Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 137

How Jesus Responded to Doubt

As a detective, I’ve learned to evaluate words carefully when considering the statements of victims, witnesses and suspects. What someone didn’t say is often more important than what they actually did say. In fact, I often stop and ask myself, what were some of the options available when this person made this specific statement? What could they have said in this particular circumstance and what does their choice of words tell us about their thoughts or the truth of the situation? As a new investigator of the gospels, I found myself asking the same kinds of questions as I studied God’s response to doubt. What does God think about those of us who occasionally doubt, and what would He recommend for those of us who occasionally struggle? There is an important passage of Scripture that provides us with an answer.

Jesus said that “among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11). John was a godly man raised in a godly home. His parents served God and his mother, Elizabeth, knew that Jesus was “Lord” while He was still in His mother Mary’s womb (Luke 1:39-45). Surely John grew up with this information, and Jesus’ status as Messiah was confirmed to him when he saw God’s Spirit descend on Jesus at the point of His baptism (Luke 3:22). If anyone should have been sure of Jesus’ identity, it was John the Baptist. But the New Testament reveals a moment of dramatic doubt in John’s life. Even after hearing from the disciples about all that Jesus had done and the reaction that Jesus was receiving from those who witnessed His miracles, John sent two of his own disciples to as Jesus a question that revealed his doubt: “Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?” (Luke 7:19). Jesus’ response was important and revealing. “At that very time” Jesus cured many people in the presence of John’s disciples then said, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me” (Luke 7:22-23).

Now think about all the things that Jesus could have done or said in response to John’s expression of doubt. He could have condemned John but He didn’t. He could have scolded him for his failure to trust what John’s own mother seemed to know so clearly, but Jesus didn’t do that either. Finally, Jesus could have instructed John to simply trust in what he had been raised to know, but that’s not what Jesus did. Instead, Jesus provided John with evidence. Jesus performed miracles as a demonstration of His identity as the Messiah (these miracles were consistent with the Messianic expectations found in the Old Testament in Isaiah 29:18 and Isaiah 35:5-6). From this brief passage of Scripture, two realities emerge:

Doubt Is Displayed By Everyone
If John the Baptist experienced doubt, we will probably also find ourselves in a similar situation. I know many wise and confident Christian case makers (apologists). In spite of their confidence and strength of character, they’ve all experienced doubt at one time or another. It’s not a sign of our weakness; it’s a sign of our humanity. You and I should expect to have doubts at some point in our lives.

Doubt Is Dispelled By Evidence
When those times of doubt arise, It’s important for us to return to the evidence that brought us here in the first place. That’s what Jesus did for John; he provided clear evidence that helped John “connect the dots” and reminded John of Jesus’ identity. Given all the other things that Jesus could have done or said, it’s remarkable that Jesus used evidence to assuage John’s doubt.

When we return to evidence to strengthen our faith, we stand in a long line of great men like John the Baptist. We can have confidence that our doubt does not offend God, and that we have the resources available to develop our confidence. As we review the evidence related to Jesus’ nature, teaching and resurrection, we will grow in our certainty. This is not displeasing to God, but is, instead, part of God’s design for our lives.

When Your Purpose Is Found in a Transcendent Creator

As an atheist, I was satisfied with the purpose I had created for my life. I found meaning in my work, my family, and my responsibilities as a father and husband. I also loved the idea that I was in charge of my purpose; that I was the one who got to decide what life was all about. It wasn’t until I became a Christian that I realized my ideas about purpose and meaning were far too small and limited. I now try to illustrate this truth for others with an important utensil from my wife’s kitchen. This tool helps me demonstrate an important point: While it is certainly possible for each of us to design a purpose for our lives, we are missing opportunities for greatness if we reject the existence of a Creator God.

When I show my wife’s utensil to groups, they are always curious about its purpose. It has two joined metal parts; one is a rectangular sheet of metal (approximately 13 inches long), stamped with a rows of small holes, two rails along the long edges and a handle at one end. The other piece of the device is a square, open-top metal receptacle that slides along the length of the railed rectangle. It is a truly curious utensil that usually captures the imagination of the audiences I address. I typically begin by asking them to tell me the purpose of the device. Over the years, I’ve heard a number of interesting explanations. Most say they think it is some kind of cheese grater. But the holes in the rectangular section are entirely flat and it would be difficult to slice cheese without some slight burr on one side of each hole. One person (on a television show) said he thought it might be a device used to cut hair! He held it up to his head and slid the receptacle back and forth to see if it could trim the hair that poked through the holes. I’ve heard a number of potential explanations for the utensil, and some of them have seemed quite reasonable (others have not).

