Tag Archive for: Dios

¿Podemos legislar la moral?

By Melissa Dougherty

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

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

How can morality be legislated?

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

Spoiler alert

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

Fascinating!

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

What should be legislated is the moral law.

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Translated by Yatniel Vega García
Edited by Mónica Pirateque

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

 

 

/by

¿Quién hizo a Dios?

By Bobby Conway

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

God is the uncreated Creator.

He is the origin without beginning.

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

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

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

God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia

 

 

/by

16 argumentos malos de los ateos y cómo responder a ellos

Por Jeremy Linn

Con la llegada del Final Four de la NCAA a las ciudades gemelas este fin de semana, parece apropiado tener nuestro propio Torneo de la Locura de Marzo. En lugar de equipos universitarios, construimos un ranking con algunos de los “principales” malos argumentos ateos.

A continuación enumeramos 16 de estos malos argumentos y enumeramos al menos un problema con el argumento de cada uno. Se podría decir mucho más sobre cada uno de estos argumentos, por lo que presentamos este artículo con el riesgo de parecer superficiales.  Sin embargo, el objetivo de este artículo no es dar una respuesta exhaustiva a cada uno de los argumentos, sino dar ideas para una respuesta inicial a los mismos.

Para cada uno de los argumentos, damos un ejemplo de pregunta que puedes hacer para entender mejor de dónde viene la persona que dio el argumento. El objetivo es escuchar y comprender, en lugar de dominar y derribar.

Ahora que tenemos esos precursores, aquí están los 16 malos argumentos ateos y cómo responder a ellos.

Argumento #1: ¿Quién creó a Dios?

Esta pregunta se formula bajo el supuesto de que Dios necesita un creador. Esta suposición tergiversa la concepción cristiana de Dios, en la que Dios es la causa necesaria de toda la creación.

Pregunta: ¿Por qué crees que un cristiano diría que nadie creó a Dios?

Argumento #2: Jesús nunca existió

Esta objeción va en contra de las conclusiones de casi todos los eruditos dedicados a la historia bíblica y romana, junto con la evidencia de los libros del Nuevo Testamento y las fuentes extrabíblicas.

Pregunta: ¿Cómo llegaste a la conclusión de que Jesús nunca existió?

Argumento #3: Los ateos creen solo en un dios menos que los cristianos

Algunos ateos intentan utilizar este argumento para demostrar que no hay mucha diferencia entre ellos y los cristianos. Después de todo, los cristianos son “ateos” para miles de dioses de otras religiones ya que no creen en esos dioses.

El problema es que hay una gran diferencia entre un teísta (como un cristiano) y un ateo. Los teístas creen en un creador supremo y personal del Universo. Los ateos no. Esta diferencia tiene enormes implicaciones en la forma en que cada uno lleva su vida.

Pregunta: ¿Crees que hay alguna diferencia importante entre los cristianos y los ateos?

Argumento #4: Creer en Dios es como creer en Santa Claus o en los duendes.

Esta afirmación llama a Dios “inventado”, al nivel de algo como Santa Claus. Pero el cristiano afirma tener pruebas de Dios, y casi nadie afirma tener pruebas de un verdadero Santa Claus. La supuesta evidencia de Dios no puede ser simplemente descartada con esta tonta afirmación.

Pregunta: ¿Crees que hay pruebas de la existencia de Dios?

Argumento #5: Los evangelios están llenos de mitos

Esta objeción ignora por completo la definición de mito en la literatura antigua. Un mito se remonta al pasado para entender cómo se produjo algo en el presente. Los evangelios se escribieron como una narración histórica, hablando de cosas que estaban sucediendo en ese momento.

Pregunta: ¿A qué te refieres cuando utilizas la palabra “mito”?

Argumento #6: La fe es una creencia sin evidencia

Esta definición de la fe es claramente una falacia de hombre de paja de la posición cristiana. La mayoría de los cristianos consideran que la fe implica algún tipo de confianza personal. El aspecto de la confianza en la fe es simplemente ignorado por la definición de “sin evidencia”.

Pregunta: ¿Cómo crees que los cristianos definirían típicamente la “fe”?

Argumento #7: No hay evidencia de Dios

Los cristianos afirman tener argumentos filosóficos para la existencia de Dios. Parece que esos argumentos podrían proporcionar al menos un poco de evidencia para Dios, incluso si un ateo no considera la evidencia cerca de satisfactoria. Los ateos que usan esta frase están exagerando su caso.

Pregunta: ¿Qué tipo de evidencia necesitarías ver para estar convencido de que hay al menos alguna evidencia de Dios?

Argumento #8: Dios es un maníaco esclavizador

La idea es que Dios es una especie de dictador que nos dice lo que tenemos que hacer y creer y nos amenaza con enviarnos al infierno si no le hacemos caso. Pero esta caracterización de Dios contrasta con la idea de que Dios ofrece una opción para que escapemos de la “esclavitud” del pecado y experimentemos la vida como debe ser vivida.

Pregunta: ¿Crees que Dios nos da la posibilidad de elegir cómo vivir nuestras vidas?

Argumento #9: La ciencia refuta a Dios

Este es uno de los argumentos más amplios de la lista. Hay muchos campos en la ciencia, y algunos conceptos sobre Dios no tienen ninguna relación con esos campos. ¿Qué se dice exactamente aquí? Es necesario dar más detalles antes de que pueda haber una discusión sustancial.

Pregunta: ¿Cuál es una forma en que la ciencia refuta a Dios?

Argumento #10: Las historias de Jesús cambiaron como en el juego del teléfono

La historia dice… ¿Conoces el juego del teléfono? ¿Empiezas con una frase y luego la cambias después de pasarla de persona a persona? Pues eso es lo que ocurrió cuando las historias de Jesús se transmitieron de persona a persona.

Esta objeción no tiene en cuenta el aspecto comunitario de la tradición oral: las personas podían contrastar sus relatos entre sí. La objeción también hace que se cuestione la fiabilidad de toda la historia antigua.

Pregunta: ¿En qué se diferencia la forma de difundir los relatos en la historia antigua del juego del teléfono?

Argumento #11: Si te hubieras criado en otro lugar creerías otra cosa

Esta es una de las objeciones más comunes al cristianismo: si creces en un país de Oriente Medio, serás musulmán, no cristiano. Aunque este concepto tiene algo de verdad, está lleno de suposiciones sin fundamento. Tampoco tiene mucho efecto en la cuestión de si Dios existe realmente o no.

Pregunta: ¿Cómo sabes que creo en lo que creo por el lugar donde crecí?

Argumento #12: Los ateos pueden ser buenos sin creer en Dios

Esta afirmación es cierta en el sentido de que las personas que no creen en Dios pueden tomar decisiones que sean morales. Pero la afirmación ignora el fundamento del bien: la cuestión de qué causó la existencia de los deberes morales objetivos.

Pregunta: Estoy de acuerdo en que los ateos pueden hacer cosas buenas sin creer en Dios. Pero, ¿qué causó la existencia del “bien” y del “mal” en primer lugar?

Argumento #13: La religión es tóxica

La idea aquí es que el pensamiento religioso siempre motiva acciones que son malas. Un problema de esta idea es que “religión” es un término muy amplio. Pone a las personas que siguen todo tipo de religiones bajo un mismo paraguas, aunque las diferencias entre esas religiones sean muy marcadas. También resta importancia a cualquier acción potencialmente “buena” realizada por motivos religiosos.

Pregunta: ¿Te refieres a una religión concreta o dices que todas las religiones son tóxicas?

Argumento #14: Jesús es solo una copia de los dioses paganos

Este argumento parece poderoso en la superficie ya que los ateos apilan rasgos similares entre Jesús y los dioses paganos – “nacido de una virgen”, “resucitado”, “nacido el 25 de diciembre”, etc. Pero cuando se profundiza en las fuentes primarias de los dioses paganos, se encuentra que los rasgos no se alinean con las historias reales de esos dioses.

Pregunta: ¿De qué dios es Jesús una copia, y cómo lo sabes?

Argumento #15: El Monstruo de Espagueti Volador

Los nuevos ateos pretenden hacer un comentario al mencionar esta criatura ficticia: que se pueden asignar los atributos de Dios a cualquier cosa al azar. Pero muchos ateos que mencionan a la criatura ahora parecen hacerlo para burlarse de las ideas religiosas en lugar de hacer un punto sustancial sobre ellas. En general, un ateo que menciona a la criatura hoy en día acaba pareciendo más ridículo que reflexivo.

