This article is a defense of the Christian theory of truth. Time does not permit me to cover all relevant ground in one piece. I will hone in on the reliability of Scripture, the resurrection of Jesus and the perceived conflict between science and faith.
Of all the questions that could ever be posed to a mortal man, none has such a bearing on his future as “what is truth?” For centuries, philosophers, scholars, and laymen have debated the answer to this question. In today’s postmodern, morally relative culture, we often hear there is no such thing as absolute truth. Because we are all raised in distinct social settings and family upbringings, it is considered uncivilized and even offensive to suggest absolute truth exists.
Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer took the question a step further with his notion of “true truth”. In essence, truth corresponds with reality, and that reality is determined by God. Christ revealed in the Scriptures that He is “the way, the truth and the life”, i.e. truth is embodied in all that Jesus did and said. Although many simple truths exist, the earthly life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ point to a truth above all other truths- “true truth”. Truth of this kind compels us to act and conform in an appropriate manner. It leads to answers for some of life’s other puzzling mysteries, such as “what does it mean to be human?” and “what is our purpose?”
To further illustrate the relevance of the topic, consider the wisdom of Winston Churchill, Andrei Sakharov and Malcolm Muggeridge taken from Ravi Zacharias:
Originally Posted by RZIMI’ve always thought that the most powerful weapon in the world was the bomb and that’s why I gave it to my people, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the most powerful weapon in the world is not the bomb but it’s the truth.-Andrei SakharovThe Resurrection of JesusOriginally Posted by RZIM
The Christian faith stands and falls on the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. So central is it to Christianity that the apostle Paul, when explaining doctrine to the Corinthian church, claimed if Christ did not raise from the grave, we are still dead in our sins and faith is futile. (1) Jesus’s multiple claims that He would be put to death and raised on the third day mean nothing if the resurrection can be disproven.
To be clear, the resurrection of Jesus is not to be confused with bodily resuscitation seen elsewhere in the Bible, such as Elijah resuscitating the widow’s son in the book of Kings. Whereas a resuscitation involves restoration of life to a mortal body so that death will be experienced again, Jesus was resurrected to an immortal body that would not wither or be corrupted. Such a feat implies an act of God in bringing about the resurrection.
Surprisingly, since around the 1970s, consensus has emerged in the theological regarding a few gospel claims pertaining to the resurrection events. William Lane Craig offers an illustration:
Even today, most scholars in the field of theology would concede that there was an empty tomb after Jesus had been buried by Joseph of Arimathea. Although we must rely on historical methods of inquiry to discern the gospel accounts of the empty tomb, enough information exists to validate the Christian claims. Michael Grant, a reputable classical historian who did not identify as a Christian, found it implausible to criticize the empty tomb using historical methods. (3) Other scholars, such as D.H. van Daalen and Rudolf Pesch, are in agreement with Grant and point to the proximity of Mark’s source to the events in question.But a remarkable change came about during the second half of the twentieth century. The first glimmerings of change began to appear in 1953. In that year, as we have said, Ernst Kaesemann, a pupil of Bultmann, argued at a colloquy at the University of Marlburg that Bultmann’s historical skepticism toward Jesus was unwarranted and counterproductive and suggested reopening the question of where the historical about Jesus was to be found. A new quest for the historical Jesus had begun. Three years later in 1956 the Marburg theologian Hans Grass in his influential Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte subjected the resurrection itself to historical inquiry and concluded that the resurrection appearances cannot be dismissed as mere subjective visions on the part of the disciples, but were objective visionary events.
Meanwhile the church historian Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen in an equally epochal essay defended the historical credibility of Jesus’ empty tomb. During the ensuing years a stream of works on the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection flowed forth from German, French and English presses. By 1968 the old skepticism was a spent force and began dramatically to recede. (2)
The Christian accounts are bolstered by sources independent of the canonical writings. For starters, we have a fairly detailed passage from the Jewish writer Josephus confirming that Jesus was a wise man and had followers that believed He was risen the third day after His crucifixion. Some have disputed the reliability of the passage, but both Jewish and Christian scholars have consensus that what Josephus wrote is credible.(4) As a counter to the belief that Christians have corrupted the relevant text, we have a tenth-century Arabic author named Agapius who quoted Josephus in his native tongue. His quotation still confirms Jesus “was a wise and virtuous teacher” that believed He was the Promised One of God. (5) The historian Thallus, writing not far removed from the life of Jesus, also wrote about the darkness after the death of Jesus which is recorded in the gospels.
