 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/28/2001 10:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | I thank you for any comments or advice:
- With the rising popularity (by way of the popular media and the internet) of statements by "experts" that the evidence suggests that Jesus was quite likely a purely mythical concoction, or at most a dime-a-dozen preacher/failed-messiah,the common acceptance of scoffing at Christian morals/lifestyle, and the unacceptence of the Bible as at all authoritative; the traditional "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord", and variations of the ontological and cosmological arguments do not carry any weight.
We do not have persuasive (to the *non-believer*) historical evidence to the effect that the Bible should be taken as authoritative in its claim, the all-or-nothing claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was fully God and fully human, died for our sins, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven; not even that Jesus in some manner, necessarily actually existed.
- Has anyone here had experience with the Christian Trancendental/Presuppositional argument which, in general (I believe), follows the form:
1. The viability of logic and/or induction presupposes the existence of the Triune God of Christianity.
2. Logic and/or induction are viable.
____________________________________________________
3. The Triune God of Christianity exists.
From attempts that I have seen, the most difficult part is establishing the #1 is indeed the case. From what I have seen, the argument's persuasiveness with the non-believer is generally sacrificed in order to do so (because merely asserting it to be the case is not persuasive in the least). Again, has anyone here had experience using an argument along these lines?
- If not this, then the only argument short of deception that I can forsee, is an argument from both personal authority and religious experience. Namely, "You trust me and know what kind of person I am (assume that you have come to be in such a position in an individual's life), I believe in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, surely you will believe too."
Edited by - ChadD on 10/28/2001 3:20:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/28/2001 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | At least two other very viable arguments are available:
1. Something like Greg's "anthropological argument" as used in "Letters from a Skeptic."
2. An apologetic which progresses on the basis of the INadequacy of a person's current way of explaining things by offering a more adequate alternative.
A. Assuming the person is indeed willing to be honest with themselves and God (whether or not they beleive in a God), I have found that it makes sense to expect God to show up personally. We cannot argue someone into the faith, but we can point the way and eventually suggest that the person sit quietly and honestly ask God to reveal what it is that stands between God and that person. we have good reason to think that God will honor such a request. The fact is, our personal acknowledgement of sin is the only way into faith. and furthermore, only God can make one's sin clear to oneself. This should be the direction we move in as we discuss issues of faith with people. Proving Jesus existed does little good if we have no awareness of our need for him.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2001 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Proving Jesus existed does little good if we have no awareness of our need for him.
That parallels the observation that Mt/Mk/Lk were used before baptism, and John only after--that the first three present His claims and present our need. | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 10/28/2001 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | To say there is no evidence for Jesus or the Bible is to discount not only that evidence but most historical evidence, because if you are going to discount Jesus and the Bible based on what you perceive as a lack of evidence, then you have to discount most other historical facts.
Personally, I think the evidence for Jesus and his claims holds up very well historically. A couple of easy books to start with are, "A Case For Christ," and "A Case For Faith." In your area, another one that just came out is "That's Just Your Interpretation" (I forget the author). Regardless, I think Jesus and his claims hold up very well, based on historical evidence. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/28/2001 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the good word, and the references, writterdad.
Modes very practical comment is wisdom to keep in mind too.
In Sunday School today there were some great testimonies, and encouragement to witness! | | Back to Top | | |
|
ChadD
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/28/2001 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | - I assume that the "anthropological argument" about which you speak follows the standard outline of arguing from the apparent presence of a "shared moral sense".
As to a "progressive apologetic", that certainly is how these questions naturally arise, but if the doubts persist, the matter can certainly fall back upon a more basic question (although your point is well taken).
- I certainly do agree that there is a considerable amount of false information in circulation, particularly having to do with the extent to which the Biblical Jesus is similar to "myths".
To the general statement that, "If we do not accept the historical fact of the Biblical Jesus, then by that standard we can accept very little history at all;" it may very well be that this *should* be persuasive, but in my experience (limited as it may be), it has very little persuasive power (the standard statement about "extraordinary claims" is apparently a reasonbly accurate observation about human function).
I thank you for your comments; they were valuable. I am, overall, attempting to determine (and this is something that I will have to work through on my own) what the role, if any, of such arguments is to be in evangelism, and what is to be left in the hands of God. Indeed, as was said there is little point in persuading one to accept Jesus so far as history is concerned if the individual does not understand why Jesus existed. Yet, surely there is a similar problem in attempting to share the "good news" with someone that will not even accept that a God exists, muchless the Son.
