Tag Archive for: Brian Chilton

Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence

Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence?

,

By Brian Chilton

Recently, news agencies filled the airwaves and the internet with the news of Stephen Hawking’s last book to be published and released posthumously. The book released on October 16, 2018, is entitled Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Hawking argues through a series of essays why he didn’t think that God existed, did not think it was possible for God to exist, and did not believe in an afterlife. He appeals to quantum mechanics and the bizarre behavior of quantum particles which seemingly appear to pop into existence from nothing to argue his case. However, it should be noted that quantum particles do not really pop into existence from nothing as philosophically understood to be “no-thing.” Rather, quantum particles derive from a quantum vacuum—a very physical thing with very physical properties and processes. Thus, while admittedly I am not a physicist nor a physicist’s son, Hawking’s claim is not honest with the scientific data.

This causes one to ask, do we have good reasons to believe in God’s existence? I would like to propose ten reasons why we can believe that he does. To be forthright, there are many, many more. These represent some of the more popular reasons to believe that there really is a God who transcends reality and a few that I think stand to reason by the very nature of the way the world works.

  1. Necessity of a First Cause (Cosmological Argument). Physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin discovered a mathematical theorem which dictates that all physical universes, including the theoretical multiverse, must have a required starting point. There was a time when physics (even quantum physics), time, and matter did not exist. How did it come to be? Atheists will argue that it just is. However, the data seems to suggest that an eternal, metaphysical (beyond the physical realm), Mind brought everything to be. That Mind would need to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. That Mind is who we know to be God.
  2. Designed Creation (Teleological Argument). Hugh Ross has argued that there are over 180 cosmological constants in the universe so finely tuned that if they were to be changed by the nth degree, life and the universe itself would not exist. Even the theoretical multiverse would need to be designed to such a degree that it would require a designer. I believe wholeheartedly that physicists will eventually find design attributes and constants in the quantum realm if they haven’t already. Design argues for a Designer.
  3. Objective Morality (Moral Argument). Leaving the scientific realm for the philosophical and ethical, objective morality argues for an Objective Lawgiver. God is the best explanation for why objective morality exists. As Brian Manuel, a good friend of mine, said recently, “We can just know certain things to be right and wrong without even being taught.” He is absolutely right! People have an innate sense of morality. That comes from a Moral Lawgiver who we know to be God.
  4. Necessary Being (Ontological Argument). In the end, one only has two options. Either an eternal nothingness (meaning again, “no-thing,” not even quantum particles) brought forth something from absolute nothingness, or an eternal Being brought everything that exists into being. The latter makes far more sense and actually adheres more to the scientific method than the former.
  5. Explanation for Data (Information Argument). Why is there anything at all? Even though the quantum world is a strange place, it still behaves according to certain laws. Why are there quantum particles? Quantum fields? Why do physical processes and procedures exist? One explanation: God. For any data to exist, a programmer must exist. That Programmer must be God himself.
  6. Science and Mathematics. Ironically, the scientific method and mathematics appeal to God’s existence. Scientists hold that the universe operates according to certain laws on a regular basis. The ability to do science itself means that human beings have been given cognitive abilities to observe the universe and, interestingly, have been placed in a position where the universe is observable. One must inadvertently appeal to the divine to even do science and mathematics. To add to this point, the beauty one finds in nature would have no real aesthetic value unless God exists.
  7. Historicity of Jesus’s Resurrection. One of the most historically provable events of ancient history is Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection is quite intriguing because he continuously appealed to God the Father to raise him from the dead. For Jesus to have risen from the dead indicates that the one whom he mentioned did what Jesus claimed he would do. The resurrection of Jesus points to a transcendent reality we call God.
  8. Miracles and Spiritual Encounters. Craig Keener wrote a two-volume work describing the many documented miracles in modern times. While God may not always perform a miracle in every circumstance, a good deal of evidence suggests that God has performed miracles throughout history. Added with the many spiritual encounters people have had with the divine provides an added case that God does indeed exist.
  9. Near-Death Experiences and Consciousness. This is a fascinating area of study. Gary Habermas has noted that there are over 100 medically confirmed cases of near-death experiences where people have died and reported events that happened on this side of eternity which could be corroborated by others. The events described along with experiences of meeting God and the feelings of peace add to the case for God’s existence. Most certainly near-death experiences prove that materialism is a dead philosophy.
  10. Purpose and Meaning. For anything to have purpose and meaning, God must exist. If Hawking is right in that the universe is all there is and there is nothing else, nothing, including his research, has any meaning or value. Meaning, value, and purpose are found only because God exists.

I could certainly list other reasons to believe in God’s existence. But these will suffice for now. Hawking was a man of great intellect. Yet, despite his great mental prowess, it is quite odd that he could never quite see the evidence for God. While he could see, he was quite blind. Hawking said that “religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark.” I believe John Lennox provided a stronger claim by noting that “atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qcNP6q

/by
Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted how 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for every person, but it seems to be a tougher concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men abstain from talking about their emotions. Many will suppress the emotional doubt and ignore it. However, such actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt may address issues concerning the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated by a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some may claim, “Hold up, Brian! You are talking that psychology mumbo-jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is quite a good practice. Paul argues the following:

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—dwell on these things” (Php. 4:6-8).[1]

The believer should focus on those things that build up one’s faith and not on worry and fears which cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.

  1. Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You may say, “I am going to certainly fail this test even though I have studied hard for it. I am too dumb to pass it.” Realize that the statements do not correspond with reality. If you have studied hard for the test, then you have learned the information which will be on the test. You are certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
  2. Remove your lies by arguing against it and give reasons for your optimism. Second, argue against the lies you are telling yourself with a positive, encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the test that it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, remind yourself that you have studied the material and have learned the material quite well. Even if the worst should happen and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it may be, it is not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
  3. Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and finally, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I am able to do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Php. 4:13, brackets mine). Realize that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). With these truths in mind, the doubts and anxieties begin to lose their grip.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers need to practice. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. Often, we are our own worst enemies as we feel too frightened to take a chance on something for playing the “what if” game. Stop letting fear and anxiety steal the thunder from the grace that God has given you. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgment” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PtiUhm

/by
Theologies that John Chapter One Combats

Theologies that John Chapter One Combats

,

By Brian Chilton

The Gospel of John has been one of my favorite Gospels since I first started studying the Bible. The Gospel of John is theologically rich as well as historically accurate. One of the important sections of John’s Gospel is found in its opening chapter. John says,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it … He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be the children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1-5, 10-14a)[1].

The best evidence suggests that John the apostle wrote these words. John bar Zebedee is confirmed as the author both by internal and external evidence (especially by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and later Eusebius).

John also confirms an additional segment of information in his first letter. He writes, “This one is the antichrist: the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father as well” (1 John 2:22-23). That is to say; the truth is that Jesus is the Word as described in John chapter 1. If one denies this truth, then one denies a core fundamental of the faith.

Such information is important to know because John chapter 1 combats three modern forms of theology that must be eschewed by the believer who seeks to accept the truth of God’s word. These three false modern doctrines will be described in this article. Note, however, that I realize that there are many good people in the groups I will discuss. Their problem is theological and not necessarily moral. Good people can hold bad theological views.

John 1 Combats Jehovah Witness/Arian Theology. The Jehovah Witness movement was started by one Charles Taze Russell. Their theology is not that original in scope as they borrow from an ancient heresy known as Arianism. Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD) was a presbyter who formulated the idea that Jesus was not really God, but rather an archangel. Jesus was the first created being according to Arian theology. Arianism was successfully combated by Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD) who stood for the orthodox Christian view that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Athanasius’s victory was not without cost. He was exiled at least three times until it was finally resolved that Athanasius’s view corresponded with biblical truth.

Unfortunately, in today’s fragmented ecclesiastical structure, there is not as much church authority to combat false doctrines such as Arianism. For that reason, Charles Taze Russell’s theology was able to succeed. He developed a very similar doctrine as Arius’s and formulated the Jehovah Witness movement. Yet, John 1 stands opposed to any claim that Jesus was merely an angel. Jesus was God (Jn. 1:1) and not a mere angelic entity. Thus, the Jehovah Witness doctrine finds itself falling short from biblical orthodoxy just as Arius’s view did.

John 1 Combats Mormon Theology. Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont on December 23, 1805. Smith claimed to have seen an angel by the name of Moroni who supposedly gave Smith a newer testament called the Book of Mormon which describes how the risen Jesus purportedly visited a group of Native Americans known as the Nephites. According to Mormon theology, Jesus was the first spirit-child originating from the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother. However, John 1 greatly combats that idea. Jesus is presented as being co-eternal with the Father. Thus, Jesus was not the first spirit-child. Rather, Jesus was God who existed since from before the beginning of all creation and who came in flesh “and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14a).

