- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (1/4)
- Next Post »A La Carte (1/5)
Letters to Luke (II)
- 01/04/10
- 29
As you know, I've agreed to participate in a brief and public exchange of letters with Luke Muehlhauser who blogs at Common Sense Atheism. Here is where we've been so far:
Luke's First Letter to Me
My Reply to Luke
Luke's Second Letter to Me
Here now is my second reply.
*****
Dear Luke,
Thank you again for your letter of December 22. I apologize that it has taken me some time to reply. The holiday season and a nice little vacation stood in my way. So maybe I'm not really apologizing at all! It was great to travel, to spend time with friends and family, and to enjoy time away from the every day. But sooner or later we knew that real life would come along again. And that has given me opportunity to respond to your second letter.
Let me go back for one moment before I go forward. In your first letter you provided a list of "facts" (don't be offended by the quotation marks. I use them simply to indicate that you would consider them facts while I would not) about Christianity--about the person of Jesus, about the authorship of the Bible, and so on. I summarized what you were saying as follows: "All thinking people acknowledge that the foundations of the Christian faith are complete nonsense." In your second letter you came back to this. Let me explain myself just a little bit further. Part of me really wants to offer a point-by-point defense or refutation of each of these "facts," but instead let me say just this. If these things that you say are, indeed, true, I would be a fool to be a Christian. This is what I had attempted to communicate in my last letter.
The apostle Paul himself said that if it could be proven that Christ had not risen from the dead, his faith was utterly futile. Similarly, if what you say is true--if Christ was simply a failed apocalyptic prophet, if the Bible is indeed nothing more than the words of human beings who were not inspired by God, if Jesus and Paul taught completely different things, then we have so undermined the foundation of the faith that it would be foolishness to believe it and, more, to live according to its precepts. I am not an unthinking follower of a religion. I have carefully weighed and considered the evidence for the Christian faith. So of course I disagree with what you have portrayed as fact. I, like you, have done the research but, unlike you, have arrived at very different conclusions. Isn't it strange how that works?
All of this to say that if what you say is fact is, indeed, fact, I would be an atheist too.
A Christian
One thing I'd like to clarify here is what I mean when I say that I'm a Christian. I wish that this wasn't necessary but, unfortunately, it really is. There is no governing body over the name "Christian" (which is a good thing, I'm sure) so anyone can say, "I am a Christian" regardless of what he believes or does not believe. This leaves us with the strange fact that many people who believe very different things lay claim to the same name (like, for example, if people from Zimbabwe and people from the United States both laid claim to the title "American."). Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses diverge in absolutely fundamental ways and yet both claim to be Christian. So let me say what I mean when I claim to be a Christian. I hope this will provide useful clarity.
Fundamentally, I mean that I am a follower of Christ. I call myself by his name, placing myself under his authority and leadership. But more specifically, here is a brief outline of the beliefs of those who seek to faithfully follow Christ.
God is the Creator of all that is. He is utterly holy, having no sin or evil whatsoever. He is eternal, having always existed and existing forever. He created the world and all that is in it.
God exists in three persons. There are not three gods but one God who exists in three distinct persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As the crowning act of his creation, God created human beings. But these human beings chose to go their own way, committing an act of cosmic treason against their ruler. They turned their backs on him, indicating that they would rather be independent of him. That act put humans in a position of strife against God. All men now sin against God and in that way alienate themselves from him. God's holiness and God's justice mean that he cannot tolerate sin and hence, cannot tolerate sinners. Therefore sinners must be put away from him in a place of punishment--a place we know as hell.
But God is merciful and full of grace. He has provided a means by which we may escape the consequences of our sin. He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to be punished on behalf of sinful men. Christ, though he was God, lived a perfect life and was put to death, crucified on a Roman cross. As he hung on that cross, God punished him for sin in place of sinful human beings. Christ accepted this punishment willingly both out of loving obedience to his Father and out of loving compassion for human beings. Christ died but three days later came back to life, proving that he was, indeed, God.
God now offers forgiveness through the living Christ. Anyone can now receive the benefit of what Christ did, exchanging their sinfulness for Christ's holiness. Their sin will be counted against Christ and his holiness will be counted to them so that when God looks at sinful men he sees only the holiness of his Son. These people, with their renewed relationship with God, will spend eternity with him.
