel? En primer lugar, ¿hasta qué punto está justificado creer en Papá Noel? ¿Qué hace falta para que alguien crea que existe? La evidencia. Y aquí el ateo dice “¡Correcto! ¡No hay pruebas para ninguno de los dos! ¡Por eso es ridículo creer en Dios o en Papá Noel!”. Pero, ¿la evidencia para Santa Claus y Dios es realmente la misma? Bueno, si Papá Noel existe, sabríamos qué buscar: un hombre gordo con un traje rojo que reparte regalos en Nochebuena. Pero, ¿y Dios? Si Dios existe, ¿sabe usted lo que buscaría[ii]? Antes de afirmar que no hay pruebas de algo, asegúrate de saber qué tipo de pruebas debería haber si ese algo existiera.

Para que fuera razonable creer que Papá Noel existe, tendría que ser la mejor explicación de la existencia de los regalos de Navidad. Pero, ¿existe otra explicación mejor? Tal vez alguien más puso los regalos bajo el árbol, como los padres. Quizá los regalos surgieron de la nada. O quizá llevan ahí toda la eternidad. Probablemente ya veas por dónde va esto. ¿Cómo llegó aquí el universo? ¿Apareció de la nada, siempre ha estado ahí, o es razonable creer que algo o alguien provocó que empezara a existir?[iii] Dios es la mejor explicación de toda la realidad. Y aunque no estés de acuerdo, sigue siendo una opción legítima, ¿no?

Pero tal vez Santa existe y sólo se esconde. Por eso nunca ha sido observado, ¡igual que Dios![iv] De nuevo, ¿cuáles son las razones para creer que Papá Noel existe? ¿Hay alguna? Porque hay muy buenas razones para creer que Dios existe, como el argumento cosmológico, el argumento moral[v], el argumento del ajuste fino[vi], etc. ¿Se puede decir sinceramente lo mismo de Papá Noel? Por supuesto que no.

Además, ¿qué consecuencias tendría que Papá Noel no existiera? Entonces los niños deben recibir sus regalos de Navidad de otra manera, porque sabemos por experiencia que los regalos existen (a menos que estuvieras en la lista de los malos, supongo). ¿Pero si Dios no existe? Entonces el universo surgió de la nada sin ninguna razón. La vida surgió de la no-vida y la conciencia de la no-conciencia. No hay moral ni valores objetivos. ¿Exactamente lo mismo? No. Ni por asomo.

Conclusión

Espero que todos podamos ver lo ridículo que es igualar a Dios con algún ser imaginario o mítico. No se trata de algo tan trivial como quién reparte los regalos de Navidad o cambia dinero por dientes; estamos hablando de la Primera Causa que creó y sostiene todo el universo. Hay buenas razones y argumentos para la existencia de Dios. Así que a los que dicen que creer en Dios no es diferente de creer en Papá Noel, por favor, paren ya de hacerlo. Son ustedes los que hacen afirmaciones ridículas, no nosotros.

Para otro buen y exhaustivo tratamiento de esta cuestión, consulte el artículo de Reasonable Faith [vii] ¿Es Dios imaginario?[viii]

Para más artículos como Cosas que dicen los ateos: Creer en Dios es como creer en Papá Noel visite el sitio de Tim en FreeThinkingMinistries.com

Notas al pie de página:

[i] https://crossexamined.org/stuff-atheists-say-youre-almost-an-atheist/

[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/evidence-for-god/

[iii] https://freethinkingministries.com/logic-science-god-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/why-god-hides/

[v] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ought-from-an-is/

[vi] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/finetuning

[vii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

[viii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-god-imaginary

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Timothy Fox le apasiona equipar a la iglesia para que pueda influir en la cultura. Es profesor de matemáticas a tiempo parcial, y esposo y padre a tiempo completo. Tiene un máster en Apologética Cristiana por la Universidad de Biola, así como un máster en Educación Matemática de Adolescentes y una licenciatura en Informática, ambos por la Universidad Stony Brook. Vive en Long Island, Nueva York, con su esposa y sus dos hijos pequeños.

