You are witnesses at the new birth of Soul Device, mark two.
I hope you enjoy the new direction.
On keyboard: Douglas M. Beaumont.
He wrote this.
Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead?
This is an evaluation of the debate between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman titled “Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose from the Dead?” which was held at Southern Evangelical Seminary in April of 2009. The debate proper consisted of four two-part stages: (1) opening statements, (2) first rebuttals, (3) second rebuttals, and (4) closing statements. Below will be presented the summary arguments used and evidences cited, followed by an evaluation of each debater’s approach to historical investigation, the strengths and weaknesses of said methods, and a discussion of whether the debater’s made their case.
Debate Summary
Opening Statements
Mike Licona
Mike Licona began his opening statement with his personal testimony regarding his historical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He explained how he did his best to overcome personal bias (that of a Christian working for a Christian organization) by rigorously applying the objective methods of historiography. Licona also expressed having distressing periods of doubt during the procedure that was eventually overcome by the evidence.
Licona then launched into his primary arguments which consisted of two basic categories: facts and method. There were three facts that Licona argued are accepted by the majority of historical scholars, both secular and religious, today that together make a compelling case for Jesus’ resurrection. These facts are: (1) that Jesus died by crucifixion, (2) that Jesus was believed to have subsequently appeared to the disciples, and that (3) the apostle Paul, originally an enemy of Christianity, was reported to have been converted due to his experience with the risen Jesus. Licona gave evidences of each of these claims from sources such as Tactius, the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, reports of the disciple’s martyrdom, Luke’s writings, Paul’s early claims in Galatians 1:23, and other historical sources. Because these facts are conceded by scholars on both sides of the debate (including Bart Ehrman himself), they all must be explained satisfactorily by any theory that purports to explain them historically. The issue, he said, was one of interpretation of these facts.
The method Licona suggested for doing so was to discover an “argument to best explanation.” Borrowing from C. Behan McCullagh, Licona listed four conditions for discovery: (1) Explanatory Scope, (2) Explanatory Power, (3) Plausibility, and (4) Less Ad Hoc. Licona illustrated the process of narrowing down an argument to the best explanation with a medical analogy of diagnosing appendicitis. Applying the process to the resurrection facts listed above, Licona claimed, would lead one to reject the naturalistic explanations offered by many historians.
Bart Ehrman
After a humorous opening comparing himself to Daniel in the lion’s den, Ehrman stated that he was not in the debate to argue that that Jesus was not raised from the dead, but that it cannot be historically proven that he was raised because miraculous events are not, by definition, susceptible to historical proof. Ehrman attempted to show this by arguing (1) that what historians do precludes identifying miracles, and that (2) miracles themselves cannot ever serve as historical conclusions.
Ehrman claimed that “what historians do” involves discerning levels of probability based on evidence. On the issue of evidence, Ehrman noted that for the history of Bill Clinton there would be lots of evidence for his activities in 1992 vs. 1972. He moved backward through history citing historical issues surrounding Shakespeare’s writings, Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and the apostle Peter’s death. (I am not sure, but it seemed as though Ehrman was trying to show that the farther we go back in time the more difficult it is to attain reliable data. He did not say so, but this would have been fairly easy to refute given that data levels are different for different events regardless of their distance in time.)
When seeking sources for these kinds of issues, Ehrman said historians want those that are contemporary to the events, multiple attestations, independent yet consistent reports, and unbiased reporters. Ehrman then considered the sources we have for Jesus’ resurrection, complaining that we had late gospel accounts (40+ year gaps), written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses (evidenced by the gospels being written in Greek, not the native Aramaic, the illiteracy of the disciples [Acts 3:14]). He charged the gospel accounts as being based on unreliable oral traditions that changed over time during oral phase of their transmission in order to convert people. These changes were said to be evidenced by a simple comparison of the gospels of Mark and John concerning things such as the date / time of Jesus’ death, whether or not Jesus carried his cross, whether both robbers mocked him, when the curtain ripped, plus multiple issues concerning the story of the women visitors to the tomb. A 20 year gap for Paul’s writings was noted, but nothing more was said in that regard.
Regardless of the above problems, according to Ehrman the real problem is with historical investigation of miracle claims in the first place. Historians, Ehrman stated, can only show what probably happened by establishing levels of probability for any explanation of historical facts. This is unlike the natural sciences where experiments can be repeated to predict the future. Miracles are, by definition, the least probable of any occurrence (otherwise they would not be useful as miracles). Therefore, miracles can never, by definition, be the conclusion of historical investigation. As an example, Ehrman noted that the odds of someone being able to walk on water are apparently 1 (i.e., Jesus) out of six billion (the current population). Thus, because the least probable cannot be the most probable, a miracle can be believed only on a theological—not an historical—basis.