All God requires for us to receive this benefit is that we place our faith in Christ. This is both a believing about Christ and a believing in Christ--believing that he exists and believing that he stands as the one who mediates between sinful men and a holy God. And thus God calls all men to believe in Christ and to put their faith in him.
A time of judgment will come. At some point in the future Christ will return, bringing an end to this world and ushering in a new era where those who follow Christ will inhabit a recreated, perfected earth while those who have rejected him will receive the necessary and eternal punishment for their rebellion against him.
This is what I mean when I say I am a Christian and really, it's what I mean when I say that I am an evangelical. Those words are a kind of shorthand that encapsulates all of these beliefs.
Working Together
In your last letter you asked me to suggest what Christians and atheists could do together to make the world a better place. I find that quite a difficult question to answer. In many ways I think there is a lot we can each do to relieve suffering in this world (which is typically what we mean when we speak about making the world a better place). Christians and atheists alike can bring relief to the poor and healing to the sick. I have a tough time foreseeing any kind of meaningful organization that would deliberately bring Christians and atheists together for this purpose. But certainly as individuals there is much that can be done. And honestly, I think it has to be admitted that Christians are doing a better job of this than atheists. It is not lost on me that in the days after a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, countless Christians organizations immediately made great strides in disaster relief, both on the ground and in collecting resources. I heard little of the work of atheists.
Ultimately Christians seek to make the world a better place by living as Christians and by encouraging others to put their faith in Christ. Christians live with a view to the present and also a view to the future. This world is temporary. We are called by God to care for it and to care for the people who inhabit it, but ultimately we know that this world and this life is fleeting. So while we do and should seek to relieve suffering, ultimately our greatest concern is to help people to escape eternal suffering. Without downplaying the horrors of extreme poverty and starvation and all the other trials many in life deal with on a daily basis, we still regard these sufferings as fleeting when compared to the potential joy or sufferings to come. Hence I anticipate that there will always be some level of difficulty when Christians and atheists work together, for Christians will always have an eye to the soul and to the eternal.
A Question
Let me leave you with a question. I would be interested in hearing your take on the role and the acceptability of evangelism or proselytization. While Christians are known for their work and perhaps with their obsession in spreading their faith, in recent years atheists are making strides in this area. As it becomes increasingly socially acceptable to be an atheist, we find atheists interested in spreading what they believe (or do not believe). How do you feel about proselytizing? Should we both be free to proselytize or should we both just keep private what we believe (or again, what we do not believe)?
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (29)
Tim-Your early point about anyone can say 'I am a Christian' is an excellent one. However, I think using Jehovah's Witnesses as an example might not support your point well.
Off the top of my head, some of the teachings of JW's includes: denial of the trinity, and that they worship only God the Father (Jehovah). Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses. If I understand them correctly, they have a works-based salvation through God the Father - for them, there is no atoning work of Christ's death and victorious resurrection. I think they reject being labeled Christian - they consider themselves Witnesses of Jehovah. (Again, this is off the top of my head.)
@Tim Snider, I live near massive Jehovah's Witnesses building in Florida. The building is called: Christian Convention Center Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Hall. I don't know many of them (if I do they haven't told me they are), but judging from the building they would label themselves at some point to be Christian (though I agree with you and Tim that they are not), if not as a primary designation. Then again, you know what they say about judging a book by its cover, or in this case a building by its sign...
Your early point about anyone can say ‘I am a Christian’ is an excellent one. However, I think using Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example might not support your point well.
I'm not sure if that is the case or not. As far as I know, JW's consider themselves Christians. At the very least, they are typically considered a Christian religion.
In regard to the dialogue between the two Tims, I think Challies wisely stated his theology knowing it differs from JWs. Today, we have to explain when we call ourselves Christian.
Also, I always recall what God said through the apostle Paul in the book of Romans regarding so-called atheists: it's not that they just don't believe; more correctly, they STOPPED believing.(1: 18-20)
Tim Snyder,
"I think they reject being labeled Christian..." I speak from bitter experience when I say that JW's most definitely consider themselves Christian. I work with several biblically astute JW's, and the most offensive truth a true believer can put forth in such a dialogue, after extensive discussion of the Trinity and the nature of Christ, is that "You are not a Christian." I was labeled arrogant and a hypocrite, but am honored to be misunderstood like Christ in a minute way.
