Words often confused us because we fail to press for a definition of the term. Or we can say, words often fail us because we are confused as to their range of meanings. Consider the word proof.

It has muscle, this strong word. It is insistent. “I need proof!” we demand. “There is no proof!” we insist. Or, “You may not believe it, but there is no proof.”

Perhaps this strong word needs to be tamed and not allowed to run so free and reckless across the intellectual landscape. We need to rope in this beast. But what is the range of its meanings?

Proof may mean that we evidence sufficient to warrant absolute certainty. If A=B and B=C, then, A=C. The proof is simply in the understanding of the terms. It could not be otherwise. Even an executive order could not change the conclusion, given the premises.

But few items of our knowledge know of such cognitive assurance. To be sure, we are lost without these kinds of proofs. But there is more to knowing than this. I know full well that my wife is not an alien, but I do not know this in the manner of an absolute proof about which I cannot possibly be mistaken. It is logically possible that she is an alien. However, I have no positive evidence that she is–or that my dog, Sunny, originates from outside the galaxy. The upshot is that most of what we know is defeasible. It could be shown to be wrong. However, we do not need proof in the strongest sense to have knowledge, which is justified true belief.

Proof can also mean “evidence sufficient to convince.” This is a looser sense of the word and is not as commonly used. We might say that we have overwhelming reason to believe P. Thus, it is proven. For example, we have ample evidence that the holocaust occurred. This means that the overwhelming burden of proof is on anyone who would deny it, such as the recent Presidents of Iran.

Now we come to religion. Some trouble the air without wisdom by insisting, “You cannot prove God exists.” By this, they usually mean that you cannot establish the existence of the Christian God in the manner of: if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Perhaps not. Nevertheless, one may reasonably believe in the existence of a personal, infinite, and transcendent being without relying on arguments that confer absolute certainty. The matter—and no small matter it is—concerns whether this being exists and what manner of evidence and reasoning is required to have the knowledge that this is so.

To finish up this epistemic[1]primer, one may be justified in belief P (about God’s existence or about anything else) without having incontrovertible evidence or total certainty. We rightly believe in the existence of all manner of things without proof in the strongest sense–in teeth, tulips, turnips, and toasters; in planets, insects, parsnips, and posters; in virtues, vices, values, and lobsters; in gravity, levity, tragedy, and comedy. We believe in the past we cannot see, in the future not yet here, and in the “what if” that has never been and will never be. Yes, we do; and all without proof.

Now that this is cleared out of the way, perhaps we can get on with considering arguments for and against the existence of God, not being weighed down by the unnecessarily tonnage of proof.

[1] Epistemology – Philosophy: The study of knowledge; how we know what we know.

I don’t know if you have ever realized this, but the Gospels are quite embarrassing. No, I don’t mean that the Gospel itself is embarrassing, but that the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are embarrassing. Well, let me be a bit less provocative and a little more precise: the Gospels contain many accounts of the Christ story that, if true, would cause early Christians to blush.

Criterion of Embarrassment
I want to briefly talk about the “criterion of embarrassment.” This is a criteria that helps historians determine the truthfulness of historic accounts. The basic idea is this: when people lie, embellish, or make stories up, they normally do not include material that causes them to lose credibility. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd call this “self-damaging” material (The Jesus Legend, 408).  E. P. Sanders calls it “against the grain” (although that it a bit too close to the “criterion of dissimilarity”).  Most people don’t make stories up about losing a fight or being the bank employee who failed to lock the safe the night before. We normally cover up our mistakes or embarrassments in order to look more polished. When someone gets pulled over by the police late at night and the officer asks if they have been drinking, they would not say they had been drinking if they really had not. People don’t lie on resumes and say they did not graduate high school when, in fact, they have a masters degree.

In the ancient world, this was no different. It was the tendency to omit, change, or lie about things that would bring shame upon the writer or his community. When histories are written by a nation, those in power want their nation to look as good as possible; therefore, they only include accounts that put them in the best possible light. For example, the Assyrian Lachish Relief is the story, carved in stone, of Sennacherib’s conquest and defeat of Judea in the 8th-Century BCE. This story was proudly displayed by the Assyrians in order to show their power and intimidate outsiders. This was a common practice. Rarely, if ever, do we discover similar instances where nations make prominent displays of their failures.

