How Apologetics Saved My Faith (And How It’s Made Me a Better Mom) || Rebekah Valerius || Nov 30, 2017

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

"Hey! It’s Rebekah with Mama Bear Apologetics, a partner of Ratio Christi International! Mama Bear Apologetics is a ministry geared at equipping moms of biological, adopted, foster, or spiritual children, to answer the tough questions of the faith. Christian apologetics is about defending the faith in the public square, but that defense begins in our homes as we raise our children to not only know what they believe about God, but why they believe it. Apologetics isn’t just for the elite. It’s for us. It’s for moms. You can follow us on Facebook, twitter, youtube, itunes, and subscribe to our blog and podcast via the website at www.mamabearapologetics.com.

Today we will be discussing “How apologetics saved my faith (and how it’s made me a better mom).”

A wise man once said these words: “In dealing with the arrogant asserter of doubt, it is not the right method to tell him to stop doubting. It is rather the right method to tell him to go on doubting , to doubt a little more, to doubt every day newer and wilder things in the universe, until at last, by some strange enlightenment, he may begin to doubt himself.”

Apologetics have been a part of my Christian walk for years. As someone who trained in the field of biochemistry – both as an undergraduate and then later as a research scientist – I was confronted pretty early on with the supposed conflict between faith and science. I say “supposed” because apologetics showed me that if anything, Western science owes a large part of its success to its Judeo-Christian foundations. Through apologetics, I learned that I could be a scientist and a Christian; that science could actually help me grow in my awe and wonder of God. He is the Great Designer of the world that science investigates, after all. Indeed, at times, I remember feeling closer to God in the science lab than I did at church! I’d laugh to myself saying “The heavens declare the glory of God … and so do these tiny little protein molecules I am studying!” In the end, I learned that science could never undermine my faith for it could never answer the why of existence.

Little did I know, though, the greatest challenge to my faith would not be in the hallowed halls of a scientific research institution, but at home. Indeed, the even more hallowed halls of hearth and home. After our first child was born, I quickly found myself plunged into the depths of spiritual doubt, the likes of which I had never experienced. As all mothers know, having a child creates a level of vulnerability that is very disconcerting. I suddenly realized that if anything were to ever happen to her, a part of me would die – and would forever die, it seemed. C.S. Lewis called the death of a loved one an amputation. I felt this and it even the possibility of losing my daughter  shook my faith in God to the core. Suddenly, the problem of evil loomed large in my thoughts and I waivered from its oppressive weight. The standard answer of man’s sin as its cause seemed suddenly insufficient  now that I had more skin in the game, you could say – now as a mother with a child that might experience – that would indeed experience – the evil and suffering this world had to offer. In life, suffering of some sort is inevitable, isn’t it? What had I done? How could I have brought a child into such a world? It made me wonder, “Can I trust God not to allow pain and suffering into her life? Given the sheer amount of suffering in the world, does He even care or …. Worse of all – I began to ask – Is He even there? Intellectual doubts quickly supplanted  the emotional doubts.

Around the same time, we had a friend that who had left the faith for similar reasons. He began pounding me with questions: “How can we trust the Bible?” “What about all the evil that God seems to inflict in the Old Testament?” “How could a good and loving God allow evil and suffering?” He began sending me articles and excerpts from the writings of famous atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

In no time, my faith was in shambles. I struggled to find answers in the church that I was attending – a church of wonderful, wonderful people – but no answers that could satisfy the my intellectual doubts. I was given a lot of support and prayer – two very important components – but answers were not there.

That’s when I turned, once again, to apologetics. Thankfully, because of the popularity of atheists like the ones listed above, apologetics conferences were becoming more prevalent . The Christian community was waking up to the need to defend the faith against these new atheists and their claims, as well as train the laity  in defending it. My husband and I began attending every apologetics conference we could. We even spent an anniversary weekend at one! I am so blessed to have him! I began devouring books by the likes of G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, Daniel Wallace, and Tim Keller. I began listening to apologetics podcasts every possible chance that I could, like when our (now two) daughters took their afternoon naps, or when I worked out, or when driving in the car. 

Many moons later, I am here to tell you that if it weren’t for apologetics (and dear brothers and sisters in Christ who prayed for me and held onto me), my faith might not have survived. I am also here to tell you that there is light at the end of the tunnel of doubt.
As far as the thorny problem of evil, pain, and suffering that sent my faith into the depths of doubt, I feel more confident in how that very problem, one that theologians and philosophers have wrestled with since the beginning of time, actually points to God rather than discredits Him or His goodness. Our Gospel is clothed in that very problem, you could say – the good news comes to us in a cloak of pain and crown of suffering – a dramatic confrontation with evil that seems to end in defeat. But only seems! There is an empty tomb at the end of that story, after all!

Our Lord endured that forsakenness that I felt in my doubt when He cried out in matthew 27:46, “ My Lord, My Lord, why have You forsaken Me?” We worship a God that is not only not removed from our suffering, but one that entered into it in order to end all suffering one day.

And now, as I minister to others who are doubting and as I defend the faith against scoffers, I can see this problem of evil at the heart of most of their objections to God. We doubt God when we suffer or see others suffering. It is only natural. The Book of Job shows us this, doesn’t it?

But if we then curse or reject God because of evil, we not only get rid of the problem of evil, but our intuitions that good and evil are real, too. 

It turns out then that the atheism that I was contemplating is too simple. It explains away pain and suffering as artifacts  of evolution rather than confronts them. Yet if one explains away the problem of evil, the problem of good follows along . It is all a useful fiction . The world does not need a belief system that depicts suffering as merely some sort of randomly generated survival mechanism for it makes a mockery not only of our pain but of our highest aspirations to knowledge, goodness, kindness, excellence, and love. The beauty of our Christian creed , with its dying and rising Saviour, is that it is large enough to contain all of these – the good as well as the evil. It reminds us that there is a world of objective “meaning, truth, beauty, and goodness” outside the groans of this world.

It is large enough to both encompass our sorrow without explaining it away, while guiding us through it with hope. One of my favorite Christian apologists, G.K. Chesterton wrote:

When once one believes in a creed, one is proud of its complexity, as scientists are proud of the complexity of science. It shows how rich it is in discoveries. If it is right at all, it is a compliment to say that it’s elaborately right. A stick might fit a hole or a stone a hollow by accident. But a key and a lock are both complex. And if a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key.

I believe Chesterton is right. Apologetics helps us discover the complexity of our creed and assures us that it is big enough to guide us through all of life – our joys as well as our sorrows. We have nothing to fear for we belong to Him who has the Key of life! And now, I get to pass this truth on to my children.  What a gift for them! This is what apologetics can give to you and your family, too!

Maranatha.

Tune in next month as Hillary discusses the topic, “Is Apologetics just for men? Why apologetics needs women!” And don’t forget! To get more resources from the Mama Bears, please visit us at mamabearapologetics.com


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rebekah Valerius is the mother of two precocious girls, and she spends much of her time studying and finding ways to quote G.K. Chesterton. She has a bachelors in biochemistry from the University of Texas at Arlington, and worked for several years as a research scientist in the protein crystallography lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center. She is currently studying for her masters in apologetics from Houston Baptist University. Her specialities are incorporating apologetics into culture and literature. Even though her current research interests are in the humanities, she and Hillary made an immediate bond over their shared love of science, and particularly the complex structure of proteins. Rebekah and her husband are entering their 13th year of wedded bliss. She serves primarily as co-host with Hillary on the Mama Bear Apologetics Podcast. You can see Rebekah’s writing on the Mama Bear blog as well as her personal blog www.alongthebeam.com.

God is Unloving?: "Ang Pagmamahal at Poot ng Diyos" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 28, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

This month we talked about a question raised to me by a university professsor, si Zane who asked me about how to wrap his mind around the point of a loving God and a God that is vengeful o yung may poot. Para daw hindi magkatugma. Lalong lalo na doon sa mga passages when God commanded Israel to invade Canaan. It portrays God as very angry and quite a far cry from the loving God na alam natin.

It was not a very easy topic for me to discuss love and wrath, lalung lalo na po yung galit ng Diyos. Sabi nga ng isang author na kinowt natin sa earlier episodes,

These terms are to be considered anthropopathic expressions; human terms, however, cannot give the full meaning of the infinite and sovereign God's emotional experiences. As his love is infinitely incomprehensible, so are his displeasure, hate, anger, wrath, and vengeance. There is good reason indeed for the writer to the Hebrews to warn sinful people that it "is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" ( Heb 10:31 ). *

So the argument we will try to respond today as we wrap us is, “God cannot be both loving and wrathful because anger and wrath do not mix.”

