Using the Bible to Verify Itself

"McDowell is in fact doing nothing more than using the New Testament to confirm the New Testament; an obvious case of circular reasoning and utter sophistry." Freethinker's Textbook, pp. 193-194

I find this criticism a lot in secular circles and while I understand the concept that you can't use a single source to verify itself, let me clarify something. The Bible (or even the New or Old Testaments) is not a single source. It wasn't written by one person. It isn't even one book (although today it's bound together to look like one). It wasn't written within the same century or even the same millennium. There are an estimated 44 authors, 66 separate historical texts, and the documents span approximately 1500 years. Furthermore, the methods of preservation, record-keeping and maintenanc of textual accuracy far exceed those required to verify the authenticity of any other ancient historical texts. So, can it be used to verify itself? Certainly it can! There are extra-biblical records, as well, of course. Josephus is one, Pliny the Younger is another (anti-Christian, actually), and there are more.

Keep in mind that modern historians require three primary sources in order to confirm the details of any past event. They use things like newspapers, letters, scientific evidence, eye-witness accounts, etc. The closer to the event, the more reliable the source, and eye-witness accounts are the best of all. When it comes to Jesus's resurrection, for example, (which is the single most important event for all Christian belief--I Cor. 15:17) the Bible provides us those three eye-witness accounts written by people who were actually there (Matthew, John, & Paul). And it is recorded that more than more than 500 people saw the risen Christ, many of them named. Nearly all of them were still alive at the time the account was being circulated, and not one ever came forward to refute the account.

But, that's not all. We also have original manuscripts preserved in their entirety that can be scientifically verified as authentic. So, not only does the "circular reasoning" argument not hold water, it quickly reduces to absurdity. It suggests that nothing can be believed without MORE than three, verified, authentic, eye-witness accounts. In that case, we would have to say good-bye to nearly every news and historical source we have today.

Recognizing the truth in the Bible (because we CAN use one book of the Bible to verify another) certainly does not depend on circular reasoning. Jesus doesn't need to rely on circular reasoning to entice people to believe. He didn't say, "I'm God because I said so." Though He claimed to be God, the Messiah, He also said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Jesus was referring to His fulfillment of prophesy. Since He fulfilled nearly 300 of them, I'd say that was enough extra evidence to back up His claim. (See this post.)

Does Freedom Exist?

Many people mistakenly think that anything that makes you experience more freedom must be a good thing. This faulty reasoning is used as the justification for all kinds of harmful practices. Unlike truth, freedom is a relative thing. There is no such thing as absolute, total freedom. People are not designed, either physically, emotionally, spiritually or otherwise, to be capable of experiencing such a thing. Let me explain why:

Freedom is not a self-defining thing, nor is it self-sustaining. In order to be free, you must be free "of something". For example, even though our country offers us many freedoms, we are still not free from our obligation to its laws. In a sense, we are held captive by the laws of this nation. If we decided we wanted to be free from the laws of America and overturned the goverment until there only anarchy remained, would we then be finally free? Certainly not! It would be then that the freedoms that matter would be stripped from us--such as the freedom to enjoy security, orderliness and a life free of fear. Freedom, then is relative. Being "captive", then is also relative. What matters most is this: To what are we being held captive?

Let's bring this onto a spiritual plane. Is spiritual freedom possible? Is it more "free" to believe in a God to whom you dedicate your entire existence, or more "free" to choose not to believe in God and lead your own life? I can certainly see the reasoning behind the argument for the latter and have heard it often. Starting from a point of non-belief, it would seem much more freeing to believe in no God. Also, if one was following a religious system and became disillusioned with it, choosing to deny God would also feel very freeing. However, again we must ask ourselves, what am I being freed from? And, having made my choice, what am I now captive to?

If God exists, made us, loves us and desires a fully, open, dynamic, growing relationship with us--one in which we give Him our complete love and trust--what would that mean? Would this be freeing or enslaving? Well, is marriage freeing or enslaving? It greatly depends on the marriage, I would say. I was once in a relationship that was all about enslaving. It was unhealthy and there was no freedom in it. Now, however, my relationship with my husband gives me a great abundance of freedom. I am free to laugh, love and be who I am--knowing that he will always love me, too. The knowledge that he is my support and my provider and my security is also greatly freeing--I am no longer captive to fear or worry about the future. The knowledge that he is my lifelong companion is also immensely freeing--I don't have to worry about loneliness or having to go through future struggles alone.