First Rebuttals
Mike Licona
Licona began (and ended) by pointing out that, as he had claimed, Ehrman was not in contention with the 3 basic historical facts concerning the resurrection—even going so far as to quote Ehrman to that end. Licona then stated that Ehrman had introduced red herrings into the debate by attacking the authenticity of the gospel sources. Many of these can be easily explained, Licona claimed, but moreover none impinged on the 3 basic facts. Even the rhetorical questions Ehrman asked with regard to gospel discrepancies revealed a bedrock of truth that required explanation.
With regard to method, Licona provisionally agreed that if “proof” were taken to mean “100% certainty” then of course historians could not prove miracles (or anything for that matter). But this is not how historians use the term. Rather, proof for the historian consists of “reasonable or adequate” explanations.
More importantly, probability should not be calculated the way Ehrman does. Probability for Ehrman seems to equate to historical frequency. Licona objected that even if the uniform testimony of history indicated that miraculous-type events do not occur, this would only be indicative of probability if external agents are never responsible. In other words, it only shows that, sans God, miracle explanations are is not good history. Here, a better distinction between probability, plausibility, and possibility could have been made. Whether or not a thing is possible is different from whether or not it is statistically likely. Equivocation on these terms caused some confusion. For example, the existence of God would make the resurrection possible, but not necessarily any more likely. Both debaters seemed to use “plausible” as both “likely” and “possible” (although, of course, something impossible is also not likely).
Licona then cited some “empirical challenges” to the uniform testimony assumption which he believed showed that miracles happen today as well (such as the story of coma friend). Finally, Licona said that this was not a theological issue simply because non-historical entities are posited, arguing that science does this as well (black holes, quarks, etc. best explain some things without being proved or seen). He also cited the example of Scipio: we don’t know how died but we all see his dead body. Given the supernatural character of a resurrection, of course, God is a pretty good candidate.
Bart Ehrman
Ehrman began his rebuttal by questioning Licona’s bias. Since historians agree that presuppositions affect investigative outcomes, it is important to question someone who ended where he began: as a believer in the resurrection. Ehrman contrasted this situation with his own, one who had gone from believer to unbeliever.
Ehrman then turned to Licona’s 3 Facts, claiming that there was really only one: appearances. Since Jesus could have died in any way, the crucifixion was not related to the resurrection and did not count as evidence for it. Further, appearances are appearances, so there is no need to distinguish between the disciples and Paul. Thus, only an explanation for the appearances was required. Ehrman asked for source evidence for the alleged martyrdom of the disciples, or even that they all believed. Further, how did Paul know he was seeing Jesus? Finally, given the transfiguration account in the gospels and other visionary experiences in the Bible, how does an appearance prove a resurrection? “Visionary experiences” (Ehrman thought the term “hallucinations” was derogatory, Licona did not – and cited recent professional literature to make his point) could account for the appearances and that would do it for Licona’s “3 Facts.”
Turning to methodology, Ehrman agreed that the resurrection does have explanatory scope and power, but that without positing God it lacks plausibility. Because the historian qua historian cannot do so, a resurrection is implausible. Ehrman gave the example of the crucifixion event—it could be proved by historians but what it accomplished (death for mankind’s sin) could not. Since any explanation is going to have better probability, and visionary experiences are known to occur, evben in groups (e.g., the virgin Mary), then visionary experiences are more probable on an historical account. In fact, even the Syriac twin tradition (the idea that it was Jesus’ alleged twin brother, Didimus Judas Thomas, who people saw), crazy as it sounds, is more probable. Ehrman also asked about how Licona handles the other traditions of resurrection in other religions (e.g., Apollonius).
Second Rebuttals
Mike Licona
Licona opened by again accusing Ehrman of offering red herrings as his motives were not at issue, and if so then Ehrman’s time at Princeton and book sales had to be considered as well. Further, atheists have converted on historical evidence as well.
Next, Licona noted that, again, Ehrman is not disputing the facts—only their interpretation. Regarding the crucifixion fact, Ehrman was said to be confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, and gave an example of necessary versus sufficient facts needed to prove Hitler responsible for the Holocaust. Jesus had to die to rise, and so this fact is necessary in a case for Jesus’ resurrection. Licona then moved on to the appearances, claiming that according to statistics hallucinations are experienced by about 15% of the population, are more likely in females and the elderly, are not experienced in groups, etc. These contrast with the situation of all of the disciples (and especially Paul who was not even bereaved).