So the argument goes, “God cannot be both loving and angry because love and anger do not mix.” Actually love and anger can mix, even in a human level. A father finds out that his son is doing drugs. He talks to him with an anger towards addiction and his son’s actions. Nasaan ang pagmamahal doon? Sinisikap ng ama na alisin siya sa kalagayan na ganon. In the book of Amos chapter 3, God said “You only have I chosen of all the clans of the earth. Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Consequently Hebrews 12:6 says, “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” This idea of love and anger forms a foundation for God’s disciplinary actions. Kung hindi siya galit sa kasalanan, hindi siya magtutuwid sa atin; kung hindi siya mapagmahal, hindi siya magtutuwid sa atin.

Ang love and wrath although they are attributes of God they are attributes of actions din and as such may mga objects.

Attribute siya ng Diyos kaya naman gagawa at gagawa siya ng action that would be extended as compassion, long-suffering, mercy, etc. Tulad ng nangyari sa Canaanites. God did not only give a chance for the Canaanites to change their ways for 400 plus years, He also allowed His people, the people of His promise towards slavery so that He can exhaust the time He has allotted for the Canaanites. He was willing to call His people to suffer, in the same way He was willing to send His son to suffer for His glory. Yet these Canaanites became worse even to the point of sacrificing children burning them at the shrine of Molech, sex with animals and many more.. Tapos, although they knew that the judgment of God was imminent on their evil, they fought against the army of God instead of submit or surrender. Rahab and family did it. We know that the Canaanites were scared of their impending judgment and many of them probably fled because Rahab told the spies. The Gibeonites also surrendered and thus they were spared. Yet the rest of the Canaanite cities who celebrated evil fought back.

So this way we can still see the love of God in His motions to extend judgment. God does this out of His loving nature kasi kung walang motion of the will ang Diyos to love. If God does not have this giving nature we call as love, kung wala sa bokabolaryo ng Diyos ang magbigay ng kahit ano, eh di wala din tayo sa mundong ito kasi ang buhay natin, at lahat ng mga bagay sa paligid para sa pananagana natin at pagsusustain ng ating buhay ay galing sa kanya.

Imagine niyo na lang po yung ganid na tao, na ayaw magbigay. Kung ganyan ang Diyos eh wala tayo ngayon dito.

Ngayon etong pagbibigay na ito ng Diyos ay napakahalagang katangian ng Diyos kaya naman mayroon din siyang poot sa mga gustong sumira nitong mga biyaya niya. This seems to be the dominant na reason why He gave judgment sa Canaanites. Most of us siguro do not understand this intensity -- whether it will be yung napag usapan nating Paul Copan model or Clay Jones model, both give us the idea that simply because we do not see the full picture of the destruction or the danger of sin dahil marami sa atin nakaranas ng pleasure ng sin. God does not take pleasure in sin that is why our finiteness, our sinfulness our small brains do not see sin the way God sees it. What we do see however is his testimony that he is angered by sin. We see this in very explicit verses. So palagi pong ang best explanation natin ay rooted sa wisdom and judgment ng Panginoon. Sabi nga ni Wayne Grudem, "The difference between God's being and ours is more than the difference between the sun and a candle, more than difference between the ocean and a raindrop, more than the difference between the arctic ice cap and snowflake, more than the difference between the universe and the room we are sitting in: God's being is qualitively different."†

Yet we are not prohibited to provide other reasons in fact all month we provided those reasons na consistent sa Biblical revelation.
May mga objects ang actions ng Lord derived from His love and wrath.

(C) Photo Credit

NOTE: will update this article in the next few days
__________
*  Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, sv "Wrath of God"; accessed at https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/wrath-of-god.html

† Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

God is Unloving?: "Why Order the Death of Canaanite Livestock?" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 23, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

It has been very difficult the past episodes talking about the reasons why God would order the death of children for an Israeli invasion in the land of the Amalekites. Wala tayong full access sa knowledge at wisdom ng Panginoon on the reasons for His just decision. It is not that God did it without knowledge and we are just trying to make alibis for God. The truth ng Scripture attests to the fact that God is a God of knowledge --

Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed (1 Samuel 2:3). 

O LORD, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away. You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, O LORD, you know it completely. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:1-6).

However, just as God is a God of knowledge, this knowledge ay hindi natin malirip dahil na rin sa limitado nating pag iisip --

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5). 

Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5). 

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out (Romans 11:33).

However, God in His grace did not leave us without reasons for anchoring our mind and faith. Hindi natin winawaksi ang ating kaisipan para maniwala. Nagbibigay ng sapat ng kaalaman ang Panginoon para tayo'y manampalataya. Hindi tayo blind leap of faith. So sa article pong ito sisikapin nating gawin 'yan by talking about a very difficult topic: the order of God to kill even the Canaanite livestock.

The order we could read at 1 Samuel 15:2-3 “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” This issue is within a bigger question that was brought up to me by Zane, a university professor who is trying to wrap his head around reconciling a loving God with a God who has vengeful wrath as is shown sa mga passages tulad ng kakabasa pa lang natin. We have seen in past episodes that wrath is an aspect of God’s love because of the simple idea that God loves good and hates that which is evil, it is two sides of the same coin. In human context, it’s like yung mga nakikita nating balita ng mga magulang ng mga pinaslang na punung-puno ng pagmamahal sa kanilang anak subalit may galit sa mga pumaslang ng kanilang anak. Nakapaloob sa ating pagmamahal ang galit sa mga nais kumitil sa mga mahal natin sa buhay.

Also in the previous episodes we discussed yung model ni Paul Copan na ang order na ito ay linggwahe lang upang ipaalam sa mga Israelitas ang kahalagahan na gapiin ang kaaway. Typical ito sa mga ancient war rhetoric especially when describing the enemy. Last episode we started to discuss yung Clay Jones model naman kung saan totoong literal na pinag utos ng Panginoon ang death pati ng mga bata to show to them the gravity of the sin of the Amalekites, that this culture must be wiped out of the face of the earth. Although hindi nanagumpay ang mga Israelita sa utos na ito dahil marami pa ring mga Amalekites ang naka survive after this, one of which ay yung mga ninuno ni Haman sa Book of Esther na gustong pataying buong population ng Israel, yet the order was meant by God.

In this episode we will talk about why include the animals. Bakit daw ba naisama pa yun mga kawawang hayop?

Again sa tanong pong ito nais ko lamang po iemphasize na may Christian attitude po sa pag aaral na ito.  The basic foundation for this argument -- that God determined ang action na ito na nararapat. Kumbaga to put it simply, God in his all-knowing, all-powerful, eternality etc deemed it a rightful judgment to include children. God as Creator alone has the right to determine when each shall live and die.  (Job 1:20-21).  End of story.

However, we are left still with our finite reasoning to figure out a divine rational. Kaso kumbaga parang ipapainom sa akin ang isang dam ng tubig gamit ang isang maliit na baso. So let me just explain that whatever I will try to explain dito are attempts ng mga tulad nila Clay Jones na mag provide ng finite reasoning to infer yung reasonable action ng Diyos, pero I would expect that many of you would probably find loopholes. Ang reason kasi may principle ng sufficiency, gustong sabihin ay “Everything has a sufficient reason, or a cause, for being what it is.” Kaso kung ang action comes from the wisdom of God na infinitely wise, mukhang may limitation tayo. Yet, we can still infer certain things from His word why He would make that judgment.

So how are we with finite reason explain this. More importantly how will I explain this. Tatlo po ang nakikita kong dahilan: 1) domestication, 2) sickness and 3) animal sex.

Domestication. Ako po ay lumaki sa probinsiya. I know a bit about animal behavior. Isa sa mga mahirap gawin is to tame a beast. Alam natin at least ang mga dominant na beasts noong unang panahon, mga livestock na nagpo provide ng dairy product at mga beasts of burden. Ang mga hayop pong ito ay kailangang idomesticate. Isa sa mahirap na gawin is mapamanahan ka ng isang hayop na hindi ikaw ang nag domesticate. May mga dangers po yan at pagod. Pangalawa, mga hayop na ginamit for sexual gratification ng mga Canaanites. We have good archaeological and literary proofs na ginagawa ito ng mga Canaanites. It seems na because of this practice may dalawang possible na problema. Ang malaking problema dito is that this animal has been used for a detestable practice. In fact ang sabi sa salita ng Diyos ay ganito Leviticus 20:15-16 commands, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Ang bestiality is a capital crime sa Mosaic law noon.

