Posted on 12/08/2011 2:01:52 PM PST by OneVike
Atheistic attacks on Christianity typically focus on philosophical issues concerning theism, or evidential attacks on the Bible. It occurred to me the other day that the latter plays upon a certain view of Christian theological methodology and ecclesiology that is flawed.
The issue, as I see it, is that these attacks are relying on an unspoken assumption that Christianity is relying on the Bible for its existence. This assumption is certainly fair, as it seems that many Christians think along the same lines. Even if Christians of this persuasion are not in the majority, it is without doubt that this is the case with popular Christian apologists. It is not much of an oversimplification to say that the two most popular approaches for defending the faith either begin by defending the Bible (Evidentialism), or conclude with its defense (Classical). The biblical text is then used to support Jesus’ claims / the gospel / the resurrection etc.
But what if the Bible could not be demonstrated to be trustworthy? I do not think that this is the case, but it is worth thinking about for at least these two reasons: (1) most skeptics think the Bible has not been defended sufficiently, and (2) even if it has been or can be, the case for Christianity will be even stronger if it can survive the failure of these biblical defenses.
When a skeptic argues against the Bible it is not usually the book(s) that are being attacked per se. Rather it is the ideas communicated by the book(s). Skeptics do not, for example, typically attack the wisdom sayings in the book of Proverbs or the basic morality of Jesus’ sermons. And I don’t think many skeptics really are concerned over how many generations there are between Adam and Jesus, or how many angels were at his tomb. What skeptics want to call into question is Christianity itself. Since the Bible is assumed to be the foundation of Christianity, calling its historicity, manuscript transmission, scientific awareness, etc. into question is seen as tantamount to calling Christianity into question. Two popular responses have been made by modern Christians.
Inerrancy
The first is to dig in and affirm the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and fight tooth and nail for every biblical affirmation no matter its nature (e.g., historical, scientific, moral), sometimes even down to use of correct grammar. This is necessarily joined by an equally fervent defense of a trustworthy manuscript tradition – for as all (except perhaps some confused folks in the KJV-Only crowd) acknowledge, inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts (which we do not have). The copies of those inerrant original that we do have do not agree perfectly with each other, however. Thus, even inerrantists must concede the fact of transmission distortion. Their apologetic strategy, therefore, usually concerns limiting the significance of these distortions (e.g., that the quantitative and/or qualitative aspects of these distortions are inconsequential). This approach can be appreciated for its theological respect for, and upholding of, God’s word – but it also paints a large target on the Bible for skeptics fire upon.
Infallibility
The second approach is to trade in the doctrine of inerrancy for its softer cousin, infallibility. Affirming the doctrine of infallibility only commits one to holding that the Bible is successful in communicating truth in matters of faith and practice, regardless of the accuracy of its delivery system (like an imperfect map that nonetheless will always get you where you need to go). Thus, textual errors are only considered significantly problematic if they touch on theology or morals. This approach has the benefit of making the target a lot smaller, but it suffers from its inability to provide an objective means of determining how the theology of the text can still be trusted when the text itself is at issue.
What both of the above approaches assume, however, is that Christianity suffers corresponding effects of biblical attacks. Thus, for the inerrantist if even one biblical statement can be decisively shown to be false, Christianity loses its foundation (I am not suggesting that no mediating positions are available, or that there is no way out for an inerrantist – indeed there is always the easy claim that the error was not in the originals. But this assumption seems to drive the apologetic effort at least at the front end). For the infallibilist the effects of error discovery are not nearly as dramatic, but (as stated above) the position suffers from its own questionable principles. If nothing else, it becomes a practical issue: in the real world the trustworthiness of Christianity and that of the Bible is often seen as equivalent by skeptics. Thus the infallibilist position will often come across as ad hoc.
The good news for the Christian apologist is that if Christianity is not coextensive with the Bible, then attacks on the one are not necessarily attacks on the other.
