In the previous blog on the resurrection, I spoke about the internal evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Now I want to look at the external evidence.
External Evidence
While the internal evidence looks to the evidence coming from within the primary witness documents, the external evidence seeks to find collaborative evidence coming from outside the primary witness documents.
For the resurrection of Christ, I submit this line of external evidence:
- Preservation of the Documents
- Archeology
- Extra-biblical Attestation
- Survival in a Hostile Environment
Preservation of the Documents:
This has to do with the manuscript evidence of the New Testament, the primary source documents concerning the resurrection. While we don’t have any of the originals in our possession (nor should we expect to), the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is very strong. According to top text critic Daniel Wallace, “We have an embarrassment of riches.” Not only do we have hundreds of manuscripts that date before the fifth century (some into the second and third), but we have many quotations from the early church fathers that alone could be used to reconstruct most of the New Testament. All of this tells us that the accounts that we read are essentially the same as the accounts that were originally given. While there are some differences among the manuscripts, even Bart Erhman, former Fundamentalist, text critic, and critic of Christianity, says that no major doctrine is effected by the differences and that most are very insignificant.
In addition, and very significantly, the manuscript evidence tells us that the Gospel accounts of the resurrection were all written within a generation of the events which they record, giving evidence for their claims of eye-witness testimony. Therefore, there is no time for legendary material to arise.
Archeology:
The witness of archeology has continually confirmed the scriptural data. When there has been doubt in the past about the Gospel accounts (e.g., the date of the census in Luke and the reign of Quirinius, Governor of Syria, date of the Gospel of John, etc.), later archaeological and historical finds seem to always confirm the Scriptures to be historically accurate.
Jewish Archaeologist Nelson Glueck says this about the Bible: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” (Nelson Glueck Rivers in the Desert; History of Negev [Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969], 31).
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. As an atheist, he set out to dis-prove the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. However, after researching the writings of Luke (Luke-Acts), he changed his mind. He became a firm defender of Christianity and the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts. About Luke he wrote: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.”
As well, it cannot be overlooked that Christ’s remains were never found. This is an issue of archeology. Combined with the understanding that Christianity arose very early under the claim of Christ’s resurrection and that there were many detractors, the archaeological evidence of the historically empty tomb is important. Those who denied the resurrection in the first century could not produce a body, nor can those who deny it today. This is a necessary precondition to collaborate the evidence of such a belief.
Extra-Biblical Attestation:
Over 39 extra-biblical sources attest to more than 100 facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. Besides all of the early Apostolic Fathers (whose witness cannot be dismissed simply because they believed that Christ was the Messiah) are the Jewish and Roman historians.
There are numerous first and second-century extra-biblical writings that witness to the fact that Christians believed that Christ did extraordinary things, died on a cross, and rose from the grave: Josephus, Clement, Papias, Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria.
In reality though, “extra-biblical attestation” is not really the best word for this line of evidence. Really it should be “collaborative attestation” since it is not attestation that is outside the Bible or even the New Testament that we are looking for, but collaborative evidence outside the respective document that is under historical investigation. Therefore, the New Testament itself provides more than enough collaborative support for the events of the resurrection since each of the twenty-seven documents must be seen as pieces of individual evidence that stand on their own. There is no reason, at this point, to put them together in a single corpus called “The New Testament” and say that the corpus must find its own collaborative support. Mark supports Luke. John supports Matthew. Paul supports Acts. The point is that every New Testament book individually provides very strong collaborative evidence for the historicity of the resurrection.
As a side note, I am often humored by those who say that Christians must produce “secular” support for the resurrection, defining “secular” as those who are not believers. It is as if those who believed in the resurrection have less credit than those who did not believe in it. It would be like saying that in order for me to believe in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I have to have evidence from those who do not believe that he was assassinated and that those who do not believe it are more credible than those who do. However, as in the case of the resurrection, if it truly happened, then we would expect the closest people to the evidence to believe it rather not believe it. Therefore, to deem “secular” or “skeptical” support as necessary and more trustworthy evidences is a bias that is too bent to come to objective conclusions.
