Dad Talks: Beside Sleeping Biboy

One day, you just dropped your toys,
stuffed them in old bags,
and threw them in the attic.

My childhood, too.

No more silly talks
and adventures in lost worlds;
no more tickles and soft cheeks to kiss.

No more childhood;
no more best friends
in Navy costumes and weird hats;
just plain dangerous adulthood.

Pagtugon sa Sumasalungat na Katuwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 1 || John Pesebre (May 8, 2018)

So far po natapos na natin ang first H ng 4H apologetics which is yung Hear. The next H sa 4H apologetics is Help. This is where you will counter the argument and do your apologetics. Bear in mind na nakapag build ka na kahit papano ng environment sa Hear o yung first H with your virtuous or godly response sa argument ng kausap mo.

After you have given time and conversation to know the argument ng kausap mo and have also reflected on the serious impact of the allegation sa Christianity, it is time to share naman ang refutation mo. Tandaan mo rin lang na sa first H o Hear you were able to explain sa kaniya your previous knowledge ng argument niya at naging honest ka sa valid na argument ng kausap mo. Sa pangalawang H you will begin your refutation and apologetics.

First, you have to answer to yourself the question, “What is your counter-argument?” What this means is ano ang kokontrahin mo sa claim at support ng argument? Isa lang ba? O pareho? Kapag nasabi mo na ‘yon, you then have to provide your apologetics or supporting na paliwanag sa counterargument mo and I will walk your through that sa next episode. For the meantime let’s deal with the question muna  na “What is your counterargument?”

For example, let’s look again dito sa statement ng isang college student na kinunan natin ng argument sa first H. Sabi niya,

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

From this we were able to at least suppose that the argument is this: “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion because she started majority of the wars of history.”

Again the first question sa second H na itatanong mo sa sarili mo is “What is your counterargument?” A counterargument’s form is like an argument: it has a claim and a support. Kaso nga lang it is meant to refute yung maling characterization ng Christianity ng kausap mo. Sa apologetics, nasa context ka palagi ng conflict of views kaya it is quite proper lang to express sa kausap mo ang iyong counterargument. This is how you begin to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Ang mga apologetics encounter natin would most likely put us in a situation kung saan ang kausap natin would set themselves up against the true knowledge of God. So bilang isang mananampalataya, it is your duty to refute.

What you are doing here is what we call negative apologetics. Negative apologetics simply means refutation. Apollos did this in Acts 18:28 “For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.” Such forceful tone like “vigorously refuted” can also be felt in Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” May dalawa po tayong episodes nung Feb 20 at 22 patungkol sa negative apologetics. Maari niyo siyang ma access sa FB page natin na Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo. Balik tayo sa pinag uusapan natin sa refutation sa kausap.

Dito sa stage na ito, all you have to do is to refute lang muna yung statement ng kausap mo. Sasabihin mo lang na may problema ka sa sinasabi ng kausap mo. Sa issue ng ating case study nung college students, you can state your refutation this way: “Christianity is NOT A bloodthirsty religion because she DID NOT start majority of the wars of history.”

Ganon lang. It gives yung kausap mo ng doubt sa kaniyang position kasi you have presented a competing argument. Naalala niyo siguro yung idea natin sa past episode na dalawa as dubitare or the number two. Dito you are perfectly justified to give doubt din sa kausap mo dahil sa wrong na idea niya about Christianity. Kung hindi man maging successful ang apologetics encounter na ito in terms of production of new belief sa kaniya, at least you have stood your ground sa objection niya. Ang maganda pa nga dito, is within this second H o Help you will provide a defense pa sa counterargument to put pressure pa sa wrong na idea niya ng Christanity.

Banggitin ko lang, at sana wag po nating kakalimutan ito na there are instances na hindi mo ire-refute pareho ang claim at support. Sa case kasi ng counterargument na nilagay ko sa taas, dalawa ang na negate mo: yung claim at yung support: hindi totoo na bloodthirsty religion ang Christianity (refuting the claim) at hindi rin totoo na majority ng mga gyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng mga Christians (refuting the support).

There are instances kasi that you will just refute either the claim or the support kasi maaari kang mag agree either sa support o sa claim. For example, sa isang kausap ko ang sabi niya, “Jesus is a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles” (of course suggesting na mahilig daw ang Panginoon sa mga lalaki kaya hindi siya pumili ng babaeng apostol). Sa refutation ko sa kaniya, ang nirefute ko lang ay ang claim niya. Sabi ko, “Jesus was not a homosexual because he had 12 male apostles.” Agree ako sa support niya na 12 ang male apostles ni Christ pero ang hindi ako agree ay yung claim nya na homosexual si Kristo. You can also find yourself refuting naman yung support, but affirming the claim, for example, “God is a vengeful God because God committed genocide with the Canaanites.” While I agree that God is a vengeful God, hindi ako nag agree that what He did with the Canaanites was genocide.

So ganiyan lang po ang pagtugon sa first question ng second H.
In much the same way na nag-communicate ka ng godly mind sa first H ganito din ang ginagawa mo dito kasi you are showing sa kausap mo na you are a person who can think critically ng mga bagay -- hindi ka pushover. You are communicating sa kausap mo na may intellectual courage ka na harapin ang isang objection with what you know.

So by way of summary, sa episode na ito, natutunan mo how to refute yung argument ng kausap mo by stating a counterargument. You can either refute the claim or the support or both depende sa sitwasyon.

Wala pa tayo dun sa defense mo ng counterargument mo dahil sa susunod pong episode ‘yan ang gagawin natin -- tatalakayin natin ang second question sa second H: “What is your defense to your counterargument?”

Pakikinig sa Katwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 3 of 3 || John Pesebre (May 3, 2018)

In the previous episode tinalakay ko po yung first question sa first H ng 4H apologetics: “What is the claim of the argument?” Kung matatandaan ninyo, an argument has two parts: a claim and a support. Tinalakay ko din the previous episodes, kung ano ang three types of claims: claim of fact, claim of value at claim of policy. Tandaan natin na ang first H is Hear, so makikinig ka. Ngayong episode, andudun pa rin tayo sa first H na ‘yon na Hear pero ang concern naman natin ngayon is to know the support of the claim, ulitin ko po: to know the support of the claim. In other words, kailangan mo dito malaman ang kaniyang substantiation sa kaniyang assertions.

You may know this by asking honest questions based on Greg Koukl’s book Tactics as summarized here by GraceLead —

First inquiring question: “What do you mean by that?”

Use variations of this question to gather information. Your tone should be mild and inquisitive. Make an effort to understand WHAT the person means. (Sometimes people have not thought through the issues.) Be patient. Use questions to help the person state his views specifically instead of in vague generalities.

The second inquiring question is, “How did you come to that conclusion?”

Use this type of question to find out WHY the person believes what he believes. Opinions are not proofs. Whoever makes the claim is responsible for providing the proof. An assertion without evidence is not useful.

Ang ginagawa mo dito ay ginagawan mo ng pattern ang reasoning niya. Kailangan kasi magkaroon ng manageability ang argument niya sa’yo. So sa dalawang tanong na yan based kay Koukl, your goal is simply to know a person’s CLAIM and to the understand the SUPPORT to the person’s claim.

It wouldn't be an argument if he just claims something. The argument must have a support -- a substantiation of the assertion about reality. Finding out etong argument na ito is crucial kasi this provides you the foundation of the doubt.  Support answers the question, "What reason do you have for me to believe your claim is true and real?" yan ang tanong.

"Argument requires justification of its claims, is both a product and a process, and it combines elements of truth seeking and persuasion," according to Ramage et al, in Writing Arguments.
If we are in this mindset, we are now in a good place to be trained in to identify an argument.

Taking time to listen will give you deeper understanding and learning from the reasoning of other people. James Hoskins concludes in his fine blog over at the Christ & Pop Culture website these statements,

[T]he most valuable thing I learned from my philosophy professors—besides how to think critically—is something they did not intend to teach me. Through my interactions with them, I learned first hand that the Christian doctrine of common grace is absolutely true. God has revealed some truth to every person. Therefore, we can learn something from everyone; even people who believe the opposite of what we do. Thinking we can’t learn something from unbelievers not only causes us to miss out on some deeply enriching relationships, it also ensures we won’t learn anything.‡

Ang support ng claim is the reason for the claim. Sa characterization last time nung isang Christian na college student na “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” ano ang support niya? Here it is again –

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

Obviously ang support niya ay “dahil majority ng gyera sa mundo ay sinimulan ng Christianity.” So ngayon ang full argument niya is this: Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion because she started majority of the wars of history.”

At this point hindi ka muna sasagot dahil tandaan mo, you are building an environment na hiyang para sa pagsasaliksik. Maganda muna mag disarm ka ng kausap mo. Lagi mong tatandaan yung Montaigne Rule: “submit yourself to the force of reasoning ng kausap mo.” So at this point, you have to remember two things: provenance at problem. Provenance simply means yung record ng pinanggalingan ng idea na ito. Ang problem naman is ‘yung legitimate na allegation ng objection ng kausap mo na dapat mong irecognize din.

Sa dalawang letter P na ito, what you are trying to establish is intellectual humility, impartiality and open-mindedness. This is your witness that God has trained your mind na maging makadiyos at mapanuri.

Sa provenance, magsasalaysay ka lang ng iyong previous knowledge of the argument. Sa kaso ng objection nung Christian college students sa taas, I would say that the idea of “Christianity is an immoral religion because she started majority of the wars of history” has been a standing objection that would reference ‘yung Crusades, mga battles sa Inquisition, Thirty Years War na kumitil ng 8 million na tao sa Europe was a war between Protestants and Roman Catholics at yung Taiping Rebellion na 20M naman ang namatay.

These are true facts by the way. It is embarrassing but it is the truth. There is nothing wrong to express your honesty in what you know about the argument. But you mention them sa conversation to set up an environment na congenial for inquiry.

So depende sa alam mo sa nature ng objection, you can add some more.