Positing God, Licona argued, is not being theological, it is just being unbiased—as God is the best candidate to explain such an occurrence. Ehrman, Licona claimed, was confusing an historical conclusion with its theologicalimplications. One could, Licona admitted, posit a resurrection without naming its cause (or, as above, posit a theoretical entity just like scientists do). Licona also mentioned the weakness of the twin theory, including Ehrman’s own writings on the superiority of the canonical material in Jesus studies.
Bart Ehrman
Ehrman began by again arguing that crucifixion is unrelated to the resurrection evidences and pointed out that Licona did not answer his objection that Jesus could have died in any manner. He then pointed out that there are thousands of necessary conditions for Jesus’ resurrection (that Jesus lived, that Jesus lived in Palestine, was a Jew, etc.).
Ehrman said he was happy to accept Licona’s criteria for method, but that plausibility was still lacking. The resurrection is not probable without belief in God (what other option is there?)—a question with which historians cannot deal.
Concerning visions, Ehrman pointed out that they are common with bereavement and that as Jesus was a deeply loved master this would be expected of his disciples. Paul, Ehrman said, was an interesting case, but limited evidence for what really happened and some difficulties in Acts makes it difficult to use Paul as evidence. Further, Licona did not explain how Paul knew he was seeing Jesus in the first place. Contra Liocona, Ehrman stated that multiple visions happen all the time. Further, Ehrman asked that if Judas did not see the risen Jesus, then who were “the twelve” that allegedly make up the best evidence for the appearances? Finally, Ehrman stated that the twin theory was indeed an established tradition and that while is was a little crazy, it was less crazy than a resurrection (on historical grounds)—after all, twins are mistaken for each other all the time.
Closing Statements
Mike Licona
Besides going back over the debate, Licona pointed out that “The Twelve” is a title like the “Pack 10”– it is an established title whether there are exactly ten members or not. He agreed that the twin theory is crazy, but stated that there is no evidence for it. Licona offered aliens as potential candidates to explain the resurrection besides God, but noted that this only questions the cause of the act which is not the subject of the debate. Finally, he stated that since miracles do occur today, probability increases and that it is only with natural causes that probability decreases.
Bart Ehrman
Ehrman concluded that no one doubts oral stories changed because of Gnostic gospels and other Jesus traditions. Evolution can be seen from the fact that only John is explicit about Jesus being/calling himself God, and not the early gospels. He reminded the audience that other miracle sources existed for other people (Hony the Circle Drawer, Bendoza, Vespasian). Finally, Ehrman said that the resurrection makes no sense without God and that there are no historical grounds for dismissing either alien or God hypothesis.
Debate Evaluation
Debate titles are extremely important when evaluating who wins. The title of this debate was “Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose from the Dead?” Licona argued that they could because the agreed-upon facts of history were best explained by a resurrection. Ehrman disagreed because the resurrection explanation lacked plausibility. This was the substance of the debate.
Licona’s case was evidenced by 3 Facts and a 4 Part Method. Ehrman did not contest the 3 Facts, and Licona was right to point this out. That Ehrman’s attempt to discredit the sources for these facts fell flat was made clear when his counter to Licona’s response of “irrelevant” was “not if he uses them to answer parallel traditions,” for Licona did not do so. Ehrman’s rhetorical attempt to diminish the quantity of facts was not helpful for his case, as he later admitted how interesting Paul’s case was (a tacit admission that this evidence was in a different category). On the other hand, Ehrman’s request for Licona to explain how Paul could have known he was seeing Jesus went unanswered, and Ehrman noted this in his remarks. This was not destructive to Licona’s case but should have been answered.
Ehrman made a strong case for the fact of the crucifixion not being [direct] evidence for the resurrection. This particular fact has value as a preemptive tactic, however; that is, had Ehrman attempted to discredit the resurrection by calling Jesus’ death into question it would have been relevant. But in the course of this debate (over Jesus’ “rising” and not his “dying”) I agree that it is not additional evidence for the resurrection per se. It is difficult, however, to see what mileage Ehrman hoped to gain from pointing this out. Licona was not basing his case on amassed evidence, but only on the facts that had to be explained. Since this necessary condition for the resurrection was granted (along with those which Ehrman helpfully pointed out), then evidence for or against it no longer aided either side.
