0 An Introduction to Christian Apologetics – 3

By: Dr.Paul Coulter

The Dynamic of Apologetic Dialogue

Apologetics may happen at many different levels, from the highly formal and intellectual (e.g. debates with leading atheist thinkers, presentations in universities and parliaments) to the highly informal and less strictly intellectual. Much of what follows in this section presumes the more informal interactions that every believer should expect to engage in through the normal process of life as described in 1 Peter 3. Apologist Michael Ramsden has warned that [12]:

 

The temptation with apologetics is to offer set answers to set questions. It can be useful to have a structure in mind when dealing with certain issues. However, it is better to have an understanding of how we can effectively engage with people at a conversational level… Apologetics can become mechanistic. Although the truth of the Gospel remains constant, we mustn’t think that by repeating things we have said to other people in the past, we will automatically get the same response.

The aim of this section is to reflect on the dynamics of a conversation with a nonbeliever.Based on 1 Peter 3:1316  and on personal experience we can consider the constituent parts of this interaction:

A context

The context in which an apologetic interchange takes place is vital to the dynamic of the conversation. This works at a number of levels:

0 Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament, Part 3

By:Dr.Richard S. Hess 

Distinguished Professor of Old Testament

The Canaanite Thinker? Statue from 3800 years ago uncovered in Yehud: The Amorites seem to have been among the forefathers of all Canaanites. Eyecon, IAA- haaretz.com

Turning in a different direction, I want to consider the question of genocide against the Canaanites as portrayed in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Perhaps more than any other issue that troubles those interested in the God of the Bible, the role played by God in warfare, and especially warfare against the Canaanites, causes concern. There are many texts that could be cited in regard to this issue. However, Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 1–11 are among the most frequently cited.

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 commands the complete destruction of every “city” in the land that God has given to Israel. This complete destruction, or devotion to the ban (Hebrew herem), is known in neighboring nations as well. However, in Deuteronomy this destruction is confined to the cities in Canaan. The term translated “city” is ‘ir . This term does not necessarily refer to a major urban center, as we tend to think of a city today. In the Bible this term can describe a village (Bethlehem [1 Samuel 20:6]), tent encampments ( Judges 10:4) and a citadel (2 Samuel 12:26) or a for- tress such as Zion in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:7, 9).21 In fact, it seems often to identify a military context. Archaeologically, this conforms to many sites in the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Tell Balatah or Shechem) and in the Iron Age (e.g., Arad) where these walled fortresses were not habitations for the average persons to live. The masses lived in hamlets and other places nearby these forts. The forts themselves contained the palace, royal storehouses for the taxes “in kind,” temples, some homes for the leadership and perhaps barracks for the troops. These “cities” were not the home of non-elites or of noncombatants. Rather, they represented the leadership, the military and those most involved with the oppression and rulership of the land. Thus the command in Deuteronomy 20 concerns complete destruction of those armies and forts that represent a religious faith and ideology that directly opposes that of Israel and God. In this sense it is indeed true to assert that God and Israel are holy and that they are called to de- stroy those who would oppose this God and his covenant people by leading them astray through their military might and ideology of force.

0 Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament, Part 2

By: Dr.Richard S. Hess 

Distinguished Professor of Old Testament

Minimalists and the Old Testament

The issue of minimalism, or more accurately the question of the historical value of the Bible, has changed over the years in terms of the focus of ancient Israelite history. For example, in the mid-1970s the major concern was whether the patriarchs of Genesis 12–36 had any historical claim to its tradition.5 The critics questioned the application of parallels from cuneiform archives dating to the traditional date of the patriarchs, the early second millennium b.c. They argued that such parallels could be found in cuneiform texts from a thousand years later, that the style of “history writing” in Genesis did not predate the Greeks who wrote in the fifth century b.c. and later, and that other customs and materials in Genesis could best be dated to the first millennium b.c. This was countered by a series of studies that demonstrated that the quantity and quality of many parallels in the early second millennium b.c. appear only then outside the Bible, that narrative writing of events such as found in Genesis 12–36 was known in the patriarchs’ world of the second millennium b.c., and that many of the customs cited, including especially the personal names, are either exclusive to the early second millennium b.c., or match it in a statistically significant manner not found later.6

0 An Introduction to Christian Apologetics – 2

By: Dr.Paul Coulter

No one is converted through apologetics?