Now ang susunod na witness mo ng intellectual virtue is sa second P, Problem. Here you have to be honest of the effect of say The Thirty Years War and Taiping Rebellion sa perception ng mga tao about the Christian religion. It is wouldn’t be very difficult for me to admit that wars like this really provide good support to the objection or the argument. They are forever etched in the history of Christianity.

Malakas ang witnessing sa Hear, at ang iwi-witness mo sa kausap mo ay isang isipan na makadiyos at mapanuri. I hope you are also confident that this is your mind when you studying God’s word para naman hindi rin maging ploy lang ang iyong witness. Balikan mo ‘yung dalawang previous episodes natin na “Mga Disposisyon ng Makadiyos at Mapanuring Isipan sa Apologetics” both part 1 at part 2.

Also let me remind you na wala ding assurance na ‘yung kausap mo ay sasama sa’yo sa congenial environment na sinisikap mong akayin siya papunta. Marahil dahil ito sa matagal na niyang katanungan ito o gayunpaman marami pang mga added supports na hindi pa niya nasasabi. Ganun pa man nawa’y wag kang panghinaan ng loob and you have to return to your motive. Look up the previous episodes on faith, hope and love as motives for apologetics to help put things in perspective for you at hindi ka panghinaan at ma frustrate.

Pakikinig sa Katwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 2 of 3 || John Pesebre (May 1, 2018)

In the previous episode tinalakay ko bilang panimula ang topic ng finding out about the claim of an argument. You would recall din na an argument statement has two parts: a claim and a support. A claim is something that one asserts, and a support is how one substantiates what one is asserting. An example of this is the claim “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” which we drew out galing sa sinabing ito ng isang Christian na college student --

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

To claim something is to “state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof” (wiki). Sa case natin dito sa apologetics, we put a claim alongside its support for us to have an argument. Mahalaga na ma-identify natin ang claim kasi maaaring sa sobrang dami ng sinasabi ng kausap mo, hindi kayo makapagsimula maski isang topic na dapat tapusin. Again, kung naaalala ninyo yung lesson sa akin ng aking professor nung ako’y nag aaral pa ng aking Master of Theology, sabi ni Dr. Ron Watters, kailangang makita mo ang malawak na problema na parang sahig na composed ng mga tiles. In order for you to solve all the problem, you might have to begin with taking one tile at a time.

Kung hindi ka magkakaroon ng pagpapahalaga in finding the claim ng kausap mo, you might end up exasperated sa dami ng hindi niyo matapos tapos. Writing the claim down on a piece of paper might help you achieve your apologetics goals. Once you have identified the claim or claims, you can then feedback sa kaniya kung ano ang naunawaan mo sa mga ina-assert niya. Once na nag agree siya sa naunawaan mo na mga claims niya, then you can then proceed to ask yung kausap mo na kung pwede isa-isahin ninyo ang mga claims na ito. Kung magkataon man na ibahin niya ulit ang topic, you can just reference yung kausap mo back sa claim na tinutugunan muna ninyo sa panahon na iyon. This way maiiwasan niya yung tinatawag na informal fallacy ng moving the goalpost kung saan iniiba niya ang mga adhikain ng inyong pag uusap.

This is a good way to witness attentiveness and focus, two very important intellectual virtues that might set up a congenial environment for the conversation. Nawa’y makita ng kausap mo na dahil sa ginagawa mong eto na pagde determine ng kaniyang claim na ikaw ay “quick to listen but slow to speak.”

Balikan niyo na lang po ang previous manuscript nung April 26, 2018 para sa karagdagan pang discussion on finding the claim. Ang episode kasi natin ngayon has very simple goals lang po and that is to list down three kinds of claims. These are: 1) claims of fact, 2) claims of value and 3) claims of policy. We will talk about these three types today and next episode po tayo uusad sa support.

Claim of fact. Ang claim of fact ay isang pangungusap that can be falsifiable or verifiable by referencing to actual state of affairs na nangyari sa mundo. For example, when one says “Si Kristo ay hindi historical figure” that is a claim of fact. O di naman kaya’y “The resurrection never happened” is also a claim of fact. Notice na ang mga ito ay falsifiable or verifiable by doing research sa history. Another claim of fact is “Christ is a version of the Egyptian god Horus.” All you have to do dito sa claim na ito to falsify it or verify it is to go to a study sa history. That also gives you a clue on how to do apologetics: go to a counterclaim about the non-factuality ng sinasabi ng kausap mo, by simply saying, for example, “Christ is not a version of the Egyptian god Horus” then you will proceed to defend that based on a study of Egyptian history and mythology alongside your historical study of Jesus Christ.

Claim of value. Ang claim of value ay nangyayari kapag ang kausap mo ay magbibigay ng kaniyang subjective na conclusion patungkol sa Christianity. For example, “Hindi maganda maging Kristiyano.” Ang claim of value ng kausap mo ay magpapalagay ng kaniyang opinion o pakiramdam patungkol sa iyong pananampalataya. Another example would be, “Belief in God is bad.” In these types of claim, ang kausap mo ay may value-judgment sa mga bagay na alam niya about your faith. Ang claim of value is a value-judgment of facts of Christianity.

Again to refute this, kailangan mo lang naman ilalagay mo lang naman sa negative or refuting statement ang counterclaim mo, for example, “Belief in God is not bad” bilang tugon sa sinabi ng kausap mo na “Belief in God is bad” or “Maganda maging Kristiyano” bilang tugon doon sa claim of value ng kausap mo na “Hindi maganda maging Kristiyano.”

Claim of policy. Ang claim of policy naman ay isang pag uudyok na gumawa ng isang action ng iyong kausap. For example, “We must disrespect Christianity” or “Christians shouldn’t be allowed to evangelize in public places.” Ang mga claims na ito ay may pag uudyok.

Ang tatlong types of claims na ito ang iniikutang mga claims sa apologetics. You should be able to identify kung ano ang claim ng iyong kausap para naman mas lalong specific ang point na tutugunan mo.

Sa kaso ng ating case study on the statement ng college student na “Christianity is a bloodthirsty religion” we have here a claim of fact, lalupa’t alam natin na ang support niya diyan ay dahil sa ang Christianity daw ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga gyera sa mundo.

Pero depende sa pagkasabi ng kausap mo ng kaniyang case ang mga claims na ire-restate mo sa kaniya. Taking our case study here, maari mo ring i-confirm sa kaniya ang isang claim of value like, "Nakakalito ang sabihing Christianity is a religion of peace." All you have to do is to restate ito sa kaniya and if he agrees then you have something to talk about. Mas madaling mag refute ng claim of value kapag nasa side mo ang facts. All you have to do is to challenge ang kaniyang interpretation by you providing a counter-interpretation na nagsasabing "Hindi nakakalito ang sabihing Christianity..." and then you proceed to give support why.

Maari mo din namang i-frame ang claim into a policy based sa kaniyang sinasabi, like "Huwag kayong papasok sa Christianity na akala niyo religion of peace . . ." Claim of policy 'yan kasi nag uudyok ang kausap mo na may active action ang thrust ng sinasabi niya. Sa claim of policy, ang pag refute is just to provide an alternative action by stating, "Maari mong iconsider ang Christianity kung ang hanap mo ay religion of peace." Napansin ninyo na ikaw din ay nagbigay ng counter claim of policy.

I hope na marami kayong natutunan maski siguro sumakit ulo ninyo sa episode natin ngayon. Again ang tatlong types of claims ay: 1) claim of fact o yung claim na may ina-assert na factual data, 2) claim of value, o yung claim na may pagpapalagay o value-judgment ang iyong kausap, at 3) claim of policy, o yung claim na nag uudyok ang kausap mo na dapat mayroong gawin.

Ang tatlong claims na ito ay mga critical apparatus mo to navigate sa marahil complex na mundo ng kausap mo. In doing this you will not only help the conversation become fruitful but also you might help yung kausap mo malinawan din sa mga gusto niyang sabihin. Lagi nating tatandaan na ang apologetics ministry is also a witnessing ministry kaya nararapat lamang na magbigay tayo ng patotoo sa ating mga miniministeryuhan na mga tao.

Pakikinig sa Katwiran ng Kausap sa Apologetics, Part 1 of 3 (Hear) || John Pesebre (April 26, 2018)

Ang 4H Apologetics ay ganito lang: apat na H to represent four stages ng pag aaral o pagi-engage sa mga nag-oobject sa Christian faith

Sa Hear, kailangan pakinggan mo ang kausap mo and determine kung ano ang argument niya. Sa Help, maglalatag ka ng apologetics mo na tutunggali sa sinasabi ng kausap mo. Sa Heal, ipapahayag mo sa kanya ang idol na naki-create ng objection niya at kung paano ito tinutuwid ng salita ng Diyos. At panghuli sa Honor, magkakaroon kayo ng simpleng pag aaral nung verse na kakabasa pa lang ninyo in the hope that your conversation produced new beliefs sa kausap mo.

Sa unang pandinig tila baga napaka complicated pero dahil parang naka automate siya, all you have to do is ride along the process.

What is important now at this point is how to begin. So let’s go, let’s begin with the point of contact ng apologetics na malimit mangyari and that is the contact of doubt sa Christian faith. And please don’t take this lightly. Sa apologetics you will face doubts -- doubts of your own and of other people. Most especially, mga doubts ng believers who are oftentimes may attachment na emotional kasi mahirap talaga ang mga doubts.

Ang mahirap sa doubt is when it presents itself more than just a claim but presents itself as an argument. Mahirap siya kasi mas masidhi ang pagtatalo sa isipan ng tao. Malimit ang mga claims natin walang support. Mga assertions lang. When a claim has a support there is an argument. Then the assertion now has what we call a substantiation. Dalawa na ngayon ang concern mo: yung claim at yung support. An argument ay may dalawang bahagi: claim at support. Naniniwala ako Diyos (claim) dahil Christian ako (support). Nagkakaroon ng doubt kung ganito na “Hindi ako naniniwala sa Diyos (claim) dahil hindi ko makitaan ng evidence na siya ay nag-e-exist  (support). That’s when it gets burdensome to think. Kaya nagkakaroon ng mental agony ang mga tao dahil hati na ang isipan niya sa competition inside his mind.

