Tag Archive for: Teología

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
10 señales de que los autores cristianos que sigues están enseñando (sutilmente) ideas anti bíblicas

10 señales de que los autores cristianos que sigues están enseñando (sutilmente) ideas anti bíblicas

Por Natasha Crain

Mi amiga, Alisa Childers, escribió recientemente una reseña del libro más vendido, Girl, Wash Your Face (Chica, lávate la cara), de Rachel Hollis. Esto inició una tormenta de discusiones en línea sobre lo que hace que alguien sea un autor “cristiano”, la responsabilidad que tiene un autor que se identifica como cristiano en la promoción de ideas coherentes con la fe bíblica, y el daño que puede haber para los cristianos que leen libros que contienen ideas no bíblicas.

Personalmente no he leído el libro, así que no voy a comentar sobre el mismo específicamente. Pero sí diré que me decepcionó y entristeció mucho ver el tipo de comentarios que escribieron los partidarios del libro:

“No pretendía ser un devocional”.

“Ella no está enseñando teología”.

“Nuestro trabajo no es perseguir a la gente y odiarla”.

“¡Dejen de competir! ¡Imagínense lo que los no cristianos piensan de los Super Jueces! Tenemos que centrarnos en nuestro interior porque el proyecto dentro de nosotros mismos es el trabajo más importante que vamos a realizar. No utilices tu blog para hundir a alguien”.

Desafortunadamente, estos comentarios son representativos de la falta de discernimiento que es común en la iglesia de hoy. Si Alisa caracterizó con justicia las afirmaciones del libro de Hollis, éste está promoviendo ideas que entran en conflicto con una cosmovisión bíblica. Y cuando existe la preocupación de que millones de mujeres están consumiendo contenido de un autor cristiano que puede llevarlas a abrazar ideas no bíblicas, deberíamos levantar una bandera de advertencia y hacer un llamado al discernimiento en el cuerpo de Cristo.

No se trata de ser un “Super Juez”.

Se trata de discernir la verdad bíblica de lo que no lo es… algo que la Biblia nos dice constantemente que hagamos.

Aunque este artículo no está directamente relacionado con la crianza de los hijos (sobre lo que normalmente escribo), es algo que afecta a la crianza de los hijos. Cuando los padres incorporan fácilmente ideas populares pero no bíblicas en su cosmovisión, esas ideas afectarán la forma en que crían a sus hijos y la naturaleza de la cosmovisión que transmiten.

Las siguientes son 10 señales de que los autores cristianos que sigues pueden estar enseñando sutilmente ideas no bíblicas. Digo “sutilmente” porque creo que la mayoría de la gente detectaría un problema inmediatamente si un cristiano dijera que no cree en la Trinidad. Pero es igualmente importante identificar cuando se presentan señales de advertencia menos obvias, como las siguientes.

1. Dicen: “Amo a Jesús pero…”

Se ha hecho popular que los escritores pregonen que aman a Jesús pero (rellene el espacio en blanco). Cuando veas que una frase empieza así, prepárate para una de estas dos cosas.

En primer lugar, puede ser algo que el autor sabe que es contrario a lo que Jesús habría aprobado. Por ejemplo, si buscas en Google “Amo a Jesús pero”, encontrarás toda una industria de camisetas, tazas y otras cosas que dicen “Amo a Jesús, pero me gusta maldecir”. ¿Es esto realmente algo que glorifica al Dios que dices amar? Si tienes que usar “pero” como palabra de contraste entre amar a Jesús y hacer una declaración sobre lo que haces y/o dices, probablemente no es algo de lo que estar orgulloso. Cuando los autores hacen esto para ser más agradables a su audiencia, a menudo es una señal de que seguirán otras ideas no bíblicas.

En segundo lugar, puede ser algo que no está en contraste con amar a Jesús en absoluto, pero el autor quiere que pienses que son diferentes al estereotipo negativo de los cristianos. Por ejemplo, dirán algo como: “Amo a Jesús, pero nunca afirmaré que tengo todas las respuestas”… implicando, por supuesto, que los cristianos normalmente afirman que tienen todas las respuestas. Los no creyentes pueden pensar que los cristianos se sienten así porque los cristianos creen que el cristianismo es una cuestión de verdad objetiva, pero eso no significa que los cristianos afirman tener todas las respuestas o que la aceptación de la verdad objetiva sea problemática.

