|
The Christian faith was not the
fabrication of man, for whatever reason. It was not the
invention of the disciples, the Apostle Paul or the
Council of Nicea in the fourth century. Nor is the
Christian faith simply a result of the cultural
evolution of the Jewish people, or an ersatz revival of
the ancient mystery religions. By whatever means the
critics suggest, Christianity is not the deception they
claim it is. Jesus’ original teachings were never
perverted, only to have them revived by this cult or
that cult, whether Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity,
Armstrongism, or others.
Historical facts and the canons of logic
document that Christianity alone is fully true and the
only religion in the world truly based upon divine
revelation. To the extent that any Christian body or
denomination holds to that divine revelation, it may be
considered genuinely Christian, as opposed to being
considered aberrational Christianity, heterodoxy, heresy
or Christian in name only.
Besides being divine revelation, biblical
faith is rational, not blind or based in subjectivism.
Christianity is the one religion simultaneously most
likely to be true and, given its claims, the easiest to
disprove if false. Therefore, an individual searching
for truth should begin that search with biblical
Christianity. If knowing the truth is in one’s best
interest, then the claim of Christianity to have the
truth and the claim of Jesus Christ to be the truth is
worth investigation. Further, because Christianity is a
religion based on divine revelation (the content of the
Bible), it is Christianity which submits to biblical
authority. In other words the church does not sit in
judgment upon the content or legitimacy of the Bible;
the Bible sits in judgment upon the content or
legitimacy of religious bodies claiming to be Christian,
whether inside the fold of traditional Christianity or
outside.
For those who are already searching but
who do not share our Christian worldview, why might they
consider openly evaluating the Christian religion?
First, because it is good to do so. All religions can’t
be true because they all conflict with one another. All
might be false, but only one can be true. The honest
search for truth is one of the noblest philosophical
endeavors of life. Plato declared, "Truth is the
beginning of every good thing, both in Heaven and on
earth; and he who would be blessed and happy should be
from the first a partaker of the truth." Jesus Christ
claims that He is the truth and that people can
determine the legitimacy of His claims to their own
satisfaction. Any religion that claims and produces
solid evidence on behalf of an assertion that it alone
is fully true is worth serious consideration for that
reason alone. Only biblical Christianity does this.
The kind of existence that Christianity
offers a seeker is one of deep and abundant
satisfaction, regardless of the pain and disappointment
one may experience in life. Jesus claimed that He would
give us what we really need in life: true meaning and
purpose flow, and when we die everlasting life in a
glorious heavenly existence far beyond our current
comprehension. Noted Oxford and Cambridge scholar C. S.
Lewis correctly understood one of the most heartfelt
yearnings of mankind when he wrote, "There have been
times when I think we do not desire heaven but more
often I find myself wondering whether, in our heart of
hearts, we have ever desired anything else."1
Jesus declared, "I have come that they may have life,
and have it to the full" (John 10:10). He said, "I am
the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me
will live, even though he dies" (John 11:25). He also
said, "I am the truth" (John 14:6). "Everyone on the
side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).
Christianity is unique in both the
evidence upon which it rests and the doctrines it
teaches. Just as Jesus Christ is unique, so is the
religion based upon Him. There is sufficient evidence
from virtually every department of human experience and
study to objectively demonstrate that Christianity is
true. Regardless of the many truth claims in other
religions, it is the faith of the non-Christian that is
internally and externally lacking. While it may be
"politically incorrect" in some minds to say such a
thing, the only issue is: "Is it true"? Again, Christian
faith is an objective, rational faith. Whatever their
merits, non-Christian faiths are typically irrational,
subjective and without sufficient grounding as to
historical claims, and they lack credible claims to be
divine revelation. Despite the widespread misperception
that Christianity involves a blind "leap of faith," that
description does fit non-Christian religions generally.
Scholars Are Convinced
Christianity is not just intellectually
credible, whether considered philosophically,
historically, scientifically, ethically or culturally,
but from an evidential perspective it is superior to
other worldviews, secular or religious. If Christianity
were obviously false, as cults and most skeptics charge,
how could esteemed scholars and intellectuals logically
make their declarations of faith? While testimonies per
se mean little, if they are undergirded by the weight of
scholarly evidence they can hardly be dismissed out of
hand. Mortimer Adler is one of the world’s leading
philosophers. He is chairman of the board of editors for
The Encyclopedia Britannica. He is also the
architect of The Great Books of the Western World
series and its amazing Syntopicon, and he is
director of the prestigious Institute for Philosophical
Research in Chicago and author of Truth in Religion,
Ten Philosophical Mistakes, How to Think About
God, How to Read a Book, plus over 20 other
challenging books. He simply asserts, "I believe
Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in
the world."2 How could a philosopher of
Adler’s caliber make such a statement? Because he knows
it can’t rationally be made of any other religion.