So dito tayo ngayon magsisimula sa ating first H na Hear. Simple lang ang goal ng Hear. Sana po naaalala ninyo dito yung Montaigne rule na sinabi ko last episode: that you submit yourself to the force of reasoning nung kausap mo. Halos ganito din ang sinabi ni Socrates, “Follow the argument wherever it leads.” May biblical charter ka rin dito: “Be quick to listen and slow to speak” (James 1:19).

Naka situate ang apologetics ministry sa mga ganitong konteksto. May isang tao na nagda doubt, o ikaw mismo nagda doubt, and then you start to address the problem or the argument. Eto yung sinasabi ni William Lane Craig the previous episode na “pursue it into the ground until you come to intellectual satisfaction with it.”

The first question na sasagutin natin sa 4H under Hear is “What is the claim of the argument?” Mahalaga na ma identify mo ang nature ng argument. So you have to begin with identifying the claim.

"In order to criticize a position someone has offered, you may sometimes need to put statements [or in our case, an argument] into a pattern," sabi ni Cederblom & Paulsen. They add, "[Y]ou might then need to fit it and certain other thoughts into patterns." Yang pattern na yan duti ay  CLAIM + SUPPORT = ARGUMENT

When I was taking my Master of Theology sa seminary, my theology professor Dr. Ron Watters gave this example sa pag solve ng mga problema that has helped me through the years. Sabi niya you need to visualize your problems as a floor na gawa sa tiles. Ang tiles kasi bukud-bukod. Kapag na identify mo na yung pagbubukud-bukod ng problema as if mga tiles sila, you can then take one tile and address it.

Dahil dito kailangan nating pagsumikapang ilagay sa pattern ang mga statements ng kausap nating nag-oobject. And again that pattern na gagamitin natin sa ating discussion dito ay yung CLAIM + SUPPORT = ARGUMENT. Let’s give a brief activity.

For example, the statement "John bagay kayo ng asawa mo kasi maganda siya at ikaw ay mabait." Ang claim diyan ay yung “John, bagay kayo ng asawa mo” at ang support ay “maganda siya at ikaw ay mabait.” Maliwan po. Isa pang halimbawa, “Iboboto ko si Juan kasi marami na siyang karanasan sa public service.” Ang claim ay, “Iboboto ko si Juan” at ang support ay “kasi marami na siiyang karanasan sa public service.” Ngayon episode na ito atin munang pag uusapan ang “claim” at next episode naman ay ang support.

A claim is actually a claim sa reality, o yung sa tingin nung nagki claim ay true state of affairs. It is something that he or she thinks as corresponding sa realidad ng mundo. Ang mga sample ng claims would be, "God is a moral monster" or "Christianity is the major cause of wars in history." Mga claims yan sa reality nung nagsasabi. It is not necessarrily true, but it is a claim nonetheless.
How do you identify a claim? Of course makikinig ka muna. Let’s say maraming sinasabi ang kausap mo.

For example, let’s look at this statement by a college student na Christian,

Nahihirapan akong ireconcile yung idea na ang Diyos ay mapagmahal subalit majority ng giyera sa kasaysayan natin ay sinimulan ng mga Christians. Bakit ganon? Di ba dapat ang Christians pa ang promotor ng katahimikan, bakit ang Kristiyanismo pa ang nagpasimula ng majority ng mga giyera sa kasaysayan?

Nakaka overwhelm po ba na tanong eto ng isang Christian na college student? Kung oo ang sagot niyo sa tanong na “Napaka brutal naman di ba?”, welcome to my ministry context. Setting aside muna yung mga spiritual duties mo as a believer kapag naka encounter ka ng ganito, like prayer, humility before God and pag encourage sa kausap mo, let’s dive into identifying the claim of this statement.

Recall yung doubt as “two.” When you are talking with an objector, you need to have in mind two opposing things. If a person is trying to oppose something in your faith, what is that opposition? Ang claim is usually a simple sentence na may form na “X is Y.” For example, “God is a moral monster” or “Christ is a fictional character.” So dito ngayon pumapasok yung “two” sa “doubt.” Meron siyang “X is Y” di ba? Para matulungan ka sa language mo, you have to begin with identifying kung anong “X is Y” mo na kinokontra ng “X is Y” niya.

It is very obvious that he is talking about God or at least his understanding about God. Once you identify the “X” who is God, then you will try to find out the “Y” kasi nga “X is Y.” At this point, mukhang pwede na magkagulo sa utak mo. A simple trick dito to know the predicate of “X” is to ask yourself, what characterization of my belief in God is this person trying to do?
Ang characterization is “a description of the distinctive nature or features of someone or something.” Do not go into the details of the argument muna. You are trying to look for an umbrella sentence na patutunayan ng “support” maya maya. Ang umbrella statement mo ay yung claim o yung “X is Y.”

Ako sa tingin ko, he is characterizing Christianity as an immoral religion.

Wag kayo mag-alala kasi kung kausap mo talaga yung tao, you can pitch him how you are understanding his claim. So pitch the claim to him, if he agrees then you can now proceed what you think is his support for his claim.

Based dun sa sinasabi nung university student na Christian, mukhang ang claim niya ay “God is a genocidal monster.” X is Y statement po yan. Ngayon pag kausap mo siya, you need to tell her if eto nga ang nature ng sinasabi niya. Pag sumagot siya ng “Oo” then you have a claim na ia-address mo. Next naman is you try to state sa kaniya kung ano ang support niya na nauunawaan mo sa sinasabi niya. Yan po ang ating pag uusapan next episode.

So bilang pagre-review lang, sa iyong pakikipag usap gamit ang 4H, ang unang tanong na ise-settle mo is, “What is the claim of the argument?” Makikinig ka sa kaniya at gagawa ka ng simpleng “X is Y” statement to state sa kausap mo, at kung mag agree siya, sana naman mag agree, then may malinaw na kayong avenue to talk about.

Sa ganitong paraan ka nakakabuo ng congenial na environment. To show sa kausap mo na ikaw ay inquisitive at focused reflects both a virtuous mind that hopefully influences ‘yung conversation niyo at Christian witness sa vein ng James 1:9 na “Be quick to listen.” By accomplishing those, I hope you are able to create an initial motivation sa kaniya to pursue a Chrisitan answer sa kaniyang objection. Sa Question 2, lalo pa maha-highlight ang virtue at witness mo na ito kasi doon lalo mo pang ipapakita na nauunawaan mo ang sinasabi niya.

Ang Tugon ng Apologetics sa Mga Pagdududa || John Pesebre (April 12, 2018)

Doubt plays a key role in doing apologetics because it is the doorway of apologetics. It is a doorway not only to the intellectual confusion about the nature of Christianity but also on the spiritual condition of people. A doubt gives you the idea that the person has not taken hold of the benefits of truth, understanding and wisdom on that particular issue.

Lalupa kung believer ang nagda-doubt. A servant of God then has to have a heart for the doubting. Hindi mo lang iisipin na ito ay intellectual problem, bagkus you also have to consider this as a spiritual problem ng believer. Ang apologetics kasi hindi lang interesado sa intellectual impact ng doubts but also sa spiritual.

Sabi ni noted Christian philosopher William Lane Craig,

doubt is never simply an intellectual problem. There is always a spiritual dimension to doubt as well. There is an enemy of your souls, Satan, who hates you intensely, and who is bent on your destruction, and who will do everything in his power to see that your faith is destroyed. And therefore, when we have these intellectual doubts and problems, we should never look at them as something that is spiritually neutral, or divorce them from the spiritual conflict that we’re involved in. Rather, we need to take these doubts to God in prayer, to admit them honestly, to talk to our Christian friends about them, to not stuff them or hide them. We need to deal with them openly and honestly and talk to people about them and seek God’s help in dealing with them.*

Dalawa ang recommendation ni Craig sa mga taong overcome with doubts. Una --

by cultivating your spiritual life, engaging in spiritual disciplines like prayer, meaningful worship, Christian music, sharing your faith with other people, being involved in Christian service, so that you will foster the witness of the Holy Spirit in your life, be filled with the Holy Spirit so that when you come into the circumstances of doubt and the shifting sands of evidence and so forth you aren’t thrown into shipwreck because of that.

Pangalawa, “pursue it into the ground until you come to intellectual satisfaction with it.”

Yang dalawang ‘yan ang tila baga anchor ng 4H apologetics. And it is brought into the fore by a realization ng role ng doubt hindi lang sa apologetics but sa Christian life. So kaya po sa episode na ito, we dive in to the most important introductory material ng 4H apologetics, and that is facing the giants of doubt.

Some of my favorite authors have chimed in on the topic of doubt for example, Alvin Plantinga who said, “Believers are constantly beset by doubts, disquietude, spiritual difficulty, and turmoil . . . It never goes well with us, and it often goes a deal worse. There is an unbeliever within the breast of every Christian.”

Tim Keller said that

[f]aith without some doubts is like a human body without any antibodies in it. People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic. 

My favorite Puritan of all time, Thomas Watson explains that ‘[h]e that can believe without doubting, suspect his faith; and he that can repent without sorrowing, suspect his repentance.”

Perhaps among the most insightful new writers I have been reading recently, Mitch Stokes said this about doubt,

All thoughtful believers – even those whose faith is mature – encounter doubt. Not a single person has had unadulterated faith. In any case, it certainly won’t do to ignore your doubts, and defusing them will only strengthen your faith. To be sure, doubts can be strong enough to become a trial in your life; but like all trials they’re meant to refine faith, not stifle it.

If you consult yung Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, here is part of its discussion “doubt,”

It is possible to have questions (or doubts) about persons, propositions, or objects. Philosophically and epistemologically doubt has been deemed a valuable element in honest, rational inquiry. It prevents us from reaching hasty conclusions or making commitments to unreliable and untrustworthy sources. A suspension of judgment until sufficient inquiry is made and adequate evidence is presented is judged to be admirable. In this light, doubt is not an enemy of faith. This seems to be the attitude of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Questioning or doubting motivates us to search further and deeper in an understanding of faith.

