“People may not always live what they profess, but they will always live what they believe.” Neil T. Anderson, Victory Over the Darkness, pg.124. Anderson’s powerful words hit at the very heart of the Christian’s life. It is one thing to live your life while professing Christianity. It is yet another thing to live your life believing the Christian message to be the truth about reality. To believe that Jesus was actually God entails some transforming factors: 1) God is real; there is more than just the natural world; 2) God has been, is, and will be active in the lives of his creation; and 3) What God says about us is the truth about us. 1) I still think many Christians have a difficult time with this first point. We are so inundated by naturalistic biases that we begin to question why it is that we think there is something other than strictly matter (these biases, related to “plausibility structures,” are aptly covered in the book, “In Search of a Confident Faith” by Moreland and Issler.) Doubt is not the problem here. Many people will have doubts, as can be seen even in the Scriptures; in the case of Thomas questioning Jesus (John20:25-28), and in the case of Paul and the Bereans (Acts 17: 10-12). The problem is the response to doubt. An inappropriate response would be to allow the doubt to continue without a proper investigation into both sides of the concerning issue. Then the doubt can become an emotional commitment without proper reasoning or without being intellectually honest. An appropriate response would be to read arguments on both sides of the issue causing the doubt—in this case in the area of metaphysics (metá = beyond, physiká = physical)—and to grapple with the arguments presented. There are many articles and books at differing levels for a person to begin their investigation; from a very introductory level to a very experienced level. Christians, who doubt, need to be honest with themselves and deal with the reality of God’s existence. Why do they believe God is real? What has brought them to this knowledge? Can they articulate that belief? In order to live like God is real, we first must believe the foundational premise that God is real. When Thomas was presented with reasonable evidence, he professed Jesus as God. When the Bereans were presented with a case for Jesus as God, they went home and checked it out for themselves; with many then professing Jesus as God. Without establishing each argument, a quick list of arguments for God’s existence to check out include: 1. The Cosmological Argument – Kalam Cosmological Argument – Thomist Cosmological Argument – Leibnizian Cosmological Argument 2. The Design Argument – The Anthropic Principle – Information as Design – Irreducible Complexity 3. The Moral Argument – Relativism – Conventionalism – Ethical Subjectivism – Objective Morality – Where Do Morals Come From? 4. The Argument from Consciousness 5. The Argument from Beauty 6. The Argument from Evil A good beginning resource for these arguments is The Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell of www.selflessdefense.com. Most of the arguments listed plus the argument from consciousness (from the mind) and the argument from beauty can be found in Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland; along with many more not mentioned here. I have listed these arguments because it is important that Christians know there are numerous arguments that deal directly with the existence of God; not as a thorough treatment of any argument. I’ll continue with the points two and three later. MJ
11 thoughts on “People Will Live What They Believe – Part One”
Comments are closed.
Great post, I think your assertion that doubt can become an emotional commitment is spot on. I think there are a lot of agnostics who choose to ignore the evidence for God around them because they are uncomfortable with the idea of objective truth, despite the rational arguments in favor of it. Thanks for the list, too. Working on a post on ethical subjectivism for next week.
……….and a lot of people are so distracted by tv, friends, kids’ events, etc., that they forget to stop and take time to be introspective. Great post, MJ.
I agree with Roger concerning distractions. I believe that people are too distracted today to really contemplate God's existence (revealed through Creation & Scripture) and God's redemptive nature (revealed through Scripture). I think the "typical" Christian doesn't think about it, and it is this kind of thing which the typical Dawkins/Dennett disciple is critical of (Certainly it is what Hume and Nietzsche despised).
I think the "typical Christian" merely assents to the established Christian tenets without truly conceiving of them appropriately [ascendit (assent) vs. fidelis (trust)].
I do not think that without truly beholding God's truth can we, as Peter says in I Peter 3:15 really "give a reason/apologia for the hope that is in us." Legitimate apologetics is just as much a Christian mandate as evangelism and discipleship.
Tom,
If only Christians would understand the importance of apologetics and not push it aside as unnecessary or too intellectual….I’m from a farming community (small town) in Oklahoma and had NO exposure to philosophy, etc. I was in the buckle of the Bible Belt and believed because I believed giving no real concern to the ‘why’ of my belief……It wasn’t until I took my faith seriously did I begin realizing how deficient my thinking skills were if I didn’t find a reasonable faith with reasonable answers to the difficult questions.
So true. Every time period has had it’s a-musements to keep us from Truth, haven’t they?
It’s amazing, transforming really, how the LORD rewards those who diligently seek Him in the face of the world’s damning externalities (Heb. 11:6).