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García
Editado por Monica Pirateque

Fuente del Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3iMiXsx

 

/by

Cómo Jeremías 29:11 es mucho mejor cuando se interpreta correctamente

Por Brian Chilton

Algunos versículos de la Biblia se han popularizado tanto que a menudo se sacan de su contexto. Al hacerlo, el pasaje bíblico pierde el impacto que tiene. Peor aún, el texto puede recibir un mensaje que nunca pretendió transmitir. Jeremías 29:11 es un ejemplo.

El versículo es una promesa de Dios que dice: “Porque yo sé los pensamientos que tengo acerca de vosotros, dice Jehová, pensamientos de paz, y no de mal, para daros el fin que esperáis.” (Jer. 29:11, RVR60). El versículo se ha aplicado mal a menudo, ya que se ha convertido en un elemento básico de las tarjetas Hallmark, placas y chucherías de graduación. Para algunos, el versículo encierra la promesa de que Dios nunca permitirá que la persona sufra malas experiencias o problemas. El graduado que recibe tales cosas puede pensar que Dios sólo traerá cosas buenas a su vida. Pero, ¿es eso realmente lo que dice el pasaje? Una interpretación bíblica adecuada revela tres verdades teológicas que superan el cliché cursi en que se ha convertido el versículo.

Jeremías 29:11 Indica que Dios puede ser encontrado en días difíciles.

Es sumamente importante señalar que Jeremías 29:11 forma parte de la carta de Jeremías a los israelitas que se convertirían en exiliados babilónicos. Esto es clave para entender el contexto del versículo. Si el intérprete pasa por alto este punto, no comprenderá la naturaleza del versículo. Francamente, no sé si alguien querría que este fuera su tema de graduación, porque Dios le está diciendo a la nación que le esperan días difíciles.

Viviendo en una época de lujo y de autocomplacencia, es fácil pensar que Dios sólo traerá cosas buenas a nuestras vidas. Casi vemos a Dios como si fuera un entrenador de superación personal en lugar de un Padre Celestial. Quizás a algunos les gustaría más Dios si fuera lo primero en lugar de lo segundo. Sin embargo, Dios nunca promete que el camino del creyente será fácil. Más bien, Dios nos promete que su presencia nunca nos abandonará ni en los buenos ni en los malos momentos. Si sigues leyendo el texto, Dios les dice a los que están a punto de sufrir el exilio: “Entonces me invocaréis, y vendréis y oraréis a mí, y yo os oiré; y me buscaréis y me hallaréis, porque me buscaréis de todo vuestro corazón.” (Jer. 29:12-13, RVR60). La presencia de Dios está siempre con sus hijos (Mt. 28:20).

Jeremías 29:11 indica que Dios es soberano tanto en los buenos como en los malos momentos.

Jeremías 29:11 es comparable a Romanos 8:28 en el hecho de que el profeta sostiene que Dios es soberano sobre todos los tiempos y ocasiones. ¿Por qué permite Dios que ocurra el mal? Esta cuestión, también llamada teodicea, queda fuera del alcance del presente artículo. Sin embargo, hay que entender que Dios puede permitir que ocurran cosas malas para lograr un fin mayor.

Hoy he hablado con un miembro de la iglesia sobre el libro de Job y el tema teológico principal del libro. Dios le dice a Job que debe confiar en él porque lo puso todo en marcha desde el principio de la creación. La vida y el funcionamiento del universo son mucho más complejos de lo que nadie podría imaginar. De forma parecida, Dios les dice lo mismo a los que pronto serán exiliados de Babilonia: “Confía en mí”. El autor de Hebreos señala que no hay que “tomar a la ligera la disciplina del Señor ni desanimarse cuando uno es reprendido por él, el Señor disciplina al que ama y castiga a todo hijo que recibe”. Soportad el sufrimiento como disciplina: Dios os trata como a hijos” (Heb 12,5-7). Cuando llega la disciplina divina, nunca es para hacernos daño. Más bien, la disciplina de Dios es siempre para hacernos mejores. El Salmo 94 señala que una persona es bendecida cuando recibe la disciplina del Señor porque se le está enseñando a guardar la ley (Sal. 94:12). Dios incluso le dice a Jacob: “Tú, siervo mío Jacob, no temas, dice Jehová, porque yo estoy contigo; porque destruiré a todas las naciones entre las cuales te he dispersado; pero a ti no te destruiré del todo, sino que te castigaré con justicia; de ninguna manera te dejaré sin castigo.” (Jer 46:28 RVR60). El pueblo de la época de Jeremías no había sido fiel, lo que provocó las medidas disciplinarias de Dios. Sin embargo, Dios señala que sigue siendo soberano tanto en los malos tiempos como en los buenos. Le está diciendo al pueblo: “Confía en mí”.