2. Se empeñan en separar la relación con Jesús de la religión

Desafortunadamente, la idea de que Jesús de alguna manera odia la religión se ha hecho popular incluso entre los cristianos que, por lo demás, tienen creencias bíblicamente sólidas. Si Jesús realmente odiara la religión, la popularidad de esta idea no sería un problema. El problema es que Jesús no odia la religión. Él odia la falsa religión. Sin escribir un artículo entero sobre esto (hay un capítulo entero en mi próximo libro sobre esto), la conclusión es que no hay necesidad de separar a Jesús de la religión que es verdadera. El cristianismo es simplemente el nombre de la religión cuyo conjunto de creencias se centra en quién es Jesús y que nos llama a conocerlo, adorarlo, servirlo y obedecerlo. En otras palabras, el cristianismo es una religión centrada en una relación.

Cuando los autores empiezan a escribir negativamente sobre la “religión organizada” en general, y la ponen en oposición a su propia relación personal con Jesús, a menudo es porque van a 1) desafiar la idea de la verdad objetiva (sugiriendo así que la creencia religiosa uniforme que se encuentra en la “religión organizada” es mala) y/o 2) valorar sus percepciones espirituales personales por encima de la revelación de Dios a la humanidad a través de la Biblia (la experiencia personal se convierte en autoridad).

La verdadera religión glorifica a Dios (Santiago 1:27) y no es algo que los cristianos deban denunciar.

3. Hay mucho de qué hablar sobre la autenticidad y el desorden

Autenticidad significa simplemente honestidad. A primera vista, no parece que eso tenga nada que ver con la Biblia y, en todo caso, parece que debería ir de la mano de la Biblia. Sin embargo, en la práctica, los autores que enfatizan lo “desordenadas” que son sus vidas y lo “auténticos” que van a ser con usted acerca de ese desorden, a menudo aprovechan la oportunidad para normalizar el pecado.

Como con varios de estos puntos, no siempre es así. Algunos autores que hablan en estos términos lo utilizan como una oportunidad para volver hacia Dios. Pero he visto que la mayoría de las veces es al revés, por lo que entra en la lista.

4. Promueven el valor de las preguntas por encima del valor de las respuestas

Otro enfoque de la “espiritualidad” que se ha puesto de moda es centrarse más en plantear preguntas sobre la fe que en compartir respuestas bíblicas. Los autores que se identifican como cristianos progresistas a veces llegan a acusar a otros cristianos de tener miedo a las preguntas y miran con escepticismo a cualquiera que intente responder a las preguntas que ellos plantean.

Ahora bien, si has leído mi blog durante algún tiempo (o mis libros, en realidad), sabes que estoy a favor de plantear preguntas difíciles sobre la fe con tus hijos… las preguntas son extremadamente importantes. Pero las preguntas también deben ser abordadas en la medida de lo posible, teniendo en cuenta lo que la Biblia nos dice.

Las personas que valoran más las preguntas que las respuestas suelen sentirse incómodas con la idea de la verdad objetiva, es decir, que existe una verdad independiente de nuestra experiencia personal. Todo lo que Jesús enseñó asumió que existe una verdad independiente de nuestra experiencia personal y que Él es esa verdad. Si un autor se siente incómodo con la idea de la verdad objetiva, se siente incómodo con Jesús.

5. Confunden declaraciones incontrovertibles con posiciones morales

Una autora muy popular escribió hace poco en su página de Facebook que quería dejar muy clara su posición en temas sociales. Aclarar estas cosas incluía hacer una declaración completamente incontrovertible para cualquier cristiano: ella “aprecia la humanidad de la comunidad LGBT”.

Todos los cristianos deberían apreciar la humanidad de cada comunidad porque todos estamos hechos a imagen de Dios.

Eso nunca se ha cuestionado.

Pero, por supuesto, ella dijo esto implicando que cualquiera que sostenga una visión bíblica del matrimonio de alguna manera no aprecia la humanidad de la comunidad LGBT. Es un movimiento muy engañoso hacer una afirmación con la que ningún cristiano debería estar en desacuerdo con el fin de sugerir que es algo con lo que no estarían de acuerdo quienes adoptan una posición diferente a la de la autora en una cuestión moral.