 

Acts 26:28

B] Objections from outside the Bible

1. Logic cannot tell us anything about God

This statement is self defeating since it relies on internal logic as the basis for its claim. Logic is simply the way in which we state facts and make claims. In this sense it is impossible to say anything at all about God or anything else without employing logic. As Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli write [6]:

Most people scorn or ignore apologetics because it seems very intellectual, abstract and rational. They contend that  life and love and morality and sanctity are much more important than reason. Those who reason this way are right; they just don’t notice that they are reasoning. We can’t avoid doing it, we can only avoid doing it well.

They explain the relationship between the language of logic and argument and the reality of the world we live in [7]:

We write in terms, propositions and arguments because we think in concepts, judgments and reasoning; and we do this because the reality we think about includes essences, facts and causes. Terms express concepts which express essences. Propositions express judgments which express facts. And arguments express reasoning which expresses causes, real ‘becauses’ and ‘whys’.

Since Christians believe in a God who speaks using human language we must be committed to the belief that language can describe reality in a way that is comprehensible. Although we do not claim we can know every truth about the causes, ‘becauses’ and ‘whys’ of the universe, we do believe that God has created us in His image as rational people who can comprehend those causes, ’becauses’ and ’whys’ that God has revealed to us through the ordering of nature, through His actions in history and through His words recorded in Scripture.

0 An Introduction to Christian Apologetics - 1

By: Dr.Paul Coulter

What is ‘Apologetics’?

What is ‘Apologetics’?

The term ’apologetics’ derives from the Greek word apologia. Although it is derived from the same word as the English noun ’apology’ and adjective ’apologetic’ the meaning is quite significantly different. In the ancient Greek world an apologia was a legal defence of oneself, similar to the speech a modern day defence lawyer makes on behalf of their client. It did not mean “a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure” (the Oxford English Dictionary definition of ’apology’) but a carefully reasoned defence of one’s beliefs or actions.

We might, then, define Christian apologetics as follows:

The task of developing and sharing arguments for the truth and rationality of Christianity and the falsehood and irrationality of alternatives with the aim of strengthening the faith of believers and provoking non believers to consider Christ

The significance of this definition will become clearer throughout this article, but at this point it is important to emphasise that ’argument’ in this context refers to a logical, reasoned case rather than an argumentative style. Apologetics includes both developing and sharing arguments – it is not a purely academic exercise conducted in an ivory tower, but a practical engagement with real people and real problems. You will also notice that there are two sides to the arguments we seek to develop – a positive case for Christianity and a negative case against alternative belief systems. Furthermore, the ultimate aims of apologetics are not to develop clever arguments but to see people led to faith and strengthened in their faith.

What Are the Origins of Apologetics?

In the second century AD, as Christianity began to engage at an intellectual level with Greek philosophy and attractedgreater attention from Roman society, a number of writers produced reasoned defences of the Christian faith. Of these Justin Martyr (c. 100165 AD), a gentile from Samaria who was converted after seeking truth in numerous philosophies and eventually died as a martyr in Rome, is probably the best known and the most significant. These writers are generally referred to as ‘the apologists’. Their writings collectively show three major concerns:

0 Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament, Part 1

By:Dr.Richard S. Hess 

Distinguished Professor of Old Testament

New Atheists and the Old Testament

An apologetics addendum on matters relating to the Old Testament can include a great variety of items. Guided by the author of this volume and my own thoughts as to what may be of most value, I have chosen to focus on three items that might assist us in appreciating some of the major apologetics issues for this era. I will begin with a consideration of some of the chief issues addressed more popularly in recent pro-atheist books. I will then consider the so-called minimalists and criticisms of the historical witness of the Bible. Finally, I will look at perhaps the most important apologetic issue in the Old Testament, that of Deuteronomy, Joshua and divinely ordained genocide.1

New Atheists and the Old Testament

First, I would like to deal with a few of the specific charges made by the “new atheists.” Space does not permit me to examine the details of every issue that is discussed. So I will attempt to focus on some of the main charges in three well-known books by authors also famous for taking this position: Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; and Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.2

