"There are more marks of authenticity in the Bible than any profane history."--Sir Isaac Newton
Learned scholars, such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and John Stuart Mill, have tried to debunk the Christian faith in vain, proving themselves ignoramuses in the process. Debunking our faith entails much more than raising an objection, such as the question about the existence of evil in the world, or the denial of miracles in one's worldviews, nor of objecting to Chrisitan conduct or church history. No one is going to come up with some challenges after twenty centuries that will bring Christianity crumbling to its knees without an answer--volumes have been published to answer critics, including the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Archer Gleason and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley. The faith has always out-thought the attacks!
Learned scholars, such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell, and John Stuart Mill, have tried to debunk the Christian faith in vain, proving themselves ignoramuses in the process. Debunking our faith entails much more than raising an objection, such as the question about the existence of evil in the world, or the denial of miracles in one's worldviews, nor of objecting to Chrisitan conduct or church history. No one is going to come up with some challenges after twenty centuries that will bring Christianity crumbling to its knees without an answer--volumes have been published to answer critics, including the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Archer Gleason and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley. The faith has always out-thought the attacks!
There are no new questions being raised, but just the repetition of the old ones. People don't believe because they don't want to believe; they say believers have a psychological need to believe, but they have a psychological need not to believe--it interferes with their mores; it costs something and they don't want to make the sacrifice, not thinking their souls are worth the risk, when not believing costs more.
Many skeptics and this is the prevailing secular, intellectual mindset today, posit that you cannot believe in modern science and miracles at the same time: science has largely undermined the faith of believers just like superstition. But the question of miracles is not a scientific issue or in its province, but a matter of philosophy and theology--it's not subject to scientific scrutiny! Any event that cannot be repeated, observed, or measured is not subject to scientific analysis, and history is nonrepeatable. There must be laboratory conditions, a test tube, or some means of controlling and measuring variables and constants. The best we can do is verify the veracity and credibility of the witnesses and those writing historical accounts and their trustworthiness and reliability.
Basically, though, it's not the miracle of the resurrection per se, the one that is the "Gibraltar" of the faith, and absolutely necessary for its credibility, but the very concept of miracles altogether that raises an objection to scientists. It is sheer scientism or using science to make postulations about issues out of its domain and thinking that science is the only reliable means of knowledge, that says miracles are impossible. The resurrection was a one-time event, not subject to science, since it cannot be put into laboratory conditions, with variables and constants, and verified by repetition, observed, or measured. If you weren't there, how do you know, except by faith? If there is a God, then the issue is resolved, case closed. Scientists have faith too: in scientific empiricism and that it is the answer to all questions and problems plaguing man.
It is easier to doubt, and one came to Jesus asking Him to "help [his] unbelief." Thomas was told not to "be unbelieving, but believing." It is a choice to believe: a sort of sixth sense--the vast majority of our knowledge came about by faith, and very little is by direct experience, hands-on, or first-hand knowledge. The default position was once to accept God and no one dared go against the grain, rock the boat, or upset the applecart in doubting this as a "given."
Debunking Christianity has a lot more to do with the denial of miracles: it's God's answer to our sin problem and dilemma and need for purpose, meaning, and dignity in life--man has always wanted to live forever and God has set eternity in our hearts--it is ontological and anthropological proof that every tribe and nation has some rudimentary or advanced system of faith in God known as a religion or tradition. You can't search the remotest rain forest in the Amazon and not find a tribe without a developed religious tradition. Is it not possible that man believes in God by virtue of evidence and this comes from God as proof of His existence (cf. Rom. 1:20)?
Christianity is a faith relying on historical, verifiable records and takes the leap of leaving many books that can be checked for historical accuracy--indeed, some scholars have tried in vain to disprove the historical reliability of Scripture and have even become believers in the process. No other faith dares to take such a chance on the historical record that could be verified or disproven by archaeologists or historians. God has made the faith welcome to anyone's scrutiny! Why is it that if a secular historian disagrees with the Bible that he is considered the unbiased one and the one to lend credence to?
