Tag Archive for: Doctrina

By Alisa Childers

When my daughter was little, I made her quinoa, oat, and flax seed waffles, and she loved them. It wasn’t until we were visiting family in California that she experienced the hotel breakfast bar and exclaimed out loud, “Mom, these waffles are SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS!” The charade was over. Dry, grainy, fake waffles would no longer be tolerated. She had now tasted the real thing, and would never again be fooled by a fake.

Likewise, one of the most effective ways to teach our children to spot a false gospel is to make sure they are well-versed in the true gospel . That way, when they encounter a false version of Christianity, they will immediately recognize it. Here are some ways to teach our children to spot a false gospel:

Teach them to love the truth

One of the most common ways that young Christians are deceived with bad ideas is through the vehicle of relativism. Relativism is the belief that absolute truth does not exist or cannot be known. “What is true for you is true for you” or “There is no such thing as truth” are common expressions thrown at Christians to shut down their ideas and make them feel like moral censors/criticizers for simply claiming to know the truth.

However, Christianity is a belief system that stands or falls on the basis that truth is absolute. God either exists or he doesn’t. Jesus either rose from the dead or he didn’t. In fact, Jesus claimed to be Truth itself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The stakes are that high!

Teaching our children to base their beliefs on what is true, not what feels right , will help prevent them from walking away when their faith no longer “feels right.”

Teach them to be biblically cultured

From the beginning, false ideas about God were passed off as “Christian.” False teachers often twisted Scripture to deceive followers of Jesus into believing their teachings. Even today, some of the most misleading ideas are those marketed as “biblical.”

The only way to know for sure whether an idea is biblical or not is to actually know what the Bible says. There is nothing wrong with buying a good children’s devotional book or a cartoon of a Bible character to supplement our devotions, but nothing can replace reading the actual Bible with our children.

This will help prevent them from falling into misquotes and misrepresentations because they will know the reality.

Teach them to identify the essentials of the gospel

One of the ways Christians can be deceived into believing a false gospel is when they confuse non-essential doctrines with essential doctrines. The thinking goes something like this: If Christians can’t even agree on how predestination works, why can’t we just agree to disagree about the resurrection?

Essential doctrines are beliefs that directly affect someone’s salvation. The virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, the atonement, the resurrection, the second coming, and the final judgment are all examples of essential doctrines of the gospel. These are fundamental topics that we cannot simply agree to disagree about.

Teaching our children to recognize the difference between core and non-core beliefs will help them avoid confusion about what matters most.

Teach them to define their terms

One telltale sign of a false gospel is the redefinition of terms. For example, someone might imply that telling people they might not go to heaven is “unloving.” But this only works if they have redefined the word love to mean making someone feel good by endorsing all their beliefs and behaviors. But according to the Bible, that is not love at all.

First Corinthians 13 tells us that “love is patient and kind” (verse 4). But it also “does not rejoice at evil but at the truth” (verse 6 [author’s error in verse]). To love someone means to tell them the truth, even when it’s unpleasant. So telling someone about the possibility of an eternity apart from God is actually the most loving thing you can do .

Teaching our children to define their terms biblically will help protect them from being “pigged in” by words that are redefined according to cultural norms.

Teach them to appreciate the beauty of the gospel

The apostle Paul wrote that when he preached the gospel, it had a fragrance. To some, it smelled of life and peace. To others, it reeked of death. [1] I imagine it all came down to whether or not someone truly believed they were a sinner. If one does not recognize their own sinfulness, the Father’s message demanding Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross would seem unnecessary—even immoral. However, if someone knows they have sinned against a holy God and deserve death, Jesus’ atoning work suddenly becomes the most beautiful cure imaginable.

We live in a culture that inundates our children with messages that they are perfect just the way they are and that they should follow their hearts. But these “positive messages” soften their own sinfulness and can make them vulnerable to imitations/counterfeits of the cross akin to “cosmic child abuse.”

As parents, we know that most ideas are learned, not taught. It is useless to teach our children all the right things if we ourselves do not practice those ideas. This involves repenting when we are wrong. It involves reading the Bible and praying with them. And just as my daughter will never again be fooled by imposter waffles, our children will not settle for false gospels because they will be so well acquainted with the real one .

Grades

 [1] 2 Corinthians 2:15-16

Recommended resources in Spanish: 

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original Blog : https://cutt.ly/YO9CxmL 

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo 

 

By Xavier Gonzalez

In Part I the author addresses the common objections presented by some Christians who consider philosophy to be anti-biblical.

Consequences of denying philosophy

In an article by FreeThinkingMinistries (FTM), he mentions about 5 problems of theology “ without philosophy” [1] , I will summarize the 5 points he mentions and focus on 3 given their importance. According to the article, the problems would be:

1) The belief that one can engage in theological practices having divorced oneself from all one’s philosophical presuppositions is itself a philosophical presupposition. That is, self-defeating/self-refuting.

2) Saying that we should do theology without philosophy really only means that we should interpret the scriptures without reasoning about them or without having reasoned about how we are going to apply the interpretation assigned to them . In other words, it leads to irrationalism and would lead us to extreme relativism.

3) With that in mind, given the exclusion of philosophy that the “Without-Philosophy” view assumes, it simply remains without any other resources available to the theologian, inferential or otherwise, that can be used to assess the truth value of a theological claim since any resources given to the theologian will be, at root, philosophical. That is, even though we may know various doctrinal concepts, it gives us no guarantee of their truth or falsity or for that matter their philosophical implications.

4) In short, it is through reflection on the prior philosophical commitments that underpin a doctrine that it helps to weigh its plausibility. That is, it helps us to reject false and misleading ideas (yes, as Paul would warn us).

5) If Christians exemplify more seriousness in their beliefs in terms of being able to recognize their own presuppositions, the cultural perception of them will change. That is, we will not be mocked by society and Christianity will be seen as blind belief.

The 3 points I want to emphasize in the 5 that FTM mentions, is that if we are constant in a theology without philosophy, we would be in the middle of a dangerous and catastrophic web. Imagine the following, you are listening to the radio and the station gives a program on Christian doctrines, the announcer begins to talk about the attribute of divine eternity, he exposes several verses about God being eternal, and someone calls the announcer of the program, and the user begins to ask difficult questions, about how God would relate to time? How is God not affected by time? If God is timeless, does he know that it is 4:00 am in Dubai? What is an eternal Being?… And you are attentively listening to the user’s questions and then listening to the announcer’s answers, and the announcer says: “I’m sorry friend, I only abide by what is said in the word and not by philosophical speculations,” you are shocked by such questions and even more so without having answers from the announcer, then you begin to meditate on the user’s questions and without finding an answer, you ask yourself, What do I believe?