What if the text critics like Bart Ehrman, or Islamic / Mormon / Secular apologists were proven right in their claims that the Gospels were not written by the traditional authors, that many of the NT books are spurious, or that significant error is present in the Bible? What actual purchase would be lost by Christians? Given the above apologetic strategies and theological positions shared by most Christian apologists, one might well conclude that it would be “game over” for Christian believers.
I suggest that this is not the case. I will argue that even if we lost the Bible completely, Christianity would remain undefeated. That is a bold claim, but I think it can be demonstrated rather easily.
Basically the argument goes like this:
The form is valid (per Modus Tollens), and the first premise seems self-evident, thus I need only support the second for the argument to be proven sound. There are facts both historical and speculative that show the second premise to be true.
First, it is entirely possible that Christianity’s message could have been communicated verbally – and only verbally – forever. There is nothing inherently problematic with such a thing occurring. In fact a simple thought experiment will show that this is the case: suppose some atheistic world dictator succeeded in destroying every copy of the Bible in existence, and then somehow made it impossible to create additional texts of any kind. Would Christianity disappear from the earth? Would humans no longer have access to the saving gospel? Of course not. So, at least in theory, there is no problem with these two propositions being true at the same time: (1) Christianity exists, and (2) no Bible exists.
Second, the above theory has been shown to be true in reality. Receiving the gospel message is the requirement for becoming saved (1 Cor. 15:1-5), and this message was not initially communicated in written form (1 Cor. 15:1), yet those who heard it believed and became saved (becoming part of the Christian church – 1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, Christianity preceded the written message.
Third, it is an historical fact that Christianity preceded the writing of the NT. The earliest NT writings are typically considered to have been written in the mid-to-late 40’s (whether the first book is the Gospel of Matthew, the Book of James, or Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is debated). This means that even with a late date of Christ’s death / Pentecost (of A.D. 33), there is at LEAST a decade gap between the beginning of the Church and the VERY first NT writing. The point is even more strongly made when we consider that Paul’s writings (which are, at minimum, among the earliest NT writings) were letters addressed to already-existing churches. Add to this decade more time for delivery and distribution, and I think it is easy to see that the Church had to go for quite some time with no (NT) Scriptures of its own.
Fourth, Christians existed and continue to exist without possessing the NT. Even when the NT started to be written, its contents were not in the possession of the average believer. Besides the above mentioned delivery and distribution time lags, people simply did not have easy access to copies. Further, the NT was written in a time when most of the population was illiterate. Finally, it would be another 1,500 years or so before the invention of the printing press made Bible’s widely accessible even to literate people. (Thus, this is not just an Ancient, Medieval, or Reformation age issue). Even in our own time, people from many parts of the world become Christians when the Bible is forbidden or inaccessible in their own language. This certainly represents a hindrance to Christianity, but it is hardly destructive.
So even if the skeptic were successful in showing the Bible to be untrustworthy, he has not really gained much ground – at least if he is using that untrustworthiness as an attack on Christianity itself. For even if we give up the entire Bible, Christianity remains.
The Christian apologist Gary Habermas has an interesting method that he uses when defending the historicity of Christ’s resurrection – he calls it the “Minimal Facts Approach.” What Habermas does is agree to use only the most academically respected sources (both Christian and secular) in support of his contention that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. In doing so, he avoids the Gospels, many of Paul’s letters, and several other NT books that do not enjoy nearly universal “authentic status” among professional historians. Using only the minimal facts that can be gleaned from whatever historical documents are left, Habermas proceeds to argue that the resurrection remains the best explanation of the data. It’s a great approach, and his protégé’, Michael Licona, has been very successful with his version of it as well.
As I considered the implications of the typical skeptical attacks on the NT, and the results they hoped to achieve, I wondered whether I needed to keep ANYTHING from the NT in order to defend Christianity. If it is the case that, logically, the Bible is not necessary for Christianity, then I wondered what could been done apologetically with the Bible entirely absent. If we took the minimal facts approach to what is certainly an absurd extreme – without reliance on anything in the Bible (“Zero Facts” approach?), what would we have left over from Christianity?