6. Se centran casi por completo en la acción cristiana, excluyendo la creencia

Alguien recientemente me dijo que la gente de su denominación no valora la apologética (por qué hay buenas razones para creer que el cristianismo es verdadero) porque su apologética está en sus acciones. Esta actitud, efectivamente, es la que se ve con muchos autores cristianos populares hoy en día, incluso cuando no dicen nada sobre la apologética específicamente. Para ellos, el cristianismo tiene que ver con lo que uno hace en el mundo; ya no se trata de creer en Jesús como Señor y llegar a un conocimiento salvador de Él. Este tipo de cristianismo apenas se diferencia del humanismo secular. Sólo viene con un aprecio por Jesús, cariñoso pero relativamente leve, en la parte de arriba… como una cereza caramelizada en un helado de buenas obras que se puede quitar fácilmente.

La Biblia es clara en cuanto a que la creencia importa… de una manera eternamente significativa. Para más información sobre esto, vea mi artículo, Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe? (¿Es más importante cómo vivimos que lo que creemos?)

7. Utilizan la palabra “fe” para referirse a una especie de sistema de creencias sin límites sobre Dios

Una autora cristiana exitosa en ventas compartió recientemente la siguiente cita en las redes sociales: “La fe no es una creencia. La fe es lo que queda cuando todas tus creencias se han ido al infierno”. Esto, tristemente, fue recibido con miles de me gusta, me encanta y compartidos. También es una definición bíblica inexacta de la fe.

La Biblia no presenta la fe como una creencia ciega o como creer a pesar de la evidencia. La Biblia muestra repetidamente que la fe es creer en lo que tienes buenas razones para creer que es verdad.

La fe bíblica no son los pedazos rotos que quedan cuando has perdido un montón de otras creencias, como sugiere esta cita. Cada vez que veas que un autor promueve una idea inexacta de la fe, debería ser una bandera de advertencia. En este caso, la autora es conocida por escribir libros sobre sus luchas con la Biblia. No es de extrañar que comparta una cita de este tipo.

8. Regularmente te animan a “ser fiel a ti mismo”

Si escuchas con frecuencia de un autor que debes ser fiel a ti mismo, puedes apostar a que está en un terreno teológico inestable. Como dijo mi hija de 9 años cuando le pregunté si creía que la gente debería ser fiel a sí misma: “No deberías ser siempre fiel a ti mismo, porque si quieres ser un asesino eso estaría muy mal” #lógicabásica

Sencillamente, este tipo de sabiduría secular de “valerse por sí mismo” es solo eso… secular. No es muy inspirador ser más fiel a uno mismo. Como cristianos, deberíamos inspirarnos en ser menos como nuestra naturaleza pecadora y más como Jesús.

9. Consideran que juzgar a los demás es el pecado máximo

Para muchas personas hoy en día, el pecado máximo es juzgar a otro. Jesús no nos dice que no juzguemos… Nos dice que no juzguemos hipócritamente y que juzguemos con juicio justo (por ejemplo, Juan 7:24). Amigos, ¡tenemos que discernir! Discernir entre la verdad y la que no lo es no significa que se esté condenando espiritualmente a una persona, como la gente suele creer. Sólo Dios conoce el corazón humano, y de seguro no estamos llamados a determinar si otra persona es salva. Pero sí podemos y debemos abordar lo que dice la Biblia sobre la creencia correcta y la acción correcta. Si sigues a alguien que dice cosas como: “¡No te quedes si quieres juzgar a otros!” “¡Nuestro trabajo no es juzgar, es amar!” o “¡Esta es una zona libre de juicios!” aléjate. Es probable que signifique algo muy diferente de lo que crees.

10. Hacen afirmaciones sobre lo que significa amar a los demás sin abordar lo que significa amar a Dios

Cuando seguimos el mayor mandamiento -amar a Dios-, esto informa lo que significa seguir el segundo mandamiento -amar a los demás-. No nos corresponde a nosotros definir la palabra. Hay muchos autores (que se identifican a sí mismos como cristianos) hoy en día que defienden ideas no bíblicas de lo que significa amar a los demás, y está arraigado en la ignorancia del mandamiento de amar primero a Dios. Esta semana vi a uno de estos autores decir que los cristianos no tienen amor por oponerse al aborto, por ejemplo. Pero cuando amamos primero a Dios y comprendemos que estamos hechos a su imagen y que cada ser humano, por lo tanto, tiene un valor extraordinario, simplemente no podemos llegar a la conclusión de que amar a los demás significa permitirles quitar la vida a otro ser humano, sin importar la circunstancia.

Velen. Pónganlo todo a prueba. Y aférrense a lo que es bueno y verdadero.

