I’ve had the privilege to speak on university campuses across the country, making a case for the reliability of the New Testament Gospels and the truth of the Christian Worldview (I’ll be at Rutgers next Monday night). One of the most common questions asked in the Q and A is something similar to: “Have you taken the time to apply the same approach with all the other religious worldviews?” Sometimes people ask this question because they are curious about how well other ancient religious claims (or alleged eyewitness accounts) hold up under investigative scrutiny. But many times this question is followed by a more pointed objection: “How can you trust Christianity is true if you haven’t examined all the alternatives?”
Given the large number of spiritual claims circulating across the globe (and throughout history), why should we conclude one (or any) of them is true until we’ve examined all of them? At first blush, this seems like a reasonable approach, and when it’s asked by a skeptic, it’s typically offered in an effort to expose the inadequate or incomplete nature of my investigation (or some underlying bias I may have against opposing claims). Although I investigated several theistic and atheistic worldviews prior to becoming a Christian, I didn’t examine every view. Is my certainty related to Christianity therefore misplaced? Should the limited nature of my investigation disqualify or temper the case I’m presenting to skeptics and believers? I don’t think so.
In every criminal trial, the investigators and prosecutors are obligated to present the evidence related to one defendant. While the burden of proof lies with the prosecutorial team, the prosecution is not required to have examined every possible alternative suspect. If I am investigating a case in which the suspect was initially described as a white male, 25 to 35 years of age with brown hair, the potential suspect pool in Los Angeles County would be quite large; there may be hundreds of thousands fitting this description. As I make the affirmative case related to one of the men in this large group, I’m under no obligation to make the case against the others. In fact, when the jury evaluates the case and decides whether the defendant is guilty, they will do so without any consideration of the alternatives. If the evidence is strong enough to reasonably infer the defendant’s involvement, the jury will make a confident decision, even though many, many alternatives were left unexamined.
The case for Christianity is made in a similar way. While it may be helpful to examine a particular alternative worldview on occasion to show its inadequacies or errors, these deficiencies fail to establish Christianity as factual. How can you trust Christianity is true if you haven’t examined all the alternatives? The case for the Christian worldview must first be made affirmatively even if no other claim is examined negatively. If there’s enough evidence to reasonably infer Christianity is true, we needn’t look any further. The affirmative case will either stand or fall on its own merit, even if we’re unable to examine any other “suspect.”
The Christian worldview does not require “blind faith.” In fact, Jesus repeatedly presented evidence to support His claims of Deity, and when John the Baptist expressed doubt, Jesus responded with yet another evidential display of His power. Christians are not asked to believe without evidence (or worse yet, in spite of the evidence), but to instead place their trust in the most reasonable inference from the evidence, even though there may still be several unanswered questions. Christianity is evidentially reasonable, even if we are unable to examine every possible alternative.
Jesus said that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ( i.e. embrace Christianity in a true sense).
He also said "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine."
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."
It is my experience that those whom God regenerates will believe the Gospel despite all of the arguments pro or con. It is to the regenerate heart what air is to the lungs, or what food is to the stomach. It's a perfect fit that other religions or philosophies fail to arrive at. Even a doubting mind cannot stop God's regenerative work.
Posted by: dave | March 28, 2014 at 04:14 AM
One of the truths which I hold and defend of the Most High God, Lord God of hosts, is that He is just God.
I look at great world religions from a different perspective, seeking to find wisdom gleaned by people of other, less complete, and less certain faiths.
If they are trying to find God, and loving thir neighbors, I trust, and Matthew's Gospel supports', that the just will be surprised to learn that the Christ welcomes them into His Kingdom.
