tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post7220213474195233799..comments2024-02-29T18:12:52.050-05:00Comments on Extra Thoughts: What not to tell a young inquirer about the evidences of the Christian faithLydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-19657275095294118612010-01-20T10:43:24.299-05:002010-01-20T10:43:24.299-05:00Well, as Hunsinger uses the phrase "radical c...Well, as Hunsinger uses the phrase "radical conversion," he intends it to be in tension with "rational persuasion." Of course I'm not going to adopt that connotation. I meant simply the unobjectionable parts of it which include committing your whole life to Christ, loving and following Him, etc. And my point is simply that if a person came to be a follower of Christ as a result of being convinced that a miracle had happened, on the assumption that there really was strong evidence for the miracle, then the rational persuasion (of the occurrence of the miracle validating Jesus and His teaching) was the occasion of the "radical" conversion, where "radical" just means a complete turnaround of life, a total commitment, willingness to live and die for Christ, etc.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-59331931453682431772010-01-19T21:25:15.392-05:002010-01-19T21:25:15.392-05:00Lydia,
I'm not sure what you mean by "ra...Lydia,<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by "radical conversion." I don't think that any of the disciples were truly Christians until they believed that Jesus is the Christ and that he rose from the dead, which would have occurred after Nicodemus' visit.<br /><br />The gospel is a message rather than an ostentatious miracle like the healing of a lame man. Even Paul likely didn't comprehend the gospel even when he was struck blind on the road to Damascus until he had heard the gospel. It takes a bit of explanation to present the gospel, which, as Paul wrote, includes the messianic passages from the OT and the evidence of the witnesses concerning Christ's resurrection, along with the message of redemption consisting of the payment of Christ's death for our sins.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-70831694303105275482010-01-19T10:12:24.760-05:002010-01-19T10:12:24.760-05:00John, I told my resident expert guy that you said ...John, I told my resident expert guy that you said you are interested in those historical details confirming the Gospels, and he said, "Send him to me." I'll send you his e-mail address. He did a two-day seminar for local home schooled high schoolers, and I picked up a lot of this there. I also picked up more of it by reading Blaiklock. I recommend one thing by Blaiklock in my post called "Evidential Ammo for the Christian Soldier" at W4. He was a classicist and a really great writer on the New Testament. He used to shake his head (figuratively speaking) over the New Testament studies "guild" and the way they didn't seem to know how to recognize authentic 1st century history when they saw it.<br /><br />TomH, I would go so far as to say that a radical conversion by seeing a miracle or seeing overwhelming evidence of a miracle is a kind of rational persuasion. For example, Nicodemus says to Jesus, "We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man could do these miracles unless God were with him." It's interesting to me to get a feeling for the _coolness_ with which Nicodemus says that. To him this is a matter of reasonable inference. It's an inference a good Jew was supposed to make about whether someone was a prophet or not.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-44600514314434578642010-01-18T23:09:57.847-05:002010-01-18T23:09:57.847-05:00I think that Hunsinger makes a major mistake in th...I think that Hunsinger makes a major mistake in the following assertion:<br /><br />"The Christian faith is far more a matter of radical conversion than it is of rational persuasion."<br /><br />In the New Testament, there were very few radical conversions--all of which involved miracles. Have seminaries all of a sudden taken to endorsing miracles as an evangelism technique? I think not, so Hunsinger's point about radical conversions falls flat. Also, in reading Acts, it seems that most conversions involved reasoning with individuals, as exemplified by Paul, who was daily reasoning in the marketplace.<br /><br />One of my daughters seems to have a gift of evangelism, which manifests in her reasoning with individuals. One of her "converts" is from Germany and is quite enthusiastic about her orthodox (as opposed to modernist) faith, having decided to go into youth ministry in Germany. I expect that the young lady will also reason with young people just like she learned from my daughter.<br /><br />Just tonight my daughter reasoned with a young man about the gospel and he was overwhelmed and said that he needed to talk about it with his rector. The last part concerns me. Pray for him, please.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-12756477002102151012010-01-18T22:48:22.796-05:002010-01-18T22:48:22.796-05:00I thought that I'd post my syllogism of the se...I thought that I'd post my syllogism of the self-refuting atheist argument that I mentioned previously. Perhaps someone will find it helpful.<br /><br /><b>Atheist Assertion</b>: The argument for the resurrection of Christ can only be compelling if it relies on the testimony of non-Christians.<br /><br />1. Non-Christian testimony for the resurrection can exist.<br /><br />2. Only non-Christian witnesses provide non-Christian testimony.<br /><br />3. Non-Christian testimony for the resurrection is compelling evidence.<br /><br />4. Compelling evidence for the resurrection causes all non-Christian witnesses to become Christians.<br /><br />5. Assume that non-Christian testimony for the resurrection exists.