John 1 Combats New Age Theology. New Age theology holds that each person is his/her own god. Ironically, it seems that false doctrines deescalate the person of Jesus and elevate the human being, whereas orthodoxy elevates the persona of Jesus and deescalates humanity. Nevertheless, John 1 teaches that “all things were created through [Jesus], and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created” (Jn. 1:3). Thus, if “all things” (Gk. panta) really means “all things,” then human beings cannot claim to be any form of god much less their own.

Each Christian must test truth each doctrine they come across philosophically and theologically by God’s word. While we need to remember that we must love each person with whom we come into contact, we cannot accept false doctrines. Stay true to God’s word and the theological power found within its pages. Leave everything else by the wayside.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zrCe9e

/by
Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell_

Does Suicide Condemn Someone to Hell?

By Brian Chilton

NOTE: We recently received a question related to this topic so we decided to reblog this entry. We believe this is an extremely important issue we need to deal with as a Christian community.

Pastor Rick Warren and his family suffered a great loss as his son died from suicide. Suicide is the killing of one’s self.  It is a crime and a sin since there is a life taken which was made in the image of God.  Certainly, our thoughts and prayers are with the Warren family.  This post is done in sincere respect for the family.  That is why I felt led to cover this issue now, as there are many who have been affected by suicide.  With that in mind, many have theological issues with suicide.

Many ask if suicide can be forgiven.  The common thought is that suicide cannot be forgiven and immediately condemns someone to hell because the person committing the crime would not have time to ask for forgiveness after committing the sin.  Is this true?  Even more than this, is this the way we should view salvation?  In order to answer the question about suicide and salvation, we must first examine salvation itself.  So, before we answer the question of whether suicide condemns someone to hell, we must first answer the following questions: how is a person saved?  Who is it that saves?  What is the depth of salvation?  What about sins not yet committed?  After answering these questions, it will be our goal to answer the question using the fundamentals from the Bible concerning the salvation of whether suicide automatically condemns a person to hell.  First, we must ask, how is a person saved?

How is a Person Saved?

What does it mean to be saved?  Theologically speaking, it means that we have access to God and have a promise of a heavenly existence after we die.  We call it being “saved” because we recognize that we have been rescued from the penalty of sin and a rightful eternal destination in hell.  So, being saved means that one has a promise of eternal life with God in heaven.  So, how is one saved?  To answer that question, let us look at a powerful piece of Scripture by Paul written to the Ephesians.  Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.  10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”[1]  We will examine more of the passage that comes after this text later in the article.  But first, let us ask, how is it that a person is saved?

Paul makes it quite clear that salvation comes “by grace…through faith.”  The word “grace” or “charis” represents “favor,” “good will,” or “kindness.”  So, Paul is saying that it is by the good-will or charity of God that we are given salvation.  More on this in a moment.  But, what does Paul mean “through faith”?

The words “through faith” in the Greek text are “dia pisteuos” or “through faith.”  “Faith” does not mean a blind leap in the dark, but a thing that can be trusted and known with certainty.  Therefore, the text indicates that it is through a person’s dependency upon God’s gift through Christ Jesus that one can be “saved” or enter into a right relationship with God.  In other words, it is through trust and dependency upon God through Christ Jesus.  But, who is it that saves?

Who Is It that Saves?

If you followed the previous question, you can clearly see that it is God who saves.  Salvation is God’s gift to us.  We can especially see this as Paul continues to state, “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”[2]  In the Greek text, the statement ends “Theos to doron” or “God the giver.”  Paul makes this clear, even more so in the Greek text.  God is the one who gives the gift.  I cannot save myself.  You cannot save yourself.  There is only one who can give the gift of salvation… God alone.  This is critical in understanding our issue at hand.

If it is God that saves, then it is not by the actions of humanity.  It is God who calls a person to salvation.  It is God who enters a receptive heart.  It is God that cleanses.  It was God who bore the penalty for our sin.  And, it is only God who can proclaim us justified “or innocent.”  This salvation is not something that I can give you.  It is not something that you can give yourself.  It is a free gift offered by God.

Think of it like a Christmas gift.  If you were to buy a loved one a Christmas gift, you would buy the present.  You would put it in a box.  You would wrap the present (unless you can’t wrap or are just lazy).  You would give the present at the opportune time.  The only thing the person receiving the gift would do would be to open the gift and receive it.  It is the same with this salvation in which we speak.  So, we are brought before another question, what is the depth of that salvation?

What is the Depth of that Salvation?

When we ask about the depth of salvation, we are asking, how deep does salvation penetrate?  Does it cover all sins or is it a partial kind of forgiveness?  Well, let us look at some key passages that will help us understand this issue better.

The writer of Hebrews writes,

Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.  For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.[3]

 This passage is of critical importance.  The writer of Hebrews shows that Jesus is a High Priest who was sinless.  He did not have to offer up a sacrifice for Himself.  Rather, He offered up a sacrifice once for all.  This one time sacrifice covers a multitude of sins in the penitent believer.  Also, look at what is written in the first verse.  The writer of Hebrews wrote that “He is also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him.”  If this salvation is forever, then what could take it away?  Jesus gives us another hint of the depth of salvation.

Jesus Himself even states, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.  30 “I and the Father are one.”[4]  Two things stand out in this passage, as well.  One; God is greater than all.  If God says one is forgiven, who can claim otherwise?  Nobody.  Two; no one or nothing can take away one from the hand of God.  In the issue at hand, this is HUGE in understanding the outcome.  But, we must also ask, is there anything that is unforgivable?

Is there Anything Unforgivable?

Does the Bible list anything that is considered “unforgivable”?  By “unforgivable,” we are indicating something for which there is no forgiveness.  With the issue of suicide, some have elevated the crime as an unforgivable sin.  But, what is listed as unforgivable?  Do we know?  Actually, yes we do.  We know from Jesus Himself.

Jesus states, “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.  32“Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”[5] What is this unforgivable sin?

If you look at the context of the passage, earlier the Pharisees had attributed the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus to the work of Satan.  Jesus shows that attributing the work of God, more specifically the work of the Holy Spirit, to the work of the Devil is unforgivable.  Can someone reproduce this sin today?  From the text, it would seem that the only way that this sin could be reproduced is if one dies without acknowledging the Spirit’s work of salvation in and through Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the unforgivable sin is the rejection of the Spirit’s work through Christ Jesus unto death.  Notice that Jesus says that all other sin and blasphemy will be forgiven save this one.  Is suicide the unpardonable sin?  It isn’t according to the words of Jesus.

We are getting a clearer picture on the issue now.  But, we have one question that must be tackled before we formulate a conclusion on the issue of suicide and salvation.  Some would argue that suicide cannot be forgiven because the person committing the act was not able to ask for forgiveness after committing the deed.  So, what about sins not yet committed?  Are we forgiven for future sins or must we ask forgiveness after committing every specific sin?

What about Sins Not Yet Committed?

The writer of Hebrews gives us a clue to this question in the previous Scripture that we quoted in Hebrews.  Paul writes in Romans,

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.  20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[6]

 Okay, this was a lot.  But, let us look at some important principles.  First, sin entered all of humanity through the one rebellious act of the first two human beings (Adam and Eve) against God.  From that moment, all of humanity was cursed with sin.  The moment sin enters a holy race it is tainted.  It is like one spot of black paint in a gallon of white paint.  It will not be pure white anymore.  (It is like my wife trying to explain to me the difference between white and off-white.  I still have difficulties determining between the two, but there is a difference.)  Second, through Christ all human beings can be saved by His action on the cross.  Third, the righteousness that came through Christ’s actions on the cross resulted in salvation to everyone open to receive.

So, what about sins not yet committed?  When Christ died, none of us were yet alive.  Therefore, none of our sins had yet been committed.  Yet, through the action of Christ on the cross, He died for all of our sins yet to be.  When a person thinks that every minute sin must be accounted for by the asking of forgiveness by the person, it places the emphasis on human actions instead of the divine act given for us.  Anytime the emphasis is placed on human actions over God’s forgiveness, it takes away from the work on the cross and places it on human actions.  Let me illustrate why this is problematic.

