4/6/15

Ordinary and Mundane yet Sacred and Sanctified

How often is it heard in Christian circles how 'God spoke to me,' or 'the Lord led me,' or how you could 'feel the Spirit moving?'

It's quite common, to be sure. People want to have those experiences. They want to feel God. But God has not promised to intervene directly in our lives in a personal way. What I mean by that is that nowhere in Holy Scripture does Christ promise to speak directly to us as a form of revelation. The ironic thing is, despite the non-existence of a sure word from Christ promising this, it is very popular for well-meaning Christian folks to make these claims. God spoke to me and the Spirit led me. Hence the language, verbiage, and dare I say it, leaven, of the barely 100 year-old Pentecostal movement that has invaded Christianity and called itself orthodox, when it is not.

But none of that is the main thrust of this post. The last days are here and Christ is taking the mundane and making it Sacred. Mundane simply means natural and ordinary. And this is precisely what Christ does. The God who owns the universe and created it, shows us His power over it repeatedly. Not by giving us a private revelation or sending the Spirit to "move" (whatever that means) during the chorus of some great contemporary worship tune as the guitar player and the lead vocalist are half in tears pouring their heart out.

But by usual, normal, ordinary, mundane things. Like water, for instance. Christ does not change the water by substance or make it something other than it is. It's still water. But He shows His power over it and through it by saving us through water, by His powerful Word. I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Noah and his family were brought safely through the water, we are saved through it in our Baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22

Normal. Ordinary. Mundane. Now Sacred. God speaks and we are saved through the water. Imagine that.

What about bread and wine? Does Christ not do the same thing there? He takes the ordinary and makes them Sacred. Christ gives us bread and wine and tells us to take and eat, this is My body, and take and drink, this is My blood.

What about normal human speech? That's pretty mundane. We may have hundreds of different languages, but God's Word is spoken in them all. He takes normal human speech and proclaims Christ crucified to you, and the Spirit works through this normal human speech.

I always have a chuckle when our Reformed friends, especially the Reformed Baptists, somehow think that the Holy Spirit is not "sovereign" unless He works completely independently of means. This is usually based on ripping John 3:8 out of context. I get that they want to let God be God. And that is good. Yet, separating the Holy Spirit out from the means of grace and concocting extra terminology to support this system, such as "inward call," well, it's silly.

Everyone wants to be orthodox in their beliefs, it is true. But this separating out of the Spirit from the means is not orthodox. In fact, it stinks of Gnosticism. It's dualist to the core.

And dang it, all of this "inward call" speak sounds a lot like "God told me so," at least on a functional level. Either way, it is the Spirit directly intervening to you apart from means of grace. Even if one argues that the means of grace are means of grace for the elect alone, they're still left with the same problem of the inward call apart from means.

But then, that is all you're left with when you separate the means of grace out from the work of the Spirit. You're left with a dualistic theology of separation of natural and spiritual. And you are left with a God who is not sovereign, as the Calvinists would have us believe, but rather is Gnostic according to historical Christian beliefs and heresies. That is what happens when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and makes them Sacred by working through them.

The hijacking by the Reformed of the term monergism is a shame. Certainly, they are monergists, but it's an unbiblical version of it.

Yet, when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and uses them for Sacred purposes, I suppose that is all one is left with. When you deny that God takes the ordinary and the mundane and uses them for saving purposes, you're still stuck in the same spot. No, this is not a misunderstanding of Calvinism (as Calvinists will try to tell you). This is exactly what they teach. The means of grace are only for the elect. Hence, it's not really the means of grace that are means, but the "sovereign" Holy Spirit showing up when He wants to for the elect and them alone. No wonder the Crypto-Calvinist controversy was such a big deal. Well, that and the Calvinists were lying their way into Lutheran churches and universities.

That is not biblical monergism because there is no objectivity. There is no "for you" and "for certain" in the Sacraments.

Put this faulty version of monergism to bed. Yuck.