Pregunta: ¿Qué relevancia tiene el Monstruo de Espagueti Volador para lo que tú dices sobre Dios?

Argumento #16: Los cristianos nunca se ponen de acuerdo

El argumento es el siguiente: Como los cristianos parecen estar siempre en desacuerdo sobre todo, está claro que Dios no está involucrado en todo el proceso. Este argumento es increíblemente amplio e incalculable: no se sabe qué grado de acuerdo tendría que haber para que el objetor dejara de ver un problema. También ignora que el “mero cristianismo” -la divinidad, la muerte y la resurrección de Jesucristo- está casi totalmente acordado entre los cristianos.

Pregunta: ¿Qué grado de acuerdo necesitarías ver entre los cristianos para dejar de considerar esta objeción como un problema?

Conclusion

Esperamos que esta lista le dé una mejor idea de cómo responder a estos malos argumentos cuando se presenten. Esperamos que el Final Four también venga a las ciudades gemelas el próximo año para que podamos hacer algo como esto de nuevo. Como mínimo, ha sido divertido.

 

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jeremy es el cofundador del ministerio Twin Cities Apologetics y es contable de un bufete de abogados en Minneapolis, Minnesota. También está estudiando en el Seminario Bethel para obtener un título de posgrado en un programa llamado Pensamiento Cristiano (¡básicamente Apologética!). Fuera de la Apologética, Jeremy disfruta de los deportes, tocar la guitarra y hacer videos.

Fuente Original del blog: http://bit.ly/2DaNPe5

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez 

Editado por Monica Pirateque 

 

/by

La necesidad de la apologética en la iglesia local

By Maggie Hendrick

Apologetics, when done gently and respectfully (1 Peter 3:15), is beneficial in evangelism, as we see the Holy Spirit using it over and over again in Scripture through Paul’s “reasoning” and “persuasion” to draw souls to the Lord. However, in this article, I will show how apologetics in the local church has other benefits: equipping the saints and preventing apostasy. Of course, our entire Christian walk should be dedicated to evangelism; that is a fact.

But, in order not to sound too internally focused, I want to show that apologetics has benefits for believers themselves and why the local church is the best source for implementing them.

Apologetics is useful in: Making disciples

The Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands believers to make disciples, not converts. This is an important distinction for apologetics, as it has many benefits and goals. We know that apologetics can be used in evangelism to lead to conversion, as Paul did in Acts, but it doesn’t stop there. The church needs to motivate love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12), help them keep their faith firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14), and encourage them to love God with their mind (Matthew 22:37). Apologetics can be used in all of these—not limited to a classroom or specialized ministry, but throughout the local church.

The local church is essential to equipping believers. But what should we be equipped with? Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the FULL armor of God so that we can withstand the wiles of the devil. Apologetics helps strengthen our faith, “that is able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one” and helps us “stand firm” with the “belt of truth.” Often local churches focus on “the breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation,” but we need the full armor of God.

The church is founded on the Word of God, and must compare everything to it. Apologetics is another aid to knowing our Creator through the study of His creation, as well as helping us to love Him with our minds. Apologetics is not a substitute for Bible study or preaching, but is a useful tool used simultaneously to produce richer study and preaching. Therefore, it is not only helpful in evangelism as Paul used it, but also through making stronger and wiser disciples with a faith built on a solid foundation.

Evangelization+

Apologetics is not only used at the time of evangelism, but also before it. This is a huge benefit of incorporating apologetics into the church. Fear paralyzes congregants more than pastors want to admit. Of course, no matter how much we know, we can still feel nervous before sharing the gospel. However, the confidence that comes from being able to defend our faith, through apologetics, alleviates those fears and can lead to more conversations and encounters with unbelievers about the gospel. I experienced this myself when I was a 16-year-old girl heading to Utah to share my faith with Mormons. I knew very little and never wanted to be the one to initiate or speak in conversations. The more I studied, the more confident and able I was to share and defend my faith grew. This made me WANT to initiate conversations and continue sharing the gospel even when I got home. Having a congregation that can share the gospel more effectively and clearly, while also increasing the number of times they actually share it, should be an encouragement to pastors to embrace apologetics.

If the focus of apologetics in a local church is geared toward benefiting believers (not just reaching unbelievers) the church will have stronger congregants who will be better able to spur one another on to love and good works. This is because apologetics equips the saints to live out the Christian worldview outside the walls of the church…which includes evangelism! It is not a means for believers to quarrel with one another over trivial matters, but is used to fine-tune one another to better resist false ideologies and the evils of the world.

Preventing apostasy

“Now he who received seed on rocky places is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. Yet he has no deep root in himself, but is temporary. And when affliction or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately stumbles and falls.” Matthew 13:20-21

Another important aspect of a local church is helping the saints persevere and hold fast their faith to the end. Apologetics is a helpful tool in preventing apostasy. I have experienced this benefit of apologetics personally. If I had not attended a youth group so committed to equipping us before college, I would have been eaten alive there. Ultimately, being a Christian at a secular college is HARD. Our sinful hearts sometimes don’t “feel like” living out the Christian faith or even “want” to do so. But I felt like Peter, when Jesus asked him if he wanted to go too. Simon Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) No matter how I felt each day, the gospel is true, and my faith is based on truth and not feelings.

A local church may think that apologetics is not necessary since it is growing and its members are evangelizing. I would caution against that belief because, just as apologetics helps equip us to share the Good News, it also protects us. Even though it may seem like everyone has a strong faith and is not struggling with doubt, we know that many have and will leave the faith because they do not feel they have a good reason to believe it is true.

If we don’t give believers good reasons for their faith, it will be much easier for the world to shake that faith when life gets tough. Speaking of apologetics as a training avenue, William Lane Craig says, “Unfortunately, our churches have dropped the ball in this area. It is insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and engaging devotional thoughts. We need to train our children for war.” [1] The world is at war with us. That’s why we need the whole armor of God.

Apologetics helps us formulate sufficient answers to the world’s tough questions. At some point (if not already), we will be faced with tough questions. If our faith resembles blind faith, or is built on feelings, it can be more easily shaken. Therefore, the local church must cultivate strong faith in its congregants so that “we are no longer children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human craftiness, by deceitful schemes.” ( Ephesians 4:14) 

How can pastors incorporate apologetics?

Everyone has questions. Only those who know everything don’t have questions, and that of course, is not any of us. Even pastors and church leaders have questions…and questions are a good thing! The local church should encourage their congregation to ask questions so they can join them in finding quality answers. Pastors should share the questions they themselves have had, how they have found the answers (within the church body and not the world), and even invite their congregants to ask questions to emphasize the benefits of faithfully asking and seeking the truth. This type of culture within a church will lead to loving God with their minds, no longer cowering in doubt. After all, we know that JESUS ​​IS THE TRUTH and therefore we know that we have true and genuine answers to give. There is no need to be afraid of questions when the truth is on our side.

Apologetics can be implemented in all teaching ministries of a local church. Of course, you can do specific series on these topics or organize apologetics events, but apologetics can be brought to all areas without leaving aside expository preaching. Find time in all teaching moments in the church to introduce some apologetics. Even if it is not overt apologetics, it is about creating a culture in which members can grow in their knowledge of the Lord, while receiving answers to their questions or doubts within the walls of the church.

If not for you, do it for them

As I have discussed many benefits of apologetics in a local church and practical ways to implement it, I must emphasize that apologetics must be taught early. Apologetics is not just for adults and should not be limited to the main pulpit. It should not even be limited to college or high school students. Apologetics begins when the children’s questions begin. As a mother of four young children, I can attest to how early it begins.

We should not answer any of our children’s questions with “because the Bible says so” for the same reason we reject our own parents’ “reason” of “because I said so.” These kinds of explanations didn’t satisfy us then, and they certainly won’t satisfy our children, ESPECIALLY if the question concerns big life issues and not just why they should make their bed. John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle write:

“Challenges that undermine the authority of God’s Word cannot go unanswered. And we cannot simply claim that the Bible is God’s authoritative book and expect children to simply believe us. Young people must understand the nature of biblical authority. They must have good reasons to trust the Bible as God’s Word.” [2]

We have better answers than “because the Bible says so,” so let’s give them!

Another important reason to start young is that we must begin before we feel the urgent need to do so. As J. Warner Wallace writes, “According to statistics, young Christians decide to leave the church long before they tell anyone, and usually before they leave their parents’ home… That’s why it’s so important that we start early, even before your children verbalize their questions.” [3] Many times, parents jump into apologetics when it’s too late. Even though your children may ask you questions, if you don’t give them sufficient answers, they won’t stop asking—they’ll stop asking YOU. We must lead them to the truth in a satisfactory and complete way, or we’ll find them looking elsewhere for answers.

