The Truth of Christianity

J. Daniel Sawyer, author of Predestination and Other Games of Chance and one time guest blogger here, sent me a list in an email a while back. I don’t know that he intended me to put it out here on the blog and I hope he doesn’t mind if I do, but I’ve been horrible at getting back to him on it and this way we all get to share in the fun.

Here is what he had to say:

On the issue of what makes Christianity, I agree with you that the Resurrection is at the heart of it. But from my POV that’s one in a string of doctrines that must be true. For “Mere” Christianity to be true in any meaningful sense (i.e. in a sense that has theological weight by Christianity’s own standards):

1) Jesus must have actually existed in physical, earthly history, rather than in a spiritual or mythical realm.
2) Jesus must have been more than merely a man.
3) There must have been some mechanism by which his death and resurrection accomplished something supernatural in the relationship between God and men (ransom, substitutionary atonement, etc.) and that accomplishment should be identifiable (salvation from hell for some, for all, life abundant, etc.)
4) Jesus must have been sent by, or been part of, Yahweh (i.e. I don’t think the Trinity is strictly necessary for Christianity to be true, but Yahweh’s involvement is).
5) Jesus must be the messiah prophesied in the Tanakh (what Christians call the ‘Old Testament)
6) Jesus must indeed have been sinless and good, and his execution must have been unjust.
7) Jesus’s teachings must logically follow from and/or fulfill the law of Moses.
8) By extension, Moses must have actually lead an exodus and received a law.
9) Christianity, claiming as it does to be God’s ultimate, final, and true revelation, must proclaim wisdom which men couldn’t arrive at on their own, and/or must proclaim a doctrine unique to that point in religious
10) Yahweh must be both good and just, as well as nearly omnipotent and nearly omniscient.

I intend to go through each point he made and the problems he put forth with each point over the coming weeks/months. It’s certainly too much to cover in one blog post. So as a starting point, what do you think of his list? Is there anything you would add? It’s his list so I don’t know that we can take away, though if you have an objection to a certain point being on the list I’d like to hear it. On the face of them the only one I have an objection to would be nine, but I will go into detail when we get to that.

  • RobAC
    As far as the first item, the historicity of Jesus, there is more evidence for his having lived than there is of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. But then, being a thorough subjectivist, this may all be part of my fevered dream.
  • Kansas Bob

    I have never seen #8 on these kinds of lists Sid.. if you include that then why not include a lot of the OT as well.. seems to require one to have a literalist view of the OT.. maybe not.


    Not sure what the point of #9 is.. seems to be some kind of generalization rather than a Christian standard.


    Thx for asking.

  • Hello Kansas Bob,


    Is it, then, your opinion that if one of the items in the list is false that Christianity can still be true? Which one(s)?

  • Kansas Bob
    @sid - not sure that "Christianity is necessarily false" just because someone got the list wrong.. a lot of lists out there :)
  • Sid: I would consider perhaps calling it "The Truth of Contemporary Mainline Protestantism/Catholicism," but it doesn't quite have the same ring. But in seriousness, chances are you could get your average American Protestant or Catholic to agree to the ten things above, and (more importantly) to agree that, if one of them is false, it's a serious setback at least.
    I'm not sure you can say anything stronger than that, though, particularly as to the actual "truth" of Christianity. Suffice to say I wouldn't think Christians need to stop being Christians if any single one of the points on the list were refuted. But, because I think of Christianity more as a social construction, a lot of Christians wouldn't think about this as I do.

  • I missed one reply I wanted to make.


    @Kansas Bob: You are talking about how one comes to believing the claims. As J. Daniel Sawyer pointed out in one of his comments, the list consists of things that must be true in order for Christianity to be true - whether or not people believe. No one is making the claim that the list is sufficient for faith, only necessary for Christianity to be true.


    Note, however, that if any one of items are demonstrably false (if this is, indeed, a minimum set of ontological precondition), then Christianity is necessarily false - whether or not one believes it.

  • @Snurp: Great points. I was trying to express something similar and am glad that you explained it more fully and clearly. Would describing the list as a minimum set of precondition for modern, mainstream Christianity sidestep these issues?