Well, this is the problem, that if you are ignorant of philosophical problems and reject philosophy, you will be deceived, you will not have tools to help you evaluate the proposals and ultimately you will have bad theology. And to give a very common example, this has happened a lot by those who support scientism.

The philosophical necessity in Christianity

As we have seen, the consequences of a Christianity without philosophy are harmful, although we should not stop there, and the other side of the coin points out to us many contributions that philosophy has made to Christianity and the philosopher Paul M. Gould & James K. Dew Jr. give us 3 reasons, which are:

1) Philosophy is strategic for evangelism. As Christians we are called to be faithful witnesses for Christ. We want every person on the face of the earth to ask and answer the question, “What do you think about Jesus Christ?” Unfortunately, in our day and age it can be difficult to get people to seriously consider this question. Philosophy helps us understand the collective mindset, its value systems, and the emotional response patterns of the culture. Christian philosophy can help expose the false ideas that keep people from considering Christianity as a genuine option. God has given us minds, and He wants us to use them to help others see the truth, goodness, and beauty of Jesus and the gospel. He wants us to use philosophy (and more so theology) to show that Christianity is faithful to the way the world is and the way the world should be.

2) Second, philosophy prepares us for ministry. I (Paul) can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had students—usually as a prospective pastor or even a doctoral student of theology or some aspect of Christian ministry—ask me why they should take logic. How would logic help them become better preachers or church leaders or Bible students? At first, when I was asked this question, I was dumbfounded. It seemed obvious to me that God wants us to be good thinkers, and logic is one of the tools that will help in that area. Now, when I’m asked to justify the need to take logic, I simply invite them to “come and see.” Fortunately, I’ve found that these same students become the most ardent advocates of the use and benefit of logic for preaching, ministry, and Bible study.

3) Philosophy plays a key role in our spiritual formation toward Christ. Christians are commanded to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2 ESV) and to love God with all our minds (Matt. 22:37-39). Part of this process is seeing Jesus for who He is: the source of all wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). Jesus is beautiful, and we rightly worship Him as such. But Jesus is also brilliant—the smartest person in history. As Dallas Willard presses, “Can we seriously imagine that Jesus could be Lord if He weren’t smart?” The obvious answer is no! As followers of Jesus, we too must cultivate moral and intellectual virtue. God has given each of us a mind. He wants us to use it for His glory. He wants us to live life rightly related to reality and to God, to each other, to ourselves, and to our purpose. Philosophy can help in all of these areas. [2]

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that the scriptures do not say that we should emphatically reject philosophy, and as we saw in the section on the problem of a theology without philosophy and its necessity, on the one hand the Christian must embrace philosophy, but be attentive to bad philosophy, as CS Lewis would say: Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. And the Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams invites us to philosophy with the following words:

Philosophy is an artistic discipline, and for the Christian it should be a spiritual discipline. After all, Jesus supported the idea that true spirituality requires one to love the Lord one’s God with all one’s heart, with all one’s mind, and with all one’s strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. [3]

References:

[1] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuales-son-algunos-de-los-problemas-con-la-teologia-sin-filosofia/

[2] Philosophy: A Christian introduction pages 18-21

[3] A Faithful Guide to Philosophy page 18

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  

 


Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

By Xavier Gonzalez

I have often encountered Christians who say “Philosophy is bad”, “we only need the scriptures and no philosophy”, “philosophy is from the devil” and statements like that, but I consider that these ideas that they try to sustain, in the end, are false. The notion that the Christian must reject philosophy is somewhat absurd and catastrophic. And in this article I will mention why and the need for philosophy in Christianity.

To the surprise of some (from what I have been able to study) throughout the history of the Church they have been able to know how to use tweezers (and others not) to approve and reject or modify the theses of various philosophers, even this we can see in certain passages of the Bible where Paul cites certain pagans as in Acts 17:28, where the part that says: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being [or exist] … For we are his offspring” are quotes attributed to both Aratus (310 BC) and Epimenides of Cretans (600 BC), which already starting from here, we can see that Paul was not against philosophy at all, but wait, what happens with Colossians 2:8? Did Paul change his mind? Was it hypocritical Paul to quote philosophers in his speech in Athens when in Colossae he says not to be carried away by those who use philosophical arguments? Did Paul contradict himself? And my answer is no, Paul neither contradicted himself, nor was he a hypocrite, and much less did he change his mind.

Before moving on to the points of why a Christian should not reject philosophy, it will be appropriate to give the context of Colossians 2:8. According to the verse it tells us the following:

“Be on your guard so that no one takes you captive through empty and deceptive philosophy that follows human tradition, according to the principles of this world rather than according to Christ.” (NIV)

According to commentator AT Robertson, what Paul uses as Philosophos is not a condemnation of philosophy as such, but rather a false philosophy “Science falsely called” (pseudönumos gnösis, 1 Tim. 6:20) which is descriptive of Gnostic philosophy where many of its arguments are misleading and empty. [1] Even the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says: The apostle Paul does not condemn all philosophy, but the philosophy (so the Greek) of the Judeo-Oriental heretics at Colossae, which later developed into Gnosticism. [2] and according to the Ryrie Study Bible it mentions that Paul uses the vocabulary of the heretics, thus giving their true meaning, and then refutes them with their own terms that they used. Also the Partain-Reeves commentary mentions that according to Josephus, in those times any system of thought or moral discipline was called a philosophy. And in Judaism there were three philosophical schools, which were Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

And if this is not enough, Moyer Hubbard’s team.org writes:

“Looking now at Colossians and the specific context of chapter 2, we find Paul addressing a local assembly that had been infiltrated by a form of false teaching that threatened to undermine the gospel he preached. Paul does not give us enough information to identify precisely what sect or ‘philosophy’ he is describing. However, there are some clues that suggest it was perhaps a syncretistic hybrid of Jewish mystical practices and pagan folk belief: he mentions the observance of special days, including the Sabbath (v. 16); visionary experience and worship of angels (v. 18); submission to the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ (v. 20); and abstinence (vv. 21,23). Paul is clearly attacking a peculiar form of religious speculation, but it is impossible to identify it with any of the major schools of philosophy we know from the Greco-Roman world. In fact, it is important to note that the Greek word philosophia (and its Latin cognate) had a variety of meanings in this period and, depending on the context, could be translated as ‘religion’, ‘speculation’ or ‘inquiry’” [3] .

