Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 150

How Can the Gospels Be Eyewitness Accounts If They Include Things the Writers Didn’t See?

My journey toward Christianity began when I examined the gospels in order to uncover the words of Jesus. I was interested in Jesus as nothing more than a source of ancient wisdom and my curiosity about him caused me to begin sifting through the New Testament gospels. I was immediately struck by the appearance of what I call “unintentional eyewitness” support; a feature I often see in multiple accounts from eyewitnesses at crime scenes. This caused me to examine the accounts in much more detail and I eventually applied principles of Forensic Statement Analysis to the gospel of Mark. I wrote Cold-Case Christianity from the perspective of a cold-case detective examining the claims of the gospel writers and testing them for eyewitness reliability. Several skeptics have questioned this foundational premise however, and challenged the premise that the gospels are eyewitness accounts in the first place. One significant objection is the fact that the gospel writers often include information for events they simply could not have personally observed (i.e. the birth narratives in Matthew and several instances in all the gospels where Jesus is described as being alone).  How can the gospels be eyewitness accounts if they include things that the authors could not have witnessed? When reading eyewitness statements from cold-cases that were originally investigated decades ago, I find these statements (accounts) include three kinds of firsthand information:

Firsthand Experience
Eyewitnesses include descriptions of events and occurrences that they personally observed and experienced.

Firsthand Access
Eyewitnesses include descriptions of events and occurrences that they did not personally observe, but were aware of on the basis of information given to them by someone else at the time.

Firsthand Knowledge
Eyewitnesses include descriptions of general cultural conditions and truths that were a part of the common knowledge of the time, even though they had no direct experience or observation upon which to rely.

It’s true that in most criminal court settings, “firsthand experience” and “firsthand knowledge” are typically the only areas of testimony that are admitted as evidence. Testimony related to what I call “firsthand access” is generally considered to be hearsay (because the original source for this information is unavailable for cross examination). But this does not mean that information in this category is untrue or invalid. There are a number of conditions in which hearsay is admissible in criminal cases, but beyond that, the hearsay standard in criminal trials is narrowly designed to provide the highest possible protection for those being accused of a crime. We would rather set one hundred guilty people free then falsely convicted one innocent person. For this reason, we want to be able to vigorously cross examine witnesses who are providing accusatory information.

But this high standard associated with hearsay testimony is completely unreasonable when examining the claims of eyewitnesses related to historical events. Once an eyewitness of an historical event dies, everything that witness claims is no longer open to cross examination. Under the criminal court standard for such testimony, we would have to ignore anything that can’t be offered by a living eyewitness (and therefore vigorously cross examined). If we applied this standard to our personal lives, none of us could have confidence in our own family history beyond the generation of living parents and grandparents. That’s an unacceptably high standard when examining the claims of eyewitnesses related to historical events. Eyewitnesses provide information in light of their own personal experience and observation, their own access to information from other living eyewitnesses, and their own intimate knowledge of the culture in which they live. I find this to be true in every case I have ever worked. The fact that an eyewitness would choose to provide information from “firsthand access” does not discredit what they are providing from “firsthand experience” or “firsthand knowledge”. In fact, the inclusion of additional details simply provides the investigator with more data to investigate, corroborate and elaborate to the jury.

Advice on Online Discussions (Video)

Are there clues to indicate if an online discussion about Christianity is going to be productive or should be ended?

A Huge Thank You to STR's Supporters!

Links Mentioned on the Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Les Miserables and the Death Grip of Works-Based Worldviews by J. Warner Wallace


Grace and Law by Melinda Penner


Science Doesn't Tell Us Anything Important by Greg Koukl


Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics? by Greg Koukl


Intuition: A Special Way of Knowing by Greg Koukl


J. Warner Wallace introduction

Listen to today's show or download any  show for free.

Grace & Law

I saw the "Les Miserables" movie last night.  It's fabulous.  I've seen the stage production several times and the non-musical movie, and I think this is wonderful.

The story is about two men.  One lives by law and vengeance, and finds in the end, that he cannot live up to this standard.  The other man experiences God's love and grace and is radically changed by it.  And he in turn, lives by grace and mercy and changes other lives as a result.

It's a moving story of what God's grace does in a sinner's life and the tragic consequences of trying on our own to fulfill the law. 

Most Cops Know That A Healthy Fear of Punishment Is… Healthy!

Yesterday I was interviewed on the radio and the discussion wandered to the issue of violence in schools and the recent school shooting in Connecticut. I sometimes get asked about this topic due to my background as a homicide detective, and I’m happy to share my three pronged (and hopefully balanced) view related to the issue. I do believe that one leg of this controversial “stool” involves the secularization of our culture. It’s not the only factor that is in play (issues related to gun control and mental health are also important parts of the equation), but I think it’s impossible to deny that a culture that slowly rejects the transcendent grounding of objective moral truth (and, therefore, an eternal consequence for violating such truth) will eventually become more and more violent. Current surveys and investigations have only confirmed this truth.

A recent study published by the Public Library of Science journal, “PLoS ONE” reported that criminal activity is lower in societies that are more focused on “supernatural punishment” rather than “supernatural benevolence”. In other words, the fear of hell is far more likely to motivate people to do the right thing than the promise of heaven. This is supported by a 2011 Harvard study that found that undergraduate students were far more likely to cheat if they saw God as loving and forgiving than if they saw God as punishing. A 2008 study also found that opportunistic selfishness is restrained by a belief in, and fear of, eternal punishment. Finally, a 2003 Harvard study found that the gross domestic product of developed countries was higher when people believed in hell than when they believed in heaven alone.