If a person is in a sincere journey to understand life, then he most probably will have to wrestle with doubts by second guessing a lot of things along the way. What a person used to think about things, that person will begin to evaluate; especially, when that person thinks about his life or being self-conscious about what his life is, its purpose, its meaning and many more. Oftentimes doubt plays a key role there because when doubt happens, you are no longer thinking the same way you are thinking about life.

Sabi nga ni Os Guinness,

True seekers are different. On meeting them you feel their purpose, their energy, their integrity, their idealism, and their desire to close in on an answer. Something in life has awakened questions, has made them aware of a sense of need, has forced them to consider where they are in life. They have become seekers because something has spurred their quest for meaning, and they have to find an answer.

True seekers are looking for something. They are people for whom life, or a part of life, has suddenly become a point of wonder, a question, a problem, or a crisis. This happens so intensely that they are stirred to look for an answer beyond their present answers and to clarify their position in life. However the need arises, and whatever it calls for, the sense of need consumes the searchers and launches them on their quest.

That need sa tingin ko is spurred by questions that challenge their state of affairs. They start to doubt. The Greek word for doubt is distazo. “Distazo is used only twice in the New Testament. Jesus uses it to Peter in Matt.14:31, when the latter floundered in his attempt to walk on the water. 

When you think of doubt, begin with the number two.

The Greek word for doubt is "distazo". It comes from the word "dis" which means duo or two. Yung English word na "doubt" ay galing sa Latin na "dubitare" na Anglicized. Kaya may mga words tayo sa English na "indubitable" or "dubious." The Old English word was "tweogen" that comes from "tweon" which means two o yung idea ng two minds. The noun for "tweogen" is "twynung",  and it is from this where we get the English word "twine" o yung sulsi ng dalawang sinulid o tali and also "twin" which is kambal o magkapares. Ang word natin ng doubt is "duda" na actually is a Spanish word that comes back to our earlier Latin "dubitare".

A good picture of this is a confused man facing a fork in the road wondering which way to go. Or a woman trying to make a choice which of the two dresses to wear for a party.

So when you are doubting, there are at least two things to deal with: what you think is true, and another one claiming to be true.When you doubt may nagku compete sa isa na alam mo -- minsan dalawa or marami. It doesn’t matter. Ang importante may kakumpetensiya sa isang idea. Para kang nasa daan na derecho, tapos all of a sudden nagmamaneho ka biglang nag sanga yung daan. Nag duda ka na which road you are taking. A doubt is a competing idea sa mind mo.

Usually you have an understanding of the world. Oftentimes this is called a propositional statement – it is a claim sa reality. Isa itong idea na sa tingin mo ay totoo. Doubt comes when there is a competing claim sa reality. So dalawa na. Meron ka nang dubitare.

___________
*  William Lane Craig, "Dealing with Doubt," Interview with Interviewer, Reasonable Faith (website)
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/interviews-panels/dealing-with-doubt/

Kapamaraanan sa Pagtatanggol ng Pananampalataya || John Pesebre (Apirl 10, 2018)

I was an elementary student nung mapanood ko ang action film ni Lito Lapid na San Basilio. Hindi pa common film term noon ang hyper-reality.  Ang hyperreality sa film ay yung simulation or representation of reality na distorted or exaggerated. Sa isang napaka memorable na eksena ng pelikulang San Basilio, tinakasan ng dalawang pusakal si Julio Valiente (played by Lito Lapid) sa isang maisan. Kailangan niyang i-neutralize and dalawang ito subalit iisa na lang ang bala niya. Ang ginawa niya ay itinapat nya ang talim ng kaniyang kutsilyo sa nguso ng kaniyang baril and then fired the gun, splitting the bullet and then hitting the two murderous villains. Sa proverbial na Western idiom, ang tawag dito ay hitting two birds with one stone.

It is always beneficial sa ministry kung may multiple functions ang isang task o hitting two birds with one stone or bullet. Namu-multiply ang effect ng efforts mo. Today I will introduce to you a method in doing apologetics which I develop called 4H Apologetics. Ito po ay method na hitting two birds with one stone dahil it has two functions for you as a Christian servant.  First it is a personal learning process (a curriculum -- a road map for personal development in the area of apologetics). The root word ng curriculum sa Latin ay currile or road, way or path. You can use 4H na parang gabay sa daan ng pagsasaliksik. Pag may natanggap kang objection, may personal learning process ka to deal with the objection na pasunud-sunod. Para siyang automated instruction kasi – Step 1 – Hear; Step 2 – Help; Step 3 – Heal; Step 4 – Honor.

Pangalawang function, 4H Apologetics is also an conversation outline kung paano ka makikipag usap or makiki-engage sa skeptic or talagang naghahanap ng kasagutan sa Christianity. Magsisilbi siyang conversational pipeline to create an environment that is conducive for the production of belief, whether it be a verbal engagement or a written engagement.

Bawat isa diyan has specific actions to do that will guide you in not only finding answers but also hope to lead ‘yung kausap mo for a better knowledge of God. “Nothing can be done except little by little,” sabi nung French poet na si Charles Baudelaire.
Marapat lamang na ang isang nag-eengage sa apologetics ay magkaroon ng conscious at concientious (a quality ng isang tao na “wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly” ) dahil apologetics is a ministry din and as such it should involve a process na mahihiyangan ng Christian.

Oftentimes I find myself flustered o nagugulumihanan listening to objections of people sa Christianity dahil napaka complicated niya. Ganyan din ang nangyari kay Fritz, isang university student na involved sa isang campus ministry. Sa isang evangelistic project ng kaniyang campus ministry, gumamit siya ng isang survey sa isa niyang kaklase bilang simula ng kaniyang pre-evangelism efforts. Sa survey na ito may paraan siya para matanong ang kaklase niya about his views about God, sin and other things. It was at this point na, sa salita ni Fritz, “binakuran siya ng maraming tanong at complaint about God.” Ang kaklase pala niyang ito ay dati daw believer pero naging agnostic na. The reason I tell this story is because of Fritz reaction sa mga tanong ng classmate niya. He fell into an argument. He confessed that he was aiming to give him immediate answers at doon siya nalito.

In talking to people na may mga objections, mas maganda kung may engagement plan ka. That is just what 4H Apologetics does. At the back of your mind, you will follow a process to respond to this objection.

At kung regular na gagawin mo ito, ikaw ngayon ay magkakaroon ng mastery sa skill na ito.

Sa pakikipag-usap natin it is important if we have a mental outline how we will try to tackle an objection. Sa Hear, you will listen and determine the argument. You will submit yourself under the force of reasoning ng kausap mo. Sa Help, you will provide your counter-claim and support with which you will have to build a cumulative case using positive and negative apologetics. Sa Heal, you will attempt to identify a non-biblical idea and recuperate that non-biblical idea with a biblical one. Lastly, sa Honor  you will try to lead the person to a simple study of the Scripture you used to recuperate the wrong idea earlier. Although you might think this is a confusing task, actually mas mapapadali kasi for every H mayroon kang given tasks na gagawin na well-defined.

So 4H Apologetics is a process. This is where it gets challenging in the church (at nagiging source din ng frustration ko malimit) because when I introduce 4H, some Christians would feedback, “Kinakahon mo ang Holy Spirit pag ganyan" or “Just follow the leading of the Spirit.” While there are true principles that ground those statements, like “Don’t rely too much on your own ability” and “Be spiritually sensitive to the Holy Spirit” those statements above are accusations that will remain baseless if (1) you follow a process AND AT THE SAME TIME (2) have the humility not to trust on your process alone but be prayerful and (3) submit to the work of the Holy Spirit who is not against making process. I have frequently asked Christians who say those statements kung they do regular quiet time of prayer, praise, devotions and Bible reading; if they say yes, I would tell them, “That’s a process.”

Sa kanyang aklat na The High Performance Entrepreneur, ang author na si Subrioto Bagchi tells this story,

Fuji Xerox was a joint venture between Fuji and Xerox. Fuji Xerox won the legendary Deming Prize for Total Quality Management even before Xerox, the parent company, got the Malcolm Baldridge Award for quality in the US. The gentleman was explaining why process orientation is the key to building competitive success. Someone asked him vainly, “But Michelangelo followed no process?”

Unflustered, the expert replied, “First, be Michelangelo.”
Everybody else, he said, must follow process

Maganda nga ang may process kasi mayroon kang tinitingnan that you can evaluate. “Everything we do is a process that can always be improved,” sabi ni Tanmay Vora.

Yet we are aware that we do not want this process to devolve into a technique that we think ensures an end that is only given to the Holy Spirit to accomplish. May certain skepticism ka din kahit papano sa process. Hindi ganap yung pang-unawa natin sa proseso kasi ilalapat mo iyan sa iba-ibang environment at almost always, mag aadapt ka on may areas. Pero ganun pa man a process is important.

Sa 4H Apologetics gusto nating kunin ang mga pagdududa at gawin itong pagpupuri o yung tinatawag natin dito na from doubt to doxology. This is our big program. Sa ganitong paraan patuloy nawang masumpungan ng mga believers ang pag-asa at katotohanan ng salita ng Diyos though the believer walks through the valley of the shadow of doubt. Bawat isang H sa 4H may dalawang katanungan. Ang mga katanungan pong ito progressively outlines a Christian’s journey from doubt to doxology.

Ang mga katanungang ito kada isang H ay ang sumusunod. Sa Hear, ang first question is “What is the claim of the argument?” Second question: “What is the support of the argument? Sa help naman po, ang dalawang magkasunod na tanong ay “What is your counter-claim?” at “What is the support of your counter-claim?” Sa 3rd H, Heal, ang dalawang magkasunod na tanong sa outline is “What is the idol that this argument is trying to create?” at “What is the biblical teaching about God that recuperates this idea of the idol?” Sa last H, Honor, “What application can you draw out from the correct ideo of God?” and “What action point can you resolve to do at this point?”