Pangatlo, ang mga hayop na ito ay maaaring may mga karamdaman brought about by the unhealthy land condition ng Canaan at ng mga sexual practices na ito. Maaari pong makahawa ang mga hayop na ito sa mga dala-dalang domesticated animals ng mga Israelites.
Hindi lang hayop ang pwedeng mahawa. Tao rin pwedeng mahawa.
Marami na rin pong recorded epidemic sa ancient history brought about by animals.

So ilan po yan sa mga naiisip kong mga dahilan why the death of the animals were necessary. I’m not saying adequate ito para sa inyo pero ako po kasi laking probinsiya kaya pamilyar po ako sa attitude ng magsasaka sa mga karamdaman at ugali ng mga hayop.
Could God have other reasons? Malamang meron pa po at habang tumatagal po nawa’y patuloy pa rin natin itong matuklas. "The difference between God's being and ours is more than the difference between the sun and a candle, more than difference between the ocean and a raindrop, more than the difference between the arctic ice cap and snowflake, more than the difference between the universe and the room we are sitting in: God's being is qualitively different." - Wayne Grudem [Systematic Theology]

NOTE: article will be updated in the next few days for citations and add'l data.

(C) Photo Credit

God is Unloving?: "Death of Canaanite Children: Clay Jones Model" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 21, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

Nagpapatuloy ang ating pagtalakay kung paano ang response natin sa mga difficult passages where God commands complete annihilation o yung utos na patayin lahat. Bunsod ito ng aking interaction kay Zane isang university professor who is struggling about reconciling the loving God in the Scripture at 'yung vengeful na Diyos din ng Bible as depicted in passages tulad neto sa Deut 20:16-18 --

In the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction…. as the Lord your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

Last week we responded particularly sa passage na ito

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)

to this issue with the Paul Copan Model kung saan ang mga linggwaheng ito ay tinatawag na “war rhetoric” na standard na linggwahe noon (at ngayon din actually) kung saan ini-exaggerate ang linggwahe especially kapag pinag uusapan ang engagement with the enemies. Hindi daw ito literal, but expresses the urgency of the zeal to win the battle they are about to face. In short, may literary genre siya. Parang tula, pag sinabi ko sa asawa ko na “Ika’y liwanag sa kadiliman” hindi gustong sabihin non ay isa siyang gasera o kandila. Para naman kay Jones, literal na utos yan to show the anger of God over this people.

Ang Clay Jones model po ay yung tinatawag din na “God Meant It” model and expresses the idea that God was wrathful in His judgment to the Canaanites who God thinks deserves capital punishment. In doing so, He gave a direct command to His people the Israelites to carry out the punishment. Hindi nangangahulugan na God did not give these people time to repent and flee judgment. God gave them 400 plus years for that. We even read from Joshua that some people have already left and some also submitted to God’s power like the family of Rahab and the Gibeonites.

So when we read about this judgment, we see this as the right time in God’s mind. And this provides for us the basic foundation for this argument -- that God determined ang action na ito na nararapat. Kumbaga to put it simply, God na all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise etc, deemed it a rightful judgment to include children. God as Creator alone has the right to determine when each shall live and die.  (Job 1:20-21).  End of story.

However, we are left still with our finite reasoning to further seek at least a divine rational, although inadequate as we infer from the data of Scripture. Kaso kumbaga parang ipapainom sa akin ang isang dam ng tubig gamit ang isang maliit na baso. So let me just explain that whatever I will try to explain dito are attempts ng mga tulad nila Clay Jones na mag provide ng finite reasoning to infer yung reasonable action ng Diyos, pero I would expect that many of you would probably find loopholes. Ang reason kasi may principle ng sufficiency, gustong sabihin ay “Everything has a sufficient reason, or a cause, for being what it is.” Kaso kung ang action comes from the wisdom of God na infinitely wise, mukhang may limitation tayo. Yet, we cna still infer certain things from His word why He would make that judgment.

For example, baka kasi akala natin mga kalmadong bata etong mga Canaanite children. Hindi po sila yung mga batang inosente kasi lumaki silang nasa environment ng evil. We can derive this caution sa Deuteronomy 20:16-18,

In the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction…. as the Lord your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

Because of their past, they have the potential of teaching Israelites abominable practices. It would not be an easy alternative din to adopt them kasi sooner or later these kids would learn that their community were the ones who killed their parents. Pero I really do not have an adequate explanation to this from the very mind of God yet I see this as one potential reason given the finiteness ng ating isipan. Bear in mind that in the Christian view God is all-good and all-knowing and we can deduce from these attributes that God had an adequate reason for doing so. Kung ipo-fault natin ang kamatayan ng mga batang ito as a type of criminal indictment sa Diyos, di isama na rin natin lahat ng mga tao na namatay noon at yung mamamatay pa na tulad natin. Yet we understand that while what I said could be one of the reasons, yet we in reality do not know the entire reason. What we do know is that God did not want them to transfer anything they learned from their upbringing.

Subalit maari ninyong sabihin na eh paano kung sanggol pa ang mga batang ito? One of the possible reasons ay binanggit ni Clay Jones na maski adoption was not an option,

Now some will say that surely infants wouldn’t bring their culture into their new family. But bonding begins at birth and even infants, as they grew, would inquire about what happened to their birth parents. Most adopted or foster kids possess an almost insatiable desire to know the details of their birth parents’ lives. Can we imagine these Canaanite kids not wanting to know all about their parents and what practices they did that made them worthy of death? When they heard the Law read with its descriptions of Canaanite practices, how many would take those practices as their own identity?*

Dagdag naman ni William Lane Craig, na ang pagkamatay ng mga batang ito

was [God’s] way of preserving Israel’s spiritual health and posterity. God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.†

Were these infants never given a chance to enjoy life? I do not fully know because that is a question na may future element that only God can know. What I do know however is that children before the age of accountability will get to the afterlife with the presence of God. Kumbaga sa madaling salita, sa langit sila pupunta at hamak na mas enjoyable na pangyayari ‘yon.

Yan po ang ilang mga dahilan na maari pong ipresent na reasons for God’s judgment. However, these are just the mechanism of our finite minds to figure out the compelling reasons why God would decide to do this. As I have said, feeling ko iinumin ko ang tubig sa isang dam gamit ang isang baso -- masyadong malawak ang kaisipan ng Diyos. The Israelites back then would have felt the same thing concerning the warrant for this action -- well probably a few of them -- because in God’s commands, it is presupposed that He is all-wise and all-good.

(C) Photo Credit
__________
*  Clay Jones, "Why Couldn’t Israel Adopt Canaanite Children?" Clay Jones (website); http://www.clayjones.net/2015/05/why-couldnt-israel-adopt-canaanite-children/#footnote_0_1314

†  William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites#ixzz3YclWgRDs, Accessed 4-28-2015.

God is Unloving?: "Wiping out the Amalekiites: Paul Copan Model" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 16, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

It is not easy para sa isang true believer to read about passages sa Bible that show God’s vengeful wrath. I’m speaking from experience and the many Christians na nakausap ko concerning this. Kaya naman si Zane ng isang committed na Christian at isa ring university professor, told me about how to work his mind around the idea of a loving God and his wrath  in judgment.

When we talk about wrath here hindi ito yung rage ng isang addict na nag aamok. Divine wrath, paliwanag ni David Van Groningen sa Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, “God's anger and wrath must always be seen in relation to his maintaining and defending his attributes of love and holiness, as well as his righteousness and justice.”* So hindi po siya tulad ng rage or wrath na nakikita natin sa mga lango sa droga.

As promised last episode, the very difficult verse we will talk about today is this --

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)

Sa Old Testament po, ang translation natin ng wrath o  sa Tagalog ay “matinding poot” ay galing sa anim ng Hebrew words, Sa New Testament po, ang divine wrath ay na-reference po more than twenty times. Sabi ni Groningen,

These terms are to be considered anthropopathic expressions; human terms, however, cannot give the full meaning of the infinite and sovereign God's emotional experiences. As his love is infinitely incomprehensible, so are his displeasure, hate, anger, wrath, and vengeance. There is good reason indeed for the writer to the Hebrews to warn sinful people that it "is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" ( Heb 10:31 ).†

Writing about this may constant stress sa akin. Agonizing talaga. Hirap kasi I have a finiteness and sinfulness that not only limit my rationality but also, secondly, lower my view of how God sees sin and, thirdly, (as fellow Christians would understand) dealing by grace in the heart the vexing of "the accuser of the brethren." Paumanhin po sa confession na yan, balik na lang tayo sa topic natin.

