So That They Should Know
It is this knowledge based on evidence that people are enjoined to act upon and trust. And that is what faith is. There is no good reason that you cannot have knowledge about God if the evidence is good. The bible teaches us this in the Old and the New Testament, and common knowledge of knowing things can teach us this too. And this is why Psalm 14 says, “The fool says in his heart, god does not exist.” Now how could God say this if the evidence was not overwhelming, such that anyone does not believe is a fool? Now there’s no blind leap of faith necessary to believe in God, but only an intelligent step of trust based on abundant evidence.
Greg Koukl
How does one convince a nonbeliever that the Bible is the Word of God?
by R.C. Sproul:
Before I try to answer that question directly, let me make a distinction that is important at the outset. There’s a difference between objective proof and the persuasion or conviction that follows. John Calvin argued that the Bible carries both persuasion and conviction in terms of its internal testimony—the marks of truth that could be found just by an examination of the book itself—as well as external evidences that would corroborate that substantial evidence to give solid proof for its being the Word of God.
Yet the last thing people would want is a book telling them they are in desperate need of repentance and of a changed life and of bowing in humility before Christ. We don’t want that book to be the truth. Calvin claimed that there is a tremendous bias and prejudice built into the human heart that only the influence of God the Holy Spirit can overcome. Calvin distinguished between what he called the undicia—those objective evidences for the trustworthiness of Scripture—and what he called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to cause us to surrender to the evidence and acknowledge that it is the Word of God.
But I think this is a critical issue upon which so much of the Christian faith depends. The Bible makes the claim that it is the unvarnished Word of God, that it is the truth of God, that it comes from him. God is its ultimate author and source, though indeed he used human authors to communicate that message.
In speaking with people about this, we have to go through the laborious process of showing first of all that the Bible as a collection of historical documents is basically reliable. The same tests that we would apply to Herodotus or Suetonius or any other ancient historian would have to be applied to the biblical records. The Christian should not be afraid to apply those kinds of historical standards of credibility to the Scriptures, because they have withstood a tremendous amount of criticism from that standpoint, and their credibility remains intact. On the basis of that, we come to an idea. If the book is basically reliable, it doesn’t have to be inerrent or infallible; it gives us a basically reliable portrait of Jesus of Nazareth and what he taught.
We move from there in linear fashion. If we can on the basis of general reliability come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ did the things that history claims he did, it would indicate that Jesus is more than an ordinary human being and that his testimony would be compelling. I would move first to a study of the person of Jesus and then ask the question, what did Jesus teach about Scripture? For me, in the final analysis, our doctrine of Scripture is drawn from the teaching of Jesus and from our understanding of who he is.
How do you know the Bible is true?
by R.C. Sproul:
That’s an excellent question because so much is at stake in the Christian faith in terms of the truthfulness of Scripture. The Bible is our primary source of information about Jesus and about all of those things we embrace as elements of our faith. Of course, if the Bible isn’t true, then professing Christians are in serious trouble. I believe the Bible is true. I believe it is the Word of God. As Jesus himself declared of the Scripture, “Your word is truth.” But why am I persuaded that the Bible is the truth?
We need to ask a broader question first. How do we know that anything is true? We’re asking a technical question in epistemology. How do we test claims of truth? There is a certain kind of truth that we test through observation, experimentation, eyewitness, examination, and scientific evidence. As far as the history of Jesus is concerned, as far as we know any history, we want to check the stories of Scripture using those means by which historical evidence can be tested—through archaeology, for example. There are certain elements of the Scripture, such as historical claims, that are to be measured by the common standards of historiography. I invite people to do that—to check it out.
Second, we want to test the claims of truth through the test of rationality. Is it logically consistent, or does it speak with a “forked tongue”? We examine the content of Scripture to see if it is coherent. That’s another test of truth. One of the most astonishing things, of course, is that the Bible has literally thousands of testable historical prophecies, cases in which events were clearly foretold, and both the foretelling and the fulfillment are a matter of historical record. The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature.
Of course, some theologians have said that with all of the evidence there is that Scripture is true, we can truly embrace it only with the Holy Spirit working in us to overcome our biases and prejudices against Scripture, against God. In theology, this is called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. I want to stress at this point that when the Holy Spirit helps me to see the truth of Scripture and to embrace the truth of Scripture, it’s not because the Holy Spirit is giving me some special insight that he doesn’t give to somebody else or is giving me special information that nobody else can have. All the Holy Spirit does is change my heart, change my disposition toward the evidence that is already there. I think that God himself has planted within the Scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word.