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 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain es una bloguera, autora y oradora nacional que siente pasión por equipar a los padres cristianos para educar a sus hijos en la comprensión de cómo presentar un caso y defender su fe en un mundo cada vez más secular. Es autora de dos libros de apologética para padres: Talking with Your Kids about God (Hablando con tus hijos sobre Dios) (2017) y  Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (Manteniendo a tus hijos del lado de Dios) (2016). Natasha tiene un Maestría en marketing y estadísticas en la UCLA y un certificado en apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Ex ejecutiva de mercadotecnia y profesora adjunta, vive en el sur de California con su esposo y sus tres hijos.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/PET5lk1

Traducido por Yatniel Vega García

Editado por Elenita Romero

 

/by
La clave para reducir el estrés en la toma de decisiones

La clave para reducir el estrés en la toma de decisiones

By Bob Perry

“What is God’s will for my life?” It’s a common question to hear from someone who is pondering a difficult life decision. Making big decisions can be confusing, but using “God’s will” as the benchmark for success adds an element of agony to it all. The key to making decision-making less stressful is to be clear about what it really means.

What if we make the wrong decision and choose the wrong place to live? The wrong job? Or, more dishearteningly, the wrong spouse? Think about it. If we marry the wrong person it means our spouse was meant to marry someone else, and the person they were meant to marry also married the wrong person. The chain of wrongly conjoined spouses soon multiplies out of control. Something must go wrong in a vision that turns a wrong decision into a global catastrophe. How can we prevent calamity and avoid uncertainty? Is decision making supposed to be so difficult?

In search of God’s will

Decision making itself is difficult, but we make it worse when we increase the burden by evaluating our options with false criteria. We misinterpret God’s will when we equate it with some kind of hidden divine plan. The reality is that any of us can evaluate our alignment with God’s will with clear assurance. To know how, we need to evaluate this reasoning with what the Bible actually says about God’s will.

“If there really is a perfect will of God for us to discover, in which we will find tremendous freedom and fulfillment, why does it seem that everyone who seeks God’s will find themselves in such bondage and confusion?”

-Kevin DeYoung, Just Do Something

The hidden message

The contemporary model of Christian decision-making amounts to something like a treasure hunt. God’s will becomes a secret blueprint that has been hidden from us. We can only access it by begging God to reveal it to us in doses small enough to protect us from misuse. He whispers His revelation and guidance to us, and we must learn to listen. God uses gentle promptings to assure us that we are following the right path.

According to this method, God’s “plan for your life” is a road map that we can only decipher through careful reflection. The pressure is on us to figure out the plan or risk deviating from the course He has charted for our lives. Within this method, our anguish is understandable. The pressure to conform to the plan is enormous because the treasure we seek is not a worldly or material reward, it is the very purpose of our life.

There are two problems with this model. The first is that it becomes an exercise in trying to see the future. This is a futile task unless one is an ordained prophet endowed with the authority and responsibility that comes with that office. The second and more important problem is that this model of decision-making is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The sovereign will of God

God has a sovereign will. He planned it before He created the universe, and He set the plan in motion at the moment of creation. It will unfold exactly the way the Creator intended. We know that. We can also be sure that we cannot know it in advance and that we cannot do anything to change it.

The Bible describes this sovereign will in passages that refer to God’s purposes. He knows the future. He brings it to pass. We can see evidence of this, but we can never see it looking forward. There is only one way to recognize God’s sovereign will. We see it looking back.

Your own life is a testament to this. Look back at all the amazing “coincidences” you have experienced in your life. Each one of them has brought you right to where you are at the present moment.

There are times when we fail to appreciate this aspect of God’s will. We want to know how things will turn out. Our motivation may be good. We may be sincere in wanting to be aligned with God’s purposes. We may be trying to avoid pain and hardship for ourselves, or trying not to hurt others. But no matter how pure our motives, this desire reveals an unwarranted concern for the future.

The moral will of God

There is a second aspect of God’s will that is very clear. Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, “For this is the will of God, that you should be sanctified.” This is God’s moral will. It is an ongoing project, not to figure out the future He has in store for us, but to conform us to His likeness. Theologians refer to this process as “sanctification.” Sanctification is a process that begins with the renewing of our minds and continues throughout the rest of our lives. It is the process that molds our will and character to align with “God’s will—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). Our sanctification is manifested as we live out the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). God’s moral will is for us to reflect the character of Christ.

