The Public Square (Part 2)

II. The advantages of engaging into dialogues or debates.

This is the part 2 of the paper that I presented before.  Before I cleared the misconceptions. Now we will be talking about the advantages of engaging into dialogues or debates (on the presumption that the basis is truth and not myth).   

Most of us are engaging into a debate everyday. In schools, at the office, into chit chat, etc. Not that formal though but most if not all is onto debating. 

I will summarize the advantages in engaging into a mature and based on truth debates. 

I will use 2D's:

Define

Decode

Define

I am currently reading this book now by Ron Martoia. His thesis is all about the languages that we are using that somehow misinterpret by the nonChristians. I may not agree to all of his positions but I agree that we have to define (or redefine) the terms that we are always using.

Sometimes, by just sharing our faith the non Christians misquote us and worse, reject the gospel. In a dialogue we will have a chance to define our faith on the level that our audience can understand. The one way communication can't relay properly the message but with dialogue or two way communication the non Christians may ask and require us to answer about our hope... Our faith.. Our God  (Please read 1 Peter 3:15). Since there is an interaction we can define what we mean by the terms that we are using. 

Let's have an experiment. What is the first picture that comes to your mind if I will say Church. Some may say a big building. Others may say a group of people. It is because we have different backgrounds, family traditions and upbringing. We are all different. Defining our terms into an interaction may open the gate for open discussion for the non Christians that continues to reject the gospel because of our mispresentation of it.

Decode

Remember this book ? This is the book of full of symbols that the characters of this novel need to decode for them to understand the whole message.

If other may not understand us, we too sometimes have misinterpretations and misquotations on the things that they believe. 

If we will understand what they think. If we will know how they play they game. On how they use the language. We may be able to understand their needs. 

If you can notice, Jesus and Paul have different teaching styles. Why? Because they have different audiences with different questions in life. If we know their questions we may know what they want to hear from us.

-Danes

The Public Square (Part 1)

When I first encountered a group of apologist on the internet I was really amazed and confused. They called themselves as The Bereans Apologetics Reasearch Ministry. These people has a forum on their website, where registered members may discuss matters of faith. Members of the forum consists of Evangelicals, Roman Catholic, SDA's, INC's, ADD's etc. I got really confused since I believe that debating is wrong and very unChristian. I believe that our focus should only read and preach the scripture and prayer.

With that frame of preference I still try to register into their forum site. I have also read the verses of this ministry.

Acts 17:11
¹¹ Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
and

1 Peter 3:15
¹⁵ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

After reading the verses I found myself discussing and sharing the good news to the unbelievers and critics of Christianity. In this paper I will discuss the following.

I. Misconceptions about apologetics, dialouges and debates.
II. The advantages of engaging into dialouges or debates.
III, Some tips for a friendly approach in apologetics.

I. Misconceptions about apologetics.

Like what I have said above, it was my belief that engaging into a religous dialogue is a BIG-NO-NO to serious Christians. We need only to pray and share the love of God to others (without arguing with them). Some, if not most of Christians, misused or misunderstood Paul's letter to Timothy and say that we are not allowed to debate since it will promote controversy or speculations instead of truth.

1 Timothy 1
³ As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer ⁴ or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. ⁵ The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

But by looking at the passage Paul didn't prohibit Tim to engage to a dialouge but on the contrary he admonished Timothy to do so. The basis of their controversy is not truth, not the Bible but myths. Paul is not prohibiting discussion perse but discussion without the basis of truth.

If you will read the gospels, our Lord engaged into discussion into the religious genuises of His day. Disarming the lies with the truth. If you will read John3 you will read a good point from our Lord in His discussion with Nicodemus.

Apostle Paul as well engage into discussions into his missions. We can read at Acts 17 the following words:

² As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,³ explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. ⁴ Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.