In that case, using Colossians 2:8 to condemn philosophy would not be appropriate because it would be misinterpreting the verse. So we can safely say that Paul was not in any strict sense condemning philosophy as such, but rather a philosophy that (1) followed the principles of this world and (2) was not in conformity with Christ . Now that these doubts have been cleared up, let us address both the why and the need for philosophy in Christianity. [ In the next part of this article ].

References:

[1] Commentary on the Greek text of the NT, AT Robertson

[2] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary

[3] https://www.equip.org/article/is-colossians-28-a-warning-against-philosophy/

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  

 


Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

 

By David L. Rogers

Part I: A Book, an Illustration of Governments.

Part II: The Christian and the World.

  1. God and the three institutions:

Founded on the belief that the Bible possesses total authority as the Word of God, being inspired by His Holy Spirit, it is important to recognize that He has established three institutions, which are absolutely crucial to the proper operation of man’s life and society. It is like the illustration at the beginning of this study: the binding of a book that binds together all the loose pages, and thus forms a cohesive whole. The three institutions are:

  1. The Family –it is a “cornerstone” for society, which is to reflect the order of the Godhead (see I Corinthians 11:3 compared with Ephesians 5:21-32, and also Genesis 1:26-28). Through the family, God established the function of personal and individual order.   The family is responsible for passing on to children the standards of life that God the Master Designer instilled in man by his conscience and morality. Later, God established another institution.
  2. Government is a cornerstone which performs another function , a function which is clearly NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILY TO PERFORM, and that is to maintain order, protect the citizen, and punish the lawbreaker (in Genesis 9:5-7; Romans 13:1-7). Through government, God sets the standard of man’s responsibility toward his fellow man.
  3. The Church — this last institution was established by God in a very different way than government and the family. In this case, He Himself formed it through the price paid by the shed blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ. This institution deals with an entirely different area, as well, than the other two. Its function is to share order in the spiritual and personal realm, in the context of a living body empowered by the same Holy Spirit.  (Matthew 16:15-18; Acts 2; Hebrews 8:6-13)

So, these three institutions, designed and forged by the Lord Himself, each serve a different purpose and function that is interrelated, but NOT necessarily dependent or subject to the other.  In a sense, each institution that God formed was built on the weakness of the institution that preceded it.   Furthermore, there is also a very important distinction between each of these three institutions. It is knowing where to distinguish and how to separate each one that is difficult for the believer in Christ. This is the challenge that now confronts us.

There are basically four perspectives on the TWO KINGDOMS concept throughout the history of Christianity . The arrows indicate authority and power over the respective groups of people indicated. The line also indicates an established hierarchy based on the source of their authority.

      1. The Roman Catholic Concept:

Pope Boniface VIII, in 1302, declared the following pattern:

The participation of the believer in politics 1

     2. The Anabaptist Concept: (17th Century)

The participation of the believer in politics 2

     3. The Calvin Concept:

    The participation of the believer in politics 3

     4. The Lutheran Concept:

The participation of the believer in politics 4

     5. An Evangelical Model for Today:

    The participation of the believer in politics 5

The traditional models of government from the Middle Ages onward have their modern adherents in various parts of the world. Only in some cases there are those who take the place of God, believing themselves to be the ultimate national and final authority when they try to force everyone to abide by their “inspired” precepts. The first of these, the Roman Catholic concept, is distinguished by the idea that God does not control the world of the state except through the church, and therefore the church is “in charge” of the world of the unsaved, with or without its blessing. This model represents a unilateral and exclusive authority over all human beings.

The Anabaptist model, founded primarily on Colossians 1:12-13, separates the world and society into two large groups: the group of those who are “of the kingdom of darkness” and the kingdom of the glorious Son of God. The two kingdoms cannot, and should not, intermingle. Historically, and in practice, this has been the position of Pentecostals and ultraconservatives in democratic countries.

The model of John Calvin is particularly strict in that its vital sign is related to the direction of human government by the church, since the Church represents divine interests, and the state fulfills its desires and designs. This model places in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the good of society, just as the church of Christ does.

Martin Luther had a thought that advocated more distance between church and state, but not in a categorical way, since God reigns over both. This model operates within a “secular” state and a Church “separated” from the state. There can be collaboration between the two, but not an obligation or a demand from one to the other. Historically, this model was the one that was most adapted by the founders of the democratic experiment in the United States originally.

Finally, this author’s model is called “an evangelical model for today” in reference to three realities. First, it does not ignore and, indeed, highlights the sovereignty of God over both church and state, regardless of whether it is a democratic state or not. God “sets up kings and removes kings” (Daniel 2:21) in all the nations of this world. Second, of particular importance is the belief that the local or national church is not the entity that God uses to direct or restrain the state. The church exists for the edification of the believer, the evangelization of the unsaved, and the exaltation of the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ Himself. The state does not operate around these ends. And, third, this is a model that promotes the believer’s responsibility to serve other people as an instrument of justice in a wicked world through positive, proactive, and holy interaction and influence through politics and community, state, federal, and military efforts.

Related Texts : Titus 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:11-17. The last chart differs from the preceding ones in the emphasis given to the believer’s duty to exercise a godly, God-fearing influence over human institutions. Being a part of the Kingdom of Heaven does not excuse the believer from the privilege (or duty) of being a citizen of a particular nation or country. In the words of the famous ancient author: “A good man must do nothing and wickedness will reign.”

How it applies to modern politics:

Being a believer today has inherent and unavoidable risks. There has always been a degree of danger. Danger, however, is no justified cause for avoiding the field of politics as a way for believers to exert a positive influence on society. Being a citizen of heaven does not take away from the duty of being a moral and upright representative of heaven on earth. The Scriptures bear this out, and so does history!

Second, we recognize that the Bible never excuses a believer from giving testimony of his faith even in high places of government. Examples mentioned in the Old Testament support this truth. Joshua rescued the nation of Egypt from the sad situation of a famine. Daniel led the most powerful king of the Eastern world to prepare for inevitable changes. Nehemiah was God’s instrument first in the court of an Asian king followed by the most outstanding reconstruction work in ancient history! Each of them had a crucial voice and example in God’s plan for the nations. Today, too, God places men and women in strategic places to give testimony of Him in “pagan” and secularized governments.

Finally, it is through the way of forming an influence in politics that many more will come to know God. We must not think that the primary work of the church is to save society or the reigning power. But it is a secondary necessity to pray for the authorities (1 Timothy 2:1-3) and also to collaborate with them in the government of the country by offering them the light of the Gospel. While it is true, the dishonesty and corruption so prevalent in the political world today is not far from the same sad conditions of financial banking, medicine, education, production and industry or any other work field. With a firm focus on the sovereign God, the Christian today can glorify Christ through a good academic and professional preparation and thus serve his people or nation. When God works through him or her, in the political field many will see that following Christ opens doors for them in every career and every aspect of life.