Conclusion

Apologetics is needed in the local church, in every ministry, and for every age. Even if a believer doesn’t personally believe they need apologetics or good reasons for their own faith, why take the risk and not protect themselves from the apostasy the Bible regularly warns against? And even if they don’t ultimately need apologetics for themselves, someone they love does. And to be a wise “disciple,” we must have good answers to give or risk having them turn to the world for answers.

We need apologetics in the local church to equip us to better know and love God with our minds, train and encourage us to evangelize, prepare us to better disciple young believers, and protect ourselves (and others) from the deceptive ideologies of this world and from falling into apostasy. The church is responsible for equipping its congregation, and therefore, it must implement apologetics regularly.

Now let’s fasten our belts of truth and get to work!

Footnotes:

[1] William Lane Craig. “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?: Reasonable Faith.” Who Needs It? Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/apologetics/christian-apologetics-who-needs-it/. 

[2] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. A Practical Guide to Culture. David C. Cook, 2020. 309.

[3] Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace. So the Next Generation Will Know. David C Cook, 2019. 41.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maggie is Curtis’ wife, a stay-at-home wife. She is the mother of their sons Troy (in heaven), Ty, Jay, Palin, and Boyd. She received her BA in Religious Studies from Chapman University and her MA in Christian Apologetics and Evangelism from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. She is currently the coordinator of the Immersive Bible Experience at Maven where she has the joy of planning trips for Christian youth to share their faith with Mormons in Utah. In addition to her love for Christian youth and Mormon ministry, she is a pro-life and adoption advocate. She has a deep love for babies and has been nicknamed “the baby whisperer.” You’ll likely find her curled up on the couch with one of her sons while eating bacon and drinking a glass of chocolate milk (Nesquik, of course).

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

Translated by Jennifer Chavez 

Edited by Monica Pirateque 

 

/by

Ingeniería de sistemas en la naturaleza

By Cathryn Buse

Before I had children, I worked as a systems engineer at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Throughout my career, I met many brilliant scientists and engineers who were committed Christians. But I also encountered a lot of intellectual skepticism toward Christianity, especially on the question of the existence of God.

The question of God’s existence is one of the most persistent challenges facing Christians. How can we adequately answer that question, especially when the person asking it has a scientific mindset? One way is through evidence of design, something known as the “teleological argument.” It simply means that where there is design, planning, and order, there must be a Designer, Planner, and Organizer behind it. Something designed cannot be explained by a natural process or material cause alone; design requires intelligence.

So if there is design in the universe, then there must be a designer. But is there design in the universe?

Atheists say there isn’t. Before we can adequately answer that, we need to determine what constitutes something being “designed.” It’s not just that a system looks complicated or has a lot of parts. For something to be designed, it requires a number of components that are well-matched, placed, and integrated to make it work, but that wouldn’t work if any of those parts were removed. Something like that would require a designer with intelligence and foresight to select the right components, at the appropriate size, and integrate them together so that they can function and ultimately survive and reproduce.

From my experience, I like to refer to this as systems engineering in nature. Part of my job at NASA was reviewing the design of the Ares I upper stage to make sure each system was properly integrated so the vehicle could launch. For example, I checked to see if the propulsion lines were too close to an electronics box because of the extremely cold temperatures of liquid hydrogen and oxygen. Or I made sure battery boxes were located near a human access point so they could be changed on the launch pad. I also checked to see if a valve that needed power from the launch tower had a connector on the umbilical board. One of my favorite projects was making sure the vehicle could be shipped without damage. A vehicle needs covers, environmental controls, and other ground support equipment, especially since it travels horizontally but sits vertically on the launch pad.

As you can see, a NASA launch vehicle requires a lot of systems engineering and a lot of smart design. Each system must be designed in conjunction with the others so that they all work together. If one system changes something, it can have devastating effects on the other systems. It must be a collaborative design effort. A launch vehicle will not work if only one system is in place while the others are being built. The propulsion system must work with the airframe design, the air navigation, the software, the thrust vector control system, and the engine. If one of the components is removed, the vehicle will either not be able to take off or worse, it will have a catastrophic failure.

Therefore, the launch vehicle needs all these systems and their components to be functional and integrated at the same time in order to work. A successful launch vehicle requires planning, order and design; it requires intelligence – and lots of designers.

Of course, a launch vehicle is obviously man-made. But is there anything comparable in nature? If we can show a biological feature that requires systems engineering, then it, like that launch vehicle, could not have been formed by natural or material causes. It must be explained by some intelligent power behind it.

Fortunately, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to find design in nature. We can find systems engineering in the interrelationships of the organ systems in the human body. For example, the circulatory system pumps oxygenated blood from the heart to the other parts of the body so they can work. The bloodstream then returns the deoxygenated blood to the heart. But the circulatory system can’t deliver oxygenated blood on its own. It needs the respiratory system to get the oxygen. Tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, transfer oxygen from the lungs to the blood vessels. When the deoxygenated blood is returned, the blood cells transfer carbon dioxide and water, the cell’s waste products, back to the alveoli so they can be exhaled. The circulatory system, therefore, is pretty much useless without the respiratory system.

However, both systems are dependent on the nervous system. The hypothalamus section of the brain controls the autonomic functions of the body – vital functions that our body performs continuously without us thinking about them, such as breathing and the pumping of the heart. Without this part of the brain and the network of nerves that runs from it through the spinal cord to the organs themselves, our circulatory and respiratory systems would not be able to function.

The circulatory system also depends on the muscular system. The heart is a specific type of muscle made up of a specific kind of cells that allows it to contract and pump blood throughout the body. And it even depends on the skeletal system. Bone marrow produces the red and white blood cells and platelets that the heart is responsible for pumping throughout our body. Without the skeletal system, there would be no blood to pump.

Even the urinary system is necessary for the circulatory system to function. All of the body’s blood circulates through the kidneys, where waste chemicals and excess water are filtered out. The kidneys return clean blood to the bloodstream. There is also an interrelationship between the circulatory system and the endocrine system. Hormones from the adrenal gland can speed up the heart rate when they sense danger so that you can flee quickly. Hormones from the pancreas serve to control blood sugar levels, which can be deadly if not properly maintained.

We know that everything in our body depends on blood flow, but it’s clear that our blood flow depends on everything else in the body as well. The human body is the epitome of systems engineering design. What does the body look like? It sounds like that launch vehicle where the propulsion system needs the structural system, the air navigation system, the programming, and the engine before it can take off.

Now, if the launch vehicle is missing a system, it cannot take off; resupplying astronauts or sending new missions into space is delayed until the design can be completed. But if the human body is missing a system, it cannot live. All of these body systems must appear at the same time, in the same place, fully functional and integrated for life to exist. And like the Ares I launch vehicle, its existence cannot be explained by a random natural process. The human body is uniquely and perfectly designed. And design requires a Designer.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cathryn S. Buse is a former NASA engineer turned Christian apologist and writer. She is the author of Teaching Others to Defend Christianity and the founder of Defend the Faith Ministry. Cathryn is now a homeschooling mother of two young children. You can learn more about her and her ministry at www.defendthefaithministry.com.

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

Translated by Jennifer Chavez 

Edited by Monica Pirateque 

 

/by

Viviendo en la cultura de la Post Verdad

By Bob Perry 

I have shown that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective properties of the world we live in. I hope those three articles have been of interest to you. Please don’t go thinking that what you are about to read are unimportant doctrines or viewpoints. They are not. We are living in a post-truth culture. And yet it is a place where the nature and qualities of truth, goodness, and beauty are of the utmost importance. Our view of objective truth completely affects the way we live our lives. It is the antidote to moral relativism. Truth is important. And understanding the depth of this simple fact will radically change the way you interact with the world. Here is why.

But is faith belief without evidence? Is it something else? Here are the Top Five Reasons Why Faith Is Not What You Think It Is.

The assumptions of culture

Consider the three values ​​I’ve been talking about. And remember the way others often talk about them: Truth — “That may be true for you, but not for me.” Goodness — “Don’t try to impose your moral standards on me!”  Beauty — “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Despite thousands of years of human knowledge and experience, modern-day culture has made each of these values ​​subjective. They have suddenly become things we decide for ourselves. In fact, if you were to say that the concepts for each of these values ​​are not subjective, you would be treated as an arrogant, oppressive Neanderthal who wants to impose his personal values ​​on the rest of the world. Who do you think you are to do that?!