As it turns out, pretty much everything.
The arguments for the reliability of the Bible include an impressive array of evidence that, by a rather shockingly large margin, prove the Bible to be the most trustworthy of all ancient writings. Part of that evidence is the fact that even if we had no ancient manuscripts from which to derive our current Bible translations, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the NT just by reading the Church Fathers (some of which overlapped the writing of the NT).
Until recently I simply relegated this impressive fact to just another reason to think we know what the original manuscripts said. Now I have come to realize how much more significant this fact is. This is because it is not simply the case that the early Church Fathers quoted a bunch of Scripture – they quoted it while discussing theology. Theology they already knew. They quoted it while writing letters back and forth between churches. Churches that already existed. And they were able to quote Christian Scriptures and discuss Christian theology in Christian churches because Christianity already existed.
But guess what did not exist back then? The New Testament! (Well, sort of.)
I have written on the issue of NT canon formation elsewhere on this site, but in a nutshell: the actual collection of books that make up the NT were not even listed in their present form until the 4th Century, and even long after that several books remained in question. So, technically, what we call the NT is a collection that was not recognized as such for hundreds of years. But this is a minor issue considering the implications of all the above issues concerning availability and literacy rates. The significant point is that what kept the Church going during this time was its own teaching – teaching that can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers.
In other words, before the NT was canonized, Christianity already existed. Before the NT was completed, Christianity already existed. Before the NT was even begun, Christianity already existed. Thus, most of the issues skeptics have with Christianity remain even if the Bible is taken out of the equation. At minimum it is clear that the message that brought people into Christianity was from the very beginning that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he died, was buried, and rose again ( a.k.a., the Gospel! See (Acts 2 and all Acts sermons cf. 1 Cor. 15).
This was the message the apostles died (often horribly) for.
This was the message the early Church suffered persecution for.
And it was this message, promoted by 12 simple men from the insignificant and faraway land of Israel, and believed by social outcasts who worshiped in catacombs, that two centuries later brought the greatest empire on earth to its knees.
As Habermas and others have shown, even if skeptics were successful in calling most of the Bible into question, the historical facts surrounding the miracle of the resurrection would remain. But even if we gave in to the skeptics arguments concerning the resurrection, they would then have to deal with historical facts that would now be even more difficult to explain. The very existence of the Church seems miraculous – especially if the resurrection did not occur!
Thomas Aquinas argues that God has indeed proven His word via miracles, and yet the existence of the Church itself is an even greater miracle:
“Without violence of arms, without promise of pleasures, and, most wonderful thing of all, in the midst of the violence of persecutors, a countless multitude, not only of the uneducated but of the wisest men, flocked to the Christian faith, wherein doctrines are preached that transcend all human understanding, pleasures of sense are restrained, and a contempt is taught of all worldly possessions. That mortal minds should assent to such teaching is the greatest of miracles.” (SCG 1.6)
Why should the existence of the Church be considered so miraculous? Are there not thousands of competing religions in existence that could claim the same thing? The reason for this is that it is how the Church came into being that must be explained. Anyone can make up some attractive lies and gain followers for gain. But the opposite is not the case. Lies for gain are one thing, lies for loss are quite another.
Perhaps the skeptic will argue that this is a case of begging the question – arguing in a circle that the Church proves the Church? Not at all. The argument is not that the Church says she is true, therefore she is true. Rather, it is the nature of the facts surrounding her birth – so unusual that they beg for a miraculous explanation. To quote Aquinas again:
“This so wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is so certain a sign of past miracles, that they need no further reiteration, since they appear evidently in their effects. It would be more wonderful than all other miracles, if without miraculous signs the world had been induced by simple and low-born men to believe truths so arduous, to do works so difficult, to hope for reward so high.” (SCG 1.6)
Far from merely providing additional credibility to the reliability of a book, the history of the Church might itself be considered miraculous. How else can such a bizarre turn of events be explained? In John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent, he considers Gibbon’s alternate explanations for the rise of Christianity. Gibbon considers five: “the zeal of Christians, inherited from the Jews, their doctrine of a future state, their claim to miraculous power, their virtues, and their ecclesiastical organization.”