Philosopher, historian, theologian and
trial attorney John Warwick Montgomery, who holds nine
graduate degrees in various fields, argues, "The
evidence for the truth of Christianity overwhelmingly
outweighs competing religious claims and secular world
views."3 His 50-plus books and 100-plus
scholarly articles indicate exposure to a wide variety
of non-Christian religious and secular philosophies. How
could an individual of such intellectual stature use a
descriptive phrase as "overwhelmingly outweighs" if it
were obviously false?
The individual widely considered to be
the greatest Protestant philosopher of God in the world,
Alvin Plantinga, recalls, "For nearly my entire life I
have been convinced of the truth of Christianity."4
On what basis can one of the world’s greatest
philosophers make such a declaration if the evidence for
Christianity is unconvincing, as cultists and critics
charge?
Dr. Drew Trotter is executive director of
the Center for Christian Studies at Charlottesville,
Virginia. He holds a doctorate from Cambridge
University. He argues that "logic and the evidence both
point to the reality of absolute truth, and that truth
is revealed in Christ"5
If we are looking for evident truths,
then perhaps we should consider the words of noted
economist and sociologist, George R. Gilder, author of
Wealth and Poverty, who asserts, "Christianity is
true and its truth will be discovered anywhere you look
very far."6
Dr. Alister McGrath is Principal of
Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He studied at Oxford
and Cambridge universities and is research lecturer in
theology at Oxford. He is considered one of the most
influential Christian writers in the world, and his
numerous books include an acclaimed text on apologetics,
Bridge Building, as well as Intellectuals
Don’t Need God and Other Myths. He declares that
the superior nature of the evidence for Christianity is
akin to that found in doing good scientific research:
When I was
undertaking my doctoral research in molecular biology
at Oxford University, I was frequently confronted with
a number of theories offering to explain a given
observation. In the end, I had to make a judgment
concerning which of them possessed the greatest
internal consistency, the greatest degree of
correspondence to the data of empirical observation,
and the greatest degree of predictive ability. Unless
I was to abandon any possibility of advance in
understanding, I was obliged to make such a
judgment.... I would claim the right to speak of the
"superiority" of Christianity in this explicative
sense.7
The noted Christian scholar, Dr. Carl F.
H. Henry, wrote a 3000-page, 6-volume work titled
God, Revelation and Authority. After his exhaustive
analysis, Henry declared, "Truth is Christianity’s most
enduring asset...."8 In his definitive
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker
Book House, 1999, p. 785), leading Christian scholar Dr.
Norman L. Geisler, author of When Cultists Ask,
When Critics Ask and When Skeptics Ask,
writes, "The only system of truth is the Christian
system." Such accolades could be multiplied repeatedly.
Indeed, as Dr. Geisler comments, "In the face of
overwhelming apologetic evidence, unbelief becomes
perverse...."9
There is also Christianity’s founder,
Jesus Christ, who is utterly original and totally unique
when compared to every other religious leader who has
ever lived. In the words of an article in Time
magazine, His life was, simply, "the most influential
life that was ever lived."10
In addition, the Christian Bible itself is clearly the
most influential book in human history. If Jesus Christ
and the Christian Scriptures continue to exert
unparalleled influence in the world, shouldn’t they be
considered worthy of truly impartial investigation? If
objective evidence points to Christianity alone being
fully true, then it seems that only personal bias can
explain people’s unwillingness to consider seriously the
claims of Jesus Christ on their life.
A further reason that those of other
religious persuasions, secularists too, should be
receptive to Christianity is because we live in an
increasingly poisonous age experientially. In our
pluralistic and pagan culture, almost anyone is a viable
target for conversion to any of a wide variety of false
beliefs and their consequences—from various cults and
New Age occultism to solipsism and nihilism.