I will, as was recommended, make efforts to improve my ability to defend the Biblical Jesus historically.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/29/2001 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Also, when they see the Cross in our own lives.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/29/2001 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
- I assume that the "anthropological argument" about which you speak follows the standard outline of arguing from the apparent presence of a "shared moral sense".
Actually, the anthropological argument is much more than that. A shared moral sense doesn't get one very far. Atheists share in that. The question is rather whether we are in the most literal sense "out of sync" with reality or if we are "in sync" with reality. Greg uses the example of a nice big tuna....flapping around on a planet that has no water. Of course, the tuna would soon die of dehydration. But all would agree that it is an absurd thing to suppose something like this could happen. How could a tuna exist, or come to exist in an environment which is completely indifferent to its basic needs for existence, in this case, water? From something like this we can suggest that we, as personal beings, can expect that our environment "works" for or at least "with" personal beings, seeing as we are here and surviving so far. It's a way of working from what "is" to what is "required" on that basis. Greg works this out in "Letters" much better than I am doing here....
quote:
As to a "progressive apologetic", that certainly is how these questions naturally arise, but if the doubts persist, the matter can certainly fall back upon a more basic question (although your point is well taken).
I did not mean simply logically progressive argumentation. Let me clarify. You have to stat with where the individual you are witnessing is at. Find out what is most important to them. What constitutes their "absolute concern" if you will. This has two advantages, presummably if they are honest with you, you will have identified something about which it will be difficult to "merely doubt" because they will care about the issue too much to treat it so lightly as to "doubt or not doubt" they will be more invested than that. Secondly, if what they hold currently as their absolute concern is not God through Jesus Christ, then, by progressive deconstruction of the adequacy of their current "Absolute Concern" you can help them to "fear something greater". A word of explanation from SK:
"This is the way a person always gains courage; when he fears a greater danger, he always has the courage to face a lesser one; when he is exceedingly afraid of one danger, it is as if the others did not exist at all. But the most appalling danger that the Christian has learned to know is 'the sickness unto death.'"
By this he means our awareness of our sin puts every other concern in a very new perspective. This is ultimately what HAS to happen in order for one to come to faith. Teh connection with my above statements is that where a person already has some sort of "ultimate concern", if it is not sin and the forgiveness of sin through Christ, which then gives way to our ultimate concerm being God for God's own sake, we have simply to relativize what IS their ultimate concern. This can and often should be done very gradually by engaging in the concepts the person is already using, but with an eye to their relativity. Eventually the strategy plays out as showing that our sin is (or should be) our greatest fear, and God's grace is our joy and peace. Now, this must happen ultimately for the person individually in an encounter with the Lord. We can, however, intensify their problems by showing the inadequacy of they think is of ultimate importance. God has to do the real deal though. No mediators but Christ.
quote:
- I certainly do agree that there is a considerable amount of false information in circulation, particularly having to do with the extent to which the Biblical Jesus is similar to "myths".
To the general statement that, "If we do not accept the historical fact of the Biblical Jesus, then by that standard we can accept very little history at all;" it may very well be that this *should* be persuasive, but in my experience (limited as it may be), it has very little persuasive power (the standard statement about "extraordinary claims" is apparently a reasonbly accurate observation about human function).
Of course, I agree with writerdad, but we have to recognize that no one comes to faith in the historical Jesus. At least they should not. Rather, it is the risen Lord whom we encounter personally that saves. Yes, do the work of defending the credibility of the witnesses to the historical Jesus Christ, but don't assume that that will satisfy or bring faith in itself.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 10/29/2001 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes: and I agree with all of you. I am not suggesting that we should put our trust in the evidence, but rather each should have an encounter with Jesus Christ, who is alive and risen. However, I also think we should not be bullied by those who would try and insist that the evidence is not there for Jesus as a historical figure, or the resurrection as a historical event. God could, if he chose to, over power us all and make us believe simply by the awesomeness of his presense. He has decided, instead, to give us the freedom to chose, by leaving the signs that point the way to an encounter with him. As someone once said, "if there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for us." I believe that is how God is working. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|