Kung mapapansin ninyo ang process helps you not only to provide an answer sa objection, but also support a congenial environment well-suited for reaching God’s goods of truth, understanding and wisdom. Nakalapat ang 4H para ‘yung pinag usapan nating mga intellectual virtues sa previous episode ay magamit mo as a witness so that you create this environment na hiyang sa paghahanap ng katotohanan. It is also my hope na sa pakikipag usap mo sa kaniya, mapalapit din kayo sa isa’t isa at maipatotoo mo rin sa kaniya ang kabutihan ng Diyos sa iyong buhay.

Mga Disposisyon ng Makadiyos at Mapanuring Isipan sa Apologetics, Part 2 || John Pesebre (April 5, 2018)

Magpapatuloy po tayo this episode sa hindi nating natapos na list ng mga general categories ng intellectual virtues na inquiry-relevant sa ating desire na makilala lalo ang Panginoon and in so doing also develop our skills in the task of apologetics. Kapag tayo ay may godly inquring mind, ang ating mga apologetics encounter ay maaring makapag secure ng hiyang na environment para ang ating kausap ay mahikayat na magproduce ng mga bagong beliefs na tama patungkol sa Diyos.

Sa mga Ratio Christi meetups namin ito ang aming simulaing ginagawa. We strive to create and facilitate an environment sa aming mga meetups na congenial o hiyang sa pag pursue ng goods of truth, understanding and wisdom. Ang 4H na apologetics na sisimulan ko po next episode ang ginagamit namin at ito ay nakadisenyo to create ang hiyang na environment na ito. At dahil ang mga nag aattend ay mga Christian college students it is fair to assume na dinisenyo ng Diyos ang mga isipan ng mga estudyanteng ito para makatuklas ng katotohanan tungkol sa Diyos.
And so, we facilitate these meetups or even one-on-one mentoring with the reliance upon God that our godly inquiring mind will be humble enough to submit to God’s leading and at the same time, etong virtuous mind na ito ay makabuo ng hiyang na environment well-suited for the production of beliefs ng mga students. Kumbaga we are putting our mind on the meeting.

So last episode we discussed three of these virtue categories ng ating isipan -- mga bagay ito na pag ating na develop would greatly help us find God’s goods of truth, understanding and wisdom. These are all qualities that we see displayed in Scripture by people who have godly inquiring minds.

Una po ang pagdevelop at pagmaintain ng initial motivation to know God. Ang totoong mananampalataya ay may patuloy na pagnanais na makilala pa ng lubusan ang Panginoon. Pangalawa, kailangan ring maging properly focused sa ating pag-inquire. Nauunawaan ng isang believer ang kahalagahan ng pagtuklas ng kaalaman patungkol sa Panginoon kaya siya ay may kakayahang mag concentrate sa pag aaral. Pangatlo, nararapat lamang na gawin nating habit magbuo sistematikong stuktura sa ating natuklas. The believer aims to develop sound biblical knowledge through biblical, systematic and practical theology.*

So ituloy po natin sa pang-apat ngayon.

Pangapat, ay makadevelop ng habit na may integrity sa pag iisip. Kung nakatuklas ng katotohanan galing sa Dios marapat lamang magka self-scrutiny at maging open na magbago sa paanan ng Diyos. This is essentially the point of “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror” (Jam 1:23 NIV). Sa category na ito kailangan matuto ng intellectual humility, honesty, transparency at iba pang mga katangian na magpapatunay na tayo ay may integridad kapag nahaharap sa katotohanan.

Madadala mo rin ang virtue na ito sa apologetics kasi sisikapin mo ding makita ang magagandang ideas ng kausap mo na maaari mo ding yakapin at isulong. Marami na akong nakausap na mga atheists (‘yung mga matitino) na parang ako ‘yung maraming natutunan sa pinag-usapan namin. Madami na rin akong inapply sa aking buhay galing sa mga pakikipag usap kong ito sa mga atheists. Napapahiyang nito ang usapan kasi ang kausap mo hindi iisipin na napaka opinionated mo at closed-minded.

Panglima ay ang makadevelop ng habit na gumawa ng action galing sa natutunan. Sabi ni Santiago,

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror  24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it--not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it--they will be blessed in what they do. (Jam 1:22-25 NIV)

 Ang ating relasyon sa Panginoon ay may sanctification na goal. Nais ng Panginoon na sa ating pagtuklas ng knowledge galing sa Kaniya, ay ang ating mga buhay ay ma transform. Sa Romans 12: 2 “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Rom 12:2 NIV)

Malaki ang role ng virtue na ito sa apologetics dahil maipapaalam mo sa kausap mo ang implication ng magagandang ideas niya sa real world. One time I was talking to an atheist na bank manager whose argument was “Christianity is not a peaceful religion because she created majority of wars in history.” I enjoyed explaining to him the many faulty information from where this argument comes from. Nagmatigas siya, pero when I told him na may impact ito sa stature nya as an educated bank manager kasi this argument is based on ignorance. Nakita nya ngayon ang impact nito sa kaniyang practical na life. If I had only focused on truth inside the context ng argument, mukhang hindi siya magbabago ng isip. But because I am accustomed to making true belief into to true actions sa aking relationship with the Lord, madali kong nai-orient ang aming usapan sa implication ng truth sa actions na dali-dali siyang naka relate. That was the first time that an atheist said thank you sa akin.

Panganim, ay ang pagpupursigi sa napanghahawakang katotohanan. Sabi ng aking pinakapaboritong Puritan writer na si Thomas Watson, “Perseverance in grace is the last fruit of sanctification.” Ang taong may disposisyon ay isang tao na may paniniwalang pinaninindigan at sinasabuhay. Marunong siyang manindigan. Marunong siyang magtanggol sa kaniyang pinaniniwalaan gayong siya ay mayroon din namang pagtatangi sa sinasabi ng kaniyang kausap. “Remain in me,” ika ni Kristo. Sa mga naunang grupo ng mga virtues na natutunan natin, ang pang-anim na ito ang umaaani in terms the strengthening work of the first five. A godly inquiring mind knows how to confirm and defend what it believes is true.

Sa apologetics ministry, ito ang thrust mo – to defend the truth that you know. You marshall the goods of truth, understanding and wisdom that you have and set it up in front of the person na nagtatanong sa’yo. Madadala mo ito sa apologetics by showing sa kausap mo na you have diligence sa commitment mo, na hindi ka push over. Kumbaga you know your stuff.

We are to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Cor 10:5. We know that men’s doubts about God are “arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5) Kaya naman marapat lamang na pagsumikapan nating maging stable at rational ang ating pananampalataya for the purpose na maunawaan ito ng ating kausap and hopefully by the work of the Spirit change his/her belief towards the truth.

So nabuo po natin ang anim na major categories ng intellectual virtues na inquiry-relevant. Ang mga ito po ay makikita po ninyo ulit na ginagamit sa 4H apologetics series na akin pong sisimulang ipresent sa susunod na mga episodes.

It is important to understand na ang intellectual virtues ay hindi self-regarding lang o yung ginagamit for the purpose of knowing. Ang intellectual virtues ay other-regarding din o yung ginagamit siya for the benefit of other people din whether as a part of your community or somebody you want to be part of your community so that the production of knowledge would improve in collaboration. Ang role ng “other-regarding” na idea na ito sa apologetics is that tila baga ikaw ay recruiter ng mga tao to share your beliefs so that they too can be a part of the extension of the discovery. What I ultimately mean by “discovery” there is the gaining more of knowledge about God and His work. When you have this “other-regarding” idea, then doing apologetics becomes not just a “self-regarding” activity but it has an active inclination to extend the activity to other people. You can see this “other-regarding” feature in the ministry of Christians and inviduals, for example in the Great Commission --  “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)†

(C) Photo Credit
___________
* Adapted from Jason Baehr, The Inquiring Mind.

† The terms "self-regarding" and "other-regarding" I borrowed from Gabriele Taylor and Sybil Wolfram, "The Self-Regarding and Other-Regarding Virtues," in The Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 18, Issue 72, 1 July 1968, Pages 238–248; available at https://doi.org/10.2307/2218561.

Mga Disposisyon ng Makadiyos at Mapanuring Isipan sa Apologetics || John Pesebre (April 3, 2018)

The virtuous Christian mind or the godly inquiring mind has two movements that are keys to good apologetics: one is vertical and the other is horizontal.

Vertical because the godly inquiring mind nais niyang patulong na makilala ang Diyos. When he pursues truth, understanding and wisdom, he sees them as goods from God, as knowledge of God. He desires to be in or creates a congenial environment that is well-suited for him to pursue these goods because he loves God. He is a Sir Philip Sidney, the Renaissance man who said, "Either I'll find a way or I'll make one." The goods he sees are worth pursuing. Constant practice of this pursuit then makes it a habit that is exemplary for the growth in knowledge of God.

Horizontal because that habit of knowing more about God weans a passion for people. That godly inquiring mind props up a character that is not only willing to listen to people but to know them. But not only to know them but for them to know God.

Intellectual virtues for the Christian then are habits of the mind that not only seeks to grow in the knowledge of God but also serves other people to know more about God, most especially to inquiring fellow believers who are beset not only of doubts but also deep in rebellion to God.

Our charter for this kind of thinking is 1 Peter 1:13 “gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” One commentator explains --

Prepare to pursue them with vigour, constancy, and perseverance, and to perform the various duties which they lay you under an indispensable obligation steadily to practise. The apostle alludes to the manners of the eastern countries, in which the men’s garments being long and flowing, they prepared themselves for travelling, and other active employments, by girding them up with a girdle put round their loins, to prevent their being encumbered by them. The loins of the mind, therefore, is a figurative expression for the faculties of the soul, the understanding, memory, will, and affections, which the apostle signifies must be gathered in and girded, as it were, about the soul by the girdle of truth, so as to be in a state fit for continual and unwearied exertion in running the Christian race.*

Mahalagang may pagtatangi tayo sa ating kaalaman tungkol sa ating Panginoon. It is “though our knowledge of Him,” ang ating Panginoong Hesus, “who called us by his own glory and excellence,” na siyang naging instrumento kung bakit “his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness" (1 Peter 1:3-5). Mahalagang linangin natin ang ating isipan na maging attuned sa ating Panginoon.  May vertical na commitment kumbaga.

