Tag Archive for: Apologética

Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

Bart Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill in North Carolina. He is well known for his best-selling books critiquing core tenets of evangelical Christianity and, in particular, the reliability of New Testament sources. Regular readers of my articles will already know that Ehrman is not the most careful scholar when it comes to his use of ancient sources. A few days ago, Ehrman posted two blog entries ( here and here ) on his website, claiming that the idea that Jesus is himself Yahweh is a recent doctrinal innovation, completely foreign to the New Testament and the early church. Ehrman even goes so far as to say that this is the view of only “some conservative evangelical Christians” and that “I have never even heard the claim (let alone a discussion of it) until very recently.” Furthermore, Ehrman adds,

I, frankly, had never heard of such a thing until six years ago. Maybe I wasn’t listening in Sunday school, or maybe I was sleeping through those particular lectures at Moody Bible Institute; or maybe… Nah, I don’t think so. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know. But I can’t think of any ancient Christian source that speaks of Jesus as Yahweh himself. Jesus is the son of Yahweh.

Ehrman claims that,

The first time I heard someone say with authority that Jesus was Yahweh and that this was standard Christian teaching was in a debate I had with Justin Bass in 2015 – you can listen to it on Youtube. I don’t remember at what point in the debate he said it, but he made some comment about Jesus being Yahweh, and I froze. I thought: theologians have never called Jesus Yahweh!

That a scholar of Ehrman’s stature would be misinformed about orthodox Christian teaching on such a fundamental issue is absolutely astonishing. In this article, I respond to Ehrman’s articles and show that he is profoundly mistaken about the teaching of the New Testament and the early church.

The first Christian theologians

Ehrman wonders “if there are early Christian theologians who hold this view.” Yes, there are many. For example, Justin Martyr (~100-165), in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote [1] ,

…now you will permit me first to relate the prophecies, which I wish to do to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts…

I don’t know how one can be clearer than that. Irenaeus (~130-202) also states [2] ,

For I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam is called God or Lord in all things and absolutely. But that He Himself is in His own right, beyond all men who have ever lived, God, and Lord, and Eternal King, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, can be seen by all who have attained even a small portion of the truth.

Ignatius of Antioch (~50-108) also affirmed the full deity of Christ. For example, in his epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote [3] ,

We also have as our Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time, but who later also became man, from the virgin Mary.

I could go on quoting the early church fathers for quite a while, but this should suffice to show that the view that Jesus is Yahweh, the eternal God, is not a new idea but goes back to the early church. I will now turn to Ehrman’s comments on the New Testament.

Is the name Yahweh found in the New Testament?

Ehrman states that

Of course, the name Yahweh is not found in the NT at all, as it is a Hebrew word, and the NT is written in Greek. The NT does not give God a personal name.

This is obviously true since the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. However, the New Testament uses an equivalent word – in fact, the word that replaces the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This word is κύριος, which is translated “Lord” in our English Bibles. It is of course true that this word had a broader range of meaning than simply denoting Yahweh (for example, Paul uses it of earthly masters – see Eph 6:5). However, the meaning of the Greek words, as intended by the original author, can be teased out by an examination of the context. For example, Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27:

“You, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain. They will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a cloak, and they will be changed like a robe. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Verse 10 uses the word κύριος, which is evidently (given the fact that the author is quoting an Old Testament Psalm concerning the Lord God) intended to denote Yahweh. What makes this text especially noteworthy for our purposes here is that the author of Hebrews applies the words of this Psalm to Jesus. In fact, this Hebrew scripture is one of several applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1, as the author compares and contrasts the exaltation of the Son with that of angelic beings.

To take another example, consider Paul’s quotation of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” Again, this alludes to an Old Testament text that refers to Yahweh. But Paul introduces this text only a few verses after having declared that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The implication here is that the κύριος of verse 9 is the same referent as in verse 13 – namely, Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the Yahweh of Joel 2:32, on whose name we are to call. This point is made even more explicitly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” This text again clearly alludes to Joel 2:32, except that the Lord (κύριος) whom we are to call upon is none other than Jesus Christ.

Another example is found in 1 Peter 2:2-4:

“2 As newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. 4 As you come to him, you are a living stone rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight…”

Verse 3 quotes Psalm 34:8 (“Oh, taste and see that the LORD [Yahweh] is good!”). However, verse 4 identifies the κύριος of Psalm 34:8 as none other than Jesus himself (the closest antecedent of the pronoun “he” in verse 4 is “the Lord” of verse 3). This implies that Jesus is the Yahweh of Psalm 34:8.

Another example is found in 1 Peter 3:14-15

“14 But even though you may suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Do not be afraid of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…”

It is true that there is some level of ambiguity about the original reading of verse 15, as most later manuscripts read θεόν (“God”) rather than Χριστόν (“Christ”). However, Bruce Metzger points out that [4] ,

The reading Χριστόν , however, is strongly supported by early and diversified external evidence… as well as by transcriptional probability, the more familiar expression ( κύριον τὸν θεόν ) substituting the less usual expression ( κύριον τὸν Χριστόν ). The omission of τὸν Χριστόν in the patristic treatise Promissionibus attributed to Quodvultdeus must be due to an accidental oversight of the translator or copyist.

If (as seems likely) the original reading is indeed “Christ the Lord,” then we have another example of an Old Testament text referring to Yahweh applied to Jesus. Compare 1 Peter 3:14-15, above, with Isaiah 8:12-13:

12 “Do not call all that this people call conspiracy a conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be afraid. 13 But you shall honor the LORD of hosts as a holy one.”

Isaiah 8:12 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:14. Isaiah 8:13 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:15, except that instead of calling his readers to honor the Lord of hosts as holy (as Isaiah did), Peter implores his readers to honor Christ the Lord as holy. Thus we have another case in which the title κύριος (which is correctly interpreted here as a substitute for the Hebrew tetragrammaton) is applied to Jesus.

I could continue along a similar line for a considerable time. However, I trust that this is enough to dispel Ehrman’s argument that the New Testament does not use the name Yahweh and therefore never calls Jesus Yahweh.

Does Psalm 110 rule out Jesus being Yahweh?