Jeremías 29:11 Indica que Dios Bendecirá a Sus Hijos Fieles al Final.

Una vez más, Jeremías 29:11 puede compararse con Romanos 8:28, que dice: “Y sabemos que a los que aman a Dios, todas las cosas les ayudan a bien, esto es, a los que conforme a su propósito son llamados.”. Del mismo modo, Dios dice a los desterrados: “Restauraré vuestra suerte y os recogeré de todas las naciones y lugares donde os desterré… Os devolveré al lugar de donde os expulsé” (Jer. 29:14). Aunque el pueblo se enfrentaría a graves dificultades en los días venideros, podía vivir con la seguridad de que Dios restauraría la fortuna de su pueblo y de su tierra. Del mismo modo, nosotros formamos parte de la comunidad del pueblo de Dios. No siempre hacemos las cosas bien. Sinceramente, es probable que metamos la pata más de lo que hacemos bien. Sin embargo, Dios tiene un día mejor para sus hijos: un día en el que no habrá más lágrimas, ni dolor, ni angustia, ni divisiones, ni muerte (Apocalipsis 21:3-4). Y lo que es más importante, ese día no habrá más separación de Dios (Apoc. 22:4-5). Nuestra fe estará a la vista (2 Co. 5:7).

Jeremías 29:11 es un versículo maravilloso. Pero no se puede cavar en la profundidad de sus minas teológicas a menos que uno se tome el tiempo de entender el versículo en su contexto apropiado. Aunque puede que este versículo no sea tan deseable para colocarlo en las tarjetas de graduación como lo fue una vez, el versículo se vuelve más intenso y fuerte especialmente cuando llegan los problemas. El plan final de Dios para nuestras vidas es traer grandes bendiciones. Pero esas bendiciones a menudo pueden quedar envueltas en los sinsabores de la vida. Al colocarnos en las presiones de la vida, Dios nos convierte en diamantes.

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García
Editado: Jennifer Chavez

 

Fuente del Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3zu0g1j

 

/by

¿Deben los cristianos estudiar filosofía?

Por JD Kline

Pregunta: Tengo curiosidad por saber si los cristianos deberían estudiar filosofía.

Respuesta: Es posible que en algún momento haya oído decir: “Los cristianos no deben estudiar filosofía porque la Biblia advierte a los creyentes que se cuiden de la filosofía.” Colosenses 2:8 la describe como “vanas sutilezas” y de las “tradiciones de los hombres”, o “del mundo” y no de Cristo. Algunos creen que la propia naturaleza de su discurso convencerá a sus seguidores de creer en Dios. Por lo tanto, se cree que el estudio de la filosofía no sólo es antibíblico. Lo lleva a uno al escepticismo. Una vez me dijeron: “Todo lo que necesitas es la Biblia y el Espíritu Santo”. O “solo ten fe”.

Sin embargo, esto no es bíblicamente exacto ni necesariamente cierto. En las manos equivocadas, la filosofía puede ser peligrosa. Pero, en mi experiencia, la filosofía me ha llevado a una relación más estrecha con Dios. Como Dador de sabiduría (Proverbios 2:6, Santiago 1:5), puedo conocerle más profundamente y despojarme de cualquier barrera intelectual de reticencia que oscurezca una conexión de cabeza a corazón.

Dios no es antifilosofía. Dios dice: “Venid ahora y razonemos juntos” (Isaías 1:18). Además, las Escrituras nos enseñan a amar al Señor, Dios, con nuestras mentes (Lucas 10:27); y a destruir los argumentos altivos que se levantan contra el conocimiento de Cristo (2 Cor. 10:5). En otras palabras, las Escrituras nos ordenan desarrollar las facultades racionales que Dios nos ha dado y utilizarlas para vivir sabiamente en la búsqueda de Cristo. Aprendemos de 1 Pedro 3:15 que debemos responder persuasivamente de la esperanza que hay en nosotros. Lo creas o no, ésta es la tarea de la filosofía. Escuchemos ahora las voces de nuestro pasado.

