Discovery

Author’s Thoughts: This question calls for your personal response. Very often, people who hold caricatures and negative “attitudes” about faith have developed them from a single bad experience. They then generalize to say, “They’re all like that!” Of course, if we took that position regarding every “bad egg” in teaching, plumbing, law, and medicine (or any other field), we would end up throwing out some very legitimate people and professions. Likewise, in our response to “bad eggs” in the arena of faith, church, and religion, we must be careful not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” One bad example of faith does not prove that the entire foundation of the Christian faith is false. To know the truth about the Christian faith requires your own investigation into whether there is evidence to support it.

Author’s Thoughts: Again, personal responses here will vary. Most people agree on the importance of knowing whether their life has meaning and purpose. A poll by the Gallup organization asked, “How important to you is the belief that your life is meaningful or has a purpose?” An incredible 95% said it was either very- or fairly-important. Only 1% said it was not important (Gallup, 100 Questions and Answers: Religion in America, p. 12). Is it possible to know with certainty whether our lives have ultimate purpose and meaning? The agnostic will say no, but Discovery challenges that view. You, along with the skeptic or agnostic, are invited to consider the evidence and the logic presented in future sessions to discover an absolute God, and certain answers to our origin and destiny after death.

Author’s Thoughts: [This question and answer are also found in the PG, p. 4]. Yes, family is a wonderful value and so is contributing to a better future society. Almost everyone would choose to live in a society of order, respect, and freedom rather than one of chaos, destruction, and bondage or fear. That misses the point, that these purposes are temporal and confined to the finite triangle (physical world) only. Furthermore, in a finite world, how can it be determined which are the desirable values of a society?

Without an infinite and personal God who defines absolute values by His righteous character, the only ways in which values can be declared to be right or wrong are by a majority (vote) or by might (“might makes right”). That means values will change over time as people change their votes, or a political revolution occurs, and values are determined by a despot. The greater question is whether you and I have any inherent worth as people without regard to any contribution we make. If not, the significance of each individual is sacrificed for that of the race as a whole, i.e., you have no value except as you contribute to a future humanity in which you will never personally participate.

Author’s Thoughts: We need to realize that while legitimate things such as job satisfaction, helping in good causes, and building meaningful relationships are good, they are also only temporal and cannot meet our need for ultimate worth. Sadly, even people of great wealth, success, and fame have been dissatisfied; some have even taken their own lives, e.g., Marilyn Monroe and Earnest Hemingway. We can only know true and ultimate worth if there is an infinite and personal God who created us for a purpose and reveals a reality beyond the physical universe. Thus, without an Absolute (God), and an eternal existence beyond this life, purpose and meaning are only relative values. Wealth, power, a good job, and fun activities are all ultimately meaningless when viewed from a grave which annihilates us.

The Christian position is that individuals find true dignity and worth when they discover they are here by the choice of an Intelligent Designer who created them for a purpose which transcends the grave. This eternal perspective gives ultimate significance to each individual and provides the absolute context for making sense of our contribution to family and society.

Author’s Thoughts: Many have immersed themselves in materialism, temporarily substituting “things” for any thought of God or ultimate purpose in life. Others seek an ecstatic experience, Eastern mysticism, or the use of drugs and other substances to fill the void. Some commit all their waking hours to their work or activities, never pausing long enough or daring to think whether life is ultimately meaningful (Work cycle in SBF – pp. 19-20). The lack of personal worth and ultimate meaning is probably widely felt but seldom articulated clearly. People don’t know why they are unhappy, unfulfilled, or restless. It seems not to be a significant concern so long as life is going well and the person is not faced with suffering, a broken relationship, a financial crisis, or aging issues.

People who are hurting physically, emotionally, and spiritually most often ask in exasperation, “Why?” Suicide cases may at times be extreme examples of those who struggle with purpose and meaning. Daily boredom, alcoholism, drug experimentation, occult activity, and new-age fascination may all be symptoms of a lack of purpose and meaning for people.