Subalit hindi lamang iyan, may horizontal din. Sa huling bilin ni Pablo sa kaniyang sulat sa mga taga-Filipos pinakita niya na may responsibility din ang godly inquiring mind sa ibang tao nang banggitin niya na "what you learned and received and heard and saw in me, do these things” (Php 4:9). Ang alin? Heto ang pinatotoo niya, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things” (Php. 4:8). Pinapagawa ito ni Pablo upang maging congenial ang kanilang isipang masumpungan ang Diyos.  "Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me--put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you." (v.9)

So mahalaga na linangin natin patuloy ang kaalaman na ito hindi lamang sa pangsarili nating benefit ng mga goods ng truth, understanding at wisdom but also maipatotoo natin ito sa ating mga conversations most especially sa mga doubting and/or rebelling na kapatiran.

Kaya naman ang ating mga intellectual virtues ay dapat makitaan ng inquiry-relevant characteristic, na ang gustong sabihin ay kumikiling palagi sa pagtutuklas ng goods galing sa Diyos na truth, understanding at wisdom -- this way our knowledge of Him grows. So kaya ang ating isipan ay inclined towards inquiry of divine truth, understanding and wisdom.

Kaso nga lang kailangan nga nating isipin na dalawa ang movement na ito: vertical at horizontal. For every inquiry-relevant category we will put here, there will be these two movements. At ang dalawang movement na ito ay may causality sana -- yung natututunan natin sa vertical ang siya nating gagamiting skill sa ating horizontal. Magbibigay po ako ng anim categories§ ng mga virtues na ito na atin dapat na linangin.

Una po ang pagdevelop at pagmaintain ng initial motivation to know God. The believer has to be initially motivated to grow in knowledge of God. Since ang word of God ang primary focus ng study ng isang believer. Peter commands believers to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pt 3:18). Likewise the apostle in his first letter instructed believers “to gird up the loins of your mind” (1 Peter 1:13). “Gird up the loins of your mind” is an idiomatic expression which means to “prompt readiness for activity.”† Ang habit na ito serves as a stable intellectual foundation for the horizontal of being initially motivated to minister to people. Long times spent on the truth of God moves a believer to be involved with other people. This is the idea of metaphors “light of the world” and “salt of the earth.” So it’s really a good habit to develop and maintain motivation to know God and people.

Ang Barna Group recently released a study on churchgoers knowledge of the Great Commission. "There is a correlation between what Barna calls 'Bible-mindedness' -- essentially, full faith in and regular engagement with scripture—and recognizing the Great Commission."‡  Mataas ang rating ng mga born-again believers compared sa iba. This adds to my point that time spent in attentive study of God’s word creates a Great-Commission consciousness.

Pangalawa, kailangan ring maging properly focused. Ito yung marunong tayong maging attentive, focused, perceptive or even maging thorough sa ating pag iinquire ng mga bagay patungkol sa Diyos. Sabi sa Psalm 119:10-11, “I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.” Napakahalaga sa apologetics ng mga virtues under this category kasi kung first category pa lang may motivation ka to know people, dito may attentiveness ka to hear them out and understand. Sabi sa James 1:19 “quick to listen, slow to speak.”

Sa 4H apologetics meron akong Montaigne rule. Ang Montaigne rule is galing sa sinabi ng French Renaissance philosopher na si Michel de Montaigne na sa mga discussion daw (in our case apologetics) we have to submit initially ourselves to the force of reason ng ating kausap. This is a true sign of focus. Imbes na bumuo ka ng sagot agad sikapin mo munang unawain ang sinasabi at kung pwede mas malinaw mo pang ma restate sa kaniya ang posisyon niya.

Pangatlo, nararapat lamang na gawin nating habit magbuo sistematikong stuktura sa ating natuklas. Sa pagtutuklas natin bigyan natin ng pagpapahalaga na may unity ang katuruan na yan ng Diyos sa iba pa niyang katuruan. Dito nabubuo ang stability ng ating paniniwala kasi dito tayo nakapaglagay ng systematic na structure sa ating isipan ng ating paniniwala. For example, when we talk about the love of God may pagkaunawa tayo ng manifestation nito sa buong Bible -- kaya tayo may systematic, biblical at practical theology. Sa apologetics napakahalaga nito kasi dito mo maipapakita sa kausap mo na ang pinananindigan mo ay may consistency at warrant for belief.

Isa sa mga ini-emphasize ko sa mga gustong magseryoso sa apologetics is to learn the interconnectedness of doctrines. Sa 4H apologetics kasi may section na positive apologetics kung saan ipapaliwanag mo ang isang structure of belief sa nagtatanong sa’yo para maunawaan niya kung saan ka nanggagaling. Ang structure na ito nararapat na rational at coherent. Defend ka ng ng defend wala ka naman palang pinanghahawakan.

Unang tatlo po ‘yan sa anim. Isusunod po natin ang pang-apat at pang-anim sa ating susunod na episode. Tandaan lamang po natin na ang godly inquiring mind ay may mga characteristics na ganito, hindi lamang sa purpose ng pagtuklas ng kaalaman patungkol sa Diyos subalit kung ipa-practice ang mga ito sa apologetics, nakaka-create siya ng congenial environment -- yung hiyang na environment para ang ating kausap ay makabuo ng mga bagong beliefs na totoo patungkol sa ating Panginoon.

PS for initial motivation:

MAKE UP YOUR MIND TO BEHOLD THE GLORY OF GOD BY BEHOLDING THE GLORY OF CHRIST IS THE GREATEST PRIVILEGE WHICH IS GIVEN TO BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE. John 17:3 ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’ John Owen, Glory of Christ, Banner ed., p. 22

__________

*  Benson Commentary, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/1_peter/1.htm

§ Adapted from Jason Baehr, The Inquiring Mind.

† Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, 

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/1_peter/1.htm

‡  "51% of Churchgoers Don’t Know of the Great Commission." in Barna (website); https://www.barna.com/research/half-churchgoers-not-heard-great-commission/

Truth. What is That? || Claudia Kalmikov || Mama Bear Apologetics (March 29, 2018)

Hey friends! It’s Claudia Kalmikovof Mama Bear Apologetics, a partner of Ratio Christi International. Mama Bear Apologetics exists for the sole purpose of equipping moms to answer the tough questions of the faith. These questions start in the home, and moms are usually the first ones to hear them. So ladies, let’s band together, and educate ourselves. You can follow Mama Bear Apologetics on the web, Facebook, twitter, youtube, and iTunes. Today’s topic is…Truth!”

Today we live in a world where some say we can’t know truth. Some say there is no truth or that science is the only way we can know anything about truth. Then why should we believe any of these claims if there is no truth? They don’t live up to their own standard. But we don’t really live like there is no truth do we? Think about it, we expect truth from every area of our lives, don’t we? We expect truth from our doctors, spouses, bankers, loved ones and anyone we depend on to make important decisions in our lives. We live in a world where objective truth is known and expected by everyone.

Moral Relativism says there is no objective truth. It says that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, that we shouldn’t judge, and that your truth is true for you and my truth is true for me. Relativism is the worldview that all worldviews are true. But here’s what I want you all to know: Every person should know that relativism is false and objective truth exists, because of the consequences of relativistic thinking.

Before I explain the consequences of relativistic thinking, I need to talk about truth first. Truth is when your beliefs match up to reality. What we must realize is that there are different kinds of truth and that we should not confuse them. For example: If I say chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream, that is a subjective truth because it is about me—the subject. Not the ice cream. Subjective claims are personal, private, or just your opinion. They are about what you think about something. Subjective claims can be true for some and false for others. So it can be true for me that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream. But it might not be true for someone else. That’s ok because we are talking about a subjective claim for which there is no consequence. However, if I say that ice cream controls diabetes, can that claim be true for some and false for others? No! This is a different kind of claim isn’t it? This kind of claim has consequences. This is an objective claim--a claim about how the world actually works. Of course we know that ice cream doesn’t control diabetes, but insulin does. Insulin controls diabetes anytime, in any place, for anyone. Objective claims are true for all people, at all times, and in all places. It doesn’t matter what one’s opinion is about an objective claim or whether you believe it or agree with it or not, it’s just true.

So why am I making this distinction between the two different kinds of truth? Because our culture today wants to put religion and morality in the subjective category. That’s why you hear people say, “That’s true for you but not for me,” when it comes to religion and morality. The mood of our culture is that morality is subjective.

If there’s no objective standard of morality, if morality is like ice cream, can we judge anyone for doing anything morally wrong? Can we? Think about it. If morality is like ice cream, we have no more right to make judgements about someone than we do to make judgements about their ice cream preference. If morality is like ice cream, we can’t judge the terrorists for decapitating Christians or any of their captors, and drowning them in cages. We can’t judge anyone for doing anything that offends us no matter how wrong it seems, because moral relativism legitimizes every personal choice. Even the ones most offensive to us.

When a young person says morality is subjective, I don’t believe them. I never believe them. Because I don’t believe people really live like that.

Part of being human is knowing the difference between right and wrong. If you try to jump off a cliff, thinking you can fly, gravity is going to have something to say about it. You can say you don’t believe in gravity but stubbornness doesn’t change truthfulness. Just as we have laws of gravity that exist in the objective world outside of us, there are laws of morality that exist objectively as a transcendent standard.

If you want to know what someone really believes about the objective status of morality, it’s not in what they say or in what they do. It’s in how they want to be treated.

Everybody wants to be treated as though morality is an objective feature of the universe. It’s inescapable. If somebody says there’s no such thing as objective morality, cut in front of them in a line, take their wallet and watch their reaction. We know people’s beliefs about morality not be their actions but by their reactions.

There was a professor teaching an ethics class at a major university in Indiana. He told his students to write on any ethical topic of their choice, requiring each student to back up their thesis with reasons and documentation. An atheist wrote on the topic of moral relativism. In his thesis, he argued that all morals are relative; there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness: it’s all a matter of opinion, he wrote. “You like chocolate, I like vanilla,” and so on. The paper provided what the professor asked; the reasons, the documentation, it was the right length, on time and stylishly presented in a nice blue folder. 