Survival in a Hostile Environment:
The very fact that Christianity could have survived with such public and extraordinary truth claims is offered as a line of external evidence. That Christianity had its hostile objectors is supported by all the evidence, internal and external. The objectors of Christianity had every opportunity to expose the fabrication of the resurrection if it were truly a fabrication. The fact that those who were hostile to Christianity did not put forth a substantial or unified case against it adds to its historicity.
According to Gregory Boyd,
“Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus—if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century saw Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do—if the ‘cult’ had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all. In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded. . . . Even those who remained opposed to Christianity did not deny that Jesus did miracles, and did not deny that His tomb was empty.” (Gregory Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic [Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communication Ministries, 2003], 85-86).
Conclusion
Considering the internal and external arguments for the resurrection of Christ, I don’t ask anyone to look to one of these lines of evidence alone, but to consider the cumulative case. It is very impressive. If the resurrection indeed occurred, it would be hard to expect more evidence. In fact, what we would expect is exactly what we have.
Of course, alternatives too each one of these could be and have been offered. Alternatives to many well established historical events have been offered as well, including the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, and the death of Elvis. However, in most cases the alternatives go against the obvious. The simplest explanation is always the best. The simplest explanation to the data here is that Christ did rise from the grave. Those who deny the resurrection do so not on the basis of the evidence, but because they have other presuppositions that won’t allow them to believe. The evidence is simply too strong.
I believe that any objective historian must look to the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and concluded that he is indeed risen.
Happy Easter.
86 replies to "Evidence for the Resurrection: Part 2 – External Evidence"
Michael T.,
Yes stories can be retold much faster now than they could have in the first century BUT they can also be checked faster, easier and scientifically now.
I think that after Jesus died, the disciples had to rethink their concept of the Messiah and after some reported seeing Jesus after his death, they found OT passages that seemed to teach the Messiah would suffer and die. They then interpreted the sightings of Jesus after his death as proof that God had vindicated him. They believed that the last days had begun and that within their lifetimes Jesus would return and complete the day of resurrection. As their wait for his return continued, they began to systematize their theology and of course rival theologies (heresies) also developed.
To all of you fellow believers out there:
May you have a very blessed Resurrection Day celebration!
Cheryl
Cherlyu #52-
You too.
[…] also lists external evidence such as preservation of the documents, archaeology, extra-biblical attestation, and survival in a […]
“As for my saying that I think some historians are more biased than others–that is my opinion based on the evidence. Have you ever read a Mormon historian’s account of Mormon history? Just because I am not transcendent does not mean that I cannot recognize the heavy bias.”
My problem is that you don’t recognize your own HEAVY bias. That’s the problem. You think there is such a thing as heavy and light bias. There is no such animal. Now, I do believe that one can see if what one believes is in accord with logic and logically consistent; but your claim that some historians (i.e., those whose conclusions are based on philosophic naturalism) are less biased is not from your objective observation, but your subjective observation. Hence, your bias is determining whether someone’s conclusions are a little biased or a lot biased. Hence, your statement is one of belief. It accords with your belief. Fascinating that those who conclude what you would are the less biased, eh? That’s what I was talking about before when I mentioned the fact that atheists tip their hat at the obvious conclusion (i.e., the analyst cannot be objective), and then continue to act as though that is only true of everyone else. Categorizing people into more biased and less biased is simply another way of doing the same thing. Michael’s statements are ones of belief as well. They accord with his belief. I, of course, am biased toward my beliefs, as well as my presuppositional methodology and its superiority to evidentialism. My frustration with you is that you just don’t seem to get it when it comes to evidence and belief in the area of metaphysics and the nature of reality. No one is less biased because no one is partially transcendent. So you can check a belief by whether it accords with the laws of logic, but not in regard to the evidence, as all evidence will be turned to support the belief that selects it, seeks to refute it, or wishes to ignore the problems associated with it.