The basic idea is this: people always want to put their best foot forward when introducing themselves. How much more would we expect this to be the case in the Bible when the first Christians are attempting to convert others to Christianity? But, as we will see, there are many stories in the Gospels, having to do with the historic Jesus that are quit embarrassing and hard to explain if the story was made up.

Here are 8 of the most embarrassing moments in the Gospels:

Jesus’ Baptism (Mark 1:4-11John the Baptist was called the “baptist” not because he belonged to a particular denomination, but because he nuanced an initiation rite of baptism adopted by the Christian community. John’s baptism is explicitly said to be a baptism of repentance for sins (Mark 1:4, Matt. 3:1-2, 6). Yet we have Jesus, who did not need to repent because he never sinned, being baptized by him. Why? John Meier puts it this way: “Mysterious, laconic, stark Mark recounts the event with no theological explanation as to why the superior sinless one submits to a baptism meant for sinners” (A Marginal Jew, 168). Matthew, writing later, seems to recognize the difficulty and adds the discourse between John and Jesus before the baptism where John attempts to prevent Christ from being baptized, expressing his unworthiness in comparison to Christ (Matt. 3:14-15). While this takes away a bit of the sting, it still provides no precise theological explanation as to why Jesus was baptized. John, when he writes, leaves the baptism out all-together.

Jesus’ Family Did Not Believe
John 7:5 tells us that even Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. This is a difficult saying since one would presume that they would have better knowledge of who Christ was than anyone else. Yet on more than one occasion, we are told of their disassociation with him, even to the point that they thought he “lost his mind” and needed to be restrained (Mark 3:21).

John the Baptist’s Doubt
This is perhaps one of the least expected turns that Matthew takes in his Gospel account. John the Baptist was the first to recognize that Jesus was the Christ. Luke even has him leaping in his mother’s womb at the presence of Mary who was just pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:41). When John baptized Jesus, he witnessed as the Father spoke from heaven and identified Jesus as his son (Matt. 3:17). Jesus himself said that there was no greater man, born of woman, than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11). Yet John is seen at the end of his life sending his disciples to Christ to inquire whether or not Jesus was really the Messiah (Matt. 11:2-3). This is probably the reason why the rest of the Gospel writers left this out of their story.

The Disciples Doubted After the Resurrection (Matt. 28:17)
Related closely to John’s doubt is something else we don’t expect. After Christ’s resurrection he told the women whom he saw to gather the disciples and have them meet him in Galilee. Once there, Matthew 28:17 records this: “And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted” (Mat 28:17 ESV). This would not be too surprising if only one of the disciples doubted since we know that John records Thomas doubting. But this is some of the disciples (or, possibly, all of them according to D. A. Hagner, Matthew [WBC], 2:884). And unlike John who shows how Thomas’ doubt is resolved, Matthew leaves it open. Since this is so damaging (from a certain perspective), it is hard to know why Matthew would include this if it were not historical.

Jesus Does not Know the Time of His Coming (Mark 13:32)
In Mark 13:32 Christ expresses his ignorance about the timing of his coming: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (ESV). Luke does not include these words at all and in the parallel in Matt. 24:36 the manuscripts do not agree. Some include “nor the son” and some omit it.  It is quite possible that an early scribe left these words out so that Christ might save face. The early church had the tendency to magnify the divine attributes of Jesus, so it is difficult to make the case that this is not historical.

Women are the First to Witness the Resurrection
This is one that is often brought up. Craig Keener puts it well enough: “The witness of women at the tomb is very likely historical, precisely because it was so offensive to the larger culture — not the sort of testimony one would invent. Not all testimony was regarded as being of equal merit; the trustworthiness of witnesses was considered essential. Yet most of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries held much less esteem for the testimony of women than for that of men; this suspicion reflects a broader Mediterranean limited trust of women’s speech and testimony also enshrined in Roman law.” (Keener, The Historical Jesus, 331)

Jesus Cursed a Fig Tree
In Mark 11:13-14 Jesus curses a fig tree for not having any fruit due to his hunger. While their may be true prophetic significance to cursing the fig tree (played out immediately after as Christ cleanses the temple), from the standpoint of the narrative, it carries some embarrassment as it depicts Christ becoming angry at a tree for not producing figs, even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:13). Another embarrassment implied in this is that Jesus did not know the tree had no figs on it. It seems unlikely that the early church would, again, share a story that illustrates Christ’s ignorance of something.