Licona’s methodology was accepted by Ehrman, so only one point of contention remained between them–whether or not the resurrection could fulfill all four parts of said method. Plausibility, then, became the crux of the debate. Now, Ehrman’s own historical methodology relied heavily on a vague notion of probability based on current knowledge, a predisposition toward naturalism, and seemed to assume a robust idea of proof that approached that of scientific certainty. Licona’s objections to this methodology relied heavily on openness to supernatural agency which he admitted was not part of historical investigation as such. Ehrman’s later admission that the resurrection would be the best explanation if God existed was surprising. If this is so, then the debate might be reduced to theistic presuppositions.
Throughout the debate Ehrman made it clear that when sticking to natural explanations anything was better than the supernatural. Unfortunately, Licona’s responses to this made for a less clear position than his others. On the one hand, Licona asked only for openness to the possibility, but, in what might have been merely a backup plan, he also responded as if Ehrman had a point when Licona added miraculous activity today to his evidences (This also might have only pushed the question back a step although Ehrman did not mention it.).
The difficulty here is that Ehrman’s continued emphasis on supernatural activity not being investigatable by historians as such was true. Historians cannot investigate the existence of God as historians any more than can gardeners as gardeners, or zoologists as zoologists (without apologies to Richard Dawkins). But neither can historians drive cars as historians—for it is not in the nature of historiography to drive a car (nor, contra Ehrman, can they do probability analysis as historians!). The issue is whether people can investigate the existence of God, and how they should go about it. So while I have to agree with Ehrman that discussions of God belong to theology, this does not lead to the conclusion he thinks it does.
Moreover, as Licona pointed out, God’s existence was not at issue here. It was this response to the probability issue that sufficiently answered Ehrman. The debate was not over the existence of God, it was over Jesus’ rising from the dead. As William Lane Craig has pointed out in debates over the same topic, all that is required to prove that is to show that Jesus was alive after being dead. This point is so obvious it is easy to miss in such a theologically charged debate, and I fear that many who listen to the debate will miss its importance because Licona came across less-than-clearly. While claiming not to need to prove God, Licona himself brought him up, and once God gets put into the equation his existence becomes part of the claim. Licona defended this claim by saying he was justified in positing God because scientists posit theoretical agents too (Ehrman did not bring this up, but it might be asked whether this analogy with science is appropriate for an historical investigation). But if agent identification is unnecessary for this debate, why do it at all? When Licona conceded that of course God was a good candidate, Ehrman asked what else it could be. Licona responded that maybe it was aliens. This kind of back-and-forth created confusion over what exactly Licona was arguing, and made Erhamn’s case sound stronger than it was (again, given Ehrman’s correct conclusion that God is not an object of historical investigation—to which Licona agreed when he claimed he only needed to argue for the effect and not the cause.) So while I think that Licona technically answered Ehrman’s objection, it did not come across clearly enough in the course of the debate. A preemptive, strong, and consistent claim that the historical proof for the resurrection does not have anything to do with God’s existence—and then leaving God out of it—would have left the burden of proof off of Licona and sealed Ehrman’s fate in a more satisfactory way.
Now, even when theistic presuppositions (or even mere openness to the supernatural) are present, naturalistic explanations are most often sought first. This is easily proven by asking a Christian what they think of opposing miracle claims by other religions. Thus, the discussion of visionary experiences was very important. Licona’s case was stronger here due to the fact that he cited professional sources while Ehrman had only vague anecdotal evidence for group visions. Licona did not address these head-on in his rebuttals, however, which made them seem stronger than they really were. This was an area that citing comparative apologetic evidence would have been useful. Licona’s repetition of previous arguments in the face of counter-evidence had the appearance of weakness, even when they were still technically strong. The back and forth over the Twin theory suffered a similar problem. Calling out Ehrman’s stories as pale in comparison to the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection would have been welcome.
Conclusion
I give the win to Licona. Using a point-by point comparison, Licona clearly won six out of his seven main contentions (all three facts and three out of four method points were basically granted or very weakly challenged). Ehrman’s methodology came across strongly only when considering proof as 100% (which Licona answered without challenge), and his probability calculation was vague and unsupported. Ehrman was correct about the role of the historian, but his conclusion about the ability of the historian was faulty. Licona could have been more clear about why this was the case, and could have offered better responses to the philosophical flaws, but even discounting this, Ehrman’s focus on requiring God was not convincing.
As to methodology, that Licona made his case was admitted by Ehrman himself so that was a clear win. Ehrman’s specific methodological statements might very well be true, but his understanding of them was flawed. This could have been better attacked as well. For example, virtually any unique event in the history of mankind would be less plausible than the mundane. Given Ehrman’s criteria this would make all unusual events impossible to prove historically (“Billions of people have never walked on the moon.”). As methodology itself is a more philosophical than historical issue, a debate focused on method would be better served with a more focused philosophical attack (although I wonder if Ehrman would respond that historians cannot possibly do this either “as historians”).