I thought most interesting was the "working together" part.
It's alway self congratulatory when we can join arms with those who are oppposed to us for a common good.
But how much do we have to sacrifice to 'get along.' An atheist has a completely opposite point of view - and in some things, we will simply not be able to cooperate
Davidwww.redletterbelievers.comRed Letter Believers.Salt and Light
So far, so good.
Alas... it's all downhill from here.
I would agree that while JW's do make a point, it's probably better to use someone "inside" Christianity who is not considered orthodox.
Luke's whole argument for being an atheist rests on his denial of the Bible's authenticity. He bases this on certain "Christian" scholars, what he calls "conservative scholars", that have called into question certain texts of the NT. What he does not realize is that this "higher criticism" only began in the 1800's, which are the foundations of today's liberal christians.
Maybe an accurate description of Christian orthodoxy and heterodoxy (or unorthodoxy) would help. NT Wright would not be regarded as orthodox in his New Perspective on Paul.
@Noah, Tim C., David T., busdriver, and Michael -
Thanks for all the responses and additional info. First and foremost, I did not intend to steer Mr. Challies dialog off course, therefore I apologize.
So much for writing 'off the top of my head.' Several respondents indicate JW's (italicize) consider (end italicize) themselves a Christian religion. I overstated my case when I wrote 'they would reject being labeled....' However, if they consider themselves Christian, it would truly represent cognitive dissonance at its most supreme. Being NAMED a Christian ought to involve AT A MINIMUM believing in the deity of Christ - which they, as a group, do not.
If you don't like the use of JW, Mormon might be better. My Mormon neighbor responded to me recently when I told him I was a Christian ( in response when he said he was Mormon) that he was too. He said he was christian first and mormon second. Then I said, "I believe that Jesus is the son of God'", he said "Me too".
What he didn't say was that he is the son of God just like Jesus. (They are trained in deceitfulness)
Keep up your good work Tim...
Tim:You said: 1. God’s holiness and God’s justice mean that he cannot tolerate sin and hence, cannot tolerate sinners. Therefore sinners must be put away from him in a place of punishment—a place we know as hell. But God is merciful and full of grace. He has provided a means by which we may escape the consequences of our sin. He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to be punished on behalf of sinful men.
2. God now offers forgiveness through the living Christ. Anyone can now receive the benefit of what Christ did, exchanging their sinfulness for Christ’s holiness.
3. All God requires for us to receive this benefit is that we place our faith in Christ.
This makes it sound like every sinner is equally the oject of God's love and He has made salvation possible for them through the death and resurrection of Christ. However, as a strong Calvinist you have failed to tell whole story and that does not help in this debate. More clarification is needed.
1) God has provided a means only for the elect to escape the consequence of their sin. Jesus came to die for "His sheep" - limited atonement!2) Only the elect chosen in eternity past are the objects of God's redemptive love - unconditional election.3) No man will believe in Christ unless God gives Him the faith to believe - irrisistable grace (sovereign regeneration). All others will remain dead in their sin.
Although I'm not privy to everything in Luke's heart and mind, it's seems possible to me that at least a significant portion of his objections to Christ and Christianity may have developed through a Bart Ehrman-esque process of moving from learning about alleged "contradictions" or problems with the Bible to outright rejection of Christianity and God. Now, if the things Luke alleged about Christ were true, I'd have no reason to remain a Christian. I simply don't believe the things Luke asserts as "facts" are in fact true. Nevertheless, it seems that from an experiential standpoint, such "everything I ever believed was wrong" stories often begin with faulty faith foundations.
Now, what I'm about to say may be controversial, and I certainly respect those who hold different views on the issue. Allow me first to affirm that I am a Reformed believer who is convinced of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. I also have a strong acquaintance with, and appreciation of, presuppositional apologetics and its commitment to Sola Scriptura.
Having said that, I'm afraid one of the unintended and often tragic consequences of much (certainly not all) evangelical teaching is its fundamentally Bibliocentric, rather than Christocentric, nature. In other words, we tend to make Scripture (and often, inerrancy) the center of our theology. In such a system, Christ is believed in on the basis of the inerrancy of Scripture, rather than vice versa.