Avoiding the political world only leaves you to your own blind human deliberations, which will eventually end up closing off opportunities to serve God by glorifying Him in the world of politics. For this reason, we go toward a holy influence in an area where power and money corrupt, but doing so with the conviction that God is greater than kings, and that even there He will provide us with the determination, intelligence, strength and clarity to see how to implement laws, regulations and projects that advocate for the sanctity of life and for the name of truth.

In conclusion, consider how Christ Himself intervened in and responded to the government of His day:

“In short, Jesus rejected the idea of ​​the state as an absolute, but neither did he wage war against it. To those who wished to make the state the absolute authority, he reminded them that they must render to God what is God’s. To those who wished to revolt against the state, he required that they render to Caesar what belonged to him. Jesus acted both as subject to the general authority of the state while living above it in fulfilling his mission and ministry. The teaching of Christ and the function of the state intersected at those points where Jesus’ moral teaching served to indict those in power, and at those points where he interacted with the politically and socially untouchables in order to meet their needs…” (Fienberg and Fienberg, 1993, p. 389).

The challenge facing a believer and follower of Christ is to live by the same pattern today.

Literature

Eidsmore, John, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1984 ).

Feinberg, JS, & Feinberg, PD, Ethics for a Brave New World ( Westchester , IL: Crossway Books, 1993).

MacArthur, John, Think Bible-Wise, (Portavoz Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2004.)

Pearcy, Nancy R., Whole Truth: Freeing Christianity from its Bondage to Culture (YWAM Press, Tyler, Texas, 2014).

Sproul, R. C. Following Christ . (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.)

Whitehead, John W., An American Dream (Crossway Books, Westchester, 1987, Un Sueño Americano ).

 


David L. Rogers, a missionary and teacher in Chile for 35 years, is a graduate of Clarks Summit University, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania (1980, BRE) and Moody Theological Seminary, Chicago (1997, M.A.). David and his wife of 39 years, Ruth Ann, and their four children have served in Santiago planting three churches, and founded a Chilean publishing house that for 14 years has published books, resources, and original studies in Spanish. His passion is training local leaders capable of guiding God’s work with love, humility, and spiritual skill. Apologetics is also a priority for David, and he is currently in his second year of a Masters of Arts in Apologetics program at Houston Baptist University. David and Ruth Ann have four precious grandchildren who live in the United States with their parents.

Como cristianas, Dios nos ha mandado no solo a compartir que creemos en Jesucristo, sino también a explicar el porqué. Aquí presentamos algunas evidencias en las Escrituras de que Dios nos ha llamado a nosotras las mujeres a conocer y a presentar las razones probatorias por las que creemos en el cristianismo, lo que conlleva el ministerio de la apologética. Piensa en estas cinco razones:

  1. Como mujeres, fuimos creadas como seres racionales llamadas a amar al Señor nuestro Dios no solo con nuestros corazones, sino también con nuestras almas y nuestras mentes (Mateo 22:37). Nuestra confianza en Cristo no está cimentada en una emoción ciega, sino en una evaluación intelectual de la evidencia de que nos ha convencido de la verdad del cristianismo y eso ha dado lugar a una fe razonable. Lucas 10:38-42 registra la visita de Cristo a la casa de dos mujeres llamadas Marta y María. Cuando Marta se quejó de que María era una holgazana por no ayudarla a preparar la comida, Jesús alabó a María por escuchar Sus enseñanzas. Aunque Él probablemente apreció los esfuerzos de Marta en la cocina, podemos inferir razonablemente que Él afirmó la curiosidad intelectual y el compromiso de María de ir en pos de la verdad.
  2. Como mujeres, somos seres relacionales que estamos llamadas a amar a nuestro prójimo como a nosotras mismas (Mateo 22:39). Nuestro prójimo incluye a la gente que está en nuestra esfera de influencia, comenzando por nuestros familiares inmediatos. Por ejemplo, Dios nos insta a amar y a respetar a nuestros esposos (ver Efesios 5). ¿Cómo puede la apologética reforzar nuestro matrimonio? Si nuestro esposo es creyente, podemos afirmar las verdades para edificar su fe al igual que la nuestra, y ayudarle cuando lucha con la duda. Pero, ¿qué hacemos si estamos casadas con un esposo incrédulo? Cuando conocemos las evidencias de nuestra fe, podemos amarlo sin ser sacudidas en nuestra fe, aun cuando nuestro esposo sea hostil a las afirmaciones cristianas. No utilizamos el conocimiento como un arma contra él. En cambio, se nos da la libertad de ponernos a la defensiva para practicar 1 Pedro 3:1-4, procurando vivir conforme a una vida transformada por Cristo delante de nuestro esposo, de modo que “sea ganado sin palabra por la conducta de [su] esposa”. Lee Strobel, un antiguo ateo y autor de “El caso de Cristo”, dijo que su esposa se había convertido en creyente, y el cambio en su manera de tratarlo a él y a sus hijos fue tan atractivo que él se embarcó en su propia búsqueda y finalmente, confió en Cristo.

Otra relación en la que la apologética puede ser útil es con nuestros hijos. Tito 2:5 describe a las mujeres como “cuidadoras” en su hogar que les enseñan a sus hijos. “Cuidar” implica vigilar o resguardar. El conocimiento de la apologética nos equipa para vigilar y ser de influencia en la cosmovisión de nuestros hijos. Antes de resguardar la cosmovisión de nuestros hijos, debemos saber qué es una cosmovisión, la evidencia que afirma la verdad de la cosmovisión cristiana, las aseveraciones de otras cosmovisiones y cómo responder a tales aseveraciones con el fin de demostrar que el cristianismo tiene el mayor sentido. Eso es la apologética. Entonces, cuando nuestra hija llega a casa de la escuela diciendo que su amiga es hindú, por ejemplo, podremos responderle cuando pregunte por qué los hindúes tienen santuarios en sus casas y los cristianos no.

Nuestra relación con otras mujeres también pueden ser redentoras y edificantes, mientras procuramos presentarles a Cristo a nuestras amigas incrédulas y guiar a las mujeres más jóvenes en la fe para que maduren en su relación con Cristo. Tito 3:2-5 nos manda a nosotras como mujeres maduras a ser “maestras del bien” (RV 1960) para las que vienen tras nosotras. Este llamado no es una opción para nosotras. Las mujeres más jóvenes nos necesitan desesperadamente para que las guardemos bajo nuestras alas y las animemos a que vivan para Cristo en una cultura que cada vez se vuelve más hostil al cristianismo. Finalmente, las mujeres están singularmente equipadas para entablar conversaciones sobre la fe con las mujeres incrédulas. Para algunos grupos de mujeres, nuestra disposición a acercarnos a ellas es la única esperanza que tienen de conocer sobre Cristo de una manera comprensible. Por ejemplo, solo las cristianas pueden alcanzar a las musulmanas que no se sienten cómodas hablando con los hombres.

