Groothuis’ “Christian Apologetics” ch.19: Jesus of Nazareth. Also: Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” chs.1-3

Posted on March 2, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

I am studying both Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics ch.19 and Strobel’s chs.1-3 (supplementing) because they cover the same material.  I may come back and update with more Strobel.  Groothuis’ chapter is written by Craig Blomberg, whereas Strobel’s chapters result from an interview with Blomberg and Metzger.  Without planning, it just so happened that my church’s apologetics group hit chapter 19 just as Monte Vista Chapel started their “The Case for Christ” series.  I have tried to cover the essentials without posting the whole contents.  I’m afraid much of it is quoted without always providing exact quotation marks or locations in the text where the content can be found.  Credit goes to Groothuis, Strobel, Blomberg and Metzger.  I have inserted nothing (or very little) of my own.



I also recommend googling for “Tim McGrew Apologetics 315” as he has some great lectures on these topics.

The historical evidence for Jesus falls into three categories:  non-Christian, historic Christian, and syncretistic (hybrid of previous two).  It is “prejudicial to exclude automatically all Christian evidence…or to assume that all non-Christian evidence was necessarily more ‘objective.’  But even using only such non-Christian sources, there is ample evidence to confirm the main contours of the early Christian claims:  Jesus was a Jew who lived in Israel during the first third of the first century; was born out of wedlock; intersected with the life and ministry of John the Baptist; attracted great crowds, especially because of his wondrous deeds; had a group of particularly close followers called disciples (five of whom are named); ran afoul of the Jewish religious authorities because of his controversial teachings sometimes deemed heretical or blasphemous; was crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea (A.D. 26-36), and yet was believed by many of his followers to have been the Messiah, the anticipated liberator of Israel.  His followers, therefore, continued consistently to grow in numbers, gathering together regularly for worship and instruction and even singing hymns to him as if he were a god (or God)” (p. 439-440, Groothuis).

So many websites claim Jesus never existed, but those who have actually investigated the issue are “virtually unanimous today in rejecting this view, regardless of their theological or ideological perspectives” (p.439, Groothuis).  For example, see Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?”

Non-Christian Evidence

Objection:  We have a sparse amount of information about the historical person of Jesus from non-Christians.

Answer:

1.  History and biography focused on royalty, military action, and the wealthy
2.  Non-Christians had no reason to predict Jesus’ spreading influence, and so it is remarkable that as much has been preserved outside Christian circles
3.  Most ancient docs have been lost (including secular)

* “A dozen or more references to Jesus appear in non-Christian Jewish, Greek and Roman sources in the earliest centuries of the Common Era.” (ibid)  [Jewish historian Josephus, several different portions of the Talmud (rabbinic traditions); Greek writers Lucian of Samosata, Mara bar Serapion; Roman historians Thallus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius.]

** “Tacitus, for example, in the early second century, writes about Nero’s persecution of Christians and then explains, “The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 44.3).  The Talmud repeatedly acknowledges that Jesus worked miracles but refers to him as one who ‘practiced magic and led Israel astray’ (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin43a, cf. Tosefta Shabbath 11.15; Babylonian Talmud Shabbath104b).  Josephus, in the late first century, calls Jesus ‘a wise man,’ ‘a worker of amazing deeds,’ ‘a teacher’ and ‘one accused by the leading men among us [who] condemned him to the cross’ (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3).” (ibid)

Christian Evidence

The four Gospels give us the most, and most important, information about Jesus, but they are not the earliest documents.  Paul’s letters (probably started in the 40s) were written by the 50s and came before the Gospels, which were not written before the 60s.

The Apostle Paul

Paul’s letters show he had a good knowledge of Jesus in 3 ways:

1.  “Paul clearly knows the basic outline of Jesus’ life.  ‘What Paul appears to know about Jesus is that he was born as a human (Rom. 9.5) to a woman and under the law, that is, as a Jew (Gal. 4.4), that he was descended from David’s line (Rom. 1.3; 15:12) though he was not like Adam (Rom. 5.15), that he had brothers, including one named James (1 Cor. 9.5; Gal. 1:19), that he had a meal on the night he was betrayed (1 Cor. 1:23-25), that he was crucified and died on a cross (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:23; 8.11; 15.3; Rom. 4:25; 5.6, 8; 1 Thess. 2.15; 4.14, etc.), was buried (1 Cor. 15.4), and was raised three days later (1 Cor. 15.4; Rom. 4:25; 8.34; 1 Thess. 4.14, etc.), and that afterwards he was seen by Peter, the disciples and others (1 Cor. 15:5-7)’” (p.442, ibid).

2.  He knows very specific, wide range of Jesus’ teachings.  Not exhaustive:

-1 Corinthians 11:23-25 quotes Jesus’ words over the bread and the cup at the Last Supper, using language close to Luke’s 22:19-20.
-1 Corinthians 9:14 (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7) Receive living from the Gospel.
-Jesus opposed divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10; Mark 10:2-12)
-Jesus supported paying taxes. (Rom. 13.7; Mark 12:17)
-Love and pray for enemies instead of repaying evil for evil (Rom. 12:14, 17-19; Matt. 5:38; Luke 6:27-28, 36).
-Tolerate eachother on morally neutral matters (Rom. 14.13; Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37)
-Declared all foods clean (Rom. 14:14; Mark 7:18-19)
-Warned of judgment on Israel’s leaders (1 Thess. 4:15-17; 5:2-6; Matt 24-25)

3.  Paul knew the early oral traditions of Jesus’ resurrection.  1 Corinthians 15:1,3-6 (STROBEL: received around A.D. 35).  STROBEL:  Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20.

The Gospels

The Synoptic Gospels are more alike than different.  John is more different than similar to any one of the Synoptics.  Because the Synoptics confirm eachother, they are more trusted for the “broad contours and most central items common to them” including:  “Jesus was a Jewish teacher who was raised as a carpenter but who began a public ministry when he was around the age of thirty.  He submitted himself to John’s baptism, announced both the present and future dimensions of God’s kingdom (or reign) on earth, gave love-based ethical injunctions to his listeners, taught a considerable amount in parables, challenged conventional interpretations of the Jewish law on numerous fronts but never broke (or taught others to break) the written law, wrought amazing signs and wonders to demonstrate the arrival of the kingdom, implicitly and explicitly claimed to be the Messiah or liberator of the Jewish people but only inasmuch as they became his followers, and counterculturally believed that he had to suffer and die for the sins of the world, be raised from the dead and return to his heavenly throne next to Yahweh, only to return to earth at some unspecified point in the future, ushering in Judgment Day.  He called all people to repent of their sins and form the nucleus of the new, true, freed people of God led by his twelve apostles.” (444, ibid).