Coupled with this is often a view of the Bible as a timeless "magic" book that dropped out of heaven in one fell swoop, bound in black leather with a ribbon marker, disconnected from any historical process of composition. Such a view is set up for trouble when confronted with issues of textual criticism, canon formation, etc. (none of which, by the way, are threatening to a commitment to Biblical authority and inerrancy). It takes a careful teacher to guide students, particularly young ones, through these issues. Too many young believers encounter graduate-level skepticism armed only with a Sunday School doctrine of Scripture (often a deficient one at that).
To a fundamentally Christocentric faith, these issues may be challenging, but are unlikely to be fatal to faith. On the other hand, if one's ultimate commitment is to the inerrancy of the Bible (or put differently, if one's ultimate commitment is to the Bible, by reason of its inerrancy), then such issues are more likely (though by no means certain) to lead to serious damages to faith, if not outright apostasy. Making inerrancy the center of one's theology tends to set up an unecessary anthithesis between "The Bible is inerrant (according to my standards of inerrancy)" and "Jesus is a complete fraud/God does not exist."
Bruce Metzger and his student Bart Ehrman make an interesting contrast here. Metzger was a fairly conservative believer who by all accounts loved Christ and revered His word, yet he wasn't an inerrantist. Ehrman began as a fundamentalist for whom an inerrant Bible was the linchpin of his faith; when his belief in inerrancy went out the window, so did his faith in Christ. Now I think Metzger would have been correct in holding to inerrancy, but nevertheless he walked with Christ faithfully till the day he died, while Ehrman became an agnostic.
I firmly believe the Bible to be God's authoritative, inerrant Word. But I believe this fundamentally because of Christ's person and claims about Scripture. William Lane Craig (an inerrantist) often counsels people struggling with the antithesis above that, if necessary, it's better to abandon belief in inerrancy than belief in Christ. He has an interesting take on the issue here:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5717
Just speculating, but I wonder if this issue could be related to Luke's story?
This is a fascinating series. I'm loving it! Especially since I, for one, grew up claiming the "Christian" name as an unsaved pseudo-Catholic, then chose to be indifferent toward God, pretty much denying his existence. Alas... a few years later, God saved me.
Anyway, I'm learning a ton already, from this exchange of letters. Namely, how to intelligibly and respectfully contend for the faith with my unbelieving friends. God has graciously confronted a few of them with truth; though others have sharply and defensively rejected it. Though we can exchange light banter, sometimes they can get all Hitchens/Dawkins on me, while I don't get any less heated or satiric.
I'm encouraged.
p.s. And to those who commented about Tim's JW comment...yes, JWs do consider themselves Christian. They always send new JW "disciples" to my neighborhood and office. I talk to them often.
Concerning the idea of Christians and Atheists working together:One of my friends relayed to me something Paul Washer said, a point we have well lost: The modern idea of the gospel when we come to a rich man is "You have all this stuff, but you only lack Jesus"; however, the real idea is "All this stuff is worthless and it can't save you, you need Jesus." I believe the same idea goes when working with the poor. Yes I think it is important for people to have shelter, and I agree that we often need to see someone is fed before we can share the gospel; however, all of that is nothing. All of it is "dung" to use Paul's word. Christ is what they need. Any kind of Christian-Atheist interaction would ignore this. (In fact, many 'Christian' missions ignore this fact.)Also, in an Atheist perspective one thing that would have to be considered is pride. A great deal of people who are poor will not change their lifestyle. Consider also the suburb of Dharavi in India: 500,000 people live in one square mile. The Government wanted to put them in highrise appartments, but they refuse to leave the community that their families had built. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/08/world/fg-dharavi8
Also, there is a great amount of gang violence on Indian Reservations, yet the land and the life they have they see as that which others owe them. I doubt a Christian-Atheistic organization could solve poverty without showing them a problem with how they are living and not adapting. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/us/14gangs.html?_r=6&hpw, they have little and fight for what little they have.