-Danes

How to read the Bible and remain Catholic

The Bible, God's written Word, teaches many many things that don't agree with the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, Rome teaches that Mary is mediatrix of all grace from God, yet the Bible says, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" (1 Tim. 2:5-6; cf. Jn. 14:6). Rome teaches Catholics to venerate carved images, yet the Bible says "You are not to make worthless idols, images, or pillars for yourselves, nor set up for yourselves carved images to bow down to them in the land, because I am the LORD your God" ( Lev. 26:1; cf. Exo 20:4-5; Isa. 42:8; Ac. 17:29). Rome teaches that one merits eternal life through faith and works, yet the Bible is clear that it is "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Jn. 3:16-18, 5:24, 6:47; Rom. 3:23-25). These are just few of the countless theological clashes between the Bible and Rome's teachings.

 So, how can a Catholic read the Bible and remain Catholic? Here's a simple advice from a Catholic blogger:

IF YOU WANT TO STUDY THE BIBLE AND STILL REMAIN CATHOLIC, TAKE IT FROM A CATHOLIC PRIEST, OK? (source)

Or better off, don't even dare open your Bible, else you'd lose your mind (according to an old pinoy superstition). Either way, I think this Catholic blogger knows what he's saying, and I'm glad he's aware of the fact that Catholics may take risk of losing their faith to Rome's teachings by simply reading the Bible. So instead of examining the Scriptures daily to see if Rome's teachings were true (as was the practice of the Bereans in Ac. 17:11), you must completely and blindly submit to everything the priest is saying.

"And he said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!'" (Mat. 7:6-9)

-Jeph

My Take on the Eternal Destiny of the Unborn & Babies who Die in Infancy (A Response to Ptr. Steve Griffin)

"Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have
prepared praise." (Matthew 21:16, ESV)

Ptr. Steve Griffin, a reformed baptist pastor who runs the blog Just Thinking (and writing), recently wrote an article concerning the question whether hell is the eternal destination of the unborn and born babies dying in infancy. Though I agree with his answer, namely, that all such are going to heaven instead of hell, there are points in his treatment which I didn't find agreeable and biblically sound.

To summarize Ptr. Griffin's argument (the way I understand it), the unborn and born babies who die will not go to hell because they can't be liable for the sin of our first parents. While they are, as all humans, conceived with a sinful nature, they are still somewhat worthy to enter heaven in that they haven't done any actual sins, and for this reason the notion of baby-faith (i.e. that saving faith is mysteriously infused by God in the unborn and dying babies before their death) should be regarded as unnecessary.

His own words (original emphasis replaced with mine):

To be sure we are not born neutral or innocent or pure. We are born sinners by nature. But are we, as preborn/born babies, sinners by choice? That is, do babies enact their wills to transgress God’s law? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Do preborn/born babies willfully transgress the Law of God? Are they immoral when they awaken their exhausted parents just because they’re hungry or startled? Are they being sinfully selfish? 

(Please note: I am not speaking of children who have the mental/moral capacity to lie, disrespect/disobey their mommy and daddy, or hurt others; I am referring to preborn/born babies.) 

Hence, I think it germane to our conversation to distinguish between sinful nature and sinful behavior. Because of Adam’s sin we are born with a sinful nature, a propensity for evil. We are born sinners. But is the sinner damned to hell because of Adam’s sin? It seems the sinner shall be judged, not for the sins of Adam, but for his own transgressions of the law. 

“And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books” (Revelation 20:12). What evil works have preborn/born babies committed? It would seem the answer to that question is “none.” (In so saying, we are not denying or even addressing our sin in Adam per Romans 5:12; again, c.f. Romans 9:11).

Ptr. Griffin denies that humans are damned merely on account of Adam's original sin, but what of Romans 5:18 which says that Adam's "trespass led to condemnation for all men"? (see also Romans 5:12). The traditional interpretation of this verse (see Council of Orange AD 529, Canon 2) is that all of mankind are actually one with Adam when he sinned, and so we are as much as liable (and worthy of condemnation) for his transgression. This is why Ephesians 2:3 says we are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." If we cannot be condemned for Adam's sin, then what is the basis of this wrath which is upon us by nature/birth?

