Aut Deus Aut Malus Homo revisited

Introduction

On occasion I find some individuals objecting to CS Lewis' famous Aut Deus aut malus homo ("Either God or a bad man") argument by claiming it does not consider other options.  It seeks to argue that Jesus did not have to be a bad man and still did not have to be God either.  (Actually, Lewis popularized the argument, but it goes back much further).

PART I: THE BASICS OF AUT DEUS AUT MALUS HOMO

The problem with the objections is it shows some do not understand the intention of the argument.  They think it falls short because they think it overlooks other options.  So let's go over the main points first.

Aut Deus [which I will use from now on to abbreviate the title] is commonly called a "trilemma" but this is inaccurate.  It's actually a "quadrilemma" but in which one of the four solutions is impossible.

The Basic Argument

CS Lewis described the situation as follows in Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Book II: Chapter 3. Page 52 in my copy)

So to pick and choose what elements of what Christ said is true to call Him a wise man or a moral teacher, while denying the claims He made about His divinity is to choose an option which does not follow.  If He did in fact say these things, then we must either accept Him as God or reject Him.

[For those who deny Christ said what is attributed to Him, this is looked at in PART II in this article]

Establishing the Categories

We need to consider this by establishing two groups of two.

In the first group, we need to divide humanity into two groups:

1. Those individuals who are considered wise, sagacious men (such as Socrates, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Aristotle etc.)
2. Those individuals who are not (the rest of us)

[By wise, and sagacious, we generally do not mean technical knowledge, but a person with insights into the condition of the human person.]

In the second group we divide humanity into two groups:

1. Those who claim to be God
2. Those who do not (again, most of us)

[Now the second group does not only include Christ.  There are many insane individuals who claim to be God.  Also keep in mind, this is a group where the individual claims to be God… not that the followers later "divinized" a person who did not claim to be God, as some groups have]

With this in mind, we have four groups of people:

1. Those who are neither considered wise nor claim divinity
2. Those who are not considered wise and claim divinity
3. Those who are considered wise and do not claim divinity
4. Those who are considered wise and do claim divinity.

Those who fall into each group

Now, let us look at who falls into each of these groups.

The individuals who fall into group one are most of us.  We may have more or less intelligence than the norm, but we do not consider ourselves to be one of the great minds of the world.  We do not consider ourselves to be divine either.

Those who are in group two are people who are not considered wise, but do claim to be divine.   The idea of "the divinity complex" falls in here.  They tend to be shallow individuals, monomaniac in nature.  Generally they do not live for others, but others are expected to live for them.  Their "wisdom" tends to be platitudes, not any real insights.

[If you are one of the "new age" types who claim divinity, I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles book I to understand what it means to be "God."]

Those individuals in group three are considered wise men, but do not claim to be divine.  The ancient philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle; or the ancient holy men like Moses are considered to be in this group.  They do have insights into the human condition, but do not consider themselves to be God.

Finally, we have group four, which is made up of those individuals who are considered wise and also claim to be divine.  To be honest, only one historical individual has been considered wise and has also claimed divinity, and that is Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus claimed to be God and He was not considered a bad man, then it seems to follow that either He was God or else one has to establish that He was a bad man or to admit he was God.

What this set of divisions means

Before individuals start accusing me of overlooking other claims [which I will deal with later on in the section "Part II: Challenges to the premises Aut Deus"], let us first finish this point.  CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft have used the Aut Deus argument, not to say "This proves Jesus is God" but to say "You can't say Jesus was merely a wise man if you accept what is in Scripture."

A person who claims he is more than he is is not a good man or a wise man.  To claim to be more than you are is to be arrogant, a liar or insane.  These are character flaws which show that goodness and wisdom is at least deficient.

Getting Personal

If, for example, I claimed to be a great writer and a wise man, I am sure most of you reading this would consider me to be arrogant.  This would be a flaw in me which detracted from what was good in me.

If I claimed I was a greater theologian than Thomas Aquinas, a man wiser than Socrates, I am sure some of you would be wondering if I was insane, and the rest of you would be certain I was an insufferable man of arrogance who grossly overestimated his self worth.  It would be a strong argument against any claim I had to being good.

If I claimed to be God, with all knowledge and power over the universe, with the ability to forgive sins and to pass judgment on the world I am sure ALL of you would think me insane or a liar (or both).

The point is, by claiming to be more than I am, it would show I was not a "good man" or a "wise man."

Aut Deus aut homo malus

This is where the "Either God or a Bad Man" argument comes into play.  Everyone tends to acknowledge that Jesus was a good person and a wise person, but we have these claims He made to be God.  Now a good man and a wise man does not claim to be more than he is, and a man who does claim to be more than he is would generally not be considered good or wise.

So whatever one thinks of Jesus, they cannot consider him to be merely a good man, because men who are good do not consider themselves to be God.  Either He was right to call Himself God, or He was a bad man (morally or intellectually).

PART II: CHALLENGES TO THE PREMISES OF AUT DEUS

For those who were objecting I had not covered all other conclusions, there are two other common options which are sometimes mentioned as a way out of the quadrilemma.

Some people don't like the conclusion which follows from the evidence and seek to change the conditions.  Most of the modern objections do not want to argue Jesus was a bad man.

(In the times of the Roman Empire, some critics of Christianity tried to do exactly this [move Him into group 2: People who were not wise but claimed to be God] but failed to convince even their fellow pagans because there was no credible evidence as to why one should consider Jesus a bad man.  As far as I know, nobody really tries to argue this any more so I am leaving this out.  If you really want me to discuss this, let me know and if there is enough interest I can work on an article).

Now I can't anticipate every objection but the ones I have found tend to fall into two categories in an attempt to move Jesus into group 3 [wise men not claiming to be God]:

1. Deny Jesus did in fact claim divinity and these claims were added later
2. Claim that the Disciples misunderstood what Jesus meant.

These two claims have a common root, and take it two different ways.  The common root is the claim that Jesus did not say what Christians believe He said and meant.  The reasoning is, if Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him, then one can safely make him like any other sage (group 3) and can be excluded from group 4.

The divergence on these two claims is over whether the so-called false information was due to malice or ignorance by His followers.

Let us take a look at these two options.