Hindi nagkukulang ang buong Bible sa pagpapakita na ang Diyos ay mayroong ganitong attribute. The simple truth of Scripture is this: God is not only a God of love but He is also a God of wrath.

Ang approach na gagamitin natin dito ay dalawa to answer the question raised in the passage, given na settled na tayo sa idea ng wrath ng Diyos. If you want to read mga pertinent verses that show the wrath of God, puntahan lamang po ninyo ang article na ito na ipo post ko sa FB page natin, Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo. Ang interpretive model ni Copan sa mga verses na ganito ay “war-rhetoric” at kay Clay Jones naman ay “capital judgment” o parusang kamatayan sa lubha ng kanilang kasalanan.

Si Copan ang interpretation niya dito ay isa itong linggwahe ng isang tila baga heneral ng isang army na nag oorder na lumusob ng may bagsik sa enemy territory. Standard na practice ito noon at ngayon. Ang exaggeration o hyperbole ay common sa mga panitikan nung ancient near east when the nations describe their encounters with the enemy. Sa kaso ng mga Amalekites na isang Canaanite city, kailangan nating maunawaan na si Haring Saul ang inuutusan dito.  You have to understand dito na nung pumasok sila Joshua sa Canaan para lipulin lahat ng lupain ayon sa utos ng Diyos that was around 1400BC. Si Saul lived around 1000BC. So may more than 400 years na na overdue ang pag displace nila ng Amalekites. Mabangis kasi ang mga taong eto kaya mahirap itumba. Isa pa, to explain ang necessary na energy sa kanilang paglusob, ang  mga Amalekits ay may history talaga ng alitan sa Israel. If you want to read of the summary of this historical conflict, I refer you sa footnote neto sa article the GotQuestions.org na “Who were the Amalekites?”

Kung naaalala ninyo sa previous episode common din sa atin ngayon ang gumamit ng hyperbole or exaggeration sa mga encounters natin sa kaaway. Sa basketball na lang nangyayari yan: “Pulbusin ang kaaway.” “Pisatin ang kalaban.”

Case in fact si Haman sa Book of Esther na descendant ng mga Amalekites. Dun nga sa example na lang ni Haman, ang intention talaga niya ay parang Hitler na mag wipe out ng mga Jews.

Para naman kay Clay Jones at ang kanyang capital punishment interpretive model, this verse shows the full measure of God’s anger to the Amalekites.

So yan po ang ilan sa mga reasons why there is an urgency to invade the Amalekites. The point ni Copan is linguistic at naka focus sa pag rouse ng Israeli army towards indignation and to smite the Amalekites. Kailangan daw nating maunawaan ang literary context dito upang ma appreciate natin ang long overdue na danger at evil na hatid ng Amalekites.

Next episode naman po idi-discuss ko yung interpretive model naman ni Clay Jones na tatawagin nating capital judgment at magbibigay tayo ng paliwanag doon why even the children and the animals would have to receive capital judgment. So mas mahirap po siyang talakayan pero pagsumikapan natin.

__________
* Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, sv "The Wrath of God"; accessed at https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/wrath-of-god.html

† Ibid.

God is Unloving?: "God's Command of Total Annihilation: Clay Jones Model" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 14, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

Ang issue na ating dini-discuss ngayon ay pagpapatuloy sa na-bring up sa akin ng isang university professor si Zane na ang concern ay kung paano ireconcile ang idea ng loving God sa mga violence at judgments ng Old Testament, most especially yung sa Canaanite invasion ng mga Israelites.  Ang argument ngayon na tutugunan natin ay -- “God was unreasonable in giving judgment to the Canaanites because of the overly harsh commands of complete annihilation.”

Nagbigay tayo ng sample passage --

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)

Was it too harsh for a loving God? Sa episode last week I disussed Paul Copan’s guideline that we should read these passages as war rhetoric, that is exaggerated. In this episode, we will talk about the proposal of Clay Jones that God really meant what he said here.

Para kay Jones at contrary sa proposal ni Copan na ang battle orders sa Israel was disposession and displacement, Jones thinks na ang battle order na yan is to exact judgment on the Canaanites. Among the verses he uses to support this claim are the following:

It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you… (Deut. 9:5) 

“Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” (Lev. 18:24-25) 

“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations…because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.” (Deut. 18:9, 12)

So galit talaga ang Diyos sa mga Canaanites, at ang galit na ito ay consistent doon sa tinalakay ko mga unang episodes. Ang mga Canaanites as nakakasulasok sa Diyos. Greg Koukl gives a good summary -

Even by ancient standards, the Canaanites were a hideously nasty bunch. Their culture was grossly immoral, decadent to its roots. Its debauchery was dictated primarily by its fertility religion that tied eroticism of all varieties to the successful agrarian cycles of planting and harvest. In addition to divination, witchcraft, and female and male temple sex, Canaanite idolatry encompassed a host of morally disgusting practices that mimicked the sexually perverse conduct of their Canaanite fertility gods: adultery, homosexuality, transvestitism, pederasty (men sexually abusing boys), sex with all sorts of beasts, and incest. Note that after the Canaanite city Sodom was destroyed, Lot’s daughters immediately seduced their drunken father, imitating one of the sexual practices of the city just annihilated (Gen. 19:30-36).*

Dagdag pa natin dito, they also do child sacrifice. Mauunawaan natin diyan tuloy yung Leviticus 18:21 that says, “There was a reason God had commanded, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech.” Si Molech ang kanilang diyus-diyosan at ginawan nila ng rebulto na parang hurno or oven yung kanyang tiyan. Ginagatungan nila ang hurno na ito at doon nila sinasalya ang mga bata mula sanggol hanggang 4 years old. Ang ibang mga credible researches nagsasabi na libo-libong bata ang sinunog dito.

So while Copan tempers etong mga complete annihilation passages na ito with war rhetoric, si Jones naman asserts that this language really reflects the anger of God for this people, that His patience for them has reached its time-limit. Kumbaga ang focus natin ay doon sa masidhing kasalana ng mga Canaanites at hindi sa exaggerated language ng Diyos. He really meant that they receive His judgment, once and for all. Yung conquest ay pagpapataw ng Diyos ng capital punishment sa Canaanites.

Ito ang reason ayon kay Jones kung bakit hindi nangingimi ang Diyos na magpataw ng capital punishment. Koukl summarizes the point of Jones stating --

In the process of executing His sentence against the Canaanites, God would be cleansing the land of every vestige of their debased religion (e.g., tearing down the high places) to establish a land of spiritual purity and religious truth so God’s strategy to save all the nations of the world could go forward (Gen. 12:3). God’s rescue plan to save mankind depended on the theological purity of Abraham’s seed, Israel. The cancer of idolatry needed to be cut out for the patient—God’s plan of redemption—to survive. Syncretism with pagan religions would have corrupted Israel’s theological core. By purging the land of this evil, God ensured that redemption—forgiveness for the evils of any nation—would be available in the future for people of every nation.†

Kaso nga lang nag compromise ang Israel eventually. Para kay Jones at kay Koukl, God is morally justified in doing this judgment. Dagdag pa dito, siya rin ang nagbigay ng buhay na ito at siya rin ang may karapatan. Sa Deuteronomy 32:39 eto pa ang paliwanag ng Diyos, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.”

Sa madaling salita, Diyos Siya at tayo ay hindi. Malinaw sa salita ng Diyos concerning the Canaanite invasion that God is the judge over this people. Iba ang Kaniyang standard. Hindi natin sinusukat at standard Niya subalit ang standard Niya ang sumusukat sa atin. Marahil yung basehan ng mga judgments ng Panginoon tulad ng mga nagawa ng Canaanites ay hindi na masyadong nakakasulasok ngayon, pero para Diyos hindi. Ang problema ay wala sa Diyos. Ang problema ay nasa atin.

Sabi nga ni Jones,

We do not appreciate the depths of our own depravity, the horror of sin, and the righteousness of God. Consequently, it is no surprise that when we see God’s judgment upon those who committed the sins we commit, that complaint and protest arises within our hearts.

