December 18, 2007
-
the spiritual brain
Fellow Xangan Lance "FKIProfessor" posted a thorough review of the fascinating-sounding book "The Spiritual Brain". You can read his review here: http://www.xanga.com/FKIProfessor/632686621/the-spiritual-brain.html .
The book seems to be a good example of the growing number of non-Christian non-materialist scientists. I.e. they don't believe that we humans are just 'machines'; they believe there is a 'spiritual' aspect to us as well, but they do not believe in the Biblical portrayal of a personal God who created the world and who has related to us in the past, currently relates to us in some ways, and will be fully revealed to the whole world in glory at some point in the future. As an example, it's interesting to note that the Dalai Lama (top Tibetan Buddhist leader) was invited to give the keynote address to the 30000 scientists present at the "Neuroscience" conference in 2005, about spirituality and the brain.
One especially fascinating aspect of the book (from Lance's review; I haven't read it myself) is the discussion of the "God areas" of the brain. I.e., there is some experimentation investigating areas of the brain which reportedly when electrically stimulated can produce 'out of body' experiences, mystical experiences, etc. And the 'God gene' - the idea that some people are more susceptible than others to 'mystical experiences of God'.
I would actually not be surprised if there really is an area of the human brain which is closely tied to mystical experiences, or even genetic components which enhance the function of this area. But of course I don't think that that would rule out the existence of the human soul, any more than a team of researchers investigating a locked running car from underneath coming across a 'gas pedal rod' which revved the engine, could legitimately conclude that there was no longer any need to suppose that cars need 'drivers'.
And this research really underscores for me that my faith in God through Jesus Christ is NOT based on subjective experiences. I do not believe in Him (primarily) because I have "felt" God's presence (although I have) or experienced specific answers to prayer (although I have). Rather, my faith in Him is based primarily on the evidence from history, especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If He really rose, and the evidence indicates that He did, then the God He preached about is real, regardless of whether I "feel" Him today or not.
If you want to delve further, Glenn Miller's writings on this (e.g. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sh6end.html) are very interesting. He tends to be more 'subjectively oriented' than me about the basis for his faith, but he makes some interesting points (and certainly believes with me the 'objective' bases found in the historical record).
What is your faith in God based upon? What evidence for the reality of God do you have that you could not attribute to an "imaginary friend?" Or if you do not believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think about my reasons for believing in Him?
Comments (18)
Interesting post - I just came across this related article yesterday in Time:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html?cnn=yes
It really got me thinking, though I don't think I've fully worked through and can articulate my thoughts yet. But I don't think that the functional imaging will detract from faith at all, or will be able to "explain faith away" so to speak. If anything, it makes me see that belief in God does have a "rational" basis as well as a faith/spiritual basis. Perhaps this is starting to become more of a hot topic in scientific circles... it will be interesting to see what develops.
By the way, have you heard of or seen the trailers for the movie Expelled? I'd be interested to know what you think o that as well.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Kelly
Thanks for the plug. I just wanted to say that perhaps I didn't make it clear, but the idea of a "God spot" in the brain or a "God gene" in the DNA is pure bunk. Of course Dr Beauregard didn't quite say it like that, but that's what it all boils down to. Mystical/Spiritual experiences are like any other physical experience in that many parts of the brain are active during the experience. The patterns differ from experiencing natural phenomena, but the degree of reality to the experience is just as high as any external perception (natural reality).
I think that the case for the resurrection is a slam dunk. Unbelievers simply are ignorant of the case, don't know how to think, or have some prejudicial motive to reject it.
so not knowing "how to think" is what separates a person from God? Is that the same as not being smart?
I accept the historical documentary evidence for the resurrection as reasonable, though really rather scant. How comprehensive can evidence be about one person's life two thousand years ago? How can the Biblical account be independently verified?