Grace and Peace

66 comments:

  1. I cannot imagine how often I wrestled with the phrase "Do you believe in Jesus with just your head, or your heart?" Sleepless nights were spent worrying if I believed in Jesus the exactly correct way or not. Although I found joy as a small boy of 7 years old, to understand John 3:16, and that I didn't need to worry about whether or not I was "good enough" to go to Heaven, I hadn't even heard the words "born-again experience" yet. Nonetheless, as a teenager in a more conservative, Bible-believing (as far as Arminians go) Methodist church, my mom had become Evangelical and began posing the question to me, if I believed in Jesus with my heart or not.

    Fortunately, after marrying into the ELCA (which I thought at the time was more conservative due to the "Evangelical" in ELCA) and being accepted as a member with absolutely no Lutheran catechesis, then spending 11 years becoming ever more concerned with the deepening heresy, my deliverance to the LCMS was granted two years ago.

    Upon studying Confessional Lutheran writings, I discovered that true faith in Jesus as Savior was "Fide" (trust), rather than "Assensus" (assent). That settled the "just in my head or in my heart" matter. And better still, after discovering that trusting faith in Christ and His merits came totally from God, rather than from any free-will decision, no longer did I need to trust my feelings as to whether or not I was saved. And looking back to my 7-year-old days, I remember that I just believed Jesus said I was saved by faith in Him instantly. I didn't have to decide "yea" or "nay". It just happened.

    No longer do I need to look to my subjective experience to keep mustering up faith from within myself! Now I know my faith is God's free gift to me, and that He was the sole source of that faith. Hooray for monergism, away with Enthusiasm.

    While I do believe that yes, the Holy Spirit can and does what He will in my life, I no longer feel the false need to mystically discern His presence as my life unfolds. And I certainly don't assume that my conscience comes from God. Sorry, Jiminy Cricket, I will not let my conscience be my guide. My conscience is Old Adam, rotten to the core. And when God speaks to me, it is through the reading and preaching of His Word.


    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would love to discuss it Gary!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So go ahead and tell me how I am being duped.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My pastor as well as I...am very conservative. By the way, I'm plenty comfortable talking science. I have a Physics degree.

    Carry on soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And I am well aware that there is division within the LCMS on some of these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've also been around the block, so to speak, quite a few times. I am wondering if you will have any new arguments that I have not heard before. I'm genuinely interested. Not being snarky.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, I agree. Your pastor was out of bounds concerning Confessional Lutheranism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't live anywhere near San Diego, nor have I ever been there. How did you get that idea?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Josh is a contributor to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But that is irrelevant. I'm fine with having this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Then I looked at the Resurrection accounts in parallel. The discrepancies were too great!

    I reached out to several prominent LCMS pastors: Pr. Jonathon Fisk, Pr. Martin Noland, Pr. Cooper, and others. They tried to help me but my faith slipped away and disappeared in four months.

    I now believe that Jesus existed; was crucified; and everything else is most likely legend.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Much of what you're asserting here is pure conjecture. Likewise, scribe errors should not be a blow to faith. To put it simply, by any secular standard, the New Testament is by far the book with the best manuscript evidence in all of antiquity. Did your former fundie pastor fail to tell you this?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Discrepancies? Or...maybe the different authors recorded the event in different manners...from different angles. Do you expect them all to say word for word the same exact thing? I mean, for the unbeliever, one guy could use one verb and another guy could use a different one, and that would be "evidence" that they were contradicting each other.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Although much of what you're commenting on misses the point anyways. You want to pick apart certain strands of evidence (or lack thereof, in your view). The point is, both you and me will look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It's a question of valid worldviews. I say your entire worldview is irrational and cannot account for anything. What say you? On what basis can you account for language, the meaning of words, and more importantly, *anything* that is absolute, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, and science. How do you account for the uniformity of nature?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have investigated each one of these issues in detail over the last one year, Andrew, and I believe that the naturalist world view is the most rational and consistent with the available evidence.

    There may well be a Creator, but that Creator is NOT the Christian god. The Christian god could not pass a sixth grade science test. So I am not an atheist. I cannot disprove the existence of a Creator. But just because we do not (yet) know the origin of the universe doesn't mean we assume an invisible ghost god did it.

    I see no evidence to support the belief in the supernatural. I believe in the natural laws of science. I believe in evaluating my world with the scientific method, not believing what ancient, middle-eastern holy books say simply by faith, which to me is just another name for superstition.

