Part Six:  Can History Establish Christianity as the One True Religion?

If spiritual seekers were to make a decision on which one of the many hundreds of competing religions is true based entirely on the evidence—and if they are intellectually honest—they will be compelled to accept Christianity and reject all others. As we saw in the previous two blogs, the scientific method  and legal reasoning demonstrate this. We can now establish that history also provides the same level truth: For all practical purposes, Christianity is absolute truth.

All Christian truth-claims ultimately rest on the truth and reliability of the Bible. What we know about the nature of God, deity of Christ, work of the Holy Spirit, means to salvation, promised resurrection, and all other Christian truths rests squarely on the authenticity of Scripture. If we cannot demonstrate the Bible’s authority and reliability to unbelievers, they will likely consider Christianity no different than any other world religion. Its truth-claims would rest on the subjective religious experiences and personal opinions of their founders and followers. The demonstrated reliability of the Bible sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

How does historical evidence prove the reliability and authenticity of the Bible? In two ways: First, it reveals positive evidence. The same methods of historical investigation used to determine the authenticity of all ancient documents can be applied to the Bible. The result of this investigation demonstrates that in every area in which the Bible can be checked out, it is totally reliable. It is accurate and trustworthy with regard to its textual composition, accuracy of transmission, historical and scientific data, fulfilled prophecy, geographical and cultural descriptions, and more.

Second, historical investigation provides negative evidence. When the same techniques of historical investigation used to verify the Bible are applied to other religious documents, the non-Christian documents are found to be spurious. Much of their historical, scientific, and prophetic claims are false. Indeed, all non-Christian religions are conspicuous by the absence of historical evidence.

What conclusion can we draw? Since the Bible’s verifiable contents are demonstrated to be accurate and reliable, we can conclude its spiritual contents are equally trustworthy: Jesus’ divine nature, work of the Holy Spirit, salvation through Christ, promised resurrection, and eternal life in Heaven. In other words, the Bible’s spiritual truths do not stand alone. They rest on a solid foundation of verifiable historical facts. No other religious book in the world passes the test of objective historical investigation as the Bible does. There are no contenders.  Christianity alone attains the highest level of certainty available in the area of religious knowledge. ©

Next Week: This week ends my present blog series. I’ll begin a new series next week titled, “The World beyond the Church,” starting with one of the most serious challenges facing Christianity in today’s secular world: The exodus of young people from their faith, especially upon entering secular colleges and universities

If you wish to avoid missing any of blogs in this new series, please join my blog email list and you will receive notices the day I post a new blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Five:  Can Christianity Be Proven True in a Court of Law!

Can legal reasoning be applied to religious truth? Absolutely! If we apply the same methodology used in jury trials to religious truth, we can prove to the highest level of certainty attainable that Christianity is true and non-Christian religions are false.

What method does our court system use to determine the guilt of a defendant? The term is “proof to a moral certainty beyond reasonable doubt.” This means that there must be no other reasonable explanation for the crime other than that the accused did it. The prosecution builds its case by presenting such an impressive and compelling amount of evidence that all other possibilities are eliminated. In short, the accused is sent to prison or even executed according to the preponderance of confirming evidence—probability of guilt.

Legal reasoning is a legitimate way to determine religious truth, and it is of tremendous value in two ways. First, Christianity is the only religion in the world in which its truth-claims can be tested by legal reasoning, that is, by evidences—especially eyewitness testimony. All other religions require its followers accept their tenets based the unverified claims of their founders. Second, legal reasoning demonstrates why Christian truth-claims should be considered factual in an absolute sense. Here’s an example of this.

Let’s say a person demands “absolute proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. We point out that His resurrection was an historical event and can’t be repeated. Nevertheless, we can prove it actually occurred in a legal sense. We do this by presenting all the evidence that supports the resurrection and refutes all the naturalistic theories used to  argue against it. In other words, we show that the biblical explanation for the resurrection is the paradigm that best explains all the facts: The birth of the Christian church around AD 30 in a hostile Jewish culture; the empty tomb, the changed lives of the apostles, eyewitness testimony from people who had personally seen the risen Christ, and so on.