What I do find compelling logically is the uniformity of belief through the ages, and the emphasis put by Scripture on the fact of the resurrection. This movement started with some leader named Jesus, he died, and then it exploded across the whole world in a few decades. Whatever happened between 30 AD and the earliest demonstrated Christian writings, it is evident that the people who wrote basically all believed that Christ was physically alive. Even to the point of denying any worth to the faith if Christ hadn't actually risen. So whatever happened inbetween, it must have been extraordinarily effective at convincing people Christ had risen, all in the span of less than a century.
I don't think you can really point to any one point of the case for Christ as absolutely conclusive. I think different things convince different people, and rightfully so. Is the person who believes because their Christian neighbor helps them any worse off than the evidentialist who is argued into belief based on historical evidence?
We all have at least some "prejudicial motives" involved in everything we do -- and those aren't necessarily all bad, it seems to me. The key is Christ and what we decide about him, for whatever reason.
Hey Kelly,
Yes, the "Expelled" movie sounds interesting and fun! (if a little biased..:)
Thanks for your thoughts and the Time link... I find the naturalists' position somewhat amusing, because it seems self-defeating (as Plantinga shows, e.g. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/Dennett.html). When a naturalist says "Look! I've shown that thoughts or beliefs (whether about God or about anything else) have a neural correlate (I agree) and thus are completely deterministic (I disagree, as per my car-and-driver analogy)," they have effectively stated that all thoughts (including their own) don't have any relevance at all to what the real world is actually like. Thus they don't have any reason to believe their own thoughts. (Plantinga explains it better.)
For us Christians though, we believe that God gave us the mental facilities to comprehend (to an "asymptotically" / arbitrarily-close level of accuracy, as we keep learning throughout our lives) the world we live in, and that He also gave us the mental facilities to interact with Him (in prayer, in worship, and some day face to face). This view solves so many difficulties. It explains moral responsibility, our own perception of ourselves (what some atheists call the "illusion of free will"), the existence of other minds/souls like our own, etc....
Hey Brian,
Thanks for your thoughts... (also thanks to everyone else)...
I agree with you that people come originally to Christ through different ways... indeed I came to Him through the teaching of my parents. But "when I became a man", when I decided to deeply examine what I believed and why, my rationale couldn't simply be "because my parents believed it."
On "uniformity of belief", couldn't the Hindus/Buddhists/etc claim something similar? I.e. despite the various flavors, there was a uniformity of belief for millenia that "God" is an impersonal force permeating the universe. Or for that matter the Catholics and Mormons both attack the true Church because of the multitude of 'splinter groups'... "Our group is united, therefore our beliefs are true / preserved by God".
You asked: "How can the Biblical account be independently verified?" And it turns out that "independence" is typically the tip of the iceberg when people ask that question, because the four gospel accounts themselves have some independence from each other, and from the accounts in the rest of the NT. What they often mean (as Spoonwood has asked on my xanga before) is: "Where do we have any accounts from a nonbeliever that corroborate the fact of the resurrection?" It's an interesting question, but it seems perilously close to being an oxymoronic question, as in "where do we have any accounts from a conspiracy theorist who disbelieves in the 1969 moon landing that corroborate that this landing actually occurred?" Well, if such a conspiracy theorist actually corroborated the landing, he wouldn't be a very good conspiracy theorist, would he?
On people who come to Christ because their neighbor helps them, great... but what about the people who come to the god of the Mormons because their Mormon neighbor helps them? Or to Allah of the Quran because of their Muslim neighbor? I think we would agree that the rationale for holding to one's belief must be much stronger than that.
Great points about the powerful changes that occurred in the first century group that later became called 'the Christian church', apparently due to some sort of resurrection appearances. (i.e., due to the Resurrection itself, in case it's unclear what I believe..
Brian and Tim, isn't faith always tested? And doesn't the faith of many fail them? Why is that? Isn't it because they haven't built their house on a foundation of rock, but on unsound sand?
How about this for spoonwood? Has any Ph.D. creationist validated the theory of evolution? You need to assert that spoonwood's requirement is oxymoronic, not merely "perilously close".
