This is my response to MC’s three blogs: here, here and here. Regarding Jesus, generally you have three sources (excluding spurious books written centuries later): The historical teachings of the church, the bible, and extra-biblical historical accounts. I take from what you said that you discount the church because it twists things so as to manipulate itself into power, you discount the bible because if it is errant in some things then it is hard to trust it in crazy things like the virgin birth, and you find no evidence from extra-biblical accounts which have next to no mention of Jesus and certainly no verification of something like the resurrection. My response to that is that, yes, the church has historically twisted many things to give itself power, yes, the bible has flaws of translation and great uncertainty in what the original manuscripts even said, and, finally, extra-biblical accounts will never prove one way or the other much of anything about the life of Christ.
As a friend said, the number one thing that atheists attack about modern Christianity is the dependence on the inerrancy of the bible. And while they can’t prove much of anything against Jesus just as Christians can’t for him, an atheist can easily prove that the bible isn’t perfect. So I find it interesting that modern (specifically Western) Christianity has built itself up so much on a pedestal of logic: Books like The Case for Christ try to logically present the resurrection of Christ as irrefutable (when it must be founded on faith, not logic), the evangelical church has tried to present any belief in evolution as an attack upon Christianity and staked its future inseparably with the total inerrancy of scripture, and in the modern church “Faith” has become synonymous not with life changing trust but rather with knowledge. I would argue that this “Pedestal of Logic” as I called it is really just a straw man built by the church that the modern secularists are having a heyday destroying.
I attempted to answer in my last comment on MCs post why I believe what I believe- I made a mistake in my approach because I tried to simultaneously make it independent of logic while also cognitively explaining something as mystical as faith. So it turned out falling greatly short of anything spiritual or logical. What I alluded to at the beginning, however, is what I should have kept to- that God has revealed himself to me in mysterious, personal ways both minute and miraculous and that those revelations cannot be explained by the faiths of other religions. Each of those revelations were framed specifically within the context of faith in Christ. Not in a knowledge of who he is, but in a faith in the eternal, omni-present spirit of God. Not only is that the truth of why I believe what I believe, but it also is independent of logical construction (Do I abandon logic? Of course not, but I certainly don’t use it as the basis of my faith.)- and I think that is the way it should be: the church and the bible are not external proofs of Christianity but rather tools for the Christian to grow closer to the Lord. And when either the Bible or the Church is presented in a way that imposes itself on the non-believer, the message that it is supposed to convey (one of hope, faith, and mystery) becomes secondary.
MC asked “Can you believe in God and not believe in religion.” And I think the answer is a resounding “Yes!” God is all powerful, mysterious, and beyond our comprehension but he chose to relate to us in the person of Christ and chooses to reveal himself to us in ways that we can understand every day. In contrast, religion is a construct of man and is prone to every sickness that man possesses (For this very reason, the Orthodox Church avoids the Roman Catholic model of complete dependence on one man just as much as the Protestant model of dependence on individual charisma: “He’s such a great preacher” or “That worship band is so talented”). I don’t place my faith in religion, I place it in Christ; but I choose to seek the Lord within the Church (and that trust does not come easy for me) because I see in the Church the sacramental tools by which to draw near to Him. So often evangelical churches focus on a “Profession of Faith”, by which a person makes a statement claiming to align themselves with faith in Christ, which amounts to taking the name of “Christian”, and at times the name of the church itself, often without any “life confession” or change of living. The reason I bring this up is that the focus becomes on this title or affiliation (“Religion”) rather than on the life (“Spirituality”). From my readings of the Bible, I see where it says people will live in the name of Christ (Mat
I certainly won’t go so far as to say that sincerity is what is most important and I will never deny that Christ is the only way to the Father, but that still begs the question of what is the way to Christ- and I am certain that the country Baptist church with “Turn or Burn” on the sign isn’t the only way.
3 comments:
Justin, read Van Til. Your argument will have more cogency and will be more consistent with the Bible's own line of reasoning. I wonder whether or not you have an answer to the question of the way to Christ. That question was answered thousands of years ago, by the apostles, by the whole contours of the covenant, from OT to NT. By both East and West, but it seems the East has lost its way a bit as of late. The orthodox faith has an answer and it comes from Scripture. Christ must call us, he does through the powerful work of his Spirit and he does so solely upon the act of his free will. Christ said "I am the way.' Christ said believe in me and you will have eternal life. He said repent for the kingdom of God is at hand. The way to Christ, is in his very taking on of flesh and blood. Christ has made the way, and he proclaims that his way is the ONLY way. To suggeset more than one is heterodoxy. (That is unless you nuance yourself very clearly).
Concerning you view faith and logic I am shamed. God is Creator correct? Has God built a system so flawed, and out of control that logic no longer reflects the beauty and grandor of it's very Creator. You appeal to faith as contrary to logic, yet without the laws logic there this but caos. No the laws of logic do not prove Christ, but they prove that faith is legitimated in the divine, for God himself created. The preconditions of inteligibility (sp?) declare the glory of God. No they do not preach the cross, but would you bypass God's character on the road to calvary? You have lost it all then, for the cross then loses its context.
