Faith s Answers to the World s Questions Lesson 4, 10/5/08 DISCUSS REVIEW AND RAISING THE ISSUES -What do you think about the theory of evolution? Do you think it is possible that evolution and belief in God are compatible? Why or why not? -How would you respond to the comment that the Bible is not relevant for today? If you believe it is relevant, why so? -How would you respond to someone saying, "The Bible is full of contradictions and therefore cannot be true"? REVIEW THE METHOD TO OUR MADNESS Our method in looking at these questions will be to: 1) clarify the question, (what s it getting at?) 2) find the underlying beliefs, (how thick is the ice?) 3) discover the power of the gospel as the true answer (what does the gospel say?) Case Studies so far: Exclusivity (How can Jesus be the only Way?), Suffering (How can a good and powerful God allow suffering?), Oppression (Doesn t the church oppress people?) Today.. Q4: ISN T THE BIBLE OUTDATED AND UNRELIABLE? HOW CAN CHRISTIANS BELIEF THAT THE WHOLE THING IS LITERAL AND TRUE? Clarifying the Question People will say that the Bible is just a bunch of stories collected over hundreds of years by different authors a long time ago. It was written before we understood the mysteries of the world for their time, so it is outdated and untrue at times. There also many things that are immoral in it as well. To use a biblical analogy, it was a tutor to help us when we were children (Galatians 4:3-6), except instead of adulthood coming with Christ, it comes with awareness and scientific enlightenment. We need to pick and choose what is good from it for ourselves. Another view is that the Bible was written by the victors to support their policies. Therefore, it is not the word of God but the word of the majority/elite. Essentially, as Keller points out, people reject the Bible because some parts maybe many or most parts are scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive (99-100).
Finding the Underlying Beliefs Science shows that the Bible is false because it is based on miracles, which are impossible Since the miraculous is that the heart of the gospel, many people say that the gospel is false because miracles are not possible according to science. However, why are miracles not possible? Isn t this a faith-based claim, as it assumes that everything can be explained and can be comprehended by humans? It is Dr. House faith. -Miracles are improbable! And while it is true that we live in an age where we seek more scientific explanations than 1 st century Palestine, it is not true that they just believed that every miracle happened. They did not believe that people rose from the dead! They were perplexed and amazed at the miracles of Christ; they thought that they were possible but not expected or probable. Let s not be historical snobs! -Science and faith not mutually exclusive! In reality, science does not have the capability of looking at miracles; it is out of the realm of the scientific inquiry. Science looks at what and how, not why. This is not to demean science, as disciplines often look at issues from different angles (sociology, psychology, etc.). Many scientists are Christian, so it is not necessarily an either/or answer. There are many different ways to reconcile the two. We should not view the Bible as history -Jesus doesn t have to be Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, he is a Legend The old C.S. Lewis breakdown that one cannot say that Jesus is a good teacher because Scripture shows that he says he was God, so he must be a liar, lunatic, or Lord no longer works in our world. One of the predominant views is that Jesus of history was different than the Jesus of the gospels (or the Jesus of faith). However, Keller makes three common points in terms of showing the historically reliability of the gospels (100-108). The Gospels were written early It is true that the gospels come late in the writing of the New Testament but even a late dating of them has them within the first century. Therefore, they were written while Jesus generation was alive. In addition, the epistles (which were written earlier) assume the framework of the gospel accounts. These are early accounts, before legends develop. Furthermore, the culture was a culture of oral and memory (different than our culture) Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus, p.202
The Gospels were written as honest pictures of Jesus and disciples The disciples make many mistakes, Jesus says things that seem embarrassing, and the first witnesses are women! Furthermore, Jesus does not mention many of the problems of the early church (i.e. circumcision, idol meat, church structure, etc.). They also do not mention many of the things that we might wonder about today. They are restrained and fit what one would expect. The Gospels were designed as historical documents This is definitely true of Luke 1:1-4, which fights the introductions of ancient histories. It is different than our historical genre (dealing with the public life of a figure), but it fits their historical genre. As I. Howard Marshall says, According to his own testimony Luke wished to be taken seriously as a historian. Whether his work measures up to the standards expected of an accurate historian is question to be discussed (Luke: Historian and Theologian, 41). -The bias of the authors makes it propaganda instead of history This might sound like a good point on paper at first. However, there is no such thing as a totally objective historian. Every historian selects and writes with a point of a view; this does not eliminate the ability to construct what happened in the past. As Richard Bauckham points out, All history meaning all that historians write, all historiography is an inextricable combination of act and interpretation, the empirically observable and intuited or constructed meaning. (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 3). We must also recognize that we need to look at the gospels in their literary, cultural, and historical context. In ancient historiography, the ideal eyewitness is not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen (Bauckham, 9). The gospel tradition, according to Bauckham, is grounded in these eyewitnesses. Therefore, we can see that the Gospels are much closer to the methods and aims of ancient historiography than they are to typical modern historiography (Bauckham, 11). -The documents have been changed so much we don t even know what they really said. This is the claim that Bart Ehrman puts forth in his Misquoting Jesus. In fact, it is the thing that caused him to leave his evangelical Christian faith for his current agnostic state. These errors and variants are not as significant as one might think. First of all, the reason for so many differences in manuscripts is that there are so many different manuscripts; the number of manuscripts is unheard of in ancient literature. Furthermore, as Craig Blomberg points out, 97-99% of the NT can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no Christian doctrine is founded solely or primarily upon textually disputed passages There is absolutely no support for claims that the standard modern editions of the Greek NT do not very closely approximate what the NT writers actually wrote (in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 194).