Brian, biblical epistemology about observed events is found in the Law of Moses as regards witnesses and the requirement that judges investigate their testimony thoroughly. Christ showed his reliance upon this epistemology when He named the apostles his "witnesses". Bad theology has shut the door on this truth and biblical evidence for the resurrection. This evidence is the rock of the Christian faith. If Paul is any example of how to evangelize, his use of reason as a tool of evangelism goes against the bulk of evangelical practice which eschews reason and appeals to emotion, tradition, and blind faith. In Acts, Paul is repeatedly found using "reason" with people -- in the marketplace, synagogue, or wherever. Contemporary evangelicals frequently appeal to the "empty tomb". However, you will not find that argument in the preaching of the apostles in Acts. They ALWAYS appealed to the evidence of eyewitnesses.
Yes, I'm contemptuous of most evangelical thinking and of most thinking in general. I have worked diligently to investigate how to know the truth about observed events for a couple of decades, so this is not a superficial case. I'm well aware of how witnesses can be mistaken, though I'm also aware of how a wise investigator can sift the baby from the bathwater when it comes to testimony. I know I'm on a sound foundation because this epistemology of testimony is found initially in the Law, but also throughout the New Testament (which you can find if you look for it).
The evangelical notion of "witnessing" is so far removed from New Testament thought that it's actually heretical because it masks the truth that only the apostles could truly be witnesses of Christ's resurrection. Christians today may proclaim Christ, but they can't testify to Christ's resurrection unless they have actuallyseen Him, heard His voice, touched Him etc. See I John 1:1-3.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Knowledge is critical to faith. Christ said that the Pharisees had hidden the key of knowledge. Luke 11:52 Evangelicals have done the same thing and are modern-day lawyers. They pervert the gospel and preach an anemic Christ.
i concur wholeheartedly that eye witnesses are key...
Paul tells us that the cornerstone of our faith is a single historical fact: Christ rose from the dead. This is an astounding assertion for two reasons -- one, because a man three days dead lives again! Two, because, unlike Buddhism and many other religions, it asserts that the key to understanding all of history can be found in a single event which at one time was externally verifiable. Since it was not after Christ had ascended, the eye witness testimony became key.
Thus, it is very important to examine the supposed eye witness accounts to see if they seem reliable. I see no other likely explanation for the gospels, assuming an early date of composition, except that those who wrote them, including the apostles, actually believed that Christ had risen.
Soccerdad, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the apostles (the 12, er, 11, right?)... 500 people saw Christ alive after he rose, so wouldn't they ALL be witnesses? And furthermore, if it's true that Christ lives in us and is with us "always, even to the end of the age," then isn't what each of us perceives to be Christ's work in us through the Holy Spirit also a real 'witness' to his continued life?
None of this is verifiable. You cannot verify that I am telling the truth accurately in my right mind when I say that God works in my life. Nor can anyone verify that the 12, or the 500, were telling the truth accurately in their right minds to scribes who got it right. But I think that maybe God puts each of us in places where -- to say it one way -- the most reasonable conclusion is faith in Christ.
Ultimately, the only 'universal knowledge' is in the mind of God, which is synonymous with 'truth' itself. My knowledge is 'Brian's contact with the truth/mind of God,' and so on for each of us. And I am content not having universal knowledge. I am content not verifying everything -- because make no mistake, verification is not contact with the truth, it is double checking. When we can reasonably verify, then lovely, let's do so. Let's encourage people to approach the mind of God as closely as we can -- to be more universal. But we are not universal. To believe the truth is enough, if we can't verify it.
Soccerdad, wasn't Paul a witness of the resurrected Christ? Didn't he emphasize his special revelations many times? And wouldn't the apostles appeal to whatever would be most convincing -- namely 500 people walking among the listeners who had seen Christ alive? The beginning of Acts was just moments removed from the event on which all history purportedly turns -- it wouldn't make any sense to 'reason' about it rather than repeating constantly, "he is alive, we have seen him! he is alive!"
And what do you mean by 'appealing to the empty tomb'? I always thought that was just an image taken from one of the eyewitnesses -- is there some special argument that falls under that label? 'Evangelicals' is a pretty broad label -- although often useful, it can obscure a more precise meaning. I agree that there is much confusion about what 'knowledge' is -- I grew up with a much more abstract sense of 'knowledge', and definitely not the idea that knowledge is really about hearing from someone who saw it. But what exactly do you mean when you say that evangelicals "pervert the gospel and preach an anemic Christ"?