    @anonymous (I presume you are Pinakidion): I'm always pleased when I can clarify my ideas, as I must all too often.

  • Kansas Bob

    An interesting list for sure Scott. I don't really like lists like that because it comes across as some sort of intellectual test of "faith" when faith is really more about trusting with your heart.. you can embrace the facts as presented and still have an unregenerate heart.

  • Anonymous

    @sidfaiwu I follow what you are saying. So this is a list of minimum doctrines, not necessarily the truth or truths of Christianity. I get it. I must have misunderstood. (Not an uncommon experience.) Thank you for your example, that helped a great deal.


    @dan I see that it refers to a set of ontological issues that undergird the basic doctrinal claims of Christianity. (to quote you)


    As such, in both cases, I do not believe that Christianity can be removed from experience and/or action. Part of The Truth of Christianity comes from its practice, not its belief. As such, this list addresses half of the issue.


    Still makes for a good discussion, though.

  • The thing that bothers me about this whole discussion, and probably the reason I haven't added anything up to now, is that it doesn't seem right to me to say that there's one set of beliefs which defines Christianity. Ever since the conflict between Peter and Paul, there's never really been one Christianity, but rather Christian sects and groups, and the differences can be severe. For example, part of the reason Peter and Paul were in conflict was the relation of Christianity to Judaism, and the question of converting Gentiles. Paul spent his time working with Gentiles, and argued that circumcision was not necessary: how concerned would he be, then, with Christian fulfillment of Jewish prophecies? Certainly we can see why one who'd want to convert the Jews would care, but is it really necessary as a part of doctrine? Why? Because it add something essential to Christianity, because it fills some space which needs to be filled, or because we’ve just become used to its necessity and had it justified a million times? What of Jesus' nature? There were early Christians who didn't believe Jesus was God; the relation between the two was a point of contention for centuries. Some, including the scholastic theologian Abelard, have thought Jesus was sent as a moral example to mankind, not some sort of payment; what does this mean as regards points 2 and 3? Further, for point 2, what does that mean, "more than merely a man?" A really great man, or God? Or something else? All of these positions have been held by Christians. Certainly Abelard, who was on a side one not typically held now, was a Christian. What about true-blue mystics: what of the medieval theologian Meister Eckhart, who spoke of the "God above God" and completely de-emphasized the historical aspects? Was he not Christian (certainly, in this extreme case, many Christians would say so)?
    My point is this: our knowledge of what makes a Christian is and likely can only be inductive, not deductive. We can point to a person and say, "He's a Christian." What we don't do, and maybe can’t do, is isolate a set of characteristics that "makes" someone a Christian. For if we were faced with a person who believed all of the above except one, say #7, I don't think anyone but the most doctrine-obsessed (of which there are many who disagree with each other) would say that he or she was not a Christian on account of that point alone. We can try the same experiment with any of these characteristics; if one held a hundred doctrines that were perfectly in line with Christianity, but missed just doctrine X, would that person not be a Christian simply on account of that one point? A person must, instead, be "Christian enough:" a person must have enough sufficient characteristics. How many and what ones specifically are judgment calls, situated in what "Christianity" means at a given time and for a given group.
    Can’t we just make our set of doctrines more general? We could try, but there’s another problem: how do we find those beliefs that, even with a hundred other good beliefs, the lack of this one makes someone “not Christian,” without having as a result a set of beliefs so general that Christianity is indistinguishable from every other belief system? We can’t cast the net to narrow or too wide. For example, we can say pretty easily that Christians believe that one deity exists (can we call it a he?), and that Jesus was important. But if that’s all, then they can’t be separated from Muslims. Okay, “one deity” and “Jesus was more important than the Muslims say he is.” Well how important? How much more than a man was Jesus? “Well, according to X . . . .” But what authority is justified? It seems to me that “Christian” is too historical and human-centered (read: fallible) a concept to generalize into a set of doctrines that actually defines the different Christians and Christian sects throughout the last 2,000 years, without either leaving any out or including non-Christian as Christians (which we must avoid just as well). Personally, I think this can be dealt with partially by not letting doctrine determine who is part of a religion. But then again, that’s quite the matter of contention itself.
  • Scott
    Wow, if the prelude post to this gets this many comments I can't wait to see what the point by point discussion will bring.
    I will include in each post the problem with that particular point that Dan shared with me and I've no doubt he will elucidate. I also have no doubt that Sid will bring more ammo to the firing line.
    To the points that there are too many points, I do see how they support one another and that he is trying to give us, as he sees it, what you would need to believe about X in order to believe Y. Makes sense to me.
    Sid, since, imo, Christianity in some ways hinges on the Gospels, or at least without them we wouldn't have Christianity as it is today, 5,7, and 8 must be true. As far as the writers of the gospels, I would like to see proof that they "have embellished, exaggerated omitted, or even invented aspects of Jesus's life in order to match those prophecies". I could perhaps accept embellish.
  • Rock