Oftentimes, however, it takes the depths of despair before we care to look for something greater than ourselves.
I suppose the BEST way is to seek Truth and avoid the pain of bad decisions altogether.
baaaa…baaaaa.
Tough lessons for stubborn sheep.
The greatest argument, I’ve found, is a changed life.
I hope my comments aren’t too far off topic.
Great word, MJ.
Shalom aleichem b’Shem Yeshua Adoneinu!
Thanks, Carmen! I like your energy 😀
Umm…So what do you do with someone like me who lived a dedicated Christian life for 40 years, gave up the distractions of sports and television to study the great theological works of the ages, memorized every argument you’ve listed, learned apologetics backwards and forwards from evidentialism to presuppositionalism, only to discover one day his faith was gone?
Am I going to Hell?
If there is a personal, compassionate God who desires the salvation of all men, why did my uncommon desire to know and love Him have such an unintended consequence? I am left feeling like the personification of a well-meant but idiotic government program.
Anonymous,
My blog was not actually about people who have looked deeply into the faith and found themselves still in a position of doubt.
My suggestion was that for those who have not done any searching or studying is to make an attempt to do so. I did not say that this will absolutely result in some desired outcome. That suggestion wouldn’t make much sense due to people’s various backgrounds. It also wouldn’t be sensitive to emotional hurts that could also be obstacles to trust in God.
I am saying that you will live according to what you believe. That is a bit different from what I think you have said here. If you would like for me to comment further, please explain to me the correlation you made between my post and your comment. How did you get from one to the other? I did not write any condemnation for those who doubt God’s existence. But I still think if a person does not believe God exists, she cannot then act like she does.
//Am I going to Hell?//
I hate to have to ask this….but are you asking this question out of a sincere interest or are you implying that I think this (thus carrying implications that you think I have a judgmental attitude)? I made no mention of anyone’s position before God in this post. And I do not condemn a person for their doubts about God.
I am glad you had the opportunity to study all of these areas. I cannot say I am glad that you decided against the existence of God. And even though you studied and lost faith, I also know others who studied and found faith (a few personally). So I am not sure what I should conclude, if anything about individual experiences. I actually cannot know all of the factors that went into your decision, because I cannot get inside your head.
Please let me know what more I can do for you.
And thank you for your post. Though it sounds like this has been a difficult road for you, your post was a good reminder for those who think apologetics can cure every doubt.
Much appreciated,
MJ
MJ, my comment, flowing from my status as a burnt-out former Christian, may not have seemed relevant to your post, for which I apologize.
My question re: Hell was neither insincere nor designed to expose judgmentalism on your part. Christianity hinges on a doctrine that was developed 3 centuries into the project. Without Hell there is nothing to be rescued from, and a central reason for confidence in the Christian God would be removed.
However, if Hell is real, it becomes logically impossible to reconcile the Christian characterization of God’s disposition toward all men, with the ultimate unending negative fate that is said to await most of them.
This is not an effort to hijack your blog for the sake of an argument. Ultimately faith does not require evidence, or it would not be faith. I’m fine with that and feel no need to convince anybody there is little reason for confidence about a God who does not obviously reveal Himself.
Apologists make assertions that might bolster the confidence of those who waver, but ultimately they are fallible men with no more inside knowledge than me. My own loss of faith was really just a failure to continue trusting men. “God” remains an open question, with the Christians who claim to know Him having failed spectacularly to agree on a coherent, consistent, credible version of their faith.
You are wise to recognize the fact apologetics cannot cure every doubt.
Hey there, Anon:
//MJ, my comment, flowing from my status as a burnt-out former Christian, may not have seemed relevant to your post, for which I apologize. //
No problem. Your apology is kind, though it is not needed.
//My question re:…..//
Okay, this clears your question up. I think my concern here would be the assertion that the doctrine of hell was developed three centuries later. Perhaps the formalized or standardized articulation of hell was not yet in existence, but the belief in the existence of hell appears in the Gospels (from Jesus himself). So, guide me here to your base assumption. Is it that you believe the texts were either: 1) not written early (c.25-55 years after Jesus’ life) or 2) corrupted or 3) something else?
//However, if Hell is real, it becomes logically impossible to reconcile the Christian characterization of God’s disposition toward all men, with the ultimate unending negative fate that is said to await most of them.//
I would not say logically impossible, but a difficult issue to be sure. Perhaps, the best place to start would be with the Christian characterization of God’s disposition toward all men. For if we do not have an idea of God’s comprehensive nature then we cannot begin to offer reconciliation. So what is the disposition of the Christian God towards men?