At some point in the presentation, I ask the group, “OK, you’ve all offered a number of possibilities and some of these might even work, but how do you think we might find out what the device is really meant to do?” Most, by this time, have noticed that the tool has the manufacturer’s name stamped on the handle. Someone will usually realize that the best way to figure out the purpose of the utensil is simply to call and ask the company that made it.  Of course this is the point of the illustration in the first place. While each of us can assign a purpose to the device, its true purpose can be discovered by simply asking its creator. Why would we think it’s any different for us as humans? As a naturalist, I was able to assign purpose to my life, and I was quite happy with the meaning I created for myself. But my ideas were far too small.

As some point in my presentation, I reveal the purpose of the utensil. It is a German spaetzle maker. The tool is used to make German pasta; the raw batter is poured into the receptacle as the cook slides it back and forth over a pot of boiling water. The batter then drips through the holes into the boiling water and is cooked into dense little noodles called spaetzle. They are incredibly delicious, especially when fried with cheese and onions!

Two problems arise when we try to assign our own meaning to the spaetzle maker. First, we end up with a device that we try to use for something other than its optimum purpose. Yes, we may be able to grate cheese with the tool, but we’ll end up struggling to do so and making a mess along the way. We can certainly force the utensil to do what we want it to do, but it will never work the way it was designed to operate unless we know who designed it and why it was created in the first place. But there’s an even more important problem. When I tell most people that the utensil is a spaetzle maker, they still need me to explain spaetzle! Most people have never even heard of this German noodle. They’ve missed one of the true culinary delights available on the planet. When they discover what the utensil is designed to do, they also have their eyes opened to something they had never previously experienced. The purposes they offered for the utensil inaccurately limited their own culinary choices. When people eventually sample spaetzle they are glad they learned about spaetzle makers.

Something very similar occurs when you embrace the notion that your objective purpose is found by asking the Creator. Not only do you stop assigning meanings to your life that may “work” but are less than optimal, you also discover something beautiful that was previously unknown. I do think it’s possible for each of us to assign our own meaning, but I think most of our ideas are simply too small; we miss something beautiful. When we ask the manufacturer, we end up blossoming in ways we never imagined. That’s what happens with your purpose is found in a transcendent Creator.

Why Is a Good God More Plausible Than an Evil God? (Video)

Why is a good God more plausible than an evil God?

The Apostles Wrote the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

When you write a book that seeks to evaluate the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, you shouldn't be surprised to find that some critics will attack the premise that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts in the first place. Several skeptics have either emailed me or posted comments questioning whether or not the Gospels are truly eyewitness accounts. After all, the accounts are not written as first-person narratives, and there are no direct statements in the Gospels suggesting that they were written by people at the scene. Luke, for example, slips into first-person narrative for portions of his account in the Book of Acts, why don't the other Gospel authors do something similar when writing their own “eyewitness accounts”? Why don't these authors simply identify themselves more directly so we can understand their specific role as eyewitnesses? It’s certainly true that the authors of the Gospels take a reserved and humble approach to their own identity within the narrative, and this is not uncommon in ancient literature of the time. But there are several good reasons to believe that the Gospels are, in fact, eyewitness accounts:

Attributed Statements
The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses, even if they did not make overt statements including their names. In the last chapter of John's Gospel, the author tells us that he is testifying and that his testimony is true. Language such as this presumes the author has seen something that he can describe as eyewitness testimony. In addition, the authors of 1 John and 2 Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16). While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his Gospel, he does tell us that he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1). These cumulative statements are consistent with the notion that the authors of the Gospels saw themselves as eyewitnesses who were recording history.

Apostolic Strategy
This is consistent with the way these authors behaved in the Book of Acts. It's interesting that the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses.

Ancient Support
The earliest writings of the church fathers simply confirm the eyewitness nature of the Gospel authors. Papias, for example, described Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s teachings related to what Peter saw and heard from Jesus. According to Papias, while Mark was not himself an eyewitness to the events described in his Gospel, he did accurately record the firsthand experiences of his teacher and mentor, Peter.

Authoritative Selection
Finally, the Canon of Scripture reflects the eyewitness nature of the Gospel accounts. One of the primary criteria for the selection of the Canon was the issue of eyewitness composition. The original Gospels were protected and revered based on their apostolic authorship, and late documents were rejected by the early Church Fathers based on the fact they were considered to be fraudulent narratives offered by authors late in history who were not actually present for the life and ministry of Jesus. The criterion of eyewitness authorship became foundational to the selection process.