Death and Resurrection of Christ
This easily escapes our notice since the basic story of Christ is so well known. However, both the death and resurrection of Christ are, from the standpoint of the culture of the day, embarrassing and damaging. Concerning the death of Christ on a cross, Paul sees this problem: “But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:23). The word used for “stumbling block” is skandalon. Louw-Nida defines this as “that which causes offense and thus arouses opposition.” Why? Because the Jews would never have thought their Messiah would have been hung on a tree. “Cursed is one who hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13; Deut 21:23). The Greeks thought of the resurrection as foolishness as they were dualist, essentially believing that the material world was evil and the spiritual world good. They would have scoffed at the idea that Christ returned to physical form. This is why later Greeks attempted to adapt the Christ story, doing away with the physical resurrection. Marcion is the most famous promoter of this view (see Docetism).

In other words, in the culture of the Apostles, the death and resurrection of Christ would be a very unlikely story to make up and expect people to devote their lives. But somehow this story took the world by storm in the first centuries of the church. This only makes sense if it were true.

Other Possible Examples
Jesus’ encouragement to “hate” one’s family and love him (Luke 14:26)
Betrayal of Christ by one in his inner circle (Judas)
Christ had trouble healing a blind person (Mark 8:22-35)
Christ Could not Heal People in His Hometown (Mark 6:1-6)

Conclusion
The criterion of embarrassment does not provide absolute assurance in any case. There is always the possibility that what we believe to be embarrassing today, might not have been so to the people of the day. But from what we know, the list provided here is substantial. It is hard to believe that anyone would make up events such as these. In the context of the day, if the Gospels were fabricated stories, these examples could do nothing but damage the credibility of their story. But if the Gospels were true, this is exactly what we might expect and hope to find.

2013-07-08   http://credohouse.org

This belief has been a source of contention with many people, even Christians, in the past. But the more I research, the more I find it to be the case that Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.

Think about it: The believer in the Islamic faith has to trust in a private encounter Muhammad had, and this encounter is unable to be tested historically. We have no way to truly investigate the claims of Joseph Smith (and when we do, they are found wanting). Buddhism and Hinduism are not historic faiths, meaning they don’t have central claims of events in time and space which believers are called upon to investigate. You either adopt their philosophy or you don’t. There is no objective way to test them. Run through every religion that you know of and you will find this to be the case: Either it does not give historic details to the central event, the event does not carry any worldview-changing significance, or there are no historic events which form the foundation of the faith.

This is what it looks like:

A few months ago, I was emceeing an apologetics event in Dallas hosted by the Christian Renaissance Apologia Conference. The scholars present were Dan Wallace, Darrell Bock, Gary Habermas, and Craig Evans. Each of these are men that I admire and trust, as I believe they are seeking truth and not a confirmation of their prejudice. I asked them during the conference if there are any other religions or worldviews that they knew of that had apologetics conferences the way Christianity does. In other words, can other religions pull together enough objective intellectual backing to form a solid defense for their faith? Each of them responded with the same: no. They went on to express the same sentiments of my present argument. “Even atheists,” Habermas said, “have nothing but ‘negative apologetics’.” In other words, Christianity has a significant amount of historically verifiable data which forms the bedrock of the faith. This is “positive apologetics.” An atheist conference, for example, does nothing but belittle the claims of other religions (primarily Christianity). “There is no positive defense that one can give for naturalism,” Habermas concluded. Therefore, the only thing available to the atheist is an attempt to overturn the massive amount of evidence that Christianity has.

This makes a lot of sense. If I decided to start a religion, deceptively or not, I would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because I know those claims could be tested. Also, I would not give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, I would not invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK and traveled about Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could easily be falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that the electrocution was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9am. I wouldn’t claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion could not possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing.

This is why you don’t have religions based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas which are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it calls on us to “come and see” if the claims are true.

