Cold Case Christianity: Biblical “Faith”: Trusting What Can’t Be Seen on the Basis of What Can

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Biblical “Faith”: Trusting What Can’t Be Seen on the Basis of What Can
Posted: 16 Dec 2019 01:50 AM PST  

The Christian concept of “faith” is often either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by skeptics and critics of Christianity.

It's also misunderstood by Christians, which makes it more difficult for atheists to define such monster "objectively".

Christians are not called to believe blindly.

Bullshit, in two places the NT praises the kind of faith that is unable to "see":

 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (Jn. 20:29 NAU) 

 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Rom. 8:24-25 NAU)

Wallace continues:

In fact, the Christian worldview is an evidential worldview grounded in the eyewitness testimony of those who saw Jesus provide evidence of His Deity.

It's also grounded on a view that cannot account for eyewitnesses who thought Jesus' miracles were total bullshit, such as his immediate family, see Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5.  In that honor/shame society, they would not lightly dismiss Jesus' claims, they would more than likely have investigated/observed them, since in that culture dishonoring Jesus was to dishonor his family too.  They would not deny Jesus' claims unless they had good reasons to consider his miracles fake.

Sometimes Christians contribute to the misunderstanding by failing to see the evidential nature of Christianity and the reasonable nature of “faith”.

Probably because they are new creatures in Christ who have the mind of the Holy Spirit.

As I teach on this topic around the country, Christians often offer this passage in the Book of Hebrews to defend a definition of blind faith:
 Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.
 Is the writer of Hebrews commending a form of blind faith in which we simply hope for “things not seen”? No. The author is encouraging his readers to continue to trust in the promises of God, in spite of the fact they haven’t yet been fulfilled (and might not even be fulfilled in their lifetimes). This trust in “things not seen” is not unwarranted, however. The promises of God are grounded in what God has already done. In other words, the author of Hebrews is asking his readers to trust what can’t be (or hasn’t yet been) seen, on the basis of what can be (or has been) seen.

Then Christian faith is not really different from skeptical faith, as everybody is using what they believe is already settled to draw inferences about what remains unsettled.

To make this point clear, the writer of Hebrews offers a short list of historic believers who trusted God’s promises for the future on the basis of what God had done in the past: Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are described as believers who “died in faith, without receiving the promises” (verse 13).

Included in this faith hall of fame was Abraham, and the reason was his quick trust that whatever voice was telling him to kill his son was from God (!?)

Abe did not have faith that God would stop the knife from being plunged into the boy, but he had faith that God was able to raise the boy from the dead:

 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
 18 it was he to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Heb. 11:17-19 NAU)

The blindless of such faith may be inferred frm the fact that nothing is stated about how Abraham knew this "kill your kid" voice was coming from "god", yet Abe's obedience to it was instant:

 1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
 3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. (Gen. 22:1-3 NAU)

The NT will also label Lot as godly, which means his offering his virgin daughters to a sexually violent mob was an act consistent with men who deserve the title of "righteous" in the New Testament sense of the word, compare:

 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him,
 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
 8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." (Gen. 19:4-8 NAU) 

 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men
 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),
 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, (2 Pet. 2:7-9 NAU)

Neo-fundamentalists will trifle that Lot's offering of his daughters was merely a case of Semitic exaggeration, that is, ancient Semitic peoples were always overstating facts and beliefs.  But if so, one wonders how many Christian doctrines about god's nature, derived as they are from a literal interpretation of the bible, are in fact a case of misrepresentation of the bible?  When the bible says God has been god from eternity into eternity (Psalm 90:2) is that literal, or Semitic exaggeration? 

And of course, neo-fundamentalists provide no criteria for distinguishing biblical claims that are meant literally from biblical claims that are mere Semitic exaggeration.

The promises of God were yet “things not seen”.

True, but that's not an exhaustive list of what qualifies under 11:1.  Blind faith would also qualify. 

And we have to ask...if an adult DOES have authentically "blind" faith due to some stirring sermon and ends up believing Christian claims on the basis of nothing more than biblical quotations, does THAT kind of faith "save", yes or no?  In other words, what can we deduce about you and your god if your god honors faith that is truly "blind"?  Will god withhold salvation from the sincere sinner until the sinner reads a few books about apologetics?

Or maybe we should worry about certain dogshit fundamentalists who think like Catholics, and say salvation is not certain until death?   Gee, how long must the skeptic trifle wth fundies about "already but not yet" crap before they become justified to start drawing conclusions about these scriptural 'tensions' that nobody wants to call actual contradictions?

In spite of this, these believers held firm to the promises of God on the basis of what they had seen.

And yet you despise skeptics who hold firm to the promises of science on the basis of what they have seen.

The author of Hebrews demonstrates this point with perhaps the best example of a believer who possessed a reasonable, evidential faith: Moses.