Alocksee,
As Hodge pointed out you are expecting someone to accept atheism and then prove Christianity true from there. This is an absurd position to hold because ultimately it says that irregardless of whether God exists or not you won’t believe in Him unless He reveals Himself in the way you want Him too. As far as I’m concerned the evidence for the resurrection is strong and nothing you have said changes that. Why?? Because all you have stated is so blatantly biased. You would offer even the most absurd possibilities to naturally explain the resurrection and then sit back and say “there I disproved it”. Simply showing us possibilities as to how the story of the resurrection could have come about without the resurrection occurring doesn’t make such a possibility likely (i.e. The Horus parallels). I can come up with a way it was false as well – all the follower’s of Jesus were on an acid trip when they witnessed him. Does that mean the explanation is likely. Absolutely not. Ultimately your bias here is determining your beliefs. You don’t want to believe and thus you will search for even the most outrageous explanations in order to support your unbelief and then set up outrageously high bars that must be met in order to prove belief reasonable. As someone else pointed out I think 90% of the beliefs people hold could not meet the level of proof you require.
Ken Pulliam,
My question with all this reinterpreting of the resurrection is how they got away with it. The idea that they could have totally changed their story without someone calling them on it is implausible. I do not think mass communications would be necessary for this. If mass communications is so effective in the cause of truth why do we have people who claimed the moon landing and Elvis is alive?
Mad Theologian,
Good point. What you said is exactly the point that Greg Boyd has made. At some point the hypothesis that Jesus is a legend really bleeds into the hypothesis that he was a fabrication. With Jesus being viewed as resurrected in God within a very short period of time after the events (I would of course say instantly – but certainly within 10 years even according to most secular sources of which I’m aware) you really have to wonder how no one among the Apostles put a stop to these stories. They were all still alive at the time. I mean someone among them had to speak up and say “hey guys we’re getting a little carried away here”. I mean, as Greg Boyd asks, what convinced James that his brother was the Son of God. If asked I might tell you that my brother is the son of the other guy, but saying he was the son of god would cause me to roll on the floor in laughter.
Ken:
Acts is much debated regarding its reliability. All I meant is that Paul in his letters never narrates the resurrection appearance he experienced as being on the Damascus Road, with Jesus conversing with him, etc. (as Acts narrates). If we only had Paul’s letters you would never guess that it necessarily happened the way that Acts describes. Certainly in Gal 1, 1 Cor 9 & 15 when he mentions seeing Jesus, he doesn’t describe it much. I’m not dismissing Acts, just willing to set it aside for the moment as I mention what I think is most intriguing about Paul’s testimony about Jesus’ resurrection… his early testimony about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:3-8.
And fwiw, Paul does consider the resurrection experience to involve the body in some capacity. Later in the same chapter that he mentions his resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:3-8), he attempts to address the issue of the resurrection body as being similar yet different than a physical body. And he considered Jesus’ resurrection to be the firstfruits of that resurrection experience so he does seem to indicate that Jesus had a bodily resurrection of some type.
Hodge,
You said: My problem is that you don’t recognize your own HEAVY bias. That’s the problem. You think there is such a thing as heavy and light bias. There is no such animal. If there is no such animal, then how can you say I have HEAVY bias? You just contradicted yourself.
Obviously heavy bias can be distinguished from light bias if one believes a distinction can be made between propaganda and more or less straightforward reporting.
When I was a Christian, I also thought presuppositionalism superior to evidentialism. However, I eventually came to the conclusion that presup’s are guilty of “begging the question.” Obviously, if one presupposes the truth of a system in advance it stands to reason that they will interpret the evidence in agreement with what they have already supposed to be true.
Mike the mad theologian,
The reason is because these ideas developed over a period of many years. By the time the gospels were written, how many people were still around who had been present in Jerusalem during the Passover week that Jesus was killed and supposedly raised?
And yes, some people will believe things IN SPITE OF the evidence. The people who claim the moon landing was faked and the ones who believe Elvis is alive, are operating irrationally. Some people do this even today. I don’t know why. Its strange how the minds of some people work.
But this just goes to show that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus could be very weak or even non-existent and some people would still believe it.
Thinker of things,
I was assuming that you took the evangelical position that Acts is inspired by God and thus without error. If not, then how do you know 1 Corinthians is inspired?
I think Paul would have told us if he had an encounter with Jesus along the lines that is reported in the gospel encounters.
I do agree that Paul talks about a body in 1 Cor. 15 but its a spiritual body . My intepretation is that Paul was trying to forge a new middle ground between the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul and the Jewish idea of a physical resurrection. I can’t explain my theory in detail here but it is based on a thorough exegesis of 1 Cor. 15 as well as insights gathered from Alan Segal’s, Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West.