Ehrman continues,

When Christians wanted to find another divine being in the Old Testament to identify as Christ, they turned to passages like Psalm 110: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.'” Based on what I said in my previous post, you can reconstruct who is speaking to whom here (note that the first LORD is capitalized and the second is not): “YHWH said to Adonai….”

Ehrman’s entire argument here implicitly presupposes Unitarianism. If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then there is no problem with the persons within Yahweh’s being or essence being distinguished from one another and even participating in conversation with one another. Nor is there any problem with the Father exalting the Son, since the Son had willingly humbled himself through his incarnation and death on the cross. No Trinitarian identifies the Son with the Father. Rather, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinctive persons who together share fully in Yahweh’s essence, each possessing the divine attributes fully and completely.

Ehrman’s rendering of the words used in Psalm 110:1 is not entirely accurate, as it does not say “YHWH said to Adonai…” but rather “YHWH said to Adoni.” This difference may seem trivial (especially since these two words are distinguished only by a difference in Masoretic vowel pointing), but it is actually important. The title “Adonai” is used exclusively as a divine title (essentially as a synonym for YHWH). In fact, the ancient Hebrews, rather than pronouncing the divine name, would say “Adonai.” The word “Adoni,” by contrast, is simply the possessive form of the Hebrew word “Adon,” meaning “Lord” or “Master” (the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word κύριος). The word can be used to refer to Yahweh, depending on the context, but it is not reserved exclusively to Yahweh. The upshot of this is that, although many Christians have used this text to argue for a plurality of divine persons (and, indeed, for the deity of Christ), the reality is that any such argument based on this text is going to require more work and nuance than it often receives. I don’t think this text is as conclusive as the previous texts we’ve looked at. However, it is, I would argue, certainly suggestive, as we’ll see. The context sheds some light on the referent of verse 1. In verse 5-7 of Psalm 110, we read,

The Lord is at his right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook along the way, and so he will lift up his head on high.

In the Hebrew, verse 5 identifies the one sitting at Yahweh’s right hand as none other than Adonai, a word only used to refer to deity. Thus, Psalm 110 implies a plurality of divine persons within the Godhead. One possible response to this is that Psalm 110:5 is simply the inversion of Psalm 110:1. Just as David’s Lord sits at Yahweh’s right hand, so too Yahweh is at the right hand of David’s Lord. For example, in Psalm 109:31, Yahweh is at the right hand of the needy, and in Psalm 16:8, Yahweh is at the right hand of the psalmist David. The problem with this argument is that if one continues reading Psalm 110, it is clear that the “He”s in verses 5-7 all refer to Adonai, and in verse 7 this individual is said to drink from a stream, a human function. Thus, the individual sitting at the right hand of Yahweh in Psalm 110 appears to be a divine-human person.

Furthermore, Jesus himself argues that “David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” (Mark 12:37). What Jesus means is that none of David’s descendants could be greater than he. Therefore, he cannot refer to an ordinary human descendant of David. The question then arises as to what kind of Lord he could be referring to. But we can go even further. David’s Lord cannot be any human king either, since in Psalm 2:10-12 all kings must be subject to David, and Psalm 89:26-27 tells us that,

“I will appoint him [David] as my firstborn, the greatest of the kings of the earth”

Nor can He be a mere angelic creature, since angels serve God’s elect and are themselves servants (cf. Heb. 1:7, 14; Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). Who is left then? God.

The Angel of the Lord

Ehrman notes that Christians (such as Justin Martyr in the second century) have often identified the angel of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible as a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ. He writes,

I wonder if the confusion among some evangelicals about the Christian understanding of Christ (when they say He is Yahweh) is because the “Angel” of the LORD is so fully representative of YHWH Himself that He is sometimes called YHWH after He is clearly identified NOT as YHWH but as His angel. Why would He be called YHWH if He were YHWH’s messenger? It would be something like if a messenger from the king comes to you and orders you to do something, you tell your neighbors that the “king” told you to do something. Well, actually, His messenger did it, but he was so fully representative of the king that his words were the king’s words.

This interpretation, however, does not account for the fact that several people throughout the Hebrew Bible marvel at the fact that they have seen the angel of Yahweh and yet their lives are spared (people are not supposed to be able to see Yahweh and live – Exodus 33:20). For example, consider Jacob’s words after he wrestles with a man in Genesis 32, one who is identified in Hosea 12:4 as the angel of Yahweh: “Then Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been spared.'” Further support that the individual Jacob wrestled with was the angel of Yahweh comes from the parallelism between Genesis 32:29 and Judges 13:18, in which the man and the angel of Yahweh respectively say, upon being asked for their name, “Why do you ask my name?”

Another instance of this is in Judges 6, where we read of Gideon’s encounter with the angel of Yahweh. In verses 22-24, we read,

22 Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, “Alas, LORD God! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.” 23 But the LORD said to him, “Peace be with you. Do not be afraid; you will not die.” 24 So Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and called it, “The LORD is Peace.” To this day it stands in Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Another example is found in Judges 13, which records the appearance of the angel of Yahweh to Manoah and his wife to announce the birth of Samson. In verse 21-22, we read,

21 The angel of the Lord no longer appeared to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah knew that it was the angel of the Lord. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We are sure to die, because we have seen God . “

Thus, we see that numerous texts (and there are many I have not mentioned) attest to the deity of the angel of Yahweh. While Ehrman is correct in pointing out that many of these texts also distinguish the angel of Yahweh from God, this is quite consistent with a Trinitarian paradigm that sees God’s messenger as Yahweh and yet in another sense distinct from Yahweh.

Ehrman’s interpretation of the angel of the Lord passages also fails to explain the parallelism seen in Genesis 48:15-16, in which we read of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons. He said,

15 “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long until this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys…”

Here we see a poetic parallel in which the angel is identified with God. In fact, in the Hebrew, verse 16b uses the singular pronoun “let him bless the lads,” implying that the angel and God are one and the same.

I discuss the topic of the angel of the Lord in much more detail here and here .

The Carmen Christi

Ehrman then turns his attention to Christ’s poem in Philippians 2:5-11. He writes,

When Christ is exalted after his death, God gives him “the name that is above every name” for all creation to worship and confess. This is a reference to Isaiah 45 where Yahweh alone has the name above every name for all to worship and confess only him.

