Evangelical apologists such as Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Gary Habermas, and Michael Licona believe Scripture is inerrant, and they also claim they can prove Jesus’ resurrection using historical evidence. Is there anyone, historian or apologist, who does not believe Scripture is inerrant, but still claims evidence proves the resurrection?
If not, exactly why is that so? Other than an ad hominem attack, I see no reason that evangelicals should be the only Christians who rely on evidence.
Good question, but I’m confused who you’re talking about specifically. Are you asking about leading evangelical individuals or any evangelical in general? I don’t think it’s likely that the average evangelical has the ability to hypothesize from “evidence” for proof of the resurrection. On the flip side are mainline protestants. One of their basic beliefs is directly at odds with evangelicals: they don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Not every mainline protestant holds the same beliefs as every other mainline protestant, but in general they don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I don’t know their stand on the issue, but I don’t think they would particularly be interested in “historical evidence”. For them faith alone is enough.
gmatthews said
Good question, but I’m confused who you’re talking about specifically. Are you asking about leading evangelical individuals or any evangelical in general?
Both. People who write evangelical/evidential apologetics and people who read them.
gmatthews said
For them faith alone is enough.
Why is faith alone enough?
I tried to make my question concise, but perhaps I should expound a greater length to explain where I’m coming from.
I do not believe that faith is a reliable reason to believe anything. The 9/11 terrorists had plenty of faith. Atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have expressed this idea for more eloquently than me. Evangelical apologists, at least the ones I have read, also recognize that pure faith provides no assurance of truth.
Lee Strobel notes that the victims of the Jonestown Tragedy had faith in Jim Jones, “But ultimately the truth is this: Faith is only as good as the one in whom it’s invested.” Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus 10 (Zondervan 2007).
“The appeal to ‘try such-and-such religion and you will find it self-authenticating in your heart of hearts’ is the mark of apologetic debility, for such claims can be made by everyone from Mohammed Ali to Father Divine without fear of refutation (there being no possible refutation for individual experience).” John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact 98 (Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy 1978).
Evidentialists apologists use the supposed historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection to prove that Christianity is the right religion. These apologists want to be better than the “teenage Mormon door-knocker who tells you he knows the Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm, swelling feeling in his stomach when he asks God if it’s true.” Robert M. Price, By This Time He Stinketh, The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus in Robert M. Price & Jeffrey Jay Lowder, eds., The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave 411, 416 (Prometheus Books 2005).
However, I feel like there’s something I’m missing, something I do not understand. These evidential apologists are all evangelical Christians who believe in inerrant Scripture. Why is it that evangelical Christians, who normally focus on the need to be born again, appear to be the only Christians interested in proving the resurrection by historical evidence? Shouldn’t people who have been born again be more comfortable with pure faith? Why are mainline Christians apparently indifferent to historical evidence arguments? I think that arguments for historical proof of the resurrection are bogus, but I have some sympathy for evangelicals who are at least trying to ground their beliefs in reality.
Lawyerskeptic said
gmatthews said
For them faith alone is enough.
You’ll need to ask a philosopher about that. It’s been debated for millennia. People believe fervently in all kinds of weird things: UFO’s, 9/11 was an inside attack, Bigfoot, etc.
Lawyerskeptic said
However, I feel like there’s something I’m missing, something I do not understand. These evidential apologists are all evangelical Christians who believe in inerrant Scripture. Why is it that evangelical Christians, who normally focus on the need to be born again, appear to be the only Christians interested in proving the resurrection by historical evidence? Shouldn’t people who have been born again be more comfortable with pure faith? Why are mainline Christians apparently indifferent to historical evidence arguments? I think that arguments for historical proof of the resurrection are bogus, but I have some sympathy for evangelicals who are at least trying to ground their beliefs in reality.