Also consider this article: "Athesist says Africa needs missionaries"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
I was humbled by and felt much compassion for Luke upon reading his first letter. My heart was still wont to come alongside of him and encourage him back from his wayward path after reading his second letter. In fact, I had been praying about and meditating over what my letter to him might say, in a spirit of love. Having walked a mile in his shoes, I felt I could relate to him
Then, I visited Luke's blog this evening, to see if he had posted a third letter. His overt mockery of Tim, a beloved brother in Christ, and Tim's like-minded readership (myself included) pained me, though it did not surprise me. His exploitation of women both grieved me and defiled me, as a woman; however, it is sadly common in these times. What offended me was the obvious revelry bound up in Luke's predictably cavalier and misguided attempt to provoke the male readers of Challies.com (my spiritual brethren) to sexual immorality. It was tantamount to him spitting in the face of my precious Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Even as the father of sin would drag others down to the pit of hell with him when he rebelled and fell from grace, so are all of his progeny inclined to do the same.
I do not know very much about Luke, much less whether he is a prodigal or an apostate. Yet it is certain that one day he will give an account to the One who knows his every thought and motive. He will either repent and suffer excruciating remorse for presuming upon the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, or he will be judged severely for his knowledge of the Truth and his informed and purposefully wicked actions. I pray it is the former and not the latter.
We must always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in us, but I will not engage with Luke on his blog or address him directly. I will instead appeal to God on his behalf. I will also pray that none would be enticed to sin out of weakness or morbid curiosity. We must always remember that our battle is a spiritual one, being waged by the Spirit of God on behalf of the Son who has already triumphed and is seated at the right hand of God the Father, our sovereign Lord.
If perhaps my response seems a bit overstated or harsh, I would simply say that sin is nothing to be trifled with; it is gravely serious. it is the very reason Christ suffered the cross and bore the wrath of God.
I have a tough time foreseeing any kind of meaningful organization that would deliberately bring Christians and atheists together for this purpose.
I think you are imagining some organization whose mission is based on an explicit reconciliation of atheist and christian belief. I found this to be a curious requirement. What about, say, The Red Cross, Amnesty International, the Humane Society, etc? Surely people of varying religious orientations can meaningfully contribute to the efforts of any of these organizations. That in itself expresses the unity in understanding between theists and non-theists, without needing some explicit mission statement about reconciliation over and above everything else.
And honestly, I think it has to be admitted that Christians are doing a better job of this than atheists. It is not lost on me that in the days after a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, countless Christians organizations immediately made great strides in disaster relief, both on the ground and in collecting resources. I heard little of the work of atheists.
This contention has been, I think, well refuted by research. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi summarizes one study:
The claim that atheists are somehow likely to be immoral or dishonest has long been disproven by systematic studies. In studies that looked at readiness to help or honesty, it was atheists that distinguished themselves, not the religious. Early in the twentieth century, a survey of 2,000 associates of the YMCA found that those identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics were more willing to help the poor than thosewho called themselves religious (Ross 1950).
Also, the two greatest philanthropists in the world, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates, are not religious.
Josef writes: "Also, the two greatest philanthropists in the world, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are not religious."
The superlative adjective 'greatest' in this case is a quantitative one. Accurately (and arbitrarily?) assessing the greatest philanthropist qualitatively would be much, much more difficult, yet much more meaningful. By all that, I mean one would need to at the very least look at: 1. percentage of total income or net worth given, 2. what amount of money they live on, 3, the targets of the gifts. 4. how much they publicize (or not) their giving.
Please do not misconstrue this statement. From what I can understand about the actitivies of the Gates/Buffett coalition, they are using their wealth in very positive ways largely. But, being quantitatively the greatest philanthropist and being non-religious is no big surprise to me, and a fairly meaningless observation.
In your last letter you asked me to suggest what Christians and atheists could do together to make the world a better place...I have a tough time foreseeing any kind of meaningful organization that would deliberately bring Christians and atheists together for this purpose.
Nowhere? Really?
For one, certainly I would think that both can work within the governmental system - all local communities basically function through volunteers - public works committees, library boards and the like. Many people sacrifice time so as to make their community better. Unless of course one should not serve as a public school board member as a christian.
For a second, there are many non profit groups that exist solely by the effort of volunteers - cancer groups, skating clubs, public beautification.