    Show me evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and I will be a believer again. But all I have found is assumptions and second century hearsay. I can't believe in the reanimation of a first century dead man based on assumptions and hearsay. To me its silly and irrational.

    I demand evidence, and according to orthodox Lutheranism, demanding evidence is elevating Reason above Faith. But to me it is using my brain versus accepting baseless ancient superstitions as fact.

    It's late. Maybe we can talk tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  22. //"... and I believe that the naturalist world view is the most rational and consistent with the available evidence."//

    Only it's not. Science can only observe and explain the natural world. The naturalist error is to try to use science to explain the supernatural. That simply does not work. That is like trying to do calculus with a screwdriver. The tool (science) is being used to try to explain something that it outside of it's explanatory limits.

    //"There may well be a Creator, but that Creator is NOT the Christian god."//

    He absolutely is the Christian God, since He is the only God who is all-powerful, doesn't contradict Himself, and even exists, per each Holy book's own standards.

    //"The Christian god could not pass a sixth grade science test."//

    So yeah...um, where does the Bible claim to be a science textbook?

    //"But just because we do not (yet) know the origin of the universe doesn't mean we assume an invisible ghost god did it."//

    The problem is not that we do not know the origin of the universe, the problem is that naturalism rejects the *only possible solution.* It is quite simply impossible for the universe to come into being apart from God. And guess what backs that up? Yep, science. Such as the Law of Conservation of Energy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //"The naturalist error is to try to use science to explain the supernatural."//

      I should add here: The naturalist assumes that the natural is all that exists and supposes that if we cannot scientifically explain the supernatural, it thus cannot exist. This is nothing more than a strawman argument.

      Delete
  23. //"I believe in the natural laws of science."//

    So do I. What is your point? Here is your problem: Are the natural *laws* of science absolute? That is, are they the same everywhere and for everyone? How about logic? Is logic the same everywhere, at all times, all places, for everyone? If they are absolute, then you have a completely irrational worldview. They cannot exist in your worldview, because you cannot account for anything absolute. In other words, how can absolute laws come from, well, nothing? Or from chance? It's not just randomly improbable, it's completely impossible. Uniformity in terms of absolutes that do exist can only come from something or someone that is absolute in nature. Or else everything is rendered potentially meaningless. This is to say, in your worldview, how do you know that the laws of logic and science and math won't be different tomorrow? Well, you don't.

    //"I believe in evaluating my world with the scientific method..."//

    So...on what basis do you choose the scientific method as the basis for evaluating your worldview? You're trying to appeal to scientific law and absolutes, but then you give me the scientific method? Really? Surely you know that the scientific method has changed repeatedly over time. So again, I ask, how do you know this is reliable? And on what basis can you use something that is changing to evaluate the universe using absolutes such as logic and math? See the irrationality? It's plainly obvious. Again...you are using the changing and the subjective to evaluate the uniform and the objective.

    ***This is exactly why our discussion is NOT about evidence.*** We will both see the same evidence and evaluate it differently, because our presuppositions do not allow us to interpret the evidence in the same fashion.

    //"Show me evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and I will be a believer again."//

    Even if I did, you would not be a believer again. Even if, for instance, I went back to the first century and took a picture of Christ rising, you would explain it away. Even if you were there and saw it, you would come up with some alternate solution based on your presuppositions. There is plenty of evidence. You just reject it because your worldview will not allow for anything outside of the natural alone, which I already showed is highly irrational.

    //"I demand evidence, and according to orthodox Lutheranism, demanding evidence is elevating Reason above Faith."//

    You misunderstand Lutheranism. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark. The Christian faith is historical, based on things that actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good morning, Andrew.

    First, I want to be clear that I am not saying that the Naturalist worldview is the only valid worldview. What I am saying is that the Naturalist worldview makes the most sense to me. It may not for you.

    You are certainly entitled to a Supernaturalist worldview. I cannot prove the supernatural to be false. I cannot tell you that you are wrong to believe in the Supernatural. Just as I do not believe you have any grounds to tell me that I am wrong to believe in the Natural.

    I choose not to believe in the Supernatural simply for the reason that I cannot investigate it to verify its existence. It may exist, it might not. For instance, I choose not to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, fairies, and unicorns. I cannot prove they do not exist, but I don't believe that you or anyone else can prove that they do. Therefore, until someone can prove to me, using my worldview (naturalism and the scientific method) I choose not to believe in these entities.