It is true and I agree that all men will be "judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books" (Revelations 20:21), but in so far as Adam was mankind's federal head and representative of the human race (just as Christ is the federal head and representative of the race of the elect - Romans 5:12-19), his sin was also OUR sin. It's as though we have actually committed the same sin ourselves. According to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), under the 6th Chapter, acrticles two and three:

2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them. For from this, death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 

3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and their corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. Their descendants are therefore conceived in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, the servants of sin, and the subjects of death and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus sets them free.

I'm not sure if Ptr. Griffin's a subscriber of LBCF. But I assume he is, since he claims himself to be a reformed baptist and that I saw some of his posts where he also quotes from the confession.

Anyway, the Bible is clear that in Adam we all sinned. Actual sins increase our guilt, but we are deserving of condemnation on account of original sin alone. This does not excempt unborn humans and those who die in infancy. Yet of course I believe none of those little ones really end up in hell by God's mercy. Though I admit I can't find any explicit statement from Scripture which says so, nonetheless I believe God is able to save them. While Ptr. Griffin believes dying infants can go to heaven without being born again and having faith, I would stick with what the Bible says in John 3:3 and Hebrews 11:6. Nothing is impossible with God, and this is clearly seen in Luke 1:41.

Praise God!

-Jeph

BATA PA

Batang Bata Ka Pa

Batang-bata ka pa at marami ka pang
Kailangang malaman at intindihin sa mundo
Yan ang totoo
Nagkakamali ka kung akala mo na
Ang buhay ay isang mumunting paraiso lamang

Batang-bata ka lang at akala mo na
Na alam mo na ang lahat na kailangan mong malaman buhay ay di ganyan
Tanggapin mo na lang ang katotohanan
Na ikaw ay isang musmos lang na wala pang alam
Makinig ka na lang, makinig ka na lang

Ganyan talaga ang buhay lagi kang nasasabihan
Pagkat ikaw ay bata at wala pang nalalaman
Makinig ka sa ‘king payo pagkat musmos pa lamang
At malaman nang maaga ang wasto sa kamalian


Batang-bata ako at nalalaman ko ‘to
Inaamin ko rin na kulang ang aking nalalaman at nauunawaan
Ngunit kahitganyan ang kinalalagyan
Alam mo na may karapatan angbawat nilalang kahit bata pa man, kahit bata pa man

Nais ko sanang malaman ang mali sa katotohanan
Sariling pagraranas ang aking pamamagitan
Imulat ang isipan sa mga kulay ng buhay
Maging tunay na malaya ‘sang katangi-tanging bata


 -Apo Hiking Society


Gustong gusto ko ang awiting ito. Kapag naririnig ko ito lumalakas ang  paniniwala ko na ang mga kabataan pa din ang pag asa ng ating bayan.

Ngunit bakit sinisikil ang boses ng mga kabataan ? Bakit laging sinasabi na "bata pa" ,"ito ay hindi pa ang tamang oras" , "makinig kana lang muna" , "kulang ka pa sa karanasan ".? Tulad ng klasik na awit ng Apo. Kung kabataan ang pag asa ng bayan bakit pinipigilan ang mga kabataan na maki alam sa problema ng lipunan ? Lagi kong na aalala ang laging sinasabi ng mga matatanda na " experience is the best teacher". Kung tama ang kanilang tinuran, bakit nating pinipigilan ang mga kabataan ? Oo alam ko na kulang pa ang aming karanasan at nalalaman. Kulang pa din ang aming mga pagpaplano. Minsan padalos dalos kame ng desisyon. Kadalasan ay nagkakamali sa mga desisyon. Pero ibig bang sabihin nun ay hinde na pwedeng mag desisyon ang mga kabataan. Kung "experience' ang best teacher bakit hinde hayaang maki alam ang mga kabataan sa problema ng lipunan.

Kung kasaysayan ang ating titingnan. Sino ba ang nagdala ng pagbabago sa lipunan ? Saan nagsimula ang mga malalaking mga pagbabago ng mundo ? Minsan nga mas mabilis pa ang solusyon ng mga kabataan kumpara sa solusyon ng mga matatanda.