1 Yesus Kristus & Perumpamaan-Perumpamannya:Sepenting & Sekudus Apakah?

Oleh: Martin Simamora

Tanpa Perumpamaan Ia Tidak Berkata-Kata kepada Mereka

▬Parabolik dalam Pengajaran Yesus Kristus

Metode parabolik atau yang menggunakan perumpamaan telah digunakan oleh Yesus dalam sebuah kehidupan pelayanannya dalam implementasi yang sangat  prinsip sebagaimana komentar yang dikemukakan injil Markus berikut ini:

Markus 4:34 dan tanpa perumpamaan Ia tidak berkata-kata kepada mereka, tetapi kepada murid-murid-Nya Ia menguraikan segala sesuatu secara tersendiri.

Mengenai perumpamaan itu sendiri, lalu seperti apakah kedudukannya? Apakah semacam imajinasi atau karangan belaka yang kedudukannya lebih rendah daripada sabda atau firman, sehingga bisa diasumsikan bahwa Yesus juga mengandalkan hikmat manusiawinya sehingga sabdanya semacam ini “Sebab Aku berkata-kata bukan dari diri-Ku sendiri, tetapi Bapa, yang mengutus Aku, Dialah yang memerintahkan Aku untuk mengatakan apa yang harus Aku katakan dan Aku sampaikan” (Yohanes 12:49) tidak senantiasa berlaku? Bahwa tak selalu Bapa memerintahkan Yesus untuk mengatakan apa yang harus dikatakannya? Untuk menjawab ini, atau untuk mengetahui kedudukan perumpamaan-perumpamaan dan segenap pengajaran Yesus sendiri, mari kita memperhatikan sejumlah catatan dalam injil-injil berikut ini:

●Matius 7:24-29 Setiap orang yang mendengar perkataan-Ku ini dan melakukannya, ia sama dengan orang yang bijaksana, yang mendirikan rumahnya di atas batu. Kemudian turunlah hujan dan datanglah banjir, lalu angin melanda rumah itu, tetapi rumah itu tidak rubuh sebab didirikan di atas batu. Tetapi setiap orang yang mendengar perkataan-Ku ini dan tidak melakukannya, ia sama dengan orang yang bodoh, yang mendirikan rumahnya di atas pasir. Kemudian turunlah hujan dan datanglah banjir, lalu angin melanda rumah itu, sehingga rubuhlah rumah itu dan hebatlah kerusakannya." Dan setelah Yesus mengakhiri perkataan ini, takjublah orang banyak itu mendengar pengajaran-Nya, sebab Ia mengajar mereka sebagai orang yang berkuasa, tidak seperti ahli-ahli Taurat mereka.

Yesus mengajar dengan perumpamaan-perumpamaan, dengan demikian, bukan sama sekali menunjukan bahwa ia adalah manusia biasa, sebagaimana pendapat orang banyak yang kerap mendengarkan Yesus mengajar dalam metoda paraboliknya tersebut: “takjublah orang banyak itu mendengar pengajaran-Nya, sebab Ia mengajar mereka sebagai orang yang berkuasa, tidak seperti ahli-ahli Taurat mereka”.

0 Annihilationism Error: Hebrew Word Definition Charts

Question

What do the Hebrew and Greek words means in reference to the false doctrine of Annihilationism?

Answer

Some "teachers" are twisting, turning, and torturing many words in the Hebrew and Greek language and stating that they mean "total annihilation or nothingness" - "ceasing to even exist," as they relate to the Doctrine of Hell.

Regarding the Doctrine of Hell,
there are no words in the entire of Scripture that can be accurately
translated as "total absolute annihilation;" not one.

By: Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr., D.D., M.Div.

Throughout the Bible, Hebrew and Greek words interpreted as "destroy," "destruction," "perish," "kill," and "death," as they relate to Hell, never mean "to go into absolute nothingness or oblivion," but rather they mean "eternal" or "forever and ever" ongoing "everlasting" conscious "destruction" (Phil 3:19; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:9; 2:8; Rev 14:11; 20:10-15, et. ). The "gloom of utter darkness" (Jude 1:13; cf. 1:6) refers to being cut off entirely from God, who is "light" (John 1:9; 8:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Jas 1:17; 1 John 1:5; cf. Isa 9:2; John 3:20; Acts 26:18; 1 Thess 5:5). The word "gloom" in Jude 1:13 refers to "a state of depression or despondency." To be in a "state of depression" one must be alive! 