The only reason why I can say Christianity survived in the midst of such historic volatility is because it is true. And this is exactly what I would expect if there were an all-powerful God who created and loves this world. When he intervenes, he makes a significant enough footprint that historic inquiry is demanded. Think about that next time you are critiquing the Christian faith. The only reason you can is because it is the only religion that has opened itself up to such critique.  Simply put, Christianity is the most falsifiable religion there is and yet it has survived. Why?

http://credohouse.org/blog/christianity-the-worlds-most-falsifiable-religion

C.S. Lewis on Natural Law and Divine
April 11, 2014 By Melissa Cain Travis

There are two rather typical responses from materialist scientists and philosophers to the suggestion that a creator God guides the development and sustains the order of nature:

1) Our current scientific theories on the evolution of all things are sufficient to explain all natural phenomena. The idea of a creator has been rendered superfluous.

2) Science doesn’t have it all figured out, and truth be told, it may never give us comprehensive knowledge of natural history or a full explanation for the stability and regularities of the cosmos, but plugging God into these knowledge gaps is no better than the ancient Greek practice of attributing thunderstorms to Zeus.

Standard practice for an apologist faced with such statements is to describe the evidence for cosmic and biological design or the shortcomings of naturalistic theories when it comes to explaining the indications of rationality in nature. The apologist uses science to argue for a God-designed, God-guided natural world. This is a solid technique and one that I often use. However, it isn’t the only angle from which to approach such a discussion, which is great news for faith-defenders lacking scientific expertise.

In the C.S. Lewis collection God in the Dock, there are two essays that are incredibly insightful and instructive. Lewis was not a scientist, though he knew a great deal about the reigning theories of his era and commented upon them in many of his writings. But he was wise to the fact that, more often than not, the core issue is philosophical, though the materialist scientist rarely recognizes this. Lewis’s tactic for dealing with materialist claims such as those above was quite powerful, as we see in “Religion and Science” and “The Laws of Nature.”

In the first essay, Lewis addresses the question of divine intervention in nature. He sets up a Socratic dialogue between himself and a materialist who insists that “modern science” has proven that there’s no transcendent cause for the workings of nature.

 “But, don’t you see,” said I, “that science never could show anything of the sort?”
“Why on earth not?”
“Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists—anything ‘outside.’ How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?”

This is a key point that is all too often missed by those claiming that science has ruled out the existence of God. But Lewis’s interlocutor persists in his objections:

“But don’t we find out that Nature must work in an absolutely fixed way? I mean, the laws of Nature tell us not merely how things do happen, but how they must happen. No power could possibly alter them.”

In other words, because there are “laws of nature,” it is impossible for anything to disrupt the regular course of nature. Such a thing would, he says, result in absurdity, just as breaking the laws of mathematics would.

But Lewis demonstrates, in his typically charming yet utterly logical fashion, that natural laws only tell you what will happen as long as there is no interference in the system from the outside. Furthermore, those laws can’t tell you if such interference is going to occur.

Science studies the material universe and can say quite a lot about how it operates under normal conditions. What it cannot rule out is the existence of something independent of the universe with the power to intervene in natural affairs. This supernatural activity would entail a cosmos that is an open system rather than a system closed to “outside” immaterial causation. Again, the limitations of science preclude it from ruling out such a state. Says Lewis, “…it isn’t the scientist who can tell you how likely Nature is to be interfered with from outside. You must go to the metaphysician.” It is, it turns out, a philosophical question.

In the second essay, “Laws of Nature,” Lewis examines the question of God’s guidance of the natural world and whether or not the prayers of mankind have any bearing on the course of events.

Lewis walks us through his own thought process in dealing with the assertion that nature is deterministic, functioning according to a set of laws, like balls on a billiards table.  But look, declares Lewis, no matter how far back you go in the causal chain of natural events, you’ll never reach a law that set the whole chain in motion. He says, “..in the whole history of the universe the laws of Nature have never produced a single event. They are the pattern to which every event must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. But how do you get it to do that? How do you get a move on?”

Natural laws are completely impotent when it comes to event causation; they only tell what happens after ignition, so long as free-willed agents (God included) do not interfere. About the laws Lewis says, “They explain everything except what we should ordinarily call ‘everything.’” Indeed.

“Science, when it becomes perfect,” he explains, “will have explained the connection between each link in the chain and the link before it.But the actual existence of the chain will remain wholly unaccountable.”