I would think that it is quite reasonable for believers and atheists to join together in those areas - and perhaps they even all ready do - the horror!
To Tom (#11):
Let me qualify my statement beforehand by stating that I am a committed five-pointer. I love TULIP because I believe it is the most God-exalting and Christ-honoring lens possible in our attempt at Bible study. However, I am a little curious - is it truly constructive to this debate between Tim and Luke to correct Tim for not spelling out the doctrines of grace? I personally would agree wholeheartedly with Tim's summation of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and I do not think he has endangered the Truth we hold so dear by not clearly delineating the U, L, and I of Calvinist beliefs.
Tim, I love the fact that you have taken such a weighty task on your shoulders. You are certainly a light to young evangelicals like myself.
I love this discussion. I've spent about two hours today going back and forth, reading comments, and thinking more about all this.
TR, your point about Christocentric vs. Bibliocentric is excellent. There were a few minor points in your comment that I'd modify slightly, but otherwise I like the direction you're taking with this. Our faith is based on the person of Christ. I appreciate your commitment to bringing up such a delicate issue.
Anthony, you're comment was fantastic as well: "'You have all this stuff, but you only lack Jesus;' however, the real idea is 'All this stuff is worthless and it can’t save you, you need Jesus.'” That really is a powerful lesson.
Tim Challies, thank you for continuing this conversation. It seems ridiculously difficult to carry aon this type of discussion, getting attacked from both sides. I appreciate your willingness to think through all these points and do your best. I hope I'm an encouragement to you.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
@ Tim Snider
But, being quantitatively the greatest philanthropist and being non-religious is no big surprise to me, and a fairly meaningless observation.
That's fair enough, since I don't know what would or wouldn't surprise you. But if I believed Christians were doing a "better job" at "[bringing] relief to the poor and healing to the sick," I would regard it as the most perfect example of scrooginess, should the world's two richest persons not contribute when it was in their power.
Of course, they cannot stand for atheists generally, but they can serve as readily identifiable touchstones illustrating what is at least the equal generosity of atheists. That in itself is a strike against the notion that they are less inclined to give.
I think this series of letters just goes to show that neither side is capable of arguing with the other. Tim will not consider a world where the bible is questioned, and Luke will not consider a world where it is valid. Any other communication is paralyzed by this difference.
Tim, none of your arguments make sense to someone who has little reason to believe that the bible is true. For example, starting out by asserting the truth of the biblical account of creation immediately invalidates anything leading from that, to someone who does not already accept the story.
Luke also makes this error. By immediately dismissing any truth found in scripture, he makes it impossible for a believer to listen to anything else he has to say.
Having seen in the past how these debates generally carry out, I must say I am once again disappointed but not surprised.
To TR (#12):
How else can we know Christ except through the Scripture? We cannot see Him, no can we relay on an experience or feeling of Him.
Anyone who has studied epistimology and revelation understands that Scripture is the linchpin. This is the errors of philosophers and theosophers; that they try and rely on the sense, feelings, experiences or rationalities to confirm for them what is true.
Tim, you say "And honestly, I think it has to be admitted that Christians are doing a better job of this than atheists."
I think this statement shows a deeply biased perspective here. The reason you hear less about atheists helping than Christians is because there are few explicitly atheist aid associations. Instead, atheists are involved through secular (and sometimes even Christian) organizations. When someone hears about Habitat for Humanity helping, they give points to the Christians. When they hear about the secular Architecture for Humanity, they do not give points to atheists even though many of the people involved are atheists.
It is like saying that: women's groups are fighting breast cancer and heart disease there no men's groups doing the same thing, therefore, men are not helping cure breast and prevent breast cancer and heart disease. However, this is clearly wrong because there are many mixed gender groups working toward these goals.
I thought about the Christocentric and Bibliocentric issue and I don't believe one should lean one way over the other.Yes it is Christ that saves, but it is the Bible that reveals who Christ is. They work hand in glove.Personally speaking, I can’t understand how someone can believe that the Bible isn’t inerrant and still be considered God’s Word. I believe that the very premises that the Bible isn’t inerrant, means that it is not God’s Word, or in the very least it might be God’s Word, but God wouldn’t be perfect.
Perhaps, my thoughts are flawed?