Grandes pensadores cristianos en el estudio de la filosofía

El fallecido Norman Geisler afirma que “no podemos cuidarnos adecuadamente de la filosofía a menos que seamos conscientes de la filosofía”[i] Además, “Dios nunca pasa por alto la mente en el camino hacia el corazón”.[ii]

C.S. Lewis afirma: “Si todo el mundo fuera cristiano, no importaría que todo el mundo fuera educado. Pero una vida cultural existirá fuera de la Iglesia tanto si existe dentro como si no. La buena filosofía debe existir, aunque sólo sea porque la mala filosofía necesita respuesta”[iii].

El puritano Cotton Mather dijo una vez: “La ignorancia no es la madre de la devoción, sino de la herejía”[iv] Puede que esto no se refiera específicamente a la filosofía, pero es una acusación contra el movimiento anti-intelectual dentro de la Iglesia de todos los tiempos. Por lo tanto, la Iglesia no puede permitirse el lujo de ser ignorante con respecto a la filosofía, porque la filosofía conduce al conocimiento de Dios, mientras que la serpiente de la herejía se encuentra a la espera de hacer presa de los ignorantes y torcer el espíritu de nuestra devoción (la verdad) – trayendo confusión y mentiras. Ten cuidado con aquellos que tratan de hacerte razonar fuera de la filosofía porque su filosofía sobre la filosofía es filosóficamente ignorante. En su piedad, no te llevan a la devoción sino a la herejía. La filosofía es una sierva para la verdad sobre Dios.

La pregunta filosófica sobre el estudio de la filosofía

Observa que la propia pregunta exige el uso de lo que pretende refutar. En el fondo, “¿por qué deberían los cristianos estudiar filosofía?” Es una pregunta de naturaleza filosófica. Para responder a una pregunta filosófica, entonces, se requiere el uso del razonamiento filosófico. Por lo tanto, negar el uso de la razón requiere el uso de la razón para negarlo con éxito. Eso es auto-refutante. Es como decir, “nunca digas nunca”, sino sólo, “La razón por la que no debemos usar la razón es que no hay razón bíblica para ello”. Falso. De hecho, deberíamos estudiar filosofía porque la filosofía informa a los lectores de la Biblia sobre cómo interpretarla y entenderla. ¿Ha considerado alguna vez las reglas para interpretar la literatura? La filosofía orienta los principios y métodos que utilizamos para interpretar el texto bíblico, una disciplina llamada hermenéutica. La hermenéutica es una actividad filosófica. No podríamos hacer teología, ni ninguna de las ciencias, sin filosofía. Es la base del conocimiento. De hecho, la filosofía impregna todos los aspectos de nuestra vida y de cómo la vivimos. Aunque no nos demos cuenta, cada uno de nosotros tiene una filosofía sobre la filosofía y sobre si los cristianos deberían estudiarla. Entonces, ¿qué es la filosofía?

Definición de filosofía

En pocas palabras, la filosofía es el amor a la sabiduría. En otros términos, la filosofía es aprender a pensar correcta y lógicamente sobre lo que es, como por ejemplo: lo que es real, lo que es verdadero, lo que es bello, etc. Es la búsqueda de la verdad. Jesús, que es Dios, es la verdad (Juan 14:7). Por lo tanto, en mi opinión, cuando uno estudia filosofía, está buscando a Dios. Lo que decidamos sobre Él se convierte entonces en una cuestión de fe: creer o no creer.

Conclusión

Podría seguir, pero lo cierto es que se ha escrito mucho sobre si los cristianos deberían estudiar filosofía y por qué. Sería negligente por mi parte no dirigirte a algunas voces destacadas de nuestro tiempo y permitir que su trabajo te sirva de guía.

Para profundizar

J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind (Ama a tu Dios con toda tu mente). NavPress; Edición revisada (Septiembre 4, 2012)

Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy. (Por qué los cristianos deben estudiar filosofía.)

Bibliografía

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (Marzo 1, 2001). Originalmente publicado el1965.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Edición revisada (Septiembre 4, 2012).

Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originalmente publicado en https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

Notas al pie de página:

[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originalmente publicado en https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originalmente publicado en1965.