Ultimo sa Biblia merong mga batang tinawag ang Dios para gamitin Niya at magdala ng pagbabago.

Jeremias 1


7Nguni't sinabi sa akin ng Panginoon, Huwag mong sabihin, Ako'y bata: sapagka't saan man kita susuguin ay paroroon ka, at anomang iutos ko sa iyo ay sasalitain mo.
8Huwag kang matakot dahil sa kanila; sapagka't ako'y sumasaiyo upang iligtas kita, sabi ng Panginoon.
9Nang magkagayo'y iniunat ng Panginoon ang kaniyang kamay, at hinipo ang aking bibig; at sinabi sa akin ng Panginoon, Narito, inilagay ko ang aking mga salita sa iyong bibig:
10Tingnan mo, aking pinapagpupuno ka sa araw na ito sa mga bansa at sa mga kaharian, upang magalis at magbagsak at upang magsira at magwasak, upang magtayo at magtatag. 

Nasaan ang mga matatanda nong panahon na iyan ? Sino ang nautusan para magdala ng pagbabago ?

Ang aking katanungan, gusto ba nating magkaroon ng mga responsableng mga lider sa mga susunod na henerasyon.? Yung matatag ang mga tuhod ? Yung mga "hardcore" kumbaga ? Kung ating sagot ay oo, huwag nating sikilin ang sigaw ng mga kabataan. Huwag nating ipagdamot sa knila ang kanilang kinabukasan.

Kung hinde ngayon... Kelan pa nila mararanasan para mag desisyon para bansa at kinabukasan ?

Kung hinde ngayon ? Kelan pa ?

Statement of Faith

Last night Jeph (the author of this blog) invited me to co-author him in this blog. One of our agreement was to create our statement of faith that we both agree.

Statement of Faith, we can see it on churches, church and para church websites. We can read blogs, forums and discussion groups debating over different statement of faith. 

While I am trying to read the existing statement of faith that is existing on this blog, I have asked myself. What is my statement of faith ? What are the things that I really believe ? Some, if not most of the Christians today don't have a clear knowledge on what we really believe. Because of the rise of post modernist philosophy the importance of "sound doctrine" was almost forgotten by some Christians. Some are "allergic" about doctrines and put correct living as the ONLY way of Christianity. I am not against on the importance of correct living (Matthew 7:21) but we should not forget that for us to live right then we need to believe right.

In this article I will discuss the important of knowing the doctrines of scripture and it's application to our lives. 

Difference of truth and lie

Jesus said at John 8:32

32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

For us to be free we need to have a clear distinction between truth and lie. Between good and evil. We can't evade issues about doctrine just because we can't understand those. If Christians will not hold on truth then what will you think will happen ?

There is an attack now to the body of Christ. There are "professing" Christians who are influenced by Post modern thought. One of the prominent of those claiming to be Christian is Brian Mclaren. McLaren said:

I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).

If we will not hold the truth we are compromising and denying the Lord Jesus Christ and His Words. He said:

I am THE way, THE truth and THE life.. (John 14:6)

There He indicates that in our faith there is a clear distinction between truth and lie. If our Lord claimed that He is THE truth (it’s an absolute statement) then why we are afraid to hold and to declare the truth of God ?

The Era of lie.

2 Timothy 4

2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Imagine your (Christian) friend believe in a myth (not true), what will happen ? Imagine that I believe unicorn what will happen ? 

That is what happening now. Because Christians don’t want to preach solid truths from the Word of God, people tend to listen to preachers that are not preaching the cross but preaches motivation and self esteem instead of faith. Because Christians don’t want to make a position about LGBT some tend to listen to Oprah. 

Do we want to live in a place that lie is the basis of life and not truth ?

Conclusion.

Since this is my first post in this blog, I will make a lengthy article. I will by a quote.

A lie repeated often becomes truth

Now Christians, do we want the world to continue to hear lies ?