If the preponderance of evidence supports the biblical claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead (“proof to a moral certainty beyond reasonable doubt”), we are justified to accept this as factual truth in the same way we accept that people are guilty of a crime based on the preponderance of evidenced marshaled against them. In both cases, we have reached the highest level of certainty available in the area of legal reasoning. For all practicable purposes, we have realistically reached “absolute proof.”

In sum, if the case for Christianity were to go through the rigors of our court system and all the evidence available were presented in a jury trial format, there is no doubt that the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the absolute proof of His deity—Romans 1:4) would be considered proven “to a moral certainty beyond reasonable doubt.” This has been demonstrated in a classic little book in the 19^th century by Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University, Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelist. ©

NEXT WEEK:  We’ll see how the same method historians use to demonstrate historical facts, when applied to Christianity, also demonstrates Christianity is true “beyond reasonable doubt.”

If you wish to avoid missing any blogs, please join my email list. I send out notices the day I post a weekly blog. Go to danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses

Part Four:  How Does the Scientific Method Demonstrate Only Christianity Is Religious Truth?

Think about how you would answer the following questions: When you get into an automobile, do you calculate your chances of getting into an accident? When you drink water from a faucet, do you hesitate because it may not be safe to drink? When a doctor prescribes a medication, do you consider tossing it out because it may harm you? If you are married, did you seriously consider not doing so because of the possibility you and your spouse may not be compatible for life?

I hope the answer to all these questions is, “No, I didn’t think about these things.” Why? Because almost all the decisions we make and actions we take in everyday life are based on our intuitive understanding of their probable outcome. In everyday life we make these inferences more or less subconsciously. What I want you to see, however, is that the methodology behind your responses embraces the scientific method; that is, collecting and evaluating evidences, both pros and cons, and drawing conclusions based on their probable outcome.

This is how truth is determined in most areas of knowledge. Scientific theories are based on probabilities, as are the verdicts in court trials and how historical truths are certified. In all these instances, we consider probable conclusions as essentially absolute truth because probability is highest level of certainty obtainable in these particular areas. (See last week’s blog if you are unfamiliar with the scientific method.)

To be logically consistent, if anyone rejects the scientific method for determining truth they would have to be skeptics of practically everything they accept as true that does not involve mathematics and formal logic. Again, most of what we believe and the decisions we make are based on probability—the scientific method.

If we apply the scientific method to religion, we can demonstrate that Christianity is true to the highest level of certainty obtainable in the area of religious knowledge. Thus, we can legitimately conclude that Christianity, as close as we can determine, is absolute truth. Furthermore, if we apply this same truth test—the scientific method—to non-Christian religions, we can demonstrate they do not have the overwhelming confirming evidence Christianity has: eyewitness testimony, historical confirmation, fulfilled prophecy, archeological support, textual reliability, and so on. The probable conclusion is that non-Christian religions are untrue. ©

NEXT WEEK:  In the next two weekly blogs in this series, we’ll explore how legal reasoning and historical investigation confirm the authenticity of Christianity.

If you wish to avoid missing any blogs, please join my email list. I send out notices the day I post a weekly blog. Go to danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Three:  The Decisive (Apologetic) Proof of Christianity May Surprise You! 

For any truth test to be legitimate, it must be applicable to both Christian and non-Christian worldviews.  We can’t use one truth test for Christianity and another for non-Christian religions and secular ideologies. That would be hypocritical, and non-Christians should rightly reject it. But there is such a truth-test that applies to all worldviews, and it may surprise you what it is. I’m referring to the scientific method.