[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Edición revisada (Septiembre 4, 2012). 16

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Kline (alias, JD Kline) es un capellán experimentado y ex pastor. Jason obtuvo su Maestría en Divinidad de la Universidad Liberty y completó la formación de Educación Pastoral Clínica a través de Atrium Wake Forest Baptist Hospital. El área de interés de Jason son los temas relacionados con el daño moral y la herida espiritual. Por admonición personal, señala que no escribe como erudito sino como amigo. Su deseo es transmitir lo que ha aprendido, mientras lucha fervientemente por la fe. Jason trabaja como profesor adjunto en Carolina Bible College y fue entrenado a través de NGIM (Norman Geisler International Ministries).

Traducido por Monica Pirateque
Editado por Jennifer Chavez

Fuente del Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3EtJphi 

 

/by

7 razones legítimas por las que tantos niños se aburren en la iglesia

Por Natasha Crain

El domingo pasado, nuestra iglesia celebró su servicio multilingüe anual, con tres congregaciones -de habla mandarina, de habla española y de habla inglesa- que se reunieron para el culto. Tuvimos lecturas en varios idiomas, y el sermón se dio en español con un traductor al inglés. Esta semana no hubo escuela dominical, así que los niños se unieron a sus padres en la iglesia de adultos.

Cuando informamos a nuestros hijos el domingo por la mañana de lo que iba a ocurrir, hubo un colectivo y apasionado, “¡NOOOOOOOO!” (Sinceramente, debería haber escrito más oes para reflejar el verdadero nivel de protesta).

“¡POR FAVOR, déjanos quedarnos en casa! ¡Podemos hacer la iglesia en casa! Por favor, ¡no ESE servicio! Es TAN ABURRIDO”.

Al parecer, lo recordaban bien del año anterior. Los arrastramos al automóvil a pesar de los lloriqueos y soportamos sus ruegos durante todo el camino.

Mentiría si dijera que es raro que mis hijos no quieran ir a la iglesia. La naturaleza de este servicio quizás les hizo quejarse más fuerte de lo normal, pero hay muchos típicos domingos en los que nuestros hijos preguntan: “¿Tenemos que ir?” Apostaría mucho dinero a que a ti te han preguntado lo mismo.

La pregunta sobre qué hacer cuando los niños no quieren ir a la iglesia ha sido una de las más frecuentes que he recibido a lo largo de los años por parte de los lectores, y es una de las más discutidas en diversos foros de crianza cristiana

El tema principal de las quejas de los niños suele ser que la iglesia es aburrida y que por eso no quieren ir. Los padres tienden a asumir que es su trabajo convencer a sus hijos de que la iglesia no es aburrida y buscan la manera de hacerlo.

Pero esa es una suposición realmente mala.

Creo que hay bastantes razones legítimas por las que muchos niños se aburren en la iglesia y/o en la escuela dominical. En otras palabras, los niños no siempre están inventando excusas al azar para no ir; muchas veces, su evasión refleja un problema genuino.

Aquí hay varias razones “legítimas” para el aburrimiento en la iglesia que los padres deben considerar.

Hay demasiado énfasis en la diversión en la escuela dominical.

Probablemente esto suene contradictorio. Después de todo, si la escuela dominical es muy divertida, los niños deberían querer ir, ¿verdad? No, no y no. Ahora bien, si la escuela dominical fuera realmente una especie de experiencia increíble parecida a un parque de atracciones, podría ser el caso (y los niños elegirían ir por las razones equivocadas). Pero la “diversión” de la escuela dominical suele consistir en diversiones relativamente suaves, como manualidades, foosball, o tal vez una carrera de relevos en el interior utilizando cucharas y M&Ms.

Este tipo de “diversión” nunca podrá competir con la idea de diversión que tiene tu hijo en casa, donde puede hacer lo que quiera.

Por supuesto, querrán quedarse en casa; la diversión en la iglesia es aburrida comparada con la diversión en casa. Cuando un programa de escuela dominical se centra en el entretenimiento, esta es la comparación natural que un niño va a hacer. ¿Quién puede culparlos?

