Epistemology, apologetics, "feel-good religion," and evolutionary creationism

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Let’s look at what I said on the other thread in context, because the context matters.

My response that Daniel has taken such issue with was directed at someone who essentially said that the foundation of their faith used to be intelligent design creationism. That foundation had been demolished, and the person was asking what new thing to base their faith on.

@JacksonC

I just want to know why Christianity is the truth, since I previously based it on intelligent design.

So in response, I said

@Christy

Let’s be honest. Any foundation for “why Christianity is true” can ultimately be deconstructed. There is no argument or proof that can get you from skepticism to faith. At the end of the day, Jesus is Lord, or he isn’t. But you are only going to be convinced Jesus is Lord by personally encountering Jesus. There is no path to Jesus via science, logic, or philosophy.

Daniel wrote:

This is very typical thinking for a Christian who has given herself over to marrying evolution with the Bible. In the process, she has compromised the Bible so severely. As a result of evolutionary indoctrination, the theistic evolutionist (TE) believe that it is historically and scientifically inaccurate and that, therefore, there is no longer any way to prove the Bible’s claims.

First of all, how did the subject of evolution come up? We are talking about how we ascertain the truth about Christianity. @Daniel_Mann you may not believe this, but I hardly ever think about evolution when I read the Bible. They are not “married” for me. Scientific facts and biblical interpretation are two different domains. I believe that reality is coherent, so scientific facts and spiritual truths do not contradict each other, but they also don’t shape each other. My hermeneutical approach to the Bible was developed studying language, culture, and communication under Evangelical Bible scholars, most of whom could care less about the evolution/creation debate. It honestly never came up in a single Bible or theology class I ever took. I don’t think about germ theory, or plate tectonics, or meiosis when I’m reading the Bible either.

So, I’m sorry but this idea that I learned to approach Scripture the way I do from evolutionary science is just a flat out wrong assumption on your part. It’s not that I don’t think there is any way to prove the Bible’s claims, it’s that we fundamentally disagree on the method for figuring out what the Bible is claiming in the first place and whether or not those claims need to or can be “proven.” That disagreement is there before and after either of us expresses our beliefs about origins or science.

Daniel wrote

Generally, we prove the unknown or the uncertain by what we already know as fact. However, the TE has gutted the Bible of any defense for its truth claims by claiming that the Bible only speaks authoritatively in areas of theology and spirituality and not when it speaks about the physical world.

What provable, known facts do you use to show the truth of the following biblical claims?

• Humanity’s sin separates them from relationship with God

• Jesus’ death atones for my sin

• I am united with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, through whom I participate in the death and resurrection of Christ and am re-created a brand new person

• I am adopted into God’s own family as one of God’s own children

• I will be physically resurrected with Christ in the Eschaton and live forever in an incorruptible body

None of the most important truth claims of the Bible (which I believe, by the way) can be proven with reference to historical or scientific facts. If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single historical or scientific “fact” in the Bible was completely true and reliable, it still wouldn’t get you proof that Jesus’ death takes away my sins and reconciles me to God. Do you honestly think that somehow all those claims above follow from the historical fact “the flood in Genesis was global”? I honestly don’t follow that line of reasoning.

This idea that the gospel is dependent on fact-checking the Bible and the Bible passing with flying colors just doesn’t ring true to me. The gospel depends on God being a trustworthy person whose revelation of himself in Scripture and in Jesus and by his Spirit is true. God is the source of truth. That is why the gospel is compelling.

The authority of Scripture comes from God, not from some one to one correspondence with Scripture and facts. All throughout the New Testament what is held out as the basis for the authority of the message (whether it is being preached by Jesus, or the disciples, or the apostles) is the demonstration of the Spirit’s power. How did they know that Jesus was the Messiah? The blind saw, the deaf heard, the lame walked. The preaching of the gospel in Acts was accompanied by miraculous signs.

The Bible is authoritative because the Spirit of God has claimed it as his word and works through it to save and sanctify his people. It has authority because of the Spirit’s power. 2 Peter 1:21: The prophets’ authority in Scripture is established because what they speak is from God, as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:2-5: Paul reminds people he intentionally forgot everything except Christ crucified, because the gospel doesn’t depend on his clever presentation of it or his persuasive arguments, but on the Spirit’s power. Romans 1:16: The gospel Paul is not ashamed of is not a list of correct facts, it is the power of God at work in people’s lives, saving those who believe.

Daniel wrote

Consequently, Christianity has been reduced to a blind leap into the darkness of uncertainty where the only comfort available is “personally encountering Jesus.” This represents a rejection of the life of the mind and evidences (which have already been surrendered to evolution) for feelings.

Speaking of leaps… How in the world do you get that from anything I said? And, why are you acting like “personally encountering Jesus” is less than the pinnacle of everything? Like it is some sort of substandard consolation prize? What is the real prize in your conception, a robust life of the mind? Certainty? I’m sorry, but I’ll take knowing Jesus over being intellectually fulfilled or certain any day of the week. How am I the one with the compromised view of the gospel here?

The Christian, therefore, is left to think: My faith is no more valid that the faith of others, who also claim that their feelings or mystical experiences have validated their particular brand of faith.

When did we start rating the “validity” of people’s faith and when did faith become a competition? It’s not the quality of faith or faith experiences that saves a person, it’s Jesus.

When we reach a point where we know what we believe and why we believe it, we find great riches. Paul, therefore, prayed that we’d attain: " …all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3)

No, it’s not when we reach a point where we know what we believe and why, if by that you mean “master a bunch of apologetic arguments.” Did you read the verse you typed out? We find great riches when we know Christ. That is the knowledge and understanding Paul is talking about here; it is the relationship with Christ himself. Encountering Jesus, if you will.

The rest of Daniel’s post I don’t think is worth responding to because it is just a bunch of baseless claims about my alleged thoughts and beliefs, things I never came close to expressing and conclusions that in no way follow logically from anything I did say. If you read what I write and come away with “her position is essentially the same as Richard Dawkins’,” I guess I question your reading comprehension skills.

As a final thought, to say that all other foundations for faith can be deconstructed is not even close to saying, “faith is blind and irrational and baseless” As Christians we put our faith in Christ. Any other resting place for faith is shaky and can fall. If you build your faith on DNA evidence of a designer, on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, on the ontological argument for the existence of God, on the fine-tuning of the universe, or any other human intellectual construct, no matter how compelling it is, you have settled for a foundation that is not Christ. I am all for shoring up one’s confidence in the truth of Christianity. If a person is edified and spurred to love and good deeds by watching William Lane Craig duke it out with atheists, than by all means, more power to him or her. But at the end of the day, it’s Jesus only Jesus. I am not one bit ashamed of claiming that.