The model of wisdom

If you keep these two aspects of God’s will in mind, we arrive at the true biblical model of decision-making. It is simple and straightforward. First, when it comes to making life decisions, God’s sovereign purposes will always come to pass, no matter what decisions you make. Next, any life choice we consider must be consistent with God’s moral will. In other words,

God’s desire is not about the details of where we go or what we do; it’s about who we are. It’s about the person we’re becoming.

If the choices we make are consistent with God’s moral standards, we are free to do whatever we want. Our motivation should be to develop wisdom, not to receive marching orders.

What the wisdom model does not say

This is not to deny that God can speak to anyone at any time. After all, God is God. But nothing in the Bible suggests that we should use the common Christian decision-making practice that has become so popular in our culture.

There is no suggestion that we should humble ourselves for guidance and then listen to God’s personal messages about what we should do. Quite the opposite. As apologist Greg Koukl says, the record shows that personalized guidance in the Bible is not only rare, it is an intrusion into the lives of those who receive it. No one in the Bible pleads for secret knowledge and then quietly awaits instruction. God’s voice is supernatural and unmistakable. Even Paul, a man who hated and persecuted Christians, heard God’s voice on the road to Damascus. In short, if God speaks to us, there will be no doubt who He is speaking, or what He is trying to say.

Do good, then do what you want

Making life decisions doesn’t have to be bewildering or overwhelming. As long as the options we consider don’t violate God’s moral boundaries, we can do whatever we want. The wisdom model allows godly believers to pursue their own desires. Once we understand it, decision-making becomes a joy. We learn to move forward in life with confidence and humility. We don’t approach life’s difficult decisions with fear and trembling. Instead, we pursue a God-centered lifestyle.

What is God’s will for your life? Paul couldn’t have made it clearer. “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).”

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 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 a MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/DEaF5n6

Translated by Elias Castro

Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado

 

/by
3 estrategias apologéticas que podemos observar en el Libro de los Hechos

3 estrategias apologéticas que podemos observar en el Libro de los Hechos

Por Alisa Childers

“¿Entiendes lo que estás leyendo?”

A esta simple pregunta se le atribuye la introducción del cristianismo a Etiopía. (1) En el libro de los Hechos capítulo 8 encontramos a Felipe, quien es guiado por un ángel al desierto para encontrarse con un oficial de la corte de la reina de Etiopía. Felipe se da cuenta que este oficial está leyendo el rollo del libro de Isaías donde se hallan las profecías del Mesías. En ese momento, Felipe podría haberse acercado y declarado audazmente: “¡He sido enviado a ti en este día para que escuches las buenas nuevas de Jesús, el Mesías!” Pero no lo hizo. Se encontró con este hombre justo donde estaba leyendo y le hizo una buena pregunta, la cual llevó a la explicación del evangelio. Esta es la mejor forma de apologética.

En ocasiones a la apologética se le llama “pre-evangelismo”, porque ayuda a remover los obstáculos intelectuales en el camino de  la fe. El mandato de hacer apologética la encontramos en 1 Pedro 3:15 que nos dice que siempre debemos “estar preparados para presentar defensa ante toda persona que nos pida razón de la esperanza que hay en nosotros”. La palabra “defensa” en griego es apología, que es de donde sacamos nuestra palabra “apologética”. En el libro de los Hechos, cuando los apóstoles evangelizaban, ellos hacían apologética.

Ellos estaban defendiendo su fe constantemente –frente a líderes religiosos, políticos, filósofos seculares y ciudadanos comunes. He aquí tres formas en que usaron la apologética para defender su fe:

1.     Defendieron el evangelio, no a ellos mismos.

Los apóstoles estaban acostumbrados a los juicios, los concilios y las prisiones. En Hechos  4, Pedro y Juan fueron llevados ante el gran concilio de Jerusalén y fueron desafiados a defender su derecho a predicar la resurrección de Jesús. Pedro no llevaba ni una frase en su defensa cuando empezó a proclamar el evangelio. No gastó su energía tratando de limpiar su nombre, o de evitar el tiempo de prisión – predicó la resurrección de Jesús al mismo concilio que lo estaba cuestionando. 