Author’s Thoughts: We have demonstrated in session one that everything in the physical world is finite, with only relative values and no ultimate purpose and meaning. Only an infinite and personal God can provide ultimate purpose and meaning to the finite. A finite god, limited and without omniscience and omnipotence, would be dependent on something outside itself which can explain where it came from, why it exists, and what its eternal destiny is. Furthermore, an impersonal god would be incapable of intelligibly communicating purpose verbally to humans or forming a personal relationship with them. Only an infinite God – one who is absolute and perfect – and a personal God – one with intellect, will, and emotion – is truly independent and capable of knowing and revealing ultimate purpose to the finite creation.

Author’s Thoughts: Only eyewitness accounts can be used as evidence in a court of law. This is because hearsay is “second-hand” witness and cannot be validated – the source is usually from later generations or is dead and not available for cross-examination. It is thus important to establish that the New Testament Gospels are from eyewitness sources. Otherwise, they would be hearsay and not acceptable legally as evidence to establish a trustworthy historical record. Without a trustworthy first-century historical record, it would be more difficult to demonstrate objectively that Jesus is God (the legal test). Accounts of His teachings and miracles would be considered hearsay.

Author’s Thoughts: This is the heart of how Christianity differs from all other religions (see SBF4, pp. 12-14 [SBF3, pp. 24-26]). The apostle John said that “no one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only…has made him known” (John 1:18). The claim that Jesus is the exclusive incarnation of God to earth is testable because it took place among eyewitnesses in history (this will be demonstrated in sessions three and four). We can use legal evidence, together with reason and logic to analyze the Christian claim that Jesus is God. If the conditions for a reasonable testing are satisfied (SBF4, pp. 16-19 [SBF3, pp. 27-29]), then faith in God can be reasonable through the following logic:

1. The New Testament writings can be demonstrated to be trustworthy first-century historical records;

2. These records provide significant eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ humanity (He ate, slept, grew tired, wept, etc.), and the truth of His claim to deity (e.g., His words, miracles and resurrection from the dead);

3. The existence of God is then assured by His physical and personal appearance on the earth, and the final ascension of the resurrected Jesus from earth to heaven.

No other religion can satisfy Dr. Flew’s challenge (SBF4, pp.8-10 [SBF3, pp.20-22]) that if their God is invisible, intangible, and elusive – they cannot distinguish the existence of their god from an active imagination or wistful yearning. On the other hand, Christianity alone can attest to God’s existence based on testable, objective eyewitness history.

Author’s Thoughts: Possible intellectual factors might be: 1) The conflicting claims of many religions often confuse people, resulting in uncertainty whether all religions are right, or none is right, or how anyone can know; 2) Many don’t accept that the alleged holy books like the Bible are trustworthy records; 3) some struggle with the problem of evil – if God created all things, and God is good, where could evil have come from? 4) If there is a loving and all-powerful God, why is there so much suffering and pain in the world?

Factors other than intellectual ones may include: 1) The moral factor – the person won’t acknowledge and repent of sin (which they would be challenged to do to be consistent, if they acknowledge the existence of God); 2) The lifestyle factor – the person believes God will cramp their style, and they don’t want to change; 3) The emotional factor – the person has had a bad experience with religious people, or with suffering and pain (e.g., a mother died of cancer; a whole family was killed in an auto accident; has a disabled son or daughter, etc.); 4) The pride factor – the person won’t surrender to or acknowledge their need (addressed in detail in SBF, chapter 6).

Author’s Thoughts: Many even in the church view faith as necessarily being “blind” or accepted arbitrarily without reference to evidence or sound thinking. They will say that if we have reasons or evidence, we wouldn’t need faith. (A more complete understanding of faith will be covered in session seven – “What Makes Faith Valid?”). For now, I would address the above comment by saying they have missed an important point. Evidence and reason are needed to discern the difference or legitimacy of various objects which compete for our commitment. Why trust Jesus rather than Mohammed, Buddha, or Joseph Smith? Without apologetic support, this choice becomes arbitrary – and thus all “faiths” would necessarily be viewed as equal.