Tim -- about naturalists and evidence, I admit that, amazingly to me, there are some. But it seems like they are a small minority, even among scientists. Skepticism and agnosticism far outstrip atheism these days -- and to them the issue isn't what our brains are doing and why... (who knows, right?) They are most frequently attacking the reasonableness of the texts -- the most serious critics today don't argue that Christ didn't rise because that would be impossible, they argue that Christ almost definitely didn't rise because it was all a mythologizing of Christ's life that rose up over a period of a century or more.
That, to me, seems to be the most pointed attack. What should our response be?
Excellent questions, mullet. Let's see if I can answer them.
mullet: "Soccerdad, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the apostles (the 12, er, 11, right?)... 500 people saw Christ alive after he rose, so wouldn't they ALL be witnesses?"
The point of Christ's appointment of the apostles is that they were appointed to the office of apostle because they were witnesses of Christ's entire time of ministry, from His baptism by John until His ascension into heaven. Certainly, the evidence for the resurrection is key to our faith; the evidence is strengthened because of the intimate familiarity that the Twelve had with Jesus' appearance, voice, manner of speaking, etc.
mullet: "then isn't what each of us perceives to be Christ's work in us through the Holy Spirit also a real 'witness' to his continued life?"
It's not admissible in a court of law, unlike the apostolic testimony. It's very subjective, however real it is. Hence, it's not something that is any kind of objective proof as opposed to testimony about historical events.
mullet: "Nor can anyone verify that the 12, or the 500, were telling the truth accurately in their right minds to scribes who got it right."
On the contrary, the apostles gave testimony in formal proceedings before several groups, including the Jews, the church, and the Samaritans. Their words were thoroughly tested in accordance with the mosaic ordinance, "Out of the mouth of two (or three) witnesses every word shall be confirmed" and "you shall test the witnesses thoroughly". The gospel accounts are to be viewed as the bench notes from those proceedings. The case for the resurrection of Christ is a slam-dunk, not merely the best guess. It takes a certain understanding of legal (mosaic) epistemology. Parents practice it frequently with their offspring to varying degrees. In the best cases, they question their children separately and carefully.
Furthermore, the church functions as a society that maintains knowledge so that it isn't lost--it keeps the scriptures by means of texts compiled from fragments, entire books, etc. and translates them. The translations (into Gothic, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.) help us validate the text.
mullet: "I am content not verifying everything -- because make no mistake, verification is not contact with the truth, it is double checking."
You state the evangelical error. Paul commended the Bereans for verifying; evangelicals receive no such commendation. Paul wrote to test everything; evangelicals don't care enough to verify. Their disobedience is a gross sin. For the Jews, the evidence of confirmed testimony was gospel; this was what Christ used to refute the Pharisees who disputed His identity as Christ. For the Jews, there was no truth apart from eyewitness verification; even the appearance of the new moon had to be verified by two witnesses. How much more when prophetic words were being tested for confirmation! The church once understood this, but it has been lost until I have re-discovered it. As importance as the eyewitness formula was for the Jews under the Old Covenant, it's importance has peaked under the New. It is repeated no less than three times in the mosaic law and five times in the New Testament. It is used perspicuously throughout the gospel accounts, Acts, the Pauline epistles, the Petrine epistles, and the Johannine epistles.
mullet: "Soccerdad, wasn't Paul a witness of the resurrected Christ?"
Yes, but only one v. one. Hence, he couldn't testify in the same way as the Twelve could. The miracles that the Lord performed through Paul were certainly convincing and there were plenty of witnesses to them.
mullet: "Ultimately, the only 'universal knowledge' is in the mind of God"
Unfortunately, we can't directly access it; it gets filtered (we get only what God chooses to reveal to us) and we are reliant primarily upon men for that. As all men are liars, anyone who claims to be a prophet must be tested, as the mosaic law directs.
mullet: "And what do you mean by 'appealing to the empty tomb'? is there some special argument that falls under that label?"