Este ejemplo también lo siguió el mártir Esteban en los capítulos 6 y 7. Esteban era un cristiano judío que fue llevado ante el concilio acusado de blasfemar contra Dios y contra Moisés. En su famoso discurso, se dirigió al concilio relatando la historia de los judíos, señalando que los verdaderos profetas de Dios siempre fueron rechazados. Y enfatizó que la presencia de Dios no está limitada a una determinada área geográfica o templo. En un sentido, Esteban respondió a las acusaciones de blasfemia. Pero hizo más, él abrió la puerta, teológicamente hablando, para la misión mundial de la Iglesia. Fue una brillante defensa del evangelio. El erudito del Nuevo testamento F. F. Bruce, comentó lo siguiente acerca de la famosa “defensa” de Esteban:

Obviamente no es un discurso de defensa en el sentido jurídico del término. [Y] de ninguna manera fue formulado para asegurar una absolución ante el Sanedrín. Es más bien una defensa del cristianismo puro como el modo de adoración designado por Dios. (2)

El gran predicador Charles Spurgeon dijo esto de Esteban:

Le vemos defendiendo la fe ante una sinagoga de sutiles y filosóficos negadores de la verdad. Esteban el diácono se convirtió en Esteban el predicador…pues recibió una promoción más excelsa: cuando se hubo convertido en Esteban, el sabio apologista (3)

Cuando nuestra fe es atacada, puede ser tentador ponerse a la defensiva. Pero seríamos sabios si siguiéramos el ejemplo de los apóstoles y defendiéramos el evangelio, no a nosotros mismos

2.     Ellos compartieron evidencia de testigos oculares de la resurrección de Jesús, no sus testimonios personales.

Los testimonios personales de los apóstoles ciertamente se cruzaron con los relatos de los testigos oculares de la resurrección de Jesús, porque ellos fueron los testigos oculares. Pero su mensaje se centraba en Jesús, no en ellos mismos. En otras palabras, cuando ellos compartían el evangelio, no hablaban sobre lo que Jesús hizo por ellos personalmente y luego simplemente invitaban a otros a tener una relación personal con Él. Testificaban el hecho de que Jesús fue crucificado, sepultado y resucitado, ofreciendo la salvación a todos los que se arrepintieran y pusieran su fe en Jesús el Mesías. Este tema es consistente en todo el libro de los Hechos.

El testimonio personal puede ser una gran manera de construir una relación, pero nuestros testimonios siempre deben apuntar a algo más grande: las buenas noticias de la muerte y resurrección de Jesús.

3.     Ellos conocían las Escrituras pero en ocasiones no lo utilizaban inmediatamente.

Los primeros cristianos eran judíos que estaban saturados de las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento. Cuando Pablo se convirtió en el capítulo 9 inmediatamente comenzó a predicar a los judíos en Damasco, “demostrando que Jesús era el Cristo”. En el capítulo 13 habló en la sinagoga de Antioquía, remitiéndose a las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento para mostrar a los judíos que Jesús era el Mesías esperado. En el capítulo 17 fue a la sinagoga de Tesalónica y ahí “razonó con ellos a partir de las Escrituras”.

Más adelante en este mismo capítulo, Pablo estaba en Atenas conversando con los filósofos epicúreos y estoicos. Estos filósofos no habrían aceptado el Antiguo Testamento judío como autoritativo, así que Pablo usó una táctica diferente para llegar al evangelio. En lugar de apelar a las Escrituras, él mencionó a su propio altar religioso con la inscripción, “Al dios no conocido”. Luego procedió a presentarles al Dios que aún no conocían, incluso citando a sus propios y respetados pensadores filosóficos. Él utilizó esto como táctica para la resurrección de Jesús.

Esto no significa que las Escrituras no sean importantes o ignoradas. Solo significa que a veces tenemos que encontrarnos con la gente donde están y empezar desde ahí.

Conclusión:

Los apóstoles utilizaron la apologética de manera creativa, adaptando su método a la situación en la que se encontraban. El tema en común entre estos tres métodos es que el evangelio siempre fue el punto principal. Los apóstoles mantuvieron el enfoque de su evangelización en la resurrección de Jesús y la esperanza de la fe salvadora en Él –¡Y nosotros también deberíamos hacerlo!