In all of your meanderings you have set up comparisons of either/or and not both/and. Faith and logic. You praise faith, yet you are imbarrassed to proclaim the perfection of Scripture. You embarrass me. Does God not rule sovereignly over the affairs of men? Is he not powerful enough to preserve his Word to man? Develop a good doctrine of God. I emplore you. Develop an orthodox system of Biblical inerrancy I implore you lest your belief be tested to the point of recanting the distinctives that make Christianity so glorious. Why do you feel it necessary to apologize for the church's absolute stand on what is right and what is wrong? Yes the church has committed horrible acts, but it is equally horendous to turn your back on the church and forsake her glory. She is to be perfected and sanctified as Christ's bride. The Psalmist says that the Lord loves the gates of Zion. Do you love the church? I wonder... Would you fight to preserve her dignity, or do you spend your time undermining along with the unbeliever her uniqueness, her integrity and her resonsibility to be God's mouthpiece on this world. Without the church, there is no salvation, for the great commission, the very means of God's blessing being poured out on all flesh, is given the the apostles, those great church-men.
Your comments are a dime a dozen. i.e. Christian's quietly abandoning the logical integrity of the faith, for the sake of faith. Faith is logical. A simply/logical "if/then" formula will prove it.
Without faith (if), it is impossible to please God (then). You cannot even speak of faith without using logic. Logic does not save, no it cannot, it is not gospel, but it allows the gospel to make sense. Do not abandon logic so quickly, for language itself finds common grounds with it. Then you will have way to write this blog.
I appreciate your comments concerning the inadequacy of certain things to prove Christ, for many things are. Paul the Apostle wrote salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Yet faith also means knowledge. Can one really believe without knowing. You speak of faith as some mystical power that is separated from cold hard facts. And we find that these facts are neithe cold nor hard for the one to whom faith is given.
Again you have some good points, but very limited and poorly argued. In short your brand of Christianity is nothing more than what I can get from Oprah Winfrey. Congrats. You are truly the ideal post-modern Christian. You shuck orthodoxy for what you call faith. Try to be more balanced and I think you will find it a better place. Try to use your faith for bolstering your confidence in the inerrancy of Scriptute, in the Sovereignty of God, and in the singular manner of Christ as our salvation, and men like MC will not a friend in their skepticism, but an enemy who ultimately cares more for their sole, than even they may realize.
Preach Christ and him crucified, just dont abadon the faith for the sake of your faith.
In response to your first paragraph, I think you are jumping to conclusions about what I am saying without reading precisely what I have said- but that is probably because I write this in an intentionally provocative manner. What I said was “I will never deny that Christ is the only way to the Father, but that still begs the question of what is the way to Christ.”- Throughout the post I was hitting on the “Way” as more of an issue of life and passionate pursuit of Christ and not the titles. I was insinuating the potential that the way to Christ, or life leading to Christ, is not one that requires Christian titles or affiliations- that’s certainly not to say that going at it alone is the approach to take as that destroys the richness of the community of the church, and I believe that the Church is the living means by which we approach the Lord. In this way, I think I am agreeing with you when you said “The way to Christ, is in his very taking on of flesh and blood” because in that we take on his nature. My point was also a warning (to myself as well) of the arrogance of assuming that a title or affiliation makes one more in line with Christ than someone who bears none of those.
Regarding faith and logic, I think I again may have spoken unclearly on what I was criticizing: I certainly do not despise logic or I would not be constructing arguments in a forum such as this. But I highly object to making logic the basis for Christianity and then calling that logic or opinion “Faith.” I think there is a balance and faith trumps logic. A non-logical mind can embrace faith (my down syndrome uncle for example) but without faith one cannot embrace Christ (I have hit on this more in previous posts). You seem to imply that human logic is the definitive measure of truth and order- to which I strongly disagree. The “logic” of God is beyond all human understanding and the fact that we cannot fully understand the essence of God is a testament to faith not the destruction thereof. I certainly would not “bypass God’s character on the road to Calvary” for I do not believe that God’s character is defined by the mind of man nor man’s logical understanding of the universe. I think our main point of difference is that you feel that man’s logic transcends both the universe and the mind of God, while I believe that the essence of God transcends both man’s logic and the universe. It’s all about the reference point.
I am not embarrassed to proclaim the perfection of Scripture (because I don’t hold that belief, or at least not in the sense that you do), I just disagree that scripture (along with logic) is the foundation of Christian faith. The church thrived before those in the church could read and before scripture was prevalent and if all copies of the Bible were destroyed, the church would continue to thrive. God is both “Powerful enough to preserve his Word to man” and to keep all men from sinning- that doesn’t mean that he has done either in the strict sense that you are implying. I cherish scripture as a pearl of Christianity which teaches great things about Faith and the life of Christ, but I will never attempt to defend the “every jot and tiddle” literalist inerrancy approach because it is a worthless endeavor- There are passages in scripture that weren’t included in the original texts, passages that have been modified, and sinful wrath of the authors portrayed; but that in no way destroys the Christological truth of scripture which remains. I’m not sure where you were going with your diatribe on the horrors of turning your back on the church (I surely have not done so, but am more than willing to critique it just as I am in need of critique) so I am not going to defend my love and need for the Church.
I think your paragraph on how a simple if/then formula proves faith makes my argument for me. You said that someone who has skepticism should not be regarded as a friend but as an enemy. I would challenge you to think a little harder on that and see if you truly mean it. Faith in Christ should be a confidence and passion carried with humility, but unfortunately the Christians in this nation are represented most by those who carry their brand of logic-based faith as a club to beat over the heads of those who disagree, only to see that same stick of logic come back to beat them as has been seen all over western Europe.
I know you signed it anonymous, but I would be curious to know who this is and where you are coming from if you wanted to say so in an email.
With all the friendly skepticism I can muster, intended. My reply to this exchange can be found back on my blog here.
Post a Comment