- Lost Gospels give a more accurate portrayal of Jesus or cast doubt on the traditional. There seems to be no shortage of new gospels that had been lost emerging. However, Craig Evans examines some of these writings (Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Mary, among others) in Fabricating Jesus and notes that they are dated much later than the gospels in the New Testament, even with late dating of the canonical gospels. Furthermore, the gospels that we have seem much more restrained than the gospels that come later. Finally, the church accepted the fourfold gospel much earlier than is usually portrayed. These lost gospels might illuminate some early debates in the church, but they are not as useful in constructing truth about Jesus. Craig Evans, Fabricating Jesus, p.54-55 -We can only accept the Bible if can prove that the historical events happened. History cannot be proven in its fullest sense, as we do not have access to events but only accounts of the events. In actuality, you can never prove that something happened. You look to see if the evidence is compelling, if a claim is supported with reasons and evidence. However, ultimately it is a decision that you make. Culturally, we cannot accept the Bible as it teaches immoral things -If I don t agree with it, it must not be right Many people do not believe that the Good Book is a good book. Many atheists (and even Christians) say that the teachings are from an immoral culture. However, Keller points to two questions we should ask when we run into these problems. Is that really what it says? The Bible is a document written in a different culture. What this means is that we are listening to a phone conversation in a different place and time, where we might not realize nuances that are assumed and, therefore, miss the major point. Keller points out examples of slavery in the NT, here are others: Polygamy in OT What is described is not always prescribed. When you look at all the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament, things always get messed up (there is a reason why Genesis looks like Jerry Springer!). In many ways, the OT subverts the culture with its teachings, but we might miss it.
Ephesians 5:22-24 We are shocked by be submissive, they would be shocked by wife. Matthew 27:25 and the Anti-Semitic Gospel of Matthew The context of Matthew as a whole shows that the critique of the Jewish nation is in line with the prophets, and that it was the leaders who rejected and who got the crowds to turn on Jesus. Furthermore, Matthew was written when the church was being persecuted by Jews and Gentiles. Why do I have to be right? Perhaps your beliefs are wrong and need to be adjusted! Keller points out that if the Bible truly is the word of the holy God who made the universe and we are fallen human beings who worship ourselves and suppress the truth, then you would expect that we would disagree with parts of Scripture. This is a bit of a circular reasoning, but it is consistent. -All your questions about the Bible must be answered before you become a Christian. There is room for questions and doubt; it is okay to not totally understand how things work together sometime. There are major and minor issues focus on the major at first! Discovering the Gospel Truth Seeing what God has done, we must trust His authority and join in His work. This discussion is not meant to be left in the mental arena. We need to be challenged by what we read in Scripture, by the miraculous things that we see (ultimately in Christ) and by the authoritative teachings that Scripture contains. It is interesting that some people who have the strongest belief in the authority of the Bible on paper, who can reason and argue for it do not bring these truths into their lives. The goal of miracles is not just to impress. In some ways, it is not simply to convince people about the belief of God, though that is part (Matthew 14:33; John 20:31). It is to show that the kingdom of God has come (Matthew 11:4-5; 12:28)! And the Bible is not written simply so that we will behave, but that we might know Jesus (John 5:39, 46; Luke 24:27), experience eternal life (John 17:4; 1 John 5:14) and pass this infection along to the broken world (Matthew 28:19-20). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows that these words are meant to be followed personally. Questions to ponder: -Do you function as atheists or deists who believe in God but do not personally relate to Him? -Do you rely on your own strength in each circumstance? -Do you form your own opinions about what is right and wrong? -How does the miraculous work of God change your life? God has shown and communicated His work in the world! Are we tuning in and plugging in?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. If you believe in the truthfulness of the Bible, what would have to be shown scientifically or historically to make you not believe the Bible? If you don t believe the truthfulness of the Bible, what would it take to make you believe it? Do you feel that there is potential to show that the Bible is untrue? If so, how do you deal with that as a Christian? 2. In the book (pp. 92-95), Keller argues that evolutionary science only conflicts with Christianity when it is turned into an all-encompassing theory for everything which essentially substitutes belief in evolution for faith in God. How would you respond to this argument? Do you agree with him? 3. What is the biggest reason that you believe (or do not believe) in the historically reliability of the Bible? How do the reasons given by Keller and others influence your view? 4. What do you think of the suggestions for how to handle difficult texts? Are there issues you want to re-examine in light of these suggestions? 5. What are some issues that you consider major issues? What are minor issues? How can you keep conversations with those who do not believe the Bible on the major issues? 6. If someone asked you if you take the Bible literally, how would you respond? How could you further clarify this question? MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT A PASSAGE TO CONSIDER Luke 1:1-4 According to Luke, what are his objectives in writing his gospel? What was Luke s process in writing his gospel? What implication does this passage have as you read his gospel (and Acts)? John 5:39-46 What does Jesus say about the purpose of his miracles and works? What does Jesus say about the point of Scripture? How do you see this to be true? In this passage, what happens when we lose sight of the goal of Scripture?