<br /><br />6. From 3 and 5, then compelling evidence for the resurrection exists.<br /><br />7. From 4 and 6, then all non-Christian witnesses will become Christians.<br /><br />7a. From 7, then there will be no non-Christian witnesses.<br /><br />8. From 2 and 7a, then non-Christian testimony for the resurrection cannot exist.<br /><br /><b>C. 8 contradicts 1.</b>TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-17882288879321814732010-01-18T22:01:01.782-05:002010-01-18T22:01:01.782-05:00Outstanding post, Lydia. I've read Bauckham on...Outstanding post, Lydia. I've read Bauckham once but need to read him again.<br /><br />One of the first books that got me fascinated with the question of dating the Gospels was a slim volume by a French specialist on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jean Carmignac, called The Birth of the Synoptics (1986). He died shortly after his book came out, but he examined the Gospels closely in light of what he had learned from the scrolls and made a strong case that Mark--at least-- was probably written as early as 40.<br /><br />What I'd like to dig more into though are precisely those other details from non Christian sources you mentioned.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-13626585941157280462010-01-18T20:27:43.175-05:002010-01-18T20:27:43.175-05:00TomH, on the non-Christian witnesses, the problem ...TomH, on the non-Christian witnesses, the problem is not solely that it sets up an impossible standard to meet but that it does so without any adequate reason. Since it is probable that anyone who was a witness to the resurrection would become a Christian (as apparently happened to James the brother of Jesus), it is not only highly improbable that one would have non-Christian witnesses to the resurrection but also unreasonable to ask for them. There's no reason to think that because someone took the obvious step of becoming a follower of Christ when convinced of his resurrection he is therefore an unreliable witness to the resurrection. So the skeptics who set up such a standard are just irrationally considering Christians to be unreliable.<br /><br />This is something one sees among skeptics as well when it comes to general events recorded in the NT. For example, they will seek non-Christian testimony to the life and works of Jesus, specifically, without having any idea of a) how few manuscripts of history we even _have_ from the relevant period and b) how unlikely it would be that a pagan historian would have cared to write about Jesus. That the people who had the most reason to write about him were those who did so (Luke, for example) in no way impugns their reliability.<br /><br />Of course, I know I'm preaching to a choir, here. I'm just saying more about why the "specific confirmation from non-Christian sources" argument is so poor.<br /><br />By the way, I would add that the _kind_ of confirmation we could reasonably expect to find from non-Christian historical sources is in fact to be found amply. I'm talking here about small details regarding things like the assignment of the high priesthood by the Romans, names for units of money, the architecture of the fortress of Antonia or the Pool of Bethesda, and so on and so forth. The evidence there is precisely what so overwhelmingly confirms an early date for the documents, particularly when one realizes how much the whole landscape--physical, legal, political, and religious--was changed by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-32239635752543393752010-01-18T17:16:12.712-05:002010-01-18T17:16:12.712-05:00Lydia,
Thanks for clarifying your statement about...Lydia,<br /><br />Thanks for clarifying your statement about fideism. There is a version that says that the Bible is true, but it cannot be justified. Another version says that the Bible isn't true as regards phenomena, but it doesn't matter since it is true as regards meaning. I find both to be detestable.<br /><br />Hunsinger, it seems, isn't rejecting historical evidence in toto, but only the idea that historical evidence is compelling as regards the resurrection. Hence, Hunsinger isn't a total fideist, though he leans in that direction.<br /><br />I think that he's right that historians are inadequately skeptical about their historiagraphy, which attacks the resurrection, but I think that he gives too much away--the gospel--since he gives insufficient credit to the evidence of the apostolic witness.<br /><br />I first thought that Hunsinger was totally wrong, but I now back off from that a little and say that he was only critically wrong. Without compelling evidence, there is no gospel.<br /><br />Perhaps Hunsinger might have phrased the question as, "What evidence is sufficient for faith and what is sufficient for apologetics?" He also would have needed to address what makes evidence compelling.<br /><br />I think of a catch-22 argument used by some atheists--that evidence for the resurrection can only be compelling if there are non-Christian witnesses of the resurrection. Of course, if there are non-Christian witnesses of the resurrection, then how can the evidence be compelling? The "compelling non-Christian witnesses" criterion fails since it sets up an impossible condition.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-69142451686426241842010-01-18T13:50:44.365-05:002010-01-18T13:50:44.365-05:00Yeah, my intent wasn't to paint them into the ...Yeah, my intent wasn't to paint them into the same category, but simply that I can see how the thinking of someone like Hunsinger can produce the thinking in someone like Spong. More likely than not, I'd think though, Hunsinger's thinking would lead people not towards Spong, but away from all of it.