A Final Consideration
Ehrman may have made one stronger point than he realized (or at least stronger than he argued). It could be that the resurrection is indeed, by nature, a theologically-laden act. Jesus was not the first to rise from the dead (e.g., Luke 7:11-14; Mark 5:22-43; John 11:1-44), but he was the first to resurrect.
“Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the basis for the future resurrection of humans (1 Cor. 15:42–50). The Spirit, which was given after his resurrection, is the ‘guarantee’ (or ‘first installment’) that God will raise the righteous from the dead, and that they will not be found ‘naked,’ that is, incorporeal (2 Cor. 5:1–5; cf. Eph. 1:13–14), but will have a corporeal existence with God. Even though believers ‘groan’ while in their bodies (2 Cor. 5:2), they will be ‘further clothed’ after their resurrection (v. 4).”* Therefore, “resurrection is to be distinguished from resuscitation or reanimation of the physical body. It denotes a complete transformation of the human being in his or her psychosomatic totality (1 Cor. 15:53-55).”**
If this is correct then a rising from the dead is actually not enough to prove a resurrection. If that is the case then even if someone should rise from the dead it might not prove that God exists. A resurrection would, however, for it could have no other agent by definition. Given the debate title this was not technically a problem, but since “Jesus’ resurrection” was the referent throughout, it is more open to attack on theological plausibility grounds than a “mere” rising from the dead.
NOTES:
* Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).
**Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 864.
OK, last part. We’ve had some great discussion on the first two posts concerning whether or not agreement with the Church’s early creeds and councils are optional for Christians today, and upon what basis. Then we looked at how this affects our view of the canon of the New Testament.
I’d like to ask now: “IF” (note the hypothetical) the early, ecumenical Church’s councils, creeds, and canon are taken to be normative and authoritative, what do we make of post-schism churches? Up until 1054, arguments for an authoritative tradition might seem to be quite a bit stronger because basically, if you were a Christian then “choosing a church” was not really an option. There was one Church and you were either in or out (and, unlike many churches today, saying you accepted Jesus into your heart was not enough – you were actually taught the doctrinal standards of the Church and had to agree with them before baptism).
BUT . . . the arguments come to seem too idealistic after the great schism of 1054 between the Eastern Church in Constantinople and the Western Church at Rome. There were other splits before this, e.g., the Coptic church in Egypt, but this one was the biggest. At this point there became a legitimate choice (even if an impractical one depending on where one lived!). The Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox division exists today, to which was added the Reformation denominations and the Baptist / free church groups, etc.
So, “IF” the early, ecumenical Church’s councils, creeds, and canon are taken to be normative and authoritative, what affect should that have on today’s churches and one’s decision to join one over another? (Again, note the hypothetical – if the councils and creeds, at least, are not binding in some way, then one can take them or leave them – as well as any church’s agreement with them).
Again, I look forward to your feedback!
Following on the heels of the previous post, what about sola Scriptura? This might be seen by many evangelicals as the trump card against any kind of appeal to Church authority (of any kind), but this introduces an interesting issue: the canon of Scripture was not solidified until the 3rd or 4th century.
Now, if the canon came about after, or nearly consequent with, the aforementioned creeds and councils (and by the same process), it would seem that to ignore them might also justify ignoring the canon. That is, whatever reasons can be given for ignoring the early Church tradition might be used all the more strongly for ignoring the canon as well.
So . . . are we just as free to jettison the biblical canon as we are the ecumenical Church creeds and councils? It seems just the opposite might be the case. Would an evangelical feel free to dismiss certain books of the Bible if they did not sit well with him? Would he be free to add to the canon should he “feel led” to do so? Either way, what is the standard by which he could or could not do so, and how would these arguments work with or against Church tradition in the ecumenical Church creeds and councils?
I’ve been dialoging with some friends (and books) for some time now on the issue of orthodoxy in the Church. I have always had a vague assumption of the authority of the ecumenical creeds and councils (e.g., Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon) to define Christian orthodoxy. I was taught that the Christian Church (capital “C”) holds to “one Bible, two testaments, three creeds, four councils, and five centuries.” But after actually looking into the history a bit some questions have arisen. I’ll start with these three:
First, what justification is there for drawing the line after the 3rd creed/4th council given the fact that the Church was basically united for the first 1,000 years (i.e., pre-1054 schism)?