    For the same reason I choose not to believe in ghosts, ghouls, goblins, demons, and gods. They may very well exist, but since I have never seen, heard, or touched one of these entities nor can I use the scientific method to examine these entities, I choose not to believe in them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Are the natural *laws* of science absolute? That is, are they the same everywhere and for everyone?"

    I would say that Science is the same everywhere in the world. There is no such thing as American organic chemistry and Iranian organic chemistry. A Protestant American organic chemist and a Muslim Iranian organic chemist will hold to the same principles of organic chemistry.

    They great thing about Science is that there are no absolutes. Everything is really just a theory, even if we happen to call it a "Law", such as the "Law of Gravity". If new evidence comes along that shows the Law of Gravity to be incorrect, the new finding will be thoroughly tested and evaluated and if confirmed the old "Law" of Gravity will be tossed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't believe that there are any "absolute" anything. I assume you are getting at absolute moral values. I do not believe that any such entity has ever existed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "This is to say, in your worldview, how do you know that the laws of logic and science and math won't be different tomorrow? Well, you don't."

    You are absolutely correct. Science changes! That is what makes it so fascinating! And as far as the rules of logic, it is quite possible that logic will change. But for right now, Naturalism is the best explanation for what I see and experience in the world...for me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "So...on what basis do you choose the scientific method as the basis for evaluating your worldview? You're trying to appeal to scientific law and absolutes, but then you give me the scientific method?"

    The basis of my choice of Naturalism as my preferred worldview is based on this: probabilities/statistics.

    For instance, what are the odds that lightening is caused by natural causes or the result of an invisible god's foul temper? Either choice is possible, but one choice is much more probable. That is how I view the world: what has the greater probability of being true.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Surely you know that the scientific method has changed repeatedly over time. So again, I ask, how do you know this is reliable? "

    Repeated testing, by thousands of scientists, of all nations and religions, over many years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "***This is exactly why our discussion is NOT about evidence.*** We will both see the same evidence and evaluate it differently, because our presuppositions do not allow us to interpret the evidence in the same fashion."

    I agree. If we look at a factual or historical claim and you allow for the supernatural as a cause, whereas I will want to evaluate the claim with naturalistic testing methods, allowing for the supernatural only as the most improbable of all possible causes for the event, it will be difficult for us to reach a mutual understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  31. " There is plenty of evidence (for the Resurrection). You just reject it because your worldview will not allow for anything outside of the natural alone, which I already showed is highly irrational."

    I believe that this statement is incorrect. I do allow for the supernatural as a cause or explanation, but I allow for it as the most improbable of all possible causes or explanations, whereas I believe that you, for your religion's supernatural claims only, want to immediately entertain the supernatural, before excluding all possible natural explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "You misunderstand Lutheranism. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark. The Christian faith is historical, based on things that actually happened."

    I am very happy to hear that you believe that Faith must be based on facts and reason. I hope we can have a productive discussion regarding the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  33. //"I don't believe that there are any "absolute" anything."//

    I ask only one question: Are you sure you don't believe in absolute anything?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I also see that you're kind of missing the (my) point. The natural world behaves in predictable ways. This is also to say that nature is uniform. For instance, if we cross over to mathematics, 1+1 is always 2. It's never 3, 4, or 17. How do we know this? Well, the laws of mathematics (in this case addition) are absolute. They are the same everywhere for everyone at all times.

    The problem your worldview has is simply this: You cannot account for this in any way, shape, or form. Pretty much you have to say that it is like that just because it is. You have no explanation for anything, ultimately.

    Yes, you can certainly look at natural explanations and apply them. This is valid. But when you take naturalism and try to apply it to things that it cannot account for, you end up with a walking contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I understand you correctly, you believe that one must have a worldview that can explain every facet of how the universe operates in order for that worldview to be valid.

      I don't see this as necessary. Just because we do not know how the universe began (if it began), does not mean that we never will. We are learning more and more each year about the universe.

