Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, was once asked to summarize all his writings on Christianity. He answered,
“Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”
« 1 Corinthians 1:30 | Home | Eskimo Words for Snow »
Comments
should not that i know jesus loves me without having a book to tell me so? and while you have explained to me that this was really meant for the very young, three and four year old, how should they know to distinguish the wisdom of the bible from "mere" words in any other writings?
Posted by: agnostic on Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Christians are people of the Book. Because of this, your question deals with a fundamental and many times implicit assumption in Christianity - that the Bible is true. It is not one that is asked much within the church for it requires one to sit in judgment over the Bible to determine its validity. In contrast, Christians are suppose to submit themselves to the judgment of the Bible.
Answers developed for those within the church for this question will not be satisfying to you. Some of these are
Problems with these range from circular logic to an appeal to an unaccepted authority. This also raises the question of what is truth. Does each person get to decide or is there universal truth?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, October 4, 2005
hmmm....
is the bible a book or a representative of god or god?
i am not sure that i would like to submit myself to the judgment of a book.
Posted by: agnostic on Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Well, I can rephrase the initial response. The line of thought would really be: the Bible is from God and that makes it trustworthy (assuming God is trustworthy). The crucial question is then whether a person accepts the Bible as being from God. If you do, then it is no longer just a book. If it is not from God, you are left with figuring out what in it is true and what is false - just as you do with any book. Thomas Jefferson decided it was not from God and cut out all the stuff he thought was false. Using your three options, the closest one to what a Christian believes is the middle one - the Bible is a revelation from God. It is God telling man about himself (and about man) in human language.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, October 4, 2005
I'd expect many Christians would say the Bible is true because of fulfilled prophecy.
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Wednesday, October 5, 2005
I don't know if agnostic took a look at that page on fulfilled prophecy, but I really wonder if a lot of the ones listed don't fall under the "Bible is true because the Bible says so". It is basically impossible to date the Old Testament books using outside sources. This means you have to believe the books were written when they claim to have been written. Otherwise, it is possible some of their prophecies were written after the fact. Furthermore, many of the events predicted are only recorded in the Bible. There are no external references to them.
I think it is hard for a Christian to evaluate this without beginning with certain assumptions. I would also add that others bring different assumptions to this that can heavily influence their viewpoint on it.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, October 5, 2005
what an interesting notion, that of fulfilled prophecy. one believes in god because of faith. indeed, is it not the case that (and i am not a reader) a passage in the texts refers to the true believer as he who believes without evidence? in a much cruder sense, to believe because of fulfilled prophecy is really not to accept the divinity through pure and genuine submission in god.
Posted by: agnostic on Thursday, October 6, 2005
Faith is believing without direct evidence. I just made that up, so let me explain. I think faith in religious terms has the same meaning as in everyday terms. I have faith that my wife is taking care of my kids right now. I have no evidence of this. I do have evidence from past experience that she is conscientious and careful. I know my wife, thus I put my faith in her. I think the same sort of thing is true with faith in God. We believe He exists because of the evidence (creation, conscience). Based on what we know of Him, we can put our faith in Him, believing that He will do what He has promised.
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Thursday, October 6, 2005
ah! i see...
i think i make a big distinction between the use of faith versus trust. i am agnostic, so, i do not speak of god the same way. but i do reserve the word faith strictly for god and divinity. for the rest of life, such as your belief that your wife is taking good care of your children, i would consider that trust. perhaps in the end they are the same. i have almost a reverence for the former word, and that it belongs to god.
this is of course a digression from the original conundrum in my head. still, it is an interesting notion, i think.
Posted by: agnostic on Friday, October 7, 2005
I think a question like "why do you have faith in God or in the Bible" can mean different things depending on context. If the conversation is occurring in a modern, rational framework where evidence and observations are required to establish truth, a response based on something like fulfilled prophecy is expected. It is not likely that fulfilled prophecy was the genesis of the person's faith or the current core either. It is expected though due to the constraints we place on our ability to know truth.
Regarding the digression, I am interested in hearing your definition of faith. Does it differ primarly with trust in its object or do you think that there is something inherently different?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, October 10, 2005
tough question. i suppose, a superficial answer is that faith is an unconditional AND unwavering belief. of what it really does not matter. although, i think it applies so beautifully to the spiritual. notice how this kind of addresses the phenomenon when a person "loses" faith. we may be able to say that he no longer can believe unconditionally. or, he wavers in what he has believed.
Posted by: agnostic on Wednesday, October 12, 2005
That reduces faith to a binary condition - either you have it or you don't. I prefer a definition that allows for faith to grow.
What I think you are going after is that faith is not the result of a logical deduction. It is much deeper than that. It goes to the core of your being and affects how you view the world. (And this is not to say that evidence or logic cannot be used to strengthen faith.)
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, October 13, 2005