Proofs that Infinitely Regress And Slippery Slopes that are Actually Bluffs

Proof and Denial
This month one of the theist/atheist dialogs on the web is considering the topic of proof. Looking at peoples' responses to various proofs, the most striking effect of "proof" in the real world is often peoples' response to it: denial. There is no such thing as logic or proof "compelling" people to believe anything at all; people on any side of any conceivable disagreement can vouch for that.

Arguments that Infinitely Regress
In the case of "proof" when relating to the things of God, one common maneuver is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", which is simply a detour onto what is necessarily an infinitely regressing argument. If a claim is labeled "extraordinary" then the proof must be extraordinary; but then that extraordinary proof itself becomes a claim which in turn requires extraordinary proof of its own, and the cycle continues. Notice that both ways out of this infinitely regressing argument are effectively blocked: if the next claim in the chain is "extraordinary" then the argument continues with need for further extraordinary support of the new claim; if the next claim in the chain is ordinary then, no matter how plausible, well-supported, and obvious it is, it can be swept away with simply not being "extraordinary" enough. The "extraordinary proof" method is therefore impossible to satisfy, leading either to a further extraordinary claim (in which case further regress) or to an ordinary claim (in which case the disputer simply asserts victory and dissatisfaction no matter how strong the plain old ordinary evidence). The "extraordinary proof" request is therefore inherently impossible to satisfy. It amounts to saying "I will not accept any argument for something extraordinary." Is it really logical that nothing extraordinary should ever happen, or should only be accepted on the basis of an infinite chain of extraordinary support?

Many of us do not actually see the claim of God's existence as anything extraordinary, given how obvious it is that there is a first cause and how likely it is, given the results, that the first cause is purposeful and intelligent. It is likely enough that everything you see about you in the natural world every day is proof of God's existence.

But, other than that, how exactly would someone prove that God exists? For that, God's intervention would count -- maybe some miracles. Not just "lucky" things, but the blind being healed, the lame walking, the deaf hearing. There are lots of miracles in the historical record, some with plenty of witnesses around. But those are extraordinary ...

But what if we wanted to know not just that God existed, but wanted to know God's mind? Even Einstein famously longed to know the mind of God. What if we wanted to hear him talk and see how he would approach life among us? For that, God could manifest himself among us, even incarnate among us if he chose to. Obviously Christianity claims that, in Jesus, God has done just that. To back up that extraordinary claim of who Jesus is, there is much extraordinary proof, more miracles than for any other religious figure in the history of the world including Moses and Elijah, and a proof unrivalled by any religious leader before or since: his own resurrection from the dead. But, then again, that's extraordinary ...

Of course, if God were to do something to catch our attention it would have to be extraordinary. It's no use complaining that we asked for something extraordinary but now that it's happened we won't believe it because it's extraordinary.

The Slippery Slope Is Actually A Big Bluff
The most common argument I have heard against believing that Jesus actually did the things his followers -- and enemies (see the Talmud) -- said that he did is that it is a "slippery slope". Oh what other things we would have to believe based on that level of proof! The worldview would disintegrate into incoherence and superstition! Actually, it would not. I would like to challenge someone to bring forward a claim that I would have to accept on the same grounds as accepting Jesus' miracles and resurrection:

• multiple eyewitnesses with their identities known and recorded;
• multiple same-century documents discussing the events in letters and biography (or "hagiography" if you prefer);
• along with the identities of witnesses, extended descriptions of the events in question with details of events;
• corroborating information from hostile sources (comparable to the Talmuld's references to Jesus as a sorcerer);
• persistent belief in the reality of the event amongst a significant number of witnesses;
• next-generation documents stating that the witnesses of certain events and the beneficiaries of miracles had survived to their own day and related the same accounts;
• and the extraordinary events having changed their lives so much that they devoted their entire lives to it, to the point of death.