There are 5 factors supporting the probability that the Synoptics are historically accurate about Jesus:


1.  Authorship and date.
-Mark is a minor character, deserted Paul.
-STROBEL:  Papias in A.D. 125 affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately (no mistake, no false statement) recorded Peter’s eyewitness observations and the teachings of Jesus.
-Luke only named at end of 3 epistles.
-STROBEL: Acts stops before Paul’s death, so before 62 A.D.  Luke even earlier.  Mark even earlier than that.
-STROBEL:  Mark and Luke not even among the Twelve.
-Matthew former tax collector.
-Written between 60s and 80s.  50 years or less after events.
-Much smaller gap between event and record than other histories (like the 400 year gap between Alexander the Great’s life and biographies, which no one considers to contain legend).
-STROBEL: A.D. 180 Irenaeus (Dr. McGrew:  a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John): “ … the Gospel has come down to us … by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures … Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect …  Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”    [Against Heresies  3,1,1]

2.  Literary genre:  Historical.  Luke’s prologue similar to serious histories of that time (Josephus and the Greeks:  Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Lucian; Greco-Roman ‘technical prose’ or ‘scientific literature’).  Luke 1:1-4.

-Luke aware of previously written sources
-he interviewed eyewitnesses and referred to oral tradition
-he sought to show validity

3.  Authorial intent (STROBEL:  Luke 1:1-4; John 20:31).  Jewish tradition and the NT gives careful attribution of prophetic words to the prophet who uttered them.
-Eyewitness opponents still alive (not done in a corner) never objected to facts, so Christianity thrived.
-Gift of prophecy requires evaluation and conformance with prior prophecy (not alteration) 1 Cor. 14:29
-Jews’ preservation of Holocaust history doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or rule out accuracy of their methods.  Christians had every reason to get accurate facts down.  Strobel:  They had nothing to gain but criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom.  They certainly didn’t gain financially.
-STROBEL: Objection:  We can’t tell where Jesus begins and where the Christian prophets end.  Answer:  Always distinguished between Jesus and a prophet, and always tested a prophet and made sure their words cohered with Jesus’ (1 Cor 7, 14).

4.  Compositional procedures.  Jews were memorization ARTISTS.  Informal controlled oral tradition at work (and perhaps an alternative of the source Quelle, or Q—the hypothetical document Matthew and Luke may have relied upon).
-Explains similarities, and STROBEL:  why Matthew would rely on Mark, recording the eyewitness testimony of Peter.
-Tradents preserve and retell historical events, not varying in the details/message, but mixing things up a bit w/ 10-40% of the wording.
-Telephone game? Ridiculous!  “The Gospel traditions were not whispered, but publically proclaimed, not to children but to adults, in the presence of knowledgeable tradents or with apostolic checks and balances” (p.452, ibid).  See Acts 8:14-17.
-STROBEL:  Quelle (Q) includes Jesus’ mention of his miracles (Luke 7:18-23; Matthew 11:2-6).

5.  Apparent contradictions involve predictable, natural variations in story telling, like inclusion or omission of certain details determined by differing emphases.
-One does not need to choose between “error-free or it’s not reliable” or “errors all over the place, therefore not reliable”.  This is not the choice for other ancient documents.
-1. Mark 6.52 doubt? Matthew 14:33 worship?  Both; different emphases.
-2. Matthew 8:5-9 centurion ask? Luke 7:1-8 friends ask?  Both; friends represent him.
-3. Mark 5:22-23, 35 before death? Matthew 9:18 already dead?  Matt abbr.
-4. Mark 16.5 young man? Matt 28:2-3 angel? Luke 24:4 two men?  Angels are called men as well.  One man/angel is one of two.
-5. Mark 2.26 Abiathar? 1 Sam 21:1-6 Ahimelech? epi “in the passage” Abiathar, not at the time of Abiathar—ancient Judaism had several chapters in a passage, divided according to how much was read each week
-STROBEL:  Sign that it wasn’t collusion, which would be uniform, harmonized.

STROBEL:  Objection 1:  What about Mark and Luke saying that Jesus sent the demons into the swine at Gerasa, while Matthew says it was in Gadara?  Gerasa isn’t even near the Sea of Galilee.  Answer:  Khersa (in Hebrew sounding like Gerasa) has been excavated at the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.  Gerasa is in the province of Gadara.  Objection 2:  What about the discrepancies between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke?  Answer: Option 1:  Matthew reflects Joseph’s lineage, Luke reflects Mary’s, and they converge at a common blood ancestor.  Option 2: Luke reflects Joseph’s human lineage, Matthew reflects Joseph’s legal lineage, and they diverge when someone did not have direct offspring, but raised up heirs through an OT legal practice.  Also:  Some names are omitted (acceptable in the ancient world) and there are textual variants that result in confusing a name for a different individual.


5 reasons for skepticism about John:

1.  More passages in John than not find no parallel in any Synoptic Gospel.

2.  John contains no parables, exorcisms, or teaching about the Kingdom (almost).
-Parables:  Jewish form not relevant in Ephesus, where John wrote. (p.460)
-Exorcisms: Viewed more as ‘magic’ in Greco-Roman world. (ibid)
-Kingdom: Replaced by eternal life, used interchangeably by Matthew (19:16, 23-24). (ibid)
3.  John fails to mention Jesus was baptized by John, or implemented the Lord’s Supper.
4.  John contains 2 chapters of ministry (2-4) before Galilean popularity (festivals, claims, conflicts, resurrection of Lazarus) (John 5-11).
5.  John’s Jesus makes claims to deity more explicitly than in the Synoptics.
-Statements were ambiguous and figurative (John 16:29) (p.461).
-Synoptics also represent high Christology in virgin birth and “I am” language (even in Mark 6:50 or 14:62). (ibid) STROBEL:  Son of Man (Dan 7:13-14).

“Interlocking” of John with the Synoptics (“undesigned coincidences“)


There are instances where John leaves a question unanswered, and one or more of the Synoptics answer it.  Not exhaustive.  (Google Tim McGrew Apologetics315.)