Michael,I agree that (virtually) all we know about Christ we know through the Bible (although even if we didn't have any of the NT records, the phenomenon of the rapid spread of Christianity and the writings of the church Fathers would at least tell us something, even if not authoritatively). I don't want to downplay that in any way. My point was more of a comment on logical priority in apologetics. It seems to me that, even bracketing the issue of inerrancy (which I hold to), a sufficient case can be made for the general reliability and trustworthiness of the Biblical testimony about Christ, such that even someone who didn't *previously* hold the Bible as inspired should come to view it as such on the basis of the teaching of Christ (which is amply attested as the view of both Christ and the apostles in the Gospels and Epistles). Hope that helps to clarify my position.
Tom,I agree - it's not either/or. It is hand in glove. I'm thinking more in terms of one's starting place in thinking through the issues, not whether or not each is in fact true. Scripture IS authoritative (and inerrant) because it's the Word of the authoritative (and inerrant) God. I agree that there's an inconsistency in affirming one without the other. My main point was about the order of logical priority. My take would be something like this:
Order of *Reasoning*:1) The New Testament is a reliable witness to the life, teaching and witness of Jesus and His early followers2) The New Testament powerfully presents Jesus as Lord and God3) As God, Jesus is all-knowing and all-truthful; He cannot lie or err4) Jesus affirmed the authority and inerrancy of the Old Testament, and promised that the Holy Spirit would similarly inspire his apostles in the New Testament5) Therefore, on the authority of Jesus, who is God, the Bible is authoritative and inerrant.
In the actual order of reality, however, there is no question that the two are inseparable. As God's Word, the Bible is every bit as authoritative as God Himself, though it's authority is derived from Him, and not vice versa.
Daniel Wallace has a nice summary of a similar take on this issue:http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
Sorry if this is taking things astray - I'm afraid this may be veering of the intent of the thread.
I've created my own series permalink for this series, which includes my responses to Luke's letters. I think they are helpful.
Luke / Challies Letter Series - an atheist talks to a Christian about working together
I don’t think we Christian’s (and by “Christian” I hold to what Tim wrote in this post) should miss a valuable point from apost8’s comments in post# 22. It makes a strong case (to me) for why Christian’s should consider brushing up on Presuppositional apologetics, or at least just understanding conflicts in other worldviews. I feel like much time is wasted when people of two different worldviews talk passed each other. Each side might be strengthened or encouraged by their own “side,” but is anyone’s view being truly challenged? There are foundational worldview differences being claimed.
I think, in general, we need to understand the point at which a non-believer objects – and that’s where we spend our time reasoning with him/her. We hold to the Bible as true and never step into a supposed “neutral ground.” Tim is doing a great job at that here.
But we might also, for hypothetical purposes, take on the other’s worldview and gently show them where it breaks down. No atheist can make a case for universal objective morality, for example, because there’s no universal morality-maker. So, what’s right and wrong would be relative to individuals or cultures. And, on that view, you can’t say that Hitler and his culture were “wrong” for killing Jews. You can’t say that slavery was wrong either. It was the majority rule at the time and it benefited the lifestyle of those in power. Further, those injustices actually make sense if you hold to macro evolution/ natural selection view. Only a theistic worldview can explain objective morality. And, ultimately, we Christian’s should become equipped to show that only a Christian worldview makes complete sense... I say that because, for the people that I talk to, no matter what they *claim* they believe, they actually do, in practice, believe in objective morality.
...I might be wrong, and perhaps not all of my thoughts are well worked out yet, but that’s my line of thinking right now...
Brian Current #28, thanks for the acknowledgment, I think you really nailed the point I was trying to make. It is quite difficult to find middle ground on which to have meaningful conversation in letters like these. Perhaps an apparent lack of agreement will be the first thing both parties will be able to agree on :-)
I would be quite interested, to continue your example, to see Luke address his point of view on the issue of how morality can exist outside of a Christian worldview. Since almost every modern person agrees that things like slavery and the holocaust were evil, there must be some uniting feature that allows non-Christians to have some morals consistent with scripture. Perhaps this could even explain how these morals became part of the Christian worldview in the first place.
Sadly, I expect in the next letter Luke will merely reiterate his original points, since his second letter was so similar to the first.