Newman responds:
“1. As to zeal, . . . how did party spirit tend to transplant Jew or Gentile out of his own place into a new society, and that a society which as yet scarcely was formed in a society? . . . Christians had zeal for Christianity after they were converted, not before.
2. Next, as to the doctrine of a future state (i.e., the fear of hell) . . . now certainly in this day there are persons converted from sin to a religious life, by vivid descriptions of the future punishment of the wicked; but then it must be recollected that such persons already believe in the doctrine thus urged upon them. . . . give some Tract upon hell-fire to one of the wild boys in a large town, who has had no education, who has no faith; and instead of being startled by it, he will laugh at it as something frightfully ridiculous. The belief in Styx and Tartarus was dying out of the world at the time that Christianity came in, . . . the thought of eternal glory does not keep bad men from a bad life now, and why should it convert them then from their pleasant sins, to a heavy, mortified, joyless existence, to a life of ill-usage, fright, contempt, and desolation.
3. As to the claim to miracles . . . heathen populations, who had plenty of portents of their own, [and] Christian miracles are not recited or appealed to, by early Christian writers themselves, so fully or so frequently as might have been expected. . . . A claim to miraculous power on the part of Christians, which was so unfrequent . . . can hardly have been a principal cause of their success.
4. The “sober and domestic virtues” of Christians, their “aversion to the luxury of the age,” their “chastity, temperance, and economy,” [are simply too dull] to win and melt the hard heathen heart, in spite too of the dreary prospect of the barathrum, the amphitheatre, and the stake? Did the Christian morality by its severe beauty make a convert of Gibbon himself? On the contrary, . . . How then were those heathen overcome by the amiableness of that which they viewed with such disgust? We have here plain proof that the Christian character repelled the heathen; where is the evidence that it converted them?
5. Lastly, as to the ecclesiastical organization, . . . how could it directly contribute to its extension? Of course it gave it strength, but it did not give it life. . . . It was before Constantine that Christians made their great conquests.”
Further, Newman notes that Gibbon “has not thought of accounting for their combination. If they are ever so available for his purpose, still that availableness arises out of their coincidence, and out of what does that coincidence arise? Until this is explained, nothing is explained, and the question had better have been let alone. These presumed causes are quite distinct from each other, and, I say, the wonder is, what made them come together.”
Finally Newman states,
“The real question is this,—are these historical characteristics of Christianity, also in matter of fact, historical causes of Christianity? Has Gibbon given proof that they are? Has he brought evidence of their operation, or does he simply conjecture in his private judgment that they operated? . . . Christianity made its way, not by individual, but by broad, wholesale conversions, and the question is, how they originated? . . . It is very remarkable that it should not have occurred to a man of Gibbon’s sagacity to inquire, what account the Christians themselves gave of the matter.”
Newman then goes on for several pages noting the incredible stories of the martyrs who died for “the idea of Christ” – and not simply dying, but going to their deaths in such a way that that the historians of the time cannot but marvel. SO amazing was the testimony of the martyrs that sometimes their very captors and torturers converted (only to be killed along with them).
“Thus was the Roman power overcome.”
Thus it is not enough to admit that history lends evidential support to Christianity. Rather, history cannot be easily explained without Christianity. Whatever gain may be found in attacking the written record of the Christian religion, even a wholesale skeptical victory would not overturn the fact of the birth of the Church based in its belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without this event, Christianity is false (1 Cor. 15:12-19) – and history becomes explainable only by absurdity.
The present, also, remains difficult to explain:
“Here, then, is One who is not a mere name, who is not a mere fiction, who is a reality. He is dead and gone, but still He lives,—lives as a living, energetic thought of successive generations, as the awful motive-power of a thousand great events. He has done without effort what others with life-long struggles have not done. Can He be less than Divine?”
