Archive for the 'josh mcdowell' Category

You call sitting for three days and nights under a tree being sincere???

Published
by
Ken
on January 31, 2007
in bible, christian fundamentalism, faith, god, hell, jesus, josh mcdowell and religion
. 0 Comments

Ok, where was I? Oh, that’s right … in the middle of a magic trick. How do you let God be 100% just and at the same time don’t let him condemn people who could never have heard about Jesus? Easy as pie. Simply say along with Josh McDowell: “No one will be condemned for not ever hearing of Jesus Christ” [Answers to Tough Questions, p. 121]. Cool! So, everyone who doesn’t hear will be in heaven, right? Uh … no. In the next sentence, McDowell says, “That person will be condemned for violating his own moral standard.” Hmmm. I have two problems with this.

First, “his own moral standard?” I thought everything depended on violating God’s Law. Or not believing in Jesus Christ. What does a person’s moral standard have to do with anything? Talk about a sliding scale. So, a totally immoral person will get into Heaven while a very moral — although not infallible — person won’t?

Second, even though this sounds like “they” have a chance this is really only another rationalization. If everyone is a sinner at birth then, by definition, no one will be able to live up to any moral standard worthy of being called a moral standard.

So far, “they” don’t have much of a chance. But, a few pages earlier McDowell says,

“Although the Scriptures never explicitly teach that someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, we do believe it infers this. We do believe that every person will have an opportunity to repent, and that God will not exclude anyone because he happened to be born at the wrong place and at the wrong time.” (Emphasis mine)

Ah, despite the inference status of this statement, this does sound a little more optimistic. If everyone has an opportunity to repent, then those in Hell really do make the choice. Does he quote chapter and verse to back up this belief? Well, the next sentence quotes John 7:17

If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

I didn’t really get what the New American Standard Bible (quoted above) was trying to say so I looked at a couple other versions and here is the New International Version:

If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

All the other more “common language” versions seemed to agree that Jesus was talking about someone who is hearing or has heard the teachings of Jesus. And I don’t see how anyone could hear his teachings without hearing about Jesus. So, how does this back up the inference? It sounds to me like just another rationalization to make Christians feel good about their all-loving God.

Even though there is no teaching to back up this inference, there is an example in Acts 10 which may set some precedent for it. Cornelius was a very religious man who prayed to God and asked God to reveal himself to him. God sent an angel and told Cornelius to send for the Apostle Peter who came and preached Jesus Christ and Cornelius was saved. This is all very good, but if people were constantly knocking on Christians’ doors saying “God told so-and-so to send for you. Please come preach Jesus to him,” don’t you think we’d hear about it?

But this doesn’t stop some Christians from continuing to believe it. They are so sure that if anyone is sincere enough that God will reveal himself to her so she can be saved. This means that Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha), for example, was not sincere enough in his search. The seven years he spent learning from every different type of teacher he could find was not sincere enough. Being close to death from starvation and sitting for three days and three nights (sound a little familiar??) under a bodhi tree was not sincere enough. Obviously not because God would have sent someone to preach to him if he was sincere.

Kind of makes you wonder if anyone has a chance.

But now I want to return to a thought I mentioned in the last post. If the fate of all the souls in the world depend on hearing about Jesus, doesn’t this put the fate of all these souls on the hands of every Christian? Obviously yes, but you’ll have to stay tuned to see what else I have to say about it …

Sphere: Related Content

Just give me the whole case and I’ll be on my way.

Published
by
Ken
on January 26, 2007
in bible, christian apologetics, josh mcdowell, logic and ravi zacharias
. 0 Comments

Josh McDowell’s argument (in Answers to Tough Questions about the Chrisitian Faith) that archaeology proves the Bible reminds me of the Adventurers Club at Walt Disney World’s Pleasure Island. It also reminds me of a Seinfeld episode (but, then again, what doesn’t?). I talked about this McDowell argument in another post but it was lost in a pretty long rant and I think it’s important enough to warrant repetition on its own.

But first, to the Adventureres Club! This club has these barstools that can move up and down. But they move very, very slowly and the bartender has control over them. They move so slowly that you don’t even notice it — even the person sitting on the barstool doesn’t feel it move. Sounds weird but it’s true. So, you’ll be sitting there with a friend talking, watching what’s going on around you, drinking a cocktail and suddenly it will hit you — you are looking your friend square in the nipple ring! His barstool is almost a foot higher and yours a foot lower than normal. And you really didn’t notice anything because it happened so slowly and, I guess, your brain compensated automatically. It is a shocker when it happens.

McDowell’s argument is kinda like that. He starts off stating a simple, fairly well-defined fact. He then continues talking and at the end he has a general, all-encompassing result that “proves” his point. Most people will say, “Oh, cool!” and continue reading not even realizing that the basis of the argument was to “up the ante” with each comment with no justification — subtle escalation, if you will. But once you see it, it’s not so subtle. His basic argument goes like this …

To start off, he says that the Bible mentions some people and places which archaeology has verified did exist. In other words, “many biblical pasages are historically accurate.” His examples:

  • The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in some of the 15,000 tablets uncovered at Tell Mardikh.
  • Archaeological proof that a ruler named Belshazzar existed; that the Hittites had a vast empire; that King Sargon ruled; that the “matters that touch upon history in the Book of Acts are demonstrably accurate.”