There is, then, no contradiction between natural law and the acts of God, for he supplies every event for natural law to govern. Everything in nature is providential! In other words, we don’t need gaps in scientific explanation to have a place for postulating divine activity. But, nota bene, this is not to say that there aren’t real gaps in the explanatory framework that materialist science, by nature, cannot fill.

What does all this mean about the effectuality of human prayers? If a causal chain is already in motion, what difference could prayer possibly make? To answer this, we must be mindful of God’s timelessness and omniscience:

“He, from His vantage point above Time, can, if He pleases, take all prayers into account in ordaining that vast complex event which is the history of the universe. For what we call ‘future’ prayers have always been present to Him.”

And, it’s out of the park, ladies and gentlemen.

By: Mark Mittelberg

The same trustworthy Bible that tells us about our sin also reveals our solution: Jesus Christ.

Maybe you’ve heard people say that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God and that he’d roll over in his grave if he knew his followers today were worshiping him. Evidently, they never read what Jesus said—and they must have missed the news that he rose from the dead!

For example, in John 5:16-20, Jesus clearly paints himself as divine. This made his detractors so angry that they “tried all the harder to find a way to kill him.” Why? Because Jesus “not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God.”

As the greatest teacher who ever lived, Jesus would have known if these people were misinterpreting his words and would have quickly corrected them if they were drawing the wrong conclusions. Instead, far from denying that he was “making himself equal with God,” he went on to reinforce those claims.

You can read in John 8:56-59 how Jesus shook up his hearers again: “Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.” They were incredulous, saying, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?”

They were stunned by what Jesus said next: “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!” In one sentence, he claimed not only to exist before Abraham, but he applied the exclusive name of God—“I Am” (see Exodus 3:14)—to himself. His listeners got the point: either Jesus really was God in human flesh, or he was a blasphemer. They again opted for the second choice, picking up stones to kill him.

And in John 10:30-33, Jesus underscored this claim once more. He told his audience, “The Father and I are one.” The original language makes it clear that he was claiming to be one in nature or essence with God, not merely unified in purpose. Without hesitating, his opponents picked up stones to kill him because “you, a mere man, claim to be God” (vs. 33).

Were they merely misunderstanding his claims? No, he was making it very clear that he was God’s Son—deity living in humanity. Instead of correcting their misperceptions, he drove home again, in the verses that followed, how they could examine his works and his miracles in order to see that his claims were true (John 10:34-38). And another time he summed up in sobering terms why his identity was so important: “Unless you believe that I Am who I claim to be, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

Some skeptics point out that Jesus preferred to call himself the Son of Man, and they interpret that to mean that he was merely claiming to be human. For example, this was his most common self-reference in the Gospel of Mark, which was probably the earliest biography written about him.

After being asked by his accusers whether or not he was “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One,” he replied, “I Am. And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Once again his opponents were horrified, accusing him of blasphemy and pronouncing him worthy of death.

Why? Because, first, it appears that Jesus was again using the divine name “I Am” to describe himself—something no mere human should ever do. Second, he said they would see him “seated in the place of power at God’s right hand,” which was a clear identification with the divine person described in Psalm 110:1. And third, he called himself “the Son of Man,” which is a title drawn from Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man was shown to possess divine characteristics. And just so there would be no doubt left in their minds, Jesus even said they would one day see him “coming on the clouds of heaven”—which means he would come back to judge humankind. This is another allusion to God in that same prophecy of Daniel (7:13).

Jesus’ claims of equality with the Father were unmistakable, and they would have been blasphemy—had they not been true.

If Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then we may indeed be sure of the salvation he offers. But the difficulty still faces us: Is Jesus Christ really who he claimed to be?

Many people have tried to limit the range of options concerning who he was to three: the Son of God, an honest but deluded man, or a deceiver. But there’s a fourth option—one that more and more skeptics would embrace today—that he was a legend, or at least that his claims to deity were legendary.

Let’s look briefly at the three alternatives to his being who the Bible says he claimed to be, the Son of God:

FIRST, WAS JESUS DELUDED?

