Tag Archive for: Apologistas

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

 

Por J. Brian Huffling

En el 2004, comencé a cursar una maestría en Apologética Cristiana en el “Southern Evangelical Seminary”. Realmente no conocía mucho del tema, solo quería saber cómo defender la fe cristiana y tener una mejor justificación para mis propias creencias. Me di cuenta que tanto cristianos como no cristianos mantenían debates acerca de la veracidad de la fe, pero no tenía idea que los cristianos debatían entre sí acerca de cómo –e incluso si– se debía practicar la defensa de la fe. Existen distintas perspectivas acerca de si se debe hacer apologética o no, y de la forma en que se debe llevar a cabo. Este artículo describirá, brevemente, diversos métodos de apologética y presentará un argumento acerca de la superioridad del método clásico.

Diversos Métodos

Apologética Clásica

La apologética clásica ha sido conocida como el método de dos pasos. El primer paso, es demostrar la existencia de Dios mediante las pruebas teístas tradicionales (los diversos argumentos cosmológicos, los argumentos del diseño, los ontológicos, etc.). Este método se apoya en la posibilidad de la teología natural —la habilidad que tiene el razonamiento para demostrar la existencia de Dios. Este primer paso no demuestra que el cristianismo sea cierto, sino el monoteísmo.  El Segundo paso es demostrar la veracidad del cristianismo al presentar, por ejemplo, (aunque no necesariamente de esta manera exacta), que los milagros son posibles, la Biblia es confiable, Jesús afirmó y demostró que Él era Dios, etc. Se conoce como el método “clásico” porque ha sido el método clásico y tradicional utilizado a través de los tiempos. Entre algunos defensores se encuentran Agustín, Anselmo, Tomás de Aquino, William Paley, integrantes de la Universidad de Princeton tales como B. B. Warfield, Norman Geisler y R. C. Sproul (entre muchos otros). Algunos libros clásicos de apologética son: “Christian Apologetics” (La Apologética Cristiana) de Norman Geisler y No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo de Frank Turek y Norman Geisler.

Apologética Evidencial

Los apologistas evidenciales no pretenden demostrar que Dios existe. Algunos lo hacen porque no creen que la teología natural sea posible; otros piensan que simplemente es mucho más fácil empezar con la defensa bíblica. Van directamente a las evidencias para demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero a partir de campos como la historia y la arqueología. Para ellos, esto evita los argumentos y las objeciones filosóficas difíciles. La gente, comúnmente, es más propensa a entender la historia y cosas por el estilo. La idea es; si podemos demostrar que la Biblia es confiable y que Jesús fue resucitado de entre los muertos, entonces una persona razonable se convencerá de que el cristianismo es verdadero. Eso incluiría la existencia de Dios. Entre los defensores de esta perspectiva se encuentran Joseph Butler, Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas y Michael Licona, entre otros. Algunas de las obras de la apologética evidencial son The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (La defensa de la resurrección de Jesús) de Gary Habermas y Michael Licona, y Nueva Evidencia que demanda un veredicto de Josh McDowell.

Apologética Presuposicional

La apologética presuposicional es directamente contraria a la apologética clásica, ya que sus seguidores rechazan la idea de que podemos razonar en cuanto a la existencia de Dios. Los apologistas presuposicionalistas argumentan que debemos presuponer la verdad del cristianismo y demostrar que todas las demás cosmovisiones (y religiones) son falsas. Los presuposicionalistas llegan al punto de concluir que uno no puede razonar del todo (ni dar cuenta de su capacidad para razonar) sin el cristianismo ser verdadero. Ellos afirman que debemos argumentar de manera trascendental, al demostrar que la racionalidad en sí presupone la veracidad del cristianismo y que cualquier cosmovisión ajena a él, fracasa. El conocido presuposicionalista Greg Bahnsen dijo en su debate con R. C. Sproul que él no podía saber que su auto estuviera en el estacionamiento de la playa, sin presuponer la existencia del Dios Trino. En un debate que mantuve con un presuposicionalista, fui desafiado a explicar cómo podía saber que el árbol está fuera de mi ventana sin presuponer la veracidad del cristianismo. Los que apoyan este método alegan que debemos defender el cristianismo en base a la imposibilidad de lo contrario. En otras palabras, debido a que se ha comprobado que las demás cosmovisiones y religiones son falsas, el cristianismo debe ser verdadero. Los defensores de este método son Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Clark, John Frame y K. Scott Oliphant. Algunas obras de la apologética presuposicional son “Christian Apologetics” (La apologética cristiana) de Cornelius Van Til y “Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended” (La apologética presuposicional: afirmada y defendida) de Greg Bahnsen.