Fair enough. I’m going to ignore some potential problems such as how the cities were mentioned — the way we would mention New York City or the way we would mention Altantis — and how many, exactly, is “some” tablets. After citing these few examples, McDowell then concludes that “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”

Now, this is not quite as strong a point as it may seem. To say that “archaeology [has] verified … historical points of the biblical record” is a pretty solid statement in my book. But to say that archaeology has not disputed any historical points is a totally different matter. ‘Tis far easier to prove than to disprove — just ask Ravi Zacharias and his white rock with black dots. After all, archaeology hasn’t yet disputed my claim that eight-foot Amazon women were the first settlers in the Andes. They just haven’t found them yet! So, we really should forget the second part and leave it at “the findings of archaeology have verified historical points of the biblical record.”

From here, McDowell starts a very short section where he cites new “conclusions” but without offering more evidence to support. Here’s the trail …

  1. “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
  2. “[archaeology] is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are historically accurate.”
  3. “One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture.”
  4. “Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired…”
  5. “… it then follows that [the authors of Scripture] cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.”

Do you see what he’s done from 1 through 3? He’s gone from “historical points” to “historical passages” to “historical picture“. That’s escalation. Starting with “they mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah which, by the way, is a real place” he ends up with “the Bible paints an accurate historical picture” which implies so much more than just mentioning real places.

But he’s not done! From 3 to 4 he claims to simply “rephrase” his last point but what he actually does is escalate again. He claims that an accurate historical picture is the same thing as an accurate historical record. Again, from starting with “they mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah which, by the way, is a real place” he ends up with an accurate account of what happened, who did what to whom, who said what to whom, etc.

But, believe it or not, he’s still not done. From 4 to 5 he makes yet another escalating move. He claims that since the Biblical writers are accurate historians then everything they say must be considered as truth; even when what they say is “out of the ordinary.” This gives the Bible writers carte blanche to say anything and it is to be believed. Pretty convenient when your goal is to be able to use the Bible as the basis for all kinds of “proofs”.

McDowell’s intial claim is that archaeology proves the Bible but he ends up with something that I think is very different. Does the Bible mention some verifiable places and people? Yes, it does. Does that mean anything more than the Bible used real people and places as a backdrop for its stories? According to McDowell, yes. According to me, there’s not enough evidence to say.

And now to Seinfeld. What I am reminded of is Elaine’s escalation in “The Sponge” episode of Seinfeld where she is trying to find a store that still carries her favorite form of birth control after it was taken off the market:

PHARMACIST: Actually, we have a case left.

ELAINE (excited): A case! A case of sponges? I mean, uh…a case. Huh. Uh…how many come in a case?

PHARMACIST: Sixty.

ELAINE: Sixty?! Uh…well, I’ll take three.

PHARMACIST: Three.

ELAINE: Make it ten.

PHARMACIST: Ten?

ELAINE: Twenty sponges should be plenty.

PHARMACIST: Did you say twenty?

ELAINE: Yeah, twenty-five sponges is just fine.

PHARMACIST: Right. So, you’re set with twenty-five.

ELAINE: Yeah. Just give me the whole case and I’ll be on my way.

Not as subtle as the levitating barstools but only slightly less subtle than McDowell’s argument.

Sphere: Related Content

Some Christian apologists do a grave disservice to the Christian faith

Published
by
Ken
on January 23, 2007
in bible, christian apologetics, faith, josh mcdowell and logic
. 0 Comments

Last week, I dusted off my copy of Josh McDowell’s book, Answers to Tough Questions about the Christian Faith. McDowell is a Christian apologist. Apologetics is the field of study involved with the systematic defense of a position using historical evidence, philosophical arguments, and scientific investigation. So McDowell, in his book, attempts to logically prove all kinds of things about Christianity: Does God exist? Did Jesus exist? Did Jesus really perform miracles?

I totally understand McDowell’s desire to write such a book and defend Christianity. I think he was basically trying to do exactly what I am trying to do with this blog-o-mine: articulate what he believes and why he believes it. And for this I do not fault him in the least. What I do fault is the extent to which he goes. He tries to prove every aspect of Christianity and leave no room for doubt. Or faith!

After all, what is faith? According to wikipedia, “faith is a belief, trust, or confidence, not based on logic, reason, or empirical data.” If I prove to you that the Christian God exists and is the only god out there and that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus really existed and was the Son of God and yada yada yada, then where is there any room for faith? If I really, truly prove all this, then there is no way you can doubt and no way you can demonstrate any faith. After all, who needs any faith that electrons exist or that the earth revolves around the sun? It’s been proven.