Possibly these modern Christians are thinking that Christ must therefore have been given the name YHWH, and therefore he *is* YHWH. But the passage does not seem to mean that. The supreme LORD of all, YHWH, is the one who *gives* Jesus the name that is above all others. It is worth noting that in this very passage, when God gives Jesus his “name,” it does not mean that he has made a name change for Jesus. On the contrary, the passage says that the name before which all will bow in worship and confession is *Jesus*! (not YHWH): “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess.” Jesus’ own name is exalted.

However, this is not the argument at all. I do not interpret the “name” in verse 9 to be a personal name. Rather, in my view, this is best understood as a reference to Christ’s reputation that he received as a consequence of his humiliation and death on the cross.

There are at least three mutually supporting arguments for the deity of Christ that can be adduced from this text. First, this text is primarily concerned with Christ’s humility, for “though he was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). This only makes sense if Christ is equal in status to God, for humility is not praised for not exalting oneself to a higher status than one is entitled to. If I refrain from overthrowing the monarchy and exalting myself as king, I should not be praised for my humility in restraining myself. The text is therefore best understood if Christ voluntarily stripped himself of the divine privilege that was rightfully his. This reading is also supported by the Greek. In fact, the construction is known as a double object-complement accusative. Daniel Wallace explains that [5] ,

A double accusative object complement is a construction in which one accusative is the direct object of the verb and the other accusative (whether noun, adjective, participle, or infinitive) complements the object in the sense that it predicates something about it.

In this case, the verb is οὐχ ἡγήσατο (“did not count”), the direct object is τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (“equality with God”), and the object complement is ἁρπαγμὸν (“a thing to be grasped”). Thus, the relationship between the direct object and the object complement is rather like an equality sign. In other words, Jesus did not consider equality with God to be a thing to be grasped (ἁρπαγμὸν). Furthermore, Roy Hoover has argued that it is actually an idiomatic expression, “referring to something already present and at one’s disposal.” The question… [is] whether or not one decides to exploit something” [6] Hoover observes that in all cases where this noun ἁρπαγμός is the complement of the object in a construction like this (where the verb is to consider or to see or to regard), it always means something like an exploitable advantage. Therefore, Hoover argues, one could reasonably translate this text to be saying that Christ did not regard equality with God as something to be taken advantage of .

A second consideration is that Paul uses the Greek word μορφῇ in verse 6 to describe Christ as having the form of God and uses this same word in verse 7 to describe Christ as taking the form of a servant. This implies that Christ was in the form of God in the same sense that He took upon Himself the form of a servant. Since Christ was literally a servant, “being born in the likeness of men” (v. 7b), it follows that Christ was also literally God.

Third, Ehrman rightly points out that verses 10-11 allude to Isaiah 45:23, in which we read, “To me [i.e., Yahweh] every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” However, in the context of Philippians 2:10-11, every knee bows and every tongue swears allegiance to Jesus. Indeed, that is what it means to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), which literally means master.

Conclusion

To conclude, contrary to Ehrman’s claims, the view that Jesus is Yahweh has been the orthodox Christian position for nearly two millennia, and is taught in the New Testament. Ehrman claims that the name Yahweh is never used in the New Testament and that therefore the New Testament authors could not have applied it to Jesus. However, the New Testament does use the equivalent Greek term κύριος. Although this word is also used to describe earthly masters, the word is often used to denote Yahweh when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, and often these texts are explicitly applied to the person of Jesus. Ehrman’s argument from the New Testament’s use of Psalm 110 presupposes a unitary paradigm. Although Ehrman argues that the angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible is only Yahweh’s agent who is invested with divine authority, this argument collapses on the basis of the various exclamations of surprise following an encounter with the angel of the Lord that one has survived despite having seen God face to face. Finally, Ehrman is mistaken regarding Philippians 2:5-11, which is best read as indicating that Christ willingly laid aside the divine privilege that was rightfully His to take the form of a servant.

Footnotes

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Tryphon,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donalds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 212.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed., Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 449.

[3] Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 449. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 52-200.

[4] Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 621-622.

[5] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 182.

[6] Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971).

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. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a BS (Hons) in Forensic Biology, an M.Res in Evolutionary Biology, a second MS in Medical and Molecular Biosciences, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie contributes to several apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular webinars, as well as to assist Christians struggling with doubt. Dr. McLatchie has participated in over thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has lectured internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, thoughtful and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/dWH1oIA

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Elenita Romero

 

/by
¿Se está desvaneciendo Dios?

¿Se está desvaneciendo Dios?

By 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

 

/by
Lo que nos dice nuestra lucha perpetua con la entropía

Lo que nos dice nuestra lucha perpetua con la entropía

Por 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 

 

/by
Dos tipos de personas que han tratado de avergonzarme para que me aleje del cristianismo

Dos tipos de personas que han tratado de avergonzarme para que me aleje del cristianismo

Por 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 

 

/by
¿Puede la historia de Jesús seguir sorprendiéndote?

¿Puede la historia de Jesús seguir sorprendiéndote?

By Bob Perry

History shows that prudence and wisdom are rarely on the side of new ways of looking at Scripture. This is especially true of the “progressive” trend to remake Jesus in the image of postmodernism. So when I first heard about Tom Gilson’s new book, Too Good To Be False , I have to admit I was confused. Gilson is a solid Christian thinker, but the back cover of his book told me that “Christians who read it will encounter Jesus in new ways to worship him.” Had he gone over to the dark side? Ten pages in, my fears were allayed. It turns out that the story of Jesus can still surprise you. Gilson’s book is not a new interpretation of Jesus. It is a challenge to see old words with new eyes. And the picture he paints is astonishing.

Would you hire this guy?

Imagine that you receive a memo from someone you work with. Its purpose is to introduce a person he wants you to consider for a job opening you have in your office. In the memo, he describes the candidate as someone who never learns from experience, let alone from his own mistakes. In fact, he has never admitted to making a mistake. His leadership skills have not improved in the slightest. He shows no sign of character growth. When you ask him questions, he rarely gives you a straight answer. In his opinion, you can disagree with him, but that would make you wrong. And he orders those who work with him to do things his way without exception (51-52).

Would you hire him? Or would you ask yourself, “Who does this guy think he is?”

That’s Jesus like you’ve probably never thought of before.