©1996 by R.C. Sproul. Used by permission of Tyndale.
Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. ©1982 by Thomas Nelson.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Tactics Against Atheistic Challenges:
Where is the evidence?
As Christians we have been laid with the "burden of proof." The proof or evidence of the existence of God, and we are to give good reason for why we believe that He exists. The burden of proof is a principle that states that the person who asserts a proposition has the burden to defend it by reason or evidence (Steve Tsai, Apologetics.com). Evidence is always interpreted in light of a world-view. And evolutionists have a faulty worldview, which causes them to misinterpret the evidence that is presented. Their humanistic worldview does not allow them to consistently interpret evidence correctly. Dr. Jason Lisle, from AIG, explains, "God has said in His Word, and God tells us that we are never to abandon the authority of his Word, even when we are refuting those who contradict (Titus 1:9). You may certainly use scientific and historical evidence as part of your apologetic (for example, to show inconsistency and arbitrariness in the evolutionary worldview). However, Christians should not try to approach evidence from a “neutral” perspective, rather than from a biblical worldview: neutrality is unbiblical (Matthew 12:30) and logically impossible (because it is a non-neutral claim)." So remember to use God's Word as your authority. This is what we stand on, and this belief should be our evidence to the unsaved; that our world view is entirely different. The evidential claim is philosophical. It must stand to philosophical rigour. The lack of belief would be contradictory. Some evolutionists will argue that there is not enough evidence or the evidence you give from the bible or even archaeology is just "not enough." They will just not be satisfied because they're thinking is fundamental. Yes, they too can be fundamentalists in their own worldview.Let me share a script from Steve Tsai, from his blog;
Now I think this is a fair thing to ask of the atheist, that is, asking him to bear the burden of proof. If God’s existence is impossible, improbable or simply fortuitously untrue, it seems common sense dictates the atheist should give evidence for these claims. At least you would think.
At this point, modern atheists have one more trick up their sleeve, one that supposedly counteracts the burden of proof. The issue has to do with the etymology of “atheism,” defined not as a positive belief in the non-existence of God, but simply a lack of any belief in God. The prefix “a-“ is understood as “without,” and “theism” (as you well know) means “belief in God.” So they will argue, the atheistic position is not one of positive affirmation in God’s non-existence, but rather simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. Atheists are without, or lack belief in God. So because the atheist has asserted nothing, she has nothing to prove. She does not have to prove the non-existence of God, because she never positively asserted God’s non-existence. She simply has to shoot down arguments by theists, since they do make a positive claim and must bear the burden of proof.
If you sense something has gone amiss, you are correct. I think this is an unfair ploy designed to shift the burden on the theist while allowing the atheist to continue taking the offensive. It’s much easier to tear down others rather than erect an edifice of one’s own. And many times, rhetorically the aggressive person seems like he is winning.
Here are a few good responses to this ploy:
1. First, if you wish, you can play the same game. That is, refuse to give in to this unfair tactic by turning it around back on them. How this is done is you take the positive affirmation of atheist (which they must have, since a belief system cannot be purely negative) which is the materialistic thesis that claims, “all things are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry” and simply add the prefix “a-“ to it. So instead of claiming to be a “theist” (which would be a positive claim), one can claim to be an “a-materialist.” That is, one simply fails to manifest the materialistic thesis. And of course since a lack of a belief (according to the atheist) does not require proof, the a-materialist (theist) can sit back and fold his arms smugly knowing he has not violated any principle of argumentation.
This is more of a touché maneuver to show the unfairness of the atheist’s ploy. The point here is to show him that you can play the same burden of proof game too. Of course the objective of this response is not to end in a stalemate, but a simply to show the atheist his flaw in thinking, and encourage him to take up the burden of proof again. In effect you’re saying, “if you’re view does not require proof, than neither does mine given the same rationale. Oh, you don’t like that? Then let’s do away with this game and get back to proving our claims.” This can be returned to any time in the course of conversation if the atheist reverts back to his atheism-is-a-lack-of-belief-so-I-don’t-need-to-prove-it position.