1. “John 3:24 refers in passing to the Baptist’s imprisonment, but only the Synoptists ever narrate that event (Mark 4:14-29 and parallels).” (458, ibid)
2.  “John knows Jesus was tried before the high priest Caiaphas (John 18:24, 28), but only the Synoptics describe this trial’s proceedings or its outcome (Mark 14:57-58).” (ibid)
3.  “But nothing elsewhere in their narratives prepares the reader for this charge.  John 2:19, on the other hand, includes Jesus’ allegation that if the Jewish leaders destroyed ‘this temple,’ he would rebuild it in three days, but it goes on to explain that he was speaking of the temple of his body, that is, an allusion to his death and resurrection.  This, however, is a saying that could easily be twisted into what the Synoptics claim the false witnesses declared.” (ibid)
4. “Why did the Jewish leaders enlist the help of the Roman governor Pilate (Mark 15:1-3 and parallels), when their law was clear enough in prescribing the death penalty—by stoning—for blasphemers?  Only John gives us the answer:  under Roman occupation the Jews were forbidden from carrying out this portion of their law (John 18:31).” (ibid)


Reasons in John pointing to authenticity: (Not exhaustive)

“Unique to John 1 is the period in which Jesus’ ministry overlaps with John the Baptist before Jesus clearly ‘outshines’ his predecessor.  But the early church is unlikely to have invented a time when John needed to ‘become less’ so that Christ could ‘become greater’ (John 3:30), as concerned as they were to exalt Jesus over everyone.” (459, ibid)
2.  “John 2 begins with the remarkable miracle of turning water into wine, yet it coheres perfectly with the little parable, regularly viewed as authentic, of new wine (Jesus’ kingdom teaching) needing new wineskins (new religious forms).
3.  John 2 highlights Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, a rare Jewish name that appears repeatedly in the rabbinic literature about the wealthy, powerful, Pharisaic ben-Gurion family.
4.  The story of Jesus’ surprising solicitousness for the Samaritan woman in John 4 coheres closely with his compassion for outcasts throughout the Synoptics.
5.  The distinctive synagogue homily in John 6 on Jesus as the bread of life matches perfectly with a standard rabbinical exegetical form known as a proem midrash.
6.  Jesus’ claims at the Festival of Tabernacles to be living water and the light of the world (in John 7-9) fit exactly two central rituals from that feat—a water-drawing ceremony and daily temple services with a giant candelabrum installed just for this occasion.

Resolutions to apparent contradictions between John and the Synoptics not mentioned and resolved above:

1. Mark chose to include only one visit of the adult Jesus to Jerusalem, at the Passover during which eh was crucified, which Matthew and Luke then followed.

-It would have taken more than a few months for Jesus to do all the Synoptics record.
-Jesus would have attended the annual festivals.
-John appears more consistently chronological.
-The Synoptics often group material together by theme or form, especially during Jesus’ Galilean ministry
-Because Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus took place in Judea just before Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem, this miracle did not fit into the outline of the Synoptics

2. John and the Synoptics contradict eachother over the day of the Last Supper.
-Synoptics describe it as a Passover meal (Mark 14:12, 14, 16)
-John (according to a misinterpretation) places it the day before the beginning of Passover festival (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31)
-John 13:1 “just before Passover feast” v.29 evening meal in progress:  Passover has now arrived, rather than this evening meal being a different, earlier one.
-Judas secured “what was needed for the festival” (John 13:29) for the rest of the week.
-Some thought he was going to give something to poor because that is tranditionally done on the opening evening of Passover.
-Friday morning the Jewish leaders do not want to defile themselves for the midday meal, since sundown removes defilement for the evening meal (John 18:28)
-John 19:14 could be easily rendered “It was the day of Preparation during Passover week” (Friday, for the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday).
-v.31 confirms the next day is the Sabbath.

Topography and Archaeology

John is the most overtly theological, but also supplies the greatest amount of geographical info. of the 4 Gospels, despite not setting out to do so (John 20:31).

1. The pool of Bethesda with its five porticoes near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem (John 5:2)
2. The pool of Siloam in Jerusalem (John 9:7)
3.  Jacob’s well at Sychar (John 4:5-6)
4.  The paving stones of Gabbatha (John 19:13)
5.  Inscriptional evidence for Pontius Pilate (John 18:29)
6.  Evidence of Roman use of nails through the ankles for crucified victims (Luke 24:39, John 20:25).

Literary Genre

1.  Takes more liberties or artistic license than the Synoptics (John 3:13-21)
2.  More overtly theological than Synoptics, in keeping with historiographical conventions of the day.
3.  John’s work is still closer to the Synoptics than any other form of ancient writing.
4.  His form most closely mirrored relatively trustworthy biographies.
5.  There are numerous conceptual parallels with passages in the Synoptics.
6.  There is a commitment to providing trustworthy testimony (John 21:24-25)

Syncretistic Evidence

I’m not going to go into detail, but contrasting the canonical (uniquely accurate, authoritative, on par w/ the OT) Gospels with the Gnostic and apocryphal Gospels shows how the canonical Gospels are far superior historically.  Those who are suspicious of the canonical Gospels have far more reason to be suspicious of the extracanonical sources.  If you lower the bar so far that you accept the extracanonical sources, you must accept the canonical Gospels, for which the bar is set much higher.

The Gnostic Gospels

In sum, just after WWII, a cache of codices (the Gnostic Gospels) was unearthed in Egypt at a site known as Nag Hammadi.  They were written between the 2nd and 6thcenturies and contained a hybrid, syncretistic mythology, a Greek Christianity.  They reflected that matter is evil (and so were either ascetic or hedonistic), and only the spirit is redeemed, salvation is not through Jesus’ bodily death and resurrection, but through esoteric knowledge, and only those in whom the gods had implanted the divine spark could be saved.  They were anti-Semitic (against laws and the Jewish God).  Only tiny bits of narrative are found, if any, whereas the canonical Gospels closely resemble ancient historiography and biography.  Note how they chose the names of exemplary figures to be their fictitious authors, in contrast to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Only Coptic Gospel of Thomas is likely to preserve any historical information about Jesus, but it may not.  STROBEL:  It was written A.D. 140.

The rest of the documents “are usually collections of lengthy, esoteric monologues attributed to Jesus after the resurrection in secret conversation with one or more of the disciples about the nature of heavenly beings and entities far removed from the down-to-earth practical ethics of Jesus of Nazareth. …devote almost all their attention to speculation about Jesus’ heavenly origins and relationships, the nature of humanity in its fallenness and in redemption, parallel realities between earth and heaven, and the like.” (465-466, ibid)


NOTE:  We have no record of Gnostics themselves ever proposing any of their distinctive documents for inclusion in any canon—theirs or anyone else’s.  They tried to reinterpret New Testament writings to fit their distinctives, knowing they could not undermine the canonical Gospels’ authority.  STROBEL:  The NT was authoritative before it was recognized officially as such.  None of the docs that didn’t make it in were ever authoritative in order to be officially recognized.