Fail embarrassingly

The insights in Too Good To Be False aren’t based on rethinking Jesus’ doctrines or deity. Quite the opposite. They’re reminders that we’re all too accustomed to the populist Jesus we’ve been encouraged to befriend. When you focus on what he actually said and did, there’s no temptation to just slap Jesus on the shoulder and laugh. Instead, you’re overcome with an impulse to bow down before him and worship him—and he invites you into his circle of trust.

The real Jesus is a leader unlike any the world has ever seen. He speaks and acts with authority, confidence, and power. But he never abuses that power. He never even uses it for his own benefit. Instead, he directs that power toward loving others. He commands respect. And he is always the smartest person in the room.

The combination of these character traits describes a man who cannot be of this world. He is unlike anyone we have ever met or even heard of. And while it is tempting to say that makes him too good to be true, history tells us otherwise. The facts are more compelling. They make him too good to be false.

An innovative character

The character of Jesus is so outrageously superior that it demands an explanation. After all, he is the most memorable character ever created. And that might make it tempting to dismiss him as the figment of someone’s very fertile imagination. But you don’t have that option. To dismiss the Jesus of the Gospels in this way would be to subscribe to the most outrageous conspiracy theory in human history. A coordinated forgery made by multiple authors, all possessed by the same fanciful delusion. But it’s even worse than that.

According to skeptics, this Jesus story is one big version of the Telephone Game. It was invented, embellished, retold, and passed down through multiple narrators in various places. Yet somehow the legendary character created in this process turns out to be exactly the same everywhere. He lives on in all four Gospels (five if you add those invoking the “Q”). Somehow this messy mix “produced a miracle greater than the resurrection: the greatest story of all time, with the greatest character in all of literature, presenting a moral teaching that has changed for the better every civilization it has touched.” (133)

A miracle, no doubt.

Facing the skeptics

The usual skeptics won’t accept it, of course. But Tom Gilson has been taking on them and their ideas on his Thinking Christian blog since 2004. He’s heard all their arguments hundreds of times. So when it comes to handling objections to his thesis, he does so with style, grace, and simplicity. They’re all there—Dawkins, Spong, Aslan, Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Armstrong, Hitchens, and others—and Gilson acknowledges their points. But rather than trying to cut down every tree, he focuses on the forest. Jesus of Nazareth is a character no one could invent.

There are ways to respond to the details of the so-called “contradictions” of the Gospel. But some skeptics refuse to acknowledge them as simple differences of viewpoint. It is tempting to feel compelled to explain why Jesus did not speak out on today’s most burning moral and social issues. They do not care that, throughout history, the solution to every moral dilemma has been through the actions of Jesus’ followers. We have heard the bluster about how Jesus “became God” (Ehrman) or how he was just another repeated legend (Dawkins, Armstrong). We have even been told that he did not really exist (Carrier). None of these arguments get to the heart of the problem.

With all the corruption and shenanigans that go into passing on a made-up legend, how could the synoptic authors do it? How could they each arrive at the same Jesus the man-God when the Telephone Game had not had time to invent his deity before they wrote their Gospels?

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Jesus was a media influencer before that was cool. But what made him popular with those who knew him best also made him notorious among the political and religious leaders of his day. Nobody likes a guy who thinks he’s God incarnate. Those people need to be eliminated. But when those same people reappear a short time later, those who tried to eliminate them know they have a real problem on their hands.

It has only happened once.

Today, the most vehement opponents of Christianity still invoke his name. They do so in an attempt to expose the “hypocrisy” of modern Christians. But when they do so, they are agreeing with Tom Gilson. They even admire the only character in human history whom “no author, no poet, no playwright has devised… a character of perfect power and perfect love like Jesus” (126).

He is the standard by which all other characters are measured. Too loving to be a liar. Too convincing to be a lunatic. He leaves us with only one choice. And Too Good To Be False reminds us that it is a choice we have too often taken for granted.

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer to the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and an MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/eQpVJh3

Translated by Amber Porta

Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado 

 

/by
¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

By David Pallmann

Many Christians feel that it is wrong to show unbelievers evidence of the truth of Christianity. [1] These Christians consider the traditional method of apologetics to be an affront to the Scriptures by not giving them the respect and place they deserve. The concern is that by displaying evidence of the truth of the Scriptures, more importance will be given to the evidence and not to the Scripture. This reasoning can be stated thus:

  1. If a work leads us to consider something to have greater authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not participate in it.
  2. Providing evidence for the truthfulness of Scripture involves elevating the authority of the evidence over Scripture.
  3. Therefore, Christians should not use evidence to prove the truth of Scripture.

Michael Krueger expresses this same sentiment when he says,

“If the line of argument leads the nonbeliever to believe in the Bible because it has a stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism, then these disciplines and not the Bible will be his ultimate authority.” [2]

In this article I hope to show that the traditional apologist can respond to this type of argument on two fronts. Once we agree on what it means to say that Scripture is the primary authority for oneself, it becomes more apparent that belief is not contrary to presenting evidence for the truthfulness of Scripture. In short, traditional evidence-based apologetics affirms that Scripture is the primary authority for the Christian.

Two types of authority

In order not to err, we must understand that there are two types of authority. The Polish philosopher Józef Maria Bocheński made an important distinction between deontic authority and epistemic authority . [3] A deontic authority is one that is able to tell you how you should behave. Examples of such an authority are your boss or a policeman. These people can tell you, to a certain extent, what to do.

An epistemic authority is very different. Epistemic authorities are empowered to tell you what to believe. Examples of this are a scholar, a doctor, or some other type of expert. These people are highly educated and can be called “authorities” only in their area of ​​expertise.

The main difference between deontic authority and epistemic authority is in the spheres in which they exert their influence. Deontic authorities tell you how to behave. Epistemic authorities tell you what to believe.

Applying the distinction

Now that we know there are two kinds of authorities, let’s explain what it means to say that Scripture is our primary authority. It seems pretty obvious that this phrase implies that Scripture is a deontic authority. When someone says that Scripture is their primary authority, they are essentially saying that they must obey God first rather than men (Acts 5:29). Scripture will determine a Christian’s behavior, even if it conflicts with another authority (e.g., the government).

Reasoned in this way, it is evident that the original argument is mistaken. The first premise refers to a deontic authority, and the second premise refers to epistemic authority. Because of this and under a deontic understanding of Scripture as the believer’s primary authority, the conclusion of the argument is not valid.