The world is upside down

We live in cultural relativism. The place where we are expected to accept the idea that any individual’s opinion on any subject is equally valid. And remember that awkward definition of truth as “what corresponds to reality”? It’s a thing of the past. The new normal is that our highest aspiration is to “be true to ourselves .” But what exactly does that mean?

Follow your heart

When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, you don’t need much imagination to know what’s next. Feelings rule. You’re encouraged to “follow your heart.” And following your heart means you evaluate reality by relying on emotions rather than using reason and logic. If it feels good, do it. “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad…” Sherlyl Crow. Living according to reality has become passé. An archaic obstacle. But there’s a problem with that. And the problem is that “persistent belief in something that doesn’t fit reality” is called delusion. Our culture has embedded delusion into the arts. Our culture has elevated delusion to an art form.

Philosophy is about the real world

It turns out that all this discussion of truth, goodness, and beauty goes beyond a pastime of self-absorbed philosophers. These ideas have consequences in the real world. Ideas are always put into practice. Good or bad, we live in a world where those ideas will be put into practice.  And so we see the consequences of erroneous beliefs about state policies and about the families and relationships of community members on which our politics depend. We hear about it on the news—and also in the false rumors that are generated on both sides of the political spectrum. We suffer the repercussions for denying the reality of the economic situation of the country. And our children and grandchildren will pay—in the broadest literal sense—the price for these deliberate delusions. Above all, we see it in the glorification of sexual autonomy that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. The denial of reality is at the core of issues such as abortion, sexual licentiousness, transsexualism, and homosexual behavior. Defending each of them can only be chronic madness.

Faith communities are not immune

The Church is certainly not immune to the corrosive acid of bad reasoning. The Word of Faith Movement, Universalism, and so-called “progressive” Christianity are proof that you can find nonsensical nonsense. And each of these social ills has found ways to creep into the church. When we strip away the window dressing, we see that the problems in our culture are not new. In fact, they are as old as humanity itself. The rejection of truth, goodness, and beauty began soon after we arrived on the scene. The fall of man was the first moment where human beings used their free will to exchange God’s truth for a lie. Since then, we have only expanded the boundaries of that futile exercise. The good news is that the antidote to bad reasoning remains the same. Seek truth in all its forms. Then align your life with it.  The Church should never be a safe space for bad ideas. It should be a place where people are treated with kindness and respect, but also a place where corrupt reasoning ceases to exist. Bob Perry is a Christian apologist who writes, teaches, and speaks on the subject of Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org . He is a senior writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also written articles for Touchstone , and Salvo . Bob is a professional pilot with 37 years of experience in military and commercial aviation. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the US Naval Academy , and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University . He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. Their five children are grown.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3Q6FQSi

Translated by Jennifer Chavez 

Edited by Monica Pirateque 

 

/by
Confrontando la homosexualidad en la cultura de la identidad (parte 1)

Confrontando la homosexualidad en la cultura de la identidad (parte 1)

Por Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

¿Conoces el nombre? Desconozco el porqué lo sabrías, pero Lil Nas X se ha convertido en un pequeño ícono cultural en recientes años. Escribió una exitosa canción country/hip-hop en 2019 llamada “Old Town Road” con la estrella del country Billy Ray Cyrus. El éxito de este éxito impulsó a Lil Nas X a la fama moderna. La canción, y su remix, ganó catorce premios desde los Grammys hasta los “Kids’ Choice Awards”[1].

Como resultado, Lil Nas X estuvo de gira por el país cantando para niños de primaria y fueron citadas sus palabras cuando dijo que los pequeños eran su “audiencia coro”[2] a inicios del 2021.

¿Por qué estoy escribiendo acerca de Lil Nas X en un sitio web Cristiano?

Bueno, este hombre que compite por la atención de ojos y oídos de los niños hace poco sacó un nuevo video musical que es todo menos “apto para los niños”. En su canción Montero, se puede ver a Lil Nas X coqueteando con el Diablo, el Diablo lame su ombligo, baila en un tubo que desciende al infierno, y le hace un baile erótico a Satán sobre su regazo en el inframundo. Al final del video, Lil Nas x le rompe el cuello a Satanás y le quita la corona, declarándose como el rey del infierno (lo cual sabemos que es inexacto, teológicamente hablando… Satanás no gobierna el infierno -lee Rescuing Hell [Salvando el infierno]).

Para capitalizar el éxito viral del video, Lil Nas X se asoció con una empresa de mercadeo llamada MSCHF (un juego de letras para escribir engaño -en inglés-) para sacar a la venta unos tenis con la etiqueta de Nike (Nike ya demandó a MSCHF por infracción a los derechos de autor) dedicados a Satanás[3].

Lil Nas X también resulta ser un hombre gay . Lo cual no sería relevante en la lista de problemas con las maniobras publicitarias antes mencionadas, pero como Lil Nas X utilizó su educación como catalizador para el lanzamiento de la nueva canción y el vídeo, es pertinente para la conversación[4].

Aunque este artículo no es acerca de Lil Nas X, o los tenis de Satanás, o la cada vez mayor carga de los dogmas de la izquierda sobre nuestros niños.

Quería analizar la cuestión central en torno a la canción de Lil Nas X, y una cuestión central que se da en los círculos evangélicos desde hace más de una década.

Homosexualidad.

Hace algunas semanas, recibí un texto de una persona joven  con preocupación sobre este tema:

“Quiero investigar el punto de vista de Dios acerca de la homosexualidad porque he visto muchas posturas diferentes en TikTok e Instagram y otras redes pero podrían ser herejías o interpretación errónea o algo más y quiero averiguarlo por mi cuenta”.

En el libro de Sean y Josh McDowell The Beauty of Intolerance[5] (La belleza de la Intolerancia), ambos intentan derribar el problema de la Verdad y del Amor y usan de ejemplo el argumento de la familia acerca de la sexualidad como motor para la discusión. Si no has leído el libro, es una buena lectura y va al grano de la cultura actual de una nueva tolerancia que busca complicidad, en lugar de aceptación, a la narrativa de valores morales subjetivos.

Pero el argumento sobre la homosexualidad dentro de la Iglesia se remonta a décadas, así que ¿Qué es lo nuevo? La novedad del problema proviene de la pobre aproximación al problema de la homosexualidad en las décadas de 1970 a 1990 por parte de la iglesia evangélica conservadora. Se hablaba poco de la homosexualidad y a menudo se consideraba una cuestión política más que de pecado. Resalto algo de esto en un artículo anterior en el sitio web Free Thinking Ministry’s[6] (belleza de artículo) así que no voy a entrar en toda la historia aquí.

Sin embargo, creo que es más importante notar que el argumento que los cristianos no atendieron durante ese tiempo fue si la homosexualidad era o no algo de elección o genético.

El argumento decía que si era algo de elección, podríamos corregir la homosexualidad; pero si era genético, entonces no podríamos. Este argumento también implicaba que la inclinación natural podría ser un comportamiento establecido por Dios.

Recuerdo haber crecido en los años 90 escuchando a muchos evangélicos hablar como si fuera absolutamente imperativo que nunca se encontrara un “gen gay”. .  Casi como si el descubrimiento científico pudiese hacer temblar miles de años de ortodoxia en el tema.

Pero en el caso bíblico contra el comportamiento homosexual no es genético.

Es espiritual y bíblico.

La genética fue afectada por la caída tanto como nuestro estado espiritual, y lo sabemos. Cuando decimos algo como “al final, ya no habrá más enfermedad o muerte” no solamente nos estamos refiriendo a la Escritura (Ap. 21:4 LBLA) pero estamos afirmando que hay un componente físico en la naturaleza caída del hombre.  En otras palabras: Nuestro ADN, disposiciones físicas, e inclinaciones naturales están tan caídas como nuestra alma.

Quiero ser claro, no estoy diciendo que la homosexualidad sea una enfermedad, al menos no una enfermedad mental. Pero, como otros “pecados de disposición” es una enfermedad del alma.

La homosexualidad es consecuencia de la caída[7] tanto como lo es mentir, engañar, o la promiscuidad heterosexual. Si es o no natural no tiene relevancia dentro del tema teológico.   Hay muchos comportamientos naturales que estamos llamados a frenar como cristianos.  Codicia, lujuria, avaricia, y orgullo son algunas de las muchas inclinaciones naturales con las que los seres humanos nacen con las cuales debemos lidiar con tiempo extra en el proceso de santificación cristiano.