Si la mayor parte de lo que su hijo se lleva de la iglesia es que hay una pequeña lección con mucho tiempo de socialización, le va a costar mucho convencerle de que la “iglesia” no es aburrida (cuando la “iglesia” es el entretenimiento de la escuela dominical en su mente).

La iglesia “adulta” está más allá de su comprensión actual.

Los padres a veces tratan de evitar la falta de sustancia que se encuentra en muchos programas de escuela dominical manteniendo a sus hijos con ellos en la iglesia “para adultos” cada semana. Esto puede funcionar muy bien para algunos niños. Mi hija de 11 años ha optado recientemente por dejar de asistir a la escuela dominical para venir con nosotros a la iglesia de adultos porque es capaz de seguir y dice que aprende mucho más que en clase. Cuando mi hija de 9 años vio que su hermana lo hacía, quiso venir también. Pero cuando lo hizo, se pasó la mayor parte del servicio con la cabeza apoyada en mi hombro tratando de dormir; simplemente ella no tiene el interés o la capacidad de atención que tiene mi hija mayor. Cuando ese día me dijo después de la iglesia que era aburrido, le dije: “¡Claro que lo fue! ¡Tú elegiste dormir!”.

Para niños como mi hija mayor, que quieren asistir a la iglesia de adultos en lugar de a la escuela dominical, esta puede ser una gran opción. Pero para los que, como mi hija menor, no están preparados para seguir lo que se enseña y, en cambio, pasan el tiempo haciendo garabatos en un boletín o soñando despiertos, el aburrimiento será el resultado inevitable. Eso no significa necesariamente que la escuela dominical de los niños sea vista como menos aburrida, sino que la iglesia de los adultos no es siempre la respuesta.

Su familia asiste a la iglesia esporádicamente.

Todos los pastores que conozco lamentan el hecho de que las familias asistan a la iglesia con menos regularidad que antes, por todo tipo de razones (el deporte del domingo por la mañana es una de las principales). Un asistente “regular” es ahora alguien que asiste una vez al mes.

Sé que esto va a molestar a algunas personas, pero es importante decirlo: Una iglesia puede tener el mejor programa de escuela dominical del mundo, pero si una familia sólo asiste esporádicamente, es natural que un niño lo encuentre aburrido -no está realmente conectado con lo que sucede o lo que se enseña. No se puede culpar a un niño por dejar de interesarse mentalmente en ese momento.

La fe en su familia consiste principalmente en ir a la iglesia los domingos.

Aunque su familia asista a la iglesia todos los domingos, si no oran juntos con regularidad, no estudian la Biblia juntos y no tienen conversaciones sobre la fe en casa, sus hijos se preguntarán con razón por qué deben molestarse en ir a la iglesia. La iglesia llegará a ser vista como una cosa más que tienen que hacer cada semana, sin ninguna conexión significativa con su vida diaria. En otras palabras, se convertirá en una carga de tiempo innecesaria en sus mentes porque es irrelevante para el resto de la semana.

Participan regularmente en conversaciones profundas sobre la fe en casa.

Este es otro punto contrario a la lógica, pero he visto que sucede en muchas familias que están muy comprometidas con su fe. Si su familia mantiene constantemente conversaciones profundas sobre la fe (del tipo que escribo en mis libros, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side -Mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios- y Talking with Your Kids about God -Cómo hablar de Dios con tus hijos), es muy probable que sus hijos estén adquiriendo una fe mucho más sólida desde el punto de vista intelectual que la que obtendrán en la escuela dominical promedio, y la escuela dominical parecerá extremadamente aburrida en comparación. Una señal reveladora de que este es el problema es cuando tus hijos se quejan de que no están “aprendiendo nada” o dicen que son “las mismas historias una y otra vez”.

Aunque los padres a menudo asumen que hay algún tipo de problema con el desarrollo espiritual de sus hijos cuando no quieren asistir a la escuela dominical, puede significar lo contrario en este caso; los niños pueden simplemente tener expectativas mucho más altas para lo que se debería discutir en un ambiente de escuela dominical y aburrirse por la 600ª narración del arca de Noé seguida de palomitas.

Tienen dudas sobre Dios o la verdad del cristianismo.

Debería ser obvio, pero me sorprende la cantidad de padres que nunca consideran esta posibilidad: Si los niños han dejado de creer en Dios o en la verdad del cristianismo, van a encontrar la iglesia aburrida.