How is the scholar to deny the experience of the individual whose life was dramatically changed and transformed by the living Christ? It isn't like a group of people claiming that putting a poached egg on their heads makes them feel good because there is historical evidence to back up and verify the claim as objective testimony of God. Personal experience may not be everything, but it is something and cannot be denied, but must be reckoned with and accounted for, or explained away.
Christians don't just believe for no reason or because they are credulous or gullible, but because there are sound reasons to believe. Not knowing why one believes or doesn't believe defines "blind faith." Christians don't believe for no reason, and God asks no one to kiss their brains goodbye or to commit intellectual suicide--as John Stott said, "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity" [i.e., playing mind games or on a power trip, not willing to believe even if all their questions were answered]. It is not an intellectual problem, but a moral one, and the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart. No one can believe something he is not intellectually convinced of for long, and the experience of the faith must prove true and valid or one will fall away and abandon the faith. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We can experience Christ personally: "Taste and see that the LORD is good" (cf. Ps. 34:8; 1 Pet. 2:3).
Jesus was clear to say that they "would not believe," (cf. John 12:37), not that they could not believe--it's a matter of the will; if one wants to know and is willing to obey God, he will know whether it's of God and God will authenticate Himself (cf. John 7:17, Matt. 7:7). God is no man's debtor and promises to let Himself be found by all sincere seekers, but He tolerates no triflers and the insincerity-faith is what pleases God, not curiosity or intellectual arrogance.
Disproving the resurrection is not the same as denying people rise from the dead as a rule--this was a one-time event and one must prove Christ didn't rise from the dead (many theories have been postulated, but it's never been debunked). One must sincerely consider the overwhelming and compelling circumstantial, historical evidence and make one's choice to believe--faith is a choice! Skepticism is based on irrational bias, thinking secular scholars alone can be trusted. For those unwilling there will never be enough evidence; for the willing, there is ample evidence! One must discredit the experience of Christ as well as the resurrection.
In today's postmodern movement, God is seen as "dead" or irrelevant to the final equation, and unnecessary to our dilemma. Man's problem is sin and denying this puts him in opposition to the truth. There is such a thing as knowable, objective, universal, absolute truth, whether philosophers accept this or not. Jesus claimed to be the personification of truth: I am the truth (cf. John 14:6) and declared that we can know it ('You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," cf. John 8:32).
People who deny God don't admit Him into the pool of live options or answers, but rule Him out from the get-go. They use circular reasoning in believing there's no God, and then conclude there can be no God. People who are debunking Christianity are against God and not just Christ, and find that Him claiming to be the only way to God as offensive, and so they are biased and not open-minded themselves. All religions can be wrong logically, but not all can be right; it is probable that one can be right and all the others wrong. The statement by George Lucas that he had come to the belief that tall religions were right in nonsensical in light of contradictions In sum, No one can disbelieve due to a lack of evidence! Soli Deo Gloria!
.
Many skeptics and this is the prevailing secular, intellectual mindset today, posit that you cannot believe in modern science and miracles at the same time: science has largely undermined the faith of believers just like superstition. But the question of miracles is not a scientific issue or in its province, but a matter of philosophy and theology--it's not subject to scientific scrutiny! Any event that cannot be repeated, observed, or measured is not subject to scientific analysis, and history is nonrepeatable. There must be laboratory conditions, a test tube, or some means of controlling and measuring variables and constants. The best we can do is verify the veracity and credibility of the witnesses and those writing historical accounts and their trustworthiness and reliability.
Basically, though, it's not the miracle of the resurrection per se, the one that is the "Gibraltar" of the faith, and absolutely necessary for its credibility, but the very concept of miracles altogether that raises an objection to scientists. It is sheer scientism or using science to make postulations about issues out of its domain and thinking that science is the only reliable means of knowledge, that says miracles are impossible. The resurrection was a one-time event, not subject to science, since it cannot be put into laboratory conditions, with variables and constants, and verified by repetition, observed, or measured. If you weren't there, how do you know, except by faith? If there is a God, then the issue is resolved, case closed. Scientists have faith too: in scientific empiricism and that it is the answer to all questions and problems plaguing man.
