Train Yourself to be Godly | John Ricafrente Pesebre

The Koine & classical Greek word for "training" is the noun GYMNASIA. The root is from the verb GYMNAZO. It really looks like GYM because that is really where we get the word, and it is a pretty old word used even by Aeschylus circa 5th c BC to mean the same up until Paul in the 1st century BC till today. Paul uses it here and in the previous verse either as a reference to athletic training or the boring repetitious practices of monks. In any of both cases, the idea is to labor to train repetitiously subjecting the natural survival instinct to avoid pain (and not to pursue pleasure) to work despite the pain, as in gym training ("no pain, no gain"). Elsewhere, Paul seems to allude to this by "I beat my body" suggesting a discipline by hardship (1 Cor 9:27).

Positive psychology and neuroscience (esp on brain plasticity) have scientific support for this practice.

I don't like this "training" thing coz I'm just lazy but because of the lordship of Christ, what a privilege to have membership at the Jesus Gym right at History of Redemption Avenue.

"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train [GYMNAZE] yourself to be godly." - 1 Timothy 4:7

(C) Photo Credit: VeryWellFit.com

Calling, work & self-understanding || John Ricafrente Pesebre

Tim Keller of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York would regularly talk about relocating our identity. Consequently, in the book I'm reading now by Walter Marshall, _Gospel Mystery of Sanctfication_ puts a high premium on the "effectual means" or mga effectve na endowments ng Diyos for our own sanctification most especially that we "be well persuaded of our reconciliation with God, and of our future enjoyment of the everlasting heavenly happenings, and of sufficient strength both to will and perform all duties acceptably, until we come to the enjoyment of that happiness."

Naka connect din ang reflection ko na ito sa recent na readings ko kay Weber (_Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic_) kung saan yung sociological analysis niya sa growth ng economy ng English empire was due to the spiritual identity that the Puritans have placed on the dignity of work rooted in their calling or vocation predestined by God. Para kay Weber, mere utilitarianism lang daw will never be able to sustain and account for this "spirit" to emerge out of a working class environment.

Yung work and progress daw naka ugat sa self-understanding ng mga tao kung ano sila at sino siila "sub specie aeternitatis" (under the perspectiive of eternity).

It is interesting to note that this was a counter-argument against the foundation of the economic theory of Marx na kailangan mo muna iset-up ang economic-material base ng isang society para ito mag progress and then saka ka gumawa ng religious super-structure. Kay Weber baliktad. Yung religion ang nagturo kung paano magkaroon ng stable na economic base dahil sa "spirit of capitalism" na resulta ng "Protestant work ethic."

To wrap it up, the saints of old (as is Keller) put a high premium on our self-understanding as saved elect as the starting point of fruitful work. Para kay Marshall this type of thinking is ay bahagi ng "effectual means" na divine "endowment" sa atin. For Weber grappling with the causality ng sociological phenomenon ng capitalism, na trace niya itong self-understanding na ito as the "psychological stimulus to the development of their ethical attitude." He further explains, "The community of the elect with their God could only take place and be perceptible to them in that God worked (operatur) through them and that they were conscious of it. That is, their action originated from the faith caused by God’s grace, and this faith in turn justified itself by the quality of that action."

Kumbaga, they could now judge what is correct work and how to be motivated for that work based sa self-understanding na ito na sila ay "called" (German "beruf") by God and as such endowed by effectual means to His desired end.

#MorningPrinciples

Emphases of Resurrection in Christian Religion

NOTE: Got this from "

A Call for Resurrection Theology Christian theology has tended to focus on the birth and the death of Jesus, and in so doing has defaulted in explaining the significance of the resurrection.

When Christian religion has attempted to address the resurrection in its theological considerations, it has done so in a way that continues to short-change the significance of the resurrection. The resurrection in Christian theology has been relegated to apologetic arguments of historicity, defense of Jesus' deity, and futuristic expectations of bodily resurrection.

Christian religion has emphasized the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, employing a variety of sources to document, authenticate, and validate the historical resurrection of Jesus. Apologists like Frank Morison (Who Moved the Stone?6) and Josh McDowell (The Resurrection Factor 7) have sought to provide Christians with historical "proofs" for the resurrection of Jesus.

Having "proven" the historical veracity of the resurrection by their chronological and logical evidences, Christian religion has then emphasized that the resurrection of Jesus was a supernatural miracle that verifies the divinity or deity of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus has been used as a tool for apologetic defense, as a leverage to authorize and "prove" Christ's divinity and the church's teaching.