The Denial that Jesus said what was attributed to Him (and it was added later)

in the divisions of Aut Deus, this is an attempt to move Him into group three by saying "He was wise yes, but only later did people think He was God."  In modern times this has been popularized by the wretched novel The Da Vinci Code.  The claim is that Jesus taught wisely, but accounts of His life were edited by unscrupulous people somewhere along the way, adding claims of divinity and accounts of miracles.

The problem is, this is remarkably similar to the Manichean argument that Christians changed scripture because it could be used against the Manicheans.  In such a case, St. Augustine's objection remains valid:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21)

In order for a claim of "Scriptures were tampered with" to be considered as a viable theory as opposed to an opinion based on "Well Jesus couldn't have been God" we need to see what sort of proof there is.  Do we have documents to show Jesus denied saying He was God?

We don't.  Now we do have a theory of a "Q" source which is alleged to be the original accounts of what Jesus really said and did, from which the Synoptic gospels were derived.  The problem is, the Q theory is based on the unproven assumption that simpler accounts must come before the complex… which overlooks the literary talents and insights of each author.  If a man with talents which are superior writes before one who has lesser talents, the more complex writing can come first.

There is another problem with the Q theory.  We do have early Patristic writings about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  We don't have any references to other gospels which they accepted as valid.  There were later gospels written by Gnostics (some 100-200 years after the originals were written), but these were never accepted as valid.  Indeed, reading these false gospels [which are rather dreary and boring] one sees that the "new" material they claim are clearly additions and contradictory not only to the four actual gospels, but with each other as well.  The early Christians rejected them because they came later and because they were written by people pretending to be someone else.

So while someone is free to believe the words were tampered, there is no evidence to justify the theory, and without the evidence this does not work as a rebuttal to Aut Deus.

The Claim that Jesus was Misunderstood

This claim tends to come from those influenced by Eastern mysticism, and claims that Jesus taught in a way which did not intend to say He was divine in the sense that the Jews understood "divine" to be.  The argument claims that Jesus' disciples got it completely wrong and for two thousand years people believed the wrong thing until someone figured out what He really meant.

The attempts to put Jesus into Group Three on this ground.  The problem is, if true, it actually excludes him from this group, because He would have been a poor teacher and therefore not a wise man.

The Scriptures show us that when the Disciples misunderstood Jesus, He corrected their misunderstandings.  He did not leave them in error.  If He had taught using language which was not clear, and did not clear up their misunderstandings, He would have been a poor teacher who failed to teach.

The result would be a personal who could not be considered a wise man or a moral teacher, because what He intended to teach failed to be taught, and the contrary was in fact passed on.

Getting Personal Part 2

If I attended a class for chemistry and stated that the teacher taught me the formula for water was H₃O, the teacher would be obligated to correct me to understand that water was in fact H₂O.  If he was aware of my error, and allowed me to remain in my error, he failed to teach what he was intending to teach.

The Telephone Game

A variant of this objection uses the analogy of the telephone game.  In this, a person whispers to another and so on until the original message was changed.  They claim that the message of Jesus fell victim of this sort of distortion and what we have now was not what was said then.  St. Augustine's objection remains valid here to ask "On what basis can you say it was distorted?"

The ancient copies we have of the Gospels have been found in diverse places across Europe and the Middle East, and with the exception of a few copyist errors which do not change the meaning of what was said we have a strong consistent set of documents written fairly close to the time of the originals.  So if there was corruption, it had to be passed on from the very beginning (the Apostles misunderstanding Christ) because there was not enough time for this sort of distortion to be happen naturally).

In comparison, copies of secular documents of this time in the Roman Empire we have fewer existing texts which were written far later, yet the concern of "the telephone game" is not used here.  Moreover, the writings of Eastern Philosophers and eastern Religious texts are not given this level of scrutiny either.  Nobody asks whether the Analects of Confucius were really written by Confucius or whether later texts completely changed the meaning of what Confucius really said.

The Underlying Assumption and an analysis of its logic

The assumption of these claims (That Jesus did not claim to be God) is that:

1. the Supernatural [A] Is Not True [B]. (No [A] is [B])
2. Some Scripture [C] Says the Supernatural [A] Is True [B]. (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some Scripture [C] Is Not true [B]. (Therefore Some [C] Is Not [B])

(This is essentially how the arguments which deny the supernatural aspects of Scripture boil down to).

The logical form is indeed valid.  If No [A] is [B] and Some [C] is [A] then Some [C] is not [B].  So the question here is whether the major premise is true.

Now, if the major premise is true, then the conclusion does follow.  However if we know the major premise is false OR if we do not know whether the major premise is true, then the argument is not sound and the conclusion is not proven.

The problem is the premise "The Supernatural does not exist" is needs to be proven true.  For the conclusion to be true, the Major premise must be shown to be true.  The problem is the first Proposition says There is No [A] in [B].  This requires full knowledge of what is true [B] to know that there is no Supernatural [A] in it.  If we do not know everything about [B] We cannot say there is no [A] in it, and the major premise cannot be proven true.  Because we cannot know the major premise is true, we cannot prove the conclusion from this argument.

Since we cannot prove the major premise [No Supernatural is true], we cannot claim that the conclusion [Scripture which speaks of the supernatural is not true] is proven or reasonable.

Conclusion

I don't claim that this article "proves" Christianity true.  This was not the intent, after all.  Rather it demonstrates why certain objections to Aut Deus (on grounds of Jesus not actually saying what was attributed to Him) do not in fact break the argument down.  One can of course still believe that Jesus never claimed to be divine.  One can claim He was a madman or a liar as well.  But before insisting everyone accept that conclusion, we want some sort of evidence.

We who are Christians believe the testimony passed on is reliable.  Not everyone will agree with us.  However, whether or not this disagreement is anything other than ipse dixit depends on the evidence one can put forward for the claim that Jesus was something other than we believe Him to be.

If there is no evidence to show the testimony we believe in is actually false, Christians are not irrational for believing our faith is true.

Aut Deus Aut Malus Homo revisited

Introduction

On occasion I find some individuals objecting to CS Lewis' famous Aut Deus aut malus homo ("Either God or a bad man") argument by claiming it does not consider other options.  It seeks to argue that Jesus did not have to be a bad man and still did not have to be God either.  (Actually, Lewis popularized the argument, but it goes back much further).

PART I: THE BASICS OF AUT DEUS AUT MALUS HOMO

The problem with the objections is it shows some do not understand the intention of the argument.  They think it falls short because they think it overlooks other options.  So let's go over the main points first.