The use of the empty tomb falls under the category "forensic science" which is antithetical to mosaic epistemology. The angel's use of it was suggestive, not a proof. The confirmed eyewitness testimony before an examining tribunal is proof. The Jews were experts at examining eyewitness testimony--much more rigorous than lawyers today, Perry Mason excepted
. They found that the eyewitnesses against Christ were false. That is why they asked Him if He was the Son of God.
mullet: "I agree that there is much confusion about what 'knowledge' is -- I grew up with a much more abstract sense of 'knowledge', and definitely not the idea that knowledge is really about hearing from someone who saw it."
So why isn't the evangelical church trying to learn how the scriptures view knowledge? Why are there no studies of biblical epistemology? From my experience, evangelical pastors avoid serious study of epistemology like the plague. Are they perhaps influenced by seminarians who are taken by post-modernism or a desire to use post-modern arguments?
I recommend Coady's book--Testimony: a Philosophical Study. He examines non-controversial uses of testimony. I am focused on the controversial, high-risk uses of it--proof of Christ's resurrection, capital trials, and singular events in science.
mullet: "'Evangelicals' is a pretty broad label"
I know of no evangelicals who understand the gospel, from MacArthur to Grudem. I purchased MacArthur's study aid on I Corinthians today; he gets the pieces, but he obviously can't put the puzzle together. Grudem is influential, but follows the reformers' emphasis on justification by faith as the gospel.
Here's a blog with some quotes of evangelical leaders defining the gospel: http://obscenebeauty.blogspot.com/2007/04/so-what-is-good-news-then.html
Here's a blog from the gospel coalition conference: http://unashamedworkman.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/keller-on-the-gospel/
This blog http://williamdicks.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-gospel-what-is-foundation-to.html shows the typical reformer's error: "It is through faith in the complete work that Jesus did on the cross!" The gospel is not sola fide, though that is important, and certainly a reliance upon works will undermine faith in Christ. No, the gospel is the evidence/proof that Jesus is the Christ.
This blog quotes early theologians regarding the definition of the gospel: http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=463
This blog covers what DA Carson taught at a conference: http://bornoftheword.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-from-dr-carson.html
This has more: http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=798 Point 1 of 8 is close to the mark, but still off. Carson does an incredibly poor job of expositing I Corinthians 15:1-11.
mullet: "But what exactly do you mean when you say that evangelicals "pervert the gospel and preach an anemic Christ"?"
They leave out the proofs that Jesus is the Christ. You can't teach that in a 30 minute sermon. It's typically only done one on one.
mullet to Tim: "the most serious critics today don't argue that Christ didn't rise because that would be impossible, they argue that Christ almost definitely didn't rise because it was all a mythologizing of Christ's life that rose up over a period of a century or more."
If I may jump in here, the best response is derisive laughter at their abominable historiography and epistemology. There is no literary evidence of any such thing. All they have is their own mythologizing. On the contrary, the writings of the opponents of Christianity show that Christian doctrine was fixed very early, especially those of the Roman cynics.
The evidence for the resurrection of Christ is stronger than any evidence used to execute a man in a capital murder trial. Notice that we must clearly distinguish between just any testimony of eyewitnesses and confirmed, examined testimony. Certainly, witnesses may lie or be mistaken, so we can't just accept all testimony uncritically. The question then is, were the apostles examined by one or more tribunals? According to Acts, they were. In the Jewish context of the 1st century church, this would have been mandatory! They were witnesses, and in Jewish thinking, the Law of Moses said that witnesses had to be examined by a tribunal. Again, we find this kind of thinking concerning confirmed testimony all through the New Testament, from 1. Jesus' reply to John the Baptist to 2. His answer concerning His identity to the Pharisees to 3. Peter's defense before the Sanhedrin to 4. the Johannine epistemology in I John 1:1-3. The "growing mythology" idea of the skeptics is simply ridiculous if we consider it in the light of the actual New Testament literature. Of course, in the darkness of evangelical thinking, it seems perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, I got the Roman opponents wrong. It wasn't the cynics, but Celsus, Porphyry, and Lucian.