Words such as "cut off" (Exod 31:14-15; Lev 23:29-30; Rom 11:22, 24; Gal 5:12, etc.) also do not mean "absolute nothingness," as even Jesus was "cut off" (Dan 9:26) and is alive "forevermore" (Rev 1:18). Many times the word "cut off" simply means to be cut off from Israel, its congregation, etc., (Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 23:29; Num 19:13, etc.).

One of the most celebrated defenses of Annihilationism has been from Psalm 37:20, "the wicked...they vanish-like smoke they vanish away." Sounds convincing, right? However what is the Psalm really about? The Psalm itself is not even dealing with Hell; Psalm 37:20 refers to that the fact the success, fame, and prosperity of the wicked is as temporary as mere smoke. However, let's say we desire to apply the passage to Hell anyway - we shouldn't, but since Annihilationist's already have, let's review their case from their faulty perspective. Since "smoke" is an important theme here, we should ask the obvious question, "What is smoke?" Smoke is made of two basic things: (1) little drops of water and (2) ash. First, ash can't burn! Second, the reason smoke appears to vanish away is that, as the smoke rises: (1) the droplets of liquid water change states into gas and (2) the ash joins the dust in the atmosphere. Therefore, both elements in smoke still exist, but just in different states. Therefore, there is no total annihilation! 

As the reader will observe, in the Old Testament notes below there're many that refer to "physical destruction, not eternal destruction" (i.e."devoted to destruction," or "curse;" Deut 2:34; 3:6; Judg 21:11; cf. Gal 1:8-9). Please understand that in these notes, we're not saying that those who died did or did not go to Hell or Heaven (that's another topic), but simply the context of the verse is speaking of only "physical destruction," which carries with it the idea of stopping, scattering, putting to flight, and up to and including physical death, etc. Yet, some of the "spin doctors" of the false doctrine of Annihilationism desire to use these examples of "physical destruction" and apply it to "eternal destruction." However, unless otherwise revealed in Scripture, this is not a proper application; as the Bible speaks of two different types of bodies (one that is able to die; the other is not; 1 Cor 15:44, 53) and two different types of death (one temporal and one eternal; Matt 10:28). Besides, the physical body in this world is never totally annihilated anyway; it returns to the dust from which it came (Gen 2:7; Eccl 3:20; 12:7; Psa 103:14; Isa 40:15). In addition, if we follow the Annhilationist's interpretation as such to its logical conclusion, than the wicked can send the righteous to total annhilation (absolute non-existence); 'if they totally annihilate me, they totally annhilate mel' (Est 4:16, etc.) - which is ludicrous, as the righteous know that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8).

0 Penjelasan Yesus Mengenai Kebangkitan & Adakah Kehidupan Perkawinan Setelah Kebangkitan

Oleh: Martin Simamora

“Apabila Orang Bangkit Dari Antara Orang Mati, Orang Tidak Kawin Dan Tidak Dikawinkan Melainkan Hidup Seperti Malaikat Di Sorga”

Apakah Ada Kebangkitan?
	Dilemma Saduki Soal Kebangkitan  : Ikatan Perkawinan & Keluarga Setelah Kebangkitan, Bagaimana?

Ketika  Yesus Kristus menjelaskan kebangkitan atau kehidupan setelah kematian, maka Ia secara tegas menautkannya dengan  siapakah Allah terhadap maut, apakah Ia berdaulat penuh ataukah tidak. Yesus menegaskan bahwa Allah berkuasa atas maut sehingga maut bahkan tak dapat menahan pemerintahan-Nya atas semua manusia di sepanjang masa. Dalam percakapannya dengan salah satu kelompok Yahudi, Saduki yang tak mempercayai atau menolak kebangkitan orang mati, Yesus menegaskan dengan sebuah ungkapan yang menunjukan bahwa maut tak berkuasa menahan Allah untuk membangkitkan siapapun yang ingin dibangkitkannya untuk menerima kehidupan kekal-Nya: Ia bukanlah Allah orang mati, melainkan Allah orang hidup. Mari kita melihat dialog penting dan sangat rasional untuk diperhadapkan dengan Yesus yang dalam pengajarannya sendiri mengajarkan kebangkitan pada  dirinya sendiri dan kepada semua manusia  pada kedatangannya yang kedua kali:

Markus 12:18-22 Datanglah kepada Yesus beberapa orang Saduki, yang berpendapat, bahwa tidak ada kebangkitan. Mereka bertanya kepada-Nya: Guru, Musa menuliskan perintah ini untuk kita: Jika seorang, yang mempunyai saudara laki-laki, mati dengan meninggalkan seorang isteri tetapi tidak meninggalkan anak, saudaranya harus kawin dengan isterinya itu dan membangkitkan keturunan bagi saudaranya itu. Adalah tujuh orang bersaudara. Yang pertama kawin dengan seorang perempuan dan mati dengan tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Lalu yang kedua juga mengawini dia dan mati dengan tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Demikian juga dengan yang ketiga. Dan begitulah seterusnya, ketujuhnya tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Dan akhirnya, sesudah mereka semua, perempuan itupun mati.

Orang Saduki tidak saja bertanya, tetapi juga mengajukan dilemma kepada Yesus yang mengajarkan kebangkitan manusia ada dan pasti akan terjadi. Perhatikan bagaimana orang Saduki tersebut mengajukan dilemma kebangkitan orang mati:

Guru, Musa menuliskan perintah ini untuk kita: Jika seorang, yang mempunyai saudara laki-laki, mati dengan meninggalkan seorang isteri tetapi tidak meninggalkan anak, saudaranya harus kawin dengan isterinya itu dan membangkitkan keturunan bagi saudaranya itu. Adalah tujuh orang bersaudara. Yang pertama kawin dengan seorang perempuan dan mati dengan tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Lalu yang kedua juga mengawini dia dan mati dengan tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Demikian juga dengan yang ketiga. Dan begitulah seterusnya, ketujuhnya tidak meninggalkan keturunan. Dan akhirnya, sesudah mereka semua, perempuan itupun mati.

Dilemma: Tujuh suami tersebut  Pada hari kebangkitan, bilamana mereka bangkit, siapakah yang menjadi suami perempuan itu? Sebab ketujuhnya telah beristerikan dia." (Markus 12:23)

Apakah jawaban Yesus?

0 WHY I BELIEVE

By: Steve Hays

PART 1: A POSITIVE APOLOGETIC

 

The natural mind sees God in nothing,

Not even spiritual things;

The spiritual mind sees God in everything,

Even natural things.

—Robert Leighton

 

PART 2: I’m Glad You Asked!

I. Insight & Hindsight

Why am I writing this?  Over the years, I’ve had a number of college and seminary students approach me to ask me how I’d field this or that objection to the faith. In responding, my answer was naturally shaped by the form of the question. And this is fine as far as it goes.  But that doesn't really represent how I’d frame the questions and prioritize the issues if I were offering a positive defense of my own faith.  And so I’d like, for once, to take the initiative in setting the terms of the debate from my own point of departure.

Secondly, I’m at a point in life where it is worthwhile to take stock of my reasoning.  I became a Christian as a teenager, and I’m now a middle-aged man.  So I’ve passed through the most of the major phases of life, in consequence of which my outlook is pretty settled.

In addition, I’ve read widely and deeply in the fields of philosophy, theology, apologetics, philosophy of religion, science, philosophy of science, Bible criticism, comparative religion, comparative mythology, and atheism. I doubt that there are any major arguments pro or con that I’m not acquainted with, so I don't anticipate any intellectual revolutions in my thinking.  Having sifted through all this material, it’s time to distill it down to a few core questions and answers if not for the benefit of the reader, certainly for my own.