Aut Deus [which I will use from now on to abbreviate the title] is commonly called a "trilemma" but this is inaccurate.  It's actually a "quadrilemma" but in which one of the four solutions is impossible.

The Basic Argument

CS Lewis described the situation as follows in Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (Book II: Chapter 3. Page 52 in my copy)

So to pick and choose what elements of what Christ said is true to call Him a wise man or a moral teacher, while denying the claims He made about His divinity is to choose an option which does not follow.  If He did in fact say these things, then we must either accept Him as God or reject Him.

[For those who deny Christ said what is attributed to Him, this is looked at in PART II in this article]

Establishing the Categories

We need to consider this by establishing two groups of two.

In the first group, we need to divide humanity into two groups:

1. Those individuals who are considered wise, sagacious men (such as Socrates, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Aristotle etc.)
2. Those individuals who are not (the rest of us)

[By wise, and sagacious, we generally do not mean technical knowledge, but a person with insights into the condition of the human person.]

In the second group we divide humanity into two groups:

1. Those who claim to be God
2. Those who do not (again, most of us)

[Now the second group does not only include Christ.  There are many insane individuals who claim to be God.  Also keep in mind, this is a group where the individual claims to be God… not that the followers later "divinized" a person who did not claim to be God, as some groups have]

With this in mind, we have four groups of people:

1. Those who are neither considered wise nor claim divinity
2. Those who are not considered wise and claim divinity
3. Those who are considered wise and do not claim divinity
4. Those who are considered wise and do claim divinity.

Those who fall into each group

Now, let us look at who falls into each of these groups.

The individuals who fall into group one are most of us.  We may have more or less intelligence than the norm, but we do not consider ourselves to be one of the great minds of the world.  We do not consider ourselves to be divine either.

Those who are in group two are people who are not considered wise, but do claim to be divine.   The idea of "the divinity complex" falls in here.  They tend to be shallow individuals, monomaniac in nature.  Generally they do not live for others, but others are expected to live for them.  Their "wisdom" tends to be platitudes, not any real insights.

[If you are one of the "new age" types who claim divinity, I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles book I to understand what it means to be "God."]

Those individuals in group three are considered wise men, but do not claim to be divine.  The ancient philosophers such as Socrates, Aristotle; or the ancient holy men like Moses are considered to be in this group.  They do have insights into the human condition, but do not consider themselves to be God.

Finally, we have group four, which is made up of those individuals who are considered wise and also claim to be divine.  To be honest, only one historical individual has been considered wise and has also claimed divinity, and that is Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus claimed to be God and He was not considered a bad man, then it seems to follow that either He was God or else one has to establish that He was a bad man or to admit he was God.

What this set of divisions means

Before individuals start accusing me of overlooking other claims [which I will deal with later on in the section "Part II: Challenges to the premises Aut Deus"], let us first finish this point.  CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft have used the Aut Deus argument, not to say "This proves Jesus is God" but to say "You can't say Jesus was merely a wise man if you accept what is in Scripture."

A person who claims he is more than he is is not a good man or a wise man.  To claim to be more than you are is to be arrogant, a liar or insane.  These are character flaws which show that goodness and wisdom is at least deficient.

Getting Personal

If, for example, I claimed to be a great writer and a wise man, I am sure most of you reading this would consider me to be arrogant.  This would be a flaw in me which detracted from what was good in me.

If I claimed I was a greater theologian than Thomas Aquinas, a man wiser than Socrates, I am sure some of you would be wondering if I was insane, and the rest of you would be certain I was an insufferable man of arrogance who grossly overestimated his self worth.  It would be a strong argument against any claim I had to being good.

If I claimed to be God, with all knowledge and power over the universe, with the ability to forgive sins and to pass judgment on the world I am sure ALL of you would think me insane or a liar (or both).

The point is, by claiming to be more than I am, it would show I was not a "good man" or a "wise man."

Aut Deus aut homo malus

This is where the "Either God or a Bad Man" argument comes into play.  Everyone tends to acknowledge that Jesus was a good person and a wise person, but we have these claims He made to be God.  Now a good man and a wise man does not claim to be more than he is, and a man who does claim to be more than he is would generally not be considered good or wise.

So whatever one thinks of Jesus, they cannot consider him to be merely a good man, because men who are good do not consider themselves to be God.  Either He was right to call Himself God, or He was a bad man (morally or intellectually).

PART II: CHALLENGES TO THE PREMISES OF AUT DEUS

For those who were objecting I had not covered all other conclusions, there are two other common options which are sometimes mentioned as a way out of the quadrilemma.

Some people don't like the conclusion which follows from the evidence and seek to change the conditions.  Most of the modern objections do not want to argue Jesus was a bad man.

(In the times of the Roman Empire, some critics of Christianity tried to do exactly this [move Him into group 2: People who were not wise but claimed to be God] but failed to convince even their fellow pagans because there was no credible evidence as to why one should consider Jesus a bad man.  As far as I know, nobody really tries to argue this any more so I am leaving this out.  If you really want me to discuss this, let me know and if there is enough interest I can work on an article).

Now I can't anticipate every objection but the ones I have found tend to fall into two categories in an attempt to move Jesus into group 3 [wise men not claiming to be God]:

1. Deny Jesus did in fact claim divinity and these claims were added later
2. Claim that the Disciples misunderstood what Jesus meant.

These two claims have a common root, and take it two different ways.  The common root is the claim that Jesus did not say what Christians believe He said and meant.  The reasoning is, if Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him, then one can safely make him like any other sage (group 3) and can be excluded from group 4.

The divergence on these two claims is over whether the so-called false information was due to malice or ignorance by His followers.

Let us take a look at these two options.

The Denial that Jesus said what was attributed to Him (and it was added later)

in the divisions of Aut Deus, this is an attempt to move Him into group three by saying "He was wise yes, but only later did people think He was God."  In modern times this has been popularized by the wretched novel The Da Vinci Code.  The claim is that Jesus taught wisely, but accounts of His life were edited by unscrupulous people somewhere along the way, adding claims of divinity and accounts of miracles.

The problem is, this is remarkably similar to the Manichean argument that Christians changed scripture because it could be used against the Manicheans.  In such a case, St. Augustine's objection remains valid:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21)

In order for a claim of "Scriptures were tampered with" to be considered as a viable theory as opposed to an opinion based on "Well Jesus couldn't have been God" we need to see what sort of proof there is.  Do we have documents to show Jesus denied saying He was God?