      Our ancestors used to fear storms and other natural disasters as some unexplainable act of an angry god. We now have learned, through science, that gods are not responsible for these phenomena. Isn't it possible, therefore, that one day we will learn that a god is not responsible for the origin of the universe?

      In your worldview everything has a cause...except one...your god. Aren't you using a double standard? Why must I have a cause for everything in my worldview, but you are allowed to NOT have a cause for everything? You are allowed an exception. But if it is possible that your god had no beginning, then why isn't it possible that the universe had no beginning??

      So as I see it, to be consistent with your worldview that everything must have a cause, a beginning, a creator...your god must have a cause, a beginning, and a creator, otherwise your worldview is inconsistent and therefore irrational.

      I don't see how you can justify your one exception other than to appeal to blind faith.

      Delete
    2. "...one must have a worldview that can explain every facet of how the universe operates in order for that worldview to be valid."

      No. But one must have a worldview that allows for things as they are. Denying God systematically rules out this possibility, due to the very laws of physics.

      "Isn't it possible, therefore, that one day we will learn that a god is not responsible for the origin of the universe?"

      For that to happen, science would have to admit that nearly every law that they have proposed is, in fact, completely dead wrong. Here is a simple one: The law of conservation of energy,

      "In your worldview everything has a cause...except one...your god. Aren't you using a double standard? "

      No, because by definition God is eternal, uncreated, etc. Your objection here is faulty because it rests on holding God to the standards of natural science. It's a category mistake of the highest order. Not only so, but it just begs more questions, ad infinitum.

      "But if it is possible that your god had no beginning, then why isn't it possible that the universe had no beginning??"

      Because the universe contains matter, and matter, by definition, cannot come from nothing.

      "So as I see it, to be consistent with your worldview that everything must have a cause, a beginning, a creator...your god must have a cause, a beginning, and a creator, otherwise your worldview is inconsistent and therefore irrational."

      BZZZZZT! Straw man. Category mistake.

      Delete
    3. Andrew, you are assuming that your god exists to argue that your supernatural world view is the one and only correct world view. You have not proven that the Christian god exists.

      I am willing to concede that there may be a Creator, but can YOU prove that that if there is a Creator, he/she/it is YOUR god?

      My worldview allows for the possibility that your worldview is correct, and therefore valid. But you reject out of hand my worldview because you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question: you assume that the existence of your god is a given when making your arguments, and that his unproven existence disqualifies my worldview.

      That is not a good logical argument, my friend.

      Delete
    4. Gary, after seeing all your arguments so far, I have to kind of wonder how easily you were swayed. Much of what you are saying is completely illogical and irrational. Not to mention, you have not even attempted to address the real issue. I've asked repeated questions from different angles and you have answered *none* of them.

      That's OK, I suppose, because I posit that your worldview cannot answer them because your worldview is a contradictory and irrational mess.

      Delete
  35. Basically, you have no objective standard for anything. Heck, you just admitted that everything changes and there are no absolutes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I do not believe that there are any moral absolutes. I don't believe that even historic Judeo-Christianity can claim to have absolutes that have remained constant throughout human history other than to obey the Hebrew-Christian god; obey him regardless of how horrific his commands might be (killing children, for example).

      I believe that morality is based on evolutionary factors, namely naturally selected group behaviors that insure the well-being and survival of "the herd"; the herd defined as any particular socially organized human community. However, an action that is considered immoral/wrong/bad within YOUR herd, may not be prohibited, by the rules of your herd, from be inflicted on another "herd". For instance, it may be immoral to kill children in your own group/herd (ie. the Israelites) but it is perfectly moral and even good to kill the children of an "evil" herd (the Amalekites, Canaanites, Midianites, etc. etc.).

      Christianity cannot claim to have objective, unchanging moral absolutes.

      Delete
    2. "Yes, I do not believe that there are any moral absolutes."

      Soooo....Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, me, you. Who has a better moral system? and by what standard?

      " I don't believe that even historic Judeo-Christianity can claim to have absolutes that have remained constant throughout human history"

      If you would like to argue that people of the faith have interpreted things differently and so on and come to different conclusions, that is fair. But us interpreting has nothing to do with whether or not a moral standard actually exists and is absolute.