Second, if the earliest creeds/councils are binding, what do we do about calling Mary “theotokos” (literally “mother of God”) as affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431? And if we add in the other ecumenical councils, what about the declaration of acceptance concerning the use of icons from the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in AD 787?
Third, if these creeds/councils are not binding, how does one define the Church without either accepting anyone claiming to believe the Bible (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Word Faith, or any other heresies) or simply claiming one’s own view as authoritative? In other words, can one person define Christianity for the Church? That seems impossible by definition. But how would the Church govern what it means to be the Church without some overriding standard of orthodoxy made by the Church itself?
Your thoughts will be appreciated, as well as any resources that have helped you. My own proposed reading plan (which will be very slowly undertaken given my school schedule) consists of:
- D. H. Williams: Evangelicals and Tradition
- Philip Schaff: The Creeds of Christendom
- Jaroslav Pelikan: The Christian Tradition Vol. 1
- Jaroslav Pelikan: Credo
- George Salmon: Infallibility of the Church
- Robert Sungenis: Not By Scripture Alone
An front page article from the Asheville Daily Planet caught my attention the other day while visiting this crazy city:
As a contingent of protesters peacefully assembled outside in a pouring rain, the Amazing Grace Baptist Church celebrated Halloween by burning Bibles that aren’t the King James Version, as well as books, recorded music and anything else Pastor Marc Grizzard deemed a satanic influence.
As we like to say in the south, “Do what now?” Sheesh. It is sad that this pastor and the other five (out of a total population of fourteen) members of Amazing Grace Baptist Church made the front page of a newspaper for this stunt. Asheville is a college town that probably already has its share of tired Christian workers who have enough to deal with from the world.
It is ironic that a church with “Amazing Grace” in its name could instigate a Bible burning “service”! To be fair, a bunch of people protesting with signs that say “Who Are You 2 Judge?” is not the best response (aren’t they judging too?). The head of the protesters said, “If they call themselves ‘Christian,’ I don’t have the right to say otherwise.” True, but we do have the right to say they’re acting in an un-Christian manner. The church’s website indicates that comments can be sent to: Pastor Marc Grizzard. Maybe if enough of us give helpful criticism we can keep Grizzard from confusing even more people.
This is from a response I gave to a friend of mine recently inquiring about my view on Roman Catholic conversions.
I saw the website (www.catholicscomehome.org). This represents a fairly major move going on in this generation. There are books, TV shows, websites, etc. all focused on those who have left and returned to the RC church. There are also Protestants converting to Roman Catholicism. One chapter in the book Is Rome the True Church? is dedicated to why this is happening. Interestingly, the book’s co-author, a friend of mine named Joshua Betancourt, converted to Roman Catholicism shortly after the book was published! Nor is he the only one. I know several people, whose minds I highly respect, who have made the same decision (Francis Beckwith, J. Budziszewski, to name some famous recent converts). Of course, the opposite is happening too – lots of RC’s are converting to some form of Protestant-Evangelicalism.
It’s a difficult issue. I know that personally, the more I study and grow the less impressed I am by evangelicalism. Yes, RC has some major issues in faith and practice, but if you take Evangelicalism as a whole I think evangelicals are making it pretty easy to convert. Like a lot of issues, this one goes a lot deeper, and requires far more argumentation, than many are prepared to deal with.
As far as I am concerned the base issue is authority. When an Evangelical Protestant (Independent/Baptist/Pentecostal/etc.) makes a false claim there is no higher authority to pronounce judgment on it. Everyone “does what is right in his own eyes” so-to-speak. On the other hand, accepting Rome’s doctrines is not enough – one must accept the papacy no matter what happens in the future. This flies in the face of sola Scriptura, and Protestants can’t bend on this one. As RC’s are quick to point out though, sola Scriptura hasn’t saved Protestantism from going bad in many areas. We can say we base our beliefs on the Bible all day long, but that’s what homosexuals say (and are now ordained in several major denominations), that’s what abortionists say (and are accepted as church members), that’s what adulterers say (in their special home groups), etc. From crazed fundamentalists to goofball seeker churches, we just have to say, “Oh well – that’s just how they do it.” It gets VERY frustrating.
Meanwhile the RC Church is infiltrating culture and turning the tide on abortion, upholding biblical marriage, etc. and not embarrassing Christianity in the process (pedophile priests notwithstanding . . . ). Then I read Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, the Church Fathers, even Luther, and I see how many of our main problems with RC are really just what the Church believed for nearly 1500 years. The creeds that determine orthodoxy are all pre-Reformation. The doctrines of God are being challenged by Open Theists, Process Theologians, etc., who are pretty much all what? Protestants! Add in the beauty of the liturgy compared to rock concert worship and juice-and-crackers “communion,” and the case for evangelicalism starts being more and more difficult to sustain!