Suppose a man is on his deathbed.  Perhaps he has had an estranged relationship with his brother.  Even though he has accepted Christ as his savior, he still has hard feelings for his brother.  He wanted to make things right as his brother lived in another part of the country, but never was able to do so.  Let me ask you this; suppose the man dies without making things right with his brother.  Does this action keep him from entering heaven because he has an estranged relationship with his brother?  Or even worse yet, perhaps the man told a little white lie before getting in his predicament and forgot to ask forgiveness.  Does this keep him from heaven?  You see how complicated this could become.  But, you should also see where the emphasis lies.  The emphasis is not on Christ’s work on the cross, but our actions as believers.  So, what can we make of the issue of suicide and salvation?

Conclusion:

Does the act of suicide condemn someone to hell?  Suicide does not condemn a person if the person had a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  The answer depends on whether the person who committed the act was in a right relationship with Christ Jesus.  The work of Christ on the cross atones all our sins.  That is not to say that this gives us a license to sin.  Heaven forbid.  It should bring about a transformation in one’s heart.  However, this salvation does not mean that the “saved” individual will not have troubles and trials.  It also does not promise that the Christian will always do everything right.  (By the way, this is why the Christian MUST regularly attend a Bible-believing church.  When you slip from regular Christian fellowship, the likelihood of slipping and falling increases.)  For some, depression can become an obsession.  When depression becomes an obsession, it can become an oppression for which trouble may occur.  Let’s be honest.  If you are a Christian, you strive to do what is right.  But, it is not always easy.  This happened to Paul, as well.  Paul wrote, “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.  20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.  21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.”[7] So, no one is immune to bad deeds.  Even the strongest of us can slip and fall.  So, why would we think that a bad decision would nullify one’s salvation?

This issue is very important to me.  When I had just graduated high school, I was called home from the Bible college that I was attending at the time.  I was told that my very own grandfather, of whom I was very close to, had committed suicide.  My grandfather had some medical problems where he suffered from a lack of blood flow to his brain.  He began to have delusions and had great problems with depression.  I will never know why this happened.  However, I cannot believe that God would negate the power of his forgiveness on the cross because of one major lapse in my grandfather’s decision making abilities.  To make matters worse, I was about to be confronted with this issue even harder.

When I returned to Bible college, a student attending there had heard of the incident with my grandfather.  Do you know what he said to me?  He said, “You know your grandfather is in hell don’t you?”  Really?  You are really going to tell someone that?  Even if it were true, what kind of sick perverted person says that to someone while they are grieving?  But, was he right?

No!  Some may claim that this issue has slanted my beliefs.  However, if you research the essentials of salvation which we just presented, I think you will find that suicide is not the unforgivable sin that some have purported.  Is it the result of bad decisions and faulty thinking?  Yes.  Is it serious?  Yes.  Is it wrong to commit?  Absolutely.  Is it unforgivable?  No, the grace of God is stronger.  But, this information comes with a warning.

Just because suicide is not the unforgivable sin, this does not give someone the freedom to use this as an out.  If you are contemplating suicide, get help NOW!!!  You may think that things are bad.  But, let me tell you this; you will make matters horrific for your loved ones if you take your life.  There is a help that is available to you, but you have to be willing to use it.  We are a triune person made in the image of God: body, mind, and soul.  To get spiritual help, see your pastor.  To get physical help, see your doctor.  But if you are having mental issues or bouts of depression, see a counselor or a psychologist.  There is no shame in obtaining help.  If you are contemplating suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or go to www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org.  Remember, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem!

Notes

[1] All Scripture unless otherwise noted comes from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ephesians 2:8–10.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hebrews 7:25–27.

[4] John 10:27–30.

[5] Matthew 12:31–32.

[6] Romans 5:8-9, 18–21.

[7] Romans 7:19–21.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Olwoe4

/by
True Love Must Be Reciprocated

El verdadero amor debe ser recíproco

By Brian Chilton

Recientemente estaba conversando con un amigo mío que estaba encaprichado con una persona que no necesariamente compartía los mismos sentimientos. De hecho, no era algo claro lo que la otra persona en realidad deseaba en la relación. No mencionaré más acerca de esta situación por respeto a los involucrados. Esta situación ha causado que piense bastante acerca del amor, qué es y qué es lo que implica. Me parece que para que el verdadero amor sea genuino debe ser recíproco. Eso es que, debe ser aceptado por ambos individuos en la relación. Podemos aprender bastante acerca del amor desde la relación trinitaria de Dios.

I. El amor es recíproco en la relación trinitaria.

Cuando intentamos explicar la naturaleza trinitaria de Dios, Norman Geisler usa el ejemplo del espíritu de amor genuino para explicar este difícil concepto teológico. La ilustración de Geisler no es original de él, la tomó de Agustín de Hipona. Lo siguiente es la representación de Geisler del amor en la relación trinitaria de Dios:

“Agustín sugirió una ilustración de cómo Dios es uno y tres al mismo tiempo. La Biblia nos dice que “Dios es amor” (1 Juan 4:16). El amor incluye un amante, un amado y un espíritu de amor entre el amante y el amado. El Padre podría ser comparado con el amante, el Hijo con el que es amado y el Espíritu Santo es el espíritu de amor. Sin embargo, el amor no existiría a menos que estos tres sean como uno solo. Esta ilustración tiene la ventaja de ser personal ya que incluye al amor, una característica que fluye solo de personas”[1].

Viendo que Dios es amor (1 Jn 4:16), la relación entre el Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo es una demostración del amor perfecto en su forma más pura. El amor no es forzado. El amor es aceptado y fluye de una persona a otra. Hay un amante —el que inicia el romance, el amado —el que recibe el amor del amante, y el espíritu de amor —el amor recibido mutuamente entre las dos partes. En el caso de la relación trinitaria, el amor es dado mutuamente y recibido por los tres miembros de la Deidad. Podemos aprender bastante acerca del amor a través de Dios.

II. El amor es recíproco en las relaciones humanas.

Dios es la perfecta demostración de amor como pudimos notar en la sección anterior. El ejemplo de amor de la Trinidad se transfiere a sanas relaciones amorosas humanas. ¿Cómo así? Las relaciones sanas incluyen a dos personas que se aman mutuamente. Consideremos un ejemplo hipotético de una persona A (lo llamaremos Adán) y una persona B (la llamaremos Bárbara). Digamos que Adán ama a Bárbara y expresa su amor hacia ella. Sin embargo, Bárbara no ama a Adán. Adán trata y trata de que Bárbara lo ame, pero ella no corresponde a sus emociones. ¿Es esto verdadero amor? ¡Por supuesto que no! El amor de Adán no es recíproco.

Consideremos otro caso. Digamos que Bárbara ama a Adán, pero Adán no siente lo mismo. Bárbara manipula a Adán para iniciar una relación. Se llegan a casar, pero Adán nunca tuvo los mismos sentimientos que tiene Bárbara hacia él. Esta relación no es una basada en el amor, sino en el control y la manipulación. El verdadero amor tiene que ser recíproco.

Para que el amor de Adán y Bárbara sea genuino, Adán debe expresar su amor hacia Bárbara. Bárbara debe recibir su amor. Entonces, Bárbara expresará su amor hacia Adán y su amor será recibido abiertamente. Esta relación hipotética nos muestra cómo el verdadero amor requiere un amante (el que envía amor), un amado (el que recibe el amor), y un mutuo espíritu de amor entre los dos.

III. El amor es recíproco en las relaciones humanas/divinas

Desde que el amor genuino es visto en la eterna relación trinitaria de Dios y que el verdadero amor es recíproco entre dos individuos conscientes, entonces solo tiene sentido que Dios nos inculca su amor no a la fuerza, sino por reciprocidad. Es decir, Dios ofrece libremente su amor a individuos. Él no fuerza su amor a alguien. Recuerda, ¡el amor forzado no es amor genuino! Dios dice a través de su profeta Ezequiel, “¿quiero yo la muerte del impío?… ¿no vivirá si se apartare de sus caminos?” (Eze. 18:23)[2]. Jesús dice que “y como Moisés levantó la serpiente en el desierto, así es necesario que el Hijo del Hombre sea levantado, para que todo aquel que en Él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna” (Jn 3:14-15). En este caso, Dios es el amante, y los seres humanos son los amados. Pero, el verdadero amor debe ser recíproco.