  1. Como mujeres, somos responsables de testificar lo que hemos visto y oído con respecto a la identidad y resurrección de Cristo, y la cantidad de evidencias del cristianismo que Dios ha inculcado dentro del orden creado. Según Marcos 16:1-11, las mujeres fueron las primeras en ser testigos de la tumba vacía y a ellas se les indicó que fueran a decirles a los demás. Si Jesús les confió a las mujeres la responsabilidad de hablar la verdad del único acontecimiento más trascendental de la historia de la humanidad, entonces, nosotras también podemos testificar. Y no solo podemos compartir nuestra experiencia personal con Jesucristo como lo hicieron las mujeres de la tumba, sino también las evidencias históricas, científicas y filosóficas que nos ha provisto nuestro amoroso Dios. Al hacerlo, como mujeres cumpliremos con el mandamiento de hacer discípulos en todas las naciones (Mateo 28:19-20).
  2. Como mujeres, estamos llamadas a estar preparadas para dar razones convincentes de nuestras creencias, aun si debemos sufrir al hacerlo. 1 Pedro 3:15-17, un versículo lema para la apologética, nos dice que debemos estar “siempre preparados para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia; teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo. Pues es mejor padecer por hacer el bien, si así es la voluntad de Dios, que por hacer el mal”. (LBLA). Resulta interesante que los primeros siete versículos de 1 Pedro 3 él se dirige primero a los esposos y después a las esposas. Luego, en el versículo ocho, que finaliza con el mandamiento de los versículos del 15 al 17, Pedro dice, “Finalmente, todos ustedes, hombres y mujeres” en su llamamiento posterior. Así que, tanto hombres como mujeres estamos llamados y tenemos el honor de participar en los padecimientos de Cristo en la defensa de la fe.
  3. 5. Finalmente, como mujeres cristianas debemos ser renovadas en el espíritu de nuestra mente (Efesios 4:11-24). No debemos permanecer siendo bebés en Cristo, sin entender los elementos básicos de nuestra fe, y siendo fácilmente movidas de un lado a otro. Una vez, una amiga me dijo luego de leer “El código DaVinci” que hubiera deseado no haber leído ese libro jamás, pues provocó dudas en ella. Cuando fallamos en renovar el espíritu de nuestra mente con la verdad, somos sacudidas con cada doctrina nueva que llega a la escena. El conocimiento de la apologética cimenta nuestras creencias en la fuerte evidencia y hace que nuestra fe en Cristo sea la respuesta más razonable a un Dios que ha saturado el universo de testigos de Su presencia y de Su carácter.

Así que, cuando alguien nos pregunte por qué creemos que Dios desea que las mujeres cristianas hagamos apologética, podremos compartirle las cinco razones. Podremos explicarles que Dios nos hizo seres racionales y relacionales, nos hizo testigos responsables de la verdad, y nos proveyó el conocimiento con el cual podemos prepararnos y ser renovadas en nuestra mente para compartir las evidencias abrumadoras de que el cristianismo es verdadero.

 


Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2C9M7Ke

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

By Douglas Wilson

For many Christians, it seems a reasonable question to ask whether it is at all profitable for us to participate in public debates. Who has ever changed their mind because of some public debate? Why argue about anything? Logomachies only cause headaches.

In contrast to this, I want to argue that such a quietist position is not only incompatible with the teaching of Scripture, but runs directly counter to it. We are called to speak to unbelievers in the public square, and we must do so in a way that includes responding to their objections. We are called to prevail in debates of this kind (in a particular way). When we do this well, what happens is public debate, the kind of debate that can be very helpful.

But before we make the case for this, it must first be said that those who want to avoid “shows unseemly for Jesus” have a point in their favor. There are some debates that serve no purpose, and the Bible expressly tells us to avoid them. But when Scripture tells us not to lose our battles in a particular way, we must not infer from this an imaginary duty not to fight those battles at all.

That said, I would like to begin by pointing out a few places where Christians are told not to engage in verbal bickering. While we are not to avoid all debates, we do need to avoid some debates.

“Speak evil of no one, not quarrelsome, but gentle, showing all gentleness to all men. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.” (Titus 3:2-3)

We must not be “troublemakers.”

“But put away foolish and senseless controversies, knowing that they breed strife. For the Lord’s servant must not be contentious but kind to all, apt to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose themselves, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.” (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

We are told to stay out of stupid, fruitless debates, where the issue being discussed is guaranteed to spiral downward into meaningless shouting. The servant of the Lord is not to be contentious. But even in this case, note that the servant of the Lord is to “instruct those who oppose.” In other words, Paul’s rule here is “not this kind of debate,” and not, “do not debate.”

We must assess the situation, and read the crowd. There are times when we must not stoop to their level (Prov. 26:4). But, since wisdom is not optional, there are times when we must step into their world in order to execute the reductio (Prov. 26:5).

So with these caveats in mind, why should we debate? Well, to start where every Christian should always start, let’s look at the life of Jesus. Asking whether it is legitimate to debate is like asking whether it is permissible to speak in parables. Jesus spoke in parables constantly, and he also engaged in constant public pointing and objecting.

Jesus deftly answered a question about his authority with a question about John the Baptist (Matt. 21:27). Jesus silenced the Sadducees in a debate about the resurrection (Matt. 22:29). Jesus debated the highly charged issue of taxes (Mark 12:17). Jesus debated the devil (Luke 4:4). Jesus debated the issue of Sabbath healing (Luke 5:22). And Jesus takes on his opponents on the issue of his own identity (John 8:14). There are many other examples. In fact, there are so many examples of polemical exchanges in the gospels that questions about the appropriateness of polemical exchanges can only arise if people are ignorant of the gospels, or if they come to the gospels with a strong, preconceived idea about Jesus that they learned elsewhere.

This is strange, but not surprising, because there is a strong non-biblical tradition that labels Jesus as the original hippie, teaching us all to make peace. This goes directly against all the teachings the Lord made about hellfire, and he won the numerous debates with established theologians, and, as Sayers or Chesterton once said, we must not forget the time he threw the furniture down the temple steps. A gentle, meek, humble Jesus, no.

That said, it is not surprising that we find instructions that reveal how public shock is actually a pastoral duty.