Let me say at the outset that I am not referring to the philosophy of science—scientism—which insists nothing can be considered true unless it passes through the filter of scientific testing. (By the way, this is a self-defeating proposition because the claim itself can’t be proven scientifically!)  Nor am I endorsing the naturalistic conclusions of secular science, such as Darwinian evolution. But I am suggesting that the scientific method for discovering truth is the most reliable test for truth in almost all areas of knowledge. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, in his book The Shape of the Past, explains:

Empirical or scientific method is the truly valid way of approaching truth because it alone can accomplish to the satisfaction of all what the other methods . . . cannot; not only do its results not need to be tested for error independently, but is in itself capable of determining what authority to follow and what common sense  beliefs and presuppositions to hold. (265)

The scientific method for determining truth comprises two essential concepts: evidence and probability. As a system for discovering and confirming truth, the scientific method involves inductive reasoning; that is, accumulating reliable evidences that points to a general conclusion based on the highest degree of probability attainable. Although probability leaves the door open for possible error, it is the closest we can come to confirming absolute truth outside of mathematics and formal logic—which we saw in last’s week blog do not apply to most areas of knowledge. Probability conclusions derived from accumulated objective evidence is the most trustworthy method for acquiring and testing truth because it reveals the clearest and most logical choices between conflicting alternatives.

Almost all the truths we consider as absolute are based on probability, whether they involve scientific matters (all scientific theories are based on probable results); legal matters (we send people to prison based on the preponderance of evidence—probability); historical matters (we evaluate historical evidences and draw conclusions based on the probable accuracy of documentation); or personal matters (we determine our chances of crossing the street safely, or that a prescribed medicine won’t harm us,  based on the probable outcomes).

In terms of apologetics, the scientific method is the most trustworthy way to demonstrate the absolute truth of Christianity, as well as disprove competing non-Christian religions and secular ideologies. ©

NEXT WEEK: We will see how the scientific method demonstrates that Christianity, for all practical purposes, is absolute truth!

Please join my blog email list so you will not miss any of the short articles in this series. I send out notices the day I post a weekly blog. Go to danstory.net, click on “contact,” and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Two:  Can We Prove Christianity is “Absolute Truth?” Yes—but Not in the Way Unbelievers Expect.

 There are different levels of proof relevant to some areas of knowledge but not to others. For example, we can’t expect mathematical precision to apply in historical, legal, and scientific issues. In these areas, determining truth is based on probability. In other words, when we attain the highest level of probability possible in a particular area of knowledge, we have realistically reached “absolute truth” because we cannot reach a higher level of certainty. Most things we believe is true depends on probable conclusion, and we make life and death decisions accordingly. Let me cite a few examples.

No one rejects the truth that George Washington lived, although no one alive today has seen him (historical truth). No one argues that a person can’t be found guilty of a crime no one actually witnessed (legal truth). Few people deny the scientific claim that black holes and subatomic particles exist, although no one has observed them (scientific truth). People accept these truths because the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. To be consistent, denying any of them because they cannot be proven with mathematical certainty would require denying most things we take for granted. We couldn’t function in the real world with such skepticism. We wouldn’t eat a hamburger or take medicine because we could not be absolutely certain they aren’t poisonous!

Let me tie this to religious truth-claims. Christianity can provide the same level of probability for the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reliability and authenticity of the Bible, and other Christian truth-claims that are accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt in historical, legal, and scientific matters. Furthermore, no other religion in the world offers this same level of certainty.

This brings us to an important point Christians must recognize—and point out to non-Christians. When people demand “proof” the Bible is authentic or Jesus is God, they often switch from accepting the kinds of proof they accept in history, law, and science and expect exactness beyond probability. But as saw, this is impossible because mathematical-like precision is an entirely different category of proof and cannot be applied to religion any more than it can be applied to history, legal matters, and science. This does not mean proof is impossible, only that it is not axiomatic proof as in mathematics.

