Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Can Your Christianity Be Disproven?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can Your Christianity Be Disproven?

    What if your faith is more fideism?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Are you open to the possibility of being wrong? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Let me state it right at the start. I am not doubting Christianity. I am not writing from a position of doubt. I am convinced that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead. Despite that, I should always be open to being wrong. This hit home again for me reading Zondervan's*Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy.*

    Al Mohler has the first chapter and in it, he pretty much equates inerrancy with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or CSBI. For Mohler, it seems difficult to imagine inerrancy that does not conform to this statement and if Jesus and Paul or anyone else is an inerrantist, then they would have signed on entirely with the CSBI. That is too much of an assumption I think to make, but a major problem came when I read his response to problem passages that Zondervan asked each person to write on.

    In the Kindle version at location 772, I read the following:

    Archaeologists will disagree among themselves. I am not an archaeologist, and I am not qualified to render any adequate archaeological argument. The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims. That statement may appear radical to some readers, but it is the only position that is fully true and trustworthy. Any theological or hermeneutical method that allows extrabiblical sources of knowledge to nullify the truthfulness of any biblical text assumes, a priori, that the Bible is something less than the oracular Word of God.
    Well, yes. This position is very radical. Naturally, if the Bible is inerrant and is true in all it claims and teaches, then if it says X, then X is true. Yet at the same time, if God is the God of reality and has written two books as it were with nature and Scripture, then we should expect that nothing outside of Scripture will contradict Scripture.*

    The problem is that this is the very claim under question. How do we know the Bible is inerrant? Do we start with that as a presupposition or do we reach it as a conclusion? If we say the former, why do this with the Bible and not the Koran or the Book of Mormon?*

    Let's picture Al Mohler in a discussion with a Mormon. This Mormon holds to the position on the Book of Mormon that Mohler holds to on the Bible. Mohler goes and points out many archaeological difficulties with the Book of Mormon. The Mormon does not change his position. Why? Because he says he won't allow any line of evidence from outside the Book of Mormon to conflict with the Book of Mormon.*

    Now Mohler goes to a Muslim. The Muslim is convinced that the Koran says that Jesus did not get crucified or die on a cross. Mohler goes to several lines of evidence to show that Jesus was crucified, but the Muslim is unconvinced. After all, no line of evidence outside of the Koran is allowed to contradict the Koran.

    Are the Muslim and Mormon being unreasonable here? Yep. The sad thing is, so is Mohler. What is being said is a way of saying the double-theory of truth is true. By this, something could be true in the world outside of the Bible and something else contradictory true in the Bible. May it never be!

    This is also one reason why I don't say something like "Show me the bones of Jesus and I'll abandon Christianity." If we were to hypothetically say that Jesus never rose from the dead, it seems strange to think that not only would His bones be here, but that we could tell they were His bones. I instead ask people to give me a better explanation for the rise of the early church than the one that the church itself gave that explains the data agreed to by critical scholars.

    If we want to evangelize people, it is disingenuous for us to tell them that they must be ready to abandon their worldview and accept ours upon conflicting evidence, but we are not doing the same. Some might think that that is a risk. It is only a risk if you think that Christianity could be false. If you are convinced you are right, it is not a risk. Even if you turned out to be wrong, you should be thankful. After all, who wants to believe something that is false?

    I cannot go with the position of Mohler. I am convinced it is a blind faith and it makes inerrancy the central doctrine when the resurrection is. I believe in the Bible because I believe in the resurrection. I do not believe in the resurrection because I believe in the Bible.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    Of course it can be disproven. If God came down here and told me he didn't exist then I would stop believing in him.

    Comment


    • #3
      His position doesn't sound much different from Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica.

      First Part, Question 1, Article 6, Reply to Objection 2: The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:4,5).

      Second Part of the Second Part, Question 110, Article 3, Reply to Objection 1: It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."

      Comment


      • #4
        Well there are two reasons I remain a professing Christian. Setting those two reasons aside. The refutation of Christianity consists of two things. Superstition and wishful thinking.

        Superstition. The God question. Can traditional theism show that it is impossible for there not to be any God? Why should simple arithmetic need God to be true? 1 + 1 = 2.

        Wishful thinking. That the dead some day will come back from the dead. Etc. The fact of the human need for hope is how we have evolved.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          . . . Well, yes. This position is very radical. Naturally, if the Bible is inerrant and is true in all it claims and teaches, then if it says X, then X is true. Yet at the same time, if God is the God of reality and has written two books as it were with nature and Scripture, then we should expect that nothing outside of Scripture will contradict Scripture.*
          I agree that the same God is creator of all. But while I am convinced that nothing outside Scripture will contradict Scripture, I is needful that facts outside Scripture can influence how we interpret.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            His position doesn't sound much different from Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica.

            First Part, Question 1, Article 6, Reply to Objection 2: The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:4,5).

            Second Part of the Second Part, Question 110, Article 3, Reply to Objection 1: It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."
            For the first part, Aquinas also said this.

            “The suppositions that these men [Ptolemaic astronomers] have invented need not necessarily be true: for perhaps, while they save the appearances under these suppositions, they might not be true . For maybe the phenomena of the stars can be explained by some other schema not yet discovered by men” This is in book 2 and lecture 7 of his commentary on Aristotle's "On The Heavens." Aquinas was likely a holder of geocentrism, but didn't marry his interpretation to the text. If he did at any point, then I think this is just wrong on his part.