<br /><br />I don't want an emotional, internal resurrection. I want a real resurrection. If it didn't really happen, why in the world should I care?Robert Kundahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795192698199602925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-20218579854604130222010-01-18T11:53:50.741-05:002010-01-18T11:53:50.741-05:00Rob, I have several things I'd love to write i...Rob, I have several things I'd love to write in response but time for only one:<br /><br />I don't think Hunsinger is as far gone (or as far to the left, or whatever term one wants to use) as Spong, but I think all this "spiritual" talk and downplaying of the historicity of the resurrection _definitely_ conduces to sheer infidelity (to use the old-fashioned term). There's an analogue here to what Flannery O'Connor said about Communion, and while I don't entirely agree with her statement about Communion, I'm inclined to borrow her perspective for the resurrection: "If it's just a spiritual resurrection, the hell with it."Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-85617012303481076542010-01-18T11:18:56.002-05:002010-01-18T11:18:56.002-05:00Actually, I had some more thoughts on this. With h...Actually, I had some more thoughts on this. With his multiple distinctions between 'historical' or 'factual' (spooky scare quotes!) and the spiritual, I'm curious just what he actually believes, were he to speak openly and plainly, emphasis on the latter.<br /><br />I don't know how parallel their ideas are, but it sounds frightfully similar to position taken by Bishop Spong in his debate vs. Bill Craig on the historicity of the resurrection.<br /><br />While wanting to take the title of Christian for his own, Spong is on the platform challenging that a historical event happened, or minimally that it could be known at all. Instead he attacks the historical evidence, not simply to make sense of it, but to remove it from the the table of evidence.<br /><br />Spong then presents a 'resurrection' (intentional scare quotes) that is not just historically ambiguous but one that is not historical at all (as in actually happening) but strictly a 'spiritual' event that, as it seemed to me, to be strictly an event that happens /inside/ the 'believer.'<br /><br />As the dialogue goes on it becomes unclear if Spong believes at all that either miracles are possible or that a personal God even exists.<br /><br />Like I said, I don't know how alike Spong or Hunsinger see 'faith,' but even if it's very different, I don't see it unreasonable to think that Hunsinger's take on faith, evidence, history and the whole lot of it cannot, will not and has not led to a generation of Spongs that turn out to think little, if at all on anything grounded in reality.Robert Kundahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795192698199602925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-24037268957412870202010-01-18T10:43:33.806-05:002010-01-18T10:43:33.806-05:00Wowza. I was tempted to reply over at his blog, bu...Wowza. I was tempted to reply over at his blog, but I refrain. I don't know if I can add much that has not already been said. I did enjoy the comment over there saying that his blog post, if turned in as a philosophy 101 essay would have been shredded.<br /><br />Check your mind at the door is right.Robert Kundahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04795192698199602925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-28856529767046117792010-01-18T09:19:17.014-05:002010-01-18T09:19:17.014-05:00Tom, when I spoke of intellectual versions, I was ...Tom, when I spoke of intellectual versions, I was really thinking of Hunsinger's version.<br /><br />Here's another example. (Whether Hunsinger would agree across the board with this person, I don't know. I hope not.) I read recently an interview with a Catholic theologian named Haught. He spieled this whole "Christ of faith" thing, and when the interviewer asked him outright if you could have taken a picture of Jesus after His resurrection with a camera, Haught said that if you had been there with the disciples you wouldn't have seen anything. (I guess the hypothetical "you" was assumed not to have the requisite eyes of faith.) This is definitely the kind of thing I mean by intellectual versions of fideism. <br /><br />Avery Dulles has some dreadful things to say in his massive history of apologetics. I'm not sure I want to get them out and re-read them. They were bad enough the first time. He hates evidentialism. Thinks (pretty obviously) it's misguided, un-theological, and naive.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-80330880417030509652010-01-18T03:24:25.099-05:002010-01-18T03:24:25.099-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-68111528701496875452010-01-17T23:54:58.585-05:002010-01-17T23:54:58.585-05:00Lydia: "Tom, I'm not sure I'm convinc...Lydia: "Tom, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your intriguing suggestion about bench notes, but it is certainly an interesting one."<br /><br />Someone else came up with the idea first. I can't find the reference now. However, as I explained on Prof. Hunsinger's blog, one must take into account the early church's epistemology of phenomena when one reads the New Testament. For example, when we read Matthew 18:16 or similar verses, Luke 7:18-22, Acts 1:3, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:20, and especially I John 1:1-3, we see the Jewish epistemology of phenomena from the Law of Moses being expressed. In John's account, Jesus sometimes takes quite a few unique liberties with the Jewish idea of witnesses which He alone is qualified to do.<br /><br />Lydia: "The interesting thing is that fideism is often associated with anti-intellectualism, but there are a number of intellectual versions as well."<br /><br />I'm aware of Gordon Clark. What are the others?<br /><br />Tim: "The term "memoirs" (apomnemoneumata) is an old one, being used by Justin Martyr for the gospels in a manner that suggests he expects it to be recognized."