The Well of Questions

I want to here offer some suggestions that I think would be beneficial as a methodology for testing Christian truth-claims.

A common way of approaching Christian truth claims is to treat the intellectual system of conservative, Evangelical Protestantism as the “standard Christian system”. Evangelicalism is peculiar in its approach to authority. Its main (or at least uniting) tenet is the absolute sufficiency, inerrancy, infallibility, accuracy, and divinity of the Old and New Testaments. This also usually involves a commitment to a non-allegorical approach to the Old Testament.

In distinction to Evangelicalism, past Christians have tended to look at the creeds of the Church as the most basic summary of the faith. The creeds were, to the ancient Church, what Christianity *was*. To be a Christian meant, specifically, to ascribe to the Apostles Creed, or the Nicene Creed, or whatever other Creed it was that had been recently formally proclaimed by the Ecumenical See. Surely there was belief in the Bible. In fact, most nearly everyone probably saw it as being inerrant and divine. But this wasn’t as important as something else; in fact, it probably wasn’t talked on nearly as much as how often Evangelicals talk about it. There was something more dear to the Christian faith than doctrines about the nature of the biblical book. That was the doctrine of the Incarnation. Christianity was defined primarily around what one believed about Jesus, and not specifically by what one believed about the nature of the inspiration of biblical books. Biblical exegesis was, generally, Christocentric; Christ was the key to understanding the Scriptures. Any understanding of any part of the Bible that was incompatible with fundamental convictions about Christology were rejected on the very basis of their incompatibility with Christology.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I do tend toward belief in biblical inerrancy. But let me explain something. J. P. Moreland once wrote that he was an old earth creationist 5 days a week and a young earth creationist 2 days a week. Similarly, I’m an inerrantist 5 days a week and a non-inerrantist 2 days a week. The alternative to biblical inerrancy that I sometimes gravitate toward can be called “biblical attestation”. According to this view, the Bible’s greatness and divinity lie in the fact that it witnesses to Jesus and his revelation.

I don’t think inerrancy is necessary for Christianity to be true. Its truth or falsity certainly is important, and has implications one way or the other. But its truth or falsity is important, I think, the same way the age-of-the-earth debate is important. Its a doctrinal question of considerable, but not absolute, importance.

Because I think we should look to the essentials of Christianity as opposed to non-essentials when testings its truth, I think the most beneficial way for a person to test Christianity’s truth through rational means is not to look at every passage in the Bible and attempt to understand if it is contradictory, immoral, reasonable, or moral. Instead, I think the best way is to look at the standard Christian creed, the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten, not made; being of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were made;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the Heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried;

And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end;

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets;

And in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the world to come. Amen

The reason that I picked this creed is that it seems like if it were true, Christianity would be true. But if it were false, Christianity would be false. Not so with the doctrine of inerrancy. If it were true, Christianity may still be false–Jehovah’s Witnesses or some similar such religion could be the one that correctly interpreted the Bible. And if the doctrine of inerrancy were false, Christianity could still be true.

What conditions, then, have to be fulfilled, according to this creed? To list a couple of them

1. Trinitarian monotheism–the claim that God is three persons in one essence.
2. Divine Creation ex nihilo–God created the universe out of no pre-existing material a finite time ago.
3. An historical Jesus–Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person.
4. Incarnation–Jesus of Nazareth was both God and man, two persons with one nature.
5. Virginal Conception–Jesus’ conception was not the result of a sexual union of Mary.
6. Salvation–Jesus of Nazareth’s Incarnation, death, and resurrection cause human salvation.
7. Death–Jesus suffered death on a Roman cross as a result of the decision of Pontius Pilate.
8. Resurrection–Jesus returned physically to life after having been dead for 3 days.
9. Ascension–Jesus entered into an alternate realm of reality after his resurrection.
10. Second coming–Jesus will return visibly and bodily to earth in the future.
11. Judgment–God will judge human beings according to their deeds, and assign them the consequent destiny.
12. Prophets–God the Holy Spirit spoke through prophets in the past.
13. The Church–there is a divinely-instituted group of people, originating from Jesus’ interactions with the apostles, who carry on the Christian message in the present.
14. Baptismal Regeneration–water baptism is a cause of forgiveness of sins.
15. Eschatological Resurrection–all human beings will be raised to renewed physical life at the end of time.

Now, this creed is a mix of metaphysical, unverifiable claims and empirical, historical claims. The following claims are past events which may or may not be verifiable in the present as historical events:

2. Divine creation
3. An historical Jesus
5. Virginal Conception
7. Death
8. Resurrection
9. Ascension
12. Prophets
13. The Church

The following claims are verifiable in some sense:

10. Second coming
11. Judgment
15. Eschatological Resurrection

The rest of the creed can be questioned in regards to coherence: does it make sense?

Thus there are two tests for truth that can be used here. First is the test of historical facticity: did/will any of the concrete events in question occur? Second is the test of coherence: does it make sense? The first test can only be applied to empirical things; the second test can be applied to empirical and metaphysical things. The first test is a positive test for truth, where evidence in support of the empirical things counts as evidence for the belief system. The second test is a negative test for truth, where the coherence or incoherence of an idea can establish that the concept either may be true or is impossible.

Now, just because some of the claims are verifiable doesn’t mean they all can ACTUALLY BE verified by normal historical method. My personal opinion is that there are good, clear arguments for 2, 3, 7, and 8; one’s acceptance or rejection of 5, 9, 12, and 13 will be affected by what one makes of the evidence for 2, 3, 7, and 8.

The philosophical ideas to be questioned are probably 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15. We need to ask if these concepts are coherent, and if so, is there anything that supports their plausibility which does not already assume the truth of the creed. In addition to historical reasons for believing the empirical claims, there may be logical, metaphysical, or theological reasons for thinking some of these concepts are more plausible than their alternatives.

Based on our answers to claims about coherence and verification, we need to ask whether these teachings are consistent with what Jesus Himself seemed to say and think, so far as we can tell from the historical record. This will probably be the basis for accepting claims like the Trinity, Incarnation, Second Coming, Judgment, Church, Baptismal Regeneration, and Eschatological Resurrection. This would be a verification, similar to the verification of events; but instead it would be a verification of doctrine.

If the criteria of verification and coherence apply to the appropriate tenets, then it seems that Christianity would be the most plausible conclusion to come to. Personally, I think the crucial question is whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. How one assesses the evidence for or against this conclusion seems determinative of one’s willingness to accept the other claims in question.

So, I commend the Creed as a criteria for evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.