We find him matching wits with some of the cleverest people of his day, individuals who were sent to intentionally catch him in his words or in some factual mistake, and yet he so silenced them that they dared not ask him any more questions (Matthew 22:46). Even at the age of twelve he astounded the religious teachers with his spiritual insights. Luke 2:47 reports, “All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.”

And when we consider the wisdom of his teachings from an intellectual standpoint— for example, in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7)—we see a simple brilliance that would suggest he was anything but deluded.

On the contrary, both then and now, his influence has helped countless people to better face the realities of their own lives and to lift them out of delusion.

OR, SECOND, WAS HE TRYING TO DECEIVE PEOPLE?

If so, then he would have been acting in ways diametrically opposed to everything he stood for. Again, his enemies spent years following him around, critically weighing his every word and action in the hope of exposing some error or lie, but never with even a shred of success.

In fact, at the trial prior to his crucifixion it was ironically his accusers, not Jesus, who trumped up false charges. Matthew reports that they “were trying to find witnesses who would lie about Jesus, so they could put him to death” (Matthew 26:59). Mark adds, “But even then they didn’t get their stories straight!” (14:59). So there was definitely some deception going on— but it was always against Jesus, never by him.

And look at the impact Jesus has had on people ever since then. Though his followers are not perfect as he was, his influence serves to make them more honest, trustworthy, and pure. He taught and modeled that we should always speak the truth, correct errors, and serve others selflessly.

His earliest followers quickly became known for sharing their possessions, money, and meals with those in need; as a result they were “enjoying the goodwill of all the people” (Acts 2:44-47). This certainly does not sound like the influence that would flow from the life of a deceiver!

THIRD, MIGHT JESUS—OR AT LEAST HIS CLAIMS TO DEITY—HAVE MERELY BEEN LEGENDARY?

As tempting as that option might be for some people today, it is fraught with fatal flaws. We’ve already explored the historical nature of the New Testament, including the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. We’ve also discussed the wealth of early manuscript records we have of those writings—well beyond what we have for any other work of antiquity. In addition, there is strong secular confirmation for a number of the details in the biblical accounts.

Historian Gary Habermas, in his book The Verdict of History, reports thirty-nine ancient sources documenting the life of Jesus, from which he enumerates more than one hundred reported facts related to Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. Twenty-four of those sources, including seven secular sources and several creeds of the earliest church, specifically concern his divine nature. “These creeds reveal that the church did not simply teach Jesus’ deity a generation later … because this doctrine is definitely present in the earliest church.” The best explanation, he said, is that these creeds “properly represent Jesus’ own teachings.”

No, the weight of history—both religious and secular—is on the side of Jesus being and doing exactly what the Bible reports about him: he was God in human flesh, who came to be the Savior of the world.

And as we’ve already seen, Jesus had many more “credentials” confirming his identity as the Son of God. These include his fulfillment of numerous messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, his morally impeccable life, his divine insights into human nature and even into the specific thoughts of the people he talked with, his miraculous works, and especially his resurrection from the dead—an event well documented by the eyewitnesses who knew the tomb was empty and who saw, talked, and even ate with the risen Jesus.

SO WHY DID JESUS, THE SON OF GOD, COME TO LIVE AMONG US?

What was his purpose? He tells us himself in the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”

He saw that we were lost and that we had forfeited our lives to sin. But his life was not forfeited. It was sinless and spotless. He was willing to give this pure life in place of our sinful lives so that we could go free.

In fact, Jesus presented his personal mission statement in Luke 19:10. After explaining his offer of salvation to the inquisitive tax collector Zacchaeus, he declared, “The Son of Man came to seek and save those who are lost.” And in Mark 10:45 Jesus discussed his mission further: “Even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This blog is an excerpt from The Reason Why: Faith Makes Sense by Mark Mittelberg. You can order bulk copies for your church or group for greatly discounted prices  (44 copies for $2.79 per copy, plus shipping). Just let Mark know here.

Mark Mittelberg is a bestselling author, speaker, outreach strategist, and the Executive Director of The Center for American Evangelism, in partnership with Houston Baptist University. He is the bestselling author of multiple books, including Becoming a Contagious Christian with Lee Strobel and Bill Hybels. All together, his published pieces have sold a combined total of nearly three million copies. Mark and his wife Heidi have two grown children, and live near Denver, Colorado. You can connect with him on twitter.