¿Pueden los individuos buscar a Dios por su propia cuenta? ¡Absolutamente no! La gracia de Dios debe ser extendida hacia ellos primero. Esta verdad es vista en la descripción de Jesús del ministerio del Espíritu Santo. Jesús muestra que el Espíritu Santo “convencerá al mundo de pecado, de justicia y de juicio. De pecado, por cuanto no creen en mí; de justicia, por cuanto voy al padre, y no me veréis más; y de juicio, por cuanto el príncipe de este mundo ha sido ya juzgado” (Jn 16:8-11). En este caso, vemos que Dios es el amante, los seres humanos son los amados y el espíritu trabajando para producir este amor es el Espíritu Santo. El amor forzado no es amor. Dios no fuerza a una persona para la salvación. Él dá su amor libremente y su amor debe ser libremente recibido, sino, no es verdadero amor.

Conclusión

Cuando aconsejo parejas que están planeando casarse, siempre les digo que, si ellos quieren amarse el uno a el otro, deben primero conocer a Dios porque Dios es amor. Porque Dios es amor y demuestra el amor perfecto, no debería sorprendernos descubrir que el amor exuda en las relaciones humanas cuando imita el amor de Dios. Los sistemas teológicos necesitan también aceptar este entendimiento del amor. El amor genuino debe tener un amante, un amado y el espíritu de amor. Sino, una relación podría existir, pero no seria una relación de amor verdadero.

Notes

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Trinity”, Enciclopedia Baker de apologética cristiana, referencia librería Baker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker books, 1999), 733.

[2] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las citas bíblicas son de Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

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

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2ri6wqu

Traducido por Italo Espinoza Gomez

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Did God Create Evil_

Did God Create Evil?

,

By Brian Chilton

After Bible study, one evening, a good friend of mine and I discussed the problem of evil. He asked an excellent question, “Did God create evil?” I said, “No, I don’t think he did.” However, my friend objected because he said, “God created everything, so he must have created evil.” This conversation was quite good, and we found common ground by the end of our discussion. This article relates some of the issues that we discussed.

One of the first issues we needed to define was the nature of evil. What do we mean when we say something is evil? He was using the term to define any type of disaster or bad thing. I was using to term to define immoral behaviors, such as torturing babies. How do we answer this question? Did God create evil? In this article, I would like to look at four common tricky areas that need to be dissected in order to answer the question.

Ontology and Epistemology of God and Evil. The terms ontology and epistemology are philosophical terms but are important to this area of conversation. One cannot neglect philosophy because bad philosophy often leads to bad theology. First, let me define the terms and how they play a role in this discussion.

Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It deals with how we know something exists. For instance, does a pizza exist? How do we know a pizza exists? These are ontological questions that deal with the nature of pizza’s existence. And oh, how tragic life would be without the existence of pizza!

Epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge[1]. This area deals with how we know something to be true. What is the nature of such and such? To use our illustration of pizza, ontology would ask, “Does pizza exist?” whereas epistemology would ask, “Is pizza good? Can we know that pizza is tasty?” So, a created thing would deal with the area of ontology, whereas the nature of the thing would deal more in the area of epistemology more or less.

When we talk about God creating all things, we must understand that God created everything that exists including the potentials to do certain things. However, if we grant the existence of human freedom, then God is not responsible for the actions that people take. Yes, God provides the means and conditions that can lead to a person’s actions and God knows the free actions that a person will take, but the person is responsible for his or her own actions[2]. Therefore, God created all things and created the conditions where a person could do good or evil. But, God did not create evil, because evil is not a thing to be created. It is not like a virus or slab of concrete. Evil is an attribute. It is a personal rejection of the good, the good which is an attribute of God.

The Moral Character of God. God is thoroughly identified in the Scriptures as being the ultimate good. John tells us that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). Scripture also indicates that God is absolutely holy, which means that he is set apart and absolutely pure (1 Sam. 2:2; 6:20; Ps. 99:9; 1 Cor. 3:17; Rev. 4:8). Since God is the absolute good and absolutely pure, it is false to claim that God does evil. James says that “No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (Jms. 1:13-15). James answers the question for us in great detail about God’s relationship to evil. God cannot do evil because God is the absolute good[3].

So, how do we know what is evil and what is good? If you are driving down a highway, you will see a sign that posts the speed limit. In town, the speed limit will most likely be 35 miles per hour. How do you know that you’re breaking the speed limit driving 55 miles per area in that zone unless there is a speed limit posted stating that one should only go 35 miles per hour? The law must exist before you can know if you’re breaking the law. Moral standards must exist before one can know that he or she is doing evil. Objective moral standards come from God. Again, evil is not something to be created. Evil stems from a rejection of God’s moral goodness.

Ra’ah, Disaster, and Evil. Let’s face it. Biblical interpretation is tough especially when it comes to the original languages. Some individuals have spent their entire lives seeking to master the biblical languages but are still left with questions. If that is the case, should those of us with less training in the biblical languages not have much more humility when it comes to such terms? I think so.

Often, Hebrew words can take several different meanings depending on context. I remember when taking Greek that Dr. Chad Thornhill would often emphasize context, context, context when interpreting a confusing term. In Hebrew, one such example is the confusion that occurs with the term ra’ah. Ra’ah describes a disaster, but it can also be used to describe something evil. Ingrid Faro explains with the following:

“For example, the Hebrew root “evil” (ra’; ra’ah; r’ ’) occurs 46 times in Genesis and is rightly translated into English using at least 20 different words, and nuanced in the Septuagint by using eight Greek forms (11 lexemes). Yet English-speaking people often incorrectly assume an underlying meaning of “sinister, moral wrong” and interject that into each use of the Hebrew word.”[4]

In Amos 5:3, it is noted that “If this is a judgment announcement against the rich, then the Hebrew phrase עֵת רָעָה (’et ra’ah) must be translated, “[a] disastrous time.” See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.”[5] Thus, the term ra’ah can indicate a disaster that has befallen a group of people and does not necessarily mean “evil” as some older translations have indicated.

But, doesn’t disaster indicate something evil? If God brings disaster, does that not indicate that God does something evil? No, not at all! God is holy. If a people are unrepentant and are unwilling to stop doing evil, then God is completely justified in bringing judgment. The disaster is not evil if it is due to justice. Like a parent disciplining a child or a judge executing judgment against a convicted criminal, disasters are sometimes the judgment of God poured out upon an unrepentant people. I think it was good that the Allies stormed into Germany to overtake the evil Adolf Hitler. Likewise, it is actually good for God to bring judgment as it coincides with his holy nature.

Evil Allowed to Permit the Ultimate Good. So, the final question that must be tackled is this: If God is good, then why would he allow evil to exist in the first place? Why would he create a condition where evil could exist? The answer to this is quite simple. God’s allowance of evil is to allow a greater good. What is that greater good? Love. For love to truly exist, it must be free. It must be freely given, freely received, and reciprocal between both parties. God could have created us as robots or automatons. But, that would not provide true love. The ultimate love was given in Jesus, who experienced the horrors of torture and experienced the just punishment that we deserve. He did so that we would have life eternally. The penalty of our eternal punishment was paid on the cross at Calvary. God lovingly confers his grace to all who would willingly receive. His grace is freely offered and is freely received. This kind of love would not be possible if God did not allow the conditions that would allow evil to exist. A greater good has come. One day, those who have trusted Christ for their salvation will no longer need to worry about evil because evil will be vanquished. The redeemed of Christ will be transformed. We will experience the bliss and glory of the heaven that awaits us. To God be the glory!

So, did God create evil? It depends on what you mean. God created the conditions for evil to exist but did so to allow a greater good which is the free love that is experienced between the Lover (God), the beloved (us), and the spirit of love between the two. Evil is not a thing to be created. Rather, it is a condition that exists when a person or group of people reject God’s goodness and his holy moral nature.

Notes

[1] “Epistemology is the discipline that deals with the theory of knowledge. The term can be broken down into epistem-ology (Gk. episteme, “to know; logos, “study”). It is the study of how we know.”[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Epistemology,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 215.

[2] In Ezekiel, God notes that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. “But suppose the man has a violent son, who sheds blood and does any of these things, though the father has done none of them… [The son] will not live! Since he has committed all these detestable acts, he will certainly die. His death will be his own fault” (Eze. 18:10-11,13). It is true that God has control over history and the like. But remember, a person is responsible for his or her actions. God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility. God does not force a person to do anything. His Spirit may woo a person to receive his salvation, but he will not force a person to do so. Unless otherwise noted all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[3] The Bible makes clear that God cannot operate in a manner that betrays his moral nature. For instance, Paul writes, “God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Ti. 1:2).

