Bryan at The Narrow has a nice short post about one of the many bible skeptics from history who, in his examination of the claims of Christianity, came to believe them. Greenleaf (1783-1853), a lawyer, ended up writing a book which has been reprinted, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.
What are these sorts of things supposed to prove exactly? Simon Greenleaf went from believing one thing to believing another. Fair enough. But his conversion isn't a model for the rest of us. Also, not being a Christian at the time Greenleaf was alive was a slightly different thing than not being a Christian today – although those of us who don't believe still face some mighty challenges in, for instance, the legal system.
But perhaps of most interest is this: are these articles posted, or discussed, to give Christians whose religion in America is suffering, hope? "Hey, a secular guy went Christian a hundred-plus years ago, so we can come back!" I mean, what's the point?
The point is that people like Greenleaf, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, etc. radically changed who they are by simply investigating the truth. They each set out to prove the falsehood of Christianity, but instead became followers of Christ.
That is why I am doing my series on the historical reliability of the NT because if Christianity is not true I don't want to follow it. But if it is true then I should follow it as closely as possible. Truth should be accepted and followed, no matter where it leads.
I absolutely agree with Aaron's last sentence. I would amend it to read, the search for Truth must be followed, no matter where it leads.
Yes, some skeptics and members of other religions converted to xianity. But others have left xianity for other religions or just plain agnostic skepticism. Plainly, Truth is an elusive thing, and xianity has no monopoly on it, but its pursuit is the most valuable mission of our lives.
I asked in a previous post, out of all the religions claiming they are the one to follow, what makes Christianity the one true religion? I think the thread died.
It is simple. Truth makes one thing true over another.
I don't claim that Christianity has a monopoly on truth. Truth exists in and of itself, if Christianity lines up with it (and I believe it does) then it should be followed. If it does not, then it should be disregarded in favor of something else that is closer to truth.
But we must be careful to seek after what is truth, not what is "true for me."
The question of "what makes Christianity the one true religion" is not some simple thing to solve or answer in comments. It encompasses many different realms of truth and many different pieces of evidence to support the claim.
Of course, the masterpiece on this topic is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Also for a more recent book Lee Strobel's The Case For series (Case for Christ, Case for Faith, Case for Creator) are good, as is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.
I have not read the book that started this discussion, but I have heard a lot about it so I assume it is good as well. But I know the three I mention deal with numerous topics in an interesting way.
One thing that seperates Christianity from every other religion is the founder. For starters we claim that Jesus is alive, no other major religion claims to have a founder who was resurrected. No other religion claims it because there is no evidence to support it, but Christianity has evidence to support it's claim of the resurrection.
Also, every major religion of the world focuses on doing enough good things to earn heaven/nirvana/completion/etc., but for Christianity I can't do enough good things to make it to God – He's perfect. Instead God came in the form of man, in Jesus, to provide the way for me. All I have to do is accept His free gift of salvation. I can't earn it. That is a big difference between Christianity and everything else.
Of course, people have converted *from* and *to* just about every combination of beliefs or lack of belief.
When intellectuals do it, though, we often value that as more impressive, since if people "smarter" than average are convinced, that says something.
So Bart Ehrman's deconversion after studying the scripture for decades is evidence against Christianity?
I also think the claim that McDowell and various others set out to disprove Christianity is a bit much, as their works are focused on apologetics and often do not deal with skeptical claims or even the arguements of most scholars. If they did intend to study the religion skeptically, few of those questions remain in their works.
I think what I like most about Christianity is that God says "Love thy neighbor." I can see the good and truth in a sentiment like this. There are other things about Christianity where I don't see truth at all. Heaven and Hell, for example. Like Greenleaf did, I am still exploring Christianity for answers. I respect C.S. Lewis a great deal so it gives me confidence.
Aaron, you said this in another thread…
It's easy to "live out of lock-step within the fundamentalist/evangelical movement." All I have to do is simply do whatever my human nature tells me to do. It is not difficult to go along with the secular culture.
No, no, no. The truth is secularists, at least this secularist, feel the opposite. Christian's can use their faith as a crutch to lean on, it will always be there for them. Not so for secularists. It's HARD to find the truth in secular culture. Watch "Ikiru" by Akira Kurosawa to know exactly what I am talking about. It's one of my favorite movies and it changed the way I view life. If you don't have a copy of the DVD I would be willing to buy you one. If you and Seeker watch this , I think you will come to a better understanding of what it's like on the other side of the fence, the secular side; so you don't make assumptions about secularism being easy again.
Cineaste, I haven't seen that movie, but I'm going to check it out now. Thanks for the recommendation (even if it wasn't to me specifically).