“Hold fast the faithful word as taught, that ye may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince those that contradict. For there are many unruly, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must be stopped.” ( Titus 1:9-11 ).

This not only requires pastors to debate false teachers, it requires them to win those debates.

“And when he was minded to pass into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. And when he came there, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he vehemently refuted the Jews publicly, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:27-28)

Putting this all together, we see the biblical reasons for debate. We see them both in the example of Jesus, and in the instructions given to pastors in the first century. The point of debating is to silence the stubborn, talkative, and overthinking. When this happens, it is sometimes not obvious to the false teacher that he has been silenced – even though it is obvious to everyone else. This is the valuable service that Apollos offered – he was a help to believers in the way he refuted the Jews’ question of whether Jesus was the Messiah. Translated into a modern setting, if a believer effectively refuted someone arguing for gay marriage, or an atheist denying God, the debate on stage might not be resolved at all. However, there are many believers in the audience who have heard those same arguments in numerous classrooms, and we now know that these arguments can be effectively countered. Apollos was a great help to believers.

In godly debate, you are trying to win men and not arguments, and you have to remember that many of those who are trying to win are in the audience. In the great public issues of the day, there are a great many people on the fence. Debates can have an enormous impact on “the swing segment.” I would like to say that when we observe how ineffective our debates are, we would do much better to heed the scriptures and lament how ineffective our debaters are. This is an activity that should be encouraged, honored, and praised, and we should provide the necessary training for those who are called to it. And training programs should reject those bellicose types who only want to join a “who you gonna call?” Cultbusters .

In conclusion, I would like to say a few things about one of the great arenas for demonstrating excellent debating skills, and that would be the classrooms of secular universities. To what extent should Christians just keep their heads down? And if they do speak up, how should they speak up?

I would suggest three things to students in that position. The first is that if you want to challenge a teacher, you should do so with an established ethic. By this, I mean don’t be a struggling student who only does half the reading, then walks up to the teacher with the safety on, and then when you’re shut down, runs away crying. Earn your right to speak, and do so by being at the top of the class – or at the top of the class before you decide to open your mouth. If your grades slip after that, that’s up to the teacher.

Second, let most of your opportunities come to you. If you challenge everything you could possibly challenge (depending on the class) you’re going to do it every ten minutes. If you’re in a target-rich environment, then you’re likely to attack one every 25. You’ll sufficiently and effectively prove your point, and in this scenario – trust me – a little goes a long way.

And finally, as a student, you are not a professor. That means you should not preach, or try to hijack the lecture. There is a place for gospel declaration, but this is not it. That being said, it is not out of place for a student to ask questions. That is not inappropriate – that is a student’s calling and vocation. And if you ask the right questions for which the professor does not have answers, then you do not have to jump to conclusions. You can do that in conversations with other students after class. Keep discussions (in this context) in the interrogative.

If you learn to do this well, it may be an indication that you are called to an apologetic ministry after graduation. If this happens, you will have more tools available than as a humble student.

 


Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2Pdmj3b

Translated by Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez

By Marcia Montenegro

The Trinity can be considered a rather neglected doctrine in the church today, even seen as secondary by many. In this article, we will consider and evaluate some responses from Christians and non-Christians who oppose the importance and necessity of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nontrinitarians appear to be Christians, especially in their declaration of love for Jesus, but if the subject of the Trinity comes up, they regard it as an unproblematic, pagan, evil, man-made, unbiblical doctrine, etc. All nontrinitarians deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

The main question is: if the Trinity is not true, then who is Jesus?

There are numerous Christian scholars who have written books on this topic, with answers to both Trinity and anti-Trinitarian views. I have added a list of resources at the end for those who want to read further.

Objections to the Trinity and their responses

Objection: “Well, no one really understands the Trinity, so if people don’t accept it, that’s fine.”

It is true that no one understands the Trinity in its entirety because we are dealing with the nature of God. Since God is not created, we as created beings cannot grasp the full nature of God. However, He has revealed all of His attributes in His Word, and so we can know many things about God.

Since God is uncreated, the Trinity has no counterpart on Earth. That is why there is no analogy for it. Most analogies describe modalism (God takes on the roles of three persons), tritheism (three persons instead of one), and when examined, they break down. I do not use an analogy. I say that God is three coeternal, coequal persons who are one substance. “Persons,” by the way, does not mean a human person, but it is the proper way to describe the three in the Trinity.

Other ways to describe the Trinity are:

  • There is only one God.
  • God exists eternally in three distinct persons.
  • The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
  • The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, etc. [1]

Objection: “After they believe in Jesus, that’s all that matters.”

But who is the Jesus they are believing in?

Concerning the Trinity, there are two main heresies:

  • Oneness or Modalism (sometimes called Sabellianism, named after the 3rd century heretic Sabellius), teaches that God is one person (a unitary view of God) who manifests as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and/or one God who has 3 roles or “functions”, such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  • Arianism (named after Arius, a 3rd/4th century heretic), teaches that Jesus is a created being and is less than God.

The Modalist view includes:

  • Jesus is God the Father.
  • Jesus is God incarnate.
  • The Holy Spirit is part of God/Jesus.
  • The Father is the “divine nature,” and Jesus is the “human nature” of God.

In contrast, the Bible unequivocally says:

  • Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father; Jesus cannot be the Son of God if God the Father is also.
  • Jesus spoke of his Father in several passages.
  • Jesus prayed to the Father.
  • Throughout the Gospel of Saint John, Jesus speaks of how God sent him (Jesus) to Earth.
  • The Holy Spirit is given the same attributes of deity as God [2] .

Trinity

Illustration of the Trinity

The Holy Spirit is given personal characteristics and is referred to as a Person, and not as a mere force, power or energy [3] .

Some Oneness believers say that when Jesus prayed to God, it was human nature praying to divine nature. But natures don’t pray, individuals pray. Furthermore, it would be deceptive for God to make it appear that Jesus was praying to someone else when, in fact, he wasn’t.

The Jesus of the non-Trinity Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Wayfarers, and other sects is a created Jesus. He has a beginning and is not equal to the Father. This is clearly a false Jesus, and is easier to refute than the Jesus of Modalism/Oneness, which is arguably more complicated and difficult to refute.

heresies-chart

Arius (250-336) taught that Jesus was a created, finite being, and was declared a heretic by the Council of Nicaea in 325. So the real Jesus is not the Jesus of Modalism/Oneness or the Arian Jesus, and therefore belief in such a Jesus is fruitless.

Objection: “We are not saved by perfect doctrine.”

We are not saved by doctrine, but by faith, but such faith must be an informed faith. If our doctrine as to who Jesus or God is is incorrect, then we do not have faith in the right Jesus. We can get little things wrong, but not about who Jesus is, because we will have the wrong Jesus, making him unable to save.