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers es cantante y compositora estadounidense, más conocida por formar parte del grupo femenino de música cristiana ZOEgirl. Ha tenido una serie de sencillos en el top 10 de la radio, cuatro álbumes de estudio, y recibió el premio Dove durante su tiempo con ZOEgirl. Años más tarde, Alisa encontró su fe de toda la vida profundamente desafiada cuando comenzó a asistir a lo que más tarde se identificaría como una Iglesia Cristiana Progresiva. Este reto empujó a Alisa hacia la apologética cristiana. Hoy en día podemos leer, escuchar y ver el trabajo de Alisa en internet, y también adquirir su libro recientemente publicado sobre el cristianismo progresivo titulado Another Gospel.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/yEo2Jkx 

Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo

Editado por Elenita Romero 

 

/by
Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

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

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

Ehrman claims that,

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

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

The first Christian theologians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the name Yahweh found in the New Testament?

Ehrman states that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Psalm 110 rule out Jesus being Yahweh?

Ehrman continues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Angel of the Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Carmen Christi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Elenita Romero

 

/by
Cinco cosas que debe tener la apologética cristiana

Cinco cosas que debe tener la apologética cristiana

By Doug Potter

I was raised in a Christian home, was always active in an evangelical church, and even got on first-name terms with my youth pastor. However, I was not prepared “apologetically” for my first year of college. It started after freshman orientation, when my coordinator met with us and said, “Look, you’re pursuing a Liberal Arts degree, so you have to take a religion and philosophy class. Do that now. Don’t wait until the end.”

 

So, by the end of my freshman year, after taking Bible and Philosophy classes, I still considered myself a Christian, but I was pretty convinced as a result of taking those classes that the Bible contained historical errors and that no argument could prove the existence of God. Those were just the things I could verbalize. I had also internalized that some truths, especially religious ones, must be subjective and relative.

Yet, I still had this nagging inclination in the back of my mind. Remember that youth pastor, the one I knew by name? He thought he was smart, he’d gone to seminary, he knew Greek and Hebrew and even some philosophy, and he didn’t believe the things I learned in class. Why did I believe them? Because my college professor did? All I knew at that point was that I had to dig deeper.

Apologetics to the rescue

Up to that point, all I had seen was what I now call historical or evidential apologetics. In other words, I knew the biblical and historical points concerning Jesus’ resurrection. However, that didn’t help me with philosophy or even with the supposed errors of the Bible.

Then I finally bought a book called When Skeptics Ask . It changed me. It was the apologetic baptism I had been waiting for and looking for. What made that exposition better than any other? In short, it defined what apologetics is and is not, covered truth, arguments for the existence of God, different views of God (worldviews), and organized the questions and points into a systematic defense of the Christian faith.

I got hooked and I still am. However, I have discovered that not all approaches to apologetics are created equal. I now use five principles to evaluate apologetics systems, people, books, curricula, and other materials. If it doesn’t measure up, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all bad, but it’s not complete. Apologetics must include these five things:

  1. Apologetics must be distinguished from evangelism . Apologetics answers questions about Christianity (1 Pet. 3:15) and can build a positive case for the Christian faith (Luke 1:4). But this is distinctly different from evangelism or sharing the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Evangelism is done anytime, anywhere, to anyone, in any conversation. Apologetics is only done when and if it is necessary for unbelievers or even believers—to defend the faith or strengthen it.
  2. Apologetics must define truth and tear down any relative notion of it. To counter today’s postmodern world, truth must be defended as absolute. The world says that beliefs about religion or God are subjective – true for you, but not necessarily true for them. But if truth corresponds to reality, the way things are, then truth is based on the objective world that everyone knows. The law of non-contradiction shows us that something cannot be true or false at the same time and in the same sense/relation. So if “C” (Christianity) is true, then everything “non-C”, everything that opposes “C”, is false. The truth is that there is no such thing as relative truth. Relativism is self-refuting, since it assumes that relativism is true for everyone (=absolute), which is nonsense.
  3. Apologetics must prove the existence of God. If point number 2 is correct, then we can reason from a changing reality to an unchanging cause of all things. The traditional arguments for the existence and nature of God are not dead if truth is absolute and knowable. Furthermore, we must connect such arguments to the theistic nature of the God of the Bible (Ex. 3:14) and show that there can only be one Being (God) who is necessary, eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent.
  4. Apologetics must show that worldviews opposed to theism are false. Given points 2 and 3, it is possible to show that no opposing view of God is or can be true. Atheism, the view that there is no God, and pantheism, the view that God is identical with creation, are false if theism (there is a transcendent God) is true. This, therefore, provides the context for understanding everything else in the world, including science and history.
  5. Apologetics must offer a systematic defense of the Christian faith. An apologetic must connect the theistic view of God with the historical truth of the New Testament, showing that Jesus claimed to be God, fulfilled prophecy by rising from the dead, and taught that his apostles had the same God-given inspiration and miraculous power as the Old Testament prophets .