In that regard I need to say in advance what I do and do not intend to cover in this essay.  On the one hand, I don’t plan to rehearse all the traditional arguments for the Christian faith.  This omission doesn’t necessarily imply a rejection of such reasons.  Many of the arguments I’m leaving out of consideration enjoy considerable merit.[1]  But I don't want to swamp the reader in a sea of technicalities.  I'd like to keep this essay at the level of popular reading and personal reflection.  So I’m confining myself to arguments that I myself find especially appealing and compelling. The treatment is admittedly idiosyncratic.

0 An Apologetics Handbook

By: Steve Hays

I'm Glad You Asked!

Contents

1. Epistemology:

            (i) God-Talk

            (ii) Divine Silence

            (iii) Coherence of Theism:

                        (a) Divine Attributes

                        (b) Trinity

                        (c) Incarnation

            (iv) Freudian faith

2. Bible Criticism:

            (i) Miracles

            (ii) Mythology

            (iii) Contradictions

3. Science:

            (i) Creation

            (ii) Flood

            (iii) Physicalism

4. Ethics:

            (i) Problem of Evil

            (ii) Hell

            (iii) Holy War

            (iv) Original Sin

            (v) Predestination

            (vi) Euthyphro Dilemma

            (vii) Crimes of Christianity

            (viii) Christian Chauvinism

Preface

In Why I Believe, I presented a personal and positive case for my Christian faith. This essay is a sequel to that one, for here I field the major objections to Christian faith—some traditional, others of more modern vintage. But as before, I'm confining myself to the answers I favor, even though that does not exhaust all the good answers.  Interested readers are still encouraged to check out the bibliographies in the complementary essay.

I. Epistemology

1. God-Talk

Both inside and outside the Church there is often felt to be a peculiar difficulty with religious language.  This apparent problem has both an epistemic and ontological dimension. At the epistemic level, it is felt that if our knowledge derives from experience in general, and sensory perception in particular, and if God is not a sensible object, then whatever we may say or think or believe about God is a figurative extension of mundane concepts. 

At the ontological level, it is felt that if God is in a class by himself and apart from the creative order, then all our statements about God are vitiated by a systematic equivocation inasmuch as there is no longer any common ground between the human subject and divine object of knowledge.

What are we to say to these considerations? Regarding the epistemic issue, the first thing to be said is that this assumes a particular theory of knowledge.  So if this is a problem, it is not a problem peculiar to religious epistemology, but goes back to the ancient debates between empiricism and rationalism, nominalism and realism. If you are a Thomist, then this is a problem generated by your chosen theory of knowledge.  But if, say, you are an Augustinian, then you don't believe that all knowledge derives from the senses. Abstract objects are objects of knowledge without being perceived by the senses—at least on an Augustinian theory of knowledge. 

0 Apologetic Method

By: Prof. John M.Frame

History and Current Discussion  

I.              The Nature of Apologetics: giving a reason of our hope (1 Pet. 3:15)

A.   Divisions

1.    Proof: giving a rational basis for faith. 1 Cor. 15:1-11.

2.    Defense: answering the objections of unbelievers. Phil. 1:7, 16.

3.    Offense: exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought. Psm. 14:1, 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16.

B.   These divisions are perspectivally related. To do one task completely, you must do the other two as well.

C.   Apologetics a perspective on all preaching and teaching (Ezra Hyun Kim)

D.   Subject-matter

1.    Proof

a.    the existence of God

b.    the truth of the gospel

2.    Defense

a.    The problem of evil

b.    Biblical criticism

c.    Challenges of secular philosophy

d.    Challenges of secular science

3.    Offense

a.    falsehood of non-Christian religions

b.    falsehood of non-Christian philosophy

c.    falsehood of non-Christian science, etc.

0 APOLOGETIKA PRESUPPOSISIONAL : SEBUAH PENGANTAR (2)

Oleh: Dr. John Frame

APOLOGETIKA PRESUPPOSISIONAL : SEBUAH PENGANTAR

Bagian 2 dari 2 : Kejatuhan dan Penebusan; dan  Intisari dan Kesimpulan

Sebaiknya membaca bagian 1 terlebih dahulu

A. Dosa, Anugerah, dan Pengetahuan

Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa kita bukan hanya mahluk- mahluk ciptaan Tuhan, tetapi juga orang-orang berdosa (Roma 3:23). Dosa telah mendistorsi semua  bidang kehidupan manusia (Kejadian 6:5; Roma 3:10-18); karena itu dosa memberi dampak pada pengetahuan kita akan Tuhan dalam cara-cara yang penting. Kita telah mendiskusikan perbedaan tajam antara hidup oleh Firman Tuhan dan hidup oleh semata hikmat manusia. Kitab suci mengajarkan  bahwa banyak orang, sedihnya, menjadikan hal terakhir  sebagai pilihan, karena dosa di dalam diri mereka.