Doctrine simply means “teachings.” The teachings of who God and Jesus are have to be true and based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Otherwise, it’s a false God and Jesus. It’s really basic. This objection is a “straw man.”

Just because the word “Jesus” is used by Oneness believers or Arians, it does not mean that it is the correct Jesus. Pay attention to statements of faith, because statements by Oneness believers can be quite misleading. They may say they believe in the “Triune God” without referring to the biblical Trinity.

Modalists can affirm the Apostles’ Creed without believing in the Trinity. They read their own meaning into who Jesus is. An example of this statement is found on the church’s website “Dan Dean’s Oneness” (Phillips, Craig & Dean). They give the Apostles’ Creed as their beliefs. There is no affirmation of the Trinity and no clarification as to the person of the Holy Spirit (because they are a Oneness Church [4] ).

Who is Jesus if the Trinity is not true?

If there is no Trinity, where does that leave Jesus? Here are the options:

  • He is a minor God.
  • It’s another God.
  • He is not the Son of God, but the Father.
  • He is just a man without divinity.

These points clearly answer the question, “If the Trinity is not true, then who is Jesus?” It leaves Jesus as a false Jesus. This should establish why the Trinity is essential to the faith and cannot be denied by anyone who calls himself a Christian. It is good to point this out to those who say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential or primary.

Recognized antitrinitarians

There are many well-known people who were or are antitrinitarians, dead and alive:

  • William Branham (Modalism), a highly influential figure in the erroneous and sectarian movements in the Church today; there are Branham teachings and followers all over the world [5] [6] .
  • Jakes (Modalism) [7] [8] .
  • Phillip, Craig & Dean (Modalism) [9] [10] [11] .
  • Roy Masters (Arian) [12] [13] .
  • Ron Dart (similar to Arianism), still heard on Christian radio [14] [15] .
  • The Armstrong cults (Worldwide Church of God), polytheistic (the Father and Jesus are separate gods) [16] [17] [18] [19] .
  • The Way (formerly called “The Way International”), Arians [20] [21] .

Some verses about the Trinity (there are many more)

“And Jesus, after he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, behold, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. And a voice from heaven said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17).

“Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

“But the Helper, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26).

“But when the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me” (John 15:26).

“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14).

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Additional Resources on the Trinity

(Selected list, not exhaustive)

  • Arianism [22]
  • Modalism [23]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism [24]
  • What is Sabellianism, Modalism and Monarchism? [25]
  • The Athanasian Creed confessing the Trinity [26]
  • CANA Post, Modalism is an Attack on God [27]
  • Why the Trinity is an Essential Doctrine [28]
  • Jesus Christ Our Creator, a Biblical Defense of the Trinity [29]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism of NAMB (North American Mission Board of the SBC) [30]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity [31]
  • The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity [32]
  • Faith groups that reject the Trinity [33]

Books about the Trinity

  • “A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism” by Edward Dalcour.
  • “Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity” by Gregory Boyd.
  • “Jesus Only Churches” by E. Calvin Beisner.
  • “Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Robert Bowman.

References

[1] Theopedia, https://www.theopedia.com/trinity

[2] The Trinity, CARM

[3] See numbers 3 and 4 at https://carm.org/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

[4] http://theheartlandchurch.com/beliefs/

[5] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/branhamismprofile.pdf

[6] http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5870-william-branham

[7] http://www.equip.org/article/concerns-about-the-teachings-of-td-jakes/

[8] CANA article on TD Jakes’ misleading language on the Trinity http://www.solasisters.com/2012/01/td-jakes-through-glass-blurrily.html

[9] http://hereiblog.com/modalism-revisted-phillips-craig-dean/

[10] https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2013/01/05/blurring-the-dividing-linethe-legacy-of-phillipscraig-and-dean/

[11] https://rootedinchrist.org/2008/01/01/phillips-craig-dean-and-the-united-pentecostal-church-upci-oneness-pentecostals/

[12] Walter Martin exposes Masters’ heretical beliefs in a debate with Masters https://soundcloud.com/steven-j-aronfeld/roy-masters-debates-walter

[13] CANA post in Masters, https://www.facebook.com/FormerNewAger/posts/10153497822822237

[14] http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/ronald_dart_anti-trinitarian.htm

[15] http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/07/heresy-alert.html

[16] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/armstrongismprofile.pdf

[17] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[18] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[19] https://www.watchman.org/articles/cults-alternative-religions/history-of-armstrongism/

[20] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/wayprofile.pdf

[21] https://carm.org/way-international

[22] Theopedia goo.gl/HjnvyY

[23] Theopedia goo.gl/ATjpBY

[24] goo.gl/SwZtUU

[25] Got Questions (4 articles) goo.gl/dsANZ6

[26] goo.gl/5m5Axy

[27] goo.gl/GtFbKZ

[28] J. Warner Wallace, http://bit.ly/1L8KRAT

[29] Jonathan Safarti, goo.gl/jXebGb

[30] goo.gl/ug2AQL

[31] Robert Bowman, Jr. goo.gl/5QWmtn

[32] Robert Bowman, Jr., goo.gl/ehfzUU

[33] goo.gl/nRECCC

 


Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2rJ1frd

Translated by JanLouis Rivera.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Por Natasha Crain

En nuestro patio, solíamos tener un hermoso tilo.

Progressive Christianity Atheism

Un día me di cuenta de que una vid espinosa de algún tipo había comenzado a crecer alrededor de ella. Se veía lo suficiente como el resto del árbol que pensé que era sólo otra etapa de crecimiento. Una búsqueda rápida de Google me dijo que las espinas a menudo crecen alrededor de los árboles de cítricos, así que no pensé mucho más al respecto.

Luego, en un par de meses, las espinas se apoderaron del árbol y éste comenzó a morir. Un jardinero lo miró y dijo que estas espinas en particular no eran parte del árbol en absoluto. Resulta que fue un invasor extranjero.

Si el invasor extranjero hubiera parecido más extranjero, me habría dado cuenta de la necesidad de desarraigarlo inmediatamente. Pero debido a que compartía semejanzas superficiales con el árbol, me engañé al pensar que todo era lo mismo.

A menudo escribo aquí sobre la amenaza que los ateos hostiles plantean a la fe de los niños hoy. Pero el ateísmo no es la única amenaza. De hecho, hay una amenaza en particular que puede ser aún más peligrosa porque obviamente requiere menos atención. Es como la planta espinosa que gradualmente mató a mi tilo porque ni siquiera me di cuenta de que era extraña.