4 Apocryphal Gospels

1.  Infancy Gospel of Thomas—Jesus made birds of clay he gave the breath of life, and withered up a bully.
2.  Protoevangelium of James—Describes Mary’s immaculate conception (lust-free) and labor (midwives verified the hymen was left in-tact).
3.  Gospel of Nicodemus—Jesus goes to hell.
4.  Gospel of Peter—Souped up resurrection account with huge heads.

Text and Translation

5,700 (STROBEL:  5,664) handwritten Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament remain in existence. 

STROBEL:  Objection:  The original manuscripts are lost and we just have copies of copies of copies.  Answer:  Having multiple copies to compare means they can be tested for variations and learn about the originals.  We have copies dating within a couple generations of the originals.  Other ancient texts have a gap of five-ten centuries between original and earliest copy.

STROBEL:  Compared to other ancient texts:
-Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Romewritten in A.D. 116.  First six books exist in one manuscript copied about A.D. 850.  Books eleven through sixteen are in another manuscript copied in the eleventh century.  Books seven through ten are lost.
-Josephus’ The Jewish War written in the first century.  Copies written in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries.  Latin translation in the fourth century, medieval Russian materials from the eleventh or twelfth century.
-Homer’s Iliad composed about 800 B.C. with fewer than 650 Greek manuscripts copied in the second and third century A.D. (thousand years!), some quite fragmentary.
-New Testament:  More than 5,664 Greek manuscripts.  Papyrus manuscripts going back to 200 A.D., a fragment of John going back to between A.D. 100 to 150.  306 uncial manuscripts going back A.D. 350.  2,856 miniscule manuscripts, emerged in roughly A.D. 800. 2,403 lectionaries of early church.

97% of the New Testament (what the original authors wrote) can be reconstructed from those manuscripts and lectionaries.

No Christian belief or doctrine depends on a textually disputed passage.  STROBEL:  Eyeglasses weren’t invented until 1373, inattentiveness, short-term memory loss as eyes scan between original and copy (write things out of sequence, but Greek is an inflected language), differences in spelling.  There are two hundred thousand variants because if a word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, it’s counted as two thousand variants.
-1 John 5:7-8 is not found in the earliest manuscripts, but only in about 7 or 8 copies from the fifteenth or sixteenth century.  But the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on those two verses, as it is represented in many others.
-Any good Bible documents the significant variations in the footnotes.

Differences in translation (linguistic philosophy) still leave in tact all the fundamentals of the faith.

The Formation of the Canon

Lists of accepted books were compiled largely in response to unorthodox teachings (like those promoted by various Gnostic sects).  Again, there is no record any Gnostics ever offered up any of their books for inclusion in any canon.

STROBEL:  Objection 1:  They only decided to write things down when they realized Jesus wasn’t coming back soon, after all.  Answer:  Jews kept and recorded prophecies of the imminence of the Day of the Lord, despite their continuing history.

In A.D. 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books in his Easter encyclical, and “ecumenical councils in both Carthage and Hippos in North Africa at the end of the fourth century ratified this common consensus.” (p.470)

Documents in dispute that did not make it in…writings known as the Apostolic Fathers…garnered less enthusiasm than even the most “weakly supported of the letters that did ‘make it in’.” (p.471)  No one suppressed any Gnostic or apocryphal material, because no canon ever did include them, and no one ever put them forward for inclusion.  If they had, they would have failed the criteria for apostolicity (written by apostle or close associate), coherence (not contradicting previously accepted Scripture) and catholicity (widespread acceptance as relevant and normative in all major segments of early Christian community (p.471).

Miracles and the Resurrection

Other documents contain miracle narratives that don’t rule out the rest of their historical data.  For example, accounts of Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River, et cetera, is accompanied by miraculous apparitions, along with problems of harmony and dating.  Still, classicists confidently recover substantial historical information from these accounts (p.472).  The corroborating evidence for the miracles in the Bible are stronger than for extrabiblical accounts (ones which are not accepted as genuine…although some accounts are accepted if they pass stringent criteria).

If there is any copy-catting going on, it is Christianity being copy-catted later, because pre-Christian traditions do not present close parallels to NT Gospels’ miracles. (p.473)

Five Undisputed Historical Facts
(and they are difficult to explain if resurrection didn’t happen)

1.  Jesus’ followers went from hiding in fear, to boldly proclaiming, overnight. 

http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-did-apostles-go-from-being-afraid.html
2. Jews changed their beloved Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
3.  Women (testimony not admissible in court) were the first witnesses to the resurrection. (Principle of embarrassment.)
4. Jesus was crucified (God’s curse Deut. 21:23), and yet they proclaimed him Lord and liberator. (Principle of embarrassment again.)
5. They believed the resurrection only occurred at the end of time to everyone (Daniel 12:2), but they claimed one man was resurrected before the end.

STROBEL:  Adding to embarrassing details the Gospel authors included:
-Mark 6:5 says Jesus could do few miracles in Nazareth due to lack of faith limiting Jesus’ omnipotence.
-Mark 13:32 says Jesus didn’t know the day or hour of his return, limiting his omniscience.  (But see Philippians 2:5-8 for this one and the last one.)
-Why did a sinless Jesus need to be baptized? (answers found in OT)
-Why does Jesus ask why God has forsaken him? (answers found in OT)
-Mark’s perspective of Peter is unflattering.
-The disciples repeatedly misunderstand Jesus.
-James and John fight for high positions and have to be taught lessons.
-John ends his gospel saying the whole world couldn’t contain all the information that could be written about Jesus—so why not leave out embarrassing things to make room for other things?  But, they didn’t.  So why believe they fabricated any of it?

Theories that are alternatives to the resurrection take more faith to believe.

History provides enough support so that a spirit of trust is a natural response when presented with difficult questions or life situations.

(discussion index)

Posted in Apologetics, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | Leave a comment

Ichthus77’s first newsletter

Posted on February 15, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

Want to know the skinny on my goings-on?  Download Ichthus77’s first newsletter here: https://ichthus77.com/about/newsletters

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Request Project

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.18: Deposed Royalty: Pascal’s Anthropological Argument

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

Chapter 18 of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics is on Pascals’ anthropological argument, which can be summarized this way (a version friendly to theistic evolution)…

1.  Each human is aware, or is attempting to distract ourselves from the reality, that we are a paradox of greatness and wretchedness.  (Many examples are given as evidence.)
2.  The best explanation of this paradox is found in two biblical revelations: a) we are meant to be in the image of God (characterized by, and behaving according to, Golden Rule love), and b) our Fall from the Way we are meant to be.  (This is the abductive conclusion.)
3.  Therefore, the worldview of Christianity is worthy of respect.