So bilang pandagdag sa discussion natin kay Professor Zane, I’ve already mentioned that God showed compassion sa mga Canaanites in many ways, but we should also see the gravity of their sin so that we won’t be putting God in a situation that His judgment was unwarranted based on our standards.

Bago po ako magtapos, napansin nyo po ba yung binasa ko na passage kanina - Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3). Yang mga “put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” sa susunod pong dalawang episodes, tatalakayin ko po using yung Copan at Jones model concerning 1) yung “women, children and infants” at 2) yung “cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

(C) Photo Credit

_________

* Greg Koukl, "The Canaanites: Genocide Or Judgment?" Bible.org (website); https://bible.org/article/canaanites-genocide-or-judgment

† Ibid.

God is Unloving?: "God's Command of Total Annihilation: Copan Model" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (Nov 9, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

We will deal today with a topic na continuation ng discussion on the divine judgment on Canaan. Ang issue na ito ay na-bring up sa akin ng isang university professor si Zane na ang concern ay kung paano ireconcile ang idea ng loving God sa mga violence at judgments ng Panginoon sa Old Testament.  If God is loving, it seems unreasonable to read about these divine judgment. Ang argument ngayon na tutugunan natin ay -- “God was unreasonable in giving judgment to the Canaanites because of the overly harsh commands of total annihilation.”

Ilan sa mga warrant netong “harshness” na allegation na ito is because of passages in the Old Testament where God commands total annihilation of Canaanite cities. Two examples,

[Y]ou shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God. (Deut. 20.16-18)

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Sam 15:2-3)

I will present dito two models of readings na hindi necessarily magka tunggali subalit maaari nating makunan ng wisdom how to interpret passages.

Dalawa po ang dominant na models sa pagbabasa ng mga passages na ganito. Una ay ang proposal ng mga tulad ni Paul Copan at pangalawa ay galing naman kay Clay Jones. Ang isa sa mga paborito kong apologists na si Greg Koukl categorizes yung kay Copan as God-Did-Not-Mean-It model pero mas gusto ko siyang tawagin na War-Rhetoric position at yung kay Jones ayon kay Koukl naman ay God-Meant-It position.

Sa episode na ito, we will discuss lang muna yung position ni Copan na War-Rhetoric model at sa susunod na episode naman ay yung kay Jones na God-Meant-It Model.

Sa aklat ni Paul Copan na Is God a Moral Monster? nagsisimula siya sa isang warning na kapag binasa mo ang mga complete annihilation passages na ito on face value at hindi mo titingnan ang genre o yung uri ng panitikan o literature mami-misinterpret mo ito to mean that God really wanted complete annihilation. Tandaan muna nating na ang mga utos na ito ay nasa konteksto ng giyera.

For example, sa yung chapter ng Deuteronomy na binasa natin kanina yung verses 16-18 ay chapter 20. Ang first verse ng chapter 20 ay ganito, “When you go to war against your enemies…” Baka nga sa mga Bible ninyo may heading pa ang chapter na ito na “Going to War.” So given that, puntahan natin si Copan at ang kaniyang paliwanag sa napaka-kapal na libro niya. Patulong tayo kay Greg Koukl ng Stand to Reason ministry kasi he gives three guidelines to understand Copan’s analysis, what he’s telling us concerning our model of interpretation.

Una, kailangan nating basahin ang mga passages na ito sa context ng military language ng ancient near east. We’re talking here 1400BC na panahon. Ang mga passages na nag-uutos na complete annihilation ay nasa genre ng “war rhetoric” and as such it has elements of hyperbole o yung sadyang pag exaggerate. Sabi ni Copan, “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”*

So si Koukl ngayon summarized using mga thoughts ni Copan this way,

phrases like “utterly destroy” (haram), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical” idioms used even when women or children were not present.  It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out” the opposition), not complete annihilation.†

Sa totoo lang bilang dagdag patawa lang dito, ang mga Pinoy nga parang mas matalim pa ang dila pag may ganito. Sasabihin natin sa basketball “pulbusin ang kaaway.” Biro mo, basketball lang pupulbusin mo.

Pangalawa ang mga utos na ito ay naka-umang sa mga military outposts sa Canaan. Sabi ni Copan, “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.” Yes may mga civilians sa Jericho pero these are military camps.‡

Pangatlo, ang argument ni Copan is that ang mission statement ng mga Israelites was not complete annihilation but to dispossess and displace the Canaanites out of the land. Paalisin sila kumbaga dahil sa kanilang mga kahindik hindik na kasalanan. For example, sa chapter 1 ng Book of Joshua marami tayong makikitang mga laman ng mission statement na ito na related sa possession ng land at hindi ethnic cleansing o genocide. Sabi sa verse 2,

“Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites.  I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.  Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them.

Sa Joshua 1:11 ito ang sinabi ni Joshua sa mga leaders ng Israel, “Go through the camp and tell the people, ‘Get your provisions ready. Three days from now you will cross the Jordan here to go in and take possession of the land the Lord your God is giving you for your own.’” Sa verse 13, “giving you this land.” Sa verse 15, “have taken possession of the land the Lord your God is giving them. After that, you may go back and occupy your own land.”

So ang main na utos ng Panginoon is to dispossess a grossly sinful people who are the object of God’s patient judgment.

Maaaring sabihin ng kritiko na, “Teka muna, di patayan pa rin ang aabutin niyan.” Exactly and that brings me back to my point na pinaghahanda ang mga Israelites na makipag-giyera at pag may giyera may mga casualties. Pero ang point dito is that the true essence of the command literally is to possess the land, not to do genocide or ethnic cleansing.

So ayan po in a nutshell yung War Rhetoric Model ni Paul Copan author ng napakahalagang aklat na Is God a Moral Monster? Ang tatlong key principles for interpreting these passages are: 1) read it in the context of military language; 2) these commands are directed to military men who will attack an enemy military outpost; at 3) the battle order was to possess the land, not to commit genocide, which we should not interpret happening in peace time but in war.

__________
*  Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?—Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2011), 171.

†  https://bible.org/article/canaanites-genocide-or-judgment

‡  Copan, 176.

God is Unloving?: "Harshness to the Canaanites" || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (November 7, 2017)

Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

Ang argument ngayon na tutugunan natin ay -- “God was unloving in giving judgment to the Canaanites because of the harshness of the judgment.”

Nagpapatuloy tayo sa ating napiling topic galing sa tanong ng isang university professor na itatago na lang natin sa pangalan na Zane. Malimit daw bumabalik-balik sa kanya na hindi niya ma-reconcile ang loving God na sinasabi ng mga Christians at ang evidence of being unloving Niya sa Bible most especially sa mga judgments Niya sa Old Testament.

The idea of a loving God, for example, gets challenged when we go to Israel’s invasion of the Canaanites. In Deuteronomy 20:16-17 it says

In the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded.

Sa next blog ko po tatalakayin ang verse na 'yan. I know that it creates new struggles sa mga believers. I understand na baka marami po sa inyo bothered sa language na yan ng ating Panginoon. Promise po. At this point po kasi ang concern lang muna natin ay yung tila baga suggestion na parang walang dahilan or morally unjustified ang command ng Panginoon sa pagbibigay ng judgment displace sa mga Canaanites. Kasi ang typical na allegation is parang trip lang o bloodthirsty lang ang Diyos na pumatay.

Hindi po. God was loving to the Canaanites by being patient, giving them land, families, etc. Yet instead of seeing those blessing and considering the evil of their ways, they continued to do horrible and evil deeds such as child sacrifice, large-scale prostitution, sexual perversion, blasphemy etc. For more than 400 years God waited because the sin of them "has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen. 15:16). Nag extend ang Panginoon. And when it was finally time, He sent Israel as His agent of judgment. Had inhabitants showed yung willingness nilang magbago tulad ni Rahab at ng pamilya niya (Joshua 2) at ang mga Gibeonites (9:3-11), plus yung mga taong naka escape sa invasion even before it happened.

Maari po ninyong balikan, iyong episode last October 5, 2017 at inisa-isa ko po doon yung mga acts of mercy ng Lord sa mga Canaanites bago niya pinatawan sila ng judgment kasama na po dito yung nag antay ang Panginoon ng 400+ years for the Canaanites for them to straighten up their act. Isa pa rito yung testimony ni Rahab sa Joshua kung saan alam na nila na may paparating na judgment sa kanila galing sa Diyos ng Israel. Isa na rin dito yung pagbibigay ng Diyos ng pabor sa isang Canaanite prostitute na si Rahab. So given po yung mga nakakasulasok na ginagawa ng mga Canaanites to merit their dispersal from Canaan, God extended not 100, not 200, not 300 but 400 plus years for them to mend their ways . . . instead they became worse.