We don't.  Now we do have a theory of a "Q" source which is alleged to be the original accounts of what Jesus really said and did, from which the Synoptic gospels were derived.  The problem is, the Q theory is based on the unproven assumption that simpler accounts must come before the complex… which overlooks the literary talents and insights of each author.  If a man with talents which are superior writes before one who has lesser talents, the more complex writing can come first.

There is another problem with the Q theory.  We do have early Patristic writings about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  We don't have any references to other gospels which they accepted as valid.  There were later gospels written by Gnostics (some 100-200 years after the originals were written), but these were never accepted as valid.  Indeed, reading these false gospels [which are rather dreary and boring] one sees that the "new" material they claim are clearly additions and contradictory not only to the four actual gospels, but with each other as well.  The early Christians rejected them because they came later and because they were written by people pretending to be someone else.

So while someone is free to believe the words were tampered, there is no evidence to justify the theory, and without the evidence this does not work as a rebuttal to Aut Deus.

The Claim that Jesus was Misunderstood

This claim tends to come from those influenced by Eastern mysticism, and claims that Jesus taught in a way which did not intend to say He was divine in the sense that the Jews understood "divine" to be.  The argument claims that Jesus' disciples got it completely wrong and for two thousand years people believed the wrong thing until someone figured out what He really meant.

The attempts to put Jesus into Group Three on this ground.  The problem is, if true, it actually excludes him from this group, because He would have been a poor teacher and therefore not a wise man.

The Scriptures show us that when the Disciples misunderstood Jesus, He corrected their misunderstandings.  He did not leave them in error.  If He had taught using language which was not clear, and did not clear up their misunderstandings, He would have been a poor teacher who failed to teach.

The result would be a personal who could not be considered a wise man or a moral teacher, because what He intended to teach failed to be taught, and the contrary was in fact passed on.

Getting Personal Part 2

If I attended a class for chemistry and stated that the teacher taught me the formula for water was H₃O, the teacher would be obligated to correct me to understand that water was in fact H₂O.  If he was aware of my error, and allowed me to remain in my error, he failed to teach what he was intending to teach.

The Telephone Game

A variant of this objection uses the analogy of the telephone game.  In this, a person whispers to another and so on until the original message was changed.  They claim that the message of Jesus fell victim of this sort of distortion and what we have now was not what was said then.  St. Augustine's objection remains valid here to ask "On what basis can you say it was distorted?"

The ancient copies we have of the Gospels have been found in diverse places across Europe and the Middle East, and with the exception of a few copyist errors which do not change the meaning of what was said we have a strong consistent set of documents written fairly close to the time of the originals.  So if there was corruption, it had to be passed on from the very beginning (the Apostles misunderstanding Christ) because there was not enough time for this sort of distortion to be happen naturally).

In comparison, copies of secular documents of this time in the Roman Empire we have fewer existing texts which were written far later, yet the concern of "the telephone game" is not used here.  Moreover, the writings of Eastern Philosophers and eastern Religious texts are not given this level of scrutiny either.  Nobody asks whether the Analects of Confucius were really written by Confucius or whether later texts completely changed the meaning of what Confucius really said.

The Underlying Assumption and an analysis of its logic

The assumption of these claims (That Jesus did not claim to be God) is that:

1. the Supernatural [A] Is Not True [B]. (No [A] is [B])
2. Some Scripture [C] Says the Supernatural [A] Is True [B]. (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some Scripture [C] Is Not true [B]. (Therefore Some [C] Is Not [B])

(This is essentially how the arguments which deny the supernatural aspects of Scripture boil down to).

The logical form is indeed valid.  If No [A] is [B] and Some [C] is [A] then Some [C] is not [B].  So the question here is whether the major premise is true.

Now, if the major premise is true, then the conclusion does follow.  However if we know the major premise is false OR if we do not know whether the major premise is true, then the argument is not sound and the conclusion is not proven.

The problem is the premise "The Supernatural does not exist" is needs to be proven true.  For the conclusion to be true, the Major premise must be shown to be true.  The problem is the first Proposition says There is No [A] in [B].  This requires full knowledge of what is true [B] to know that there is no Supernatural [A] in it.  If we do not know everything about [B] We cannot say there is no [A] in it, and the major premise cannot be proven true.  Because we cannot know the major premise is true, we cannot prove the conclusion from this argument.

Since we cannot prove the major premise [No Supernatural is true], we cannot claim that the conclusion [Scripture which speaks of the supernatural is not true] is proven or reasonable.

Conclusion

I don't claim that this article "proves" Christianity true.  This was not the intent, after all.  Rather it demonstrates why certain objections to Aut Deus (on grounds of Jesus not actually saying what was attributed to Him) do not in fact break the argument down.  One can of course still believe that Jesus never claimed to be divine.  One can claim He was a madman or a liar as well.  But before insisting everyone accept that conclusion, we want some sort of evidence.

We who are Christians believe the testimony passed on is reliable.  Not everyone will agree with us.  However, whether or not this disagreement is anything other than ipse dixit depends on the evidence one can put forward for the claim that Jesus was something other than we believe Him to be.

If there is no evidence to show the testimony we believe in is actually false, Christians are not irrational for believing our faith is true.

Reflections on Drive By Proselytism and False Claims About Christ

The internet being what it is, there are inevitably bizarre claims made by somebody about the "real nature" of Jesus, claiming that Christianity had it wrong for 2,000 years while they had it right.  Thus we hear claims that Jesus was merely a human who kept the Torah perfectly, or was a teacher enlightened in India or that Jesus was merely a "mask" of God, or some other (heretical) claims which seek to deny both the Scripture and the consistent interpretation of it for 2,000 years.

They point to certain verses in the Bible to bolster their claims, yet whatever runs counter to their beliefs are negated as being "added later" or "being misunderstood."

The Problems with the So-called "Real Jesus" which run against Scripture and Tradition

It seems to me that St. Augustine's comments on the Manicheans seem to fit these sort of claims.  Recalling when he was a Manichean and encountered Christians who showed the group he followed was against Scripture and Tradition:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21)

Given that the testimony of Scripture and the Church speaks of Jesus are all that exists as evidence of the historical person of Jesus, any "alternate" account must exaggerate one aspect and suppress another.  The question is, of course, "on what basis can one make claims about this other view?"