I agree with what you're saying, too. Seeker has effectively said (before) that he doesn't think a humanist can have any core beliefs, and that everything must be relative without God. That's simply not true. Lots of things are relative, but I don't believe ethics, for example, are one of them. I spend more time thinking about ethics than anyone I know personally, and while that doesn't say anything meaningful about how ethical I am, it does prove (to me at least) that there's nothing necessarily simple about life as an atheist.
I don't see that as a negative, either. It's reassuring to me that my inquiries are intentionally not based around any kind of revealed truth. A revealed truth can be, and probably will be, wrong. I prefer empirical truth where I can find it.
Ehrman is an intriguing case, as is Charles Templeton. I think their thoughts and objections should be investigated. They may indeed be "evidence" against Christianity.
I have no problem with evaluating both sides of the equation, one who has come to Christianity as a skeptic and one who has come to skepticism from Christianity.
The work of McDowell, Strobel, etc. are apologetic works, but in their personal life they came to the point of writing a defense for Christianity because they personally set out to disprove the faith and ended up believing in it.
All of their books were written post conversion. It is hard to have the same objections to a faith you have embraced as you did before you accepted it as Truth.
Cineaste, the doctrine of Heaven and Hell are not necessary for belief in Christianity. Jesus did not ask us to accept them, just Him. Now I do believe in both of them, but those come as a result of my initial belief in Jesus not prior to it.
The movie sounds interesting. I will try to find it the next time I am Blockbuster.
It may be difficult to find Truth in secular culture (I think there is reason for that), but what I meant by my comment was that the current culture's basic construct is to do whatever feels good or truth is only truth for the individual. Those are easy to follow behaviorally. I simply do whatever i want to do.
As a Christian I have to do many things that run contrary to my "gut reaction." Many things that "feel good" at the moment, I seek to avoid. That was the reasoning behind my comment, not to insinuate that it is easy to be a secularist. As a Christian, I would have to belief that nothing outside of Christianity is going to fulfill us completely and we will always be searching for something to fill the part of our life that only a personal relationship with God can fill.
Seeker has effectively said (before) that he doesn't think a humanist can have any core beliefs, and that everything must be relative without God. That's simply not true. Lots of things are relative, but I don't believe ethics, for example, are one of them.
I wasn't so effective if this is what you think I meant. What I have said is that if human opinion or humans themselves are the source of truth, then it will always be subjective – I mean, what makes your ethic or morals really true, if everything is subjective.
However, many thinking humanists don't see all morals or ethics as purely subjective.
If we find working principles of morals or ethics in a source outside of ourselves, such as God or nature, we can then appeal to objective, unchanging truths like "we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are *created* equal, and endowed by their *creator* (not man) with certain unalienable rights…"
Some things are objectively true, whether we like them or not. Some things are in the gray area, and are best left up to the individual conscience. That's what Romans 14 (and my essay on it) is all about.
…there's nothing necessarily simple about life as an atheist. I don't see that as a negative, either. It's reassuring to me that my inquiries are intentionally not based around any kind of revealed truth.
There's nothing simple about life, or about Christianity. Spiritual truth can be accessed in a simple manner, but also in a deep manner for those who want to grow. Christianity is not simplistic, but realistic in it's appraisal of reality.
The reason so many people see it as black and white are (1) many xians are not mature enough to be able to reason beyond simple black and white arguments, and (2) the reality of some black and white matters leads some to think that xianity teaches that all things are such, which it does not (hence the romans 14 essay).
Stewart, regarding empirical truth, you might like the following comment and linked post:
Dangers in the Search for Truth
"Cineaste, the doctrine of Heaven and Hell are not necessary for belief in Christianity. Jesus did not ask us to accept them, just Him. Now I do believe in both of them, but those come as a result of my initial belief in Jesus not prior to it."
While in a sense this is true, The propositions you need to believe in order to have a relationship with the real Jesus are limited, there is also a sense in which really embracing Christ is embracing everything that is true and rejecting everything false.
Jesus said "I am the truth." John calls Jesus the "logos" – a word that means word, but also logic, order, patern, and the world of ideas. Jesus also repeatedly connects relationship to God to believing and understanding not only himself, but his claims and ideas. He intertwines who he is with true propositions themselves. A good book on this is Gordon Clark's "Johannine Logos."
The implication of all of this is that any believing of any truth is a partial "yes" to God. Any rejection of any real truth is saying "no" to God. Because we are all human, we never say yes to God about every truth we come accross in mortal life. But the more truth we embrace, especially the truth about who Jesus is, the closer we get to God, the more we become really alive, the more we become truely ourselves, and the more we understand the rest of the world.