[4] Ingrid Faro, “Semantics,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[5] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Am 5:13.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KDrafD

/by
Don’t Be Overcome by Statistics, Overcome Statistics with the Gospel

Don’t Be Overcome by Statistics, Overcome Statistics with the Gospel

,

By Brian Chilton

Let’s be honest. We in the Christian world are inundated with bad news. We are bombarded with news about how the Millennial Generation is far more unbelieving than Generation X. In full disclosure, I was born at the end of what would make me a Gen-Xer. Nevertheless, pastors especially are concerned with lower numbers of people in their pews, statistics that show that giving is much lower than in times past, and denominational numbers that are dismal. I am identified as a Southern Baptist. I have heard reports that the SBC baptismal rates are the lowest they have been for quite some time.

Hearing these numbers cause great concern. As one who loves peace and security, I find myself asking some questions that are noble, like—”Will the next generation know about Christ? Will there be an evangelical presence in a future generation?”, And some questions that are admittedly more selfish, like—“Do I have job security as a pastor? Will I have enough time in ministry to retire? What will I do if I lose my position?”. Be honest. If you are in ministry, you have probably asked similar questions.

However, I have had a statement that the apostle Paul gave the Romans on my mind a lot here lately. Paul wrote, perhaps his magnum opus, to the church in Rome. Roman Christians were facing uncertain days as they were often met with persecution. In AD 49, Emperor Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. The Christian Jews were met with strife over their trust in Christ by fellow Jews. For the Christians left in Rome, they were Gentiles who were bombarded by various other competing worldviews. In the midst of this turmoil, Paul encourages them by saying, “Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good” (Rom. 12:21).[1] How can these words apply to our situation? First, let’s look at the reactions that people often have when met with opposition.

  1. Reactions to Negative Statistics.

            As an observer of people, I have noticed three negative reactions and one positive to the problems facing the church. We’ll call the three negative reactions the denying mule, the withdrawn ostrich, and the whipped pup, while the positive reaction is noted as the conquering lion.

            The Denying Mule. A mule can be a stubborn animal. If it is content to not do something, it is difficult, if not downright impossible, to get the animal to that thing. In like manner, some Christians will hear the negative statistics that are given and will deny that things are as bad as the statistics portray. Why? It is because the person is content to keep things as they are and is unwilling to change ministerial practices regardless of what may come. This is an unhealthy practice.

            The Withdrawn Ostrich. Ostriches are classically portrayed as sticking their heads in the sand when concerned. I have been told that ostriches do not actually do such a thing. However, for our analogy, we will use the famous scene. For some Christians, they are overly concerned with the bleak news, but they are unwilling are perhaps too afraid to meet the challenges that lie ahead. Therefore, instead of facing the challenges, they withdraw themselves to people like themselves and ignore the outside world. Again, this is an unhealthy practice for the evangelical Christian.

            The Whipped Pup. The third practice is that of a whipped pup. This is likened to an unfortunate puppy who has been met with horrid treatment by even worse people. We have taken in pets before that attach themselves to us, because we treat them well, but are afraid of anyone or anything else. Some Christians are like this whipped pup. They feel defeated and think that there is no hope. They feel anxious and concerned, but do not know how to improve the situation at hand. This too is an unhealthy practice.

            The Conquering Lion. The healthy response is likened to a conquering lion. This animal has confidence and faces any circumstance with the attitude and trust that he can make a difference and can see positive things take place. The conquering lion is the attitude the modern Christian needs to have. It may surprise you to know that even the United States has met times where Christianity wasn’t as strong as it was at other times. God would raise up individuals to bring change. Examples include John Wesley, George Whitefield, D. L. Moody, and more recently Billy Graham.

           2.  Ways to Overcome Negative Statistics.

            So, how do we overcome the statistics? Rather than placing an unhealthy focus on the statistics, I suggest that we take four attitudes moving forward.

            Power of Prayer. First, we need to remember that there is great power in prayer. Do you think that the power of prayer has ceased? Has God changed? Remember, God does not change, he is the same God that he has always been (Heb. 13:8; Rom. 11:29; and Num. 23:19). God hears our prayers (1 Jn. 5:14). So, if God has not changed and he still hears our prayers, why are we not praying more, asking that God does something great in our lives and in the church to change the direction that we’re going?

            Gospel Focus. We cannot ignore the statistics. However, I do not think we should make statistics our primary focus. Our primary focus should be on Christ and on fulfilling his Great Commission. We cannot control what other people do. However, we can control where we place our focus. What if every Christian and every church took the gospel seriously and tried to share their faith by both their actions and words? Why we might see another Great Awakening sooner than we thought.

            Divine Trust. Also, we must not be consumed by the negativity all around us. We must trust God in all things and understand that he does have a great plan for us and for all of history. It’s also in Romans that Paul notes that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Trust in God and in his direction.

            Genuine Love. Finally, we must not lose the focus we should all have on love. Do we really love the lost? That is a serious question we must ask ourselves. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another” (Jn. 13:35). Can people see Christ in us by the love we have? If not, we need to first have a revival within ourselves.

 Conclusion

Statistics are important. They serve as a gauge to illustrate the spiritual condition of our time. However, we cannot be consumed by the negative statistics we read and hear. For us to have a revival, no amount of human tactics will do any good. Rather, to have a true revival, God must move. He must move within us as we are the hands and feet of Jesus. So, to borrow Paul’s statement in Romans 12:21: Don’t be overcome by statistics, but overcome statistics with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Notes 

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tirl5l

/by
Ocho razones por las cuales el Sudario de Turín podría ser el paño del entierro de Jesús

Ocho razones por las cuales el Sudario de Turín podría ser el paño del entierro de Jesús

Por Brian Chilton

El Sudario de Turín es probablemente uno de los artefactos más controversiales de todos los tiempos. Es ya sea una de las reliquias santas más increíbles relacionadas a Jesús de Nazaret o es uno de los fraudes más ingeniosos que se haya inventado. El Sudario de Turín es un paño de lino de 436 cm x 113 cm que porta la imagen de un hombre crucificado que corresponde con la descripción de la manera en la que Jesús de Nazaret fue crucificado. Se muestra el frente y detrás del hombre crucificado, el frente de un lado del paño y sus espaldas en el otro lado con la cabeza hacia el medio. Las manos del hombre están cruzadas mientras las rodillas están ligeramente inclinadas. Sangre cubre el Sudario especialmente en las marcas de los clavos de las manos y los pies.

El Sudario es bastante controversial, especialmente desde 1988. Un equipo de investigadores tomó tres muestras del Sudario y las fechó usando radiocarbón en tres laboratorios independientes. La prueba mostró que el Sudario se fechaba alrededor de 1260 – 1390 D.C. por lo tanto, al parecer, demostrando que el Sudario fue un fraude medieval. Sin embargo, no se ha puesto a descansar al Sudario. Pruebas posteriores parecen elevar la probabilidad de la autenticidad del Sudario. Mientras uno investiga el Sudario, se debe entender que la resurrección de Jesús no descansa en la autenticidad del Sudario. Sin embargo, si el Sudario es auténtico, añade mayor peso a las declaraciones Cristianas. No hay manera de demostrar o refutar de manera conclusiva el Sudario. Sin embargo, los datos nos llevarán a aceptar o a rechazar la autenticidad del Sudario. De mi investigación, he encontrado 8 razones por las cuales el Sudario es probablemente el paño de entierro auténtico de Jesús.

  1. La prueba de datación de carbono de 1988 fue defectuosa. Muchos investigadores cuestionarán la declaración, sin embargo, un consenso creciente de investigadores están aceptando la noción de que la prueba de datación de Carbono en 1988 fue defectuosa (Stephen Adams, Telegraph, 2009). Está bien documentado que el Sudario fue dañado por un incendio alrededor de 1200 y fue extinguido y reparado por un grupo de monjas en la catedral donde el Sudario fue resguardado. Una persona aún puede ver las marcas del Sudario donde fue dañado. Actualmente es ampliamente aceptado que las fibras que fueron probadas en 1988 fueron las del trabajo de reparación de las monjas. Recientes estudios confirman que este fue el caso ya que colorantes fueron encontrados en las fibras que fueron examinadas, indicando que las fibras no venían del paño original (Adams, Telegraph, 2009). En 2013, un nuevo conjunto de exámenes fueron hechos en el Sudario que sitúan el paño en un tiempo alrededor del 300 a.C. al 400 d.C., cercano al tiempo de Jesús de Nazaret (Stanglin, USA Today, 2013). Por lo tanto, la prueba de 1988 no es el golpe definitivo que una vez se sostuvo que era.

    Imagen positiva a la izquierda, negativa a la derecha.