A worldview is the framework of basic beliefs that we hold, whether we realize it or not, that shapes our view of and for the world. Everyone has a worldview. The question is not whether one has a worldview, but which worldview one has.

There has been a recent proliferation of camps, conferences, books, and organizations promoting the idea of Biblical worldview. Whereas the word “worldview” would have in times past elicited a blank stare, many Christians today have at least some familiarity with the concept.

But familiarity can breed contempt. “Biblical worldview” is often thrown around today in a haphazard fashion, and it may no longer be clear what it actually means. Also, Biblical worldview may be in danger of dying the death of the “been there, tried that, and we’ve moved on” mentality that is prevalent in so many contemporary program-driven churches and denominations.

This would be tragic for two reasons. First, a Biblical worldview is not a means, like a curriculum or a program. It’s an end. Seeing God, others, the world, and ourselves as God sees them is a telos of the Christian life. Second, despite all the rhetoric of Biblical worldview, it is not necessarily a reality. According to recent studies produced by the Barna Group, only 20% of those claiming to be born again and less than 1% of young adults in America can answer a basic set of theological questions according to the biblical worldview.

Biblical Worldview: What It’s Not

Before looking at what a biblical worldview is, let’s consider what it is not.

1) A Biblical worldview is not merely holding to Christian morals. Certainly, Christian morals flow from a Biblical worldview, but one could hold Christian morals without having the Biblical foundations to ground those morals. One can even hold to Christian morals for wrong reasons, including mere tradition, convenience, or a legalistic attempt at God’s approval.

Unfortunately, it is common for students to be taught Christian morals without being taught why those morals are true. However, moral values not grounded in truths that transcend one’s context no longer make sense when the context changes. This sort of faith is highly volatile, especially in today’s world of ever-changing contexts.

The Bible grounds morality in God Himself. Because the Biblical worldview begins with a Creator, we live in a world that was designed—not a random place with arbitrary rules. Moral norms flow from God’s character, expressed in His design for His creation.

2) A Biblical worldview is not just living life with Bible verses attached. Many Christians only know the Bible in bits and pieces. Verses and chapters are taken out of context to supplement or “Christianize” their life, and Biblical narratives are only useful for finding that moral nugget to apply to our lives. In this approach, the Bible is merely a therapeutic tool and never alters one’s orientation to life. These Christians view the Bible through the lens of their existent worldview, rather than having their worldview framed by the Bible.

3) A Biblical worldview is not automatic from being “saved”. One can be redeemed and yet not fully think or act like a Christian. The apostle Paul spoke to believers about taking ideas captive (2 Cor. 10), not being taken captive by bad ideas (Col. 2), being transformed by renewing of our minds (Rom. 12), and growing in discernment (Phil. 1).

4) A Biblical worldview is not Christian reactionism. This is our reputation in culture, and it is well earned. Worldview rhetoric is often nothing more than code language for defensively reacting to all the bad things in culture. Rather than a view of and for the world, it becomes just a view against the world.

This is a truncated understanding of the Gospel and a poor definition of the term worldview that ignores the rich history of Biblical worldview thinkers. Salvation is not just from sin; it is also to life. Because we have the capacity to know God’s design for life, humanity, and the cosmos, as well as the impact of the fall on this design, Christians carry the capacity to contribute to the culture, rather than only railing against it.

Biblical Worldview: What It Is

While a full exposition is not possible here, I suggest that a Biblical worldview is unique from all other worldviews in at least three ways.

1) A Biblical worldview is Biblically grounded. Jewish Rabbi Abraham Heschel once made the following comment about Christians:

“It seems puzzling to me how greatly attached to the Bible you seem to be and yet how much like pagans you handle it. The great challenge to those of us who wish to take the Bible seriously is to let it teach us its own essential categories; and then for us to think with them, instead of just about them.”

A Biblical worldview is one that is grounded in the Bible, not just in Biblical literacy. It is important to memorize the Scripture, but memorization is not the goal; transformation is (Rom. 12:1-2, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). A consistent Bible study time is important, but it is a means to a greater end. Rather than just being informed as to what the Bible says, we are to think Biblically about (and be Biblically oriented to) everything else. The Psalmist’s exhortation to hide the Word in our hearts is not just rote memorization, as Psalm 1 makes very clear.