//This is not an effort to hijack your blog for the sake of an argument. Ultimately faith does not require evidence, or it would not be faith…. //
Thank you. Faith as not requiring evidence is a modern conception of the term. (I realize you have studied this…but the readers may not have.) Even the early church fathers wrote apologies, “defenses,” of the reality of what they believed. The concept of faith without evidence appears to be related to an antiquated view of the Fundamentalist movement of the earlier 1900’s into the post World War II era (and not necessarilythe current Fundamentalists). It is now more of a sound-byte, than a sincere look into what the church has historically called, “faith.” Please do not take this as an attack on your statement. This is a check on terminology in church history. J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler define faith in a more traditional sense as three-fold in the book, “In Search of a Confident Faith: Overcoming Barriers to Trusting in God.” Faith is knowledge or notitia (the content of faith: the existence of God, Jesus as the Son of God, etc). Faith is agreement or assentia (awareness of or agreement with the truth of Christian teaching…one cannot just grasp the contents of Christian teaching, one must accept that the teaching is true). Faith is commitment or fiducia (personal commitment to its object, whether a truth or a person). And the authors describe faith as only as good as the object of the faith. If the object of faith is not supported with reasons, evidence, and knowledge, then a person has no reason for trust and confidence in that object. It is really quite difficult to believe something if I think it is absurd or that it has no intellectual support whatsoever.
//Apologists make assertions that might bolster the confidence of those who waver, but ultimately they are fallible men with no more inside knowledge than me. My own loss of faith was really just a failure to continue trusting men. “God” remains an open question, with the Christians who claim to know Him having failed spectacularly to agree on a coherent, consistent, credible version of their faith. //
Anonymous, no one really has access to that knowledge of all men who are apologists. This is a presupposition seemingly based on a naturalistic bias that would negate religious experience all together without requiring extensive proof. A person cannot responsibly say that they are 100% sure that no one has experiential knowledge of God. How would someone gain that knowledge base? Although, I agree that they are all fallible men (and women :-).
Interestingly, I do not readily trust in mankind, but instead of turning me away from God, that idea fits within my view of the nature of man. Man is not the kind of being I trust with certain things; such as my emotions.
What do you say are the spectacular differences within orthodox Christianity?
Thanks again for a considerate post that brings conversation rather than condemnation.
MJ
MJ, The discovery of a late development for the doctrine of hell shook me to the core, but the evidence is born out in accepted historical scholarship, the original languages, and interpetations of Christ’ words (resisting attempts to read into the text what we think we already know about “Hell.”)
Constantine’s legalization of the Church found its newly ordained leaders adapting pagan doctrines to make the new state religion more acceptable to former temple worshippers. One of those doctrines concerned a frightening underworld. The King James translators later supported that concept by substituting “hell” for various words that referred to the “place of the dead” or a “garbage dump in Jerusalem,” (a place you can visit today- it’s now a park.)
It’s easy to find detailed explanations of how “hell” developed, without buying the books. An internet search turns up reams of evidence.
You ask “what is the disposition of the Christian God towards all men?” A brief answer is that He loves all men, desiring that none should be lost, but that all should come to Him. Yet Christians believe that this God who loves you the minute before you die is willing to see you in hell one minute after you die. Is this what you mean by His “comprehensive” nature?
Agreed, this is indeed difficult, especially since not a single verse can be produced showing that there is no chance for a man to change his mind after death. In fact, the scripture says every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess when we all stand before Him (after death). If anything, perhaps the early Church Fathers who were universalists departed less from the scriptures than modern Christians.
MJ, I appreciate your comments on the nature of faith, but I respectfully suggest that a brief effort to fit UFOlogy into the classic notitia/assentia/fiducia format might also result in a full-bodied and “convincing” religion. In the end, it really does matter whether that in which we believe objectively exists, “intellectual” support or no.
I never expected access to all apologists. I merely thought to find the apologists who got it most right. That should be doable for any sincere Christian. If my quest would have been better directed at finding someone with an “experiential knowledge of God,” perhaps an even higher goal would have been my own personal experiential knowledge. Alas, I failed at that as well, talking to God for 50 years only to conclude I must have been talking to myself. He answered not a whisper, even in the midst of my greatest trial.
The Christian view of fallen humanity does recommend a certain wariness in trusting one’s fellows. But that same distrust of men also mitigates against believing their many assertions about God. I asked questions of men who claim to represent the Most High. Of course, I don’t have time to sample every apologist or to visit a representative church for each of the 30,000 iterations of Christianity, hoping to find somebody who has a viable system that holds Christianity together in a credible fashion.
One lifetime is far too short for all of that.