Caso Apologético Acumulativo

Algunos apologistas afirman que debemos tomar lo mejor de todos estos métodos y utilizar el enfoque del caso apologético acumulativo. Es decir, debemos tomar los mejores argumentos de cada método y usarlos enfocándonos en la idea principal. Paul Feinberg toma esta postura en “Five Views on Apologetics” (Cinco perspectivas de la apologética). Este es un buen libro para buscar más información sobre esta perspectiva.

La superioridad de la apologética clásica

Con este breve resumen, uno puede preguntarse, ¿qué método es mejor?, o ¿por qué no utilizar el caso apologético acumulativo y tomamos lo bueno de cada modelo? Ahora, estaré argumentando sobre la superioridad del método clásico.

En primer lugar, la Biblia dice que podemos conocer acerca de Dios por medio de la naturaleza. Pablo, en Romanos 1:19-20 dice:

“1:18 Porque la ira de Dios se revela desde el cielo contra toda impiedad e injusticia de los hombres que detienen con injusticia la verdad; 1:19 porque lo que de Dios se conoce les es manifiesto, pues Dios se lo manifestó.  1:20 Porque las cosas invisibles de él, su eterno poder y deidad, se hacen claramente visibles desde la creación del mundo, siendo entendidas por medio de las cosas hechas”

Por lo tanto, no solo podemos conocer que Dios existe por medio de la naturaleza, sino que también podemos tener una idea de cómo es Él. Si Dios puede darse a conocer por medio de la naturaleza, entonces existe la posibilidad de que tal conocimiento se pueda usar en forma de un argumento lógico. La única pregunta que nos queda es, “¿Estos argumentos son sólidos?” Bueno, esa ya es otra pregunta, pero al menos, desde el punto de vista bíblico, parecen ser posibles. Por lo tanto, resulta difícil ver cómo alguien puede alegar que la Biblia no enseña la teología natural.

Además, parece que muchos de los argumentos teístas son sólidos desde un punto de vista racional. Por ejemplo, si el universo es un ser contingente y no puede dar razón de su propia existencia, y una causa que produce un efecto no puede continuar hasta el infinito, entonces parece que, en algún punto, debemos llegar a una causa que no sea contingente, sino necesaria. Tal causa debe ser Dios.

Segundo, la apologética clásica comienza un paso antes de argumentar a favor de Dios; comienza por conocer la realidad y la naturaleza de la verdad absoluta. En una era de relativismo, debemos responder objeciones tales como: “Bueno, eso puede ser verdad para ti, pero no para mí”. Además, la apologética clásica trata con asuntos filosóficos básicos de la metafísica (la naturaleza de la realidad) y la epistemología (cómo conocemos la realidad) de una manera más sólida e intencionada que en los otros métodos.

Tercero, la apologética clásica utiliza las evidencias a favor del cristianismo en un contexto teísta. Como lo afirma Norman Geisler: “No puede haber actos de Dios a menos que haya un Dios que pueda actuar”. Además, como ha dicho C. S. Lewis, si Dios existe, entonces no podemos rechazar la posibilidad de los milagros. Establecer la existencia de Dios, antes de pasar a los milagros, nos ayuda a que estos datos tengan más sentido. También, los milagros son señales de algo. No fueron solamente maravillas; ellos demostraban o señalaban hacia algo. Por ejemplo, los milagros que Jesús realizó demostraron quien él dijo ser. Como lo dijo Nicodemo, solamente alguien que tuviera el poder de Dios tenía la capacidad de hacer las obras que él hizo. Finalmente, por muy tonto que pudiera sonar, alguien podría afirmar que los eventos como el de la resurrección pudo haber sido llevado a cabo de una forma sobrehumana, como por los extraterrestres. Sé que es ridículo, pero es una objeción que se debe vencer si no se ha establecido la existencia de Dios. En resumen, las evidencias en favor de la Biblia y el cristianismo están allí, pero cobran más sentido y son más poderosas después de haberlas colocado en un contexto teísta.