  2. La sangre del Sudario es auténtica. Los escépticos han pensado por mucho tiempo que la imagen y la sangre en el Sudario fueron pintadas en el paño. Sin embargo, se ha confirmado que la sangre y la imagen tienen orígenes separados. Cuando examinan el paño, los investigadores han notado que la sangre apareció antes que la imagen. Los investigadores del Sudario de Turín han adoptado el slogan “sangre primero, luego la imagen” para describir el Sudario. La sangre ha sido confirmada como auténtica hemoglobina y ha sido identificada como tipo AB.

    shroud-blood-660

    La sangre en el Sudario. La sangre está separada de la imagen del Santo Sudario.

  3. La imagen del Sudario no es una pintura. Como el arqueólogo Ted Wright señaló en el podcast The Bellator Christi, cuando investigamos el Sudario, podemos descartar varias cosas que el Sudario no es. Una de las cosas que han sido negadas es la idea de que el Sudario es una pintura. La imagen en el Sudario apenas tiene de profundidad algunas cuantas fibras. También, la imagen es un negativo fotográfico y es tri-dimensional. Lo que sea que la imagen es, ciertamente no vino de un pincel de un pintor.
  4. El polen en el Sudario se encuentra exclusivamente en el área de Jerusalén. Se ha encontrado polen a través del Sudario de Turín. El Dr. Max Frei notó que alrededor de la cabeza y el abdomen, hay impresiones de flores a pesar de que son difíciles de observar. El polen y las impresiones corresponden con flores encontradas alrededor de Jerusalén, incluidas las pistacia lentiscus, chrysanthemum coronarium y la gundelia tournefortii (Whanger y Whanger, Duke.edu, 2015). El Concilio del Estudio del Sudario de Turin de la Universidad de Duke señala lo siguiente:

“Mientras que hay cientos de imágenes de flores en el Sudario, muchas son vagas o incompletas. Sentimos que hemos identificado, tentativamente, pero con certeza razonable, veintiocho plantas cuyas imágenes son lo suficientemente claras y completas para hacer una buena comparación con los dibujos de la literatura botánica. De estas veintiocho plantas, veintitrés son flores, tres son pequeños arbustos, y dos son espinos. Todas crecen en Israel. Veinte crecen en el mismo Jerusalén, y las otras ocho potencialmente crecen en la vecindad de Jerusalén, ya sea en el desierto de Judea o en el área del Mar Muerto o en ambas. Todas las veintiocho habrían estado disponibles en los mercados de Jerusalén en un estado fresco” (Whanger y Whanger, Duke.edu, 2015).

Gundelia-tourneforii-thorn-from-Shroud

Gundelia tourneforii espina de la Sábana Santa (c). Consejo para el Estudio de la Sábana Santa de Turín. Duke.edu.

Estos descubrimientos sugieren que el Sudario de Turín debió de haberse originado en, o al menos estado alrededor de Jerusalén. El hecho de que el polen data del primer siglo también provee indicación de que el Sudario fue encontrado por primera vez en el Israel del primer siglo.

  1. Las heridas del hombre en el Sudario corresponden con los detalles de la crucifixión de Jesús. Cualquier examinación del arte religioso que representa la crucifixión de Jesús muestra las huellas de los clavos en las palmas de la mano. Sin embargo, el Sudario de Turín muestra las marcas de los clavos en la parte baja de la mano hacia la muñeca. Experimentos hechos en cadáveres notan que el Sudario de Turín muestran correctamente como ocurrían las crucifixiones. Además, las marcas de azotes en la espalda del hombre corresponden con las puntas de los látigos usados por los romanos del primer siglo para escarmiento.

    Jesus Hands

    Heridas de los clavos en las muñecas del hombre de la Sábana Santa.

  2. Los puntos del rostro corresponden con aquellos de los retratos más tempranos de Jesús. El Concilio para el Estudio del Sudario de Turín también hizo otra evaluación importante del Sudario. Ellos notan que las representaciones de Jesús corresponden con ciertos detalles de la imagen facial encontrada en el Sudario. El Cristo Pantocrátor en el Monasterio de Santa Catalina del Monte Sinaí es uno de los iconos religiosos bizantinos más antiguos que data hasta el siglo seis (es decir, entre el 500 y 599 d.C.). Para más información sobre la pintura del Cristo Pantocrator, ver https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantocr%C3%A1tor_del_Sina%C3%AD
  3. La posición idéntica y el tipo de sangre en el rostro del Sudario comparado con el del Sudario de Oviedo. Otro artefacto de gran interés es un paño llamado el Sudario de Oviedo. El Sudario de Oviedo es una sábana que se dice haberse situado sobre el rostro de Jesús cuando fue bajado de la cruz. El paño puede haber permanecido ahí para su entierro. El Evangelio de Juan señala la posibilidad de ambas sábanas. Juan señala, “pero el lienzo que había cubierto la cabeza de Jesús estaba doblado y colocado aparte de las otras tiras.” (Juan 20:7; NTV). Mientras que el Sudario de Oviedo no contiene una imagen facial, sí tiene una gran cantidad de sangre sobre la nariz y la frente. El Sudario de Oviedo es mencionado cerca del 570 d.C. por Antonino de Plasencia. Las marcas de sangre del sudario de Oviedo corresponden con las marcas de sangre del Sudario de Turín y también contienen la misma hemoglobina tipo AB que se encuentra en este.

    Pantocrator-Shroud-overlay

    Superposición de la ilustración Pantocrátor y la imagen del Sudario de Turín.

  4. La probabilidad de la radiación ultravioleta amplificada usada para construir la imagen en el Sudario. Una de las características más bizarras del Sudario es la radiografía de los dientes y dedos del hombre. Después de una examinación más profunda, uno notará cuadrados alrededor de la boca. Se ha descubierto que estos cuadrados son una radiografía de los dientes del hombre. Los dedos aparentan estar alargados porque una persona está viendo las falanges. Nada existía en los tiempos antiguos o medievales que pudieran producir una radiografía como esta. Se ha teorizado que cuando Jesús resucitó de la muerte, una gran cantidad de radiación emitida podría haber creado la imagen en el paño. Estudios han indicado que “la potencia de la radiación ultravioleta en vacío requerida para dibujar instantáneamente la superficie de lino que corresponde con un ser humano de altura y área del cuerpo promedios es igual a 2000 MW/cm2 * 17000 cm2 = 34 000 000 000 000 watts, lo que lo hace impráctico actualmente reproducir la imagen entera del Sudario usando un único láser excimer, dado que este poder no puede ser producido por una luz fuente VUV contruída hoy en día (la más poderosa disponible en el mercado llega a varios miles de millones de wats)” (uCatholic.com, 2016). Para hacer las cosas más interesantes, el equipo de investigación en la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro señaló que “los dispositivos de medición ya sea mal funcionaron o cesaron de funcionar en lo absoluto… análisis previos desarrollados con los instrumentos parecen haber sido distorsionados por una perturbación electromagnética.” (uCatholic.com, 2016). Esto no prueba que el Sudario se originó en la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro y no prueba que una radiación de alto poder creó la imagen en el Sudario, pero la conexión entre ambas es bastante convincente.

    Sudario de Oviedo

    Sudario de Oviedo

Conclusión

Superposición del Sudario de Oviedo y la Sábana Santa de Turín.

Superposición del Sudario de Oviedo y el Sudario de Turín.

Como el arqueólogo y apologista cristiano, Ted Wright dijo una vez, “no podemos ser completamente dogmáticos sobre el Sudario de Turín. Pero ciertamente hay una alta probabilidad de que sea genuino”. Yo creo que Wright está en lo correcto. Se debe decir que el cristiano no necesita el Sudario de Turín para proveer evidencia de la resurrección de Jesús. Sin embargo, si el Sudario de Turín es auténtico, entonces el creyente puede tener una pequeña ventana al galileo que trajo la salvación al mundo. Si no, el cristiano no pierde nada. En realidad, se trata de una situación de ganar o ganar. La evidencia documental de fuentes tanto cristianas como no cristianas son suficientes para verificar la confiabilidad de los relatos de la crucifixión y la resurrección. Pero no sería sorprendente que el mismo Jesús quien se apareció al Tomás escéptico es el mismo Jesús que dejó una reliquia que demostraría a billones y billones que Él realmente ha resucitado. ¿Podremos estar seguros que el Sudario de Turín tiene una imagen de Jesús de Nazaret? Probablemente no. Sin embargo, la evidencia parece indicar que es altamente probable que el Sudario de Turín es el paño genuino que cubrió a Jesús de Nazaret antes de su asombrosa resurrección de entre los muertos. Si es así, entonces la imagen de Jesús pudo haber sido dejada atrás, pero el Jesús real no está más ahí. ¡Él está vivo! Jesús “está a la diestra de Dios, el que también intercede por nosotros” (Romanos 8:34).