2. One can simply ask the atheist if she would answer “yes” or “no” to the question “Do you believe that God exists?” Either answer to this question would be considered a positive assertion, and would therefore require argumentation and evidence. Now it is possible that the atheist at this point still could refuse to answer “yes” or “no” and instead repeat the tag line of the ploy, “I simply do not have a belief in the existence of God, therefore my position does not require proof.”
If this happens, there are two more ways the conversation can go. Either they still want to stay engaged and discuss your positive evidence for God’s existence while shirking their responsibility, or they will want to disengage completely from the topic. If the atheist takes the latter position, then you can once again reassert (1), that you can play the same game too, and since you can, atheist is not any more rational than your a-materialism. A position is considered more rationally justified if its grounds are more certain than other competing positions. If atheism and a-materialism have identical epistemological grounds, than one is no more rational than the other. The retreating atheist satisfied with his ploy must accept this point. That would be my parting shot to that kind of atheist. But I doubt any thoughtful atheist would be satisfied knowing his atheism is as rationally justified as my theism, for the very point of argumentation is to show your opponent’s position as rationally inferior.
If the atheist is of the former variety that still wants to engage, I would kindly explain how his tactic is unfair (since he wants me to do all the proving while he does none) and stipulate the conversation will only progress if he bears the same burden I do. That is, let’s keep the conversation fair, since both sides actually do make positive affirmations (with atheism at least positively asserting materialism, and very probably asserting God’s non-existence). Atheists make bold claims about God, and many actually harbor feelings of hatred against him. How someone can hate or ball their fist up against an entity that apparently enters into none of the propositions one believes is beyond me. My point here is that an ultimatum is set, fair conversation or none at all. And if the atheist is not willing to bear the burden of proof, I feel very comfortable ending the conversation. Don’t throw your pearls before swine.
3. I think this point of logic I’m about to raise is one that is rarely understood by the atheist. For example, let’s say I do in fact give five good arguments for God’s existence. And let’s say, for the sake of argument, the atheist has successfully rebutted or refuted all five of my arguments for God’s existence. The question is, does this mean God does not exist? Does my failure to provide evidence of God’s existence prove the opposite point, his non-existence?
No, not at all. An unsubstantiated claim is not a false claim. Epistemologically they are different. Even if all my arguments fail, all that proves is that I have bad arguments or may be a poor apologist. It does not prove God does not exist. And it does not entail that no one has good arguments for God’s existence. At worst, my failure would leave the issue of God’s existence a question mark. That is, maybe he does exist, maybe he doesn’t. You see, this is the point where the atheist is supposed to step up, and argue from uncertainty to the positive claim of God’s non-existence. But if he is not willing to bear his share of the burden, then God’s existence is neither impossible, improbable nor fortuitously untrue (and this is the case even if all my arguments have failed). And if the atheist has shown none of these, I reckon he’s a rather poor atheologian, since God’s existence is still left on the table as a very real possibility.
4. This last point may be a more complicated one. It may be the case that the atheist’s ploy in self-contradictory. That is, there is a logical difficulty in asserting a lack of a belief (here I will use “knowledge” and “belief” interchangeably for this point, which is think is fine for present purposes). I know we do so all the time in common parlance, but strictly speaking this may be impossible, since you have to at least know something about what you’re denying knowledge of. So to totally lack knowledge of something and to assert that at the same time would seem to be contradictory.
Now there’s a weaker sense in which we can assert our ignorance of certain issues. But in these cases its arguable that the assertion of ignorance is one of lesser knowledge to greater knowledge, that is, one of degree. We know a bit and we wish to know more. The problem with the atheist’s ploy is that it is not this type of degreed claim, but a non-degreed claim of a total lack of knowledge. It’s hard to believe that anyone can assert their lack of belief in things that don’t enter into any of the propositions that one holds. How can you affirm you lack a belief unless you first know the belief that is lacked?
This is more clearly illustrated by employing what philosopher’s call propositional or doxastic attitudes. For any proposition, there are three epistemological stances or attitudes that can be taken towards it, 1) affirmation, 2) denial or 3) withholding of judgment. Notice there are only three propositional attitudes. The proposition under consideration is that of “God exists.” If you affirm the proposition, you are a theist. If you deny the proposition, you are an atheist. If you withhold judgment, you are an agnostic. Notice there is no propositional attitude of “lacking a belief.” Affirm God, deny God, or throw your hands up in the air and say you don’t know. But it is unclear on this very standard account of propositional attitudes where “lack of a belief” would fit in. So at best, “lacking a belief” is an extremely queer concept, and at worst it is self-contradictory.