<br /><br />From the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The books quoted by Justin are called by him "Memoirs of the Apostles". This term, otherwise very rare, appears in Justin quite probably as an analogy with the "Memorabilia" of Xenophon (quoted in "II Apol.", xi, 3) and from a desire to accommodate his language to the habits of mind of his readers. At any rate it seems that henceforth the word "gospels" was in current usage; it is in Justin that we find it for the first time used in the plural, "the Apostles in their memoirs that are called gospels" (I Apol., lxvi, 3). " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm<br /><br />The key in understanding Justin seems to be his intention to accomodate his thoughts to the minds of his greek readers. However, if we are to understand the New Testament, we must understand its underlying epistemology, including its epistemology of phenomena.TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-45271249433876132662010-01-17T22:54:45.058-05:002010-01-17T22:54:45.058-05:00Tom,
You write:
"I think that the non-Lucan...Tom,<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />"I think that the non-Lucan gospel accounts are too internally disconnected to serve as memoirs."<br /><br />The term "memoirs" (<i>apomnemoneumata</i>) is an old one, being used by Justin Martyr for the gospels in a manner that suggests he expects it to be recognized. <br /><br />If, as seems likely, John alone accompanied Jesus on most of his journeys down from Galilee to Jerusalem, that fact accounts for quite a bit of the "disconnectedness" you are noticing.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-5155578560653462632010-01-17T22:47:11.397-05:002010-01-17T22:47:11.397-05:00Tom, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your in...Tom, I'm not sure I'm convinced by your intriguing suggestion about bench notes, but it is certainly an interesting one.<br /><br />I very much appreciate your anecdotal evidence about the dangers of fideism. You are, of course, one of many who have been led away from Christianity in a crisis of faith by receiving unsatisfactory answers. I doubt that Hunsinger's version of "We just believe it" would have helped you much more in your teens! The interesting thing is that fideism is often associated with anti-intellectualism, but there are a number of intellectual versions as well. Indeed, I think it is safe to say that in many a seminary, anti-evidentialism is considered far more intellectual than evidentialism, which is thought naive and un-scholarly.Lydia McGrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20704380.post-19576218510417016232010-01-17T22:29:26.767-05:002010-01-17T22:29:26.767-05:00I smell the stench of fideism in Hunsinger's p...I smell the stench of fideism in Hunsinger's post. I left Christianity in my teens due to a fideist when I asked him how we know that Christ rose from the dead and the fideist replied, "We just believe it." Fideism is one of the most abominable heresies as it removes all evidential, persuasive power from the gospel, despite the fact that Paul relies heavily on evidences in his statement of the gospel in I Cor. 15:1-11. Take out from Paul's gospel the evidence for Christ's resurrection and his office as messiah and what you have left is the false (due to impotence) fideist gospel.<br /><br />"The Gospels most certainly are historical in genre, that specific sub-genre known as memoirs."<br /><br />I think that the non-Lucan gospel accounts are too internally disconnected to serve as memoirs. Rather, I think that they are intended to be viewed as the compilations of bench notes (with the possible exception of Luke) taken from the hearings where the apostles gave their testimony. This view accords with their jewish context, which heavily influenced the epistemology of the early church. The apostles were designated by Christ as his witnesses, and in the 1st century jewish context, this would have had overwhelming legal overtones rather than our current idea of "witnessing" as "telling about our spiritual experiences as Christians." <br /><br />From Acts 4:33 and 8:25, we have reason to believe that both the early church and the Samaritans questioned the apostles as witnesses in some sort of formal hearing.<br /><br />We know from Luke that there were many attempts prior to Luke to create accounts about the events of Christ's ministry. These many attempts indicate some discrepancies about details and attempts to reconcile those discrepancies. Why were the details needed? Perhaps because others besides the apostles were doing evangelism and needed to answer questions from inquirers about the details of Christ's ministry. <br /><br />This leads naturally to speculation about the creation of "Q" documents which the evangelists would have used and which the church would have had to have provided. Of course, these "Q" documents would strongly support the historicity and reliability of the gospel accounts, assuming that the gospel accounts rely heavily upon them, since the "Q" documents would have likely been written within a year of Christ's resurrection while the events were firmly fixed in the apostles' memories. Of course, retelling the events would have served to fix them even more firmly and the early note-taking by hearers that would have occurred would have served to act as a corrective to embellishment later. This doesn't even rely on the influence of the Holy Spirit, which would have served to improve if not guarantee accuracy. I think that we can infer that the accounts are incomplete, as John states about his. Incompletion doesn't harm the accuracy of the incomplete content, however, as far as it goes (pro tanto).TomHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08024755693673825832noreply@blogger.com