Just as God gives, God takes away -- at may time-table Siya when He will take something. Sa kaso ng Canaanites, God took because of their sin. His judgment is God's glory in justice manifested in His wrath.

Ayon sa Desiring God website,

God is love, and God does all things for his glory (1 John 4:8; Romans 11:36). He loves his glory above all (and that is a good thing!). Therefore, God rules the world in such a way that brings himself maximum glory. This means that God must act justly and judge sin (i.e. respond with wrath), otherwise God would not be God. God’s love for his glory motivates his wrath against sin.*

Ang glory ay ang pagniningning ng katangian at gawain ng Panginoon sa Kaniyang nilikha. Lahat ng ating pagkakilanlan sa Panginoon na naka-ayon sa Kaniyang salita ay ang kaniyang kaluwalhatian o glory. Nakikita natin ang Kaniyang glory sa kaniyang pagmamahal. Subalit sa kabilang banda, makikita natin na ang “wrath” of God ay kaalinsabay din sa pagmamahal na ito dahil siya ay Diyos din na matuwid. Lahat ng mga bagay na umaagaw sa Kaniyang kaluwalhatian ay tumatanggap ng kanyang pagkasuklam dito. Kumbaga in a very simple way, mahal mo ang iyong asawa at ika’y mag pagkasuklam sa mga tao na nais sumira ng buhay ng iyong asawa kaya naman siya ay iyong sinasaklolohan at pinoprotektahan. Ang creation ng Diyos ay tinukoy Niya sa Genesis 1 na "mabuti" subalit ang gawain ng mga Canaanites is baliktaring na patuloy yang goodness na iyan by destroying the land and making the land the setting na kanilang kahindik-hindik na gawain. Kaya umabot na ang oras that God unleashed His wrath sa kanilang sumasalansang sa kabutihan ng Panginoon.

Wala sa kalikasan ng Panginoon ang magpalampas ng kasalanan kasi ito ay umaagaw sa Kaniyang kaluwalhatian at sumisira sa Kaniyang nilikha. What I mean by that is wag nating isipin na may kasalanan na dedma lang ang Diyos. It is better for us Christians to think that sin causes anger from God kasi nga, love because it is giving to the object of the love, ang wrath naman is God's attribute sa mga bagay that would diminish the blessings He extends to those or that which He loves. Ang wrath ayon sa kilalang theologian na si J.I. Packer,

‘Wrath’ is an old English word defined in my dictionary as ‘deep, intense anger and indignation’. ‘Anger’ is defined as ‘stirring of resentful displeasure and strong antagonism, by a sense of injury or insult’; ‘indignation’ as ‘righteous anger aroused by injustice and baseness’. Such is wrath. And wrath, the Bible tells us, is an attribute of God.†

Sa madaling salita, ang wrath of God ay “God’s righteous anger and punishment, provoked by sin.”‡
So nasa kalikasan ng Diyos ang magkaroon ng anger sa kasalanan. Dito ngayon tayo babalik sa atin topic on the justification ng judgment sa mga Canaanites. Tama ba na ganon na lamang ang galit ng Diyos sa mga Canaanites?

William Albright gives us a hint at the nature of the just, response of God concerning the Canaanites na "[T]he Canaanites, with their orgiastic nature-worship, their cult of fertility in the form of serpent symbols and sensuous nudity, and their gross mythology.”§

Mga general statements pa lang po iyan. Mas specific po ang pag aaral ni Clay Jones patungkol sa cult worship ng Canaanites,

Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death….And it was not just infants; children as old as four were sacrificed.║

Dagdag pa ni Jones,

A bronze image of Kronos was set up among them, stretching out its cupped hands above a bronze cauldron, which would burn the child. As the flame burning the child surrounded the body, the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing, until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron.¶

God’s righteous indignation was given to these evil people called Canaanites. It is in God’s nature to judge sin to uphold His Glory and Love for His creation and people.

Personally po para sa akin, hindi po madali sa akin magbigay ng reasonable justification for the acceptable degree ng judgment sa Canaan kasi ang judgment ko to look at sin ay napakababa compared sa pagtingin ng Diyos. Hindi sa wala akong makitang reason (meron nga at yan ang tinalakay ko), pero nahihirapan lang ako sa limitations ng aking ability to grasp the gravity of the matter of sin because of my sinfulness din. Alam ko iba ang tingin ng Lord sa kasalanan ng mga Canaanites and I might have to ask for God grace to work in the hearts of the readers of this blog to help them understand why such wrath and indignation He has for these people.

As a believer that is surrendered to the majestic and sovereign authority ng Diyos, and believing that He is Holy and Just and wise enough to have willed the universe and life to existence with its staggeringly complex design, I trust His judgment especially concerning the Canaanites. We might talk about moral justifications as created beings but ultimately, the God of Creation is the wisest Judge of all. Yes may mga reasons tayo, but for me personally the biggest reason I can think of is that God's judgment na sabi sa Psalm 9:8 "And he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the peoples with uprightness."

Next blog po maglalatag po ako ng intepretive models sa pagsusuri nung verse sa Deuteronomy kanina at iba pang passages sa idea ng “complete destruction” na marahil marami nga po sa inyo ang nagsa-struggle ireconcile sa loving God. Bahagi pa rin ito sa pagsagot natin sa concern ni Prof. Zane concerning sa seemingly conflicting characterization ng Bible on a loving God and a violent God in the Bible.

(C) Photo Credit

__________

* Joseph Scheumann, "Five Truths About the Wrath of God," Desiring God (website); accessed at https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/five-truths-about-the-wrath-of-god

†  J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), p. 134.

‡ Robert L. Deffinbaugh, " The Wrath of God," Bible.Org (website); accessed at  https://bible.org/seriespage/7-wrath-god.

§ William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (New York, Doubleday, 1957), 280-1

║  Clay Jones, “Why We Don’t Hate Sin so We don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites:  An Addendum to ‘Divine Genocide’ Arguments,” Philosophia Christi n.s. 11 (2009): 53-72. Available online at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/We-Dont-Hate-Sin-PC-article.pdf.

¶ Ibid.

Apologetics At Ang Importance Nito Sa Mga Moms || Alisa Childers || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo || October 31, 2017

This is Taglish version ng episode ng Kaliwanagan kay Kristo noong October 31, 2017. Makinig sa weekly broadcast ng Kaliwanagan every Tuesday at Thursday sa Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay sa 702 DZAS sa oras ng 7PM

Hey friends ako po si Alisa [Childers] ng  Mama Bear Apologetics, a partner of Ratio Christi International.

Ang layunin ng Mama Bear Apologetics ay tulungan ang mga nanay sa pagbibigay ng kasagutan sa mga mahihirap na katanungan sa pananampalataya. Ang mga tanong na ito ay nagsisimula sa tahanan. Ang mga nanay ang malimit na nauuna na makarinig nito galing sa kanilang mga anak. Kaya naman mga nanay, magtulung-tulong po tayo na matuto. Maari niyong sundan ang Mama Bear Apologetics sa web, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and iTunes.

Today’s topic is “Ano ang apologetics at ano ang kahalagahan nito sa mga moms?”

Ang apologetics ay isa na siguro sa pinaka-namamali na salita sa English language. Para sa ilan, ang ideya nila dito ay mga masusungit na propesor, o mga estudyanteng nagdedebate sa eskwelahan. May iba naman na ang apologetics ay paghingi ng tawad o sorry o pag apologize sa ating pananampalataya. Sa totoo lang, ang apologetics ay ang simpleng paraan ng pag iipon ng patunay para sa isang pinaniniwalaan at paglalahad ng paliwanag sa mga tao – lalong lalo na sa mga mahal natin sa buhay tulad ng mga nanay sa kanilang anak at pamilya.

Ngayon po we will talk about three reasons kung bakit mahalaga ang apologetics sa women and moms.

First, apologetics matters because the Bible says that it matters.

Second, apologetics matters dahil bahagi ito ng good spiritual warfare; bilang mga nanay we want to do good spiritual warfare on behalf of our kids.

Third, apologetics matters because our kids are leaving the church at alarming rate after high school.