None of the above should be taken to suggest that we abandon defense of the Bible. This approach is not a reductionist attempt to shield the Bible from legitimate criticism. There is no need – for the evidential arguments for the reliability of the Bible are extremely strong (so much so that if they are thought to fail the Bible then, to be consistent, all of ancient history goes with it). If nothing else, it is difficult to imagine that God would bother inspiring hundreds of pages of communication only to have it lost before it could be disseminated!
Rather, what I am suggesting is that we apologists can benefit from a shift in our focus. Instead of moving from defending Realism (that truth and reality exist and are knowable), then Theism (that a personal, creator God exists), and then the Bible, perhaps it would be better to defend the movement that produced it. This approach opens the door to even more clear, available, and accepted evidences. If needed, it can also be used to neatly sidestep issues of biblical transmission, inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility (these textual issues can be dealt with scientifically, philosophically, or theologically, instead of apologetically). Given this approach the skeptic’s target becomes both smaller and more difficult to hit – all without threat to Christianity’s teachings (which, after all, are the skeptic’s real prey).
Pharisee. You aren’t a Christian, so why should I care what you think?
2 Peter 3:16 “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
You’ll never see him, that’s for sure.
This discussion is at an end.
“Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
Titus 3:9-11
Thus I am careful not to "paint all with the same brush," but rather continue to be amazed at how God has His people in many different churches. All the best as you serve Him.
Great advice!
Just for the record, I am in full agreement with you. Many of my comments were directed in a way to awaken a debate with those who refused to even consider the query.
I am not at all surprised that some would instantly go into the attack mode and demand my body be burned at the stake as a heretic for daring to suggest such a blasphemous idea just for the sake of discussion.
We are called to defend the faith and to do so in a respectful manner. Something that many who call themselves Christian at FR to learn. I do believe God likes it when we posture ideas in a way that spurs logical debate. We are told to always be ready to defend our faith, thus we study the written word.
But what about those questions that come out of left field, like what if there were no Bible, how could you defend your faith? Or, if a Korean asks a question about his great great ancestors who never heard of the name of Christ because no preacher ever visited their village 100's of years ago. Are they doomed to destruction? And if so, why is that fair of a loving God to do so.
Questions many Christians would not know how to answer, but for times when we ask off the wall questions to spur debate. The Korean question was asked of me by an orderly that worked in the kitchen at a retirement home I was a pastor at. At the time I answered the best I could, but I did do study on it. later I returned with a much better, and for him, a very satisfying answer. Plus I gave him a good book to read that I believe is a powerful tool to use with the Bible for instances just as his. the book is called "Eternity in the Hearts" by Don Richardson.
I'm sorry for digressing. Later that evening of the day I posted this thread, I found myself in contemplation on the matter. What really struck me about the thought of having no Bible was the very idea that there would never have been a reformation without the Bible, because the reformation was all about correcting the heresy that infiltrated the Churches teaching during the Devils millennium.
I speak of the middle ages from 600 to 1600 when the Catholic Church held an iron grip on the teachings of the written Word. Which is similar to the time between the Testaments when the Pharisees held a similar iron grip on the teachings of the Torah.
God Himself came to fulfill the Law the Pharisees had bastardized, but Christ is not to return until the end times, so He needed an intervention by man to correct the false teachings. Just as he told us that the Temple would be destroyed without a stone left in place, he also told us that men would come after Him to distort and spread lies about His teachings. Thus He sent His Spirit to guide good men into writing His Words down, and more men to chose the letters for the Canon. It was the Canon, His Word, that made it possible for the Reformation to take place.
So while God used the Church to advance many things, He also allowed a second fulness of times, if you would, that set up the Reformation which corrected the false teachings of His word. So without the Bible, Christ Himself would have had to return to save the Church from itself. Now, we all await the third fulness of time, when he will return a final time. He does like to do things in threes. It is after all the number of perfection.