We also have Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthian 15 about the resurrection of Christ. Bart Ehrman, a skeptic of the Christian faith, admits that the creed found in this chapter can be traced to one year after the crucifixion of Jesus. James J.G. Dunn goes further: the latest the 1 Corinthians 15 passage becomes a creed is six months after the crucifixion. This is significant because unlike other ancient historical events where reporting is far removed from the actual events, the gospel writers and especially Paul’s epistles are in close proximity. Since Paul writes that the other apostles preached the resurrection as he presented it to the Corinthians, William Lane Craig believes “the saying stems from the earliest days of the Christian fellowship in Jerusalem.”(6) Craig thinks Paul’s discovery came after visiting Jerusalem to see Peter and James in 36 A.D. based on the Greek word Paul uses for his visit.(7)
We must not forget the passion of the apostles and the early church in promoting the good news. That eleven of the twelve apostles were martyred shows they truly believed in what they preached:
According to eighteenth century author William Paley, no similar case exists in history. The apostles had nothing to gain in an earthly sense by following Jesus. Being His disciples meant toil and misery for the most part. That they willingly sacrificed their lives and that the church became a relevant institution within a short period of time deserves explanation. To put it bluntly, no explanation seems adequate except for the idea that the apostles truly did see a resurrected Jesus.The testimonies of the Roman authors Seutonius and Juvenal confirm that within thirty-one years after Jesus’ death, Christians were dying for their faith. From the writings of Pliny the Younger, Martial, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, it is clear that the believers voluntarily submitted to torture and death rather than renounce their faith.(8)
Reliability of Scripture
The bedrock of Christian faith and doctrine is the holy scriptures comprising all sixty-six books of both the Old and New Testament. What is to be known about the triune God and the history of His people are found in the canon of the Bible. Despite the accuracy of prophetic records in the Bible, even fundamentalists today are questioning whether the Bible is completely inerrant in all its claims. Skepticism surrounding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the historicity of the Canaanite conquests, and dating of various books are fairly common. Not to mention that the Jesus Seminar has ‘cast doubt’ on the sayings, teachings, and miracles of Jesus.
Some of the supposed issues with the Old Testament have been resolved through elaborate scholarly work. One of the reasons scholars believed Moses could not have written the Pentateuch was because the Semitic language was not around when he lived. We now know that this is false. Also, some of the information given in the Bible corresponds well with the historical information we have around the same period. The Abimelech covenant (and other covenants found in Genesis) match the style of covenants in the Bronze Age. They are not at all like Iron Age covenants, which contradicts the thesis that the Pentateuch was written by Judahites during the Babylonian captivity. The shekel slave price of Joseph and that given in the Mosaic law match what we have for the Bronze period as well. Since Abraham and Moses spoke Akkadian, the Iron Age Israelites couldn’t have known what the proper price would be, further discrediting the likelihood that the Mosaic books were written at a later period.(9)
Much can be gleaned by observing what Jesus thought of Scripture as it existed in His time. What is most striking is that Jesus, in His ministry, quoted very controversial passages in the Old Testament to affirm the Bible's authenticity, such as the creation story and Jonah being swallowed by a whale. Based on the structure of Genesis 1, it can be inferred that the creation account of Genesis was meant to be read as true history rather than allegory or fictional poetry. According to Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd, preterite verbs are indicative of a narrative text and the ratio of preterite to non-preterite verbs in Genesis 1 shows it is narrative.(10)
Many have dismissed the biblical account of Jonah because 1) no whale could have swallowed a human alive and 2) Jonah could not have survived in the belly of a whale. Indeed, an arctic whale is incapable of swallowing a human being, but we are dealing with a whale from the Mediterranean. It would’ve been a sperm whale which could swallow much larger things. And it may be admitted that the entrance to a tummy is too small for a human, but between the throat and the tummy is the laryngeal pouch. A man could survive in that pouch for some time.(11) And regardless of what atheistic or theistic explanation is offered for creation, we are left to believe in some form of miracle. Both sides are a little incredible to some degree.
When He did cite Scripture in conversation, Jesus would say “it is written” which in the koine Greek of the Bible is in the continuous tense, i.e. the words of the Bible have a lasting authority.(12) Jesus went as far as to say that heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of God will remain. He also said (in a similar vein) that ‘the Scriptures cannot be broken’ which Greek commentators have noted can also mean the Scriptures ‘cannot be unloosed’ or ‘cannot be undone.’(13) In the words of Jesus and the apostles, the Scriptures rest on the authority of God and thus cannot be spoken against.