Now, none of this serves as evidence that our beliefs in heaven or hell are actually true, and as an atheist for most of my life, I simply argued that hell was an evolutionary construct that emerged within the species because it assisted us in “getting along” and surviving. But if there is no God, and evolution alone accounts for the existence of beliefs related to heaven and hell, this same process now seems to be moving the species away from such beliefs. As societies become less and less religious, the results seem less than beneficial. Evolution, as an explanation, seems rather slippery; it appears to be leading us toward an understanding of reality that results in more crime, more dishonesty, more selfishness and less productivity. How precisely does this benefit the species?

If an understanding of eternal punishment and reward is simply a social construction, don’t expect it to have any staying power. Unless the reality of eternal punishment is transcendently true, it can come and go like other societal fads and fashions. A healthy fear of eternal punishment has a long term benefit to our species only if it is grounded in transcendent truth. The fear of punishment must be something more than a temporary, useful delusion; it needs to be rooted in an eternal reality. Thankfully, it is.

Les Misérables and the Death Grip of Works-Based Worldviews

I took my family to an early showing of Les Misérables on New Year’s Eve and had several thoughts following the excellent performances and cinematography of the movie. This post will likely include spoilers for some of you, but I thought the striking contrast between Christian notions of “grace” and “works” were worth the risk. The movie is adapted from the immensely successful stage play (adapted previously from Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel), and describes the journey and lives of several characters in nineteenth century France (from 1815 to 1832). Two of the primary characters in the story illustrate the power of works-based worldviews and the challenge those of us have in communicating the radical love of God.

Jean Valjean is the chief protagonist of the story, released from prison after serving many years for stealing bread. Upon his parole, he stumbles into the home of Bishop Myriel and proceeds to steal several items of silver. When caught by police, Valjean is returned to Myriel’s residence in order to investigate the theft. Rather than accuse Valjean in front of the authorities, Myriel demonstrates the unmerited favor of God and graciously lies to the police, telling them that he gave the silver to Valjean. To make matters even more dramatic, Myriel tells Valjean that he forgot to take the two additional candleholders sitting on the table. This act of grace so moves Valjean that his life is forever changed. The power of God’s undeserved forgiveness, demonstrated through Myriel, transforms Valjean into a vessel of forgiveness and mercy. He flees his former identity, breaking his parole and starting a new life; a life that is now a blessing to everyone he encounters.

The primary antagonist of the story, the determined Police Chief, Javert, is a legalistic, driven man who adheres to the strictest meaning of the law. He brutalized Valjean while he was in prison, and he sees no value in grace or mercy. Javert is a self-made man, and his high regard for righteousness has blinded him to his own fallen nature. Throughout the story, Javert is pursuing Valjean for the violation of his parole. There is a point in the story where Valjean has an opportunity to take revenge on Javert but, instead, demonstrates the grace and forgiveness that was once shown to him by Myriel. Once again, the power of God’s unmerited favor, shown even in such a limited way from one man to another, has a dramatic impact on a character in the story. But unlike Valjean, Javert cannot bring himself to accept the act of grace or live with its consequences. He chooses to end his own life rather than be transformed by grace.

There is so much in this story that each of us ought to recognize. As Christians, we are islands of “grace” in a sea of “works”. Christianity is the one worldview that is not merit-based. All other religions provide a set of rules that must be followed if an adherent wants to be saved or have value in the context of his or her faith. The Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Faith, the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, the Baha’i Law, Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga, the teachings of all the Mormon Prophets; every faith system is constructed around the righteousness that can be achieved by each individual, rather than the righteousness that is ascribed by God. Only Christianity contains the concept of unmerited favor that we know as “grace”. Even those of us who deny the existence of God are operating within a work-based worldview; our value is directly related to what we can achieve, accomplish or perform.

Those of us who have grown to identify ourselves within a works-based worldview hold to our earned personal value with a death grip. Like Javert, we would rather die than admit we are just like everyone else: fallen, imperfect and in need of a Savior. The grace of God requires us to see ourselves for who we are, admit that we are just like everyone else, relinquish the control of our own salvation and admit that our value is found in God alone. That’s difficult to do and it’s a lot to ask of our friends and family members who are swimming in the larger religious and secular sea of works-based worldviews. As islands of grace, we need to take Valjean’s example seriously and demonstrate the mercy and grace of God to others. But be ready. Some will respond like Valjean and become a conduit for God’s love. Others will resist God to their dying breath rather than accept who they are (or, more importantly, who they are not).

Challenge: We Are Irrelevant

Happy New Year! It's a great day to think about God, who He is, and why we trust in Him. So you're in luck, because it's also challenge day. Today's challenge is from a post on the Why I'm Atheist blog:

As Lawrence Krauss put it: "We constitute a 1% bit of pollution in a universe that’s 30% dark
matter and 70% dark energy. We are completely irrelevant. Why such a
universe in which we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond
me."

And that’s why I’m atheist. That’s why, in such an age of scientific,
rational thought, religion, to me at least, is not only wrong, but
offensive. It could only take an ignorant mind to claim that this
universe was designed, intelligently of all things, for such an
insignificant race.

Now it's up to you. Do you have an answer? Leave your ideas in the comments below, and then on Thursday Brett will post a video with his response.

Supposedly Christian? (Video)

What do you say to people who call themselves Christians but have disagreements about things that most other Christians say you should believe?

Will You Help STR Finish 2012 Strong?

STR needs your help in these last days of 2012. Will you support Stand to Reason by making a generous gift so we can cross the finish line strong?

Because STR has grown and our impact has increased, our costs have increased, too. This year’s financial challenge is greater than we’ve ever faced before. It'll take gifts large and small to fill the need. December is the critical month to end in the black and cover all ministry expenses - about than 25% of STR's income is given in this month.

In these last hours of the year, will you take a moment to make a gift to Stand to Reason?