La homosexualidad está dentro de muchos de esos pecados de inclinación natural. La Iglesia argumenta contra la genética cuando no tiene necesidad de hacerlo, ya que argumentar contra la genética está permitiendo que la narrativa de la identidad socave la naturaleza del problema.

Y ahora tenemos un problema más grande.

Ya no estamos hablando de la actividad, estamos hablándole  a lapersona, en sus mentes les estamos pidiendo que no sean ellos mismos. Les estamos diciendo que dejen ir, no solo la inclinación natural humana sino toda su identidad de pertenencia.

En cierto sentido, les estamos diciendo que se llamen malvados.

Pero ningún cristiano que se precie de serlo afirmaría que ser gay condena a una persona al infierno.  No, nosotros no somos pecadores porque pecamos, nosotros pecamos porque somos constituídos pecadores, y por ello, ya estamos condenados (Juan 3:17), En un sentido, no es el pecado lo que nos hace malos, es la maldad de nuestro corazón la que nos hace pecar. Dios nos rescató de nuestra consumada disposición moribunda. Todos somos básicamente malos y todos necesitamos una nueva identidad para superar esta maldad.

Sin embargo, se puede ver por qué alguien que se identifica como homosexual encontraría difícil seguir a un Dios que le dice pecado a lo que ellos consideran como la definición de su naturaleza distintiva. Si una persona es básicamente buena, entonces el centro de su identidad también es básicamente bueno.

Pero la doctrina ortodoxa cristiana enseña, de manera correcta y lógica, que todos somos básicamente malos y con la necesidad de ser salvos. Nuestra identidad es entonces el pecado y necesitamos un cambio de identidad ¡para ser buenos! todos nosotros.

La teología ortodoxa, le grita a la comunidad LGTBQ+, que Dios cometió un error cuando los creó. Y como Lil Nas X, ellos o se odian a sí mismos o se rebelan contra la fe en general.

TW Screenshot

Traducción:

“Tweet Montero @LilNasX

pasé toda mi adolescencia odiándome por toda la mierda que ustedes predicaban que me pasaría porque era gay. así que espero que ustedes estén enojados, permanezcan enojados, y sientan la misma ira que nos enseñaron a tener contra nosotros mismos. 1:09 PM – Mar 27,2021″

El resultado de predicar cambio de comportamiento en vez de transformación de la identidad es el autodesprecio y angustia, no una convicción.

El resultado natural de esto, entonces, es aprovecharse de los ofendidos; y el movimiento teológico liberal buscó hacer justamente eso. Ellos buscaron facilitar un punto teológico para que llegaran los heridos homosexuales al cuerpo de Cristo.

Dios es amor, por ello, Él no desearía que nadie se odiara a sí mismo por su identidad. Así que, debemos mejorar nuestra hamartiología (el estudio del pecado) para permitir un comportamiento que fue entendido como pecaminoso a lo largo de la historia de la Iglesia porque Dios no comete errores.

Es cierto que Dios no comete errores, pero no es cierto que Su creación en este momento está perfeccionada. Así que, somos intrínsecamente defectuosos y pecaminosos. Si no fuese así, ¿Por qué necesitaríamos un salvador?

El error de los teólogos liberales es asumir que es aceptable otra identidad además de la de “hijos de Dios”[8].

Soy un hombre al que le atrae el sexo opuesto, pero mi identidad no está en función de la atracción.

Mi identidad es pecador o santo. Bendito sea Dios que me invitó a Su familia, puedo decir que soy un hijo de Dios y como resultado le atraen las mujeres. Sin embargo, el resultado de esta  inclinación natural de atracción debe estar acotada de manera que refleje el diseño de Dios.

Una mujer para toda la vida.

He aceptado esta limitación gozosamente, porque no es ninguna limitación, sino que es realización de la libertad basada en la divinidad a través de Cristo. Y creo, firmemente, que aquellos que son homosexuales pueden experimentar esta misma contraintuitiva libertad. Más sobre esto en las próximas semanas.

Responder satisfactoriamente a la homosexualidad en este aspecto debiera ser simple. Puedes ser un hombre o una mujer que se siente atracción al mismo sexo (independientemente si es una elección o una inclinación genética) pero si eres un hijo de Dios (creyente de Jesús como tu Salvador) entonces la inclinación de la atracción debe ser frenada  para que refleje el diseño de Dios.

Lo cual, desafortunadamente para la persona con naturales inclinaciones homosexuales, sería una negación de sí mismo al actuar en esa atracción.

Mi corazón se duele por esa persona de manera muy sincera y mi empatía se extiende hacia ellos de más maneras de las que se pueden imaginar. Pero la verdad es la verdad, y el pecado es el pecado. No hay tal cosa como la compasión basada una mentira, estar de acuerdo con la mentira y dejarla continuar no es compasivo ni misericordioso. La verdadera compasión es cariñosa, pero firme, confronta el pecado y la falsedad en el nombre de Cristo y ofrece libertad en Su nombre.

De la misma manera que cualquier hombre heterosexual lucha con la pornografía puede atestiguar, esta autonegación del placer sexual está más allá de lo difícil y no debe pasarse nada por alto. Pero no  negamos el placer sexual como forma de castigarnos, lo hacemos para glorificar a Dios. Los límites no están para evitar ir al infierno, están puestos para glorificar el cielo. Cuando cometemos el error de establecer los límites alrededor del pecado para evitar el pecado en lugar de glorificar a Dios nos ponemos a nosotros mismos, y a otros, enfrente de un fracaso monumental.

Y es cuando hacemos esto qué  somos tentados a ser empáticos con una batalla que no se puede ganar. Tengo empatía por aquellos que luchan por evitar el pecado. Sé lo difícil que es, pero una empatía errónea puede guiar por caminos teológicos peligrosos y de esto estaremos hablando la siguiente semana. ¿Cómo mostrar empatía manteniéndonos firmes en la verdad? Porque eso es verdadera misericordia y compasión. Y esa es la misión del cristiano.

Referencias

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein es Pastor en Omaha, Nebraska con doce años de experiencia en el ministerio. Se graduó con una MDiv (Maestría en Divinidad) en 2016 del Seminario Siux Falls y usa su tiempo libre para leer y confrontar problemáticas culturales y teológicas del presente y del pasado. Lleva casado 12 años con Sharalee Klein y tienen tres hijos.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/lYpElf8

Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo

Editado por Yatniel Vega García

 

/by
Cómo la comprensión de la omnisciencia divina ayuda a la ansiedad

Cómo la comprensión de la omnisciencia divina ayuda a la ansiedad

Por Brian Chilton

Aunque la apologética es uno de los principales objetivos de mi vida, sólo se ve eclipsada por el amor a la teología. Soy un tipo de visión general. Por eso la teología sistemática siempre me ha intrigado. La teología sistemática examina los principales temas de las Escrituras y los organiza en patrones y estructuras. Se podría decir que me he vuelto un poco loco con mis estudios teológicos. Mientras que tengo más de 18 horas de posgrado en apologética, estudios bíblicos e historia de la iglesia; tendré más de 30 horas en estudios de posgrado de teología para cuando termine mi doctorado. Se podría decir que me gusta un poco la teología.

Otro aspecto de mi vida que es importante señalar para este artículo es que también sufro ataques de ansiedad. Mi ansiedad no es grave. Sin embargo, es algo que he combatido durante años. La agorafobia es uno de ellos. Me encanta la gente. Me encanta estar en el ministerio. Sin embargo, las reuniones sociales prolongadas me agotan, especialmente si esas reuniones son ruidosas y bulliciosas.

Quizá te preguntes: “¿Por qué este tipo habla de teología y de ansiedad?”. La teología tiene un gran efecto tranquilizador cuando una persona comprende ciertos aspectos de la naturaleza de Dios. Uno de esos atributos calmantes es la omnisciencia de Dios. Omnisciencia es una palabra compuesta por dos palabras latinas: Omnis, qué significa “todo” o “de todas las cosas”, y Scientia, que significa “conocimiento”. Así, la omnisciencia indica la capacidad de conocer todas las cosas. Dios es el único Ser que puede poseer este nivel de conocimiento. Millard Erickson relaciona la omnisciencia de Dios con la naturaleza infinita de Dios. Por infinito, quiere decir que “No solo que Dios no tiene límites, sino que es imposible de limitar”. En este sentido, Dios no se parece a nada de lo que experimentamos” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243). Cuando se vincula el conocimiento de Dios con su naturaleza infinita, se observa que el “entendimiento de Dios es incalculable” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243).