            For the second, if Scripture is inerrant, and I think it is, this is true, but we should not hold to inerrancy in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think a far bigger issue is how the objective truth affects each of our lives subjectively. People look for evidence and that is awesome. People look at the moral existential historical and theological issues and at hand and must come at some point to a decision. Belief or unbelief both take a leap of faith. Faith is not blind as evidence and loyalty are key to the word , but we as human beings can not fully grasp God in all of his glory.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                No one has responded to the OP. I believe the reasoning is correct. Inerrancy is a classic example of special pleading.

                My concern is that it's based on a lack of trust of Scripture. I find people who believe in inerrancy commonly assume that if we apply normal criteria to Scripture, not enough will survive to support Christianity. I don't think that's true. But if we apply normal criteria, we will certainly conclude that Scripture is less than perfectly accurate as history. That is, of course, why inerrancy exists.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That there are errors in the Bible can easily be demonstrated to the "beyond all reasonable doubt" level. None of them can be demonstrated to the extent of being absolutely, wholly beyond any possible doubt proven to exist: very little can be.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Didn't some one a long time ago say that the survival of the early church would determine if it were really from God or not?

                    Gamaliel’s Counsel

                    33 But when they heard this, they were cut [t]to the quick and intended to kill them. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. [u]But he was killed, and all who [v]followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who [w]followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or [x]action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” Acts 5:33-39
                    Well, nearly 2,000 years later, so...
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                      Didn't some one a long time ago say that the survival of the early church would determine if it were really from God or not?



                      Well, nearly 2,000 years later, so...
                      Very good point CBW!
                      3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures --1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (borrowed with gratitude from 37818's sig)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LostSheep View Post
                        Very good point CBW!
                        I wonder if Gamaliel ever became a Christian?
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          I wonder if Gamaliel ever became a Christian?
                          Some people think so.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The OP evokes quite a few thoughts. I'm afraid I don't currently have the patience or motivation to try to weave them into a thoroughly coordinated whole, but I'll try to not be *too* disorganized.

                            On the CSBI -- In reading Amazon reviews, one gets the impression that this was the particular version of "inerrancy" that the book was to address. If so, it was appropriate for Mohler to "equate" the whole concept of inerrancy with the CSBI. However, the information Zondervan itself provides about the book makes no mention of this.

                            The CSBI probably *is* the most common detailed definition and exposition of "inerrancy," but in specific discussions of the topic, it is worth noting which version is under discussion, and at least briefly addressing others.

                            My views on the Chicago Statements: There are, in case any are unaware, three of them -- Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Application. IIRC, the authors specifically aver that they are not to be viewed as formal, binding "creeds." And yet, in practice (at least in my experience), many who hold to them do seem to attach that sort of weight to them. Further, there is (IMO) a tendency to treat the "authors' exposition" that accompanies some editions of the CSBI as "part of" the CSBI text itself, and to treat the later successive Statements as logically (and therefore necessarily) derivable from the former. And then (once again, in my experience) that whole package tends to be used to define "evangelical" approaches to Scripture. I think that is unhelpfully exclusionary.

                            My view on inerrancy: I'm ok with the "inerrantist" label. I'm ok with the CSBI, as I interpret and understand it. I'm somewhat less ok with the subsequent Statements. I also think "inerrancy" is of limited practical value. Left undefined, one readily takes it to mean, "No errors of any kind, at all." This is prima facie not the case, which is one reason we need elaborate things like the CSBI. The CSBI (and various other versions) limit "inerrancy" to the original manuscripts. They also -- either explicitly or implicitly -- assume inerrancy in the choice of the 66-book Protestant canon. They also -- either explicitly or implicitly -- do NOT ascribe inerrancy to preservation, transmission, or translation; and at the same time, they acknowledge that the originals no longer exist. So the only truly "inerrant" Scriptures vanished at least 1800 years ago.

                            As a bit of an excursus on this bit, I was recently looking at Witherington's "Socio-Rhetorical Commentary" on the Gospel of Mark. Witherington is one of my favorite authors. For such things as qualifying to teach at Asbury, he is happy to agree to their Statement of Faith (or whatever term they use) that includes "inerrancy." But for various reasons such as those I cited above, he doesn't generally jump to use that label for himself. In the commentary I was reading, he does not comment at all on anything after Mark 16:8. In the footnotes, he explains (and concurs with Metzger) that the well-known vv. 9-20 ending, and the few other lesser known endings that extend beyond v. 8, are later non-Marcan additions; but, again agreeing with Metzger, he believes v. 8 was NOT the INTENDED original ending, but that most likely the last "leaf" or column got torn away and lost. So very early on, part of the "inerrant" text was "lost," before it even had a chance to be copied.

                            Returning to the topic, I don't automatically have a problem believing the Bible, even when it conflicts with, e.g., "scientific facts." I believe, for instance, in a literal Adam and Eve. It doesn't matter to me that the "science" of genetics says the entire human race could not have descended from an original pair, especially in any reasonable time frame. "Fideism" isn't always bad; the Bible itself encourages it, at least at some points.

                            In terms of our faith in general, Scripture objectively teaches that subjective experience is a large (if not THE largest) part of it.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              I wonder if Gamaliel ever became a Christian?
                              He is - or was - listed as a Saint in the Roman Martyrology, with 32 OT worthies. FWIW.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              54 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X