Cuarto, la apologética presuposicional tiene muchos problemas. Los mismos presuposicionalistas admiten que su postura es circular. Sin embargo, ellos alegan que todas las perspectivas son circulares. Por ejemplo, dicen que la noción de que no podemos evitar el razonamiento es circular, pues cualquier intento de rechazar esa postura requeriría el uso de la razón. Sin embargo, ese no es un problema circular, pues es básicamente innegable que razonar sea inevitable en las discusiones o en los argumentos. Uno no usa la razón para probar la razón; sino que simplemente está diciendo que es inevitable e innegable. Sin embargo, asumir que una postura es verdadera y demostrarla desde esa misma postura es la definición de la circularidad. Además, alegar que podemos demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero en base a la imposibilidad de lo contrario es simplemente un error. La contrariedad es una relación lógica entre dos afirmaciones. De este modo, cuando nos referimos a las afirmaciones que son contrarias, estamos hablando de la naturaleza de la lógica. Las afirmaciones (y únicamente las afirmaciones) son opuestas cuando ambas pueden ser falsas, pero ninguna de las dos puede ser verdadera. Por ejemplo, las afirmaciones “El cristianismo es verdadero” y “El ateísmo es verdadero” son opuestas ya que ambas pueden ser lógicamente falsas. Pero, debido a que ambas pueden ser falsas, jamás podríamos probar la verdad del cristianismo al demostrar la falsedad de sus contrarios. Además, el presunto argumento trascendental para el cristianismo auténtico nunca ha sido articulado, menos aún, defendido. Créeme, si existe un argumento que garantice una victoria sin importar que… yo lo quiero. Desafortunadamente, no existe. Nadie se ha dado por vencido. A Bahnsen se le ha dado muchas oportunidades en su debate con Sproul, pero no tuvo éxito.

Entonces, ¿por qué no tomar lo mejor de todos los métodos y utilizar el enfoque del caso apologético acumulativo? Porque lo mejor de cada método ya es propio del modelo clásico. El modelo clásico es más exhaustivo que los demás, coloca los milagros y las evidencias en un contexto teísta y evita los problemas del presuposicionalismo. De este modo, la apologética clásica es el modelo más sólido y el más completo.

Entre las obras sobre apologética se incluyen: “Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith” (La fe tiene sus razones: enfoques integradores para defender la fe cristiana), de Ken Boa y Robert Bowman (este es mi favorito) y “Five Views on Apologetics” (Cinco perspectivas sobre la apologética).

 


J. Brian Huffling, PH.D., cuenta con una Licenciatura en Historia de la Universidad de Lee, una Licenciatura en Apologética (con 3 especializaciones), Filosofía y Estudios Bíblicos del Seminario Evangélico del Sur (SES, por sus siglas en inglés), y un Doctorado en Filosofía de la Religión de la misma institución. Es el Director del Programa de Doctorado y Profesor Asociado de Filosofía y Teología en el SES. También dicta cursos en la Academia En Línea de Apología. Anteriormente, ha enseñado en el Instituto de las Artes de Charlotte. Ha prestado servicios en la Infantería de Marina, en la Armada y actualmente, sirve como capellán de reserva en las Fuerzas Aéreas en la Base Aérea Maxwell. Entre sus aficiones se incluyen el golf, la astronomía casera, las artes marciales y la guitarra.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ZcyYsq

Traducido por Leonardo Padilla

Editado por Billy Morales Mujica

By Chris Du-Pond

I am a Christian apologist. I am an engineer by profession.

My nature values ​​reason, logic, truth and objectivity. However, those of us who are inclined to apologetics are susceptible to falling into errors that can cost us dearly. I am going to be very honest and, to some extent, open my heart a little to prevent you from falling into the same errors.

Therefore, in this section, I want to present 7 common mistakes that we apologists make in the area of ​​spiritual formation:

Mistake #1. Confusing apologetics study with devotional time

When I was studying for my master’s degree in apologetics at Biola University, I took a class called “Spiritual Formation.” The book we used for the class is “The Quest for Godliness” by J.I. Packer. This book speaks of the closeness and passion of being connected to the Creator on a spiritual level. A book that impacted me deeply and confronted me with my intellectuality in need of spirituality. Studying Leibniz’s cosmological argument, the ontological argument, or the fine-tuning of the universe is NOT a substitute for spending time in prayer and contemplation with God. It is as if I invited my wife to dinner and during dinner, instead of spending time with her, looking into her eyes, listening to her voice…instead, I started interviewing her for a job. Studying God is not the same as loving Him. Studying apologetics or theology does not make you more spiritual or wiser. Don’t neglect your intimate time with God.

Mistake #2. Minimizing Personal Experience and Miracles

There is a tendency for many apologists to emphasize the objective and forget the subjective, especially among young apologists who are just starting out on this path. It is true that in apologetics the purpose is to SHOW that Christianity is true, but we forget that external evidence is not the only way God manifests Himself. A personal experience can encourage other believers. God continues to perform miracles and we must remain open to them without turning them into idols. Otherwise, we can close ourselves off to a rich spiritual life. I am not suggesting that we become mystics, but that we be open to God at all times and in all the ways He manifests Himself. Otherwise, we can miss out on rich blessings.

Mistake #3. Arguing to win the argument

The apologist who says he has never been guilty of this is lying. We are fallen beings with inflated egos, and too much knowledge can inflate your ego even more. The result is bragging and presumption. I am not saying that there should never be a place for debate against opponents of Christianity in a public forum. In such a setting the audience is the most important thing. But we must be very wise in how we contend for the faith and with whom we contend. But the most important thing is, with what intention are we contending: is it for the glory of God or for our own glory?