    I agree with Pinakidion that the list is too long. Some of the items are implied by other items. IMO, it could be boiled down to a combination of items 3 and 5. Something like the following:


    Jesus must be the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and there must have been some mechanism by which his death and resurrection accomplished something supernatural in the relationship between God and men (ransom, substitutionary atonement, etc.) and that accomplishment should be identifiable (salvation from hell for some, for all, life abundant, etc.)

  • Thanks for the clarification, Dan. If I now understand correctly, your list was meant as a minimum set of ontological prerequisites that must be true in order for Christianity to be true. I, of course, would be greatly interested in hearing or reading about how you think most are demonstrated false. I hope you find the time.


    I would, however, argue that items 5, 7, and 8 are required for the Gospels to be true, but not necessarily for Christianity to be true. It is at least logically consistent to have Jesus be God, die for the sins of humanity, and rise again and for the Gospel authors to try to shoehorn his biography into Jewish prophecy. The authors may have embellished, exaggerated omitted, or even invented aspects of Jesus's life in order to match those prophecies (which they, in fact, did). That doesn't falsify the core theology of Christianity.


    In a similar spirit, I would replace Yahweh with "a/the divine being". This also implies another ontological necessity: A/The divine being must exist. Seeing as Christianity is monotheistic (ignoring their strange trinitarian doctrine), perhaps the list should favor 'the' over 'a'.

  • Michael --


    Would love to debate the historicity issue with you at some point when I've got more time to give the issue my full attention. I think you're demonstrably wrong in the events being the same in kind if not in magnitude (in the same sense that apologists have long compared the resurrection to Caesar crossing the Rubicon as equally well attested), and would enjoy the opportunity to air out the discussion in public at a time when we each have the resources to give the issue a proper hearing.