I think the idea of a day of judgment, and universal guilt are part of the basic tenets of faith – I mean, you could follow Jesus' teachings to be a good person, but that wouldn't necessarily make you a Christian. To believe in him mean you believe he died in your place, so that you could start a new life here and avoid the judgement for your sins in the next life – i.e. hell. That seems pretty basic.
I don't view the concept of a literal place called hell as a requirement for salvation. I never saw Jesus, Paul, Peter, or anyone else in the NT tell someone that they had to accept this doctrine in order to follow him – all I see is a grasping of our sin, recognition that Jesus died and was resurrected to pay for that sin and asking Him to forgive us and save us.
Now, I do think as drmcconnell said that the closer we get to the truth, the closer we get to God. And I do believe in a literal hell and a literal heaven, both of those are core principles to Christianity. I am just not sure if salvation requires a belief in them.
Again, I think there are very good explanations for the doctrine of hell, apart from the obvious that Scripture suppports it and Jesus talked about it as a real place. I am not advocating a position against it, I am only saying that they are part of the maturation process of a believer, something that can be learned and accepted after an initial acceptance of Jesus.
There are numerous things that I have learned as a Christian that I believe to be core and foundational now, that I had no concept of at the time of my salvation. Salvation does not require perfect knowledge of the truth, but merely the child like faith and for that I am grateful.
But what does Jesus' death mean if there is no judgement? What then are you believing in? If sin has no consequence, then why would you need to belive?
To merely escape it's power now, whether or not there is an afterlife?
I still think his death and resurrection make no sense if there is no judgement. What, then, are such people believing?
I don't disagree necessarily, Aaron, just playing theologian's advocate, as it were.
But what if the truth lies in the sentiment of the Christianity and not in accepting Jesus as a savior. These sentiments are what Jesus preached right? Don't Kill, Love your Neighbor, Forgiveness are the core of Christianity. If you live by the principles Jesus taught, why is that not enough? This exerpt from the Historia Calamitatum sums up my feelings…
…always seeking for rational and philosophical explanations, asking rather for reasons they could understand than for mere words, saying that it was futile to utter words which the intellect could not possibly follow, that nothing could be believed unless it could first be understood, and that it was absurd for any one to preach to others a thing which neither he himself nor those whom he sought to teach could comprehend. Our Lord Himself maintained this same thing when He said: "They are blind leaders of the blind" (Matthew, xv, 14).
In the Prologue of Sic et Non Peter Abelard quotes St. Augustine to convey this point…
For what use is a properness in speech that the intellect of the listener does not follow, since there is no reason for speaking at all if the listeners for whose understanding we are speaking, do not understand what we say? Whoever teaches, therefore, should avoid all words that do not teach." And again: "It is a noteworthy quality to love the truth in the words, not the words themselves. For what use is a golden key if it cannot unlock what we desire? And what is wrong with a wooden key, if it can unlock what we desire, when we wish nothing but to open what is closed?"
If you live by the principles Jesus taught, why is that not enough?
That is the essential question. But the question needs to be further defined. Enough for what? Happiness? Acceptance by God? Forgiveness?
The essential assertion of xianity is that all are guilty of sin, and because love demands justice, all will be judged. Then the question, how shall we then be saved?
Every religion may be characterized into one of many camps.
1. Hedonism, Humanism, etc. – There is no penalty in the afterlife for sin, so do what you want. (they may encourage a good life for the sake of others and one's self in this life)
2. Works-based Salvation – most religions teach that if your good deeds outweigh your bad, or if you work off your misdeeds through works of charity in this or many lifetimes, you will be saved from the penalty of sin.
3. Faith-based Salvation – what is unique about xianity is that it teaches that you can NOT expiate your guilt through good works, but rather, it is a free gift of God to anyone, so that no one can boast about being better than anyone else, and so that even the worst person has hope.
So to live by Jesus' teaching while thinking that will be "enough" is actually insulting to God – it's like trying to pay someone for love.
So what place do good works have in this system? Precisely this – while they are not required as the foundation of salvation, they are the EVIDENCE of salvation – they are the outworking of a changed heart which continues to improve, not to earn something, but to grow closer to the divine.
Seeker, right now I don't care about salvation because I don't even believe in Heaven or Hell, or Jesus as a savior. I am struggling first with the dilema I quoted above. I need to take that step first before we even touch on salvation. Can you respond to the quotes? They sum up what I am feeling so well.
I am not sure what essential questions or statements you are actually considering, but for me, the essential doctrine that converted me 20 years ago was this section of scripture below – God was love, and had a plan for my life, and accepting Christ into my heart was the first step.
Matthew 7:7-11
———————-
Keep on asking, and you will be given what you ask for. Keep on looking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened.
For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks.
You parents–if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?
Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not!
If you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.
I need to get Christ into my brain before I can accept him in my heart. That's what the quotes say.