I wrote my thesis at seminary school on the reformation. I basically wrote it about what I believed to be the beginning catalyst of the reformation, the Renaissance. If you are interested you can read it at my site, GATE.
Again I thank you for the respectful way you replied, and I apologize for the long read. I do tend to get long winded at times.
God bless you and yours,
OV
“What really struck me about the thought of having no Bible was the very idea that there would never have been a reformation without the Bible, because the reformation was all about correcting the heresy that infiltrated the Churches teaching during the Devils millennium.”
I agree with you...in fact your statement is similar to the thought that went through my mind as I read the article. We are in a time now that has seen many churches that used to teach from the Bible now abandon it and we are seeing the results of that within our culture. In my opinion we need to be very careful about these kind of discussions...”Does Christianity Need the Bible?”...because it does seem to fit into what is already happening in several churches, and might help those churches feel like they are doing the correct thing. My advice to your friend would be not to publish a book of this nature.
Speaking of books...”Eternity in the Hearts” by Don Richardson...is on my bookshelf. I have used it at times when I teach at different churches in the area...I am sure I will be using it again very soon as I prepare to teach at another church.
God bless you as well
Worldviewdad
When did God hire you as a spokesman and how much does the job pay??
>> “When did God hire you as a spokesman” <<
.
He hired all of his own, at the cross.
.
>> “and how much does the job pay??” <<
.
Eternal life.
.
Thanks and God Bless,
Worldviewdad
Exactly...However, it is not a reasonable question...God says he will preserve his words forever and that the world will pass away but his words will never pass away...
God chose the way of the bible as the means to preserve his words...
One needs to be more specific with the question...For example; what if the bible had never been written, or, what if all bibles suddenly disappeared today including all references to scripture, could we continue on with Christianity...
As long as we have the reference material, someone would be quick to write a bible in this generation...
If we forgo all the reference material, we have to depend on what of scripture we have 'hid in our hearts'...
It would be real tough to become a Christian without the availability of the bible...The scriptures tell us to 'prove all things'...Impossible to prove anything without the standard with which to judge...
So while the current generation may continue on until attrition does it work, I believe Christianity would soon fail to exist...
And without the writings of the Apostles, God would have come up with another means to preserve his words for the generations to come...
But fortunately, we will never be without the scriptures...
I don't buy that one...God provided the Apostles with the ability to provide miracles to the unbelievers in the absence of scripture until the scripture could be recorded...
And that process was completed and ended with the book of Revelation penned by John the Apostle...
With the death of the Apostles and advent of God's words on paper and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, not only did the office of Apostle end, but the Apostolic miracles ended as well...
And I am confident that there were enough copies of those scriptures during that time to satisfy God...
But naw, God didn't grow his church without the written word...
Prior to the written word, God used miracles to show his power...He shortly changed to the power of his written word to gather the lost...
Excellent advice...
We do...We just don't believe you...
So tell us...What other things did Jesus do...Surely he revealed them to your religion or you wouldn't keep pointing to the verse...
We can be sure that whatever other things Jesus did had nothing to do with our salvation because of these verses...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Now these verses have been show directly to you many, many times...Yet you reject them...
Perhaps you have a spiritual block???
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
I don't know of any other explanation for your refusal to acknowledge that everything we need to know for salvation is written in the scriptures just as John says...
No he doesn't...
Thank you for your thoughts.
To me the question seemed to be a means of plowing the ground to plant the idea that it might be possible to have a Christianity without the Bible, something I don’t think is possible.
Cheers!
That's rich...HaHaHaHa...
Just the one time they'll meet...
I agree...The name Christian has been so watered down that it has practically lost its meaning...
There are however religions out that that do very nicely without the bible...And then we have those who don't rely on the scriptures but use random verses to add an air of legitimacy to their claim of Christian...
Pharisee.
I understand your point (I think) about quoting random verses,i.e., something that is not really pertinent to the point the person is attempting to make.
Otherwise though quoting a single verse and showing its relevance seems quite proper and desirable at times. We stand in good company when doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.