Ken,
“The reason is because these ideas developed over a period of many years. By the time the gospels were written, how many people were still around who had been present in Jerusalem during the Passover week that Jesus was killed and supposedly raised?”
Depends on who you believe as to dates. Most datings of the Gospel are so heavily biased one way or another that ultimately the truth of this statement is determined by your biases. Furthermore, this again calls into question most historical documents we have since most of them were written more then the 30 years after the event that many secular sources claim the Gospels were written (of course many Christian scholars, notably Greg Boyd, argue for a much earlier date).
“Obviously heavy bias can be distinguished from light bias if one believes a distinction can be made between propaganda and more or less straightforward reporting.”
This is a subjective statement and as Hodge points out your distinguishing light and heavy bias according to your bias. Furthermore your question of Hodge is laughable. Seems pretty clear that what he was intending to communicate is that there is no such thing as “light bias”, only the type of of bias “you” describe as “heavy bias”. As to your examples I have yet to see unbiased “straightforward” reporting. The only difference between most reporting and propaganda is the level of blatant bias observable, not whether or not the individuals themselves are biased and twisting things to fit their view, goals, etc. In some ways biased reporting is worse and more insidious then propaganda.
Ken Pulliam,
Christianity had opposition right from the beginning. Even if you discount the book of Acts as totally unhistorical, Nero was burning Christians within about 30 years of their origin. Justin Martyr and Tertullian and others wrote against clearcut oppisition. How did Christians manage to totally change their story without people noticing. Yes people can believe strange things in spite of the evidence and we roll our eyes dismiss them. I see no reason to believe it was different then. If Christianity was this aburd it should have vanished into oblivion like so any other beliefs.
“Obviously heavy bias can be distinguished from light bias if one believes a distinction can be made between propaganda and more or less straightforward reporting.”
This is a false analogy. Propaganda and “straight forward” reporting are distinguished by their purpose, not their subjectivity and enslavement to their presuppositions.
“When I was a Christian, I also thought presuppositionalism superior to evidentialism. However, I eventually came to the conclusion that presup’s are guilty of “begging the question.” Obviously, if one presupposes the truth of a system in advance it stands to reason that they will interpret the evidence in agreement with what they have already supposed to be true.”
If you are a logician, you ought to seriously consider this statement. I think you’ve been drawn out here. You don’t really believe that your presupps determine your conclusion. This to me is the nail in the coffin for modern atheism. This is simply a fact. You cannot determine the nature of reality without presupposing the nature of reality. Of course it’s circular; but to label it as begging the question is to not understand what that fallacy is about. If one tries to PROVE the nature of reality by his view of the nature of reality, then it is begging the question, because an argument is being made to establish what is presupposed in the argument. However, ALL thought is based in presupps. To deny this is to argue absurdities. I would further state that it would be easy for me to show that your evidentialism is based on your presupps. Your argument then would be self refuting, as are all arguments that seek to objectively prove their positions apart from the faith that it takes to believe the premises that support those conclusions. You are wrong, Ken. You don’t get it, and your further arguments are simply digging you in deeper.
Hodge,
This is not the place to debate the merits of presuppositionalism. If you would like to do that, I invite you to email me or come over to my blog. I agree with Kelly Clark’s (a Reformed Christian by the way) assessment of presuppositionalism: Whenever I read presuppositionalists I almost always think, “Saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.” Saying that Christianity is the criterion of truth (whatever that could mean), that Christian belief is the most certain thing we know, that Christian faith is not defeasible, and that Scripture supports these views, does not make it so. There are few apologetic approaches that are so long on assured proclamation and so short on argument (Five Views on Apologetics, pp. 370-371)
Yeah, I don’t think saying, “it is so” makes it so either. Clark doesn’t understand presuppositionalism. He thinks that presuppositionalists are arguing that no one can know anything unless they believe in God (p. 259). That is not what they argue. They argue that people gain their knowledge from the existence of God, and within logic itself is an assumption of transcendence. Clark himself admits that he does not understand what most presuppositionalists are saying (p. 255). My point is that you cannot escape your enslavement to your presupps in every possible way. What you choose to ultimately believe about God and the nature of reality will determine how you identify, organize, and interpret the evidence. It will then lead you to conclude what you have assumed to be true in your ultimate belief.