The Bible Says Apologetics Matters

Apologetics matters because the Bible says that it matters. The command to do apologetics ay galing sa 1Peter 3:15 kung saan ang apostol Pedro ay kausap ang mga early Christians sa Asia Minor which was a Roman province and were suffering persecution because of their faith in Christ.

Ito ang kanyang sinulat,

[B]ut in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

Sa verse na ito when Peter uses the word defense it is translated from the Greek word apologian which has to do with a verbal defense or speech in defense of something; a reasoned statement or argument.  Ang lahat ng ito ay nakapasakop sa  realm of evidence, logic and the mind. In ancient Athens it referred to a defense na ginaganap sa courtroom bilang  parte  ng isang normal judicial procedure.

After an accusation was made the defendant was allowed to refute the charges with a defense or reply or apologia. Kung kaya ang  command to do apologetics has to do with evangelism -- it's being prepared to give a reason to give an apologia for the hope that is within you.

Itinuturo din na dapat itong sabihin  with gentleness and with respect.

We have a saying in the apologetics world that we are not trying to win arguments but want to win people. Kung kaya bilang  moms, the stakes are higher because we want to win our kids to Christ.  Hindi sapat na sabihin lamang natin sa ating mga anak to just have faith or by not giving them good reasons to believe that the Bible is reliable and true.

And speaking of the Bible, marami tayong mga halimbawa na great men and women of faith na gumamit ng apologetics. Isang mahalagang halimbawa ay ito: John the Baptist who was first prophet of New Testament. This is the guy that baptized Jesus, that saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, that heard the audible voice of God say, “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.” Kahit si John mismo ay nagkaroon ng isang  moment of profound doubt dahil siya ay ipinatapon sa kulungan for calling King Herod out on marrying his brother's wife. And so he was sitting in prison. This was before any great persecution has broken out against Christians. In fact, this was when Jesus was still alive. Kaya naman si John habang nasa loob ng kulungan ay nagtataka kung ano ang mga nangyayari.  Ipinadala niya ang kanyang mga disipulo upang tanungin si Hesus ng katanungang,  “Are you the one or should we look for another?” John doubted. He had serious doubts. Jesus could have sent his disciples back to say “John you shouldn’t doubt” or “Just have faith” or “John you shouldn’t question God.” No, Jesus didn't do those things. Instead Jesus performed miracles and he sent John's disciples back. He told them to tell John what they saw. Jesus offered evidence to John to help with his profound period of doubt.

Ang isa pang halimbawa ay ang kilalang kwento ni doubting Thomas  -- although Thomas wasn’t so much of a doubter dahil siya ay more of a skeptic. He was a rational person, o yung tao na laging naghahanap ng cause-and-effect. Jesus had of course at this point been crucified and was resurrected and appeared to the other disciples. So nung sinabi ng mga disciples kay Thomas, hindi kaagad siya naniwala (and siguro, neither would you, neither would I). But Jesus appeared to Thomas at pinakita niya kay Thomas his wounds. Jesus said, “Here examine my hands, put your hands on my side.” He offered evidence.

Si apostol Pablo din practiced apologetics when he reasoned with the secular philosophers in Athens in Acts 17; at sa mga Hudyo and Griyego sa sinagoga Acts 18. Si Hesus ay nakipagtalo sa mga Pariseyo gamit ang isang logic technique na ang tawag ay reductio ad absurdum [that is, “a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory”] sa Matthew 12.

Sa Deuteronomy 6:5 nagsasabi na, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” Then Mark 12:30 quotes Jesus as saying, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength” (emphasis added). In Greek ang word for mind ay may kinalaman sa ating understanding. Ang apologetics samakatuwid ay bahagi din ng pagsamba.

Apologetics Is Part of Spiritual Warfare

Apologetics matters because it is a part of spiritual warfare. Sabi ng 2 Corinthians 10:4-5,

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

Mapapansin ninyo na ito ay nasa context ng spiritual warfare. Marami sa mga words na ito have to do with the realm of the mind: talking about destroying arguments, lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God and taking every thought to obey Christ. So doing good apologetics is also doing good spiritual warfare.

Apologetics Helps Kids Not to Leave Their Faith

Apologetics matters because our kids are leaving the church after high school at alarming rate. It is well documented anywhere from 70 up to 85% of Christian kids [in the United States] leave the church after high school. Bakit kaya? Nang tanungin sila, isa sa main reasons ay intellectual doubt. They didn’t think na ang Christian faith measured up intellectually dahil pag nagtatanong sila, ang sinasabi lang daw sa kanila ay “Just have faith.” O sinasabihan sila na dapat hindi sila nagtatanong ng ganon.

Isa sa mga major objections ay may kinalaman sa theory of evolution. Ang natatanggap nilang paliwanag sa simbahan ay mga oversimplified na view ng evolution.  Dahil dito, pag sila ay nag college na at na-realize nila na ito ay napaka komplikadong teorya, naiisip nila na hindi naman pala nila talaga nauunawaan ang theory of evolution. Paano nila ngayon malalaman ang tama at mali?

So part of doing justice to our kids is ay turuan sila ng objections sa kanilang pananampalataya dahil haharapin at haharapin nila ito sa kolehiyo. Turuan natin sila kung paano mag-interact sa mga objections na ito, at gamitin ang kanilang talino para mag isip ng maayos, to use logic to understand the nature of truth and to think well about some these issues.

So bilang mga nanay, one of the most important things we can do is engage our kids with questions about God even if we don’t have all the answers. Maski kahit ipaalam lang muna natin sa kanila na safe place ang tahanan for these questions. Iparamdam natin sa kanila na kung di pa ninyo alam ang kasagutan, magtulong kayong maghanap na hawak kamay.

Sa isa sa aming blog posts sa panulat ni Natasha Crane pinapa-alalahanan niyo tayo na wag hayaang an gating mga anak may magkaroon lang “borrowed faith.” She writes

In my family, faith looked like spiritual “parallel play.” Parallel play is the stage young toddlers go through where they enjoy being near other kids, but don’t actually interact with each other yet. They’ll play blocks side by side, but they won’t find ways to play blocks together. 

My family members would individually read their Bibles, go to church every week, participate in prayer chains, and humbly remind each other that plans would only happen “Lord willing.”  Those were the spiritual blocks they played with next to me. 

Meanwhile, I went to church, was at least mildly interested in what I heard, felt confident that if I died I would be saved, prayed occasionally on my own, went to church camps, attended youth nights, and freely told anyone who asked that I was a Christian. Those were the spiritual blocks I played with next to them. 

But we never spiritually played together. Without that deeper engagement, my faith simply remained shallow and was based on living out a copy of what those around me were doing. 

I left home with a completely borrowed faith.* 

Dito sa Mama Bear Apologetics, we hope to equip you to do better than that to make sure your kids leave their home with a faith that they own, that they have made their own.

NOTE: Subaybayan ang susunod na Mama Bear Apologetics episode sa November 30.

__________

* Natasha Crain, "The Number One Sign Your Kids Are Just Borrowing Your Faith (and Not Developing Their Own)," Natasha Crain (website), accessed at http://christianmomthoughts.com/the-number-one-sign-your-kids-are-just-borrowing-your-faith-and-not-developing-their-own/.

Dapat Bang Nagpa-Participate sa Undas ang mga Christians? || John Pesebre || Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (November 2, 2017)

Hear my apologetics teaching twice a week at 702 DZAS Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (a segment of Tanglaw sa Landas ng Buhay of Back to the Bible Philippines) every Tuesday and Thursday 7:00PM.

Se-segue muna tayo sa isang napapanahon na usapin about undas. Ang tutugunan nating argument ngayon ay, “Christians should not participate in undas because it is rooted in a non-Christian tradition.”