(sorry for being so long, but I need to give a history lesson on evangelicalism in America to make my point)
I think that to understand this relatively recent change in how Christians in general view the certainty of Biblical inerrancy I think you have to look to history. Off and on I’ve been reading a book called American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelicalism and I think you’d gain insight from it. While Evangelicalism goes back to the 1700s it got a boost in the late 1800s when a Scottish evangelical started preaching about the Rapture. Bart described the recent belief in the Rapture in his post a couple days ago, but didn’t mention this Scot by name, but he was talking about the evolution of the belief created by this Scot in the late 1800s. After WW1 acceptance of evangelicalism really skyrocketed. The evangelicals added fundamentalists to their ranks by the bucketful. Hand in hand with it went a sense we were entering the time of Biblical prophecy as described in Revelation, Daniel and various comments made by Jesus in the Gospels and also those of Paul. I suppose this sense that Armageddon was approaching arose from the despair wrought by the nearly world-wide devastation of WW1, social unrest in America from the Great Depression, etc. Surely the signs predicted in the Bible were happening right before their eyes! Wars, brother fighting brother, strange sights, etc.
This is where modern American evangelicalism got it’s start. The relative speed with which WW2 occurred after WW1 only inspired evangelical leaders that they were more right than ever. During the war and immediately after it Evangelicals were printing tracts with instructions on how to survive Armageddon. The Cold War did nothing to diminish the belief that Armageddon was fast approaching. Later, the horrors of Vietnam and the perception that the social change demanded by the youth in this country in conjunction with their new style of dress, the music, free love, long hair, drugs, etc was the work of Satan actively at work trying to enslave the minds of American youth and turn them against God further convinced the evangelicals and fundamentalists within their ranks that surely we were the last generation and that the Rapture was imminent. By the 1980s the threat of nuclear war had been hanging over the heads of Americans for decades and we saw the rise of authors such as Hal Lindsey who wrote in great detail describing how prophecy after prophecy had been fulfilled guaranteeing that the return of Jesus was to occur by _____ (insert date within the next few years).
By 1978 a group of evangelicals gathered and issued a proclamation of sorts affirming the Evangelical belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The Catholics had done the same thing in the early 1960s at the (iirc) Second Vatican Council.
Jumping forward in time to today, in my opinion, the absolute certainty in Biblical inerrancy expressed by fundamentalists and the majority of evangelicals stems from a couple of things. First, Jesus obviously hasn’t returned yet. Evangelicals had been preaching since the 1920s that we were about to face the apocalypse. It was imminent. But, where is Jesus? Why hasn’t he delivered his true believers from the horrors of a world gone mad? A world that had turned away from God and is now turning away from him in slowly increasing numbers. I think their belief in Biblical inerrancy is a bunker mentality. They’ve invested their lives into the belief that Jesus was soon to return and into preaching their version of Christianity (being born again, faith alone, etc), but the payoff hasn’t happened yet. They still believe fervently that Jesus will return so obviously the Bible is correct in what it prophesizes. To confirm this belief amongst themselves and their followers they needed to affirm it by claiming the Bible was inerrant. Otherwise, they’d have to face the possibility that their entire lives had been a waste.
The second reason for believing in biblical inerrancy is something that is a result of what I described in the previous paragraph: politics. In particular Republican politics. We have Evangelical Southern Baptist Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority to thank for that. Starting in 1979 the Moral Majority mobilized to encourage Christians to vote conservative. Evangelicals are typically anti-intellectual so their message meshed well with the Republican base. I’ll admit I’m reaching here because I just don’t know if what I’m about to say is true or not, but I think the Moral Majority and the super-pacs that followed them infused their message with evangelical beliefs. I think most Christians who voted Republican never realized it was happening. It would have to be inevitable for the idea of biblical inerrancy to seep into politics if Evangelicals were the primary group driving political mobilization of the churches. On the left you’ve got the bourgeois intellectuals of the Democrat Party and on the right you’ve got the God-fearing Republicans who want to bring back the 1950s where everyone has a lovely house with the white picket fence and all that goes with that imagery.
Out of all of my friends who are Christians (or who publicly profess to be and who wear their religion like a badge) all of them, as far as I know, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible when asked that question directly. They constantly profess that belief on Facebook with their memes (although not in so many words) so it’s obvious. I don’t think this widespread belief in Biblical inerrancy came about solely from their churches. The Republicans have done a fantastic job of shoring up that belief by the constant railing against abortion, homosexuality and homosexual marriage, etc. How else to explain all these people who immediately try to quote from Leviticus or Paul when it comes to their disgusted condemnation of one man lying with another? I’m sure it’s a complicated topic and perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but hopefully you get my point.