    -Dan

  • Hi, Sid! I see you get my point, namely, that the two events are known from testimony, so in that respect I do indeed believe they are comparable. Yes, they differ with regard to whether the testimony is from living persons; we should get a historian's professional opinion sometime as to how important that is (I suspect, less important than we think—American Lit people will point you to Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom! as a counterargument). And yes, the difference in time elapsed since each means that the number of available witnesses to the Holocaust is greater (I wonder whether this point will have any relevance in 2149). Nonetheless, this is a difference in degree, not in kind. The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth are there.
  • This promises to be fun!
    For context, this list came out of an email conversation between Scott and myself. He asked why I am not a Christian, and by way of answering I provided this list, to make sure we agreed what Christianity is so we wouldn't get lost in arguing over definitions.
    The list is a list ontological issues that the undergird the basic doctrinal claims of Christianity - not a list of things a Christian must believe to be a Christian.
    By analogy, for a car to work, the laws of thermodynamics, motion, and mechanical leverage must all be true. It is not necessary that a driver know or believe those laws in order to drive the car. The driver could believe the car is magic, and it would still work. This is, in a very simplified nutshell, the difference between ontological truth and existential truth - - the former is the reality of the matter, the latter is the understanding of reality as filtered through experience, culture, and individual perspective.
    So, the items on this list constitute the ontology which Christianity alleges - each item *must* in order for Christianity to be true. The items on this list don't need to be *believed* by all Christians - that is a matter of internal arguments regarding heresy and heterodoxy.
    That, at least, is my basic contention -- and the rationale behind this list.
    ---
    Item 9 is missing a word (could have been my error) -- the end should have read "religious history." not merely "religious"
    ---
    Sidfaiwu -
    Yes, there have been and continue to be a number of Christian sects (from Marcion onwards) that accept the NT while rejecting the OT. However, since the gospel writers go out of their way to ground Jesus in Jewish culture, portray him as the fulfillment of prophecy, and show Jesus himself saying that he is the fulfillment of the law of Moses, and since Christian ideas about god, sin, and salvation are based (at least in part) upon the post-exhillic Jewish temple cult, I don't think you can get around the necessity of 5, 7, and 8 as matters of ontology.
    ---
    For reference, as near as I can determine from my own investigations, almost every item in the list above is demonstrably false, and those which aren't false are shrouded in greater-than-tolerable uncertainty. Thus, I am reasonably convinced that Christianity fails on enough ontological grounds that it is almost certainly as false as the cult of Augustus.
    Looking forward to the blog series, Scott!
    -Dan
  • Hello Pinakidion,
    While that is a classic approach to rationalizing belief, I think your #2 fails as an axiomatic belief necessary for mere Christianity. Axioms are simple. #2 is not one simple belief but a large set of simple beliefs. For every statement and every action, a Christian would have to believe there is historical verification. It's logically possible to have many verified and still have some incorrect facts in the Biblical account of Jesus.
    Furthermore, it's not even necessary to believe that every statement and action is historically verified. Thus your #2 doesn't constitute a minimum set of beliefs necessary for mere Christianity. Think of it this way. If you were to learn today that, say, the loaves and fishes story was apocryphal. Would that undermine your belief in Christianity? Not likely since you may still believe the death and resurrection are true. J. Daniel Sawyer's list is an attempt at identifying a minimum set of beliefs.
  • It's a good list of the basic truths of the faith. I like it and enjoy thinking about my own belief and how it encompasses items on this list, including the aside about the Trinity.
    However, I think the list is too long and complicates the message unnecessarily. Many of the items are derived truths, and as such shouldn't be listed. Making a derived truth 'necessary' means that a hermeneutic is also required in addition to a fundamental truth.
    I believe the list should be
    <ol>
    <li>(from his list above.) Jesus must have actually existed in physical, earthly history, rather than in a spiritual or mythical realm.</li>
    <li>There must be a historically reliable way to confirm his words and actions while he physically existed.</li>
    <li>Jesus was bodily resurrected from death.</li>
    </ol>
    All the others listed are derived somehow.
    In reflection, you could even say that my third item, the resurrection, is derivative of the second item. (Since having an accurate account of his life would include his resurrection.)
  • Sounds like a good time, Scott. You know I'll be there every step of the way offering my thoughts. I don't see why 5, 7, and 8 are strictly necessary to be a Christian. I can imagine a sect that accepts the NT but not the OT even if one doesn't currently exist.
    RE Michael Spence: You can't seriously be comparing denial of #1 to Holocaust denying?!? Please. Add up the number of independent, mutually-supporting pieces of evidence for both and compare some time. For Jesus, you might be able to manage three. We can still find at least three living eye witnesses to the Holocaust. The two aren't even in the same ball park.
  • Dan's nailed much of it. (Which should come as no surprise to anyone.) I'm looking forward to your discussion of these points. Naturally #10 will attract a lot of discussion, but I'm amazed to be hearing these days that #1 is still a bone of contention. In some circles it is; of course, so is the Holocaust...
    Will dig in to see what other points fit the "If this proposition is not true, then Christianity is bogus" test.

  • Dan's nailed much of it. (Which should come as no surprise to anyone.) I'm looking forward to your discussion of these points. Naturally #10 will attract a lot of discussion, but I'm amazed to be hearing these days that #1 is still a bone of contention. In some circles it is; of course, so is the Holocaust...


    Will dig in to see what other points fit the "If this proposition is not true, then Christianity is bogus" test.

blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»