Furthermore, Jesus’ incarnation/redemption is God’s ultimate demonstration of greatness, of Golden Rule love, by dying in our place.

A less wordy version, made into an inductive argument (using the abductive conclusion in the second premise), from my friend Roland McConnell, who is skeptical of theistic evolution:


1.  Man is a paradox of greatness and wretchedness.
2.  The biblical revelation of man’s creation and his subsequent fall is the best explanation of this paradox.
3.  Therefore, the biblical doctrines of creation and the fall are probably true.

What I love about this chapter is:

1.  Biblical talk of “mystery” and “foolishness” finally makes sense to me (related to #4 below).  It cannot be arrived at solely by human deduction/induction, but the revelation “is” the best explanation (abductively)…as opposed to being contrary to reason, or illogical (anti-Logos).
2.  It has a footnote that is friendly to theistic evolutionists (16).
3.  It’s talk of “diversion” (also mentioned in other parts of the book) reminds me of existentialist philosophers.

“…we are always engaged in something (the state of being engaged in something Heidegger called care–Sorge).  Sometimes this involves caring for others, but mostly it involves engaging in our own existence:  We fret, we worry, we look forward to something … We are always engaged in some part of our reality, unless we get caught up in another deeper element of human nature:  a mood, such as dread or anguish–Angst,” (422).

4.  It helped me finally understand how abductive reasoning differs from deductive and inductive.  With deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion ‘must’ be true.  With inductive reasoning, the premises add to the weight of the conclusion’s probability.  With abductive reasoning, the conclusion best explains the premises, rather than ‘having’ to be true if the premises are true (as in deduction), and rather than being supported or made more probable by the premises (as in induction)–the abductive conclusion is not something that would be suggested by the premises alone, but which does better explain them than other rival theories.

Some other topics we discussed at our apologetics study group:
1.  Roland brought this up.  Do the scientists/philosophers who talk about “well-being” and the “science of morality” emphasize merely our greatness (as the Stoics did), merely our wretchedness (as the skeptics did), or both?  If both, do they explain the paradox better than Christianity?  My thoughts:  What perfectly well being in reality do their beliefs describe, if they deny the existence of a perfectly well being?  To what being in reality are their beliefs true?  If there is no such great being, then they would seem to emphasize our wretchedness.  But, if they think we can be no greater than we are, and that evil is an illusion (as Sam Harris gets around to saying in “The Moral Landscape“), then they would seem to over-emphasize our greatness.  Thoughts?
2.  By wretchedness, is Pascal meaning what Paul means by “the flesh”?  Does he ever come out and say that?  My friend Pam and I both had those passages popping into our minds as we read this chapter.  Roland thinks the answer is that obviously they are the same.

Thoughts on any of the above? :0)

(discussion index)

Posted in Apologetics, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | Leave a comment

The Moral Argument

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

jt4vdgrf-1351814592-300x179Update 1/30:  Expanded on some things

The Moral Argument
I don’t like the traditional version of this argument that argues from the moral law to a moral law-giver:
Traditional Argument from Morality
Premise 1:  There is an objective moral law.
Premise 2:  Every law implies a law-giver.
Conclusion:  Therefore, there is a moral law-giver.
The most important problem with this argument is, if God is not just making stuff up, then he is the goodness described by the moral law, which means he is “that to which the moral law corresponds” or “that which the moral law describes”.  So, you could rephrase the argument this way:
Premise 1:  There is “that which the moral law describes”.
Premise 2:  Every law implies a law-giver.
Conclusion:  Therefore, there is a “that which the moral law describes”-giver.
In other words, this argument concludes that God is making himself up.
First, to prevent this argument from saying that God is just making stuff (or himself) up, we need to end up concluding that God commands the law in accordance with his good nature.  When he commands, he does not give something new (new to us perhaps, but not new to him)—he gives something that corresponds to his eternally good nature.
Second, to prevent this argument from scaring away the nihilists and logicians, we need to start out referring to our hunger for true goodness, rather than simply assuming the moral law (or “that which the moral law describes”) exists in the first premise—we are supposed to be arguing “to” that conclusion, not assuming it in the premise.
“A man’s physical hunger does not prove that the man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic.  But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.  In the same way…my desire for Paradise…is a pretty good indication that such a thing exists.” — C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
The same is true regarding moral hunger.  The fact that the Golden Rule is found in every major culture in history is evidence of our universal hunger for true meaning and goodness, which is evidence that there is something in reality that will fulfill our hunger.  Even nihilists show this hunger when they refuse to allow constructs to obligate them.
Revised Argument from Morality
Premise 1:  We all hunger for true goodness and meaning.
Premise 2:  We would not all have this hunger if there were no true goodness or meaning to satisfy our hunger.
Conclusion:  Therefore, there exists a being to which true goodness and meaning corresponds.
How this relates to law, in contrast to the “Moral Law-Giver” argument, is that only laws (God-given, or man-given) which correspond to this good being obligate us, as these are the only laws which satisfy our hunger for true goodness and meaning.
I also like this version of the argument much better because it does not tangle obligation up with fear, or the idea that we are merely obligated because “God said so”.  He does not say so arbitrarily. His perfect, loving goodness is what ultimately satisfies us, and perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).
This version does not conclude there are moral truths–only that “if” there are, there must also be a God to which they correspond:
Alternative Revised Argument from Morality 
(in response to this argument)
P1: Beliefs, in order to be true, must correspond to reality.
P2: Moral beliefs, in order to be true (iow, in order to be moral facts), must correspond to a perfectly moral person.
C: Therefore, if there are true moral beliefs (iow, if there are moral facts), then a perfectly moral person exists to which moral facts are true.
Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | 4 Comments

“Churches for Apologetics” petition

Posted on January 24, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

CAA petition: “Churches for Apologetics” http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/churches-for-apologetics

Will you share?