La omnisciencia de Dios significa que Dios conoce todo lo que hay que conocer y todo lo que se puede conocer. Entonces, ¿Cómo ayuda la comprensión de la naturaleza divina omnisciente de Dios con la ansiedad? Sostengo que ayuda en tres áreas.

  1. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento que Dios tiene de los acontecimientos en el tiempo. En primer lugar, Dios no está limitado por el tiempo. Por lo tanto, el conocimiento de Dios no está limitado al tiempo presente. David escribe: “Pues aún no está la palabra en mi lengua, Y he aquí, oh Jehová, tú la sabes toda.” (Salmo 139:4 RVR60). Dios sabe lo que David diría antes de que lo dijera. Las personas que sufren de ansiedad suelen temer lo que pueda venir. Sin embargo, cuando una persona asocia el conocimiento de Dios de lo que va a suceder junto con la bondad y el amor de Dios, entonces la ansiedad debería desvanecerse en los brazos divinos de Dios. ¿Por qué preocuparse por lo que podría pasar cuando Dios ya sabe lo que va a pasar?
  2. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento que Dios tiene de las injusticias. En segundo lugar, la ansiedad de una persona disminuye cuando se reconoce el conocimiento omnisciente de Dios sobre todas las personas. Dios sabe lo que todas las personas hacen siempre. La gente suele colocar cámaras de seguridad para atrapar a los delincuentes en sus fechorías. Aunque estoy a favor de las medidas de seguridad, como señala el grupo de vigilancia comunitaria que apoyo, es un pensamiento redentor considerar que Dios conoce todo lo que hacen todas las personas. Salomón señala que “Los ojos de Jehová están en todo lugar, Mirando a los malos y a los buenos.” (Prov. 15:3 RVR60). Muchas personas que sufren de ansiedad se preocupan por lo que alguien pueda hacerles. Tal vez estas actitudes provienen de una imaginación hiperactiva o de ver con demasiada frecuencia a los psicópatas enloquecidos de Lifetime Movie Network. Sin embargo, el creyente puede estar tranquilo sabiendo que Dios ve las acciones de todos. Ninguna mala acción escapa a su vista. Como juez supremo de la humanidad, Dios pedirá cuentas a cada persona en algún momento (Rom. 14:12). Esto no quiere decir que una persona no deba usar la razón, establecer medidas de seguridad y ser proactiva en entornos peligrosos. Más bien, una persona puede estar tranquila sabiendo que toda persona se presentará ante Dios algún día.
  3. La ansiedad disminuye con el conocimiento del propósito de Dios. En tercer lugar, la gente suele preocuparse por si sus vidas tienen algún propósito o valor. Los medios sociales han aumentado esta preocupación. La gente suele compararse con los demás mediante una competencia autoimpuesta. El problema es que nadie gana nunca esas competiciones comparativas. La persona debe preguntarse finalmente: “¿Hasta qué punto es suficientemente bueno? ¿Cuánto éxito necesito? ¿Cuánto dinero me hace ganador?”. No hay respuesta. En marcado contraste, cuando uno comprende el valor que Dios otorga a todas las personas, entonces tales preocupaciones deberían desvanecerse, y las competencias autoimpuestas deberían cesar. Dios le dijo a Jeremías que lo conocía antes de que naciera (Jer. 1:5).

Jesús enfatizó en la paz que se deriva de la comprensión de la omnisciencia de Dios, señalando que si Dios podía vestir a las flores del campo y alimentar a las aves del cielo, entonces Dios seguramente cuidaría de los suyos de manera más intensa (Mt. 6:25-34). Si Dios sabe todo lo que hay que saber, si Dios conoce todo lo que hace todo el mundo, si conoce nuestro futuro y se preocupa por nosotros; entonces ¿Qué tenemos que temer? Porque, si Dios está por nosotros, ¿Quién puede estar contra nosotros? (Rom. 8:31) La ansiedad humana se derrite ante la brillante seguridad de la naturaleza omnisciente de Dios.

Recursos

Erickson, Millard J. Teología cristiana. Tercera edición. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor del Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Sociedad Teológica Evangélica y de la Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica. Brian ha estado en el ministerio durante casi 20 años y sirve como pastor principal de la Iglesia Bautista de Westfield en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Fuente Original del Blog: https://cutt.ly/fR4s0ZH 

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García

Editado por Carlos Flores

 

/by
¿Por qué la Apologética Clásica?

¿Por qué la Apologética Clásica?

By Richard Howe

A distinctive feature of Southern Evangelical Seminary that the reader has seen displayed throughout the argument of this pamphlet is a commitment to Classical Apologetics [1] . To say that an apologetic method is “classical” is to say something about how SES does apologetics. It offers an answer to the question “what is the proper way for Christians to defend the truth of the Christian faith?” The SES commitment to Classical Apologetics arises from what SES believes about the nature of God and how he has created us in his image, including how we reason as humans and how we know truths not only about God, but about the rest of his creation.

The Biblical Basis of Apologetics

In a slight irony, Christian apologists sometimes find it necessary to make an apologia for apologetics. Sometimes we are asked to defend the fact that defending the faith is actually biblical .

The Bible is clear about defending the faith

In several places, the Bible commands us to defend the faith. I Peter 3:15 tells us to “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you, but do so with gentleness and respect; ” (NASB) [2] . Jude 3 says, “ Beloved, while I was eagerly waiting to write to you about our common salvation, I felt compelled to write to you and exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (NASB). Another passage that is rarely cited in this context is Titus 1:10-11. “ Now there are many rebels, charlatans, and deceivers, especially those who are partisans of circumcision. Their mouths must be stopped …” (NIV). The pressing question here is exactly how we are going to stop the mouths of the unsubmissive. I maintain that it is through sound argument that He can leave them with nothing to say in response. We see several examples of this very thing in Jesus’ encounter with the Sadducees. Matthew 22:23-24 recounts the incident in which Jesus was challenged to explain whose wife a woman would be in the afterlife if she were married to more than one man in this life. After instructing them in sound reasoning and biblical interpretation, the narrative observes that He had “ silenced the Sadducees ” (NIV). In another instance we find, “ So they could not catch Him by what He said in public. Instead, they were astonished at His answer and fell silent” (Luke 20:26 ESV).

Being able to respond convincingly in certain situations is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a church elder. In the passage from Titus, just before the passage quoted above, we learn that the overseer must be able “ both to exhort and to convince those who contradict ” (Titus 1:9 ESV). Convincing those who contradict involves defending the truth claims of Christianity [3] .

The Apostles dedicated themselves to defending the faith

We can also see that the Apostles themselves served as a model for us in defending the faith. A chain of references throughout the book of Acts shows how they often confounded, tested, had dissensions and disputes, reasoned, explained, demonstrated, spoke boldly, persuaded, and solemnly testified with Jews and Greeks in the synagogues, the marketplace, and the schools about things pertaining to the Kingdom of God [4] . Several observations can be made about how the apostles reasoned. Note that they were confronted both by those who took into account the authority of God’s written word (the Jews) and those who did not (the Greeks). Sometimes that biblical authority was appealed to (Acts 17:2) and other times by other sources (Acts 17:22-33). Reactions ranged from some who believed (Acts 17:4, 12), to others who did not believe (Acts 17:5), to others who wanted to hear more (Acts 17:32).

The anatomy of classical apologetics

Since the biblical mandate for apologetics is clear, how exactly is the task to be undertaken? Classical Apologetics is characterized by three levels of demonstration: the philosophical foundation, the existence of God, and the truths of Christianity. The order is deliberate, as the first level makes possible the second and third steps, and the second step makes possible the third.

Philosophical foundation

The first level holds that philosophy is essential in establishing the foundation for dealing with unbelievers who might raise certain challenges, including the challenge that truth is not objective or the challenge that only the natural sciences are the source of truth about reality. Thus, when encountering the unbeliever (and sometimes even a fellow believer), the Christian should (if the occasion demands) argue that reality is knowable, that logic applies to reality, and that morally fallen human beings have some capacity to intellectually understand (even if they morally reject) certain claims of the Christian faith. It might also be necessary, depending on the unbeliever’s assumptions, to delve into questions concerning the nature of reality itself . [5] The apologist would not necessarily have to deal with these questions insofar as many unbelievers (and believers) already work with these normal, rational commitments. Only in those cases where the unbeliever (or believer) has been unduly influenced by postmodernism (the idea that truth is relative to the individual or culture or is in some way qualified from its classical understanding) [6] or by scientism (the idea that only the hard sciences can offer the truth about reality) [7] or by some other false philosophical system, would the apologist need to address these issues. Thus, unless his listener is open to the tools and principles of objective logic and reasoning, it will be impossible to engage with him in a defense of the faith.