My view of presuppositionalism, even though divorced in the book, is a combination of the two. If understood correctly, both the Reformed Epistemological view and the Presupp view go together. If you want a better assessment of Van Tillian apologetics, you can see the first chapter in Thom Notaro, “Van Til and the Use of Evidence.”
I think the best external evidence is the explosive growth of the early church, which went from nothing to 10% of the entire Roman world within about 250 years. There were witnesses to the miracles of not just Jesus but his disciples, which continued until the late 1st century AD. Eyewitnesses, and people who knew eyewitnesses, would have provided testimony well into the 2nd century. This type of evidence was necessary to get people to give up their Paganism and be ostracized from society. Foreign (usually orgiastic) cults were introduced all the time, but never did those gods require the rejection of all other gods.
The reason Christians were persecuted and killed was because they rejected all other gods. Thus, they were seen as Atheists. Rejecting their gods meant risking the wrath of those gods (through plagues, famines, wars, ect). The chaos the Roman world went through from the late 2nd century onwards would have done nothing more than strengthen the case of the Pagans. The claim that 20 or so uneducated fishermen made such persuasive arguments for so many to give up so much is completely ridiculous.
Hodge,
You say: What you choose to ultimately believe about God and the nature of reality will determine how you identify, organize, and interpret the evidence. It will then lead you to conclude what you have assumed to be true in your ultimate belief.
I agree but I think this a priori belief can be modified or even rejected if one thinks that the evidence better supports another ultimate belief. I see this as a process that evolves for some people (others never question their ultimate belief) as their examination of the evidence forces them to rethink their intial hypothesis of ultimate reality. You seem to think that a person can never change their belief about ultimate reality unless somehow God changes it for them. You seem to think that person is locked into a particular worldview which forces them to interpret the evidence in accordance with their worldview and there is nothing they can do about it. If that were true, then there would have never been any advances in human knowledge. At one time, the worldview of most scientists was that the sun revolved around the earth. On the basis of the evidence, Copernicus changed his mind and thus his worldview. Of course, this was not very well received by the authorities at that time as people generally don’t like for their worldview to be challenged.
Adam,
It really wasn’t the uneducated fishermen who brought this about, it was largely one very well educated Hellenistic Jew, Saul of Tarsus.
Ken,
“I agree but I think this a priori belief can be modified or even rejected if one thinks that the evidence better supports another ultimate belief. I see this as a process that evolves for some people (others never question their ultimate belief) as their examination of the evidence forces them to rethink their intial hypothesis of ultimate reality.”
You contradicted yourself here. If you agree with me then the evidence which is interpreted by an ultimate belief cannot then change that ultimate belief because it must always cohere to it. Your examples are talking about shifts from one view within a worldview to another using evidence. Fine. But no one shifts from worldviews with “evidence.” They shift because they either always held an ultimate belief and were inconsistent with their secondary beliefs, or the simply changed beliefs. I believe to shift from a false belief to a true one is the work of God; but I do believe people can shift within false beliefs. They shift out of what they choose to have faith in, not because “evidence” points in that direction. You say you agree with me, but as usual, then turn to act as though evidence, when it comes to the nature of reality and whether it has a metaphysical component to it, speaks for itself. If it speaks for itself, then it needs no interpreter, and all can just shift their positions based upon it. There is no such thing as evidence that speaks for itself when it comes to the nature of reality and metaphysics. You either believe X about the nature of reality or you believe Y or Z, but this tired Descartian view is bogus. I cannot convince you with evidence. You cannot convince me with evidence. Why? Because it’s not evidence that is driving our beliefs. As I said before, one can check to see if their ultimate beliefs are consistent with even the way their own beliefs are stated. I don’t mind this, Ken; but you seem to want to hold the high ground of fact versus fiction. I assure you, it is…
I wouldn’t argue this way. I think these sorts of arguments give fuel to the fire for atheists because they’re bad arguments. Look how Mormonism expanded from an uneducated false prophet in the 19th Century. I wouldn’t say that anything in the early Church is solid proof for the truth of Christianity to anyone who looks at it. The education of the apostles, the rapid expansion of Christianity, etc. I think this whole discussion proves the point I was making.