After the professor read the paper he wrote on the front cover, “F--I don’t like blue folders!” When the student got the paper back, he was enraged. He stormed into the professor’s office and yelled, “F! I don’t like blue folders! What is this? That’s not fair! That’s not right! That’s not just! You didn’t grade the paper on its merits!” The professor calmly raised his hand to quiet the student and said, “Wait a minute. Wasn’t your paper the one that said there is no such thing as fairness, rightness, and justice?” “Yes,” answered the student. “Then what’s this you say about me being fair, right and just? Didn’t your paper argue that it’s all a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?” The student replied, “Yes, that’s my view.” “Fine, then,” the professor responded. “I don’t like blue. You get an F!” Suddenly the light bulb went on in the student’s head. He realized he really did believe in objective morality. This simple lesson defeated his entire case for relativism.

The moral to the story is that objective morality exists.  And if you really want to get relativists to admit it, all you need to do is treat them unfairly. Hang around with them long enough, and watch them contradict themselves. The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.

As I stated before, there are consequences to relativism. Ideas have consequences.

One consequence is that relativists can’t accuse someone of doing something wrong or complain about the problem of evil. Relativism denies such things as right or wrong. What’s right or true for you is not true for me, right? If you believe that morality is about personal definition, then you can’t make moral judgments about another’s actions no matter how offensive they are to you. You can tell them you don’t like their morality, but you can’t tell them they’re wrong. Relativism legitimizes every personal choice.

The next consequence to relativism is that a relativist can’t complain about the problem of evil. How can evil exist if morals are relative? Relativism denies that things are objectively wrong. The problem of evil would disappear in a true relativistic world.

Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise or charge others with unfairness or injustice. Relativism renders these terms as meaningless because there is no external standard of measure. So nothing could be bad and worthy of blame, nor be good and worthy of praise.

Relativists can’t promote tolerance. Relativists argue that morals are individual and that we should tolerate the views of others and not judge other’s behavior and there should be no objective rules. Well this view is self-refuting because if there should be no objective moral rules, how can there be a rule requiring tolerance?

Relativism makes religion irrelevant. Our culture treats objective and subjective truth like a two story house with the bottom floor being the objective floor including things we know for sure like science, math, law, business. On the second floor is where we live—this is the subjective floor where we cook the foods we want, we have the friends we want and we have our personal traditions and all our preferences on this floor. What our culture does is treat religion and morality as though it belongs on the second floor because it’s a personal preference and not science. This makes religion and morality fade into existence and be irrelevant to our lives. But this is wrong, because we have to treat religion as our foundation. In Matt. 7:24-27, Jesus said, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against the house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” If we don’t have Christ as our foundation, our whole house is going to collapse. What is our house? Our future in eternity.

Friends, there is such a thing as truth, it’s written on our hearts and we know it. Jesus calls us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. We need to grasp the fact that we were saved for something.

We have a responsibility to speak truth to others. Our salvation employs us in God’s redemptive plan for the world. You can’t love people by ignoring the cultural evils that victimize them. This should motivate us to have a heart for those who believe the lies of our culture that say that religion and morality are relative. So what do we do now?

1. Get informed about the lies that stand against the truth so you know how to refute them.

You can do this by reading good books on the subject of truth by Greg Koukl. One is called Tactics.

2. Be prepared to respond to bad ideas. Be bold about having conversations about truth with your own children and with others.

3. Teach your children that objective truth does exist and show them how we know.

Okay, that’s it for today. Tune in next month as we discuss (the evidence for God’s existence) And don’t forget! To get more resources from the Mama Bears, please visit us at mamabearapologetics.com

About Claudia Kalmikov

http://straighttalkwithclaudiak.com/

I’m a mom. I graduated from Cal State Fullerton with a Bachelor’s degree in Business/Marketing and had a career in sales before I married my college sweetheart, then decided to stay at home and be a full time wife and mother.  I loved being a stay-at-home mom for many reasons. Mostly because it kept me well connected with my two boys and gave me great influence over their training. I found it very rewarding and was always grateful that God gave me the chance to focus on my family and be at home with my boys.

Like some of you, I learned to surrender to Jesus after having kids. Funny how quickly you learn after having children that you can’t control anything. Going through the teenage years is enough to bring any mother to her knees!

I have two incredible sons. They are both college graduates with careers, and are out on their own.

My husband, John, and I are enjoying a new phase in our lives. Empty nest-hood. We took advantage of our new found free time by going back to school. We graduated in December 2016 from The Biola University Masters in Christian Apologetics program, and now we are anxious to put that to use. So we are jumping right in by teaching and speaking at various events. We enjoyed Biola a great deal because we learned so much about the Bible and other religions along with Apologetics. Since we hadn’t been in college for 32 years, it was a challenge. But I loved it and the Lord sustained me every step of the way. That’s another story!

It is my hope to be able to share some of my thoughts, experiences and wisdom as an apologist, and  parent with you. I pray that you will be blessed by what you read and that God may speak to you through my blog.

God Bless

Ang Maka Diyos at Mapanuring Isipan sa Apologetics || John Pesebre (March 22, 2018)

Let me introduce my discussion on today’s episode on intellectual virtues by discussing first the “godly life.”

How do we Christians start to cultivate a godly life? We start by believing the Gospel, and believe consequently that "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." (1 Peter 1:3). Notice diyan “through our knowledge of Him.” That is again the Gospel, the person and work of Christ. Also notice that this knowledge is a knowledge that is outside of us to which we assent. Carl Schultz explains that “[T]he world knows God . . . through the divine initiative (Gal 4:8-9).”* Tinatanggap ng tao ‘yang initiative na ‘yan as “a response of faith and an acceptance of Christ. It is he who has made God known ( John 1:18 ). To know Christ is to know God ( John 14:7 ). Eternal life is to know the true God and Jesus Christ ( John 17:3 ). Paul desires to know Christ in his death and resurrection ( Php 3:10 ). Failure to know Jesus as Lord and Messiah ( Acts 2:36 ) resulted in his rejection and crucifixion ( 1 Cor 2:8 ).” But to know God does not settle as merely a belief about God but “[t]o know God is not to struggle philosophically with his eternal essence, but rather to recognize and accept his claims. It is not some mystical contemplation, but dutiful obedience.”† So this knowledge settles in our lives, snuggles in our heart, soul and mind. It flourishes in true beliefs and actions. It is to this that Paul “thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” sa Colossians 1:3-6 kasi daw “we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all God’s people— the faith and love that spring from the hope stored up for you in heaven and about which you have already heard in the true message of the gospel  that has come to you. In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.” Lumalago siya at namumunga.

So nabanggit ko kanina na introduction ko lang ‘yan. Introduction siya kasi ang focus ng episode natin ay ‘yung faculty na ginagamit natin para matalastas natin ang “knowledge of God” that would inform our godly life. Ang tinutukoy ko na faculty ay ang ating isipan. Ang ating isipan kapag ito ay nagiging reliable at responsible sa pagsusuri ay nagkakaroon ito ng greater chance of discovering the knowledge of God and His will. A mind that has developed intellectual virtues is a godly mind in that respect kasi nakapag cultivate siya ng isipan that is well-suited to find the goods of truth, knowledge and wisdom in God at hindi yung patterns and standards of this world. Napakalaki ng role ng mind sa pagtuklas at pagtalima sa knowledge of God. Sabi ni Philip Towner,

“Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, the mind/reason is alternatively the thought system and the faculty of conscious reflection and perception. It is with the mind that decisions are made, whether moral or amoral in nature. It is with the mind that one chooses to accept God and obey his commandments, or to reject him and rebel against him.” ‡

So ngayon ang sunod na tanong natin is how do you cultivate a mind na maging reliable at responsible na tool siya for the goods of truth, knowledge and wisdom in Christ? Isantabi muna natin sandali yung issue ng “godly life” kasi ang magiging focus natin ngayon ay kung paano nai-inform ‘yung godly life. So again, how do you cultivate a mind na maging reliable at responsible na tool siya for the goods of truth, knowledge and wisdom in Christ which will then give sanction or inform na magkaroon ka ng godly life? Ang sagot diyan is to develop a GODLY mind suited for inquiry. Your mind must develop habits that are godly in relation to the discovery of the goods of truth, knowledge and wisdom.  Kakailanganin ‘yan sa ministry ng apologetics.

A godly mind suited for inquiry ay ‘yung may disposisyon o tamang paniniwalang pinanghahawakan at sinasabuhay sabi ng kaibigan kong si Pastor Phonny Jorquia. Ang mga goods (i.e., mga bagay na beneficial) na truth, knowledge at wisdom of God ay pursuit ng isang lingkod ng Diyos. Ang mga bagay na ito ay pursuit ng isang taong may maka-Diyos na isipan. Hindi mo na siya kailangan turuan palagi kasi oriented na siya sa pagsasaliksik sa kalooban at kaisipan ng Diyos sa lahat ng bagay ng kaniyang buhay. If he would have this godly mind, and you put him in a stressful situation and ang instinct nya is to inquire of God. Kaya sa apologetics ganiyang utak ang gusto natin. Marami kang mae-encounter na mga objections that will probably shake you to the core, most especially kung ang nagtatanong is isang atheist na dating worship leader at anak ng pastor. The questions are like melee blades hurled at you from all direction, they look chaotic but they are calculated and well-thought. So the habit of a godly mind is to inquire, but not only to inquire to God but to inquire with hope, faith and love.

However ang discussion natin ngayon does not only understand the godly mind as something to be cultivated to be reliable and responsible but may isa pa po siyang epekto if we practice thsi godly mind sa mga conversations especially kung ang context nito conversation sa doubting na kapatiran. Ang pag practice nito nagpo promote pagtuklas ng knowledge of God. May epekto siya sa environment kung may kausap kang kapatiran na nagtatanong sa’yo about his own struggles in life or baffling questions that give him doubt. A godly mind ay may inquiry-relevant na characteristic which then creates a congenial, cognitive environment para ‘yung usapan ay maging inquiry-relevant din all for the simple sake ng pag produce ng new beliefs, at hopefully beliefs about and in God. Sabi ni James, “Everyone should be quick to listen” (1:19).