The point? There is no slippery slope. It is very easy to believe the early Christian accounts of extraordinary things based on their incomparably high level of plain historical support for these extraordinary things. Such a belief does not lead irrevocably down some slippery slope to superstition. That argument is a bluff. Unless someone can meet the criteria above, I'd say that I'd called the bluff.

The Proof Is In
Jesus' empty tomb is God's proof to us that our own tombs will be empty on the last day. But what proof is ever undeniable? It is one thing to say that the mere fact that "it is possible to deny it" provides a ledge to stand on; it is another thing to say that that is a good position that results from good logic.

On the Atonement

Restoring Fellowship With God
Requirements: causing us to despise evil, humbling us, leading us to trust in God, cleansing us from the stain of past sin, cleansing us from corruption and the desire to sin, establishing a covenant (binding agreement) between us and God, planting the beginnings of eternal life inside us, satisfying both justice and mercy, and making us children of God. God's goodness is the foundation for our restoration, which God accomplished in the Word of God becoming man as Jesus; his life, death, and resurrection; his ascension; and his sending of the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes focusing on one area of the atonement leads to neglect in another area, even to criticizing the importance of the big picture. But it is no legitimate complaint to target a theory that explains one part of the atonement and mention that it does not explain all of it; it was probably never intended to. For example, some have criticized the Christus Victor theory – that Jesus has won victory over the adversaries of mankind (for example, death). Given the sign value of the resurrection, it is clear that Jesus has won the victory over death; this is most certainly true. That one theory does not address all the points that need to be discussed, but that does not make it untrue. It complements other theories, it does not compete with them. Athanasius, writing in On the Incarnation of the Word of God, refers to a number of different theories of atonement and different aspects of atonement and does not confine himself to an either/or view of atonement theories.

Why A Sacrifice Instead of Simple Forgiveness?
When we look at our own guilt for various things we have done, we know that our simple regret – as genuine and miserable as it may be – neither works to destroy the evil that is in us nor satisfies those we have wronged. While on the surface the idea seems attractive that God might forgive us without any punishment, if that had been the case then we would have concluded that wrongdoing was not really that serious. And we would have concluded that wrongdoing was not very serious based on what (in that case) would have been fact – that God simply shrugged and forgave. Now, shrugging and forgiving may be fine for a small and accidental thing. But there is a lot worse going on in this world than small and accidental things, and a notable percentage of people are involved at least occasionally in these larger and more deliberate wrongs.

Given that God has the power to heal all the harm done and restore peace and cleanness to all the souls (both the wrongdoer and the wronged), it would be arbitrary if God chose a line of badness and said "beyond this, I will not forgive." But what if God opens his power for all people who turn to him, not just those who were not that bad in the first place? (Some who read this may not suspect much wrong within their own souls, so I write as to those who consider "the worst of sinners" to be someone else. Those of us who follow the example of Paul should be ready to consider ourselves as the worst of sinners, not looking down on anyone else as worse than ourselves, as Paul said of himself.) If God only forgave those who were not so bad in the first place, then how could we escape the view that he saved those who were good enough? How could we deny that they owed their forgiveness in part to their own goodness – or worse, to their superiority over those who were lost – as much as to God’s mercy? But if God was willing to redeem anyone, no matter how serious the offense, then how would justice be satisfied? What is the worst punishment that justice can ask? There is no crime for which justice may ask a worse punishment than death, especially the slow, painful, brutal death of the cross. Jesus’ punishment – the extreme punishment of death, reserved for the worst of crimes – is sufficient to satisfy justice for the most serious of offenses. In this way our atonement has left no doubt that the wrongs being atoned are not a slight matter but are in fact dreadful. In this way our fear is quieted as to whether our particular sin is beyond the price that was paid. In this way our atonement increases the disgust for wrongdoing, rather than decreasing it, in those who understand their forgiveness.