Some may object and say it would be impossible for human authors to write a book that is free of error. However, it must be granted that it is possible for man to write an infallible book such as math textbooks or phone number books. Not only that, but the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write their texts as they did. As proof, consider what mathematician Peter Stoner found when studying prophetic fulfillment in relation to Jesus Christ. The chance that just eight of the prophecies that found their realization in Christ would’ve came to pass is one in 10^17. To put that into perspective, the chance that a blindfolded man would walk across the entire state of Texas buried in two feet of silver dollars and pick the right coin on the first try approximates one in 10^17.(14)
The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have been the subject of much scrutiny from critics of biblical inerrancy. Any writing on the accuracy of Scriptures would be incomplete without covering gospel contradictions and the reliability of the gospels. One way to gauge the accuracy of the gospels is how their reporting of customs, manners, geography and people mesh with what is known elsewhere of first century Israel. Richard Baukham, author of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses used an ancient source to compare names given in the Bible to names of Jews in Palestine from 350 BC to 200 AD. The results:
So it turns out that, in one aspect, the gospels blend in well with our historical understanding. Craig Blomberg, a professor at Denver, offers up other evidence that the gospels contain authentic accounts of the life of Jesus. For one, we know that in the ancient Middle East, variations were allowed in storytelling, so much so that:As it turns out, when Bauckham examined all the names discovered by Ilan, he found that the New Testament narrative reflect nearly the same percentages found in all the documents Ilan examined...The most popular names found in the Gospels just happen to be the most popular names found in Palestine in the first century. This is even more striking when you compare the ancient popular Palestinian Jewish names with the ancient popular Egyptian Jewish names...If the gospel writers were simply guessing about the names they were using in their accounts, they happened to guess with remarkable accuracy.(15)
Luke, the Gentile author of one of the synoptic gospels and the author of the Acts of the Apostles, was proven to be an honest historian. Not a single mistake was located in his references to counties, cities and islands.(17) So it turns out there are sound reasons to accept the gospels and their claims regarding Jesus Christ.it’s likely that a lot of the similarities and differences among the Synoptics can be explained by assuming that the disciples and other early Christians had committed to memory a lot of what Jesus said and did, but they felt free to recount this information in various forms, always preserving the significance of Jesus’ original teaching and deeds.(16)
I will mention a few other anecdotal facts that support the reliability of the Bible. For example, since the 90s, several inscriptions have been found referring to king David. Before, scholars cast doubt on his literal existence. Now, ample evidence has been presented to think otherwise. Lastly, Lawrence Mykytiuk, a Hebrew Bible scholar at Purdue University, has studied and confirmed the names of 53 Bible characters in the Old Testament. Time and space do not permit me to delve deeper into the archaeological record that supports the Bible, but suffice to say that it also confirms the accounts of Scripture.
Science and Religion
Evolution remains the primary scientific obstacle to belief in God. To a layman, the consensus of the scientific community rules in favor of Darwin’s evolutionary theories as opposed to creationism or intelligent design. Specifically, macroevolution has been adopted as the means of explaining human origins.
Some hold to the belief that the creation accounts found in Genesis do not contradict the teachings of evolution. For one, the order of creation given in the first chapter of Genesis lines up well with the current scientific understanding.(18) Yet, Genesis 1 clearly assigns the origin of all created things to God. There is no room left for life to evolve from any other source.
The traditional understanding of scientists and their religious beliefs is not so clear cut. Surveys have been done in the past examining the interplay between the two:
Deborah Keleman, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, believes that even the years of training in scientific discipline that scientists get still cannot erase the belief that there is purpose in the universe.(20)Many scientists see no incompatibility between faith in God and their work.
Two famous studies that support this contention were done in 1916 and 1997. The American psychologist James Leuba conducted the first survey of scientists, asking them if they believed in a God who actively communicates with humanity, at least through prayer. Forty percent said they did, 40 percent said they did not, and 20 percent were not sure. In 1997, Edward Larson and Larry Witham repeated this survey asking the very same questions of scientists. They reported in the scientific journal Nature that they had found that the numbers had not changed significantly in eighty years…
Alister McGrath, a theologian with an Oxford doctorate in biophysics, writes that most of the many unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science.(19)
Discussions on the origins of science can yield some fascinating insights. Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer, neither of whom were Christians, thought science as we know it today could only arise out of a Christian worldview.(21) Since Christians understood that their Creator was a God of reason, it follows that facts and observations can be ascertained through the use of reason.