So, McDowell is doing a grave disservice to the Christian Faith by trying to eliminate the need for faith. But the good news (for the Christian Faith, anyway) is that I think it totally impossible for him to succeed. Impossible for two reasons. First, I don’t think God will let him succeed because he, McDowell, is basically trying to ruin things for Him, God. Second, since faith is not based on logic, it is impossible to logically prove anything in which you have faith; if you could prove it, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith.

But that’s not all. McDowell is doing another, even more grave disservice to the Christian faith; more grave because he is succeeeding. He is succeeding in looking foolish because his “logical” arguments are anything but logical; his reasoning is anything but reasonable. But don’t take my word for it, read his book. But I’ll give a preview anyway …

Let’s examine the tough question: “Are Christians guilty of circular reasoning?” Here is a summary of his argument for proving that the Bible is God’s Word without the use of circular reasoning, i.e. without first assuming that the Bible is God’s Word:

  1. Demonstrate that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy historical documents by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.
  2. Realize that Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of God based on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.
  3. Examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in the reliable historical document proved in #1, aka the Bible.
  4. Realize that since Jesus is God, He speaks with authority on all matters.
  5. Show that Jesus claimed the Old Testament to be the Word of God by quoting from the New Testament.
  6. Show that Jesus claimed the writers of the New Testament would be guided by the Holy Spirit in their writing the New Testament by quoting from the New Testament.
  7. Since both Old and New Testaments are from God, we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s Word.
  8. Q.E.D.

Whew! That’s quite the proof. Each step seems to follow logically from the previous ones and he does, indeed, end up with the right answer without assuming the answer to be true. Kudos!

There are several objections I take with this proof one of which is: what does he mean by “basically reliable and trustworthy”? But I’m going to focus on one that is only a little more subtle. And that is: what does he mean by applying the “ordinary test of historical criticism” to the Scriptures? This is rather important as it’s the basis for his entire proof! I did a Google search on this phrase and came up with two hits. One of them was a site that appears to reproduce McDowell’s argument verbatim and the other uses the same line of reasoning to prove that Jesus was the Son of God. Hmmm… not much help there.

McDowell does discuss archaeology and the Bible, so maybe that will help. What he says in the answer to that “tough question” is that the Bible mentions some places and people which archaeology has verified did exist. In other words, “many biblical pasages are historically accurate.” His examples:

  • The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in some of the 15,000 tablets uncovered at Tell Mardikh.
  • Archaeological proof that a ruler named Belshazzar existed; that the Hittites had a vast empire; that King Sargon ruled; that the “matters that touch upon history in the Book of Acts are demonstrably accurate.”

Again, we’ll ignore some potential problems such as how were the cities mentioned — the way we would mention New York City or the way we would mention Atlantis — and how many, exactly, is “some” tablets. Instead we’ll continue with his answer and see where it leads.

After citing these few examples, McDowell then concludes that “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.” From this starting point, McDowell starts a short narrative during which he continuously “ups the ante” and hopes no one notices:

  1. “the findings of archaeology have verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.”
  2. “[archaeology] is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are historically accurate.”
  3. “One cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Bible giving an accurate historical picture.”
  4. “Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their accounts of the things that transpired…”

In one page — five short paragraphs — McDowell starts with “verified historical points” and ends up making comments about “accounts of the things that transpired” with no intervening justification. Just because the Bible gets a few names of people and places right, we are to trust it as a historically accurate document. Does that make sense? But he’s not done. Oh no! There’s another unjustified escalation …

  1. “it then follows that [the authors of Scripture] cannot be ruled out of court because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.”

Wow! That’s quite a leap! Let me see if I got this figured out. Because the Bible mentions Sodom and Gomorrah and a couple rulers by name, it should not be questioned when it talks about people rising from the dead and virgin births and other “things out of the ordinary“?

While I continue scratching my head over that one, where were we and how did we get here? Oh, that’s right. We were looking at McDowell’s first premise in his proof that the Bible is the Word of God. For lack of any other explanation for the “ordinary test of historical criticism,” we shall assume he is talking about the archaeological verification of historical points of biblical record. So, with that assumption, his “proof” that the Bible is the Word of God stems entirely from the fact that the Bible mentions some verifiable people and places. Hmmm … more head scratching on that one. I know a few other books which get some historical “points” correct. Wonder if God wrote them, too?

In any case, McDowell does succeed in presenting a proof which does not employ circular reasoning. His proof, however, is very weak and the starting premise — the very foundation upon which all the other premises rely — is questionable at best. In my opinion, McDowell should stick to faith and forget the logic. Just say, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God” and leave it at that. Put the faith back in the Christian Faith!

But there’s a disadvantage with taking that stance — a loss of power. Once you give up the right to quote the Bible as a historical document that also happens to be God’s Word — which you do when you believe this on faith and don’t try to prove it — you give up the right to use the “Because The Bible Says So” defense. This means conversations with people who don’t share your faith become very difficult. No longer can you stand there and hurl Bible verses at them, parrying all their objections and arguments with Scriptural snippets. You actually have to think and perhaps draw a logical conclusion or two. You may even have to listen to them and try to understand their point of view. Worse yet, you may even be shown to be wrong! God forbid!

Sphere: Related Content