…always seeking for rational and philosophical explanations, asking rather for reasons they could understand than for mere words, saying that it was futile to utter words which the intellect could not possibly follow, that nothing could be believed unless it could first be understood, and that it was absurd for any one to preach to others a thing which neither he himself nor those whom he sought to teach could comprehend. Our Lord Himself maintained this same thing when He said: "They are blind leaders of the blind" (Matthew, xv, 14).
In the Prologue of Sic et Non Peter Abelard quotes St. Augustine to convey this point…
For what use is a properness in speech that the intellect of the listener does not follow, since there is no reason for speaking at all if the listeners for whose understanding we are speaking, do not understand what we say? Whoever teaches, therefore, should avoid all words that do not teach." And again: "It is a noteworthy quality to love the truth in the words, not the words themselves. For what use is a golden key if it cannot unlock what we desire? And what is wrong with a wooden key, if it can unlock what we desire, when we wish nothing but to open what is closed?"
The part of Christianity that I can wrap my mind around is the sentiment, love thy neighbor, forgive, etc… I get stuck with Heaven and Hell, the Garden of Eden and a lot of other things that I have trouble making sense out of. I guess I need to learn how you got from the sentiments expressed in Matthew 7:7-11 to stuff like creationism.
P.S. sorry for the 1000 year old quotes, it was from a research paper I wrote :)
If you live by the principles Jesus taught, why is that not enough? Is this my wooden Key and perhaps the salvation you speak of, is the golden key?
You can read the well-developed xian philosophy of Francis Schaeffer, or the decently written apologetics of Lee Strobel.
However, some intellectual questions do not have satisfactory answers. Please re-read Dangers in the Search for Truth again, it may help. While the mind must be largely convinced, there is no such thing as absolute intellectual certainty in these matters. However, we can move beyond a reasonable doubt, and listen not only with our minds, but with our "hearts" if you will – that is, the truth meter that is part of our soul/spirit makeup – not infallible, but when combined with intellectual inquiry, can take us a lot farther down the road to informed faith.
One of the things which convinced me to return to xianity after an 8 year hiatus was the twin concepts of love and justice – that real love demands justice, but even more, real love substitutes one's self (i.e. that is what Jesus did) to free the guilty while not averting justice.
Forgiveness without payment is not real love, not for the victims.
Again, you must ask a fuller question. Good enough for WHAT? What are you trying to accomplish with your good works and Jesus-ethic?
Kindness, character, maybe a good life? You may accomplish these, although Jesus said if they hated me, they will also hate you if you follow me. If you love this world, or your family more than me, you can't follow me, he said.
If you just want a nice ethic, you'll have to be selective in which of his teachings you really follow. He taught about hell too. Will we shy away from that b/c we don't like it?
You can be a follower of the golden rule, or even the "greatest commandment", except that to love God means obeying his commandments, not just be nice. In fact, if you love justice and righteousness, you may not be that nice, but you will be good ;)
Seeker, to your "devil's advocate" stance. I agree that Jesus must be there to "save" us from something.
Paul said that if we have only this life then we are to be pited above all men (1 Cor. 15). My only thought was that some people believe in the concept of annialation (sp?).
I agree completely with your thoughts to Cineaste. Living what Jesus commanded us to do is good, but good enough for what is the key question.
We will have a fairly good life and should get along better with other people (possibly, he did say his followers would be hated because he was hated).
But we were created for more than a "good life" and good actions and good morals don't satisfy our soul's desire for a relationship with our Creator.
Good enough to be a good person. If there is a God he grants salvation to good people no matter what.
How can you love a word? You cannot love words. You cannot be in love with words. You can love another human being. That's perfection. -Bessy
The following quote is often attributed to Simon Greenleaf:
"According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."
Even more frequently, one finds the following paragraph (or something substantially similar) on web pages that discuss Simon Greenleaf:
"Greenleaf, … originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."
Can anyone point me to original sources to substantiate these? The former quote appears nowhere in his "Testimony of the Evangelists", so I'm at a loss as to where he might have written it. As for the second, some of Greenleaf's own statements in "Testimony of the Evangelists" seem to be at odds with the assertion that he began his endeavor as a skeptic, so I'm, well… skeptical. Is anybody aware of writings by Greenleaf himself, or his associates, or his students that speak to his initial skepticism? Thanks.
Hello Seeker. Thanks for that quote and the link. I agree that it's about the closest Greenleaf comes in "Testimony…" to the quote above. It's very odd that both of the paragraphs I included above appear almost verbatim on literally dozens of web pages, yet nobody cites the source. There is also a very common story about Greenleaf having been issued a challenge by his students regarding the trustworthiness of the gospels. Same scenario. Nobody seems to site a source.