Part of our apologetic task is to help unbelievers understand this. We should point out that the same truth test used to prove historical, legal, and scientific truths will prove beyond doubt that Christianity is true and other religions are false. It is in this sense that we can honestly and legitimately assert that Christianity is absolute truth.  ©

NEXT WEEK:  What is this “truth test,” which proves Christianity and disproves non-Christian religions (and secular philosophies such as evolution)? Describing and applying  it will be the topic of next week’s blog.

If you wish to avoid missing any of the short articles in this new series (or future blogs), please join my blog email list. You will receive notices the day I post a weekly blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part One:  Why Apologetics Can Go beyond Evidence for Christianity to Absolute Certainty

One of the first lessons I learned after beginning my apologetic studies was that “proof,” as most people think of it, is considered by most apologists as impossible to give. Apologetics, I was taught, doesn’t prove anything, in the sense of absolute certainty. It doesn’t give irrefutable proof without any possibility of error. For example, it can’t prove absolutely that Jesus Christ is God or the Bible is true.

The reason for this is because religious truth-claims are not self-evidently true, as in mathematics (five times five can only be twenty-five) or true by definition (all husbands are married). Nor can religious truths be proven scientifically through observation and experimentation. Hence, it’s assumed that religious truths fall out of the category of absolute certainty. And most apologists agree that apologetics consists of giving evidence to demonstrate Christian truth-claims, not proof positive.

But after several decades of apologetic studies, I disagree with this position. I believe, for all practical purposes, that apologetics can prove Christianity is true with absolute certainty—if we use the word “proof” in the same sense that we use it in most areas of knowledge outside mathematics or formal logic. It is perfectly legitimate for Christians to claim they can prove Jesus is God, the Bible is true, and Christianity is the only true religion.

I’m not equivocating here—I’m not redefining the meaning of proof. I intend to use it exactly as it is used in most areas of truth and knowledge. That is, when we reach the highest level of certainty attainable in any one area of knowledge, the vast majority of people believe we have realistically reached absolute certainty in that they accept that level of truth as absolute and make life and death decisions accordingly.

The rest of the articles in this short series will demonstrate this and give examples. ©

NEXT WEEK  I’ll explain in more detail what I mean when I claim we can prove Christianity is true with absolute certainty. Understanding this can be a great aid in helping unbelievers to seriously consider Christianity.

If you wish to avoid missing any of the short articles in this new series (or future blog series), please join my blog email list. You will receive notices the day I post a new blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Nine: Are Religious Experiences Enough to Convince Unbelievers that Christianity Is True?  

Our personal testimonies and changed lives provide some of the most compelling and powerful evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity. When we share our personal experiences, truth becomes more than mere propositional statements. Christianity can be seen on a subjective, experiential level as emotionally and spiritually satisfying and capable of transforming lives.

On the other hand, it is often difficult for unbelievers to accept our religious experiences as evidence for the truth of Christianity. Christians are on the same wave length with other Christians. When we claim to experience, for example, God’s direct leading, divine comfort and encouragement during difficult times, answer to specific prayers, and so on, other Christians know precisely what we mean because they have also experienced them.

But many, if not most, unbelievers cannot identify with such experiences. They tend to interpret our religious experience as a psychological episode created out of an emotional need—or just plain coincidence. Moreover, many unbelievers—just like many Christians—are more objectively oriented than subjectively; that is, more analytical and logical than intuitive and thoughtful. Call them “tough-minded” or “left-brained,” they simply need more evidence than the accounts of our personal religious experiences to convince them of the truthfulness of Christianity.

Effective evangelism, then, requires that we go the extra mile and provide the fact-based evidence many non-Christians need to take a step of faith. This is where apologetics comes into play, and why it is a necessary ingredient of evangelism. And of course even subjectively minded non-Christians can benefit when we lay a foundation of facts to support our spiritual truth-claims.