Check out Greg Koukl's book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Visit TacticsBook.com.
Some Interesting Apologetical Items
by Jeremy Livermore:
Byzantine church Mosaics
In the 4th century, after the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity, Helena, Constantine’s Mother, went to Israel to discover the sites that were important to the Christian faith. She designated holy places and venerated many particular sites where a significant New Testament miracle was performed, including where Jesus was born, died, and resurrected.
At many of these places, Helena ordered a church to be built. These Byzantine churches were usually small, perhaps the size of a modern house. On the floor a beautiful tile mosaic was usually laid depicting fish or something of historical relevance to the Christian site. Throughout the centuries of invasions, wars, and earthquakes, the original church was destroyed. But the ornate Byzantine mosaics still exist beneath the later crusader floor mosaic or later modern era mosaic which repeated the same design. Additionally, some churches were rebuilt in such a way that the new mosaic floor connected to the original Byzantine mosaic, interwoven to produce the same design. The only difference one could tell between the Byzantine mosaic and the later mosaic is the Byzantine mosaic is faded.
It was really amazing to be standing on the same floor that early Christians and church fathers stood on. You know that saying "Being there is everything", well it was true in this case. At many moments, with the help of our good tour guide, I felt like I traveled back in time and could picture what it was attend a church service at that ancient Byzantine basilica. These moments were not just limited to the Byzantine church ruins. I found that I could easily imagine what it would have been walk in Caesarea, Capernaum, Nazareth, Skythopolis, and Meggido. It is hard to describe but going back in time is somewhat close.
Continuing Archeological Finds:
During our trip, President Obama was visiting with the King of Saudi Arabia and making a speech in Cairo, Egypt. So we picked up some local magazines and newspapers to catch the local response to the Obama visit. While learning about the different political extremist views of the West Bank PLO, Gaza leadership, and Israeli left, we stumbled upon some articles of recent archeological discoveries in Israel. By the look of it, these were common entries in the local news. On any given day, there could be news of a different amazing artifacts dug up around Israel.
I knew Archeology has always been a major point of national pride for the modern nation. But I came to understand that there were significant continual efforts being made by the Israeli government, through many benefactors and the Hebrew University, to reclaim the history of Israel through archeology. In the last several years, there have been increased efforts and funding for more digs in regions and settlements in the West Bank recently annexed by the Israeli army. Last century, scholars in Israel and around the world have been mesmerized by monumental discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls and the walls of Jericho. Scholars are hoping that the discoveries of last century will pale in comparison to those of this century.
Some not so recent discovered archeological finds that we saw, such as the tunnels under the ancient Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem), ancient high walls in Jericho, horse stables in Meggido, inscriptions of Pontius Pilate in Casearea, grottos in Nazareth, and many others, are still continual reminders to Israel and the world that the Christian faith is built on solid epistemically verifiable foundations. These and other frequent gem finds provide evidence that the description of places in the historical records of the Bible are in fact accurate. They show that the words on the pages of Scripture cannot be categorized in a myth genre. Rather these finds give readers and scholars alike continual confidence that the Bible represents historical literature that maps out historical places that actually existed in a space time reality. If the places existed, it is also highly likely that the people and events described in those places were real.
Compare the history written in the Old & New Testament to the book of Mormon. While reading Joseph Smith’s famous work last year, I was thoroughly convinced that this book, if not historically accurate, represents the greatest lie in the history of mankind. It would be infinitely more slimier in fictitious deception than the Da Vinci code, even more disgusting than any the modern suicide cults, because it is the life altering constitution of millions of good people. It is the Bible beyond the Bible of the called "Christian" Mormons. This ever growing population of brainwashed souls has been led astray by a book that speaks in a historical genre but is entirely fiction. Not one archeological find has ever been unearthed. Not one city wall, inscription in stone, temple, church, mosaic, painting, hand tool, pot, coin; nothing, nothing, nothing at all has been found that relates in any way shape or form to the places, peoples, and history described in the book of Mormon.
Thus, it is easy to conclude that if no archeological discovery has been made, the places described in the book of Mormon did not exist. If the places that people walked on and the places where events occurred did not exist, than the people and events described in the book of Mormon did not exist and were never real. It is absolutely sickening to read the book of Mormon, because it is clear that its sole purpose was to provide a believable history, written in the same genre as the historical books of the Old Testament, in order to deceive people away from true Christianity.