The evidence for the resurrection may be best explained by the Christian interpretation because the other interpretations are less likely to have occurred; but to one who holds the ultimate belief of philosophic naturalism, it is the least likely because it is something that can never possibly occur. So one of the more less likely interpretations must be correct in his mind. Hey, truth is stranger than fiction, right?
This doesn’t mean that I think Michael’s post is inappropriate. The resurrection argument is a good one. I just think that it provides Christians the best answer to the question and solidifies their ultimate beliefs. It’s not going to turn anyone that a priori rejects it, and any claim by an atheist that they just need proof is bogus, since they know it can’t be placed under a microscope, and alternate interpretations can be given, there simply is no proof they would accept, save the Second Coming when they can physically verify for themselves a person existing in their natural world. We are in the cave, and some believe that the cave is all that exists and others believe that there is more outside of the cave. What inside of the cave can be used to prove what is outside? It can just be interpreted as something from inside the cave, since it was after all found there. Evidence found therein cannot tell us which is which. It has no voice but our own.
Hodge,
I like your illustration of the cave. If that is the correct analogy, then how could ever know there really was something outside of the cave until they left the cave? That seems to agree with my agnosticism.
You say: the evidence which is interpreted by an ultimate belief cannot then change that ultimate belief because it must always cohere to it. Your examples are talking about shifts from one view within a worldview to another using evidence. Fine. But no one shifts from worldviews with “evidence.” . I think they do. I shifted from one worldview to another based on the fact that the evidence seemed to support my new world view better than the old one. One can examine other worldviews and look at how they explain the evidence and compare it with their current worldview and see if it explains it better. I think human beings are capable of this and it is seen all throughout history. As I mentioned before, progress in human knowledge would be impossible without the ability to do so.
“If that is the correct analogy, then how could ever know there really was something outside of the cave until they left the cave? That seems to agree with my agnosticism.”
Because the majority of the group has said that someone from outside the cave has spoken into it. There are tons of people who have heard the voice. There are others who have produced documents relating what the voice said. Some of the same people have had and have performed things that are not part of the normative experience of cavedwellers. Hence, are we to believe them? I am to believe my own experience with these? Or should I believe what the elders, who have never heard or believe the reports of the voice, claim? What evidence will be produced to support or deny either claim? Isn’t simply that you either believe X or you believe Y? Certainly, there is evidence, but what does it say? Nothing without an interpreter.
“I shifted from one worldview to another based on the fact that the evidence seemed to support my new world view better than the old one.”
No, Ken. I don’t think so. You were a fundamentalist before, and that tells me that you were bound to the same Enlightenment-oriented foundations supported by philosophic naturalism and the false dualism of knowledge presented as fact and belief. I’ve spoken to enough atheists now to realize that their “Christianity” was merely a secondary belief. When their ultimate beliefs were realized and came to maturity in everything they believed, they dropped the inconsistent secondary beliefs in order to have all things cohere to the primary. That’s more likely what happened. But even if not, I don’t view your fundamentalism as a true belief, so to me, it is simply a matter of switching between false beliefs. However, I do believe it was the former, as most Westerners are philosophic naturalists in their ultimate beliefs. Why do you think secular humanistic ideals fly so high in the local congregation that explicitly denies them?
“One can examine other worldviews and look at how they explain the evidence and compare it with their current worldview and see if it explains it better. I think human beings are capable of this and it is seen all throughout history. As I mentioned before, progress in human knowledge would be impossible without the ability to do so.”
One must measure other views of reality with a view of reality. This is doublespeak again. You want to deny that anyone is objective, but then bring in objectivity in your methodology. It doesn’t work. Everything is pulled through the grid of your own ultimate beliefs (not secondary beliefs), so it is impossible to switch your ultimate beliefs apart from merely deciding to believe otherwise.
But tell us, Ken… What is the evidence that caused you change your worldview? And how ever did you interpret it trascendentally apart from a subjective mind? By what measuring stick was it measured if you held no belief of reality by which to measure it?
