In our world we are faced with many claims to truth, both religious and secular. Being a Christian in this world has forced me to think about why I believe that the bible reveals absolute truth. In this series of posts, I aim to share some of my journey to believing that the scriptures in the bible are in fact the truth. This series will have various parts that form my argument for why I trust the bible as divine and authoritative. I hope that as you see the path that I have travelled in coming to trust the bible, you too will be deepened in your confidence that it is the very word of God. Please feel free to ask questions if you have.
Before coming to any sort of confidence in the inspiration and reliability of scripture, I met a person, Jesus. I didn't have a physical encounter. No angels, bright light or epiphany. Rather, I was told about him. People at various times and places told me different things about the man called Jesus (things that were admittedly from the bible). As the personality of Jesus became more formed in my mind, I began to think that he may not just be a mythical or legendary figure, as I had previously suspected. The things he had reportedly said were too real, too inappropriate, too loving, too harsh, too insightful, too novel, too timeless. In essence, too truth-like.Part 1: the cornerstone of my confidence
Then there was the testimony of history (both biblical and secular). His existence could not be denied. He was real and the notion of him as merely as a legend began to fade. The person of Jesus started to become real, and as I looked at what he said and did, he became increasingly credible and compelling. His teaching pierced to the heart of issues that we still face today. His humility, love and compassion drew me to him. His harshness showed me that he was not trying to curry the favour of men, but rather he stood for truth, and the glory of another. His effect on the world, considering that he was a simple carpenter that had no social status or rank, is totally unmatched (yet obvious for everyone to see if human history is studied). All these aspects of the person of Jesus led me to begin to place my confidence in him for an explanation of our world and for reality.
More than anything, however, his mission to die in the place of sinners as their substitute addressed one of the greatest needs and questions I had. How can I be justly reconciled to a God that must, by the constrains of his own just character, punish offenders (I had come to acknowledge that I was one of them). Jesus answered that question for me with an answer that didn't just teach me facts but revealed to me the holiness and love of God. That answer was the cross, and this was the ultimate aspect of Jesus that won my confidence. A God who is dies a humiliating, brutal death at the hands of men whom he prays for. This is what Jesus said he would do. On the cross he followed through.
I have come to trust him. I trust his words and claims, even his claims to divinity. Jesus to me is such an incredibly credible combination of qualities, teachings and deeds, that he must be divine. If he is merely the product of someone's imagination, then that someone must be divine. So, before I came to trust the scriptures, I came to trust a person whom I met through my personal reading of the biblical accounts, teaching of other people I trusted and my understanding of the world in which I live.
Before relying on the evidence of archaeology, history or textual analysis (helpful means to determining reliability of documents), I encountered a person portrayed in the gospel writings. This person stood out to me as real and glorious and he is the cornerstone of why I trust the bible.
Next: Why I trust the Old Testament writings with all their weird events and claims
Future topics:
- What about the New testament?
- Isn't this all a circular argument?
- What does history tell us about the assembly of the cannon (books in the bible)? how was each book chosen?
- Aren't there loads of errors in the bible?
- How believing in the sovereignty of God helps?
- What can I read to learn more about this?
"This person stood out to me as real and glorious and he is the cornerstone of why I trust the bible."
ReplyDeleteTo trust Jesus...what he did and said...you must trust the gospels. Not: trust the person, then trust the gospels (as you say). First trust the gospels, then trust the person.
If you mean that you (in any way)trust the person apart from the documents is this not (to some measure) a mere "leap of faith": the only problem being that you are writing an apologetic article, wherein it is best not to be making any irrational/superational leaps.
If you mean that you trust the documents, because they present such a compelling picture of Christ, that you believe they must be true: are you not also leaping - so to speak? How exactly does the cumulatively (intuitively?)compelling nature of the gospels translate into truth or reliability?
Is this the question you will answer in: Isn't this all a circular argument?
Thanks for the comment! I was setting myself up for it, wasn't I?!
ReplyDeleteHere's a question: When Saul of Tarsus, on his way to persecute christians, encounters the risen Christ, what is his immediate faith based on? A supernatural experience of Jesus or what had been written about Jesus?
Paul was not a crazy charismaniac who ignored the scriptures. He studied them and himself wrote more than half the New Testament. He commanded men to devoted themselves to the scriptures. The question here, however, is this: Was saving faith birthed in Paul's heart from acknowledging the reliability of documents, or was there a "superational" leap?
Galatians 1:11-12
"For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but rather I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ"
The gospels may be the means by which we today hear about Christ, but they need not therefore be the foundational reason why we personally trust, love, believe and obey Jesus (and ultimately the very gospels themselves). I believe that the God who said, "let there be light!" made his light shine in our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ...BAM...supernatural event! If this event doesn't happen, there no trusting any scriptures in a way that leads to salvation. You may trust their historical reliability, but you won't trust their truth (two very different concepts)
Secondly, on this being an apologic article: Why is it best not to make any superational/supernatural leaps in apologetics? That is not the apologetic of Paul or the rest of scripture. Rather, it's an apologetic that tries to make salvation and the trusting of Jesus a purely and only rational, natural and intellectual process. I don't believe in this kind of apologetic, and I certainly don't wish to adhere to it.
Some of these issues will, however, be dealt with in the part on "Isn't this all a circular argument?"
I'm afraid thats the best answer I can come up with now. Hope it helps understand my thought process.
Jon
Agree with you Jon. I think there's a difference between the process through which you come to believe something as true, the total set of reasons you can give for believing something as true, and the logical structure of your belief system.
ReplyDeleteSo for example, the logical structure of Christianity depends on a very deep level on the Triune nature of God. Yet that may not be the first aspect of Christianity that someone finds compelling...
The process through which we come to believe depends in part on the place we were before believing, because if we are believing in other things there needs to be a process to deal with those alternative beliefs. So for example, someone who believes in smoking weed as a spiritual exercise coming to a place of Christian faith would have to deal with their former beliefs, and this may be a large barrier to overcome. This does not necessarily mean that not smoking weed would become the center of their new belief system.
All belief systems must be circular in the sense that they fit together as a whole. An argument towards a belief system is essentially attempting to convince someone that it makes more sense than their belief system... and the point of avoiding circular logic here is that you shouldn't assume that the person you're conversing with already believes things that they don't
Hmmm does that make sense?