Philosophy is also essential in dealing with certain issues of Bible interpretation. Two areas readily come to mind. The first has to do with the principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), considered in general. The second has to do with specific interpretive issues having to do with the nature of God himself.

Every reader of the Bible has some method (conscious or unconscious) for interpreting the Bible, that is, every reader of the Bible has some hermeneutic. The question is this: Where do you get the principles of hermeneutics? It is impossible to get the hermeneutical principles from the Bible itself. This is because, if you could understand the Bible in order to get these hermeneutical principles, then you understand the Bible before you have your principles of understanding the Bible (which means you would not need the principles you sought to get from the Bible). On the other hand, if you think you cannot understand the Bible without some principles of understanding the Bible (I would say you have to), then that means you could not understand the Bible well enough to get the principles themselves (if you were committed to the notion that you get those same principles from the Bible). In either case, you are in an impossible situation. So we see that it is impossible to get all the principles of interpreting the Bible from the Bible itself, even if you can get some of them. Instead, they have to come from somewhere else.

The reader might expect me to argue here that these principles must come from philosophy. This is not my position. Rather, these principles of hermeneutics are grounded in the nature of reality itself. Certainly, reality is what it is because God is who He is, and creation is what it is because of how God created it. In all of this, I am not suggesting that one has to do an in-depth examination of reality in order to somehow excavate the principles of hermeneutics in order to then begin to understand one’s Bible. Rather, I am arguing that in many (if not most) cases, such principles of understanding are quite natural to us as rational creatures created in the image of God (analogous to how we naturally perceive the physical world around us with our sensory faculties). However, there are times when a deeper philosophical examination of the issues is warranted. This is increasingly the case as false philosophies increase their influence on people’s thinking.

The second interpretive issue has to do with the details of what the Bible says about the nature and attributes of God. As we have said, without a sound philosophy, the student of the Bible would be unable to substantiate the classic attributes of God, including his immateriality and infinity. The problem is not merely academic. There are teachers within the ostensive Christian community who embrace such heresies as that God is a finite and limited being. Consider these words from Word of Faith teacher Kenneth Copeland:

“The Bible says [Isa. 40:12] that He measured the heavens with a span of nine inches. Now the span is the difference, the distance between the end of the thumb and the end of the little finger. And the Bible says—in fact, the Amplified Translation translates the Hebrew text that way—that He measured the heavens with a span of nine inches. Well, I took a ruler and I measured mine and my span is eight and three-quarters of an inch. So God’s span is a quarter of an inch longer than mine. So you see, that faith didn’t come waving out of some giant monster somewhere. It came out of the heart of a being that is very strange in the way that it looks a lot like you and me—a being that’s about six-two, six-three, that weighs about a couple hundred pounds, a little better, has a wingspan of eight and, I mean, nine inches across—he stood up and said, ‘Let there be!’ and this universe was created.” placed, and it was set in motion. Glory to God! Hallelujah!” [8]

The same problem is also exemplified by Finis Jennings Dake, the editor of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. [9] Dake is of the opinion that God is a person “with a personal spiritual body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit, like that of the angels and like that of man, except that His body is of spiritual substance instead of flesh and bones” [10] . Dake also argues that “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are present wherever there are beings with whom they have dealings; but they are not omnibodies, that is, their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go about bodily, as do all other beings in the universe” [11] . This is no doubt said by how he takes the verses that speak of God in bodily terms. He argues,

“God has a personal spiritual body (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19); form (Jn. 5:37); shape (Phil. 2:5-7); image and likeness of a man (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Ezek. 1:26-28; 1 ​​Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). He has bodily parts such as, parts of the back (Ex. 33:23), heart (Gen. 6:6; 8:21), fingers and hands (Ps. 8:3-6; Heb. 1:10), mouth (Num. 12:8), lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27), feet (Ex. 24:10), eyes and eyelids (Ps. 11:4; 33:18), ears (Ps. 18:6), hair, head, face, the arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1-7; 22:4-6) and other parts of the body” [12] .

One should take careful note of how many verses of Scripture Dake has cited. I suspect that if one were to challenge Dake that God does not literally have these body parts, his response would be that he is the one who is taking the testimony of Scripture seriously, since that is what the text seems (to Dake) to clearly say. The only way to answer Dake is by appealing to sound philosophy [13] .

The existence of God

The second level of the Classical Apologetics method holds that God’s existence can be proven by a series of proofs and arguments. The way this step figures in the general case of Christianity should not be overlooked. Classical Apologetics holds that God’s existence must be affirmed before specific evidence for the truth of Christianity in particular can be made sense of. Demonstrating the specific truths of Christianity involves, among other things, appealing to miracles. This is because God used miracles to vindicate the message proclaimed by his prophets and apostles and by his own Son. But miracles are only possible because God exists. This is because miracles are supernatural acts of God. There can be no acts of God if there is no God who can act. Therefore, God’s existence must be demonstrated (in those cases where his existence is doubted or denied) before specific arguments for Christianity can be advanced. If the metaphysics of Thomism is employed, it is not simply a general theism. On the contrary, such sound metaphysics is the only way to prove the classical attributes of God that the Church has cherished throughout its history. Moreover, as sound philosophy has been eroded from the broader Christian philosophical community, so too are these classical attributes being eroded.

The truth of Christianity

Once the existence of God is demonstrated (and thus the possibility of miracles established), specific arguments are given for the truth of the Christian faith, including arguments from manuscript evidence, archaeology, and other historical evidence corroborating the historical reliability of the Bible, arguments from the Bible and other sources for the identity of Jesus as the Son of God, and arguments from the teachings of Jesus for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. [14]

In conclusion, it can be seen that there is, in fact, a scriptural mandate to engage in apologetics. According to the Classical Apologetics approach, demonstrating the truth of Christianity requires the tools of sound reason and logic that can be employed to build the case that God exists and has certain attributes and that God has revealed himself in history through his prophets, apostles, and ultimately through his Son Jesus Christ. This mandate has been built into the very DNA of Southern Evangelical Seminary.

Grades

[1] Some of the material in this article appeared in Richard Howe’s “Classical Apologetics and Creationism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 5–31.

[2] The context of this passage is important. Peter is encouraging his readers to endure suffering and persecution. He apparently expected his readers’ godly response to that suffering to engender questions from others about what enables them, as Christians, to endure suffering. Peter expected observers to ask what the reason for their hope is. In response, Christians should be prepared to defend their response.

[3] I am indebted to Simon Brace for helping me see the apologetic application of this verse.

[4] Acts 9:22, 15:2, 17:2-4, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-10, 28:23-24.

[5] These questions would include the nature of universals, the essence/existence distinction, the hylomorphic (form/matter) composition of sensible objects, and the relations of the metaphysical constituents of sensible objects, including substance, accidents, and properties.

[6] Some postmodernists mistakenly think that any contemporary emphasis on logic and reason (as can be found, for example, in contemporary disputes over the inerrancy of the Bible or in Classical Apologetics) is due to the unfortunate influence of Modernism (as they mistakenly understand it). Robert Webber claims that “the question of modernity has been one of reason.” [Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 98.] The fact is that Classical Apologetics’ commitment to sound reason finds its roots back to (and indeed, beyond) Aristotle, who said (regarding the definition of “true” and “false”), “To say of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, is false, while to say of what is, that it is and of what is not, that it is not, is true.” [Metaphysics, IV, 7, 1001b26-29, trans. W.D. Ross in Richard McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941).

[7] Atheist Richard Dawkins argues: “The presence or absence of a creative superintelligence [i.e., God] is unequivocally a scientific question, although it is not practically—or not yet—a settled question.” He continues: “There is an answer to every one of these questions [about miracles], whether we can practically discover it or not, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the question, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods.” [Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 58, 59.]

[8] Kenneth Copeland, Christianity in Crisis Audio Tape (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1993).

[9] Finis Jennings Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1991).

[10] Dake, Reference Bible, New Testament, 97.

[11] Dake, Reference Bible, in the “Complete Concordance and Cyclopean Index,” 81.

[12] Dake, Reference Bible, New Testament, 97.