      "I believe that morality is based on evolutionary factors"

      Oh...so Hitler and Stalin were just doing what they thought was best for the human race, because evolution? You can do better than this.

      so, define "good" and "evil" for me.

      So pretty much, you believe nothing and that everything changes and nothing is actually right.

      If that is the case, and by your comments, it clearly is, why waste your time arguing against the One True God? Kinda pointless, wouldn't you say?

      Delete
    3. I am trying to rescue you from a fear-based cult which has brain-washed you to believe that someone who threatens to torture your forever if you do not love and obey him, loves you.

      That's not love. That is abuse. That is blackmail.

      You have been sold a lie, Andrew. I would like to help you see that.

      Delete
    4. You can do better than this. And once again, without any standards, you and your worldview can't even define all these moral terms you are using. Love, abuse, lie. What do they mean in your world? As I suspected, the emotional arguments and shock tactics come out when one has nothing to stand on.

      Got any better argumentation? Or are you just going to stick to shock tactics and use words that have no objective meaning in your worldview anyways?

      Delete
    5. If you can't answer any of the questions I posed, and in fact completely avoid them and then yank out shock value words, all you're going to do is steel my resolve, so to speak.

      I suggest you deal with the questions I posed. I assure you they are completely valid. I've been down this road hundreds of times. Until these questions can be answered by those in your camp, I will continue to see the atheist and agnostic worldviews as irrational contradictions, and as such, universes that simply cannot exist, because the universe we live in has absolutes and has meaning and things can be explained.

      In the atheist and agnostic universe, nothing can be explained.

      Delete
  36. Andrew, why don't we get to the heart of the issue. Wouldn't you agree that your worldview rests entirely on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus? In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, your worldview is completely false?

    How about we examine the evidence for the Resurrection. What evidence do you believe there is for this supernatural, religious claim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Christianity rests on the resurrection. You are correct. There is plenty of evidence for it, you just reject it out of hand due to your naturalistic presuppositions.

      Delete
    2. You said that Christianity rests not on blind faith but on historical evidence. If that is true, then we have a common foundation for discussion.

      I believe that there IS evidence for the Resurrection claim of Christianity but the evidence is very, very weak. I also believe that the Mormons have evidence for their claim that an angel gave Golden Tablets to Joseph Smith. I believe that their evidence is also very, very weak. And other religions have evidence for their supernatural claims that I believe are very, very weak. So the issue is not, "Is there evidence for the Resurrection" , but is the evidence strong enough to believe that an event which defies the laws of nature actually occurred. I am willing to entertain the possibility that it did happen...if you are willing to entertain the possibility that it did not.

      Can we proceed to the evidence?

      Delete
    3. By what standards are you judging the evidence? Secondly, on what grounds do you disallow Holy Scripture as evidence?

      And once again, your answer to this will bring us right back to presuppositions.

      You have to come up with something of some substance eventually. I'm just going to continue challenging you on all the questions I asked and you did not answer. I don't think you can.

      Delete
    4. I will answer your third point first: You are right. My worldview does not have all the answers. I am very comfortable admitting that. It is my personal view that we do not have to know everything to hold to some things.

      I will allow any evidence you choose to bring, including appeals to the supernatural and appeals to the Bible, as long as you do not force me to accept the existence of the supernatural and the inerrancy of the Bible a priori. In exchange, I will not ask you to exclude the supernatural or the claims of truth of the Bible.

      So how do we rate the strength of your evidence? I would suggest this: For each claim of evidence that you present, we will debate the claim and then we each will rate that evidence based on how strong we personally believe the claim is, AND, what we each believe the average, college educated, non-church going American would rate the evidence (to exclude atheists and all other anti-Christian skeptics).

      Example: Paul and four of his traveling companions each saw a walking/talking crucified body that appeared and disappeared in front of them. Each of the five persons wrote down their version of the event. The five testimonies were witnessed by known historical persons and there was no collaboration between the five.

      My vote (on a scale of 1-10): 8
      Neutral American: 10

      Delete
    5. Sorry, but I reject your "rules." Why? Because once again, they are based on *your presuppositions.* You may think that you are trying to be fair, but in reality, you aren't. You're still trying to pigeonhole me into having this discussion using the terms and definitions and assumptions of your worldview.