One could certainly pull quotes from Scripture to claim anything.  Do you want to use Scripture to claim Christ is an alien?  Sure, how about John 18:36, which says:

Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.”

If World is another word for Planet, then it follows that Jesus is saying that He came from another planet, and anyone who thinks He was God clearly did not understand alien technology.  Prove me wrong.

[I suspect nobody would buy this argument of course.]

Anything which ran afoul of this view was "obviously" contradictory or added later to this sort of claim.  This is how they defend their beliefs.

The Response

Anyone who would seek to make claims about the "Real Jesus" which runs counter to the Christian faith needs to not only show Scripture which seems on the surface to support their view, but they need to establish that this was the faith of the Apostles.  We have the testimony of the early Christians in the writings called "the Patristics."  We have testimony of these writings which show how the Christian faith was understood from the earliest centuries.  Anyone who wishes to claim that this testimony is false must show us the testimony they claim is true.

Usually they won't however.  They'll use a variant of what the Manicheans said to Augustine: The originals were tampered with, the originals were burned, the originals were misunderstood and so on.

The problem is, this means that for 2,000 years everybody missed the point, including the Apostles who believed Jesus had risen from the dead and was God, and only now did someone figure out what he really meant.  This is of course asinine.

Moreover, it means they have no evidence unless they can (as St. Augustine pointed out) produce the "uncorrupted copies."

The term for this is ipse dixit.  (An unproven statement which is based entirely on the "say-so" of the speaker).  Of course if the speaker cannot produce proof of the authority he possesses to speak authoritatively, there is no reason to accept it when there is no evidence for it, and much evidence to the contrary as to what Christians believed.

Ultimately people who believe in and promote these claims have no basis for establishing they do speak for the "Real Jesus."  Whether it is something famous like Dan Brown's pro-Gnostic Da Vinci Code or something obscure nobody has heard of until they post it on a blog site, they say a thing ipse dixit and expect one to swallow it by making themselves an authority who cannot be questioned.

Those of us who know the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will not be swayed of course.  But there are those out there who are not confident in their knowledge, and can be bullied into thinking they might be wrong because such a person sounds so "authoritative."

So when these believers of false claims come to challenge the Christian faith, there are two questions they must answer to our satisfaction:

1. What proof do you have for your claims?
2. What authority do you have to tell us your interpretation is superior to the testimony of the first Christians?

(Recommended Reading: Between Heaven and Hell)

Reflections on Drive By Proselytism and False Claims About Christ

The internet being what it is, there are inevitably bizarre claims made by somebody about the "real nature" of Jesus, claiming that Christianity had it wrong for 2,000 years while they had it right.  Thus we hear claims that Jesus was merely a human who kept the Torah perfectly, or was a teacher enlightened in India or that Jesus was merely a "mask" of God, or some other (heretical) claims which seek to deny both the Scripture and the consistent interpretation of it for 2,000 years.

They point to certain verses in the Bible to bolster their claims, yet whatever runs counter to their beliefs are negated as being "added later" or "being misunderstood."

The Problems with the So-called "Real Jesus" which run against Scripture and Tradition

It seems to me that St. Augustine's comments on the Manicheans seem to fit these sort of claims.  Recalling when he was a Manichean and encountered Christians who showed the group he followed was against Scripture and Tradition:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21)

Given that the testimony of Scripture and the Church speaks of Jesus are all that exists as evidence of the historical person of Jesus, any "alternate" account must exaggerate one aspect and suppress another.  The question is, of course, "on what basis can one make claims about this other view?"

One could certainly pull quotes from Scripture to claim anything.  Do you want to use Scripture to claim Christ is an alien?  Sure, how about John 18:36, which says:

Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.”

If World is another word for Planet, then it follows that Jesus is saying that He came from another planet, and anyone who thinks He was God clearly did not understand alien technology.  Prove me wrong.

[I suspect nobody would buy this argument of course.]

Anything which ran afoul of this view was "obviously" contradictory or added later to this sort of claim.  This is how they defend their beliefs.

The Response

Anyone who would seek to make claims about the "Real Jesus" which runs counter to the Christian faith needs to not only show Scripture which seems on the surface to support their view, but they need to establish that this was the faith of the Apostles.  We have the testimony of the early Christians in the writings called "the Patristics."  We have testimony of these writings which show how the Christian faith was understood from the earliest centuries.  Anyone who wishes to claim that this testimony is false must show us the testimony they claim is true.

Usually they won't however.  They'll use a variant of what the Manicheans said to Augustine: The originals were tampered with, the originals were burned, the originals were misunderstood and so on.

The problem is, this means that for 2,000 years everybody missed the point, including the Apostles who believed Jesus had risen from the dead and was God, and only now did someone figure out what he really meant.  This is of course asinine.

Moreover, it means they have no evidence unless they can (as St. Augustine pointed out) produce the "uncorrupted copies."

The term for this is ipse dixit.  (An unproven statement which is based entirely on the "say-so" of the speaker).  Of course if the speaker cannot produce proof of the authority he possesses to speak authoritatively, there is no reason to accept it when there is no evidence for it, and much evidence to the contrary as to what Christians believed.

Ultimately people who believe in and promote these claims have no basis for establishing they do speak for the "Real Jesus."  Whether it is something famous like Dan Brown's pro-Gnostic Da Vinci Code or something obscure nobody has heard of until they post it on a blog site, they say a thing ipse dixit and expect one to swallow it by making themselves an authority who cannot be questioned.

Those of us who know the truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will not be swayed of course.  But there are those out there who are not confident in their knowledge, and can be bullied into thinking they might be wrong because such a person sounds so "authoritative."

So when these believers of false claims come to challenge the Christian faith, there are two questions they must answer to our satisfaction:

1. What proof do you have for your claims?
2. What authority do you have to tell us your interpretation is superior to the testimony of the first Christians?

(Recommended Reading: Between Heaven and Hell)

The Importance of Remembering the Sequence of Events

Source: The Catholic Key Blog: USCCB Reaffirms Opposition to Senate Bill, Commends Senator Nelson

I'm sure certain Catholics will treat the actions of Senator Nelson, and the USCCB praising his efforts as a certain cause-effect, in order to paint it as Catholics supporting abortion.  However this would be dishonest.