Now having said all that, I do think RC has some major issues. Papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and some of the declarations of Trent are enough to keep me out. Their view on justification is questionable as well (I say questionable because of this: The Joint Declaration on Justification). I don’t think I could become a true RC without bending severely on these issues. But many of the others (infant baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist, use of icons, etc.) are actually far more orthodox than many evangelicals realize. I think the issue is more the modern discomfort with tradition than biblical/orthodox discernment. (Just last week I heard a deacon and a pastor thank God the Father for shedding his blood on the cross!). I have come to find it difficult to believe that only in the last century has the Church finally got it all figured out (and that it’s found, somehow, in this splintered and confused world of evangelicalism).
All that to say this. As far as I am concerned:
- Salvation is found in belief in the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-5).
- Orthodoxy is found in the ecumenical creeds.
- Beyond that, it’s a matter of in-house argumentation and personal taste.
I think a true Roman Catholic has about as much chance of being saved as a true legalistic Baptist or confused Evangelical!
If you really want to dig in, official RC beliefs can be found in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. For a commentary, I recommend Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Kreeft is a convert who has remained evangelical and fairly ecumenical over the whole thing (plus he surfs, so, you know, he can’t be all bad. Haha.) From the Protestant perspective, Geisler and MacKenzie’s Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences is the best I know of and it got good reviews from both sides of the debate. Finally, you should also check out Salmon’s The Infallibility of the Church, which deals with Papal claims to infallible authority which, as I said above, is the real issue as far as I am concerned.
Is Evanescence a Christian Band?
This question has haunted newsgroups, blogs, and wikis for years now. The most informed answer seems to be that while Evanescence the band is not Christian, its members are (or some are, or were, or something). There is no question that the band started off being marketed as a Christian band (I even had a coupon for their Fallen CD from a Family Christian Store!), but after they got famous they made an issue of it (sparking ex-guitarist Ben Moody’s famous F-bomb).
Personally, I think it’s a a fairly useless question. But I found some additional evidence that I have not seen mentioned on the websites I’ve read, so I thought I’d throw it out there.
I recently got Evanescence’s Origin CD – their “demo” containing rough versions of several early songs that made it on to Fallen as well as some excellent music that did not. Evanescence had this to say in the “Thanks” section of Origin’s liner notes:
“In closing we give all praise and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. All we have and all we are we owe to the Grace of Jesus. He is our strength and our redeemer.”
They then quoted Romans 6:4 (reference and all).
So for whatever it’s worth, there it is.
I received the following reply to my critical review of Blackaby’s Experiencing God on Amazon.com (my response follows below):
I would like to address your concerns regarding Jesus speaking today, individually to His followers.
Proper discernment of God’s Word vs. our experience or traditions or dogmas can only come through the gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corithians 2:14).
Jesus is the way shower for every born-again Christian (1st John 2:6). Jesus told his disciples that He had many things to say to them, but they could not bear it at that time, but after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit would come to dwell within them, He said that He would teach them all things (Jn 14:25, 26). Jesus’s statement clearly implies that the Spirit would be SPEAKING all that Jesus was unable to speak to them while He was on earth. Still not convinced?
In John 16:13 Jesus said, “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, HE SHALL SPEAK. And He will announce to you THINGS TO COME. (MKJV)
Jesus said that His sheep (i.e. not just the apostles) HEAR His voice and no other will they follow (John 10:27). Jesus described the born-again experience as a wind that we don’t know where it comes from or where it is going (John 3:8). The Scripture further says that only those that are led by the Spirit are children of God (Romans 8:14).
Regarding prayer, our lives, according to be Scripture are to be lives of continual prayer (1st Thess 5:17), and the Spirit prays through us because we don’t know how to pray (Romans 8:16). Now I ask you, how can the Spirit pray through us if He is not speaking to us?
Jesus became like us (Philippians 2:7-8) and was tempted in all points as we are and yet never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). If Jesus did not become fully human than He could never say, “Follow me;” He would be able to say, “Admire me, worship me, obey me,” but not “Follow me.” 1st John 2:6 says, “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked.”
With this in mind, let us ask the question, how did Jesus walk (i.e. live)?
Jesus said, “I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He who sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things what I heard of Him (John 8:26, MKJV),” and “I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you, then, do what you have seen with your father. (John 8:38, MKJV).”