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Request Project

Posted in Apologetics | 2 Comments

"Churches for Apologetics" petition

Posted on January 22, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

We of the Christian Apologetics Alliance write to you today to thank you for all you are doing to equip the body of Christ in the midst of a faith crisis that is evident in the rise of the “Nones”–those who claim no religious affiliation.  We know you are aware of the problem, and of the need for those with questions to have answers. If we put all of our voices together, perhaps they will hear that there are answers and seek them? Will you add your voice to this petition and proclaim that you are committed to learning and equipping your church with apologetics?

Read more, sign and please share.

Others are blogging about this petition:

Penny of a Thought
The Aristophrenium
Intelligent Faith 315
The Poached Egg
JimShultzBlog
Apologetics315
Attempts at Honesty

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Lee Strobel’s "The Case for Faith for Kids" summary with commentary

Posted on January 17, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

My boys have graduated from “kids” to “students” so I updated to the student edition of Lee Strobel’s “Case for…” series and wanted to get these notes down before I ship the “for kids” series off to their new owner.  These are the questions and answers kids work through in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel.  Yes, there are nifty illustrations and added discussion questions to help your kids think things through, but I wanted to highlight the actual apologetics material.  I put in my two cents here and there.  I may or may not do the same for the other two books I have in this series.

Question:  “Should people who already believe in God ask for answers?  If they wonder, for instance, whether God is really fair, does that mean they don’t trust God enough?  Should they just ignore the tough stuff and go on believing in God?”

Answer:  “No, because questions—especially questions about faith—are too important to let us do that.  … Jesus said this:  ‘Ask, and it will be given to you.  Search, and you will find.  Knock and the door will be opened to you.’ (Matthew 7:7-8) … Remember, even though it’s important to ask questions about God to find him, he is always searching for you. … If you ask and think and search for the answers with all your heart, maybe you’ll finally discover that every answer leads to God himself.  Because, as Saint Augustine said, ‘All truth is God’s truth.’”

From “Introduction:  Any Questions?” in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

Question:  “Why would a good God allow bad things?”

Answer: Some bad things happen because we choose them.  God created choice so that we would be his friends and not his robots.  Other bad things happen by accident. Strobel says this is a result of the Fall—the first sin—but I think accidents probably happened before the first sin as well, and that Strobel could also just refer back to choice.  Accidents—as opposed to nothing ever happening by accident—make choice possible, which makes it possible for us to be God’s friends instead of his robots.  One thing Strobel pointed out that is very important:  In John 9, the man who was blind since birth wasn’t being punished for something he or his parents did, but was blind so that God could show himself through it.  Just because things are falling down around you does not mean God is out to get you.  However, Lee implied that Romans 8:28 shows that God will make all bad situations good in this life—but that isn’t the meaning of the verse.  Sometimes it all goes to crap in this life, but God intends it for your spiritual good in the long run (from an eternal perspective).  The point we don’t want to miss in this life, is that God’s love never changes, whatever the circumstances (Strobel doesn’t say this). Strobel does point us to God’s future plans of setting all things right (2 Peter 3:13).
Paraphrased (with my own thoughts inserted) from “Chapter 1:  Why would a good God allow bad things?” in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

Question:  “If science can explain so many things, does that mean there are no real miracles?  …where does that leave God?  Or is there some way both science and miracles can be true?”

Answer (from Bill Craig):  “…if Jesus is God, as he says he is, he can do what he wants.  He made the universe, so what’s the big deal about feeding a few extra people?  Or walking on water?  Or rising from the dead, for that matter?”

Question:  “Still, doesn’t he have to break the laws of science—mess up his own system—to perform a miracle?”

Answer (from Bill Craig):  “Not the way I look at it.  Let’s say an apple is about to fall from the tree.  The laws of science (gravity, actuality) say it will hit the ground.  But I step up and catch the apple.  Have I broken the laws of science?  The answer is no, I haven’t.  I have stepped in and intervened.  A miracle is when God steps in and does something in the world.  It’s supernatural—that means it’s not against nature but higher than nature.”

From “Chapter 2:  Does science mean miracles can’t happen?” in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

Question:  “Okay, Mr. Philosopher, if you’re so smart, give me five good reasons to believe in God when science explains so much.”

Answer:  “1. God makes sense of creation.  … If the universe began to exist at some point in the past, then it must have had a cause.  What could that cause have been?  God makes the most sense.  / God has always existed.  He never had a beginning, so he doesn’t need a cause to exist.  2. God makes sense of the fine details of life.  …a famous scientist named Stephen Hawking figured out that the big bang happened in exactly, absolutely, precisely the right way for there to even be a universe.  If the speed of the bang had been faster or slower by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the whole thing would have collapsed into a fireball! … Or think about this one, worked out by a scientist named P.C.W. Davies.  If the force of gravity were weaker or stronger by one part in a number we don’t have room to write here (10 with one hundred zeros after it!), then there never would have been life on this earth. … Who sits at the controls and sets all the dials?  Faith in God makes sense when you look at the details of life.  3.  God makes sense of right and wrong.  [I agree, but disagree with the “God made up the rules” approach Strobel takes.  Instead, I believe God is the only perfectly good person in reality that makes those rules true.]  4. God makes sense of Jesus.  [There are key very interesting elements missing, like the reality that there are certain facts, if stated correctly, that even skeptical scholars take as historical, and if stated together, rule out every resurrection theory besides “it happened”.]  5.  God makes sense of our personal experiences.  [This is true after having some sort of legitimate religious experience, but it only counts for those who’ve experienced it (or witnessed their transformation).]”

From “Chapter 3:  The Big 5” (with my own thoughts inserted) in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

Question: “Is there only one way to heaven? Many ways? No way? Is the answer important?”