A straightforward reading of the Book of Acts reveals that the apostles saw themselves as eyewitnesses. The early Church recognized this and formed the Canon around the historic, apostolic record related to Jesus. While features of the Gospels may still be challenged by those who deny the eyewitness nature of the texts, the best inference from the evidence is that the Gospels were intended to be eyewitness accounts.

Challenge Response: The Gospels Aren't Eyewitness Accounts

Here's my response to the challenge that the Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts:

  

Six Things Christians Should Stop Saying

Greg responds to this column.

 

6ThingsChristiansShouldStopSaying

The Importance of Muscle Memory in Christian Case Making

Police officers spend a lot of time training. In fact, training opportunities are regularly scheduled into our deployment calendar. We train every month, especially when it comes to the use of our weapons. Officers are required to visit the pistol range so we can “qualify” with our handguns and rifles on a regular basis. Our range masters take these opportunities to run drills in an effort to engrain important principles. One of these exercises is known as a “failure drill”. The range master inserts a “dummy round” into our handguns in a position within the magazine that is unknown to each shooter. As we begin to shoot through the exercise, each of us eventually comes to the “dummy round” and the weapon misfires or jams. It’s at this moment that each shooter must employ a series of steps in order to clear the jammed “dummy round”. Each of us is familiar with the required steps because we’ve been doing this drill for many years. When our weapons fail, we instinctively know how to clear the jam and assess the condition of the weapon because we’ve repeatedly trained through the required steps. In fact, we don’t even need to think about what we are doing anymore; the steps required to clear the weapon have become a part of our “muscle memory”.

When you repeatedly perform the same physical process over and over again, your actions become a matter of muscular “habit”. Without thinking, you simply find yourself performing the actions you’ve performed so many times in the past. Your body almost seems to be working on its own, responding from muscle memory rather than reacting to mental commands. Muscle memory is important to police officers, because real gun battles are quite scary and often involve jammed ammunition. Gun battles typically consume all your mental energy as you focus on the threat and try desperately to control the adrenaline rushing through your system. The last thing you want in a situation like this is the mental distraction of a weapon failure. If you can relegate the resolution of this failure to muscle memory (rather than mental effort), so much the better. That’s why we conduct failure drills often; we’re simply trying to become so familiar with the process that we won’t have to think about it when it happens in a real-life scenario. We’ve learned an important principle:

When the pressure is on, you end up resorting to training

Read that again. It’s an important truth. In chaotic, high stress situations (like gun battles), you’re going to resort to your training rather than attempt to “think through” each situation anew.  When the pressure is on, it all comes down to muscle memory, and muscle memory is a product of repetitive training.

That’s why the best Christian Case Makers are the ones who continually engage the culture and respond to the challenges levied by unbelievers. The best Christian Case Makers see each opportunity to engage others as an act of training, if nothing else. It doesn’t matter how small the opportunity. You may be in a brief “one on one” conversation with a co-worker, or you may be talking with a waiter about issues in the culture; whatever the situation, the more you engage, the better you are at… engaging! The more you initiate conversations, the better (and more comfortable) you will become as a conversation starter, and it won’t be long until you’re involved in a number of important conversations. As we engage the people in our world, our Christian Case Making becomes a matter of “muscle memory”. We begin to respond fluidly and instinctively rather than lurching through each situation as though we’re navigating it for the first time. Not many of us will get the opportunity to address hundreds of people at once, but if we do, our training opportunities in smaller settings will help us to respond in the larger context. Our performance in these larger opportunities will become a matter of muscle memory.

Challenge: The Gospels Aren't Eyewitness Accounts

Here's the kind of question Jim often hears:

Christians like to call the Gospels "eyewitness accounts," but why should we take them seriously as "eyewitness" testimony when the authors don't say anything about being eyewitnesses and the accounts clearly contain descriptions of events (like the virgin conception, birth narratives, and private moments of Jesus) that the authors could not have personally seen?

So what do you think? Do you have an answer for this challenge? Let us know in the comments below, then Jim will post his answer on Thursday.

Is Doubt a Sin? (Video)

Is doubt a sin?

Radio Sunday

Listen live today of rebroadcast of excellent interviews. (No podcast - sorry.) http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pa...

Greg is teaching out of town (and J. Warner Wallace is on vacation). We thought we'd have the webcast going by now, but it's taken a bit longer than planned. It's coming soon.