From the two verses quoted above is it not clear that Jesus lived as a man in CONSTANT two-way communication with the Father? Why do you think it should be any different for those that have Jesus living within them through the Holy Spirit (John 17:20-21, 23, 26, Colossians 1:27)?
I encourage you consider the Scriptures I have shared with you and to pray by faith for the Holy Spirit to help lead you further in the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
My reply:
Thank you for offering a thoughtful response to my review. Note that I do have a robust presentation on this topic (a week-long course, actually), but I did not exactly have enough space for that. 
Here are some initial responses:
- 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not teach that “proper discernment of God’s Word vs. our experience or traditions or dogmas can only come through the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Rather, it teaches that men will not accept the truths of revelation without the Holy Spirit. In any case, this is not an argument for ongoing specific guidance from God.
- 1st John 2:6 and Jn 14:25, 26 say that the Spirit would be SPEAKING all that Jesus was unable to speak to them while He was on earth. This was fulfilled with the disciples (to whom Jesus was speaking) – this is no promise to us.
- John 16:13 does not say the Holy Spirit will teach US all things (has He done so for any believer since the apostles???).
- John 10:27 has to do with faith, not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- John 3:8 has to do with faith, not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- Romans 8:14 has to do with acting according to the flesh (i.e., sin) – not ongoing specific guidance from God.
- Neither 1st Thess 5:17 nor Romans 8:16 say that the Spirit prays through us, much less speaks to us.
- 1st John 2:6 cannot be used to justify just anything that Jesus ever did. Clearly Jesus is a unique case! You need to show that a given thing that Jesus did was part of the example for us – not just ask rhetorical questions. But even so, how many times does the Scripture actually teach that He received Blackaby-style ongoing specific guidance from God? Remaining in God’s will is possible without it. 1 Tim. 3:16 says we have all we need for a life of godliness in the Scriptures, so do we need more or not?
I encourage you to read the Scriptures in context and try to understand them sans your presuppositions of ongoing specific guidance from God. It was eye-opening for me after a decade immersed in the popular view.
This video (HERE) from Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty” has made quite a splash online. It is a video showing the evolution of a model from her entrance into the studio (sans makeup/hairdo) up to the digitally manipulated photo taken of her for a billboard. The idea seems to be “See how much work it took to fake how beautiful this girl is? So don’t feel bad about how you look!” This is perhaps a good point, but the overall presentation does not make this clear.
The tagline of the video is “No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted.” I am not sure this is true, nor does it flow from the content of the video. The video does make a point about how much manipulation is often required to attain a certain look in the media, but this is not a “distortion of our perception of beauty.” The only reason the video works is that the woman (or, rather, her final image) is clearly more beautiful than she was when she walked in. The final “product” IS more beautiful - and we can easily perceive that. Otherwise the video would make no sense.
I think what they mean is that our expectations get distorted if we think all women must attain to this level of beauty in order to be considered beautiful at all. But that is a very different point. There are various levels of beauty, sure – and this is important to realize. But what is often ignored or directly denied by posters of the video is that this beauty is indeed objective (i.e., non-perspectival) and external (i.e., non-internal).*
*External factors are certainly not all that matters in attraction or assessment of a person’s overall “beauty” (“inner beauty” is more of a metaphor). And this is also a good and important message. But it is not helpful to try to redefine beauty in a way that ignores the fact of objective, external features.
I discovered this illustration in a new textbook I am reviewing for adoption in my Critical Thinking class. Now, most of the books on the subject are pretty obviously left wing biased. This comes out in the examples they use (most pro-liberal and anti-conservative). But this was a new low.
Note that the image is of a man reading a Bible, yet this has nothing to do with the sort of goofy beliefs being contrasted with scientific facts in the article. Christians, in general, are not known for believing in aliens, astrology, or psychic powers (unlike, say, liberals!). So why use it? Clearly the author thought there was some corollary here, but this is plainly false.
I sent this off to Oxford Press to let them know what I think of it:
While I have come to expect some amount of bias from CT textbooks, and often enjoy pointing out errors in critical thinking in them, I was upset by the religion-bashing in this text. The illustration on page 395 is a good example – here the author compares superstitious beliefs in aliens, astology, and psychic powers to scientific facts. Yet the accompanying illustration shows a man reading a Bible. Why? These superstitions are not part of the Christian worldview, nor are they religious in nature. I doubt this lapse in critical thinking would have gone unchallenged had it been a Quran or a book on homosexual rights in the picture. Isn’t this the kind of unreflective, shallow, and intolerant kind of message that religious people are accused of putting forth? I expect better of Oxford.