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Although the argument is invalid from the perspective of the deontic authority of Scripture, there is a drawback. Scripture not only tells us how to behave, it also tells us what to believe. So, not only is Scripture a deontic authority, it also serves as an epistemic authority. Should we also regard Scripture as our primary epistemic authority?

To answer this question, we must have a clear understanding of the role that epistemic authorities play in the formation of well-founded beliefs. First, we must recognize that beliefs based on epistemic authorities are inherently weaker in justification than beliefs based on evidence. This is because when knowledge is acquired through authority, there is one more element in the line that distances the believer from the truth of the belief. When someone believes an argument that is based on evidence, the link between that person and the truth of the belief is stronger. When one relies on epistemic authority, one is trusting that the authority has correctly (hopefully!) based its beliefs on a set of evidence to which the believer does not have free and independent access. The indirectness of belief provides more opportunities for errors to be made. Therefore, when a belief is supported by the statements of an authority, it is unlikely to be true, contrary to what happens with a belief that is directly based on evidence. This leads us to the following argument: Epistemic authorities are not valuable because they possess something valuable that emanates from their authority. They are valuable because they are the means by which we connect to the truth. Epistemic Authorities are useful as long as they can achieve that goal. As Richard Feldman observes:

“ Inferential rules are not excellent because they are used by experts. Rather, experts are good teachers of good methods because they have a better understanding of what is going on.” [4]

Now, none of the above is intended to minimize the importance and contribution of epistemic authorities. It is clear that we cannot have at our disposal all the relevant evidence for every possible belief. That is where Epistemic Authorities grant us access to knowledge about something without having to examine each piece of evidence in detail. The price paid for this advantage is that one puts oneself at greater risk of having acquired a belief that is not true.

To reduce this risk, it is critical that we have sufficient reasons to say that an authority is trustworthy. If there is no way to prove the trustworthiness of an authority, we would have to take one of two positions; either we blindly accept anyone who calls themselves an authority, which would lead us to make arbitrary decisions about which authorities we would trust, or we would be forced to reject all epistemic authority. As John DePoe points out:

“Authorities play a valuable epistemic role because they are sources for acquiring comprehensible beliefs and knowledge that would otherwise be inaccessible, or because they are able to bring us closer to epistemic treasures in a few steps… For me, what is most important is to choose an authority that is so with reasons, I must have solid arguments to consider it an authority in the areas where it presents itself as such.” [5]

It is impossible to have greater epistemic authority when authority is considered the main source of knowledge. Every person must continually decide whether to believe what an authority says. It is their duty to inform themselves and choose which authorities they will trust, but independent access to evidence is always necessary.

The Main Epistemic Authority

It has been clearly stated that evidence is of utmost importance when trying to prove something. There is no way to compare between the main epistemic authority and the main deontic authority. It is through evidence that we judge between various epistemic authorities and decide which ones are trustworthy. This does not deny that there can be a main epistemic authority among various authorities. For example: If I had some symptoms and went to consult two doctors to know their diagnosis. And one doctor only asks me routine questions while the other doctor performs a complete examination. Both doctors are authorities, but the one who performed the complete examination is the main authority, therefore, his diagnosis should be taken more seriously. In this case I can say that I have a main epistemic authority. It should be noted that the word “main” is within a context of comparison. I consider an authority as the main one among other authorities, but within the same area of ​​knowledge. In the same way, the Christian can make Scripture his or her primary authority among other authorities (pastors, theologians, etc.) regarding the nature, will, character, and revelation of God. So, from a certain angle, Scripture is the primary epistemic authority when compared to other authorities, since Scripture is given greater epistemic weight.

But since evidence is central to determining who has the title of authority, it maintains epistemic priority over any authority. Importantly, this suggests that evidence is not itself an authority. On this understanding of evidence and authority, the second premise of the initial argument is false. It confuses justification with authority. Although authorities have a legitimizing role, not all justification comes in the form of authority. If it did, we would have no reason to trust any purported authority as such.

A final consideration

In my view, Christians who use the “primary authority” argument understand something very different from what I have presented here. They do not claim that Scripture is solely their ultimate epistemic authority among a number of authorities on any particular subject. They seem to consider that Scripture should be our primary source of knowledge. To make belief in Scripture conditional on the existence of sufficient evidence is to admit that Scripture is not the primary source of knowledge.

I don’t understand why this is a problem for the traditional apologist. Having faith in an authority on the basis of evidence does not compromise the status of that authority or somehow make the evidence a “higher authority” in any meaningful sense. We must only recognize that evidence is necessary to believe that an authority is trustworthy in what it says. Perhaps some will find this claim unacceptable. But what is the alternative? To believe without any evidence at all? This would be epistemic irresponsibility. Indeed, it seems impossible. For surely before one can believe the teachings of Scripture, one must know them, either by hearing or reading Scripture. This shows that Scripture cannot be the primary source of knowledge.

If critics continue to claim that the traditional apologist holds evidence to be a higher authority than Scripture, then we must only respond that they are claiming that “primary authority” is synonymous with “primary source of knowledge.” This is a definition of “authority” that the traditional apologist has a right to reject. If the critic wants to continue to hold to this definition of the word, I think it is evident that they are arbitrarily creating definitions and concepts in order to accuse those who do not think like them of undermining or undermining the status and standing of Scripture. In which case, they are mucking things up. From the critics’ perspective, the traditional apologist feels no discomfort in not holding Scripture to be his “primary authority.” In doing so, the critics are putting words into the traditional apologist that no traditional apologist would say.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article I have briefly presented an objection to traditional apologetics which claims that the traditional method makes evidence an authority above Scripture. We have seen that the traditional apologist can give a two-fold response. His first response may be to assert that Scripture is his primary deontic authority, but this does not imply that it is his primary epistemic authority. If the critic argues that Scripture is also an epistemic authority, the traditional apologist can reply that epistemic authorities are limited to very specific topics. Thus, we can recognize Scripture as the primary epistemic authority for learning truths about God, but we cannot recognize it as the primary epistemic authority for finding accurate information about God. Furthermore, he can argue that evidence does not function as an epistemic authority, but rather functions as the means for recognizing the competence of an authority. Clearly, if evidence is not a type of authority, then it cannot become an authority superior to Scripture.