Nobody said the author of Hebrews was logically consistent.  11:1 is a blind faith by definition.  Whether the author cares, whether the author supports the point properly or uses evidence-based faith examples to support the point, is another question.

Hebrews 11:24-27
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.
 Moses repeatedly responded obediently (albeit sometimes reluctantly) to the yet unseen promises of God on the basis of what he had already seen God do in his life. In fact, years later when the Israelites complained or expressed doubt, Moses told them to move forward toward promises yet unseen on the basis of the evidence God had already given them:
 Exodus 13:3
Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the Lord brought you out from this place.
 Deuteronomy 5:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
 Deuteronomy 7:18
You shall not be afraid of them; you shall well remember what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt:
 Deuteronomy 15:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.
 Deuteronomy 24:18
But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
 Moses was the supreme example of a man who had a deep, reasonable trust based on the evidence God had provided him. His faith wasn’t blind, it was evidentially reasonable.

Maybe that's why he ordered babies to be slaughtered in Numbers 31:17.  Sure is funny that fundamentalists never think baby slaughter is morally good...unless it is ordered by god or a biblical character alleged to be in the will of God. Then suddenly, the magic of the bible soaks their brain and prevents them from giving a shit about being consistent.

He had seen God in the burning bush, watched how God used him in front of pharaoh, saw miracle after miracle, and witnessed the power of God. On the basis of this evidence, his confidence grew and Moses was ultimately transformed from a coward to a champion.

It's a great story.  And we also know that you have no interest in defeating skeptical arguments, rather, you only say what you think will suffice to keep Christians in the faith.

Christianity is grounded in the evidence of the eyewitness gospel accounts.

No, "Christianity" has become an infinitely splintered religion whose advocates contradict each other's interpretation of the bible on nearly every subject except perhaps Jesus' gender.   Even NT "Christianity" is contradictory, compare Jesus' requirement of works for salvation (Matthew 5:17-21) with the antinomianism of Paul in Romans 4:4-5 (salvation even for those who do not work).

These documents make claims about the history of the First Century and the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. As such, these claims are both verifiable and falsifiable. As we grow in our confidence related to the reliability of the Gospels, our reasoned trust in what they claim (and what they promise) will also grow. The gospels describe many “things not seen”. God is immaterial and invisible, and many of the promises of God are yet unfulfilled. But we can trust the things we can’t see on the basis of the things we can. We can move in faith toward the future on the basis of what God has demonstrated in the past.

Leaving skeptics wondering why you chide them for having faith in the unseen naturalistic explanations for phenomena which science cannot yet explain, when in fact inferring "god did it" violates Occam's Razor far more.

My response to THE BEAT by Allen Parr

Allen Parr encourages the reader to engage in discussion:

Biblical Encouragement And Truth (The B.E.A.T) is an online video ministry dedicated to communicating God's word in a creative, practical and easy-to-watch format. These short 5-minutes-or-less videos seek to address questions most Christians have and to provide a forum for people to discuss various theological concepts and ideas. This channel also encourages people by challenging them to live out their true calling as a Christian. We release a new video EVERY TUESDAY and FRIDAY. I hope you'll enjoy these videos, share them and engage in the discussion! (see here)

He tries to give superficial Christian apologetics arguments a shot in the arm with displays of confidence and the kind of posturing one normally sees in videos entitled "Fast Food Freakouts" (i.e., he is pandering to a younger crowd, who cannot be expected, despite their "new creature in Christ" status (2nd Cor. 5:17) to act like new creatures in Christ.  See here.

-----------Here is the reply I posted, just in case it gets deleted.

Well first, there is not the least bit of intellectual obligation upon anybody today to grant the benefit of the doubt to an ancient historical document. Christians don’t care what we do with Lucian of Samosata, so whether we are ‘required’ to believe ancient documents is apparently decided merely based on the personal preferences of whatever person happens to be doing the preaching.

Furthermore, since the OT came first, and the NT doctrine of hell-fire positively contradicts the sense of divine justice in the OT, I have the perfect right to label the NT as heresy, that god’s wrath upon me will never consist of more than permanent extinction of consciousness, and therefore, my rejection of Jesus is not in any way “dangerous”.

Second, Christian scholars routinely try to get rid of early church father beliefs they don't like by saying the father was biased or writing with apologetic tone, but then these Christians turn around and pretend as if the gospel of Matthew is the equal of video tape. This guy in the video is acting like there’s just no way Matthew might be biased or writing with apologetic tone.

Third, nobody manifests a concern the disciples might steal the body, until a full day after the Romans gave up custody of the body to Joseph of Arimathea, plenty of head-start for the disciples to commit foul play. Matthew 27:58-64.