Hodge,
To continue the cave analogy, you say: Because the majority of the group has said that someone from outside the cave has spoken into it. There are tons of people who have heard the voice. Yes, but there are a multitude of different ideas about this voice and the meaning of what it is believed to have said (look at all the theistic religions as well as all the contradictory varieties of Christianity). Others, you say have never heard the voice and claim it doesn’t exist. If I am in the cave, what am I to believe? Unless the voice speaks directly to me and I am convinced that it is a veridical experience, I have to look at the evidence that is available. I would have to interview the people who say they have heard the voice, listen to their explanations, and then interview those who claim there is no voice and listen to their reasons. After doing this, i would have to draw a conclusion. The conclusion would be somewhat tentative based on the possibility of future information swaying me to the other side.
What I think would be wrong to do is to presuppose in advance that either those who have heard the voice are correct or those who deny the voice are correct. If I do that, then I have prejudiced my conclusion. That, to me, is the error of Van Tillian presuppositionalism.
Hodge,
I think you are wrong in your attempt to psychoanalyze me. First, I would consider Van Til a fundamentalist along with all of the original founders of Westminster Seminary. I know they didn’t want to use the title but they were certainly separatists and they certainly agreed with the Fundamentalists on the core doctrines of Christianity.
Second, I realize that your theology demands that you say I was never “truly” a Christian but I think here again you are prejudicing your conclusion in advance. Your presupposed theology will not allow you to interpret my experience any other way.
Third, I cannot go into all the evidence here that changed my mind. I do have a blog devoted to that subject and no, I don’t claim to be transcendent nor do I claim pure objectivity but I do think that one can imagine that another worldview is correct long enough to examine its arguments and its coherency and then compare that to one’s existing worldview.
“What I think would be wrong to do is to presuppose in advance that either those who have heard the voice are correct or those who deny the voice are correct. If I do that, then I have prejudiced my conclusion. That, to me, is the error of Van Tillian presuppositionalism.”
The funny thing is that to me this is the vindication of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. You just described having no prejudice toward one view of the other; but your view of reality, i.e., whether all that exists is the cave itself, and hence, any suggestion of a person and world outside of it is absurd a priori. or whether reality is made up of both that which is inside and outside of the cave, a priori believing the possibility of the reports non-absurdity. I think we’ve established, Ken, what I said before. Your tipping of the hat to presupps is only theoretical. You do believe that people are objective, and those people are naturalistic empiricists. Hence, they need to evaluate the evidence of the report. With what are they evaluating it? By what measuring stick to ensure its possibility and validity? That’s my question.
“I think you are wrong in your attempt to psychoanalyze me.”
Ken, this is too predictable. I knew you would respond with this. My analysis is academic and observational. You ought to like that. I’m psychoanalyzing culture and belief. You are but one of all. It’s nothing personal.
“First, I would consider Van Til a fundamentalist along with all of the original founders of Westminster Seminary. I know they didn’t want to use the title but they were certainly separatists and they certainly agreed with the Fundamentalists on the core doctrines of Christianity.”
They also breath like fundamentalists too. Sharing certain characteristics with a group does not make you that group. Even though some of them would call themselves fundamentalists because of their defense of core orthodox doctrines, this is not what the term primarily means today.
“Second, I realize that your theology demands that you say I was never “truly” a Christian but I think here again you are prejudicing your conclusion in advance. Your presupposed theology will not allow you to interpret my experience any other way.”
Actually, we both agree on this conclusion. I’ll show you:
Hodge: You were never a Christian (i.e., someone regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God to supernaturally believe and be transformed into the image of Christ for all eternity), but were merely someone who naturally believed and became a part of a social group, believing through natural means, but having no real relationship with God, even though you were convinced naturally that you did.
Ken: I was a Christian (i.e., someone who naturally believed and became a part of a social group, believing through natural means, but having no real relationship with God, even though I was convinced naturally that I did), but was not regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God to supernaturally believe and be transformed into the image of Christ for all eternity.
The difference is in our definition of Christian,…
continued…
The difference is our definition of the term Christian, but we agree on the concepts. You, because you don’t believe God exists and there was ever a supernatural Christ with whom to have a relationship, and me, because I believe the Bible when it discusses the nature of the Christian’s conversion and perseverance.
“Third, I cannot go into all the evidence here that changed my mind. I do have a blog devoted to that subject and no, I don’t claim to be transcendent nor do I claim pure objectivity but I do think that one can imagine that another worldview is correct long enough to examine its arguments and its coherency and then compare that to one’s existing worldview.”