      Neutrality is a myth. You cannot be neutral or objective. Neither can I.

      I never said your worldview had all the answers. Nor did I say that I know all the answers either. I said that your worldview cannot account for anything; that everything is meaningless; and ultimately, you really cannot claim to know anything.

      Delete
    6. So what rules would you like to make for our discussion?

      Or are you saying that a discussion of the evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection is impossible unless skeptics like myself accept your worldview as the one and only valid worldview? In other words, you refuse to discuss the evidence for a historical event, unless I am willing to accept that your holy book is inerrant and historically accurate?

      That seems a little unfair, don't you think?

      I am willing to meet you half way, but asking for my complete capitulation prior to even starting the discussion seems extremely dishonest.

      Delete
    7. How about this: Pretend that I am someone who grew up non-religious but not anti-religious. It was just assumed in my family that there was some sort of Creator God, but we did not pick any particular religion or believe in any specific religion's god. Since I am already open to the existence of a Creator God, I am open to the existence of the supernatural. Therefore, I would never rule out a supernatural claim out of hand, but, my worldview does not consist of believing that the universe is controlled by the supernatural either. I have a college education and I believe in science.

      How would you approach me to share the Gospel and eternal salvation through belief in Jesus?

      Delete
    8. I guess you are not interested in debating the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Here is the evidence that I have seen given by Christians:

      1. Eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels.
      2. Paul saw a walking/talking resurrected Jesus.
      3. The dramatic change in character of the disciples.
      4. The disciples would not have died for a lie.
      5. The rapid spread of Christianity, facing intense persecution, is evidence of the truth of its supernatural claims.

      Here is my brief response to each one of these points:

      1. We have no proof that the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They are anonymous. The traditional authorship of these books does not appear in Christian history until the end of the second century. Could a fisherman, a tax collector, and a physician have written these theologically complex texts? Yes. The probability that they did? Very, very low.

      2. In Acts chapter 26 Paul specifically states that his experience on the Damascus Road was a "heavenly vision". Visions are not reality. Yes, Paul says in I Corinthians 15 that he has "seen the Christ" but he clarifies in Acts chapter 26 that it was only in a vision. Seeing someone in a vision is not evidence of a bodily resurrection.

      3. Yes, Christians soon came to earnestly believe in the Resurrection and boldly spread Jesus' teachings. But there are many natural explanations for this change in behavior than that a dead man actually walked out of his grave. For instance, a group of the disciples could have seen a man in the distance who looked a lot like Jesus and then suddenly disappears behind a building, hill, etc.. "He's alive! Jesus is risen!" And the Resurrection legend begins. This scenario is much more probable than that Jesus really did rise again. So no one lied. No one fabricated the story. The disciples truly believe that Jesus is alive again. The "full" story is not written down until 65-75 AD by "Mark". Legends can easily develop within days, let alone decades as in this case.

      4. We have no historical evidence that even one disciple died refusing to recant seeing a resurrected Jesus. All the martyr stories about the Eleven are based solely on tradition.

      5. Yes, Christianity spread, but so did Mormonism and Islam. Christians were not systematically persecuted until after most of the original disciples would have died of old age.

      Delete
    9. //"I am willing to meet you half way, but asking for my complete capitulation prior to even starting the discussion seems extremely dishonest."//

      I'm not asking for capitulation. I'm simply asking you to address some of the questions I posed. I am pointing out that our analysis of evidence is going to be different, due to the fact that our underlying worldviews are different and neither of us is neutral in this issue.

      //"Pretend that I am someone."//

      Well, that'll get us nowhere.

      //"The traditional authorship of these books does not appear in Christian history until the end of the second century."//

      Which secular liberal 2000 years after the fact decided this? Can you show me from the early church fathers this is the case? Considering they were much 'closer' to the situation, so to speak...

      //"Could a fisherman, a tax collector, and a physician have written these theologically complex texts? Yes. The probability that they did? Very, very low."//

      Considering these have traditionally the authors of these books since the first century...welp, sorry, but someone with an axe to grind that is called a 'scholar' 1900+ years after the fact - once again, does not get to change it all just because 'their research shows.' Sorry!

      2, 3, and 5 are weaker reasons in the first place. There is a LOT more to #4 however.