According to Darwin, challenges did exist to his scientific theories. Critics of his time were quick to point to the incompatibility of the fossil record with his statements:
The Burgess shale and the sudden jump from precambrian to cambrian forms of life provided such evidence that worked against Darwin. The cambrian explosion refers to the sudden appearance of many life forms in the fossil record. It would be difficult to account for the phenomenon through traditional evolutionary theory since the latter assumes continuity in the fossil record. According to statistical analysis by Michael Foote, it remains unlikely that any intermediate forms will be found linking the precambrian and cambrian fossils on record.(23)The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists- for instance, by Agassiz, Picket, and Sedgwick- as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.(22)
There are others that contest the usefulness of using the fossil records to support Darwinian evolution:
And then, even where there are supposed gaps in the fossil record that presumably will be resolved with a future discovery, much is left to be desired:The problem for the Darwinists is that the fossil record cannot establish ancestral relationships. Why not? Because, according to Michael Denton, ‘99 percent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil.’ In other words, it’s extremely difficult to discover the biological makeup of a creature by looking at its fossil remains. Jonathan Wells observes, ‘the fossil evidence is open to many interpretations because individual specimens can be reconstrued in a variety of ways, and because the fossil record cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships.(24)
What must be stressed is that Christians are not against science per se. Rather, they are against the assumptions made by theories such as evolution: that there is a natural explanation for every effect that can be observed. Naturalism is the philosophy that is being challenged, which states that nature, or matter, is all there is. Thanks to the work of professor Craig Keener in his two volume work titled Miracles, we know that supernatural events that do not adhere to the laws of nature do happen. Kenner looked at pre and post CAT scans, pre and post MRIs, pre and post X rays, and hundreds of cases all over the world. His main argument: we should not call new testament writers naive because they record miracles. To add to Keener’s case, the now increasing scholarly work on near death experiences demonstrates that there is a spiritual world not accounted for by nature.There are serious difficulties in crossing some of the gaps that standard evolutionary theory says have been crossed: for example, to get from a reptile to a bird you need to develop a scale into a feather; to get from an amphibian to a reptile you need to develop a different kind of egg; to get from a fish to an amphibian you need to develop a whole new kind of lung.(25)
Furthermore, if time, matter and chance produced us as naturalists theorize, then there is no such thing as objective truth.(26) Because time and matter are always changing and chance is an artificial construct, there exists no standard by which we can judge something to be true and other beliefs to be false.
Conclusion
In order to live the fullest life possible, it is necessary that we both know truth and live by it. We demand that we be told the truth when it comes to our finances, our friendships, our marriages, and our job. Truth is needed for every part of our life. Fortunately, Christianity is not based on a far fetched view of the world or human nature. As I have demonstrated to some degree, Christianity is supported by facts and rationality.
Given the above, I will offer a comment on what it means to be a person of faith. Too often, we think faith belongs to those who lack proof for their beliefs. Rather, faith in the biblical sense is a yielding trust to what God revealed about Himself in the person of Jesus. Based on the evidence regarding biblical prophecy, the resurrection of Jesus and other narratives in the Bible, the Lord can be fully trusted. His truth prevails over all other truths.
References
(1)1 Corinthians 15:14
(2)William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 349
(3) Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, p. 176; cf. https://vridar.org/2013/02/25/the-hi...erdition-pt-1/
(4) Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, p. 85
(5) J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, pp. 196-7
(6)William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 47
(7) Ibid., p. 48
(8) Ibid., p. 29
(9) CrossExamined Podcast
(10)David DeWitt, Unraveling the Origins Controversy, p. 89
(11)Taken from David Pawson’s commentary on Jonah
(12)This insight is from Norman Geisler
(13) https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/10-35.html
(14) Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chapter 3
(15) Wallace, pp. 192-3
(16) Strobel, p. 46
(17)Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask, p. 385
(18) David Pawson, Unlocking the Bible, p. 33
(19) Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, pp. 89-90
(20) Art Jahnke, “The Natural Design Default: Why Even the Best-Trained Scientists Should Think Twice”, cf. Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life is Designed, p. 19
(21) Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p. 132
(22) Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 17
(23) Ibid., pp. 70-1
(24) Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 153
(25) C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes?, p. 275
(26) This point has been made by Ravi Zacharias