I therefore conclude that once we have clarified what is meant by the argument from “the authority of Scripture,” arguments such as the one offered in the introduction are either equivocal, insensitive to the nature of epistemic authorities, or confuse all justification with a type of authority. In either case, the arguments are not valid for reaching that conclusion. Therefore, the traditional apologist can confidently present evidence for Scripture without sacrificing the authority of Scripture.

Grades

[1] I speak particularly of presuppositionalists. However, similar arguments are common among various critics of apologetics. Such arguments are not exclusive to presuppositionalists.

[2] Michael J. Krueger, “The Sufficiency of the Scripture in Apologetics” TMSJ-12/1 (Spring 2001) pp. 69-87.

[3] JM Bocheński, “The Logic of Religion” New York: New York University Press, 1965, pp. 164-167.

[4] Richard Feldman, “Authoritarian Epistemology” (Earl Conee and Richard Feldman Evidentialism), New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 127.

[5] John M. DePoe, “A Classical Edentialist Response to Covenantal Epistemology,” in “Debating Christian Religious Epistemology,” New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2020 , Pages 167-168.

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary . He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and runs the YouTube channel Apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Jm85zkT

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo 

Edited by Yohangel Morales 

 

/by
¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?

¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?

By Jason Jimenez

Turn on your television and you will surely come across religious programs with someone claiming to speak for God. Go to your local bookstore, and there, I am sure you will find several books written by people who claim to have received divine revelations from God. Go on YouTube, and you will definitely see videos of preachers proclaiming, “Thus saith the Lord.”

This bombardment of “prophetic words” from thousands of voices has undoubtedly caused confusion for many Christians. In one group, you have Christians who get caught up in the sensationalism of the prophetic words espoused by the Word of Faith movement. In another group, you have Christians who doubt prophecy altogether, because they lack the faith to understand its purpose in the body of Christ. And still there are those who do not know what to believe.

So, let’s go back to the Bible to see what it has to say about prophets.

The first thing we notice about Paul is that there are prophets in the Church today. In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul mentions the office of prophet in the church. Not only that, but Paul also describes the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In fact, the gift of prophecy is mentioned more than any of the other spiritual gifts. You can find it in these passages: Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, and in Ephesians 4:11.

That said, it is vital to understand that the office of prophet in modern times is not the same as that of the Old Testament prophets. Before Jesus came to earth, God raised up prophets (Hebrew: nabi, “to utter”) or seers (spokesmen) as national leaders who spoke with specificity and 100% accuracy in their prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 23:28, 31-33). But after Christ’s ascension to heaven and the completion of the written Word, God uses His modern prophets differently than He did Samuel, Daniel, and Isaiah. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear when he opens his letter with these words: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake long ago unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” Hebrews 1:1-2 (NASB). 

Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3-4, the primary function of a prophet now is to edify, comfort, and encourage the Church. However, that does not mean that predictive prophecy is not exercised among some prophets of God. Like Agabus (in Acts 11:27-28), there are times when a prophet will give a prophetic word from God about the future. That is why we must not neglect prophecy in the Church (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). But again, the primary purpose of the gift of prophecy, in the Church age, is to encourage and exhort one another (1 Cor. 14:31). Prophets are not called by God to generate visions that others in the church cannot judge (1 Cor. 14:29).

Therefore, we should not look to the prophets for a new revelation, but for an exhortation in accordance with the illumination of the Scriptures.

Finally, the following six indicators will help you distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet.

  1. The word of a true prophet will be fulfilled. The word of prediction of a false prophet will not be fulfilled (Deut. 18; Jer. 23).
  2. A true prophet never gives a word that contradicts the Bible. A false prophet will twist Scripture to validate a dream or vision he has had. For example, false prophets will take prophecies explicitly intended for Israel and apply them to the United States, directly contradicting God’s promises in the Bible.
  3. A true prophet does not boast or have a profit motive. A false prophet boasts of having received a “prophetic word” or a vision from God as if he were divinely anointed and exploits the church for financial gain.
  4. The ministry of a true prophet aligns with what the Bible teaches. A false prophet speaks more of his heavenly visions and “prophetic words” than what the Holy Bible contextually teaches. “Your prophets saw for you false and foolish visions, and did not reveal your iniquity so that you might return from your captivity, but they saw for you false and deceptive oracles” (Lamentations 2:14).
  5. A true prophet builds up the church and points people to Jesus Christ. A false prophet does not call people to repentance but shares messages that appeal to their needs and desires. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV), “For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires; and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to myths.”
  6. The defense of a true prophet comes from the Holy Spirit. A false prophet continually tells people that he is not a false prophet.

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  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more information, visit www.standstrongministries.org .

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/9mwmCNy

 

/by
Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata

By Bob Perry

If you were looking to follow a Christian apologist you could trust completely, would you choose someone who is a world-famous figure because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the gospel? Or would you go with a diagnosed and confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might seem at first glance. In this case, I would choose the psychopath. And I would say that I am going with the recommendation of the… psychopath. But if this sounds strange to you, read on.

A Christian celebrity

Last month we learned that world-famous apologist Ravi Zacharias was leading a double life. This was admitted by the ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). On the one hand, Ravi was an extraordinary expositor of the gospel. A great thinker. Who defended the faith with clarity and with the experience provided by a rich cultural background. He truly ticked all the boxes. A man who could deal with the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate. At least outwardly.

Behind closed doors, it turned out that Ravi was a degenerate. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem downfall is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond remedy; who can understand it? ”

The psychopath

Although not as popular as Ravi Zachary, David Wood is also an extraordinary communicator. Known for being a reference on the subject of Islam. But David Wood is much more than that. Wood has a PhD in Philosophy of Religion, with a major in “the problem of evil.” He is an expert on this subject as well – mainly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. This is not my personal opinion, but a clinical diagnosis. If you wish, you can listen to his testimony here . The thirty-four minutes you spend listening to him will leave you speechless.

https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die, or even when his friends die. He admits to the difficulties he experiences as a husband and father. In his own words, he is a “mess of an individual.” He goes into more detail about why he says this, here (starting at minute 30:30).