It stands to reason then, that if God made us and loves us, it would be more freeing to follow Him, rather than our own limited knowledge and corrupted reasoning. After all, if He designed our makeup--the intricasies of our thought patterns, the infinite variables of our spiritual and emotional needs, and every other minute, seemingly unimportant fraction of our essense--who better to guide us into the best path for our ultimate, holistic well-being?

How can I be sure?

Atheists and Christians alike want to know how a Christian can be absolutely sure that Jesus is who He said He was, that He actually rose bodily from the dead and that He is coming again one day. We want to be sure, because, let's face it: if we're wrong, we're wasting our time, aren't we? We want to be sure because we don't want to die only to find out that some obscure cult in California had it right all along and our souls are now forever trapped in some celestial dump heap. We want to be sure because we don't want to spend our entire lives trapped in fear.

So, how can I know for sure? Does such assurance exist for the thinking, reasonable person? And if it does, how much does faith play in?

To answer these questions, here are several realities you must consider first:

1. There is such a thing as absolute truth. Truth is not relative. If something is true, it is universally true. My belief or lack of belief has no impact on what is already true (or untrue). Truth exists independently from my perceptions. Truth not only exists, it is knowable. (You will find that both Christianity and the scientific community uphold all of these statements.)

2. There are such things as right and wrong. Universally, people operate on a system of ethics/right and wrong/morality. Though there are extremes, most people can even agree on what is right and wrong. For example, is molesting a child right or wrong? How do you know it's wrong? You just know. Every fiber of your being screams against it, because you were designed to operate within a system of ethics. Even hardened criminals have ways of justifying their actions. If they didn't really operate on a system of ethics (though, granted, it could be very skewed), why bother justifying it at all? Even if they completely lost their conscience and no longer justify their actions, they still believe they are doing right by serving the highest "good" they know--themselves. All people are driven by this internal moral indicator. It can be skewed; it can even be reversed, but it cannot be escaped.

3. If God is a reality, He would control what information about Himself is available to me. In other words, He would reveal spiritual truth according to His own standards. Therefore, any spiritual truth I know and believe must have come from God. Therefore, if I desire spiritual truth, I should seek God for it.

4. If God is a reality, He defines Himself. In other words, His existence, His nature and His message to me must come from Him. I'm not going to be able to figure it out on my own. If I look for God based on my limited perceptions, I'll never find Him. God is a Being who's identity is not up to my choosing.

If you want to look at some other areas of philosophical interst along these lines, go to my earlier blog entry: 10 Theoretical Statements Christians and Atheists Can Agree On.

But for now let's get back to the main question: How Can I Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Is True?

There is something called Spiral Reasoning. The idea is that you start with a knowable bit of information and you use philosophy, history, physical evidence, testimonial evidence, archaelogical evidence, etc... --always building on what you already know, one step at a time, until you reach the point where you are convinced of the truth. This will take time, mental energy and emotional energy, but the reward far outweighs the cost. I have included a diagram below that shows the steps that one might follow toward compelete assurance of Christ's existence, His sacrifice and His offer to you. It also shows the steps one takes to establish biblical reliability and the accuracy of historical records. (Unfortunately, it is pretty small on-screen, so you may have to download it or print it in order to read it properly. Sorry about that--but it's just another step in your search, right?)

How much faith is involved? I think that's a question only you can answer. Some people need more factual proofs. God knows that and made sure that there would be plenty available. Other people need very little evidence to beleive and are able to take more on faith. Regardless of where you fall within this spectrum, some amount of faith will be required. (Not, however, any more faith than is required to believe any of the alternatives.)

If you are a confirmed skeptic, it's unlikely that anyone, in a few minutes could give you everything you needed to know in order to fully believe in Jesus Christ. However, a skeptic should be a skeptic for a reason, right? If you haven't given the evidence a thorough look, how authentic would be your stance?

The fact is this: assurance--complete assurance is not only possible, it is what God desires for each of us. He made sure there was ample, abundant, over-flowing evidence to support the truth of His existence, His message and His offer to us. Won't you have a look?

Spiral Reasoning