But this raises another issue—and an issue sure to come up in many apologetic/evangelistic opportunities. Christians claim the Bible is the only reliable source of religious truth—and it alone determines the truth or falsehood of all religious claims and alleged experiences. The challenge is how do we demonstrate this to non-Christians?

Furthermore—and this is key—to be a legitimate test for spiritual truth, the same evidence that we claim demonstrates the Bible is true must also be used to demonstrate non-Christians religions and secular philosophies are false. We can’t apply one truth test to Christianity and a different one to non-Christian worldviews! That would be hypocritical. But there is such a truth-test, and one that applies to both Christianity and non-Christian worldviews. ©

Next Week: I will begin a new blog series next week to explain what this truth test is, and how  it confirms Christianity while at the same time disproves non-Christian religions and philosophies.

Part Eight:  Possibly the Worst Dangers in Religious Experiences

In last week’s blog we looked at two dangers inherent in alleged religious experiences. There is one more danger that needs to be looked at—and in today’s world, where people are focused more on “feelings” than facts, it may be the most dangerous of the three. To be specific, false religious experiences can cause a person to totally forsake common sense and move into illogical thinking and behavior in their religious practices.

The danger here is obvious. If a religious experience does not have its source in God (truth), then its source is from something other than God. As we saw in last week’s blog, there are only two other possibilities: the experience is either wholly psychological in nature and has no bearing on reality at all, or It is demonic in origin. In either case, a religious experience can feel so real that people do not want to be bothered with the facts; that is, they refuse to judge the truth of the experience against common sense logic or contrary objective evidences (such as Scripture).

This clearly leaves a person wide open to any manner of bizarre rituals and perverted beliefs, such as rituals associated with Wicca, attempts to commune with nature for spiritual revelation, worshiping imaginary gods and goddesses, practicing magic and casting spells, giving offerings to images, and seeking alerted states of consciousness. None of these have a shred of objective evidence that they lead to spiritual truth—rather they are pathways to the demonic world.

If the Bible is God’s word, it will be the qualifier of religious experiences—the standard by which all alleged religious experiences can be measured for truth. If a so-called religious experience is not in harmony with Scripture, it must be rejected. God’s subjective revelation through the Holy Spirit will never contradict His objective revelation recorded in Scripture. ©

Next Week:  We’ll explore whether or not religious experiences are helpful or detrimental to Christian evangelism. If so, how?  If not, why not?

If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts, please join my blog email list and you will receive notices the day I post a new blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Seven:  “Beware of the Dangers of Religious experiences.”          

Although religious experiences can be genuine encounters between people and God, it is dangerous to accept all religious experiences as valid. Both Shirley MacLaine and Augustine had religious experiences, but obviously both can’t reflect true encounters with God. This would require God contradicting Himself—a theological and logical impossibility. As C.S. Lewis observes, “Religious experience can be made to yield almost any sort of God” (God in the Dock, 141). There are at least three reasons for critically examining all religious experiences, including Christian. This week’s blog will look at two of them; next week the third.

Counterfeit experiences

First, as indicated in a previous blog, religious experiences are not restricted to Christians. Where there are counterfeit religions, there are counterfeit religious experiences. So having a religious experience does not automatically mean that it was a true encounter with God. Many religious experiences may be psychological in nature. Some people want to experience God so intensely that they actually imagine such an encounter. Worse yet, a supposed religious experience may be phony. Many so-called prophets are no more than the worst kind of charlatan—outright frauds. Claiming to speak for God, they pretend to have had religious experiences in order to give authenticity to their teachings when, in fact, their goal is to bilk people out of their money and to promote their own selfish ambitions for power and control over people’s lives.

Worse still, a religious experience may be the work of demons. Satan is described in the Bible as creating an image of himself as “an angle of light” (2 Cor. 11:14) while in reality he is the “father of lies” (John 8:44). It is not beyond his power to manufacture a phony religious environment that promotes a false religious experience. In short, a supposed religious experience may be an encounter with the devil rather than God!

