Ever had one of those incredibly frustrating arguments with a Mormon where, regardless of the obvious content of the Bible, and the lack of supporting content in the history books, they stick to their guns because "The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the truth, and I know it to be true".
This is nonsense.
Not to go around bagging other religions, (actually... that is what I'm doing and intending to do), Jehovah's witnesses believe the reading (of the Bible) of a few (6?) guys despite the world's best scholars' translations from the greek, Islam believes Mohammed and is encouraged (a euphemism at times) to believe blindly and not question "the Prophet", Buddhism is based entirely on one guys experience with no supporting evidence aside from apparently clever arguments, Hinduism is impressively ancient, but is based on mythological stories that should have declined in parallel with Greek mythology, and don't even get me started on how ridiculous catholicism is...
So why be a Christian? Is it any better?
John Dickson has written a nice little book on this: If I were God I'd make myself clearer. Something from this book that stuck with me is that every major religion in the world except two fails to make historically verifiable claims. That means that every major religion in the world except two must be believed based on the personality of its prophets/gurus/scribes/brainchilds/inventors alone. The two exceptions: Mormonism and Christianity. Regarding the former he goes on to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus visited the U.S., that the tablets and magic glasses exist, or anything else that Mormonism claims. Regarding Christianity there is ample historical evidence regarding many historical claims, I need not go into it.
But at many times people have said the following to me about this: "historical evidence is all well and good, but it's not really relevant to me, I believe because the Holy Spirit has convicted me".
What I say to that is, with respect, I think that's rubbish. There are supporting passages to be sure, but taking the entire biblical corpus into account I simply cannot agree. I mean, what if you thought the HS convicted you of mormonism, or ritual suicide, or terrorism? I wouldn't agree with that. At the end of the day I think it's probably just a lucky coincidence that you are a Christian, and that Christianity is true.
Enter the Circle of Authority:
I'm a Sydney Anglican in almost every way. One way that I am not, is that I cannot agree with the widely taught circle of authority.
The argument goes like this: You should believe the Bible because the Bible says it is true. If you say that you believe the Bible for some other reason, then that thing is your ultimate authority, not the Bible. So if you believe the Bible for historical reasons, then history is your ultimate authority, not the Bible. So in order to get yourself onto this circle of authority, you need an insertion point. BUT the insertion point is not a higher authority, it's merely a tangent.
Here's the thing about the pictorial analogy: It's rubbish. An isertion point is a higher authority. It's a reason to believe the Bible in the first place. I don't care how much geometric analogies you come up with, if you have some initial reason for believing the Bible then that is the authority that had you believe the Bible - a truism if ever I've heard one.
Secondly, I hate to use the word Bibliolatry, because I don't want to be associated with 99% of the people that use that word, but I frankly I do not worship the Bible, I worship God. So I believe the Bible, because God has revealed to me that the Bible is the true way to know God. I don't believe other sources about God as authoritative, just the Bible, because my insertion point to the Bible is God, and God doesn't give me any other authoritative sources, but in fact several other fallible ones (my feelings, my view of creation etc, they're all tainted, and sit in subjection to the Bible).
So how does God reveal to me that the Bible is true? Sinai, Jesus' miracles, the Resurrection. At Sinai (Ex 19 in particular) God says something like : You shall know for all time that this law I'm giving you is authoritative BECAUSE I'm here speaking to you in person today. It's God's personal appearance that's authoritative. How is that authoritative for me? History! The history books. The mixed Biblical and historical and archaelogical accounts have lasted 4000 odd years because they're reliable (along with various other reasons). Jesus' miracles are well attested to, and he says to ... Thomas? A pharisee? I can't remember. Somewhere in John: If you don't believe the words I'm saying then believe on account of the miracles. The resurrection is ridiculously well attested to historically. And so on.
So why do I believe the Bible? Because I have good reasons to believe that God really did say : Believe the Bible. That's it. Being convinced of that, I'm free to believe the Bible absolutely, but not because it says so, but because God says so.
A quick word on the Holy Spirit: I believe that the world is irrationally anti-Christian because they don't have the BIble. The HS is an antidote to sin. We cannot believe the truth without the HSs conviction. Nevertheless, a HS argument alone I believe is a dangerous thing, and is ultimately not in line with the Biblical account. God really did appear in person on several occassions and claimed it was for, in part, verification-al purposes. So why reject those offerings, calling them irrelevant, and claim only the HSs conviction as your ultimate source of authority? The HS comes along side us to attest to the truth of the rest of the Biblical account. We must give him a secondary role to God and Jesus, that's what he wants.
This was much too long for a blog. Sorry about that.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A wise man once said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid".
ReplyDeleteHi Tony. Your dad was recycling a funny story about a park bench, and here I am.
ReplyDeleteFirst up, have you read Wenham, Christ and the Bible? It's my go-to on this, taking a similar line to you, but worth a look for fleshing things out.
Second, history's not really a secure way in, I think. Or at least, not as broadly defined as you've done. It buys you too many other headaches - about interpretation of history, or about apparent errors of history in the Bible...I'd put more weight on Jesus' saying so than on the whole historical record.
The HS is, in the end, the reason why. But that's not a 'naked' reason - he doesn't work on gut hunch-placing, he works through the word. You might not win any arguments, but it's still worth saying, 'so how did he convince you then?'
Thanks Anthony. Actually a couple of people have recommended Wenham in the past, so perhaps I should bite the bullet and amazon it right now. Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly agree about the extra headaches.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Jesus' saying so, I don't know what I think. If there were good reasons to think that Jesus never existed, I'd probably not believe that he did. I believe he really did say what he said, because the account is there and its verifiable aspects have been adequately confirmed. So even if I say I believe because Jesus said so, I'm initially placing trust in the historicity of those being his actual words. Am I not?
I don't know if I can accept the "God convinced me this way and you that way" thing. I don't know if that's the way he works in the Bible (normatively speaking). I know that's how things seem to work today, but it seems to me to be more of a symptom of our poor education system, especially regarding our inability to think independently (of one's heritage) and rationally. Perhaps I really am uncomfortable with anyone being a Christian for reasons other than the reliable historicity of the Bible, and a HS convicted response to the implications of its content. If the Bible is demonstrably unreliable, I can't believe it. And if the content is demonstrably ambiguous or self-contradictory, I'm not sure I can accept it in that case either.
I'm just thinking with my fingers here, not really any coherent point being made.
Thanks very much for your comments. I want to have a think about what I think. There's certainly a post in the "so how did he convince you then?" concept...