It is easier to doubt, and one came to Jesus asking Him to "help [his] unbelief." Thomas was told not to "be unbelieving, but believing." It is a choice to believe: a sort of sixth sense--the vast majority of our knowledge came about by faith, and very little is by direct experience, hands-on, or first-hand knowledge. The default position was once to accept God and no one dared go against the grain, rock the boat, or upset the applecart in doubting this as a "given."
Debunking Christianity has a lot more to do with the denial of miracles: it's God's answer to our sin problem and dilemma and need for purpose, meaning, and dignity in life--man has always wanted to live forever and God has set eternity in our hearts--it is ontological and anthropological proof that every tribe and nation has some rudimentary or advanced system of faith in God known as a religion or tradition. You can't search the remotest rain forest in the Amazon and not find a tribe without a developed religious tradition. Is it not possible that man believes in God by virtue of evidence and this comes from God as proof of His existence (cf. Rom. 1:20)?
Christianity is a faith relying on historical, verifiable records and takes the leap of leaving many books that can be checked for historical accuracy--indeed, some scholars have tried in vain to disprove the historical reliability of Scripture and have even become believers in the process. No other faith dares to take such a chance on the historical record that could be verified or disproven by archaeologists or historians. God has made the faith welcome to anyone's scrutiny! Why is it that if a secular historian disagrees with the Bible that he is considered the unbiased one and the one to lend credence to?
How is the scholar to deny the experience of the individual whose life was dramatically changed and transformed by the living Christ? It isn't like a group of people claiming that putting a poached egg on their heads makes them feel good because there is historical evidence to back up and verify the claim as objective testimony of God. Personal experience may not be everything, but it is something and cannot be denied, but must be reckoned with and accounted for, or explained away.
Christians don't just believe for no reason or because they are credulous or gullible, but because there are sound reasons to believe. Not knowing why one believes or doesn't believe defines "blind faith." Christians don't believe for no reason, and God asks no one to kiss their brains goodbye or to commit intellectual suicide--as John Stott said, "We cannot pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity" [i.e., playing mind games or on a power trip, not willing to believe even if all their questions were answered]. It is not an intellectual problem, but a moral one, and the heart of the matter is that it's a matter of the heart. No one can believe something he is not intellectually convinced of for long, and the experience of the faith must prove true and valid or one will fall away and abandon the faith. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We can experience Christ personally: "Taste and see that the LORD is good" (cf. Ps. 34:8; 1 Pet. 2:3).
Jesus was clear to say that they "would not believe," (cf. John 12:37), not that they could not believe--it's a matter of the will; if one wants to know and is willing to obey God, he will know whether it's of God and God will authenticate Himself (cf. John 7:17, Matt. 7:7). God is no man's debtor and promises to let Himself be found by all sincere seekers, but He tolerates no triflers and the insincerity-faith is what pleases God, not curiosity or intellectual arrogance.
Disproving the resurrection is not the same as denying people rise from the dead as a rule--this was a one-time event and one must prove Christ didn't rise from the dead (many theories have been postulated, but it's never been debunked). One must sincerely consider the overwhelming and compelling circumstantial, historical evidence and make one's choice to believe--faith is a choice! Skepticism is based on irrational bias, thinking secular scholars alone can be trusted. For those unwilling there will never be enough evidence; for the willing, there is ample evidence! One must discredit the experience of Christ as well as the resurrection.
In today's postmodern movement, God is seen as "dead" or irrelevant to the final equation, and unnecessary to our dilemma. Man's problem is sin and denying this puts him in opposition to the truth. There is such a thing as knowable, objective, universal, absolute truth, whether philosophers accept this or not. Jesus claimed to be the personification of truth: I am the truth (cf. John 14:6) and declared that we can know it ('You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," cf. John 8:32).
People who deny God don't admit Him into the pool of live options or answers, but rule Him out from the get-go. They use circular reasoning in believing there's no God, and then conclude there can be no God. People who are debunking Christianity are against God and not just Christ, and find that Him claiming to be the only way to God as offensive, and so they are biased and not open-minded themselves. All religions can be wrong logically, but not all can be right; it is probable that one can be right and all the others wrong. The statement by George Lucas that he had come to the belief that tall religions were right in nonsensical in light of contradictions In sum, No one can disbelieve due to a lack of evidence! Soli Deo Gloria!
.
No comments:
Post a Comment