      Delete
    10. I do not question that early Christians knew of the existence of the four books we now call the Gospels. I do not question that early Christians quoted from these four books. I do not question that early Christians believed these four books to be canonical and inspired of God.

      What I question is that any early Christian in the first century and even the first half to three-quarters of the second century attributed authorship of these four books to Matthew the Apostle, John Mark, Luke the physician, and the Apostle John.

      Can you find any statement by any early Christian during this time period where he quotes from one of these books and also attributes authorship of the book quoted to the traditionally ascribed author? For instance, can you find any Christian of this time period who says something like this: "In the Gospel of the Apostle John we read, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God...'? If so, please share it with me.

      Delete
    11. Off the top of my head, no. But I will find some if need be. In either case, you're making first of all an argument from silence and second of all an assertion without definitive proof.

      Delete
    12. An argument from silence would be this:

      "Since we can find no early Christian writings from the first 150 years of Christianity that ascribes authorship of the four books we today call the Gospels to their traditional authors, this is proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did NOT write these books."

      I never said that.

      I said that it is POSSIBLE that the traditional authors wrote the four Gospels, but I believe it is highly unlikely...AND...we have no positive evidence that they did, other than Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment writing in the late second century.

      I am discussing probabilities, not making a blanket statement of fact.

      Delete
    13. "an assertion without definitive proof"

      Again, my assertion is not that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the four Gospels. My assertion is that we have, to my knowledge, zero evidence from the first approximately 150 years of Christianity that they did.

      Delete
    14. If you're not sure one way or the other, why are you so adamant? Methinks you would do yourself a big favor if you grew some sack and took a stand here. Believe something. Enough of this wishy washy stuff. It seems the only thing you actually believe is that you don't believe anything with any sort of certainty.

      Delete
    15. Andrew,

      The world is not entirely black and white. Most decisions we make in life are based on probabilities.

      I choose not to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus not because I know as fact that it didn't happen. I choose not to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus because the odds of it having happened are incredibly, incredibly low. I believe that they are even lower than the odds that an angel gave Joseph Smith a couple Plates of Gold.

      There are tens of thousands of supernatural religious assertions on this planet. How do we determine which are true (if any) and which are false? You believe the supernatural assertions of one religion, your own, and deny the supernatural claims of all the others as superstitions. Why? Why are your superstitions believable and those of other religions are not?

      Delete
    16. //"The world is not entirely black and white..."//

      But *objective* truth IS. Of course all of our decisions, etc, are not always black and white. Certainly, I am not arguing that...

      //"I choose not to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus not because I know as fact..."//

      So...then why are you so militantly opposed to Christianity? Makes no sense, my friend.

      Delete
    17. I am opposed to superstition. All superstitions.

      I have no issue with liberal Christians who believe that Jesus was a good man and that we should follow his humanistic teachings. It is when people start asserting that superstitions are facts, and that "my superstitions are the one and only truth", that I have a problem.

      Delete
    18. So, in other words, you're opposed to anyone claiming to know truth. Unless of course they know that they can't know truth, like you. :P Then it's OK.

      Delete
    19. Andrew, you continue to appeal to your worldview that I cannot hold to any position unless I first agree that the Christian god exists and has created the unchanging laws of nature and morality.

      In logic, this is called "Begging the Question".

      Your worldview is predicated on the existence of your god, not just a god, a Creator, but THE Christian god. You must first prove that your Christian god exists, and even more, that he is the Creator for your worldview to have any validity and for you to be able to question mine.

      For instance, it is possible, isn't it, that there is a Creator God who created the unchanging laws of nature but is NOT just, merciful, and righteous. This Creator God enjoys watching animals and humans suffer and die. He is a sadist. This worldview is perfectly compatible and I would say even more compatible with the state of the world today than your worldview of a just, loving, merciful Yahweh/Jesus Creator God.

      Your worldview has no merit without proving that the Creator of the laws of nature and science are the Christian god, and by doing that you must prove that your god rose from the dead. You cannot beg the question and debate rationally.

      Delete
  37. The point is, you are going to look at the resurrection and rule it out a priori. And I am not.

    ***The evidence does not matter. We will interpret ALL available evidence differently.

    ReplyDelete