Reconstrucción de la cara en la Sábana

Reconstrucción de la cara en el Sudario.

Fuentes

Adams, Myra. “The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again” NationalReview.com (April 16, 2016). Tomado el 17 de Abril, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434153/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo

Adams, Myra. “Easter and the Shroud of Turin, ‘Nothing is Impossible with God” NationalReview.com (April 15, 2017). Retrieved April 17, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446763/easter-shroud-turin-jesus-christ-carbon-14-dating-medieval-forgery-debunked-crucifixion-resurrection

Adams, Stephen. “Turin Shroud Could be Genuine as Carbon-Dating was Flawed” Telegraph (April 10, 2009). Tomado el 17 de Abril, 2017. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

Whangler, Alan, and Mary Whanger. “Council for Study of the Turin Shroud” Duke.edu (2015). Tomado el 17 de Abril, 2017. http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/flowers-and-pollens.html.

“Scientists Who Opened Christ’s Tomb Detect Mysterious Readings that Support Shroud Theory” UCatholic.com (Diciembre 5, 2016). Tomado el 18 de Abril, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434153/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo

Stanglin, Doug. “New Test Dates Shroud of Turin to Era of Christ” USA Today (Marzo 30, 2013). Tomado el 17 de Abril, 2017. 2017.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/.

Wright, Ted. “The Resurrection of Jesus: Exploring the Archaeology—Part 1” EpicArchaeology.org (Abril 2017). Tomado el 17 de Abril, 2017. http://epicarchaeology.org/archaeology-and-the-new-testament/the-resurrection-of-jesus-exploring-the-archaeology-part-1/

 

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

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

Traducido por Raúl Jaramillo de Lira

/by
Resurrection Jesus History

10 razones para aceptar la resurrección de Jesús como un hecho histórico

Por Brian Chilton

Cuando dejé el ministerio debido a mi escepticismo, uno de los factores involucrados en mi salida se debió a la confiabilidad de los documentos del Nuevo Testamento y la resurrección de Jesús. La gente del Jesus Seminar (Seminario de Jesús) me tenian adivinando si es que podia confiar en lo que decía el Nuevo Testamento y si yo en verdad podría aceptar la literal resurrección corporal de Jesús de Nazaret. En Julio de 2005, mi vida cambió. Entré a la librería cristiana Lifeway en Winston-Salem, Carolina Del Norte y leí tres libros que han cambiado mi vida más que cualquier otro libro sin contar la Biblia. Descubrí The case for Christ (El caso de Cristo) de Lee Strobel, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (La Nueva Evidencia que exige un Veredicto) y A Ready Defense (Una defensa lista) ambos de Josh McDowell. Descubrí qué hay varias razones para aceptar la resurrección de Jesús de Nazaret como un hecho histórico.

Resurrection Jesus History

A través de los años, la evidencia ha aumentado cada vez más para la historicidad de la resurrección de Jesús. Este artículo proveerá 10 de los más fascinantes argumentos para la resurrección de Jesús de Nazaret. Esta lista no es exhaustiva y mis tratos con cada argumento son extremadamente breves. Sin embargo, espero que esta lista te provea de un punto de partida para considerar la autenticidad de la resurrección de Jesús.

  1. Los primeros testigos oculares fueron mujeres. Los primeros testigos oculares de la resurrección fueron mujeres. Todos los Evangelios cuentan que los primeros individuos en descubrir la tumba vacía fueron mujeres. Mateo cuenta que ¨Después del Sabbath, al amanecer del primer día de la semana, María Magdalena y la otra María fueron a ver la tumba… El ángel les dijo, ´No tengan miedo, porque yo sé que están buscando a Jesús quien fue crucificado. Él no está aquí. Pues ha resucitado, como dijo. Vengan a ver el lugar donde fue puesto el Señor¨ (Mateo 28:1, 5-6).[1] Las mujeres no eran tenidas en alta estima. En la cultura Greco-Romana, el testimonio de una mujer no era admisible en la corte. En los círculos Judíos, costaba el testimonio de dos mujeres para igualar al de un hombre. Si uno fuera a inventar una historia, las ultimas personas que uno colocaría como testigos principales serían mujeres, a menos que fuera cierto.
  2. Hechos mínimos sobre la resurrección. Gary Habermas ha popularizado el tan conocido argumento de hechos mínimos para la resurrección. Los datos mínimos son esas cosas que son aceptadas por casi todos los eruditos del Nuevo Testamento. Los hechos mínimos son ¨1. Jesús murió por crucifixión. 2. Los discípulos de Jesús creyeron que Él resucitó y se les apareció a ellos. 3. Pablo, el perseguidor de la iglesia, fue repentinamente cambiado. El escéptico Santiago, hermano de Jesús, fue repentinamente cambiado. 5. La tumba estaba vacía.¨[2] Estos hechos son casi aceptados universalmente por los eruditos del Nuevo Testamento, incluyendo a los liberales.
  3. Transformación de los primeros Discípulos. Como se señala en los hechos mínimos, Santiago, el hermano de Jesús, cambió de ser escéptico a creyente por la resurrección. Santiago junto a sus hermano no creían en Jesús durante los inicios de su ministerio (mire Juan 7:5). Sin embargo, Jesús se le apareció a Santiago (1 corintios 15:3-9) y Santiago se convirtió en el líder de la iglesia primitiva de Jerusalén. Su muerte es registrada por Josefo.[3] Pablo es otro ejemplo de alguien que ha sido completamente transformado por la resurrección de Jesús. Pablo había sido un perseguidor de la iglesia. Después de atestiguar al resucitado Jesús, Pablo se convirtió en un proclamador de la iglesia.
  4. Detalles vergonzosos de la resurrección. Históricamente hablando, los detalles vergonzosos añaden veracidad a una afirmación histórica. El hecho de que mujeres fueran las primeras testigos, que un miembro del Sanedrín (el mismo sanedrín que ejecuto a Jesús) tenían que darle a Jesús un entierro apropiado, y que los discípulos estaban temerosos y huyeron, todos sirven como factores vergonzosos para el propósito de la resurrección
  5. Se conoció por la disposición a morir por ello. Muchas personas morirían por lo que ellos creen que es verdad. Pero nadie moriría por algo que ellos inventaron erróneamente. Los discípulos sabían que ellos decían la verdad. Aun así, uno se da cuenta que los discípulos estaban dispuestos a morir por algo que ellos sabían que era verdad. Esteban murió apedreado (Hechos 7:54-60), Jacobo hijo de Zebedeo por una espada en las manos de Herodes (Hechos 12:2), Santiago el hermano de Jesús murió,[4] y Pedro y Pablo en las manos de Nero.[5]
  6. Evidencia documentaria. La evidencia documentaria de la resurrección de Jesús es muy buena. El historiador busca encontrar cuantas fuentes primarias y secundarias[6] se puedan juntar por un evento para determinar la historicidad de dicho evento. Con respecto a las fuentes primarias, la  resurrección tiene el reporte de Mateo, Juan y Pablo en 1 Corintios 15, incluyendo las referencias adicionales de Santiago  (si es que uno acepta que Santiago escribió la carta atribuida a él) y Judas. Las siguientes son fuentes secundarias de la resurrección: Lucas, Marcos, Clemente de Roma y de un grado menor Ireneo e Ignacio.
  7. Evidencia circunstancial. Douglas Groothius señala que la evidencia circunstancial para la historicidad de la resurrección es ¨a saber, la práctica de la iglesia primitiva al observar el bautismo, La Cena Del Señor y los domingos de adoración¨[7]. El bautismo se basa en la analogía de la muerte, entierro y resurrección de Jesús. La Cena Del Señor es un símbolo de la muerte sacrificial de Cristo. En adición, es bastante extraño que fieles Judíos cambiaron su adoración de viernes por la tarde hasta el sábado a domingo por la mañana a menos que algo de mayor importancia hubiese ocurrido el domingo por la mañana. El más importante evento de un domingo por la mañana fue la resurrección de Jesús.
  8. El motivo faltante. Warner Wallace ha señalado en sus conferencias y libros que cuando una conspiración se forma, hay tres factores motivantes detrás de tal movimiento—poder, codicia, y/o lujuria.[8] Los discípulos no tendrían ningún poder por afirmar la resurrección como historia. Ellos andaban por ahí mientras estaban siendo amenazados por los Judíos y autoridades Romanas. En cuanto a la codicia, ellos enseñaron que uno no debería desear posesiones terrenales sino espirituales. La lujuria no era un factor tampoco. Ellos enseñaban el celibato antes del matrimonio y fidelidad marital después del matrimonio. De hecho, N. T. Wright señala su libro clásico, The Resurrection of the Son of God (La resurrección del Hijo de Dios), que los discípulos no tenían una motivación teológica tras afirmar que Jesús ha resucitado de entre los muertos como si ellos estuviesen anticipando un héroe militar y una resurrección final al acabar el tiempo. ¿Qué factores motivacionales existían para estos discípulos inventar tal historia? ¡Ninguna! La única razón por la que los discípulos enseñaron la resurrección es por que la resurrección de Jesús había ocurrido.
  9. Atestación enemiga de la resurrección. Históricamente hablando, si uno sostiene la atestación enemiga a un evento, entonces el evento se fortalece. Cuando uno considera las reclamaciones de las autoridades de que los discípulos habían robado el cuerpo de Jesús  (Mateo  28:11-15), el testimonio de la resurrección se fortalece. La creencia primitiva de que los discípulos habían robado el cuerpo de Jesús se fortalece debido al descubrimiento de la inscripción de Nazaret que ordena a pena capital para cualquiera que robe un cuerpo de su tumba[9]. Asimismo, varias referencias de Jesús y su resurrección incluyen citas de Josefo[10], Tacito,[11] y Suetonio[12] entre otros (incluyendo el Talmud Babilonico).
  10. Múltiples testigos oculares post-resurrección. Finalmente, hay multiples testimonios de testigos oculares pertenecientes a la resurrección de Jesús. Varias personas han visto a Jesús vivo por un periodo de 40 días. Los testigos oculares incluyen a María Magdalena (Juan. 20:10-18), la mujer en la tumba acompañando a María (Mateo. 28:1-10), los guardianes romanos (Mateo 28:4), los once discípulos (Juan 21), los dos hombres en el camino a Emaús ( Lucas 24:13-35), un indeterminado número de discípulos (Mateo 28:16-20), más de 500 discípulos (1 Corintios 15:6), a Santiago (1 Corintios 15:7) y a Pablo (1 Corintios 15:8-9). Estoy seguro que hubieron muchos otros testigos que no son identificados.