Wood attempted to kill his father by beating him with a hammer. As a result, he served a prison sentence. It was there that he met Randy, a fellow inmate and Christian who challenged him to answer some questions—and to reflect on the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason about the existence of objective morality, and the Source of it. His story is a powerful example of why the search for truth should be our primary goal. And a reminder that the Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth—in Him alone.

Reaction to Ravi

The Ravi Zacarias case has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi’s supporters who deny the allegations against him. People in this camp tend to believe that multiple women, from all over the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously arrived at identical descriptions of Ravi’s methods and tastes. To continue to believe that is simply delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. Turning it into the latest version of the false argument that hypocritical Christians make Christianity impossible to believe. It’s ridiculous. As David Wood puts it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me believe that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi communicated is still the truth, even if it came from the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

These are the extremes. On the other hand, the most reasonable comments have come from those who have given wise counsel about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the gospel can feel empowered to demand unchecked freedom, as Ravi Zechariah did. And no ministerial leadership team should have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart referred to in Jeremiah 17:9 lives in all of us. Even those who are considered Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as a justification to cover them up. Because indeed, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. So this Christian celebrity dug himself deeper and deeper into his own sewer and never admitted that he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

On the other hand, the psychopath’s callous rationality led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the trap of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one we can trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Put your trust in no man .

The immutable truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove this point. And he won’t be the last.

Nor does being a sinner deny anyone the ability to know and live the truth… even if he or she is a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity does not reside in any human being. It rests only on the objective reality that is its Source—the character of God Himself. Men will disappoint you. But Truth does not change. And it never will.

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer for Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five adult children.

Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/qnSxsek

Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado

Edited by Amber Porta

 

/by
Las 5 personas más ilógicas que conocerás en Internet

Las 5 personas más ilógicas que conocerás en Internet

By Alisa Childers

It’s happened to many of us. We post an encouraging Bible verse like Psalm 145:9 on Facebook: ” The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all his works .” At noon an atheist somewhere on social media finds the post and leaves a lovely comment:

Seriously? Your god is good? He’s so good and compassionate that he decided to literally drown the entire world in a flood? So good that he’s okay with slavery? That god? Yeah, that sounds amazing.

The person leaving comments like these probably isn’t looking for a real conversation, but they are a great example of the abundance of bad logic waiting to be discovered in the dark corners of cyberspace. Here are the 5 most illogical people you’ll find on the Internet, and how to spot their fallacies:

1. The Straw Man

How easy do you think it would be to take down a fake man made entirely of straw? It would be a lot easier than taking down a real man, that’s for sure. This happens in the world of social media disagreements – All-The-Time. The “Straw Man” is a fallacy where someone simplifies or misrepresents their opponent’s view (builds a straw man), and then argues against that false view (takes down the straw man). Straw men can often be found in discussions about abortion:

  • You : “I think there is good scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”
  • Straw Man : “You mean women should lose their rights and this country should be sent back to the 1950s? That’s ridiculous.”

You made a claim about scientific evidence, not about women’s rights. The strawman has twisted your argument and created one that is much easier to refute.

2. The Red Herring or the Red Lure

The “Red Decoy” fallacy is committed when someone brings up an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the original point that was made. Changing the subject doesn’t actually win an argument, but it can make people forget what they were disagreeing about in the first place.

  • You : “I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.”
  • The Red Decoy : “The Bible is just a book written by humans; it is no different from any other book.”

Red bait has shifted attention from what the Bible teaches to the credibility of the Bible as a book. It is a worthy discussion, but it is a different discussion, don’t take the bait.

3. The Slanderer

This fallacy is called “Ad-Hominem,” and it attacks the character of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the person’s actual argument.

  • You : “I think it’s best for children for marriage to be between a man and a woman.”
  • The Slanderer : “You only believe this because you’re a fanatic.”

The slanderer has shifted the focus from your claim to his perception of the motive behind it, thereby avoiding the real argument. The strawman, the red herring, and the slanderer can be handled in a similar way, gently bringing them back to their original point.

4. The Self-Destructor

A self-defeator is a person who makes a statement that refutes themselves. You can spot a self-defeating statement by taking the statement being made and applying it to the statement itself.

  • You : “I believe Christianity is true.”
  • The Self-Destructor : “the truth does not exist.”

If you can spot this self-defeating statement, a simple question will bring the fallacy to the surface: “Is that true?”

5. The Gish or Machine Gun Gallop

The “Gish Gallop” (or machine gun fallacy) is a fallacy where someone introduces so many (often individually weak) arguments into a space that it is never possible to respond to them all. This happens most often in live debates, but there are “machine gun fallacies” on the internet too!

  • You : “I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”
  • The Fallacy Machine Gun: We can’t trust anything the Bible says because the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the apostles were alive, and they all tell different stories. In fact, the Old Testament stories of the Flood and Creation were simply copies of myths from the surrounding culture, and frankly, the resurrection can’t happen because science has proven that miracles aren’t possible. The story of Jesus is nothing more than a compilation of other myths about gods dying and rising in Mediterranean agrarian societies. Paul wasn’t really an apostle so we can’t trust what he said, and Jesus probably never existed anyway.

Note that the fallacy gunner has introduced several possibly related but unsubstantiated claims that no person with a real life or job would be able to sit down and answer in one sitting—it would take all day! There are several ways to deal with a fallacy gunner, but the simplest would be to stay within the scope of your original claim. You didn’t make any claims about the Bible, the Flood and Creation accounts, or Paul’s status as an apostle. You made a claim about a miracle, so that’s a good place to start.

Conclusion :

It’s easy for any of us to fall into some of these traps, so look out for these 5 illogical people while interacting on social media, and be careful not to be one yourself!

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being part of the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had one top ten radio single, four studio releases, and received a Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. Years later, Alisa experienced a profound challenge to her lifelong faith when she began attending what would later be identified as a progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa towards Christian Apologetics. You can currently read, listen to, and watch Alisa’s work online, as well as purchase her recently released book on progressive Christianity, titled Another Gospel.

Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/3nSwf67

Translated by Elias Castro

Edited by Cynthia Araya 

 

/by
Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

By Dr. Doug Potter

I have taught Christian apologetics to a wide variety of students, from 11-year-olds to seminary students. I have done so in a variety of settings; in Christian school, at church, in homes, and at graduate schools; in person and online. I have even helped bring publications to light. Teaching apologetics continues to be a challenge for me. Sometimes I think I have forgotten more apologetics than my students will ever know.