Finally, regarding their need for evidentiary proof of the Resurrection, wouldn’t you say that just goes hand in hand with the bunker mentality that the Bible must be 100% the word of God and for the same reasons? They need verification and confirmation of their belief in the imminent return of Jesus and anything that will support their beliefs is all the justification they need for what ever illogical idea they have.
gmatthews,
Thank you for your enlightening post. Your first comment about asking philosopher is probably the best advice for me. The whole idea of belief by faith is lost on me, but I probably spent too much time thinking about it.
Your comment about “bunker mentality” also rings true to me. I’m reminded of the classic work on cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails (Wilder Publications 2011). Dissonance, a conflict between one’s beliefs and contrary facts, makes people uncomfortable. A person has three basic ways to reduce the dissonance:
- Change the belief. This is very difficult to do when heavily committed to the belief.
- Forget or reduce the importance of either the facts or the belief. People who are heavily committed to a belief will readily forget or minimize conflicting facts, but not the belief.
- Acquire new facts and/or beliefs that fit together.
The third option does not exactly fit what is going on with American evangelicals, but it is close. You might enjoy this humorous post on sunk costs and cognitive dissonance.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
It may not be a complete answer to a complex situation, but it makes sense to me that evidential apologetics and belief in inerrancy are both part of doubling down on evangelical faith. In other words, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between inerrancy and evidential apologetics, just like there is no cause-and-effect relationship between homophobia and evidential apologetics. They’re just all a part of the same mindset.
I think the whole Evangelical/Fundamentalist house of cards begins to fall down if they admit that the resurrection cannot be proven as a historical fact. God sends people to hell for not believing in the resurrection. God is just. Therefore the resurrection must be a proven fact and the unbeliever has no excuse for not believing. Classic circular reasoning.
One of the apologists mentioned above, Michael Licona, got himself in a whole heap of trouble with the inerrantists for just admitting that there were “some problems”. Don’t know if this was in his debate with Dr. Ehrman or not, but I believe he lost a teaching position over it.
As a former Christian who attended an Evangelical school through the age of 12 I have to disagree with you, screwtape. Until a Christian is ready to admit to themselves that there is no God and that none of the theology of the Bible is true then no one single thing is going to make the house of cards for the individual fall down. For each of us something different causes the loss of faith. For me it was a combination of 5 or 6 primary issues. For Prof Ehrman I guess he’d say for him it was the issue of suffering. I don’t think I ever believed the Bible was 100% true although perhaps I did when I was very young. There were plenty of things I didn’t believe like Creationism and most of the miracles of the OT. Disbelieving one thing didn’t affect my faith over all. Disbelieving the Resurrection would be one of the final things to let go of because to disbelieve that means you can’t really believe Jesus was divine and if you don’t believe that then you aren’t a Christian (although maybe a heretic)!
I never needed historical proof for any of the things I believed. I had faith they were true regardless of whether they were provable or not.
I never looked for historical proof either. What fun would that be when you are enjoying being a believer? I always just figured that apologists like Josh McDowell had all this stuff covered and therefore not to worry.
But I do think the resurrection is a central belief in Christianity that apologists must do their best to uphold. After all Paul said, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall be saved”. And I think all the creeds make you acknowledge it.
I know this fellow on another forum that has nothing to do with religion who asserts every chance he gets that the resurrection is a historical fact that cannot be denied. Arguments ensue and he lays low for a while but always comes back and asserts it again.
I find his mindset very interesting. For him, I think it has to be a fact. It validates his worldview. The resurrection is a fact and if you don’t believe it, you have no excuse because you have rejected the lifesaver that God has thrown you, and God is just. If you don’t believe it, the fault is in you. It cannot be otherwise. I think that is how his mind works.
When I was in the Army many winters ago, we had a saying: “Rank among lieutenants is like virtue among whores.” Meaning that there is no practical difference between a First Lieutenant and Second Lieutenant. A similar thing could be said about religions. Reason/logic/evidence among religion is like virtue among whores. By the way, can anyone think of a nonmilitary, nonsexual saying that means the same thing?