Esa amenaza se llama cristianismo progresista.

¿Qué es el cristianismo progresista?

Puede ser difícil definir el cristianismo progresista porque es un término sombrilla para muchas creencias diferentes. Pero creo que mi amiga y compañera bloguera, Alisa Childers (que alguna vez formó parte de una iglesia cristiana progresista) golpeó el clavo en la cabeza cuando lo resumió de esta manera en un reciente blog:

  • Una visión empobrecida de la Biblia.
  • Los sentimientos se enfatizan sobre los hechos.
  • Las doctrinas cristianas esenciales están abiertas a la reinterpretación.
  • Los términos históricos son redefinidos.
  • El corazón del mensaje del evangelio cambia del pecado y la redención a la justicia social.

Todo el artículo literalmente hizo que me doliera el corazón.

Las vistas como éstas son espinosas, invasoras extranjeras en la iglesia.

¿Por qué a los cristianos progresistas no les gusta la apologética?

El blog Un fundamentalista Parenting recientemente presentó otro post que llamó mi atención: Por qué sus hijos NO necesitan apologética. (Si no estás familiarizado con el término, la apologética es el estudio de por qué hay buenas razones para creer que el cristianismo es cierto). El mensaje está lleno de malentendidos, pero mi propósito aquí no es refutarlo. En su lugar, quiero destacar por qué a los cristianos progresistas no les gusta la apologética… y por qué eso demuestra lo importante que es el estudio de la apologética en realidad.

El autor lamenta el hecho de que la apologética “confina la fe como doctrina”, explicando:

Nuestra fe es una experiencia dinámica que cambia y evoluciona para nosotros y especialmente para un niño que está creciendo a pasos agigantados en su desarrollo. No podemos capturar esa experiencia y encajarla en un conjunto de proposiciones para memorizar y defender, eso limita y niega las realidades de la experiencia humana.

Esta afirmación dice mucho. El autor está confundido entre la verdad objetiva e inmutable de Dios y las experiencias subjetivas y cambiantes que tenemos al relacionarnos con Dios a lo largo de nuestras vidas.

Dios y la verdad que Él ha revelado no cambian ni evolucionan.

Nuestras experiencias cambian y evolucionan, pero eso no tiene nada que ver con lo que es verdad.

La apologética de los niños no se trata de poner sus experiencias en una “caja”. Por el contrario, la apologética consiste en salir de la experiencia personal y examinar la razón por la que hay que creer que el cristianismo es verdadero independientemente de nuestros sentimientos.

Si los niños sólo están desarrollando una fe basada en experiencias “cambiantes y evolutivas”, no tienen manera de saber si su fe está bien situada. Podría tener fe de que un ratón saldrá de un árbol en este momento, pero eso sería una cosa mala en la que confiar.

La fe, en y de sí misma, no es virtud.

Es tan sólida como el objeto de la fe.

La pregunta es, ¿cómo podemos estar seguros de que Jesús, como objeto de la fe cristiana, es “sólido”?

Apologética.

A los cristianos progresistas no les gusta la apologética porque les desafía a pensar en las enseñanzas bíblicas en una categoría de verdad objetiva—algo que no somos libres de cambiar solo porque pasamos a “experimentarlo” de varias maneras.

Dos más dos es igual a cuatro ya sea que tenga dificultad con eso o no.

La experiencia no puede elevarse sobre la verdad objetiva.

El cristianismo progresista es solo una razón más para que sus hijos y la Iglesia en general necesiten desesperadamente de la apologética

El estudio de la apologética es desesperadamente necesario para todos los cristianos de hoy, tanto para participar con el mundo secular y, menos obviamente, para participar con grupos que enseñan una versión no bíblica del cristianismo.

Pero, por alguna razón, la iglesia sigue siendo en gran parte ciega a esta necesidad.

El detective de homicidios de Casos Sin Resolver, apologista y autor J. Warner Wallace ve esto todo el tiempo. Habla casi todas las semanas en iglesias y conferencias en todo el país sobre la confiabilidad de los Evangelios, la inferencia razonable de la resurrección y la evidencia de la existencia de Dios. Wallace tiene la oportunidad de involucrarse con el espectro de los creyentes de una manera que pocos otros lo hacen.

Lo que ha encontrado ha sido decepcionante en el mejor de los casos.

Wallace dice en su nuevo libro, Forensic Faith:

En muchas de estas iglesias, la gente que conozco no está realmente interesada en la “apologética” cristiana… De hecho, la mayoría aún no está familiarizada con la palabra, y algunos incluso rechazan el valor de tal esfuerzo. En más de una ocasión, he oído a un creyente bienintencionado decir algo parecido: “Bien, eso es bueno, pero realmente no necesito ninguna evidencia. Sólo creo que el cristianismo es cierto”.

En otras palabras, los cristianos están en gran medida desprevenidos para hacer valer lo que creen y muchos en la iglesia todavía niegan la necesidad de estar preparados en primer lugar.

La iglesia está dormida.

Y mientras la iglesia duerme, el mundo secular avanza, cada vez más hostil a la verdad del cristianismo, y espinosos invasores extranjeros continúan creciendo dentro.

Por esa razón, no creo que haya un libro más importante para la iglesia en este momento que Forensic Faith. En él, Wallace hace valer con fuerza la importancia de la apologética para cada cristiano. Es un despertador para la iglesia dormida.

Para los nuevos a la apologética, es un lugar perfecto para comenzar. Wallace te motiva a tomar en serio tu deber cristiano de hacer casos y te muestra, paso a paso, qué hacer una vez que hayas aceptado ese deber.

Para aquellos que ya entienden la importancia de la apologética, es el último recurso para compartir con otros creyentes que necesitan la comprensión que tienen. Es el libro que puedes dar a los miembros de tu pequeño grupo, pastores, líderes de los ministerios infantiles y amigos.

Oro para que este libro fantástico realmente pase a través de la iglesia.

Como padres cristianos, debemos estar continuamente vigilantes. Las amenazas a la fe de nuestros hijos no siempre son tan evidentes como las vallas publicitarias de la autopista que proclaman “No hay Dios”. Proporcionar a los niños una base de apologética, sin embargo, les dará el entrenamiento de un jardinero listo para identificar y desarraigar cualquier tipo de invasor que no debería existir junto con la verdad bíblica.

 


Natasha Crain administra su blog de apologética cristiana para padres, ChristianMomThoughts.com. Obtuvo su MBA en Marketing y Estadísticas en UCLA y consiguió un certificado de apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Actualmente reside en California con su esposo Bryan junto con sus tres pequeños hijos.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2OlBaJa

Traducido y Editado por Jairo Izquierdo