Paulus dalam Roma 1 mengajarkan bahwa Tuhan telah secara jelas menyingkap dirinya pada semua  manusia melalui sarana-sarana dunia  yang telah diciptakan. Pewahyuan ini mencakup natur ilahi Tuhan (ayat 20), murkanya terhadap dosa (ayat 18), ketentuan-ketentuan moral-Nya (ayat 32). Pewahyuan yang jernih itu membuat setiap orang tanpa ampun bagi dosa-dosa mereka (ayat 20). Memang, karena pewahyuan itu, bahkan mereka yang tanpa kitab suci dapat dikatakan “mengenal” Tuhan (ayat 21). Tetapi manusia yang berdosa itu “tidak merasa perlu untuk mengakui Allah” (ayat 28). Mereka “menindas kebenaran dengan kelaliman” (ayat 18). Mereka “telah mengganti” kemuliaan Tuhan dengan berhala-hala” (ayat 23), kebenaran diganti dengan dusta (ayat 25). Hati mereka telah digelapkan (ayat 21). Hasil dari  ini adalah degradasi atau penurunan moral, bentuk-bentuk terburuk perilaku dosa (ayat 24-32).

Ini adalah kondisi pada semua manusia yang terpisah dari anugerah Tuhan. 

0 APOLOGETIKA PRESUPPOSISIONAL : SEBUAH PENGANTAR

Oleh: Dr. John Frame

APOLOGETIKA PRESUPPOSISIONAL : SEBUAH PENGANTAR

Bagian 1 dari 2 : Pengantar dan Penciptaan

Bacalah : bagian utama dari Bagian 1

C.Problem-Problem

1.Psikologi Mengasumsikan Firman Tuhan Adalah Kebenaran sejak awalnya ( Presupposing)

Saya mengakui adalah sukar untuk menginterpretasi atau memahami piskologi iman semacam ini. Bagaimana bisa orang menjadi percaya pada sebuah Kata dari Tuhan yang berkontradiksi dengan semua sarana-sarana normal pengetahuan mereka? Bagimana bisa dahulu Abraham mengenali suara yang memanggil dirinya untuk mengorbankan puteranya (Kejadian 22:1-18; bandingkan dengan Ibrani 11:17-19; Yakobus 2:21-24) memang benar adalah suara Tuhan? Apa yang telah dikatakan suara itu padanya untuk dilakukan merupakan  hal bertentangan dengan naluri-naluri pada seorang ayah, pertimbangan-pertimbangan etika normal, dan malahan. Kelihatannya, bertentangan dengan Kata-Kata lain Tuhan (Kejadian 9:6). Tetapi dia telah mematuhi suara tersebut dan telah diberkati. Lebih dekat dengan pengalaman kita sendiri: bagaimana bisa orang menjadi percaya kepada Yesus walaupun mereka tidak pernah, seperti Tomas, melihat tanda-tanda  Yesus dan keajaiban-keajaiban ( Yohanes 20:29)?

Saya tidak dapat menjelaskan psikologi di sini untuk kepuasan bagi setiap banyak orang. Dalam kasus ini sebagaimana dalam kasus-kasus lainnya (karena kita berjalan oleh iman, bukan oleh melihat!) kita tak terhindarkan harus menerima fakta bahkan tanpa sebuah penjelasan fakta. Untuk alasan  tertentu yang tak selalu dipahami, Tuhan  mengupayakan agar Firman-Nya mencapai kita, sekalipun terdapat halangan-halangan yang bersifat logika dan psikologi. Tanpa menjelaskan bagaimana  hal itu bekerja, Kitab suci menggambarkan dalam berbagai cara sebuah “faktor supernatural” dalam komunikasi  ilahi-manusia :