You can't take the bible literally... What makes you so sure about that?

Some people see the Bible as historically inaccurate and think that much of his content has been fabricated by church leaders over time in order to gain and maintain power. Much of this thinking has been influenced by contemporary fictional books such as The Da Vinci Code.

However, there are several good reasons why the Gospel accounts should be considered historically reliable rather than legends. These can be very briefly summarised as the following:

The timing is far too early for the Gospels to be legends

The canonical Gospel were written at the very most forty to sixty years after Jesus' death. Paul's letters, written just fifteen to twenty-five years after the death of Jesus, provide an outline of all the events of Jesus' life found in the Gospels. It is not only Christ's supporters who were still alive but also many bystanders, officials and opponents who had actually heard him teach, seen his actions and watched him die. For a highly altered, fictionalised account of an event to take hold in the public imagination it is necessary that the eyewitnesses (and their children and grandchildren) all be long dead. The Gospels were written far too soon for this to occur.

The content is far too counterproductive for the Gospels to be legends

Why would the leaders of the early Christian movement have made up the story of the crucifixion of it didn't happen? Why would any Christian make up the account of Jesus asking God in the garden of Gethsemane if he could get out of his mission? Why show in multiple instances how the disciples doubted Jesus? Why invent women as the first witnesses of the resurrection in a society where women were assigned such low status that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court?

The literary form of the Gospels is too detailed to be legend

In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction. The amount of detail in the Gospels that often are unnecessary to the main plot, hence indicate that the text is not fiction. If a modern day person was making up a story about Jesus he or she would include additional and often unnecessary details just to fill out the story's air of realism. But that kind of fictional writing was unknown in the first century.

If you like to listen to listen to some more free material, then a brilliant audio talk about the topic in mp3 format carried out by Mark Dever can be downloaded here: http://www.thisisnext.org/audio/dl_dialog.php?filename=na-2008/02%20The%20Authority%20of%20Scripture.mp3

Moreover, Tim Keller's excellent and comprehensive series is available for free here: http://thereasonforgod.com/media.php

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.97-114

Science Has Disproved Christianity... Really?

Scientific mistrust of the Bible began with the Enlightenment belief that miracles cannot be reconciled to a modern, rational view of the world. The premise behind such a claim is 'Science has disproved that there is no such thing as miracles'. But embedded in such a statement is a leap of faith.

It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to any others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist. However, when studying a phenomenon a scientist must always assume there is a natural cause. That is because natural causes are the only kind its methodology can address. It is another thing to insist that science has proven there can't be any other kind. There would be no experimental model for testing the statement 'No supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible'. It is therefore a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding.

The next hidden premise is 'There can't be a God who does miracles'. It fails to acknowledge that if there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles. After all this God created everything. To be sure that miracles cannot occur you would have to be sure beyond a doubt that God didn't exist, and that is an article of faith. The existence of God can neither be demonstrably proven nor disproven.

Moreover, it is vital to consider a large number of scientists that see no incompatibility between faith in God and their work. However, modern media emphasises a conflict between Evolutionist and Creationists but fails to paint a more realistic and diversified picture of what is actually being discussed. Very interesting is also that many atheist do not believe in evolution.

The relation between evolutionary theory and the book of Genesis also depends on how the way scripture is interpreted. As one commentator puts it: "If evolution is elevated to the status of a world-view of the way things are, then there is direct conflict with biblical faith. But if evolution remains at the level of scientific biological hypothesis, it would seem that there is little reason for conflict between the implications of Christian belief in the Creator and the scientific explorations of the way which - at the level of biology - God has gone about his creating processes."

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.84-96

How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

I our Western culture today, divine judgement is one of Christianity's most offensive doctrines. Although it is easy to understand that some people are distressed by this teaching, we find a number of hidden beliefs in their position. The following two are an example:

(A) A God of Judgement Simply Can't Exist

It appears that one of the most fundamental beliefs in our postmodern society today is that moral truth is relative to individual consciousness. Our culture therefore, has no problem with a God of love who supports us no matter how we live. It does, however, object strongly to the idea of a God who punishes people for their sincerely held beliefs, even if they are mistaken.