Answer (from Ravi Zacharias):“If you ‘check the contents’ of religions, you find they are entirely different inside. … Christians, Jews and Muslims claim that there is one God. Hindus say there are many. Buddhists and atheists say there is none. Christians say Jesus is the Son of God, but Muslims say God has no son. They can’t all be right, can they? When people give different answers to the same questions, someone must be wrong while someone else may be right. But it would be irrational to say that all the answers were right. … When speaking of matters that are important to people, such as belief in God, we need to be gentle and understanding. Some people like Christ, but they don’t like Christians very much. Our failure to be gentle may be why. … Live out what you believe. Show people through your life that Jesus is not just an idea, but he’s real and we can know him personally.” (For the record, living out what you believe does not mean coming off as a morally superior goodie-goodie who has it all together socially, so please do not start expecting me to measure up to that. Living out what I believe means finding my acceptance in God, not what other people think of me–that’s the only thing that will coax me out of my shell. But, even if I stay in my shell forever, it won’t change how God feels about me. So there. But, I’m with Zacharias on this: Don’t be a jerk for Jesus.)
Question: “If Christianity is the true religion, why doesn’t everybody find that out and switch to Christianity or become a Christian? … What about people who haven’t heard?”
Answer (from Ravi Zacharias): “…people tend to adopt the religions of their homelands. … Some people reject Christianity because it’s demanding.” Zacharias emphasizes “Jesus calls upon us to be unselfish” but I think, too, that coming to terms with our own imperfection can be even harder than coming to terms with how we ‘ought’ to be—and it just feels legalistic, without talking about how we are saved (accepted) first, and works flow out of that. “…remember that missionaries travel all over the world to be sure that people hear about Jesus. Also, in Romans 1:19-20a the Bible tells us that since the beginning of the world, the true God has made himself plain to all people so that they would have a chance to know him. In Acts 17:26-27, we read that God carefully placed people where he wanted them to live. And finally, there is this wonderful verse in Jeremiah 29:13 in which God says, ‘When you look for me with all your heart, you will find me.’ There are two or three things we can be very certain about God. One is that he is fair. Another is that he loves everyone with a love that never lets up. He has placed a special need in the heart of each one of us—the need for him. It’s like being thirsty. There is only one thing you can do to get rid of your thirst, and that is to drink. There is only one way to fill our need for God, and that is to find him.” Amen and amen.
From “Chapter 4: Can other religions get us into heaven?” (with my own thoughts inserted) in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

Question:  “Can I have doubts and still be a Christian?”

Answer:  “Faith (trust)…it’s based on something solid.  But doubt…actually makes us work on our faith. … you can have it without feeling it. … One day a man came to Jesus with a son who needed healing.  Jesus told the father that everything is possible for someone who believes.  The man said, ‘I do believe!  Help my unbelief!’ (Mark 9:24). … It’s not that we have no faith.  We just want God to help us with those little unfaithful parts inside us. … Doubt is the ‘heavy lifting’ of faith.  That is, faith is a kind of spiritual muscle you have to exercise by stretching it, working on it, and hammering it until it’s tough.  Doubt does that.”
From “Chapter 5: Can I have doubts and still be a Christian?” in “The Case for Faith for Kids” by Lee Strobel

There are practical, short stories at the end that show what it would look like if any of the above came up in an every-day conversation.

“Objections to Faith” by David Spikes (12 yrs. old) — written after reading Student Edition

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox | Leave a comment

What I’ve been e-doing about the web…

Posted on January 14, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

I’ve been pretty busy neglecting this blog, so I thought I’d post some of what I’ve been doing elsewhere on the web.

On my personal blog:

The true meaning of Christmas

Blog index for Douglas Groothuis’ “Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith”

The day I converted from atheism is approaching…

Over at Christian Apologetics Alliance:

Resolving Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Christmas 2012 in Review: He Came to Us

I put up my old poll in a new format:

Moral truth:  Created, discovered, or neither?

On Examiner.com:

5 Silicon Valley apologetics events in January and February 2013

Coming up on-line, in no particular order:

* Continue to admin the Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) group blog.
* Jan 18 on the CAA blog:  Community Apologetics:  Starting with your family.
* Schedule out articles on Examiner.com and the CAA blog.
* Finish and blog my research article on SEO.
* Put my social media article to good use.
* Draft a CAA letter to churches on the need for apologetics as “faith crisis management”.
* Finish Apologetics Toolbox for my kids (share with world).
* Edit and blog audio of “Women in Apologetics” workshop I gave a while back.
* Get apologetics articles polished up for submission.
* Start writing fiction in weekly blog installments.
* Continue with reading and reviews.
* Develop quizzes for CAA lay apologetics course curriculum.
* Move Bible Narrative Project to WordPress.
* Write first Ichthus77 newsletter.
* Et cetera!

What are YOU up to?

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Request Project

Posted in Apologetics, News | Leave a comment

Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch. 17: The Uniqueness of Humanity

Posted on January 13, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

Chapter 17 of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics argues that being an embodied mind or soul is the best explanation for the ways humanity is unique:  consciousness, cognition and language.  Materialism cannot adequately explain first person access, incorrigibility, qualia, propositional attitudes, intentionality, truth or love.

A substance is a particular thing (can’t be in two places at once, has causal powers) and its properties can change, whereas it is not a property of anything.

Substance dualism says the mind and body are two different substances.  Materialism says mind is a property of matter.  Idealism says matter is a property of mind.

Jesus was a substance dualist, as seen when he told the repentant thief he would be with him that very day in paradise, though their bodies would be in the grave. (Luke 23:43)


Accounting for Consciousness:  A materialist puzzle

Consciousness is a puzzle for materialists because, unlike most everything else they account for, it has no weight, mass, motion, et cetera.

Mind and Matter:  A difference in kind

Differing in kind involves possessing different defining characteristics, with no intermediate between kinds.  Differing in degree is differing continuously, not in kind.

Discrepant Properties

Brain matter cannot be faithful, hopeful, loving, rational, seeing blue, feeling blue.  It will help if you replace “mind” with “experience” …you can feel an experience…but when you touch the brain, you are not feeling an experience (mind), you are just feeling a brain (matter).  A thought about a rose isn’t red.  Mental states and physical states differ in kind and so are not identical.

Private Access and Incorrigibility

Though brain function can be seen in a CAT scan and manipulated with a probe, only the mind has access to its thoughts and feelings.  As with religious experience in the last chapter, the mind is not one-way produced by the brain, rather it can also have effects on the brain.  We can have incorrigible beliefs about our experiences, but we cannot have incorrigible beliefs about physical objects.

Qualia:  Being there

This one is fuzzy.  Qualia are sensations of consciousness.  They are associated with material states but not reducible to them.  I’m not sure how he argued to that conclusion.  See brain touching example above, though.

Propositional Attitudes and Intentionality

Propositional attitudes are just beliefs.  Intentionality just means that the beliefs are “about” something.  The argument is that the relationship between believer and believed is not a spatial/material one, but one of thought (mind).

Truth:  A materialist problem

A proposition (belief), at the heart of all human language, is an intellectual unit of meaning not reducible to any of its physical manifestations.  Truth: a belief corresponds to its object–but not spatially/materially.

Love:  The materialist acid

In order for love to be a true experience we can know and exemplify, 1. selves must be real, 2. love must be more than a physical response–it must be rooted in the eternal character/substance of God.

Responding to objections to dualism.

1.  Ockham’s razor:  Why claim 2, when you can go for the more simple 1?  Because it fails to explain.  It’s “too” simple.