Conclusión:

Muchas otras evidencias podrían ser dadas para la resurrección de Jesús. Pensando acerca de los métodos de historia, uno debe entender que hay una razon por la que los americanos aceptan como el primer presidente de Estados Unidos a George Washington y no a Bob Esponja. La historia respalda la afirmación que Washington fue el primer presidente. De la misma manera, la historia respalda la realidad de la resurrección de Jesús. Ahora la pregunta es esta: ¿qué harás con dicha información? Algunos trataran de ignorar el evento. Algunos trataran de desacreditarlo. Otros trataran de reconocer la naturaleza objetiva del evento y adorar a Jesús como el Señor resucitado. Es mi oración que hagas lo último.

Notas

[1] Salvo que se indique lo contrario, toda la escritura mencionada proviene de Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017)

[2] Gary R. Habermas y Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48-50, 64-69.

[3] Josefo, Antioquia XX.200

[4] Ibid.

[5] Eusebio, historia de a¡la iglesia XV.5.

[6] Fuentes primarias son documentos escritos por testigos oculares.

Fuentes secundarias son documentos escritos por individuos que conocen a los testigos oculares. Por ejemplo, mi abuelo fue un testigo ocular de la más grande  batalla naval en la historia de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. De la información que mi papá junto de el, el seria una fuente secundaria, mientras mi abuelo seria una fuente primaria.

[7] Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith  (Downers Grove;  Nottingham, UK:  IVP Academic; Apollos, 2011), 553-554

[8] Mire J. Warner Wallace,“Rapid Response: I Think the Disciples Lied About the Resurrection”, Cold-case  Christianity.com  (Octubre 17, 2016), recuperado 11 de Abril, 2017, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/rapid-response-i-think-the-disciples-lied-about-the-resurrection/.

[9] Mire http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.

[10] Josefo, Antioquia XX.9.1.

[11] Tacito, Anales XV.

[12] Suetonio, Lives of the Caesars-Claudius 25 y Suetonio, Lives of the Caesar-Nero 16.

 

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

Blog Original:  http://bit.ly/2ppUPKK

Traducido por Italo Espinoza Gómez.

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada.

/by
True Love Must Be Reciprocated

True Love Must Be Reciprocated

By Brian Chilton

Recently, I was talking to a friend of mine who was infatuated with a person who did not necessarily share the same sentiments. In fact, it was not certain what the other person really desired in their relationship. I will not mention anything more about this situation out of respect for those involved. This situation has caused me to do a lot of thinking about love, what it is, and what it entails. It seems to me that for true love to be genuine it must be reciprocated. That is, it must be accepted by both individuals in the relationship. We can learn a lot about love from God’s triune relationship.

I. Love is reciprocated in the Triune relationship.

When attempting to explain the triune nature of God, Norman Geisler uses the example of the genuine spirit of love to explain this difficult theological concept. Geisler’s illustration is not original to him; rather he took it from Augustine of Hippo. The following is Geisler’s depiction of love in the triune relationship of God:

“Augustine suggested an illustration of how God is both three and one at the same time. The Bible informs us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16). Love involves a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love between lover and loved. The Father might be likened to the Lover; the Son to the One loved, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love does not exist unless these three are united as one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal since it involves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons.”[1]

Seeing that God is love (1 Jn. 4:16), the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a demonstration of perfect love in its purest form. Love is not forced. Love is accepted and flows from person to person. There is a lover—one initiating the love, a beloved—the one receiving the love from the lover, and the spirit of love—a mutual received love between both parties. In the case of the triune relationship, this love is mutually given and received by all three members of the Godhead. We can learn a lot about love from God.

II. Love is reciprocated in human relationships.

God is the perfect demonstration of love as we noted in the previous section. The loving example of the Trinity is carried over into healthy loving human relationships. How so? Healthy relationships involve two people who mutually love one another. Let’s consider a hypothetical example of person A (we’ll call Adam) and person B (we’ll call Barbara). Say Adam loves Barbara and expresses his love towards her. Yet, Barbara does not love Adam in return. Adam tries and tries to make Barbara love him, but she does not return his emotions. Is this true love? Absolutely not! Adam’s love is not reciprocated.

Let’s consider another case. Say Barbara loves Adam, but Adam doesn’t return the favor. Barbara manipulates Adam into a relationship. They get married, but Adam never has the feelings for Barbara that she has for him. This relationship is not one based on love, but rather control and manipulation. True love must be reciprocated.

For Adam and Barbara’s love to be genuine, Adam must express his love to Barbara. Barbara must receive his love. Therefore, Barbara will express her love to Adam and her love will also be openly received. This hypothetical relationship notes how that true love requires a lover (one sending the love), a beloved (one receiving love), and a mutual spirit of love between the two.

III. Love is reciprocated in divine/human relationships.

Since genuine love is seen in God’s eternal triune relationship and that true love is reciprocated between two consenting individuals, then it only makes sense that God instill his love upon us not by force, but by reciprocation. That is to say, God freely offers his love to individuals. He doesn’t force his love on an individual. Remember, forced love is not genuine love! God says through his prophet Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?… Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?” (Eze. 18:23).[2] Jesus says that “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn. 3:15). In this case, God is the lover, and human beings are the beloved. But, the love must be reciprocated.

Can individuals seek God on their own? Absolutely not! God’s grace must be extended to them first. This truth is seen in Jesus’s description of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Jesus notes that the Holy Spirit will “convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: About sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (Jn. 16:8-9). In this case, we see that God is the lover, human beings are the beloved, and the Spirit working to produce this love is the Holy Spirit. Forced love is not love, though. God does not force a person to salvation. He freely gives his love and his love must freely be received, otherwise, it is not true love.

Conclusion

When I counsel couples looking to get married, I always tell them that if they want to love one another, they must first know God because God is love. Because God is love and demonstrates perfect love, we should not be surprised to find that love is exuded in human relationships when it mimics God’s love. Theological systems need to also accept this understanding of love. Genuine love must have a lover, a beloved, and the spirit of love. Otherwise, a relationship may exist, but it is not a truly loving relationship.

Notes 

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Trinity,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 733.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ri6wqu

/by