Error #4. The Discouragement of Loneliness

The typical apologist tends to be a loner and often misunderstood. Knowing the truth can give you a sense of urgency that most believers don’t share. Many don’t understand what apologetics is for, and most don’t even know what it is. This can be depressing. The feeling is like being in a castle under siege, and half of your soldiers won’t listen to you and the other half don’t care that barbarians have arrived at the gate and are about to tear it down. The best strategy is to find a few soldiers who do care and then spread the word and educate the rest. You’ll soon have a small team of “special forces” to team up with.

If you had told me five years ago that interest in apologetics would explode in Latin America as it has done so far, I don’t think I would have believed it. There is much to do, but there is also much to be encouraged about.

Mistake #5. Reading about apologetics instead of DOING apologetics

When I first began to study apologetics seriously, I found myself spending a lot of time watching debates, reading books, listening to podcasts, talking about apologetics with my apologist friends. At social gatherings I only wanted to talk about apologetics. The only thing I did NOT do was use apologetics as a tool for evangelism.

Apologetics is not an end in itself, but a tool. It is the heavy artillery in the battle of the gospel. The war tank to demolish arguments that rise up against the knowledge of Christ. Let us not lose our compass: if you are going to learn apologetics, it is not to inflate your ego, it is to remove obstacles so that people can see the cross of Christ clearly. If you have the gift of learning, use the knowledge to lead others to Christ or at least to bring them closer to the cross. Not to boast about how much you know. And the more you know, the more will be demanded of you.

How many people have you shared the gospel with this week? This month? This year?

Mistake #6. Not looking for a Mentor

It is very important to have a mentor to guide you, not so much in apologetics but in a spiritual way. Some questions that we should let a mentor ask us are:

  • Are you spending time in DELIGHT with God? It is not only important to spend time with God. It is more important to delight in Him than to fulfill a duty.
  • Are you living a holy life, separate from sin?
  • When you study the Bible, are you seeking HIS glory and not your own?
  • Are you asking others to pray for your needs?
  • Are you using your Spiritual Gifts wisely?

Having a mentor who is wiser than yourself is essential to cultivating a fruitful Christian life. But you must be willing to give him or her the authority to ask you honest and difficult questions. Looking back, whatever little or much I have accomplished in the area of ​​apologetics has been because of other people who have pushed, encouraged, and guided me. We all need help. Let us be humble in seeking it.

Mistake #7. Wanting to be an apologist like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias… (or name your favorite apologist or theologian).

When you start out in apologetics, you can be dazzled by the brilliance of certain apologists. It’s okay to admire certain people and learn from them. But even the most brilliant apologists are fallen beings in need of grace . The only one worthy of imitation is Jesus. Let’s not make apologists our idols of the moment. I’ve been in apologetics circles for many years and a few years ago I became very disillusioned with some of them (when I got to know them better) of whom I had formed an idealized image. Don’t try to imitate them. It’s not worth it. One of my teachers, Sean McDowell, son of the well-known apologist, Josh McDowell, struggled for years with this. A woman once told him after one of his talks, “You did well, but I like your dad better.” One day he realized and said to himself, “I’m not my dad, and I’ll never be like my dad. I am going to dedicate myself to being what God wants me to be… not a reproduction of someone else.”

God wants you, above all, to be obedient and to use your gifts wisely. Be faithful with whatever God has given you, whether it be a little or a lot, and He will bless you and give you more if He believes it is so. Don’t try to imitate others. Be better every day and imitate Jesus.

Final Note

Ultimately, everything we do must be motivated by love: love for God and love for people. That requires that every time we do apologetics, we clothe ourselves in love and kindness. I like Dallas Willard’s words on this subject:

“Like Jesus, we must seek to reach out to others in love in a spirit of humility without coercion. The only way to do this is to present our defense with gentleness, as help given in love in Jesus’ way. But that’s not all. That means our communication must be gentle, because gentleness is also characteristic of the subject of our communication. What we seek to defend or explain is Jesus himself, who is the gentle and kind shepherd. If we are not gentle in the way we communicate the good news, how will people be able to find the gentle and loving Messiah we want to show them?”

 


Chris Du-Pond is a Computer Systems Engineer from the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, specializing in relational databases. Chris graduated with honors from Biola University with a Masters in Christian Apologetics and studied under apologists such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Sean McDowell, Clay Jones, and JP Moreland among others. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. He currently attends Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston, TX, with his wife Katya and two daughters, Juliette and Giselle, where he teaches an advanced theology class.