After reading the Old Testament for the last 20 years and knowing that there is archeological evidence that show the places written of do in fact exist, I can rest assured that my belief system is not founded on a myth or lie. Until an archeological discovery is made contradictory to Scripture, which there have not been any valid ones that I know of, I will continue to read the Old and New Testament as historically reliable documents.
The Design Argument
by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli:
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end--for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health.
Question: Hasn't the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance?
Reply: Not at all. If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection--by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment. In no way does it--can it--account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: "The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit." If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief.
The Kalam Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
Read more arguments by this article.
Is Jesus a historical fact?
Can the Bible be trusted?
Our main source of information about Jesus is the New Testament in the Bible. Is the New Testament true? Is it an accurate historical record or a collection of religious myths? Do other historical records mention Jesus?
Let's start with the first question: Is what the New Testament says about Jesus a true, accurate historical record?
How do historians determine the accuracy of ancient documents and records?
Historians look at:
- How close, in time and geographically, were the writers of the documents to the original events?
- How many early copies do we have, how close are the copies to the originals (in time)?
- Do the documents have contradictions or factual inaccuracies?
- Are the descriptions of locations, roads, structures and geographical features confirmed by archaeology?
We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate.
The Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about 115 AD. We have one copy of the first six books in this series. It was copied in about 850 AD. Books 11 through 16 are available in a copy made about 1050 AD. Books 7 through 10 are lost. The Annals of Imperial Rome is considered by historians to be accurate.
We have nine Greek manuscripts of first century historian Josephus' work titled, "The Jewish War." These copies were made in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. They are considered by historians to be accurate.
Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. We have five early copies of Aristotle's works.
We have eight copies, dated about 900 A.D., of the history of Thucydides. He lived in the mid-400's BC. Historians have long ago determined, based on these eight manuscripts created 1300 years after the original was written, that the history of Thucydides is accurate.
Homer's Iliad, the bible of the ancient Greeks, composed in 800 BC has an impressive 650 ancient Greek copies available -- the earliest is from the second and third centuries AD - 1000 years after the original was written.
So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?
We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts! Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.
We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).
Question One Summary
Numbers of copies: No other ancient historical documents come even close to being available in such large numbers (the Iliad is second with 650 copies) as is the New Testament.
Closeness to the originals in time: No other ancient historical documents are available in copies made so soon after the originals were written. (Most other documents are available only in copies made over 1000 years after the original.)
Contradictions: Other than a few minor differences in the Old Testament that are attributed to "typos" - none of which are related to fundamental doctrines or beliefs, there are no contradictions.
Archaeology: Archeology has never contradicted anything in the Bible and has confirmed much of the Bible.
The conclusion: based on the number of copies, and their closeness in time to the originals, the New Testament has ample support for its accuracy.
Question two: Are we reading an accurate translation of the Bible today? Current translations of the New Testament are made using the ancient Greek manuscripts. They are very accurate. All other ancient records (such as the Greek and Roman histories) have a much less solid connection to the originals. If someone were to argue that the accuracy of the New Testament has been lost over time, then no other ancient historical document can be accepted as accurate.
If you do not feel the Bible has been accurately translated, you can purchase a copy of the New Testament in the original Greek, learn to read ancient Greek, and read it for yourself. There is nothing hidden or secret. The quality of the translation from Greek to Engllish is available for all to examine.
The conclusion: the translations of the New Testament we have today (NIV, NASB, NLT, NRSV, NKJ...) are accurate translations and can be trusted.
Question three: Do other historical records mention Jesus? Yes!
Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.
One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).
Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.
Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*
In addition, the writings of opponents of Christianty such as Jews and Gnostics, confirm that Jesus was a real person. If they could, the best alternative for Christianity's enemies would have been to say Jesus never lived. But the evidence was too real and fresh--there were people still alive who knew Jesus or the Apostles. Their only alternative was to accept Jesus, but change his message.
The conclusion: the non-Christian writings confirm that Jesus was a real person.
And remember, in the Bible we are reading eye witness accounts, and carefully researched history, of what actually happened, written by people who were alkive when Jesus was alive.
Recommended reading: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce
*Recommended reading: The Historical Jesus by Gary R. Habermas
No comments:
Post a Comment