The Catholic document showing Cardinal DiNardo praising Nelson, shows the cardinal's statement, was dated 12/18/09, and seems to be based on facts listed in the Cardinal's 12/14/09 letter.  Nelson's sell-out happened late on 12/19/09.  So in terms of sequence, the praising of Nelson took place before his unacceptable compromise… a compromise Cardinal DiNardo and the USCCB could not know it happened.

The USCCB has stated that the Health Care bill is unacceptable as it exists now.   So both liberals who want to argue that it is ok to be pro-abortion and Catholic, as well as the conservatives who wish to argue the Bishops are "heretical", would be misrepresenting the position of the Church.

One hopes the USCCB does come out with a strong statement now… it is certainly needed.  However, let us not blame them for something which they did not do.

Reflections on Anti-Catholic Claims

Preliminary Note on Terms

[The reader should note when I speak of "certain Protestants" I make this qualification because there are differences in beliefs.  Not all hold the same beliefs on things like "Once Saved Always Saved" for example.  The Protestant reader who does not hold to the issues discussed should be aware that I am not making a blanket statement of all Protestants.  I do know of several Protestants who, while I disagree with them, I do not consider anti-Catholic, and I am certain there are many I do not know who share the charitable attitudes of those I do know.]

The Issue to Consider

It is always interesting to see the claims of the anti-Catholics out there.  They seem determined to save us and to show us our "errors."

The problem is, the "errors" they want to save us from are errors the Catholic Church does not even hold.  It is always a distortion of what we believe or else something which is entirely false.

What Is "Anti-Catholic"?

That Protestants disagree with Catholics is not, of itself, an act of anti-Catholicism.  What makes a person anti-Catholic is not that he believes differently than the Catholic Church, but that he believes he must attack the Catholic Church, and often justifies uncharitable behavior on the grounds that he is "saving" us from damnation.

The Wisdom Of Fulton J. Sheen

I think Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best when he said in 1938:

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is of course a different thing.  These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level as God"; because they say "Indulgence is a permission to commit capital sin"; because the Pope "is a fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism."  If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them.  It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth.  As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”

This is an important distinction.  The Church is not hated for what she believes, but is hated for what she is falsely accused of believing.

Distinguishing between Dispute and False Charges

That Catholics and Protestants disagree on certain issues is an unfortunate reality.  There have been close to 500 years of separation which causes misunderstanding, and sadly even hostility among certain members.  With those 500 years, rifts have been built up, which will take reliance on God and prayer to take down.  This is a dispute.  Some of these Protestants may misunderstand Catholic beliefs, but they do not behave in a hostile manner to us.

In such cases, explanation helps the two of us to understand each other, even when we disagree with each other.

However, certain Protestants [Yes, anti-Catholics come from sources other than Protestant, but in America the largest amount of attacks come from certain groups of fundamentalist Protestants] attack the Catholic Church with accusations of idolatry and "spiritual bondage" which is not a case of a mere misunderstanding.  These are false charges, whether the individual repeating them believes them or not.

If Catholics are to be denounced for what they believe, one should make every effort to understand what Catholics believe, and not make false accusations against the Church, because it is unjust to accuse us of what we do not believe.  The accuser should be certain that the error is not on their part.

"Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness"

The 10 Commandments condemn the bearing of false witness.  False witness can take two forms:

1. Either I can Lie about an issue
2. or I can repeat a false claim without verifying it is true.

In the first case the false witness is guilty of what he or she has directly done.  In the second case, he or she has not done: checking to see if a thing is true before repeating it.

In the first case, it is on the conscience of the liar.  We who are Catholic can refute them of course, but the individual is deliberately seeking to make a claim to mislead.

In the second case, there is still fault in failing to do what we ought.  Many people may believe that a false accusation is true, but we are not free to believe that just because it is repeated.  If someone relates to me that in the famous tale of Luther flinging an inkpot at the Devil was actually about Luther flinging excrement [which someone once claimed], I would be obligated to research such a claim before repeating it as true.  Otherwise I assist in passing on a falsehood, whether I believed it or not.  (To the best of my research, this "excrement" claim has no basis, and I do not believe it to be true, but is rather a malicious rumor).

Getting the Truth From the Source

If the Church is accused of holding a position, then justice requires finding out what the Church actually teaches and not what one who is hostile to the Church claims it teaches.  Jack Chick, for example, claims that the Catholic Church is secretly a paganization of Christianity, seeking to introduce teachings from Babylon.

The thing is, in all of Chick's tracts, all the sources he claims come from his own publishing, and no serious historian believes that "The Vatican" sought to create Islam as a plot to control the Holy Land.  No serious historian believes that the Catholic Church was established by Constantine.  Anyone who studies the history of Christianity will see that there was no "original Church" supplanted by the Catholic Church.  Claims which are asserted need to be researched.

Likewise, when someone accuses the Catholic Church of "inventing a doctrine" it is obligatory to show the source of the claim that it may be verified.  If someone claims Pope Leo XIII said the Death Penalty was good for keeping the heretics in line, the source for such a quote needs to be given.  It is not enough to say "This guy's book had the quote in it."  The question is, which document of the Church was it said in?  Where?  When? 

(It is interesting to note that most so-called Papal quotes which are cited by Anti-Catholics either come from documents which do not exist… meaning the person citing is merely parroting from another source, or else when the document is found, the quote is taken out of context).

If the Church "imposed" a belief (as it is often accused of doing), where did the belief begin?  Where is the evidence of so-called "real Christians" objecting?  (It is interesting to note that here the common claim is "The Church burned the evidence," which is an admission of no evidence).  We can identify real heresies, and who started them.  We know who led the fight against them.  Why does no similar evidence exist when the Church is accused of inventing beliefs?

What Does the Church actually say?

Anyone who wants to attack what the Church teaches is obligated to research what the Church teaches instead of taking the word of one hostile to the Church, to make sure that what is said is in fact true.  

For example, if I wanted to take issue with Luther's famous comment that he could commit fornication a hundred times a day and not have it affect his salvation, I would be obliged to look up what he in fact said (from what I have read, it seems more that he was using an extreme exaggeration to bring home a point, and it did not mean it was ok to sin freely.  The statement he made is full of all kinds of problems to be sure, but it is often taken out of context).

Likewise, when the Catholic Church stands accused of worshipping Mary, one is obligated to see what the Church itself says, and not what Jack Chick says (that it is secretly a Babylonian deity).

I've never once seen an attack on the Catholic Church where the accuser had an accurate understanding of the Catholic teaching.  This is a problem because what is attributed to us is false, and to falsely accuse someone is bearing false witness.