More to the point, many evangelical Christians recognize that pure faith does not lead to truth. You can believe anything by faith. Lee Strobel notes that the victims of the Jonestown Tragedy had faith in Jim Jones, “But ultimately the truth is this: Faith is only as good as the one in whom it’s invested.” Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus 10 (Zondervan 2007). The Evangelical apologists I mentioned in my original post all seem to accept that a person needs logical, evidentiary reasons to believe a religion.
If they were really sincere and honest with themselves about using reason, then these apologists would have a great deal in common with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on the primacy of reason. However, I think their evidence is more rationalization than reason.
They claim that they can use historical evidence to prove that Christianity is the right religion and all others are wrong. “Unlike more subjective, speculative religions, Christianity is a religion based on historical facts.” Ross Clifford, Leading Lawyers’ Case for the Resurrection 11 (Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy 1996). “Such a historical test of truth is unique to Christianity.” Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus 27 (Kregel Publications 2004).
I think it goes back to what gmatthews said about a bunker mentality. They really need to convince themselves that they are right.
screwtape said
One of the apologists mentioned above, Michael Licona, got himself in a whole heap of trouble with the inerrantists for just admitting that there were “some problems”. Don’t know if this was in his debate with Dr. Ehrman or not, but I believe he lost a teaching position over it.
Licona got in trouble with a book in which he made comments about the Jewish Saints rising from the dead in Matthew 27:51-54. Licona concludes that this “strange little text” is probably “special effects.” Michael R Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus 548-52 (InterVarsity Press 2010). This deviation from the party line caused great controversy among the apologists, although it is unclear whether Licona was actually fired because of it. ** you do not have permission to see this link **. He is now in my hometown of Houston at Houston Baptist University. From my point of view, ending up in Texas is reward, not punishment.
Prof Ehrman’s current thread on textual criticism and the uses to which the writer of the gospel of Luke put the gospel of Mark raise some interesting questions for the apologists about the idea of “inerrancy”
1. If Mark was writing inerrant scripture why was Luke inspired by god to take Mark and make changes to the text? Didn’t god get it right the first time?
2. Isn’t the fact that Luke felt free to take Mark and make changes to the text a sure sign that Luke didn’t regard Mark as inspired inerrant scripture?
But there’s an even more fundamental issue that the apologists never address.
3. If god is presenting a revelation that presumably will be made available to everyone in all times and places and cultures why would he do it through the medium of text in the first place? What form of communication is more evanescent than writing? More malleable? More likely to be misunderstood? More time bound and culture bound? (And even translation is problematic is it not? Some concepts simply can’t be translated into other languages because the other languages don’t have words for it.)
The fundamentalist Christian idea of inerrant scripture is incoherent. (Muslims will tell you that the Koran is only inspired in the original Arabic. What they won’t tell you of course is that the original text shows clear signs of having been worked over by multiple editors.)
Judith said
Stephen, What about all the scriptures that tell us God wrote his laws in our hearts and minds? Do you think that has worked better?
Given the huge number of Protestant congregations and the Catholics and Gnostics, etc etc. I’d say that didn’t work out too well.
magpie, Are you asking how God’s laws written in our hearts and minds is working out? I’ll assume that’s your question. For those of us who try to follow Jesus’ teachings, we know how we are to be if aspiring to become “children of God” and we know how to rear our children. Knowing is easy. The actual “being” is difficult in a world where power and status are what count and belonging is contingent on fitting in when we think and see the world very differently. So, whether through scripture or our hearts and minds, God and Jesus’ teachings we can know if we want to know. As to why those teachings have/have not worked out, perhaps we should consider if any progress has been made. I want to believe the answer is yes. After reading several of Jimmy Carter’s books this summer, it’s a marvel his family was able to prevail in defying the culture of that small southern town to follow the teaching that we are to be as brothers to one another.
Hmmm… I would like to try it for a millennium or two before the dullness sets in. My guess is that there would be plenty to keep even the aggressively inclined challenged to combat hunger, disease, climate change, intolerance, and cultural and scientific ignorance. I do agree that Jimmy Carter is a good role model!
Chasing Bot Guests. Visiting old Dead Threads.
Lawyerskeptic, gmatthews, magpie, are you still out there? Ten years later!
Are you asking how God’s laws written in our hearts and minds is working out?
I would say that any law “written in our hearts and minds” could probably not be put into words.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)