Posted by: Crews Giles | March 28, 2014 at 05:49 AM
@Crews Giles: I can sense your compassion and love for those who are of other faiths and see your concern for their salvation. I'm wondering about some of the theology behind your thinking and hope you will clarify some of it for me. You remarked that you hold to and defend the justice of God--and, indeed, He is all just! You mention those who are "trying to find God" and I'm a little less clear on that point. Is it not God who draws US to Himself? He is not hiding where He cannot be found, surely. So are you making a reference to those who have sincere hearts and want to be good folks but don't have a relationship with Christ--that they are the ones you believe that Christ will welcome into His kingdom? Since that seems to contradict the words of Christ that, "No one comes to the Father except through me", I'm wondering how you square the two. Then, in your final statement, I'm concluding that you are defining those same people who are "trying to find God" as just, and that they will be welcomed by Christ into His kingdom. Can you explain your use of the word "just" here and also help me understand the necessity of the cross if it can be bypassed?
I look forward to your reading your reply--thanks.
Posted by: Carolyn | March 28, 2014 at 08:49 PM
I too am hoping to hear CG's response. But until then, I would like to say that I believe Carolyn and CG are both right....sort of.
What about those beyond the reach of the Gospel?
Does God save people because they believe the Gospel? Or, Do people believe the Gospel because God saved them?
While it is true that God saves no one apart from Christ, I believe it is equally true that God saves many through Christ who are beyond the reach of the Gospel.
However, if they hear the Gospel, they will repent from their pagan beliefs, false doctrinal and philosophical beliefs, and embrace Christ.
An example would be Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feared God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, Ac 10:22.
He obviously had the fruit of a regenerate heart before hearing Peter’s Gospel message. It also says he was a just man. The same word “just”, describes other justified saints throughout the New Testament.
The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of elect infants and others beyond the reach of the Gospel who die going to Heaven.
10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Posted by: dave | March 29, 2014 at 07:37 AM
Hi dave, I think one needs to consider or distinguish ordinary means against extrordinary means. Though God chose the foolishness of preaching to save men, and accordingly the preaching of the gospel is the ordinary means, God is free to save outside of the ordinary means[preaching], but it is always through the gospel aka, the good news--what Jesus did.
The WCF cited is meant to address the issue where mental ability is limited by either under developed or immature ones who cannot understand or show any credible evidence of regeneration and faith. Nonetheless, He saves those by extraordinary means through the gospel by faith, like every regenerative act...all of it administrated by the Holy Spirit.
btw, you first post in this thread is right on, and I couldn't agree more with what you said.
Posted by: Brad B | March 30, 2014 at 11:14 PM
@ Brad B,
Thanks for your comment. I guess it comes down to an issue of Justification by Faith through Christ. Or Justification by Christ through Faith. Both are closely related but are different.
Justification by Faith through Christ places the emphasis on Faith. Justification by Christ through Faith places the emphasis on Christ.
Many think that belief in the Gospel is the means of salvation. That a person isn't actually saved until they hear and believe the Gospel.
It's kind of like the Pro-Choice argument that says a baby doesn't exist, more or less, until he or she breaths on their own.
I believe the spiritual "New Birth" is the manifestation of salvation, and that the Gospel is the announcement and "hand book" about this new life in Christ.
There are so many references to Christ having purchased us with his blood which seems to tip salvation more towards His atonement making faith one of the many out-workings of it.
The book of Revelation says Heaven will hold many from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. Obviously, the Gospel, if you can find a pure version of it, can cover this prophecy today with the Internet. But centuries have passed where these lands were beyond hearing.
Posted by: dave | March 31, 2014 at 12:18 AM
And in Romans the apostle Paul asks "how will they know if none are sent?". And then "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news". If gospel ministers...aka missionaries arent sent, those who have not heard are lost. Some have said that on the day of Pentecost, the gospel was preached to all nations. I think WCF is clear on the necessity of the word preached as being THE ordinary means. Anything else is surely extraordinary, even miraculous.
Posted by: Brad B | March 31, 2014 at 11:38 AM
@ Brad B. Thanks for your input. I believe that the preaching of the Word is the normal method for directing regenerated souls into the kingdom of God. But even if you make the preaching of the Gospel a work or sacrament, the fact remains that even the WCF makes exception for this, for some of the Elect beyond it's reach, even if the number is ever so small. Who's to say how large or small the number?
Posted by: dave | April 01, 2014 at 03:49 AM