Over the years I have found that apologetics, in the realm of Christian education, is often misunderstood. For example, apologetics, while related to the following topics, is not a study of creationism, worldviews, Christian doctrine, ethics, evangelism, or the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to the student learning these foundational topics. What I am opposed to is the study of all or any of these topics being called apologetics education. So what does Christian apologetics education encompass ? It is a specialized subject whose focus is the ” use of knowledge to demonstrate that the teachings of Christianity are true .”

Because of this, it applies knowledge from three distinct but interconnected subjects: philosophy and its concern for truth, natural theology and its concern for the existence of God, and history and its concern for Christianity. The foundation of philosophy establishes the absolute nature of truth. On it is built a theistic worldview that is based on the existence of God and miracles. And in these is the historical claim that Christ is God incarnate, His resurrection from the dead, and the teaching that the Bible is the Word of God.

Reasons to teach apologetics

If I am asked for a justification for teaching this, I offer three reasons why every Christian school, church, and Christian home should begin teaching a structured course in Christian apologetics. First, the Bible says that every believer needs to be prepared to give reasoned answers.

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect.”

( 1 Peter 3:15 ) NASB ; emphasis added .

The justification for Christian education to incorporate the study of apologetics is in what it offers, as it helps the student to have a more effective and efficient preparation compared to any other form.

Second, history demonstrates its success. In the first century, the apostle Paul used apologetics to respond to attacks from Judaism, Hellenism, and early Gnosticism. In the third century, Origen used it to defend the resurrection. Augustine (335-430) used it against paganism, and Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274) argued against the intellectual expansion of Islam. There is every reason to believe that apologists today can experience the same level of success using it.

Third, there is a present need. Today’s critics will not allow their objections to Christianity to be ignored. Therefore, the thoughtful person must take them seriously. Apologists must strive to provide good answers. Many young Christians go out into the world not knowing why they believe what they believe. It is not long before they question a faith that has never offered well-reasoned answers. If they go to college, they will be schooled in so-called “academic” views that are contrary to the Christian faith. If they are outside the classroom, their non-Christian friends and the media will speak of these “academic” views as undeniable facts.

In view of these circumstances, I offer five helpful tips that can pave the way toward the educational goal of demonstrating the truth of Christianity .

1. Apologetic education must be directed toward the believer

This may seem obvious, but I have seen professors who claim to have all the answers speak things that are incomprehensible to their students and to the intellectual atheist who is not even in the classroom. My apologetics professor was a master at taking the complex and making it understandable. He did not simplify it or ignore the difficulties, but made it understandable. He instilled in me a desire to develop and practice those skills. Teaching apologetics is not intended to create a professional apologist, any more than teaching physics is our goal to create a professional in physics. Teaching apologetics should defend the faith, but it should also strengthen those who have faith. The Gospel according to Luke shows us the careful planning that goes into preparing and transmitting knowledge for the benefit of the believer:

“ Many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled  among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore I, most excellent Theophilus, have carefully investigated all these things from the very beginning and have decided to write them down to you in an orderly manner, so that you may be fully assured of what you were taught .”

(Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

2. Apologetic education must be appropriate to the age of the student.

I take seriously the words and warning of Jesus in Matthew 18:5-6,

“ And whoever welcomes one such child in My name welcomes Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. ”

(Matthew 18:5-6 NASB)

As a professional apologetics teacher, I do not believe it is fruitful to teach apologetic arguments to children who have not yet developed abstract reasoning. Let us leave them to normal Christian education. Let us not allow the child’s structure of faith and authority in his parents, his teachers, and the Bible to be damaged, even by apologetics. This does not mean that at their young age they are incapable of learning some apologetics topics. But even when they are a little older, apologetics should not be simplified, nor should reason be allowed to replace their faith. When they are old enough, move on to tip #3.

3. Apologetic education must follow a systematic plan

Not all approaches to apologetics are created equal. Given the situations and reasons above, an educational approach must use a method that demonstrates that solid and valid consecutive arguments can be formulated from scratch to the absolute truth of Christianity. As seen in the verses above, this educational approach must build cases for Christianity (Luke 1:1-4) that are useful to the believer and effective in answering the questions or objections of the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15).

Any other interest in learning a biblical subject should be part of learning apologetics. It is a branch of knowledge that must be mastered. The responsibility of the teacher includes developing objectives, structuring syllabi, using creative teaching techniques, and making assessments. The responsibility of the student includes reading the materials provided by the teacher, taking notes, listening carefully, working on projects – individual and group – and also taking exams.

4. Apologetic education must be composed of activities

We learn best when we put into practice what a respected and knowledgeable teacher teaches us. The teacher must provide students with the opportunity to succeed and the safety to fail with apologetics, all with a view to developing a lifelong learner of apologetics. One thing I have realized is that I don’t really “learn” something until I use it, and repeatedly. The more I use it, the more it becomes a part of me. My students often tell me that the most meaningful thing I did for them was “force” them to use apologetics and then reflect on and report on it. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For younger students, I set up role-playing games. For older students, I use internal discussions, mock radio or television programs, or have them talk to someone with a non-Christian worldview. Learning apologetics is also a great opportunity to integrate knowledge from many other subjects.

5. Apologetic education must recognize its limitations

Apologetics can only show that Christianity is true in its core claims like “truth is absolute,” “God exists,” “God raised Jesus from the dead,” and “the Bible is the Word of God.” It cannot make someone believe in Christ. That has to do with their will and the work of the Holy Spirit. Doctrine discovered and based solely on Scripture must be accepted as the command of God and His word. But as my apologetics professor always reminded us, “God never bypasses the mind when He addresses the heart.”

I am sometimes asked whether apologetics will keep a son or daughter from leaving the faith. People can walk away from the faith for all sorts of reasons. All I can say is that if they have received apologetic education, especially as indicated above, at least it will not have been for lack of good reasons showing that Christianity is true.

Keep in mind that young people tend to be what their parents are. The most important person to help young people stay in the faith is you. Don’t forget to ask yourself, what am I doing to improve my knowledge and skills in Christian apologetics?

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 Source: https://cutt.ly/lnZQr1y 

Translated by Rolando Vega

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo 

 

/by