One of the great barriers to thinking biblically is relegating Christianity to “spiritual things,” rather than everything. This dichotomy is false and does injustice to the robust message of the Bible. The Bible is first and foremost a metanarrative, a grand, sweeping story that claims to be the true story of anything and everything that has ever existed. It begins with the beginning of all things, and ends with the end of all things. We, and all people, live in this story somewhere between Genesis and Revelation.

Thus, the Bible sets the stage for all aspects of life and culture. The assumptions we think and live by should be Biblical ones, and we should build on these biblical assumptions when approaching theology, politics, economic theory, medical science, emerging technologies, the arts, human behavior, literature, criminal justice, international relations, or anything else.

2) A Biblical worldview is culturally literate. Loving God fully by thinking deeply, discerningly, and truthfully about His world is essential to being a true disciple of Christ. According to the way the Bible presents the grand narrative of God’s redemptive plan; Christianity is neither a religion of ascetic withdrawal nor a dualistic philosophy that denigrates certain human activity as less than spiritual. Followers of Christ are called to dive deeply—and hopefully head first—into the significant historical and cultural issues of the human situation. As G.K. Chesterton said, “If Christianity should happen to be true—that is to say if its God is the real God of the universe—then defending it may mean talking about anything and everything.”

Jesus makes this clear in his High Priestly Prayer recorded in John 17. Jesus prays for two groups of people, his disciples (vss. 6-12) and those who would believe because of the disciples’ testimony (vss. 20-22). For both groups, Jesus prays that the Father would be glorified as people came to know Jesus and thus receive eternal life. Then, Jesus asks for an astounding thing: that his followers would not be taken from the world (vs. 15), but would be protected in the midst of the world by being oriented in the truth (vs. 17).

The Biblical approach to culture is to understand it (2 Cor. 10; Dan. 1), confront it (Dan. 3-4; Acts 17), and contribute to it (Gen. 2; Jer. 29). The Bible transcends cultural trends and realities because the Bible is the context of all cultures. Therefore, we can speak truthfully and significantly to cultural trends and issues, blessing what is good and cursing what is evil.

3) A Biblical worldview is defined by hope.

Hope is a crucial aspect of the biblical approach to life and the world. Peter tells the persecuted church to “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet.3:15). Of all the reputations Christians have today, being hopeful is rarely one of them.

Culturally, hope is in need of re-definition as it has come to mean nothing more than wishful thinking. “I hope he gets voted off American Idol,” or “I hope North Carolina makes it to the Final Four.” Wishful thinking lacks certainty because it is a hope for something.

Biblical hope, however, is full certainty because Biblical hope is not a hope for; it is a hope in. biblical hope rests squarely in and on Christ—the Creator (John 1), Sustainer (Col. 1), and Redeemer (Rev. 4) of the entire human story.

Christians often miss hope in one of two directions: optimism or despair. Optimism is the “feel good” expression of Christianity that is always positive, full of self-help advice, and offering safe Christian alternatives to all the evil stuff in the world. On the other hand, despair is the escapism that characterizes those who assume the world is headed straight to hell, and there really is nothing we can do about it. Politics, the arts, the courts, and the country are beyond influence and beyond change, and are therefore no place for the believer. We are only to wait for heaven, when we can escape this whole mess.

Because of Christ, neither optimism nor despair is an option for the believer. How deeply broken must the world and we be for God (the Son) to die! Of course, He did not stay dead. He has risen. Death, in fact, has died and nothing that will ever happen in the history of the world will alter this certainty. Thus, despair is no option either.

A Biblical worldview explains the profound goodness and the profound evil that is found in the world and the human heart. No other worldview can do this. Further, the Biblical worldview rests the story of the world and the human heart in the hands of a God who created and has invaded both.

John Stonestreet is executive director of Summit Ministries in Manitou Springs, Colo.

Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4;Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26;3:22;11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun “Elohim” is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word “Elohim” and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for “God,” “Elohim,” definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 toLuke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14;Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36,John 20:21, and 1 John4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit seeJohn 14:16, 14:26,15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1,16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15;Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

Recommended Resources: Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions by Millard Erickson and The Forgotten Trinity by James White.