Thanks for the interesting continued discussion.
Brian, I agree with you that the most important debate today is on the legitimacy and accuracy of the biblical accounts.
When you say "verification is not contact with the truth" and speak of truth being inaccessible directly, I would slightly disagree, or speak of it in a different way. I think we humans CAN access truth directly, but we will never know the whole... instead, we can know it asymptotically... to greater and greater levels of precision the more we investigate a matter. So contra the postmoderns who say of a text, "You can never know what the author was saying," I disagree- I can know asymptotically what the author was saying, coming to more and more accurate understanding of what he meant as I study his other works, look at the context of his statement, etc. I can apprehend truth directly, just not completely / "100%".
Tom, I agree with your emphasis on knowing evidence for what one believes. I am surprised that you think that "the gospel" is so far removed from what McArthur etc are saying, and from the reformers' thesis, etc. Could you elaborate more on what you think the gospel is? Do you recall reading my questions/thoughts at http://www.xanga.com/tim223/579885744/item.html ? How would you agree or disagree?
Also, I am not sure I would say that "derisive laughter" is the best approach to answer a skeptic. In the end, perhaps, when God pronounces final judgement, though perhaps not even then. But at this point, my options seem to be: patiently answering the questions of a true seeker, or quietly turning away from a person who is rejecting what light is given. Not derisive laughter.
Tom, I think you might enjoy listening to this lecture by Tim Keller, "Preaching the gospel to believers and unbelievers" ( http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Keller_JRW_FA04Lectures.mp3 ). I won't say I agree with everything Keller says, but he makes some good points. I agree with you that we need to challenge ourselves and each other to ensure deep rational foundations for our beliefs - to make sure we are believing what is true and what is based on the evidence. However, I think that Brian is correct that many people originally come to Christ based on other things than "proofs", and we need to be ready to share Christ in many ways with all kinds of people...
Tim, I basically agree with the 'asymptotic knowledge' idea, although perhaps that portray too unambiguous a picture. Like, 99.9% is figured out, when maybe it's much less, or percentages are useless -- the point is, we, in some way, 'know' enough.
Tom, I'd like to carry on this discussion via email -- I'll send you a xanga message with mine, and some questions/thoughts in a few days.
My response is located on the page you referenced and it hasn't changed. Is it really so difficult to understand? For MacArthur, the gospel is to follow and obey Jesus. For me, it's the answer to the question, "Who is this man Jesus?" Those are very different ideas. For the reformers, the gospel is "salvation by grace". I'm not denying that those are important points, just that they are less important than the identity question. The identity question is 1st order and the other questions are 2nd order.
Derisive laughter is appropriate as a response to such puerile historiography as that evidenced by those advocating a "Christ-myth". Makes the nutty Jesus Seminar look positively rational. "Answer a fool as his folly deserves." When we laugh at them and refuse to dialogue with them, perhaps they will figure out that their position is so nutty that it is a waste of time to even speak to them. There are many atheists who consider them to be nutty; when we take them seriously, it makes us look foolish ourselves. If we are going to look like fools, it should be for Christ, not because we take foolishness seriously. There are plenty of serious arguments from atheists for us to take up without wasting time with kooks.
tim: "However, I think that Brian is correct that many people originally come to Christ based on other things than "proofs""
Certainly, but does their faith have deep roots so that they don't fall away? They need a solid foundation which only the gospel can provide--and that's the gospel which Paul defines in I Cor. 15:1-11! How few Americans hear it!
Tom,
Thanks for your response. I would say that the Bible places "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31) (salvation by faith alone) on the same "order" or level of importance as "faith without works is dead" (James 2) (true faith always involves repentance and produces change of life). The "intellectual content" of the gospel in the identity of Jesus is important ("How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" Rom. 10:14), but true saving faith must involve a decision of the will, to bow in obedience/submission to Jesus Christ as Lord ("You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19) It was not enough that the demons "knew" or "believed" that Jesus was the Son of God (e.g. Mark 1:24, Luke 4:41)... their problem was that they refused to bow in obedience to Him.