The Issue of Authority to Interpret

Some attacks against the Church are not rooted in malice of course, but in the issue of authoritative interpretation.  Some anti-Catholics argue along the lines of:

• The Bible teaches X is condemned
• The Catholic Church teaches X
• Therefore the Catholic Church teaches what the Bible condemns.

There are two potential problems which need to be examined before such a claim can be considered true.  Each deals with one of the premises.  If the premise is false, the argument cannot be shown to be true.  Both premises have to be true for the condemnation of the Church to be proven true:

1. Does the Catholic Church teach X?
2. Is the Bible properly understood by the accuser?

Point #1 has been briefly discussed above.  If the Catholic Church does not teach X, then the syllogism is untrue.

The second point is what I wish to discuss now: Is the Bible properly understood?

Historical Conflicts and "The Bible Alone"

One of the problems with the idea of sola scriptura is the view that everyone can freely read and comment on Scripture influenced by the Holy Spirit.  The problem is, when people come up with contradictory opinions, they can't both be true.  If the Bible teaches Baptism is necessary, it can't be merely a symbol and vice versa.  If the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, it can't also be "merely a symbol" and vice versa.  If God is a trinity, He cannot also be only a monad.

Now we know these disputes exist.  Luther and Zwingli disagreed on the nature of the Eucharist.  Anabaptists and Calvinists disputed the nature of Baptism.  Trinitarian Christians and "Oneness Pentecostals"  dispute the nature of God.

The problem is all of them claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and claim the other is in error.  So who do we believe?  Who do we appeal to to make the decision?

This isn't even merely a "Protestant" issue.  We have the Sabellians of the early Church who denied that there was a Trinity, claiming "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" were merely masks worn by the One God.  We have the Arians who denied that Jesus was God, but claimed instead that Jesus was created by God as an archon (essentially God's greatest creation… but still a creature).  These individuals pointed to Scripture and claimed they understood it while the Church did not.

The Authority to Interpret

So how were the Arians and the Sabellians rejected, while the disputes over the Eucharist, Baptism and the nature of God are still disputed among certain Protestants?  In the early Church, the idea of Sola Scriptura did not exist.  It was the successors of the Apostles (the Bishops) in communion with the successor of Peter (the Pope) who were considered as having the authority.  Bishops who belonged to heretical groups were not considered having the authority to teach on Scripture… not just any man who came along.

The understanding of Scripture had to be consistent even when understanding deepened.  So with the Church long understanding the teaching of the apostles to believe Jesus was God, a person who came along claiming "Jesus was man" held a view which was not in keeping with the Apostles.  If a view came along which was contrary to what was always taught, it was rejected.

[EXCURSUS: This is why the accusation of "The Church invented X" has no real basis.  When heresies came along, the Church fought them hard as being counterfeit, and one of the things they would reject a heretical idea under is whether it was new.  It stands to reason that if the Catholic Church made heretical changes, the real Christians would denounce it.  Yet the real Christians (the Patristic authors) not only did not denounce the Catholic beliefs… they held the Catholic beliefs.  Which means that essentially if the Catholic Church was wrong, it was wrong all the way back to the time of the Apostles.  The person who argues the Catholic Church supplanted the "true" Church needs to explain where the "true" Christians went when these "errors" were introduced.]

The Problem With Sola Scriptura

Once you deny the authority of the Church however, the issue of interpretation becomes more muddy.  The issue isn't with Scripture.  We all accept the authority of Scripture (yes, even we Catholics), but if one denies an authority who can interpret, the interpretation becomes nothing more than "I said so.  If you don't like it, then leave."

All of such individuals claim the Holy Spirit guides them, but God cannot contradict God.  So if two of such people claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and they contradict, who is right?

This is why, when confronted with anti-Catholicism [as opposed to simple error in understanding what the Church teaches], I try to get the person to come out and explain why they feel they have the authority to interpret Scripture in a way which they deny to the Church.  Usually it comes down to "It's the plain sense!" [Meaning "It's how I read it."]

The Catholic View

We Catholics accept the authority of the magisterium, not because they say so, but because we believe CHRIST says so,  The Catholic Church trusts in the promises of Christ to be with the Church until the end of the world, and the gates of Hell will not triumph over it, and it shall have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19; Matt 18:18).  Christ equates hearing the Church with hearing Him (Luke 10:16), and if one will not heed the Church, they are to be treated as an outcast (Matt 18:17).  We believe that Christ has given the Church the authority to teach in His name (Matt 28:18-20).

If we did not believe that Church was not given authority by Christ to carry out His work, we would not be Catholics.  We believe the εκκλεσια mentioned by Christ was the Catholic Church, from whom others broke away.

To be sure other churches may claim that the Catholics broke away, but the question is: on what basis can they establish this to be?  Where is this so-called Church that existed before AD 313, given that Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?

The Conclusion

Anti-Catholics often assume we are ignorant of Scripture and of Church history and they hold the truth which we need to accept to avoid Hell.  For those of us who hear and reject their arguments, we are often labeled as "reprobate."

Yet the reason we refuse to accept their claims is because we do know what the Church teaches and we know our accusers speak falsely.

If we are in agreement that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the light, speaking falsely cannot be considered a work in keeping with Christ.

If one hears horrible things about what Catholics are to believe, let them ask an educated Catholic who believes the teachings of the Church if the charges are true, and not ask one whose hatred for the Church is well known.

Reflections on Faith in General and in Relation to Christian Obligation

PART 1: FAITH IN GENERAL

One of the problems with the word faith is it has different meanings, and intending on the meaning one uses, the term can be used in a positive sense or in a pejorative sense:

1 complete trust or confidence.

2 strong belief in a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Which Definition Do We Mean?

The common tactic used to attack religious belief is to use the second definition, making it out to seem as if the religious believer follows out of an irrational superstition.  But is it right to consider it to be this way?  Or can we consider faith, in the sense the Church uses it, to mean something different.

I think the first definition, while inadequate, comes closer to the mark.  We put our confidence in one one who is considered trustworthy.  If a person tells us a thing, and there is not a way to verify it from a different source, we have to either accept it or reject it based on the trustworthiness of the individual who makes the claim.  If we accept it, we are putting our faith in the fact that the person who has made the statement is trustworthy.

Is Faith Only Religious?