Why Sacrifice Jesus? Why Sacrifice the Son of God?
A sacrifice would need to be someone sinless; otherwise we could never be certain that this person did not simply pay for his own crimes. Notice also that the atonement would leave us in the unique debt of the one who atoned for us, as much to that one as to God. It is fitting that the payment should be taken on by God himself. If our debt had not been taken by God himself, then we would have had cause to honor another as much as God, and cause to doubt God’s love of us, if he had created us but left it to someone else to redeem us. In providing for all wrongdoers, our atonement makes plain that we are indebted to God’s goodness rather than our own. It demolishes boasting about our own goodness and restores us to humility; all alike are in need of mercy. And in God’s providing atonement himself, our atonement restores our trust in God rather than sending us to look elsewhere for our redemption.

Much of this article was originally published on the CADRE Comments blog as part of a serial article response to Michael Martin's article, "Why The Resurrection Is Initially Improbable", Philo Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring-Summer 1998. For those interested in reading the remainder of the response to Martin at this time, the entire response is available here.

What do God's people love?

It's strange how many Bible studies, theme studies, and word studies I've done, but never before have I searched the Scriptures to track down the answer to this question: what are God's children taught to love? For one, the short answer is very familiar: love of God and neighbor. For another, suspicions of sentimentalism generally put a damper on an inquiry like this. And again we often approach "love" with the heart but not the mind, soul, or strength, leaving a sentimentalism that does not deserve enthusiasm and lacks enough depth for studying. But since "what we love" motivates our steps, guides our reason, steers our morality, and adds joy to our lives, it's worth the risk of a topic that some would view with suspicion.

The main two loves taught in the Scriptures, of course, are love of God and neighbor, which top the list. The others became clear as patterns while doing word studies on "love" and "delight" in the Scripture:

• Love of God;


• Love of neighbor;


• Love of immigrants and foreign nationals;


• Love of God's salvation;


• Love of God's justice;


• Love of God's law and his commandments;


• Love of wisdom, instruction, and knowledge;


• Love of truth and of the truthful witness;


• Love of purity of heart;


• Love of peace;


• Love of mercy;


• Love of wife, husband, brothers, children;


• Love of fellow-believers;


• Love of approaching God;


• Love of Christ's appearing.

Is legalism morally bankrupt?

Legalism is the insistence on judging spirituality on the basis of keeping moral laws -- usually a particular group of moral laws elevated to "gatekeeper" status for acceptance or membership in a group. Over time I've seen a number of different "gatekeeper" lists of rules. It's tempting to break them down into man-made rules (against smoking, alcohol, caffeine, dancing, card-playing) versus God-made rules (against murder, adultery, lying, stealing). Oddly, the religious groups with "gatekeeper" rules often emphasize the man-made rules, perhaps thinking that the God-made rules aren't very distinctive or don't genuinely guarantee a holy lifestyle. But the reason I call legalism morally bankrupt goes beyond the emphasis on man-made rules to the de facto unseating of the greatest laws: to love God and neighbor.

Legalism is an attempt to control sin and to justify people who keep the list -- but "the list" never seems to have God's own priorities at the top, so it never works on either count. It troubles tender consciences over laws that are frequently man-made, while offering false security to an angry or loveless soul that manages to toe the line. Any satisfaction it gives is misleading at best.

There are different kinds of people in the world. Some love God. Others love to be in control. Both types may be drawn to religion, but for very different reasons. It becomes a problem when the "love control" group actually succeeds in being in control within a religious setting. This is an inherent risk since the "love God" group does not primarily seek control. This was a problem in Jesus' day to the extent that his main opponents were the "most religious" of the day.

The anti-Christian crowd has it wrong in imagining that it is Christianity's aim to force others to bow to its will. But we may miss the fact that people can use religion to legitimize their own overly controlling tendencies, and that such people are sometimes drawn to religion for the opportunities it affords. When we do not take an honest look at the problem, we allow it to happen more often than it should. At the worst of times it becomes nearly a co-dependent situation. The "love God" crowd may want someone else to tell them what to do about their love of God while at the same time (forgive me) having a ready-made excuse for being a bit lazy about leadership. The "love control" crowd gets to tell the "love God" crowd what to do and have all the appearance of holiness whether or not they kindle their love of God and neighbor.