This objection, however, has a history to it. In ancient times it was understood that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self, built in to the fabric of the universe. Modernity reversed this. Ultimate reality was seen not so much as a supernatural order but as the natural world, and that was malleable. Instead of trying to shape our desires to fit reality, we now seek to control and shape reality to fit our desires.

Interestingly, if Christianity is the truth, it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this place is exactly the doctrine of divine judgement.

(B) A God of Judgement Can't Be a God of Love

All loving people are sometimes filled with anger, not just despite but because of their love. If you really love a person and you see someone ruining them - even they themselves - you get angry. Anger is not the opposite of love, but hate is. Also, if God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship. Moreover, it is vital to consider the highly beneficial aspects of divine judgement with regards to society and world peace. Trusting that God will eventually bring justice to a situation will give people the power to forgive and resist the impulse of seeking personal vengeance and an endless vicious cycle of retaliation.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.68-83

I don't believe in God because the church is responsible for so much injustice... Have you thought that through properly?

Many people who take an intellectual stand against Christianity do so against a background of personal disappointment with Christians and churches.

Hence, it's necessary to address the behaviour of Christians - individual and corporate - that has undermined the plausibility of Christianity for so many people. First, there's issue of Christian's character flaws. Second, there's the issue of war and violence. Third, there's issue of fanaticism.

Character flaws: If Christianity is true, why are so many non-Christians living better lives than Christians? This reasoning is based on a mistaken belief concerning what Christianity actually teaches about itself. Growth in character and changes in behaviour occur in a gradual process after a person becomes a Christian. This means, though that the church will be filled with immature and broken people who still have a long way to go emotionally, morally and spiritually. There's much truth in the saying "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints"." Good character is largely attributable to a loving, safe and stable family and social environment - conditions for which we were NOT responsible. Many have had instead an unstable family background, poor role models and a history of tragedy and disappointment. As a result, they are burdened with deep insecurities, hypersensitivity, and a lack of self-confidence. They may struggle with uncontrolled anger, shyness, addictions and other difficulties as a result.

Church and violence: If Christianity is the truth, why has the institutional church supported war, injustice and violence over the years? Many unbelievers see the belief in one true God as one of the main reasons for war and conflict in history. There are, however, significant problems with this view. The Communist Russian, Chinese and Cambodian regimes of the 20th century all rejected all organised religion and belief in God. These societies were all rational and secular, yet each produced massive violence against its own people without the influence of religion. The reason is that society will automatically "transcendentalise" something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxist made the State into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Obviously there is also the terrible reality that violence has been done in the name of Christ e.g. during the Crusades. In the 20th century, however, violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. We can only conclude that there is some violent impulse so deeply rooted in the human heart that it expresses itself regardless of what the beliefs of a particular society might be. Ultimately, then, the fact of violence and warfare in a society is no necessary refutation of the prevailing beliefs of that society.

Fanaticism: Many people are repulsed by Christians who appear intolerant and self-righteous. Interestingly, what strikes us when observing overly fanatical and judgemental Christians is the failure to be fully committed to Christ and his Gospel. The essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us. There is nothing to boast about and no basis at all for feelings of superiority with regards to Non-Christians.

Furthermore, when mentioning the argument of injustice in the name of Christ (which is obviously terribly wrong), many people forget to consider all the amazing acts of justice that Christians have carried out. These include the abolition of the African slave trade which was driven by Christian activists such as William Wilberforce in Great Britain, John Woolman in America and many others who devoted their entire lives, in the name of Christ, to ending slavery. Another great example was the Christian pastor Martin Luther King fighting for desegregation and civil rights in the US. The list of martyrs who stood up for the oppressed in Jesus' name is very long and also includes Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and German theologian Dietriech Bonnhoeffer.

Conclusion: When people have done injustice in the name of Jesus Christ, they are not being true to the spirit of the one who himself died as victim of injustice and who called for the forgiveness of his enemies. When people give their lives to liberate others as Jesus did, they are realising the true Christianity that Martin Luther King, Jr, Dietrich Bonnheoffer and other Christian voices have called for.

Based on: Keller, T. (2008). The Reason For God. p.51-67