In this sense of understanding, faith is more widespread than one might believe.  People who are not skilled in medicine put their faith in their doctors to help them get well.  People who are not scientists put their faith in the claims of scientists to make judgments on various things.

If we cannot prove E=mc^2 for ourselves, we either have to accept or reject the credibility of the claim based on the trustworthiness of the one who makes the statement.

Of course in the real world there are consequences for not accepting certain things on faith.  If I deny the formula E=mc^2, people are going to want to know on what basis I make such a claim.  In other words, they want to know what makes me trustworthy to be a source of authority to reject the formula.

Even atheism is a "faith" in one of the two senses.  Either they found influential people whose arguments seemed reasoned or reasoned based on what they observed.  They may hold to it based on what they consider trustworthy sources, or they may hold on to it on personal conviction without reason.  [I've encountered both kinds].

Likewise, some Christians believe in God from sources which are trustworthy and some who believe from reasons which seem weak and likely to collapse under pressure.

Considering Faith in God… Or Lack Thereof

Ultimately I think faith in God or lack of faith comes down to this.  Philosophical arguments about the nature of God are quite valuable in understanding what it means to say God is omnipotent for example.  However, philosophical arguments alone can only tell us certain things about God.  However, if God reveals Himself to us, we have to make a decision: Is the source of the revelation trustworthy?  If we do believe He is trustworthy, people will no doubt ask us reasons for our faith.  If one does not, it is not unreasonable to ask an account of why they hold their view.

Personally, I believe the reasons for faith are quite valid.  I may not always be able to articulate my reasons for faith particularly well, but this does not mean they do not exist.

The other side of the coin however is when people not only deny the reasons, but instead claim the opposite.  If a person claims no God, the question is on what reasoning they can provide: Do they have credible reasons for denying the existence of God?  Or is it merely a "because I say so" response?

The "Because I say so" argument, whether used by a theist or an atheist, is an argument based on the second definition of faith.  There is no reason for it.  It is merely an expression of this is how we think the universe should work.

Do Our Perceptions of Another's Faith Match What He Believes?

Of course, we need to be certain that we are properly assessing the reasons for a person's faith.  It's no secret to the regular visitor here that I reject the idea of atheism.  In various works of apologetics here and elsewhere, I have encountered many who seem to hold "knee jerk" atheism, where quotes from Bertrand Russell or Sam Harris are thrown about, but when questioned, the person quoting them does not understand the significance of what is meant.

Now, does this mean all atheists hold "faith" in the second definition of the word?

No, it doesn't.  This would be trying to draw a universal conclusion from a limited sample.  Some atheists are reasoned people.  I believe they err in their basic assumptions, and I think the philosophers they consider reliable are in error as well but aside from that, they seem to believe what they hold sincerely.  Not all atheists are nasty, not all of them are bigots.

However this works the other way as well.  A person who has met a good number of believers who believe the old circular argument "The Bible is good because it comes from God, and God is good because the Bible says so" would be wrong to assume all believers think this way.  Saints like Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas believed very strongly in reason and asked hard questions, finding answers they find satisfactory.

There seems to be a common problem shared by both certain Christians and certain atheists, where the person is judged because he holds a creed.  One judges another's arguments to be untrustworthy and unreasoned simply because they hold a view the person judging disagrees with.

This is not to be understood as Indifferentism

I don't say the above with the view of saying "as long as you're sincere, that's enough."  It is important to recognize there can be very real errors about the nature of what is.  The person who thinks 2+2=5 holds a fundamental error which will throw off all his abilities to do math.  A society which believes humanity is nothing more than a talking animal will probably treat humanity like nothing more than an animal.

Certain ideas are wrong and must be challenged.  But how we take on this challenge will shape how fruitful our efforts are.

PART II: The Christian Obligation in Sharing the Faith

If we who are Christians believe that our faith comes from One who is trustworthy, it is important to recognize that we have an obligation to give an account for our faith.  We also have a duty to carry out this account in a way which is not arrogant.  How we act will be a representing of how the Faith is being seen by others.  (It is unfortunate that in nations once colonized by the West, the Faith is seen as a byproduct of the colonization and not for what it is.  This is an example of badly representing the faith by actions).

Now, we're all human.  We've all had to deal with someone who, through ignorance or through malice has attacked us or things we hold important.  We've all lost our temper, or been sarcastic or rude.  Hopefully all of us will remember those failings in ourselves when facing another who behaves in such a way to us.  As Christ has told us in Matthew 7: ^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

I think this is important.  If we get offended with those who consider us irrational zealots, let us not behave as if those we deal with are irrational zealots.

"Turn the Other Cheek" Does Not Mean "Be A Doormat."

Of course this can only be taken so far.  We should deal with others who do not share our faith in a way which is charitable, and if we fall, seek to change our behavior.  However, when we do come to people who come with the intent to mock or distort or deceive, we have to be firm, and not allow them to have their way.  "It is not charitable to be silent when truth requires us to speak" as one of the saints put it.

We should be prudent though.  If we see an attack on our Faith, and we sense we are shaking with rage, it is prudent to wait until we are calm before responding.  Just as an enraged warrior makes errors a cool swordsman can exploit to dispatch his opponent, an angry response can be exploited by a calm opponent to make you and what you believe look foolish.  [Yes, unfortunately I do speak from experience over the past several years, where I allowed myself to be baited]

Be Knowledgeable

Now those of us who profess the Christian faith are not at the same place, or have the same call.  Some may be people with a university degree.  Some may be housewives or laborers.   Some may be single with much time to devote.  Some might have many responsibilities which draw on their time.  But we should be knowledgeable in what we believe, and in dealing with those who do not believe, we should seek to recognize how they consider their faith to be based on what they deem trustworthy.

Be Centered In Christ

No person was ever argued into the Christian faith.  Our reason and intellect is a gift from God which we use to carry out His will.  We can use these gifts to expose errors and to explain where the proper knowledge is understanding. However, we cannot use these gifts to "make someone believe."  Only God can provide faith.  We can merely use our gifts to remove stumbling blocks to the faith.

If I write the most brilliant treatise on why we should believe in God, but my trust is in myself, I am doomed to fail.  We need to remember Christ is the Lord of our life, and we seek to serve Him, not win glory for ourselves.  Where God makes use of us, we need to serve, but we must not treat it as our work where God assists us.

Because of this, prayer is the most important thing we can do.  We need to remember that without Him we can do nothing