As Robert D. Brinsmead explains, "The so-called 'historical proofs' of the resurrection have been marshalled, not to explore the meaning of the mystery itself, but to validate the church's claims about the divinity of Jesus, the authority of the church, and its possession of an exclusive and absolute truth."8 Claude Geffré likewise comments that,

"since the end of the nineteenth century the resurrection of Christ has become the favorite object of Christian apologetics. It was a matter of establishing the historicity of the resurrection in order to furnish a proof for the divinity of Christ and thereby accredit his message and its legitimacy. And when apologetics had defended the historical character of the miracle of the resurrection, it seemed dogmatic theology had no more to say about the mystery of the resurrection." 9

On the basis of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and the theological establishment of His deity, Christian religion has proceeded to emphasize that the primary theological import of the historical resurrection of Jesus is to validate the assurance of the eventual resurrection of Christians' bodies in the future. The historical, physical resurrection of Jesus is used as the foundational basis for authenticating the expected bodily resurrection of the Christian after death.

Is this not the argument that Paul uses in I Corinthians 15 in the "Resurrection chapter"? Yes it is, but this is not the entirety of what Paul had to say about the subject of resurrection. Though it is the most extended passage that he seems to have written on the subject, it is not the predominant or primary emphasis that Paul makes concerning the resurrection. The historical sitz im leben context of I Corinthians was that the Corinthians were so enamored with their present "spirituality" that they were eschewing or denying anything beyond the present. To counter this triumphalistic diminishment of hope, and to correct Hellenic concepts that deprecated embodiment, Paul ties the bodily resurrection of Jesus with the expected bodily resurrection of Christians.

In so doing, Paul does not necessarily imply that the resurrected physical body of Jesus is prototypical of the resurrected body of the Christian after death. The physicality of the resurrected body is not the issue Paul was addressing.

Secondly, it must be noted that the predominance of Paul's references to the resurrection of Jesus do not relate to the future bodily resurrection of Christians. Paul's primary inference from the resurrection of Jesus is that anyone who is receptive in faith to the living Lord Jesus can be spiritually raised to newness of life (cf. Rom. 6:4,5) by the resurrection life of the living Jesus. Paul emphasized the present availability of life in Christ, and avoided lapsing back into the Jewish framework of theology that he had espoused in the past.

Jewish theology was always a theology of future expectation. As can be noted throughout the Old Testament (the old covenant literature), the Jewish people were always looking for fulfillment in the future; the prophetic promise of that which was yet to come. Regrettably, Christian theology has often fallen prey to just such future expectations in a reversion to a Jewish paradigm of theological expectations.

New covenant Christian theology, as expressed in the New Testament, emphasizes that God's promises and man's expectations are realized in Jesus Christ. Christian theology looks back to the "finished work" of Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:4; 19:30). Christians are "complete in Christ" (Col. 3:10). Christian theology is a realized theology (cf. I Cor 3:21-23; II Pet. 1:3). The emphasis is not on "it is coming," but on "it is done!" for the whole of God's intent is in the risen and living Lord Jesus.

The emphases of Christian religion on resurrection have traditionally been on proving the historical accuracy of Jesus' resurrection in order to authenticate His divinity, which in turn has been used to convince and assure Christians of an eventual bodily resurrection after physical death.

If Christian theology does not get beyond the cradle and the cross, the birth and the death of Jesus, then all we have to offer is a static history lesson with no contemporary consequence. If Christian theology does not get beyond apologetic defense for what "was", and longing expectation for what "will be," then it becomes an irrelevancy of temporalized "bookends" that fails to address what "is" and "should be" presently.

H.A. Williams explains that,

"Resurrection, at least in Western Christendom, has invariably been described as belonging to another time and place. The typical emphasis has been upon the past and future ­ a past and future with which our connection can only be theoretical... So, for example, a book about the resurrection is naturally assumed to be a discussion either about what can be held to have happened in the environs of Jerusalem and Galilee on the third day after Jesus was crucified or about what can be held to be in store for us after our own death.
When resurrection is considered in terms of past and future, it is robbed of its impact on the present. That is why for most of the time resurrection means little to us. It is remote and isolated."
It is a neat trick...this banishing of resurrection to past and future. It saves us from a lot of reality and delivers us from a great deal of fear. It has, in short, the advantage of safeguarding us from life."10

What a tragedy that the Christian religion has itself blockaded people from life in Christ by projecting the implications of the resurrection to an historical event of the past or to an anticipated expectation of the future. These are not the predominant emphases of resurrection in the new covenant literature of the New Testament as we shall proceed to note.

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.