Counter-Conversions

 A second danger inherent to religious experiences is what philosopher and psychologist William James referred to as “‘counter-conversions’ . . . the transition from orthodoxy to infidelity”  (Varieties of Religious Experiences, 150)  What James is saying is that a so-called religious experiences may not be religion at all in the sense of an encounter with God or being morally righteous. The same psychological transformation one observes in genuine religious experiences may result in totally irreligious behavior. What psychologically may qualify as a religious experience may lead away from truth rather than toward truth. It may lead to non-Christian religions or even to flagrantly immoral lifestyles. The Apostle Paul dealt with something similar to this in Romans chapter six, where some people believed that because they are saved by grace, they could behave any way they wish. His response: “absolutely not!”

Once again this illustrates the need for an objective criterion to judge the authenticity and truthfulness of all religious experience. The only such criterion that can verify its truth-claims is the Bible—as I’ll demonstrate in upcoming blogs. (c)

Next Week  we’ll look at the third danger of religious experiences: They can be so powerful and compelling they cause a person to disregard common-sense and logic.

If you wish to avoid missing any blog posts, please join my blog email list and you will receive notices the day I post a new blog. Click on “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.

Part Six:  “Do Christian Religious Experiences Confirm or Reveal  Spiritual Truth—or Are They Irrelevant?”

No religion in the world would survive without confirming religious experiences. There must be more than dogma for a religion to be relevant, and in order for it to inspire belief and acceptance. Even religions that do not emphasize a personal relationship with deity, such as pantheistic religions, still maintain a subjective element to belief in which their god(s) (whatever it’s conceived to be) satisfies spiritual needs. This may occur in the here and now, as in Christianity, or only in some future state of bliss.

Christianity rests on a solid foundation of history that can be verified by all the canons of historical investigation. But our faith also touches the heart as well as the mind. Religious experiences that reflect a true encounter with the living God are a vital ingredient of Christianity. More than any other religion in the world, Christianity confirms its truth-claims through profound, life-changing religious experiences. Jesus’ disciples set the example for countless millions of Christians to follow by their sudden and immediate changed lives after encountering the resurrected Christ.

Over the past twenty centuries, Christians claim to experience dramatic, life-changing, personal encounters with Jesus. Not visible encounters like the Apostles, but spiritual encounters every bit as real and profound. Atheists and skeptics have become believers. Alcoholics and drug addicts have been set free from their dependencies. Marriages have been healed. Damaged relationships have been restored. Love, compassion, tolerance, and patience have blossomed where hate, greed, jealousy, and anger once flourished. It would be foolish to sweep aside such a magnitude of personal testimony as insignificant. Religious experience is powerful affirmation for the authenticity of the Christian worldview.

Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions and misapplication of religious experiences among Christians. Some believe, for example, that religious experiences not only confirm Christian truths but also reveal truth. This is a grave error, as theologian David Wells explains:

In any genuine knowledge of God, there is an experience of his grace and power, informed by the written Scriptures, mediated by the Holy Spirit, and based upon the work of Christ on the Cross. . . .  Biblical faith is about truth. God has described himself and his works to us in the language of the Bible, and it is quite presumptuous for us to say that we have found a better way to hear him (through our own experience) and a better way to find reality (by constructing it within the self.)  (No Place For Truth; or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology, 173, 184)

Wells is cautioning us not to emphasis religious experiences as an avenue for spiritual enlightenment independent of Scripture. The Bible is God’s objective revelation of divine truth, and therefore determines the legitimacy of our personal religious experiences. If they are not in harmony with Scripture, they are not genuine. ©

NEXT WEEK:  Today’s blog raises another concern: If religious experiences are not in harmony with Scripture and therefore bogus—where do they originate? This will be the topic in next week’s blog.

Please join my blog email list and you will avoid missing any blog posts. You will receive notices the day I post a new blog. Click on  “contact” above and send me a request with your email address. I do not share email addresses.