Only in them can we support the claim that Christianity is true and everything that opposes it is false. Yes, there are difficult passages in the Bible, but the clear things are the main things. And yes, truth exists outside the Bible, but nothing that contradicts the Bible can be true since Jesus, the Son of God, taught that he is the Word of God (John 17:17).

I never imagined that apologetic resources would be as widely known and accessible as they are today. The Internet has certainly made this possible. However, it can be both a blessing and a curse. I encourage you to evaluate apologetic programs, ministries, and materials so that these five things are not lacking. Your faith and the faith of your disciples can be compromised.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Potter is the author of Developing a Christian Apologetics Educational Program (Wipf & Stock, 2010) and co-author (with Dr. Norman Geisler) of The Teacher’s Guide to Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True (Bastion Books, 2015). He has written and published articles in the Christian Apologetics Journal , The Homeschool Digest , as well as the Christian Research Journal . Dr. Potter also serves as the Academic Registrar and Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/CQ69HU1

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Elena Romero 

 

/by
¿Se está desvaneciendo Dios?

¿Se está desvaneciendo Dios?

By Mia Langford

The “omnis” of theology – omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. – are coming under attack with increasing frequency, and not only from the more well-known theologically liberal camps of Christianity. Examples abound – even within evangelical communities – of these attacks on various attributes of God, which seem to have been “shot down” by the fire of academics, or are altered by laymen to the point that the essence of the word is lost, and along with it, the force that would inspire in the individual worship and wonder.

What is causing the traditional understanding of God to “fade away”? It seems as if  the nail holding all these attributes in place has been removed.

In this week’s episode of Why Do You Believe?, Dr. Richard Howe gives that nail a name: classical theism.

Classical Theism

Classical theism is a theology about God that denotes His simplicity. The word classical must be understood within the boundaries and categories of Western thought that emerged with the ancient Greeks, followed by the Christian church fathers, and then the medieval scholastics.

Within this framework, God is uninterrupted or infinitely present, invariable existence, not a being composed of metaphysical parts like the rest of creation (for example, angels are composed of form and existence, human beings have a mixture of form, matter and existence, etc.).

All of God’s attributes, such as omnis, immutability, and others, are derived from this metaphysical principle of simplicity (the quality of the attribute describes a characteristic of God’s nature or of His actions, and both can be known through creation [general revelation] and through His Word [special revelation]). God’s attributes   are not independent, but are in such harmony that they are all involved and collaborate at all times and moments; by eliminating or altering one attribute, the others simply collapse.

Put another way, representing God’s attributes individually has to do with our finite, human understanding attempting to segment God’s magnitude and majesty into pieces that are easier to perceive, and when we misuse the cornerstone of divine simplicity, or any other essential attribute of God, the whole house falls into jeopardy.

Who removed the nail?

So, if simplicity is the foundation of many of God’s attributes, why has simplicity been neglected in modern times? Dr. Howe attributes this omission primarily to a lack of skill in hermeneutics . And he demonstrates in these few lines that an insufficient and erroneous view of the nature and attributes of God will result in the omission of this precious and firm theological principle, and will end in an absurd and incorrect interpretation of the text. In classical theism, God is honored as unique in his kind because he is a necessary and simple being, but other philosophical systems are capable of imposing human, finite, and inexact characteristics on God very often.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/sQJ8OJP

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo

 

/by
¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

¿Es la Biblia nuestra principal autoridad?

By David Pallmann

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

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

Michael Krueger expresses this same sentiment when he says,

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

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

Two types of authority

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

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

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

Applying the distinction

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

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

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Epistemic Authority

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

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

A final consideration

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusion

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

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

Grades

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo 

Edited by Yohangel Morales 

 

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

¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?

By Jason Jimenez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

 

/by
Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

Cinco consejos para enseñar apologética cristiana

By Dr. Doug Potter

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

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

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

Reasons to teach apologetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Apologetic education must be directed toward the believer

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

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

(Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

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

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

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

(Matthew 18:5-6 NASB)

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

3. Apologetic education must follow a systematic plan

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

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

4. Apologetic education must be composed of activities

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

5. Apologetic education must recognize its limitations

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

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

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

Recommended resources in Spanish:

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/lnZQr1y 

Translated by Rolando Vega

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo 

 

/by