What to do about it? Churches should seek to develop leaderhip amongst people who plainly love God and neighbor and who lead well as evidenced by order in their own families. If you have graciously passed up several invitations to serve at your church -- not being interested in control -- please accept the next invitation to serve. If you have put yourself forward for numerous opportunities to take things in hand, ask yourself whether this has taken a toll on your love of God and neighbor, and let go of the excess in order to take control of one more thing: the time to renew yourself.

Yes! Yes! Yes! We go to the World Series!

For the first time in Houston's history, we're going to the baseball world series. I've been waiting for this since the days of Nolan Ryan, Joaquin Andujar, and Jose "Astros have Cruz control" Cruz. That team, for all its excellence, never made it all the way. This year's team has reached a new height.

All the best to them as they move on to the World Series. Go Astros!

Christian Carnival at Sven's blog this week

Hi all

Sven -- the same who brought us the denomination and theology quizzes that were all the rage a few months back -- is hosting the Carnival this week. My favorites from this week were Papercut Theology's post on cross-cultural explanations of atonement, Mother-Lode's thoughts on the tower of Babel and the soul's native language, and a light piece from Pastor Mark about running the song Amazing Grace through a translator forwards and backwards with some insightful and humorous results.

Thanks also to Sven for his kind words on my entry this week.

Does the Athanasian Creed Contain a Mistake?

[T]heology -- an enterprise that, despite the oftentimes homicidal urgency Christians attach to it, has yet to save anybody. What saves us is Jesus. -- R.F. Capon, sometime blacksheep of Christian pastoring and publishing, in The Parables of the Kingdom

Does the Athanasian Creed Contain A Mistake?
Depending on your background, your answer could range from "the what?" or "who cares?" to "just the filioque clause" or "if you claim there's a mistake in that, you're anathema." After all, there's a part of the Athanasian Creed which says plainly at the beginning, "Whoever does not keep this faith pure in all points will certainly perish forever." Then there's the part at the end which says "This [what it says] is the true Christian faith. Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved." In between are a series of comments on the Father, Son, and Spirit, and on the nature of Christ.

I have comparatively few objections to the filling inside the Creed -- the stuff between the beginning and the end of the creed may be a bit plodding but it doesn't go off the deep end. I think the Creed's biggest mistake is this: saying that whoever does not subscribe to every bullet will certainly perish forever and cannot be saved. My first reaction is, "Where does someone get off saying that?" Can we be plain that I'm not advocating bad theology, opposing formal confessions of faith, or encouraging complacency about whether we understand our faith? But encouraging diligence in learning has gone too far if we threaten non-salvation to those who just don't get it. Historically, I would be surprised if even a small portion of the original audiences of Paul's letters would have understood what was being said in that creed. But more importantly, Jesus and the authors of the books of the Bible do not speak as if we are saved by the doctrinal purity of our Trinitarian views and Christology, but by Christ. Christology is an attempt to understand Christ, but it has often been dominated by philosophical questions about his nature. If someone can explain dual natures and hypostatic unions but does not include "Lord and Savior", he has missed everything. If someone knows Jesus as "Lord and Savior" but has never heard the phrase "hypostatic union", they have the better understanding.

People are slow to criticize the Athanasian Creed, first because it has much valuable content, and second because of the grim and dire pronouncements it contains against anyone who criticizes it. But it mistakes head-knowledge for faith. For all the valuable exposition of doctrines it contains, does anyone here truly think that head-knowledge of perfect purity is the true Christian faith?

If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." (Romans 11:9-11)

It may not be too hard to reconcile with Scripture the Athanasian Creed's statements about God, but it is difficult to reconcile with Scripture the Athanasian Creed's claims about itself and about the role of doctrinal purity in salvation.