Ang Pilipinas ay may mayamang kasaysayan ng mga pygmies, trade at banyagang colonialization. Bago pa man dumating ang mga colonizing nations like Spain and America lalo na yung period ng early 1000 years AD, marami nang records ng mga migrations at trades from aetas, Chinese, Malay, Middle East atbp. Ayon sa Historical Dictionary of the Philippines ni Guillermo at Win,

First arrivals were the Aetas or pygmies, who crossed the land bridge from Asia about 30,500 years ago. After the disappearance of the land bridge, the early Malays, who came by barangays from the Indonesian Islands, accomplished human migrations via sea. Hence, the majority of the Filipinos are of Malay descent.*

Galing sa early pygmy migration na ito nagsimulang bumuo ng sibilisasyon at kultura. Tuloy pa ni Guillermo at Win,

Philippine society is the product of eastern and western cultural influences, which blend into a distinctive entity. Four cultures and two major religions have shaped the modern Philippines. Early exposure to Chinese cultural and commercial influence, more than three centuries of Spanish colonial rule, and almost 50 years of American tutelage have appreciably altered, but not obscured, the Malayan character of Philippine society.† 

Kaya di na siguro kayo magtataka kung bakit halo-halo na rin ang ating mga norms and practices ng kultura, tulad ng pag uusapan natin ngayon tungkol sa undas.

Sa ating most recent na colonial past ng mga Kastila at Amerikano tayo ay may mga practices na natutunan at ating na integrate sa ating nakasanayan nang mga gawain. Tulad ng rin ng jeepney na namana natin sa mga American jeeps, pinahaba natin ito, linagyan ng mga kolorete, pinangpasada at ngayon ganap na Pinoy na Pinoy na ang mga jeepneys.

Ang undas ay ganon din. May tatlong pinaghuhugutan o inapply na mga sources ng cultural practices around October 31-Nov 2 o yung malimit nating tinatawag na undas. Ang tatlo pong sources na iyan ay 1) yung Roman Catholic holidays, 2) Day of Dead ng mga Mexicans at 3) Halloween ng mga Celts na naging dominant sa modern Western culture. Depende na rin ngayon sa nakagisnang paniniwala ng isang traditional na family kung paano nila aalalahanin ang undas. Lahat na ito ay masasabi natin na may mga major conflicts sa paniniwalang ebangheliko subalit sa karanasan nating mga evangelicals, may mga aspect nito na ating na retain minus yung mga sa tingin natin clear violations ng Scripture.

Roman Catholic Holidays
Unang source natin ang Roman Catholic holidays. Sa isang article sa Philippine Star nagpapaliwanag:

The feast of All Saints and All Souls Day started in the 4th century and celebrated first in Antioch, where St. Ephrem the Syrian mentioned it in his sermon in the year 373 AD. The final date of Nov. 1 was instituted in the time of Pope Gregory III (731-741) when he consecrated a chapel to all the martyrs in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome and ordered its annual celebration. While it was first ordered only for the Diocese of Rome, Pope Gregory IV (827-844) extended the holding of this feast to the entire Catholic Church . . . [A]t least millions of Filipinos still continue to mourn their friends and family who have gone ahead of us and to remember the times when they were still alive… and . . .  pray for their souls who are either in purgatory or in heaven… and we pray that they are not in hell because if they are there, then we can no longer do anything for them.‡

Mexican Day of the Dead
Sa tingin ko napakalaki ng naging impluwensiya ng Galleon Trade or Manila-Acapulco Trade sa pagdevelop ng kultura na ito.

In 2012, Fr. Joaquin Bernas wrote an article wondering where we got the word "undas" for our Oct 31 to Nov 1-2 holiday. Rigoberto Tiglao concurs in a 2013 article in The Manila Times. Ayon sa kanya ang word na undas ay bastardization of the word "hondras" sa  "Hondras de Funebre [transl, funeral]" with "hondras" translated in English as "honor". Tiglao argues that in Batangas it is pronounced as "hondras." Yan ang ating pangalawa nating source; related yan sa Day of the Dead ng Mexico. It is said to be a Christianized practice from the Aztec tradition na nag resonate sa ating pagbibigay ng honor sa ating mga ninuno. Paliwanag pa ni Tiglao,

Contrary to what most people think, Undas wasn’t a creation of Catholicism nor is it a practice among Catholics all over the world. Only Mexico, the Philippines, Brazil—and in less-intense forms, a few Latin American countries—celebrate the Day of the Dead in the way we know it, that is, one day of the year when everyone goes to the cemetery to honor their dead. Our Undas was an import from Hispanic Mexico, the reproduction here of its El Dia de los Muertos.§

Hindi natin ito tinuturing na ancestral worship bagaman may mga practices na tila ganon na rin kasi may mga pagkakataon na ang mga pamilya would ask the intermediary role ng mga namatay nang mahal sa buhay  na to look after them and to intercede for them in heave. This is probably how we got associated with having elaborate preparations for mausoleum o yung mga puntod, at mga family gatherings for prayer and novena sa araw ng undas.

Halloween
Ang pangatlo po ay yung “halloween” na mas “in” sa mga nakababatang generation at namana natin yan sa tingin ko sa mga Amerikano kasama ang kanila "Trick or Treat" at pagsusuot ng mga witches at mga nakakatakot na mga mukha o mag costume ng mga representation ng mga patay. Galing po ang gawaing ito sa mga Celtic Druids bago masakop ng Roman Empire ang parteng Inglatera at later on nang ma-Christianize ang Roman empire, naipagpatuloy ito ng Roman Catcholic. Subalit nang ito ay ma-transport sa US at kinalaunan na secularize ito kaya naman ang dominant na cultural practice ngayon doon ay Halloween, at malimit related sa mga horror at nakakatakot na mga anyo. Malayong malayo sa pagdadasal para sa mga patay ng Roman Catholic teaching at pagbibigay ng karangalan sa mga namatay nang mga pamilya. Sa Halloween, nagkakaroon pa ng mga Halloween Costume Party.


Dalawa ang maaring attitudes na na nakikita ko na response ng mga Christians.

May attitude na idismiss lahat altogether and just ignore the event. This I think is part of a Christian’s liberty to do. May kalayaan siyang gawin kung ito ay naaayon sa kaniyang conviction.

Subalit may mga Christians din naman na gustong mag alala ng mga namatay nilang mga kapamilya sa mga araw na ito, kaya naman sa kanilang mga tahanan nagkakaroon sila ng pagsasalu-salo at pagpapanalangin ng pasasalamat -- hindi nga lang sila nagpapadasal o nagpapa-novena. Ang iba namang Christian families ay pumupunta sa sementeryo, nililinis ang puntod ng kanilang mahal sa buhay at ino-organize ang araw na ito para makipag family reunion -- hindi nga lang sila nag aalay ng pagkain o nag aalay ng panalangin para makawala ang kanilang mahal sa buhay sa purgatoryo Yet ang iba naman ay nag oorganize ng Halloween fellowship sa church para mapag usapan ang ebanghelyo -- hindi nga lang sila nagwawala at gumagawa ng mga elaborate constumes to represent corpse, vampires and even Satan.

So bilang tugon sa argument na “Christians should not participate in undas because it is rooted in a non-Christian tradition” sa tingin ko dapat maging, una, cautious at, pangalawa, huwag maging judgmental by being too dogmatic about remembering departed loved ones and others especially kapag mga Christians ang gumagawa neto na may simple remembrance and honoring lang. Oo kailangan nating iwaksi o maging cautious bilang mga Christians ang pananalangin sa at para sa mga namatay na, o yung excessive na partying and debauchery at yung paggawa ng mga elaborate na mga horrific activities and themes that exemplify the power of darkness, pero kailangan din natin wag maging mapag kondena kung ang mga kapatiran natin ay may values na nakikita sa holidays na ito na related sa pagmamahalan ng pamilya, pag alala at pasasalamat sa Diyos sa mga nawala na at pagte-take advantage ng tema ng kamatayan at saints by organizing evangelistic or fellowship events to uplift our faith.

Ika nga ng GotQuetsions.org, “As with celebrating any holiday, the decision should be between the individual and God. Some people feel very strongly that observing any secular holiday is wrong, while others see it as harmless. The important thing to remember is that celebrating or not celebrating holidays should not be a cause for pride or division among Christians.”||

(C) Photo Credit

____________

* Artemio Guillermo and May Kyi Win, Historical Dictionary of the Philippines (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2005), 1.

† Guillermo & Win, 3.

‡ Bebot Avila, "The significance of All Saints’ and All Souls’ Day," Philippine Star (website); accessed at http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2013/11/02/1252076/significance-all-saints-and-all-souls-day

§ Rigoberto Tiglao, "Did Undas originate from ancient Aztec beliefs?" The Manila Times (website); accessed at  http://www.manilatimes.net/did-undas-originate-from-ancient-aztec-beliefs/50000/

|| "What is the origin of Valentine’s Day, and should Christians celebrate it?" GotQuestions.org (website); accessed at https://www.gotquestions.org/Valentines-Day.html