2.  Material states effect consciousness.  Answer:  Correlation does not equal identification.

3.  Mind and matter are too different to interact.  Answer:  Don’t have to know the “how” to know that interaction happens.  There is evidence that interaction happens.

4.  Darwinism entails materialism.  Answer:  See Popper and Eccles “The Self and Its Brain” and other philosophers who do not argue for materialism.

From Mind to Mindful Maker

Alternatives:

1.  Mind (substance) emerged from matter ex nihilo.

2.  Epiphenomenalism or property dualism.  Mind is latent or intrinsic in matter–rather than being separate from it (it is property of matter).  This denies that mind can act as an agent, defying our experience.  It cannot account for the unity of the self over time.  It fails to give a purely materialistic account.

3.  Pantheism:  All of reality is a universal mind–matter does not exist.  It denies our experience of matter and cannot explain finite consciousness or subject-object distinctions.

Cognition:  How can we know the world?

Materialism and Reason

1.  If materialism is true, we cannot trust our cognitive faculties because a) they weren’t designed to know the world and b) they are merely material organs with no ability to experience rational insight.
2.  Our cognitive capacities are basically trustworthy.
3.  Therefore, materialism is false.

My critique of the first premise is that it commits the genetic fallacy.  Attacking the propositions of an evolved brain on the basis that it is evolved does nothing to address its arguments.

Pantheism and Reason

1  If pantheism is true, we cannot trust our rational faculties because a) they are not designed to know the world, b) there is no finite and material world to know, c) reason (either-or) is not the organ to discern truth.
2.  We can trust our rational faculties.
3.  Therefore, pantheism is false.

The Christian Answer

We are created in God’s image and likeness.  Though the world is rationally ordered, it is irrational in that it cannot reason.  We can break free from it through abstract reasoning.  My pushback here is that God doesn’t do some weird sort of whammy on us that makes all knowledge possible…and we are still wrong about a lot of things.

(discussion index)

Posted in Apologetics, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | Leave a comment

Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.16: The Argument from Religious Experience

Posted on January 13, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

Chapter 16 of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics is on the argument from religious experience.  Several times he repeats that “religious experience claims need to be weighed  against other germane sources of evidence for or against a worldview (like Mormonism)…It should not be made to shoulder the entire burden of apologetics.” (379)

The argument is that various (veridical, or truth-conveying) human experiences are best explained by God’s existence (inference to the best explanation).  According to Richard Swinburne’s “principle of credulity” — “unless there is good evidence to the contrary, if person S seems to experience E, S should believe that E probably exists.” (365)  His “principle of testimony” states that “testimony is usually reliable.” (ibid).

Religious experience claims are either 1) deceptive, 2) non-referring, 3) non-divine, 4) divine.  Of type four, there are three types of arguments:  1) the argument from emptiness and divine longing, 2) the argument from numinous experience and 3) mystical arguments. Dr. Groothuis also will address two naturalistic rejections of theistic arguments:  1) the projection argument, 2) the reduction of religious experience to natural, physiological factors.


The argument from emptiness and divine longing.  “We all experience a deep sense of yearning or longing for something that the present natural world cannot fulfill–something transcendently glorious.” (368) (on C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”)  “A man’s physical hunger does not prove that the man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic.  But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.  In the same way…my desire for Paradise…is a pretty good indication that such a thing exists.” — C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

Numinous experience.  Three parts:  A subject (1) experiences (2) an object (3) that is both transfixing and frightening.  The framework of knowledge does not devolve into mystical nonsense, and the person usually does not walk away unchanged (Paul’s companions in Acts 9 did).  Examples:  Isaiah 6:1-7, Exodus 3, Ezekiel 1-3, Job 38-42, Acts 9, Revelation 1:12-18.  Pascal seems to have had a numinous experience, and it was a numinous experience that brought me back to God.

Transformational experience.  Pascal’s experience changed his life dramatically for the better.  Same with Paul. Same with me and Christians around the world for the last two thousand years.  

But, what of those who have fallen away?  A few options.  1. It was predicted that they would in the NT, and they weren’t Christians in the first place.  2. Their faith was merely experience-based and not genuine, dying when the experiences died.  3.  They thought their experience-based faith was all they needed, and became overwhelmed by doubts it didn’t answer.

Objections to religious-experience arguments.

1.  They can’t be verified.  Answer:  If you see the mountain goat that runs off before anyone else spots it, does that mean you didn’t really see it?  If God is supernatural, how can you verify him as you would the natural (to demand it begs the question against religious experience)?  Two ways to test for veridicality:  1.  Compare it to previously recorded religious experiences.  2.  Rule out contributing factors (drugs, mental illness).

The Projection Objection

Feuerbach said theology is anthropology.  Marx said religion drugs the masses into compliance.  Freud said God and religion are ideas based on wish fulfillment meant to cope with reality by projecting a stabilizing Father figure.  This is all true of false religion, idolatry.  But 1) the projection objection does not answer all the other arguments for theism and Christianity, 2) “The glory of God is man fully alive” (Irenaeus), William Wilberforce was not pacified by his Christianity (brought down slavery in Great Britain), and Freud was highly speculative and even if the religious people he analyzed were neurotic, that does not warrant such a sweeping generalization. 3. A strong wish for X to be true does not count against X being true (and see previous C.S. Lewis quote).  We can come to God for psychological reasons and still hold a true belief.  To say it is false because it is psychologically motivated is an example of the genetic fallacy.  4.  Christianity is not always comfort-inducing and often results in upheaval (numinous experiences are not pleasant).  God is not tame.  5.  The argument can be reversed on atheists:  You erase the concept of a God because of past hurts.  God gave us the parent-father relationship as a way of understanding our relationship to him.

Neurotheology:  A category mistake

Religious belief is a function of the brain.  Answer:  It has effects on the brain, rather than being an effect of the brain.  Are nonreligious beliefs a function of the brain?  Would that make them untrue?

Diverse religious experience claims:  eastern religions

The enlightenment experiences require a negation of individuality, personality and language.  Nirvana means to become extinguished.  Brahman means the self dissolves as individual into a Universal Self.  Language is not supposed to be able to capture nirvana or brahman states, as they leave concepts behind and communicate no knowledge…and so this experience cannot be used in a rational argument toward any worldview…though Ken Wilber does go on about it.  It cannot serve as evidence, and it cannot provide satisfaction:  It eliminates the God-shaped vacuum itself.

(discussion index)

Posted in Apologetics, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | Leave a comment