Imagina por un momento que tuvieras que asistir a una iglesia (u otro grupo) cada semana, con el que no estuvieras de acuerdo y alguien esperara que te interesaras. Estudian un libro que tú crees que es ficción, pero lo aplican como verdad en sus vidas y piensan que tú también deberías hacerlo también. Lo más probable es que lo encuentres aburrido porque no crees en lo que ellos hacen. ¿Por qué estudiar un libro de ficción tan profundamente cada semana?

Del mismo modo, los niños que ya no tienen fe en Jesús se van a cansar de oír hablar de Él todos los domingos. Está fuera del alcance de este artículo sopesar los pros y los contras de hacer que esos niños asistan a la iglesia, pero hay dos puntos que debemos tener en cuenta para nuestro propósito actual:

  • Si tus hijos encuentran la iglesia aburrida y/o se resisten a ir, ten una conversación con ellos sobre lo que creen actualmente respecto a Dios, Jesús y la Biblia. Puede que te sorprenda lo que descubras.
  • Si descubres que su aburrimiento con la iglesia tiene sus raíces en la incredulidad, tu mayor preocupación (en gran medida) debería ser discutir sus dudas y tener conversaciones sobre la evidencia de la verdad del cristianismo.

Ellos son humanos

En el camino hacia el servicio de la iglesia que describí al principio de este post, me dirigí a los niños en la parte trasera del coche y les dije: “Hola chicos. Tengo algo sorprendente que contarles”. Se callaron y continué.

“Hoy tampoco tengo ganas de ir a la iglesia. No me gusta este servicio en particular. Prefiero estar en casa esta mañana”.

Me miraron con los ojos muy abiertos, anticipando que podríamos volver a casa.

“Pero voy a ir de todos modos. Verán, como humanos, a menudo es más fácil y muy tentador quedarse en casa sin ir a la iglesia los domingos por la mañana. Es un sentimiento totalmente normal, y los adultos también lo tenemos a veces. Pero hacemos una prioridad de ir a pesar de esos sentimientos ocasionales por varias razones: 1) Es una forma de poner a Dios en primer lugar en nuestras vidas (comprometiéndonos a ir a la iglesia cada domingo por la mañana); 2) La iglesia no es sólo para aprender, sino también para adorar, y la adoración transforma nuestra relación con Dios; y 3) Es importante desarrollar relaciones con otros creyentes y estar en comunidad (Hebreos 10:25). No voy a la iglesia esta mañana porque no se me ocurra otra cosa que me gustaría hacer, sino porque amo al Señor, y esta es una forma de ponerlo en primer lugar”.

En otras palabras, les expliqué por qué su aburrimiento no debería ser el factor decisivo para asistir a la iglesia.

No intenté convencerles de que no deberían pensar nunca que la iglesia es aburrida.

Esta es una distinción crítica para que los niños la entiendan porque, como espero haber mostrado en este artículo, hay muchas razones legítimas por las que los niños encuentren la iglesia aburrida a veces. Cuando entienden por qué la iglesia es importante incluso cuando les parezca aburrida, esto puede conducir a conversaciones mucho más productivas que simplemente machacar cabezas cada domingo por la mañana.

Estén atentos a la entrada del blog de la semana que viene, en la que revelaré la portada y el índice de mi nuevo libro que saldrá en marzo. Estoy muy emocionada por compartirlo con ustedes. Además, estoy haciendo un sorteo de cuatro de mis libros en la página de Facebook de mi blog hasta el 5 de diciembre. Si no me sigues allí o no lo has visto, ¡haz clic aquí!

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 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain es una bloguera, autora y conferencista nacional a la que le apasiona capacitar a los padres cristianos para que eduquen a sus hijos comprendiendo cómo defender su fe en un mundo cada vez más secular. Es autora de dos libros de apologética para padres: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios) y Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016) (Cómo mantener a tus hijos del lado de Dios). Natasha tiene un MBA en marketing y estadística de la UCLA y un certificado en apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Antigua ejecutiva de marketing y profesora asistente, vive en el sur de California con su esposo y sus tres hijos.

Traducido por Monica Pirateque
Editado por Elenita Romero

Fuente del Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2PzKxGO

 

/by