Fourth, if the guards could be so easily bribed to tell a shockingly unbelievable story (they were asleep when the disciples stole the body...but if asleep, how would they know?, Matthew 28:13), the guards could just as easily be bribed by Joseph of Arimathea to lie and say they rolled back the stone to visually verify the corpse was still inside before they stationed the guard. Did Joseph have enough money to achieve such a bribe? Yes, he was “rich” (28:57). And by being rich, the claim that he was a “secret” disciple of Jesus (John 19:38) makes it sound like he only preferred some of what Jesus taught, and wasn’t a true disciple...which increases the probability that Joseph was willing to engage in some foul play in effort to help the disciples concoct a lie in accord with their “visions”.

Fifth, if the guards sealed the tomb then later claimed the disciples stole the body, they would be obligated to have broken their own seal so as to fabricate evidence of grave robbery. But this guy in the video says if any unauthorized person broke the seal, they were subject to the death penalty, so the guards had to have been very stupid and corrupt to accept the Jewish bribe and actually report such story...which makes such guards even more likely to be subject to a bribe from the rich Joseph of Arimathea, a bribe asking them to falsely testify that they visually verified the corpse was still in the tomb before they sealed it.

Sixth, Joseph wrapped Jesus' corpse in a new cloth (27:59), so even if we are to believe the guards rolled away the stone to check that the body was still there, that only requires they would have seen a new linen cloth wrapped around the outline of a body. Given the tremendous significance of laws against grave robbery, the trifle that the guards would also have peeled back the cloth to visually verify there was a real body underneath or to look at Jesus' death face, is not very likely. If they looked inside, all they likely did was view the shape of a body wrapped in this cloth, and conclude this was the body of Jesus. Their hasty generalization fallacy is more likely if they were sufficiently corrupt as to accept bribes to motivate them to engage in dereliction of duty and straight up lying.

Seventh, this guy in the video is blindly assuming that unless skeptics can positively contradict the gospel accounts, then those accounts "must" be entitled a presumption of truth. There is no such presumption, and since the fates of most apostles are unknown, the legends late and contradictory, you cannot even pretend that they willingly gave up their livesa martyrs. In the case of specifically Matthew, some legends say he merely died. Skeptics don't really care if this or that historian says the benefit of the doubt must be granted to the document. That's about as stupid as saying you should believe every claim you hear until you can positively disprove it. You don’t do that, especially when the claim is one that contradicts your experience of how the world works.

Eighth, the alleged "fearfulness" of the disciples is not consistent with their having seen Jesus raise people from the dead (Lazarus, John 11) and their own ability to raise the dead (Matthew 10:8). Since these miracles aren't really "lesser" than Jesus' own resurrection, we have a right to expect either that the disciples stand their ground when jesus was on the cross and openly confess they were Jesus followers even if this meant death...or that the "miracles" of Jesus the disciples experienced were not very convincing, and so they acted scared exactly the way any followers would when their leader is proven to be a liar. Add to this the ceaseless reports of Jesus' other miracles (what did that loaf of bread look like as Jesus caused it to produce a twin of identical volume?), and the notion that the disciples remained so thickheaded as to remain "scared" after Jesus died, is about as believable as Pharaoh driving his chariot in between the columns of water to chase the Israelites through the parted Red Sea. Sorry, we are entitled to say some stories are just too unlikely to deserve trust.

Ninth, the post-crucifixion faith of the disciples does not mean they saw Jesus with their physical eyes, as religious fanatics can gain a desire for martyrdom solely on the basis of visions. Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus was a 'vision' (Acts 26:19). Visions get rid of the "why would they die for what they knew was a lie?" apologetic: they didn't know it was a lie, like every other religious visionary.

Tenth, the guy in the video quotes Acts 1:3 as if this was one of the most convincing "proofs", but the comment that the risen Christ spoke about the kingdom of God to the disciples over a period of 40 days probably implies something more than 15 seconds of speech...yet Matthew 28 provides no more speech from the risen Christ than what can be mouthed in 15 seconds. Given Matthew obvious love for quoting Jesus extensively, and his love for the "kingdom of God" sayings in particular, it is highly unlikely Matthew would merely "chose to exclude" most of the risen Christ-sayings. It is also highly unlikely, given Matthew's tendency to quote extensively, that he would "chose to condense" the risen Christ's kingdom of God statements to a mere 15 second summary. Matthew’s risen Christ gives us only 15 seconds of speech because that’s all the speech such author believed Jesus spoke. It’s not “excluding” and it’s not “condensation”. If Matthew wrote in 55 a.d., which is a date much earlier than what most fundamentalist dare argue for, this Matthew is still writing at least 20 years after the apostle Paul started all the mess about Gentile salvation, so it is highly unlikely Matthew would chose to deprive the reader of most of the risen Christ's kingdom of God sayings, it is more likely he would have found the risen Christ's specific statements about the kingdom of God much needed to balance out the fact that Paul is running around trying to prove everything about the subject without ever quoting Jesus.