[13] Lest anyone think these examples are extreme, this question of God’s attributes is increasingly troubling even within evangelical circles. A survey of systematic theologies and other sources dealing with theology proper over the past 150 years shows a marked shift away from the classical attributes of God. This drift (or, in some cases, deliberate migration) is illustrated by the dispute over open theism. Gregory Boyd, in discussing certain passages of Scripture that describe God as experiencing regret or uncertainty about future outcomes, comments: “It is, I hold, harder to conceive of God’s experiencing such things if the future is exhaustively set in his mind than if it is partly composed of possibilities.” [Gregory A. Boyd, “Neo-Molinism and the Infinite Intelligence of God,” Philosophia Christi 5, no. 1 (2003): 192.] Time and space will not permit me here to examine the status of other attributes of God that are fading in evangelical circles, such as simplicity and impassibility. Nor will time and space permit me to go into the details of why they are important. The question one must ask, however, is how one might respond to the aberrant or heretical thinking of Finis Jennings Dake and others. I submit that it can be answered only by sound philosophy and sound principles of hermeneutics (which are in turn defended by sound philosophy).

[14] I am indebted to R. C. Sproul for this template (basic reliability of the New Testament, who Jesus is, what Jesus teaches about the Bible) in his “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis,” God’s Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1974), 242-261.

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Richard G. Howe is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.) Dissertation: A Defense of Thomas Aquinas’ Second Way. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He holds a B.A. in Bible from Mississippi College, an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Mississippi, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Howe is a past president of the International Society for Christian Apologetics (ISCA). He is a writer as well as a speaker and debater at churches, conferences, and college campuses on topics related to apologetics and Christian philosophy. He has spoken and/or debated at churches and colleges in the United States and Canada, as well as in Europe and Africa, on topics related to the defense of the Christian faith.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/1RLwKH4

Translated and edited by Yatniel Vega García

 

/by
Enfrentarse a un futuro desconocido con un Dios conocido

Enfrentarse a un futuro desconocido con un Dios conocido

Por Brian Chilton

El pasado domingo, mi familia y yo visitamos una tienda local de antigüedades al salir de la iglesia. Estábamos allí sin más motivo que el de echar un vistazo a su mercancía y buscar, como dice mi esposa, “si había algo que de no comprarlo, no  podríamos vivir”. Mientras recorríamos los pasillos de la tienda, apareció ante mí una señal tipo tránsito con un mensaje que necesitaba escuchar. El señalamiento decía: “Nunca tengas miedo de confiar el futuro desconocido al Dios conocido”. He escuchado personas que piden a Dios una señal. Yo también la he pedido. Pero en esa ocasión, Dios me dio literalmente una señal para el momento que estaba atravesando.

A manera de contexto, mi familia y yo recién salíamos del último servicio en el que  ejercería como pastor. Estoy a punto de entrar en una nueva fase del ministerio. Y por lo tanto, nuestras vidas  se encuentran en un estado de transición. El cambio suele ser difícil para cualquiera. Sin embargo, esta señal nos  sirve para recordar que Dios no sólo está en todos los lugares, también Dios está  en todos los tiempos, lo que significa que podemos confiar al Dios conocido nuestro futuro desconocido. He aquí algunas razones  que nos ayudarán a creer en la máxima de la señal.

Dios es Trascendente. La trascendencia de Dios indica que Él no está restringido por la creación. Esto es algo que realmente me desconcierta.  Soy un observador de  los astros, anoche estaba recostado sobre el suelo mirando las estrellas. Y me perdí en la belleza de la Gran Nube de Magallanes que está cerca de la Vía Láctea. Me asombraba la intensidad del brillo de Júpiter, Saturno y Marte. Y entonces me di cuenta. Por muy inmenso que sea el universo con sus numerosas estrellas, planetas y galaxias; el universo y todo lo que en él sucede no se puede comparar con la majestuosidad trascendente de Dios. Dios no está limitado por la creación, sino que la creación está sujeta a la autoridad del Creador trascendente. Teniendo esto en cuenta, los creyentes pueden enfrentarse a un futuro desconocido con la confianza de que Dios tiene la capacidad de anticiparse y hacer cosas por ellos de maneras que ningún otro ser es capaz de hacer. La esfera de trascendencia de Dios lo sitúa en un nivel que ningún otro ser podría alcanzar. Dios sobresale en cualidades y supera todas las características de cualquier ser vivo.

Dios es Omnipresente. La omnipresencia es el atributo de Dios que describe su capacidad de estar en todos los lugares y en todo momento. Dios no está limitado por el espacio. Por lo tanto, Dios en todo momento puede superar las limitantes de los lugares, lo que le permite estar cerca de todas las personas. Pablo tenía esta idea en mente cuando dijo a los atenienses que Dios “aunque no está lejos de ninguno de nosotros” (Hechos 17:27 LBLA). Dios se revela, a través de lo dicho a su profeta Jeremías, como aquél que llena tanto el cielo como la tierra: “¿No lleno yo los cielos y la tierra? -declara el Señor” (Jer. 23:24 LBLA). Aunque no sepamos lo que nos depara el mañana, podemos afrontar el futuro confiadamente sabiendo que la presencia de Dios está siempre con nosotros. 

Dios es Omnitemporal. La omni temporalidad de Dios indica que  Él es el Señor del tiempo. Isaías escribe: “¿Acaso no lo sabes?, ¿Es que no lo has oído? El Dios eterno, el  Señor, el creador de los confines de la tierra no se fatiga  ni se cansa. Su entendimiento es inescrutable.” (Isaías 40:28LBLA). Alan Padgett sostiene que Dios es el Señor del tiempo. El tiempo fluye del ser de Dios. Padgett escribe,

“Decir que Dios es el Señor del tiempo incluye el hecho de que no está sujeto a ninguna cantidad de tiempo, ni en las acciones que puede realizar ni en la duración de su vida. Mientras que los humanos temen el paso del tiempo, porque les acerca al final de su vida, Dios siempre vive. No puede morir y no tiene nada que temer del futuro” (Padgett, GEATNOT, 123).

Puesto que Dios es el Dios que siempre ha vivido  y siempre estará, entonces los hijos de Dios no tienen nada que temer del futuro desconocido porque al Dios que conocemos ya está en el futuro. Ni siquiera la muerte puede intimidar al creyente, ya que el Dios eterno ha concedido la vida eterna a los que confían en Él.

Dios es omnisapiente. Por último, Dios es omnisapiente. La omnisapiencia se refiere al todo sabio Dios. La omnisapiencia (todo sabiduría) se diferencia de la omnisciencia (todo conocimiento) en lo siguiente, mientras que el conocimiento comprende ciertos datos, la sabiduría sabe cómo tomar las mejores decisiones con los datos disponibles. La sabiduría hace referencia a tomar  buenas decisiones. Dios, al ser el todo sabio Dios, toma las mejores decisiones para nuestras vidas incluso cuando esas decisiones no tienen sentido para nosotros. Dado que Dios es el único ser autoexistente, autosuficiente, omnipresente y trascendente; Él tiene acceso a información que ninguno de nosotros podría poseer. Dios es amor (1 Juan 4:8). Como tal, Dios desea lo mejor para nosotros, especialmente para los hijos de Dios. Por lo tanto, las personas pueden confiar su vida y su futuro al todo sabio Dios.

Estoy seguro de que no soy la única persona que se enfrenta a la incertidumbre en la vida. Con la sociedad agitada y el mundo en medio de  una pandemia, casi todas las personas  se han visto afectadas por las tensiones de la incertidumbre. Sin embargo, no tenemos que preocuparnos si confiamos en Dios. Oswald Chambers sostiene con razón que nuestros temores surgen cuando depositamos nuestra confianza en la humanidad o en nuestras propias capacidades. Chambers señala,

“Nuestro Señor no confió en ningún hombre; sin embargo, nunca desconfió, nunca se amargó, nunca perdió la esperanza por ningún hombre porque confió primeramente en Dios; confió absolutamente en lo que la gracia de Dios podía hacer por cualquier hombre. Si primeramente pongo mi confianza en los seres humanos, terminaré llevando a la desesperanza a todos; me amargaré, porque habré insistido en que el hombre  sea lo que ningún hombre puede ser: absolutamente correcto. Nunca confíes en nada que no sea la gracia de Dios en ti mismo o en cualquier otra persona” (Chambers, MUFHH, 152).

En lugar de confiar en tus capacidades o en las capacidades de otras personas, confía tu futuro a Dios. Mientras que nuestro futuro puede ser desconocido para nosotros, el futuro es plena y completamente conocido por el Dios que conocemos.

Fuentes

Chambers, Oswald. Mi deseo de lo mejor. La edición clásica. Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour, 1935.

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1992.

Recursos recomendados en Español: 

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/IRrCrC8 

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García 

Editado por Gustavo Camarillo 

 

/by