Tayong mga tao naturally nag-iinquire tayo. Sabi ni Jason Baehr,

“One remarkable feature of our species is its propensity for inquiry. We humans are neither oblivious to nor indifferent about our surroundings. Nor is our interest in our surroundings purely practical. Rather, as beings that are both reflective and rational, we often find ourselves fascinated and puzzled by the world around us. We desire to know, to understand how things are, were, or might someday be. As a result, we make intentional and sustained efforts to figure things out. We inquire.”§

A person involved in apologetics ministry especially one that ministers with doubting believers will do well in setting up an environment na maayos for inquiry. Kung nadevelop na sa kaniyang isipan ang mga inquiry-relevant traits like attentiveness or focus, ‘yung kausap niya would see that he’s in a congenial environment kung saan bawat obstacles sa kaniyang doubts would be jumped over. This is the reason why apologetics is also a great venue for mentoring at discipleship program sa mga nais yakapin ang kalooban na ito ng Panginoon. This congenial environment is a perfect place for inquiry kasi yung doubting mind ng believer ay sa totoo lang ay may design plan na luwalhatiin at kilalanin ang Diyos. So kung mailagay mo ang doubting believer sa congenial environment na ganiyan malaki ang chance na maisakatuparan niya ang design plan ng Lord sa kaniyang isipan -- na luwalhatiin at tuklasin ang knowledge of God. A mind that is attuned to God’s design plan for her mind is a mind that will constantly pursue the goods of truth, understanding, and wisdom in Christ. At ang maganda nandiyan ka to understand ang nature ng doubt niya at kung paano mawawala sana ang tanikala ng doubt na ito sa kaniya.

Pero kailangang nating tandaan palagi din na ang nabubuong congenial environment ng isang godly mind is not a direct response to the question of the doubter. What you're trying to avoid is for people to feel that your answer to his question is a congenial environment. A hospital may secure for you a sterile room but it would be wrong to assume that this room will cure you. You need doctors to attend to the true reason you are there. What this environment does for you is to give you a better assurance na ‘yung kausap mo na may design plan din ang Lord sa kaniyang isipan na mag inquire, will have a more warrant kung natagpuan nya ang sagot na ito sa isang inquiry-relevant na context, na hindi siya pinilit o sininghalan atbp. He is in a place where na tugma sa kalikasan ng kaniyang isipan.

Next episode po babanggitin ko po ang ilan sa mga traits na ito ng godly mind para po ma-identify ninyo ang mga virtues na ito, na malaki po ang role sa susunod na monthly topic natin na 4H apologetics. Kung nais po ninyong mabasa ang manuscript ng episode na ito, pumunta lamang kayo sa fb page ng Kaliwanagan kay Kristo.

__________

* Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (BEDBT), sv "Know, Knowledge"; https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/know-knowledge.html

† BEDBT, sv "Know, Knowledge"

‡ BEDBT, sv "Mind/Reason"; accessed at https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/mind-reason.html

§ Jason Baehr, The Inquiring Mind, 1

Ang Patotoo ng Pagtatanggol sa Pananampalataya || John Pesebre (March 20, 2018)

Christian apologetics is good because the Christian witness undergirds it. What we mean by undergird is nakakapit. This word “undergird” appears in Acts 27:17 “After hoisting it up, they used supports to undergird the ship.” Sa salin sa Tagalog, ang “undergird” ay “matalian.” The Greek word means “to bear, to carry.” My point dito is that Christian witness carries Christian apologetic. Christian witness chauffeurs apologetics. Or to put it in a Pinoy way, ang Christian witness ang tricycle at ang apologetics ang pasahero. Apologetics ties neatly in the charter of Acts 1:8 “and you shall be My witnesses” which then ties well also with the Gospel ministry as Paul said in Philippians 1:16, “knowing that I am put here for the defense [apologian] of the gospel.” Apologetics then is well undergirded by the Christian witness that both Jesus and the apostles emphasized. Ito po ang pag uusapan natin ngayong episode.

The Greek word for “witness” in Acts 1:8 na binasa ko kanina is martures from where we get our word “martyr.” Sa Greek a “martyr” is, according sa Friberg Lexicon, “generally one who testifies to something.” There are at least two ways one can do this as one testifies about Christ -- through propositions and conduct. “The focus,” ayon kay Michael Carino, “is not only on the validity of knowledge but also on the virtue of the knower . . . from propositions to persons, from appraising beliefs to assessing believers.”* So Christian witness mahalaga ang integration both ng proposition at conduct.

Another meaning of “martyr” in Greek is that it means “to witness to ascertainable facts.” This is what we suggest here by proposition as a way to testify or witness. A proposition is “ a statement in which something is affirmed or denied, so that it can therefore be significantly characterized as either true or false.”† So, for example, we give testimony na si Kristo ay isang historical person -- yan ang ating proposition. And then we provide support or reasons or arguments for the truthfulness of that claim. Much of Christian apologetics is engaged sa ganitong type -- to build a case for the faith and  to challenge the presuppositions and arguments of opponents. Iiwan muna natin ang topic na ito kasi magku concentrate tayo dito sa mga susunod na episodes as I talk about the 4H apologetics.

Christian conduct on the other hand is also part of Christian apologetics as a witness. Sabi sa Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology,

Another New Testament form of testifying to Jesus and the gospel is through proper Christian conduct. Jesus tells his disciples ( John 13:34-35 ), "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." The command to love is not new (cf. Lev 19:18 ; Deut 6:5 ). What is new is the revelation of God's love through Jesus. As Jesus bore witness of God's love to the world by his life and death ( John 3:16 ), his followers by loving as he has loved will reveal a Christ-like love to a world that has never seen him. Any inquiry into the reason for this selfless love will encounter the good news of Jesus' saving work an event historically reliable and theologically certain. Proper Christian conduct, therefore, provides timeless testimony to Jesus' perfect and final expression of God's love.‡

 Hindi ito related lang sa mere compliant na mga actions but more fully sa virtuous life. It is a life na ang tawag ni Paul is in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ (Phil 1:27). More than just talking about specific actions that are good, we are actually talking here more deeply when we talk of conduct. At yan yung habituated action na naging bahagi na ng iyong goal to have a character that is exemplary. Ang tawag diyan ay the virtuous na life o yung sabi ng kaibigan kong pastor na si Phonny Jorquia na “disposition” o yung “paniniwalang pinaninindigan at sinasabuhay.”

May binanggit si Carino sa kaniyang thesis na napakaganda nating iconsider sa pagbibigay ng witness sa related sa sinasabi ko dito na conduct,

Everyday discourses do not use blanket terms such as justified or unjustified [propositions]. Rather ordinary people direct their evaluation  to persons. We condemn people who are narrow-minded, careless, rash, prejudiced, rigid, obtuse, jumping to conclusions, ignoring relevant facts, relying on untrustworthy authority, lacking insight, etc. We admire people who are insightful, sensitive to detail, able to think up explanations of complex data, open-minded, aware of their own fallibility, wise in making judgments, etc.§

A witness of Christ does not only present justified propositions but also a conduct that is worthy of the Gospel. This is the reason why apologetics is good because it carried by the Christian witness.

Nabubuo ang conduct na ito by habituation o ‘yung nagawa na niyang ugali. Nauunawaan niya na biniyayaan siya ng Diyos, ayon 2 Peter 1:3, “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” Subalit kasama nyang reliable na mga faculties na yan, responsable pa rin ang Christian na pagyamanin ito. Kasi nga ministry siya sa ebanghelyo sabi sa Philippians 1:7, 16 na pagtatanggol sa ebanghelyo. Apologetics is a witness to the faith.

Ang pagtatanggol ay may kaakibat na disposition. It means that “your walk does not give the lie to your confession” (Meyer’s NT Commentary). Ang kanilang readiness to give a defense nagsisimula sa pundasyong nilatag nila ng kanilang disposisyon. Sabi ni Arthur Holmes,

a disposition is a tendency to act in certain ways. Disposition is more basic, lasting and pervasive than the particular motive or intention behind a certain action. It differs from a sudden impulse in being a settled habit of mind, an internalized and often reflective trait. Virtues are general character traits that provide inner sanctions on our particular motives, intentions and outward conduct.║

Nagtanong ako sa mga kaibigan ko kung ano ang pagkaunawa nila sa salitang disposisyon. Napakaraming sagot. Malimit it is a translation of the English word disposition which “state of mind regarding something; inclination.” Ang pinakapaborito kong defnition galing sa mga kaibigan ko ay galing kay Pastor Phonny Jorquia. Ang disposisyon daw ay isang “paniniwalang pinanghahawakan at pinamumuhay.” It is within the orbit ng practical wisdom kasi while it begins as an abstract concept like kabaitan sa ating kaisipan, siya ay nagiging action sa taong may disposisyon. It is a motion of the will. Dagdag pa ni Holmes na ang taong may disposisyon ay may katangian na,

stemming from who you are at your core level, to act in certain ways . . . [I]t is not simply, therefore, an impulse, good or bad, but rather a settled habit of mind. [I]t has a function of providing judgment on motives and outward actions. Virtues, then, relate to who we are as people; our character.¶

Sa apologetics, naka undergird ang ganitong kaisipan. Sa 1 Peter 3:13-16 naka indicate ang mga katangiang “Zealous for that which is good,” “for righteousness’ sake,” “sanctify the Lord,” “with meekness and fear,” “a good conscience,” “your good conversation.” Mga katibayan na naka-undergird talaga ang apologetics sa sinasabi na witness as conduct. So apologetics is really good.

___________
*  Michael R. Carino, Epistemically Reasonable and Responsible Faith (thesis), 37.

†  "Proposition" Dictionary.com (website); accessed at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/proposition.

‡  Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, sv., "Testimony"; https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/testimony.html

§ Carino, 40

║ Arthur Holmes, Ethics: Approving Moral Decisions, Contours of Christian Philosophy, ed. C. Stephen Evans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 116.

¶ Holmes, 116.