Philosophies of despair and potent occult experiences
can convert even those who think they are the least
vulnerable. "There is a great deal of research that
shows that all people, but especially highly intelligent
people, are easily taken in by all kinds of illusions,
hallucinations, self-deceptions, and out-right
bamboozles—all the more so when they have a high
investment in the illusion being true."11
In other words, even in this life the personal welfare
of the non-Christian may be at risk.
When one examines the arguments and
attacks made against Christianity for 2,000 years, by
some of the greatest minds ever, guess what one finds?
Not one is valid. Not one, individually or collectively,
disproves Christianity. Even with the most difficult
problems, such as the problem of evil, Christianity has
the best answer of any religion or philosophy, the best
solution to the problem.
If the leading minds of the world have
been unable to disprove Christianity, this may explain
why many of the other leading minds in the world have
accepted it As James Sire correctly points out in Why
Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?, an argument
for belief, religious or other, must be secured on the
best evidence, validly argued and able to refute the
strongest objections that can be mustered against it.12
The Christian faith fits these criteria.
Obviously, if the God of the universe has
revealed Himself and is the only true God, and if Christ
is the only true way of salvation, then we would expect
convincing evidence to substantiate this. Not just some
evidence, or inferior evidence—so that a person has a
dozen equally valid options in the choice of their
religion—but superior evidence. Dr. John Warwick
Montgomery asks:
What if a
revelational truth-claim did not turn on questions of
theology and religious philosophy—on any kind of
esoteric, fideistic method available only to those who
are already "true believers"—but on the very reasoning
employed in the law to determine questions of fact?...
Eastern faiths and Islam, to take familiar examples,
ask the uncommitted seeker to discover their truth
experientially: the faith-experience will be
self-validating.... Christianity, on the other hand,
declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests
squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary
investigation.... The advantage of a jurisprudential
approach lies in the difficulty of jettisoning it:
legal standards of evidence developed as essential
means of resolving the most intractable disputes in
society ... Thus one cannot very well throw out legal
reasoning merely because its application to
Christianity results in a verdict for the Christian
faith.13
So, let’s assume that a God of truth is
dedicated to truth and that He desires that people find
Him. Indeed, "From one man he made every nation of men,
that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he
determined the times set for them and the exact places
where they should live. God did this so that men would
seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us" (Acts
17:26-27). What is the most logical place to begin our
search for divine revelation? Wouldn’t it be the one
religion that God has made stand out from all the rest?
Logically, the best and only practical way to see if one
religion is absolutely true is to start with the
largest, most unique, influential and evidentiary
religion in the world. "In the past God overlooked such
ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to
repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the
world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has
given proof of this to all men by raising him from the
dead" (Acts 17:30-31). It seems more reasonable to
determine whether or not this religion is true than to
seek another approach such as examining, one by one, all
religions from A to Z, or picking one randomly by
personal preference, or by accepting a religion as a
result of subjective experience.
The problem is that, not being grounded
in objective, historical evidence, all non-Christian
religions are experientially based. As such, they prove
nothing because of their inherent subjectivism. Thus,
having even profound religious experiences, alone,
cannot prove one’s religion is true. And, obviously, to
attempt to examine all religions (whether the sequence
is random, preferential or alphabetical) would be a
daunting, confusing and in the end an impossible task.
If there is only one God, and if only one
religion is fully true, then one should not expect to
discover sustainable evidence in any other religion. And
indeed, no other religion, anywhere, large or small, has
sustainable evidence in its favor. If no credible
evidence exists for any other religion, and if only
Christianity has compelling evidence on its behalf; why
should time be spent examining religions that have no
basis to substantiate their claims, especially when
there may be significant negative consequences for
trusting in them, not only in this life but the next
life as well?
It is much easier, and more logical, to
start by examining the probabilities of truth on the
highest end of the scale. We examined some of these in
our book Ready with an Answer (Harvest House,
1997). In "The Value of an Evidential Approach," William
J. Cairney (Ph.D., Cornell) discusses some of the
possibilities that constitute genuine evidence for the
fact God has inspired the Bible and the Christianity
based on it:
History
Written in Advance. We can all write history in
retrospect, but an almighty, omnipotent, Creator would
not be bound by our notions of space and time, and
would thus be able to write history before it occurs.
Suppose that we encountered a sourcebook that
contained page after page of history written in
advance with such accuracy and in such detail that
good guessing would be completely ruled out.
Prescience.
Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we were able to
find accurate statements written ages ago
demonstrating scientific knowledge and concepts far
before mankind had developed the technological base
necessary for discovering that knowledge or those
concepts....
Historical
Evidence. Suppose that in this same sourcebook, we
were to find historical assertions that time after
time were verified as true as historical scholarship
continued....
Archeological Evidence. Suppose that in this same
sourcebook, statements that are difficult to verify
are made about people and places, but as archeology
"unearths" more knowledge of the past, time after time
the sourcebook is seen to be true in its assertions.
Philosophical and Logical Coherence. Suppose that
this same sourcebook, even though written piecemeal
over thousands of years, contains well-developed
common themes and is internally consistent.
And suppose
all of these evidences hang together without internal
contradiction or literary stress within the same
anthology. Collectively, we could not take these
evidences lightly.14
Indeed, and this is why, overall, the
evidence strongly asserts that Christianity is true,
whether or not anyone agrees. The evidence for
Christianity remains powerful whether it is internal
(the documents), philosophical, moral, historical,
scientific, archeological or when compared with the
evidence found in other religions. For example, "The
competence of the New Testament documents would be
established in any court of law," and, "Modern
archeological research has confirmed again and again the
reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and
general history."15
(This is especially true in the biased,
liberal biblical studies cited by the cults to reject
biblical faith, where we find the paradox of those being
closest to the truth often snubbing their noses at it.
As the noted classical scholar Professor E. M. Blaiklock
points out, "Recent archeology has destroyed much
nonsense and will destroy more. And I use the word
nonsense deliberately, for theories and speculations
find currency in biblical scholarship that would not be
tolerated for a moment in any other branch of literary
or historical criticism."16)
In conclusion, no one can successfully
argue that Christianity and its origins have not been
thoroughly investigated—as if some unrecognized aspect
of it might yet prove its downfall. As the fifth edition
of Man’s Religions by John B. Noss points out, "The
first Christian century has had more books written about
it than any other comparable period of history. The
chief sources bearing on its history are the gospels and
epistles of the New Testament, and these—again we must
make a comparative statement—have been more thoroughly
searched by inquiring minds than any other books ever
written."17
In essence, only Christianity meets the burden of proof
necessary to say, "This religion alone is fully true."
When the critics claim otherwise, they are mistaken.
Recommended Reading
John Ankerberg, John Weldon,
Ready with an Answer
_________,
Knowing the Truth about Salvation
C. S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity
Francis Schaeffer,
He Is There and He Is Not Silent
Norman Geisler,
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics
Notes
1 C. S.
Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York:
Macmillan, 1962), p. 145.
2 As cited
in an interview in Christianity Today, November
19,1990, p. 54.
3 John W.
Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the
God Question (Dallas: Word, 1991), p. 9.
4 Alvin
Plantinga, "A Christian Life Partly Lived," in Kelly
James-Clark (ed.), Philosophers Who Believe
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), p. 69,
emphasis added.
5 As
interviewed in the Chattanooga Free Press, July
25, 1995, p. A-11.
6 L. Neff,
"Christianity Today Talks to George Gilder,"
Christianity Today, March 6, 1987, p. 55, cited in
David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The
Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for
Truth (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), p. 15.
7 Alister
E. McGrath, "Response to John Hick" in Dennis L.
Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (eds.), More Than
One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic
World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), p. 68.
8 Ajith
Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1995), p. 109.
9 Norman L.
Geisler, "Joannine Apologetics" in Roy B. Zuck (gen.
ed.), Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reasons
and Revelation in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), p. 57.
10 Richard
N. Ostling, "Who Was Jesus?" Time, August 15,
1988, p. 57.
11 Maureen
O’Hara, "Science, Pseudo-Science, and Myth Mongering,"
Robert Basil (ed.), Not Necessarily the New Age:
Critical Essays (New York: Prometheus, 1988), p.
148.
12 James
Sire, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 10.
13 John
Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridical
Defense of Christianity," in John Warwick Montgomery
(ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God
Question (Dallas: Probe Books, 1991), pp. 319-20.
14 William
J. Cairney, "The Value of an Evidential Approach," in
Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith, p. 21.
15
Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of
Christianity," in Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for
Faith, pp. 322, 326.
16 E. M.
Blaiklock, Christianity Today, Sept. 28, 1975,
p. 13.
17 John B.
Noss, Man’s Religions, 5th ed. (New York:
Macmillan, 1974), p. 417.
|