We just disagree here. I would suggest taking some intense Philosophy of Religion and Epistemology courses. I really think there is no disagreement on a theoretical level, but your problem is that you don’t seem to apply that theory in practice of your methodology of inquiry. I’ve been on your website, and the people you champion all seem to have the same problem, which is why I think we live in a scientific age with a very unscientific mindset. You may try to throw off your own worldview, but that to me is not possible. I’d like to see how that works out. I guarantee the former worldview remains in the analysis of the new worldview and whether it is internally consistent; but we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point.
Hodge,
Going back to the cave. I could have a hunch as to who was right or wrong in advance but I could also let the evidence persuade me. I have often gone in to a situation believing something was one way and then found out it was really the other way.
I know you don’t think one can change their belief about ultmate matters but I think they can and I think my claim is clearly demonstrated by the examples of millions of people.
As for fundamentalism, the term obviously has evolved. It carries much more baggage today than it did in Van Til’s day. When I call myself a former fundamentalist, I am using the term in the historical sense. BTW, I was a Calvinist and a presupp. when I was a Christian.
You say that my faith was not genuine. How do you know that yours is genuine? Could it be that some day Hodge might turn from the faith?
“I could have a hunch as to who was right or wrong in advance but I could also let the evidence persuade me. I have often gone in to a situation believing something was one way and then found out it was really the other way.”
I think you’re confusing primary and secondary beliefs here. That’s why you have not yet answered my question: By what belief are you measuring other beliefs, and how is that measuring stick, if you don’t think it is a mere belief, absent of an ultimate belief? I’m not simply talking about bias in the sense that you may have a hunch as to what is true. I’m talking about what is permissible to consider and what belief may ultimately bring about a particular conclusion.
If the elders believe all that exists is inside the cave, then saying that there is something outside of it is a priori to be rejected. If the elders say there is nothing outside the cave because only what is inside the cave exists, they are presupposing their conclusion. If you simply say, “Well, I’m going to listen to both sides and evaluate which one has the best argument,” with what beliefs are you evaluating it? With philosophic naturalistic presupps that will ultimately bring you to conclude as the elders after a long drawn out discussion?
“I think my claim is clearly demonstrated by the examples of millions of people. ”
Doing what? I said people can change their beliefs in ultimate matters (i.e., the nature of reality), but it is a shift in belief, not a matter of evidence. I said evidence doesn’t change their beliefs in ultimate matters. In fact, they’re assuming a philosophical system by needing physical evidence in order to believe that a particular reality is true. It cannot be escaped.
“You say that my faith was not genuine. How do you know that yours is genuine? Could it be that some day Hodge might turn from the faith?”
1. We both say your faith was not genuine. Faith in Christian theology is supernaturally given and perseveres. You don’t believe you were given a supernatural faith that perseveres, and I don’t believe you were given a supernatural faith that perseveres. We both agree on this, as I showed before.
2. There is nothing to say that I might not turn from faith. I don’t know the secret will of God and His decree. As Calvin could not answer this question, i.e., whether or not he would believe in the future, neither can I. I can only seek to pursue God with all of my mind, soul, and strength, and trust in His promises while I believe He gives me the desire and power to do so. Only with God are these things certain. I can only trust in what I know today.
Hodge,
Going back to the cave analogy, I would evaluate the evidence using reason and logic. What would be my assumptions? I would assume that my senses do not deceive me and that my reasoning capabilities are adequate to analyze the data. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that people are born with a presupposition about the whether something exists outside of the cave or not and they cannot listen to any argument that disconfirms that presupposition.
I appreciate your honesty in recognizing that consistent Calvinism does not allow one to have assurance that they are going to persevere. Most, I know, will not admit such.
While, I don’t think NOW that there was a genuine object for my faith when I believed, I did at the time and I believed that my faith was a supernatural gift. If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would have been just as adamant about the genuineness of my faith as you are today.
[…] wanna-be … Here are two links with helpful information. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org…http://www.reclaimingthemind.org…Insert a dynamic date hereView All 0 CommentsCannot add comment at this […]
[…] Read full article here. […]