Eleventh, Galatians 2:9 asserts that the leaders among the original Jewish disciples chose to stay away from the Gentile mission field and allocate the entire business to Paul...which means they were then collectively disobeying the risen Christ's command that THEY evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20).

Twelfth, the Great Commission, which requires the original 11 apostles to evangelize Gentiles, specifies that such teachings shall consist of their telling new Gentile converts to obey all the things Jesus had previously taught the disciples. That means these original Jewish disciples had a greater responsibility to conduct the Gentile mission than Paul, whose johnny-come-lately status, and dislike for basing doctrine on Jesus’ words, positively disqualify him from obeying the Great Commission. See Matthew 28:20, and compare with Paul's own statement that he didn't get his gospel from any person, but only by divine telepathy(Galatians 1:1, 11-12). Clearly Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles was NOT “teaching them everything Jesus taught the original apostles” (Matthew 28:20).

Thirteenth, Jesus’ alleged appearance to 500 brothers all at once is suspect since it only comes from Paul, and he leaves it ambiguous whether or not Paul was with them at the time, so that the reader cannot be reasonably certain whether this alleged appearance allegation is coming from hearsay or a first-hand source.

Fourteenth, as an example of what “visions” were like for the original Christians, you might ask yourself how believable you’d find the fool who says that, 14 years ago he flew up into the sky without any mechanical means, but that when he thinks about it now, he still cannot tell whether such flying was physical or spiritual. That’s not a credible witness, yet it precisely what apostle Paul claimed (2nd Corinthians 12:1-4, using the same Greek word optasia that he used in Acts 26:19 to describe his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus as a “vision”).

Fifteenth, Josephus' claim about Jesus is a textual corruption, and the likely recoverable form of the original merely reports that the disciples said they saw Jesus alive after he died. Josephus’ refusal to grant more attention to Christianity makes it all but certain he was not a Christian, therefore, the basis for his reporting what Jesus’ disciples believed, is likely nothing more than popular rumor, rumors he did not himself find very convincing.

Sixteenth, Thomas Arnold of Rome is an 18th century historian, which the guy in the video seems to have confused with a 1st century Roman historian who allegedly mentions Christ, such as Tacitus.

Seventeenth, I am not affected by lesser works by Morrison, Strobel and McDowell, because I have already extensively critiqued the latest arguments given by actual genuine Christian scholars such as Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig. The guy in the video appears to be pandering to a younger crowd of emotionalist juveniles who find more significance in posturing than in scholarly-level investigation. Any person who converts to Christianity on the basis of this video is a fool indeed.

Eighteenth, the guy in the video can find atheists who eventually became Christian? Exactly how hard would it be to find fundamentalist Christians who eventually became atheists? Why don’t stories of ex-fundamentalists’ apostasy mean as much as stories of an atheists’ coming to Christian faith?

Nineteenth, the fact that the missing body of Christ was never found, is hardly relevant. First, Christians who said Jesus rose from the dead had a motive to conveniently forget where the real corpse was. Second, the honor/shame dialect would require the second generation Christians to uphold the beliefs of their teachers/parents, which is sort of like kids today who continue hanging onto the faith taught them by parents and youth pastors despite not knowing dick about how to refute skeptical arguments that are easily found with two google clicks. Moreover, the fact that crucifixion was normative in Jesus’ time means there were others who were also crucified, helping increase the complexity of any but the original Christians being able to verify that any particular body was that of Jesus.

Twentieth, the guy in the video makes a big deal about how easy it would be, if Jesus didn’t rise, for the Jews or Romans to simply exhume the body and wheel it around Jerusalem to disprove the resurrection claims. But the problem is that the disciples didn’t start talking that shit until 40 days after he was crucified (Acts 2:1 ff), by which time the corpse would have decomposed enough to become unrecognizable. But it is probably more important to point out that the guy in the video is fallaciously presuming the original Christian claims would have worried the authorities sufficiently to motivate them to violate grave-robbing laws merely to prove wrong the new claim of yet another religious cult in Palestine. The only people who think Christianity made a powerful impact on unbelievers within one year after Jesus died, are those who do little more than blindly trust the book of Acts. Likely because they only obey the falsely alleged “granting the benefit of the doubt to the document” rule whenever expediency dictates.

This “beat” guy’s argument and demeanor indicate he either doesn’t know what the rules of historiography are, or he doesn’t care.  If he is willing to engage in actual scholarship, as opposed to simply giving us a Christian preaching version of  "How Homies in da' hood resurrect failed arguments", I’ll be delighted to have a formal debate with him.  

See https://turchisrong.blogspot.com for more scholarly articles refuting Christian "apologetics" arguments.

================