As far as I can understand the scriptures, the only thing necessary for salvation is faith in Christ (that He is Who He claimed to be)... but if this 'faith' is genuine, it will always produce works and life-change... Obedience does not save us, faith/belief in Christ does. But faith is not just intellectual assent, in the same way that a person who 'believes' that an acrobat has the capability to carry them safely across a tightrope but is afraid to actually try it, doesn't have true belief/faith.
On the Jesus Seminar, I agree with you that their arguments are not very convincing. However, I still don't think derisive laughter is the best answer. Let's say a college student comes up and asks me how I could still believe the Bible since the Jesus Seminar has proven it mostly mythological. I could respond with 'derisive laughter' and say "I don't even consider that question worth a response, because those JS guys are so nutty it would waste my time to delve into their arguments." But that would likely not help the college student - all he can see is that I haven't answered their claims, possibly because they're nutty, or possibly because I am unable to put together a convincing rebuttal. How would he know which is true?
Instead, I might reply, "Good question... are you familiar with the historical methodology of the Jesus Seminar?" I would then make sure he understood how they picked out various 'genuine' sayings of Jesus and pieced together various alleged 'source' documents by voting with colored beads, for which there is no manuscript evidence. Then when I was sure that he had a good grasp of their methodology, I would give him a short direct answer ("So when I look at the thousands of manuscripts and fragments of the four canonical gospels and I don't see even a single manuscript or fragment of this or that alleged 'lost sayings gospel', I am simply not convinced by the JS's claims that the Biblical account is inaccurate") or answer with a question ("So that's my understanding of the methodology of the Jesus Seminar. Have you heard any differently, or why do you think their findings are so important? What real-world archaeological evidence do they present for their views?")
Look for example at the way I've answered you. I disagree with some of the things you've said. But instead of responding with 'derisive laughter', I have taken the time to respond seriously to the points you've brought up. I think you should adopt this tack as well in your own discussions.
(There is such a thing as a "fool" described in Proverbs who does not deserve a detailed answer... but I think silence is a far better answer to a true fool than 'derisive laughter.')
tim: "but true saving faith must involve a decision of the will, to bow in obedience/submission to Jesus Christ as Lord "
The only act I see in scripture that results in salvation is calling on the name of the Lord. (Romans 10:13, Joel 2:32) Perhaps you know of a scripture that promises that if we bow our will to Christ we'll be saved.
You wrote, "but true saving faith must involve a decision of the will, to bow in obedience/submission to Jesus Christ as Lord" and "Obedience does not save us". How do you square these two things? It sounds like you are following John MacArthur. I think he's mistaken. His exegesis of I Cor. 15:1-11 is inconsistent and mistaken.
Tim: "their problem was that they refused to bow in obedience to Him."
The demons problem before was their decision to rebel. Their problem now is that they are not sons of Abraham. God does not help demons. Man alone can be saved. Like Luther, I have a problem with James. It's problematic for Pauline theology. I think the key is that true faith recognizes that we are totally dependent on God for everything; the gospel makes this clear. I don't see the gospel as merely "intellectual." It is epistemic, but it is powerful to change our minds in ways beyond intellectual assent. The scripture states, "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge", not "for lack of obedience". Faith follows knowledge (of the gospel); love follows faith; obedience follows love.
I think it's a waste of time to talk with people who are both arrogant and have an ignorant historiography. That's why I think that derisive laughter is the best approach. Perhaps they will wonder why someone is laughing at them and ask some intelligent questions. I've tried discussion, but it's a waste of time. If people want to talk about their historiography, that's different. I would probably make it clear that the historiography is puerile in my laughing.
Tim: "Look for example at the way I've answered you. I disagree with some of the things you've said. But instead of responding with 'derisive laughter', I have taken the time to respond seriously to the points you've brought up. I think you should adopt this tack as well in your own discussions."
Notice that I have done the same with you. However, you don't answer arrogantly and foolishly.
Comments are closed.