The apostle Peter, however, clearly taught that the Christian who is prepared to witness should “give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…” (1 Peter 3:15). Contemporary man has every right to expect us to offer solid reasons for asking them to make a total commitment to Jesus. Elsewhere (1 Corinthians 15:12-17), the apostle Paul states that if it can factually be demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then “your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” Our faith is only as good as its object, hence the need to provide evidence for the incarnation, life, ministry, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. The same is true for God’s existence.

Author’s Thoughts: Luke said that he and others used eyewitnesses and eyewitness sources for the information about Jesus which they recorded. Peter claimed that he himself was an eyewitness of Jesus’ transfiguration. The conclusion would have to be that the New Testament records were compiled in the first century while the information could still be verified by eyewitnesses of Jesus.

Author’s Thoughts: Remind your group that there is no “original” text (the actual document written down by the author) of the New or Old Testaments. Point out, however, that there are no original texts (autographs) of any other ancient writings either. “Original texts” of ancient literature are derived by comparing all the handwritten manuscripts for concurrence. The more manuscript copies to cross reference, the more accurately an “original” can be constructed. The number of handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament is extremely large compared to all other ancient writings. Refer to page 28 in SBF4 (page 37 SBF3) and the chart on page 8 in the PG for some comparisons. The thousands of New Testament manuscripts are scholars’ delight. They provide a wealth of comparisons for restoring the original text. To illustrate an extreme contrast, if there were only a single manuscript copy found for some ancient writing, it would be impossible to know whether it was accurate or whether it may have changed over the years of copying. It would be impossible to confirm its integrity. At the other extreme is the New Testament with thousands of manuscript copies, found in every century from the first all the way to the printing press in the fifteenth century. This evidence for integrity is the basis for statements like that of scholar Frederic Kenyon who said, “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed” (see pp. 36-37 in SBF4 [pp. 43-44 in SBF3] for quote and citation).

Author’s Thoughts: Of course, the answers here will be personal. Most people today, both believers and unbelievers, express that they were not familiar with this evidence and were not even aware that this approach could be used to study the Bible. Some people who are familiar with this area of study may say that our data is contrary to what they had heard before. It is the manuscript evidence which tends to destroy the skeptical foundation some people have. Generally, the reason most of us are so surprised is that it contradicts the popular but false notion that the Bible is mythological in origin and nature. It reverses what many of us have heard repeatedly in higher education, the popular press, and even in some churches and seminaries.

Author’s Thoughts: This evidence is not well known at all, even in the Christian community. For several generations, Christians in this country have enjoyed a consensus that their message and the source of that message are true. It came to be taken on faith without consideration or challenge. As a result, there has been little training or attention given to apologetics, i.e., the reasons supporting the truth of the Christian claims. Until recently, it had not seemed necessary. Now Christians find themselves needing to defend their views. But they do not know how, and many find their attempts at explaining their faith frustrating and ineffective. To communicate effectively with people in today’s technological and skeptical culture requires an upgrading of Christian understanding, to enable and equip believers to explain to honest skeptics why Christianity is unique and true. Another explanation why the evidence is not well known may be the dependence that Christians have had upon personal experience alone to validate the truthfulness of their faith. Of course, a changed life is powerful evidence, but it is often viewed by those who are skeptical as subjective. Furthermore, the skeptic hears similar-sounding testimonies coming from cults and other religions—even from people in the sales meetings of some companies. To avoid confusion, the Christian today needs to combine objective, historical evidence with the power of personal testimony.

Author’s Thoughts: This calls for a personal response and sharing. Often when we don’t trust a source, we are reluctant to commit ourselves to it. This is true whether committing ourselves to another person or, in this case, the writings about Jesus. Our motivation to learn may be increased by knowing that what it says is about a real person who is alive and who can make an actual difference in our lives. Furthermore, it is quite motivating to learn more about Jesus’ teaching when we realize we will stand accountable before Him someday and will live with Him forever!

Author’s Thoughts: This question calls for a personal response. Most of us are surprised that people and events in the Bible can be checked by archaeology at all.A recent article inBiblical Archaeology Reviewdocumentsthat fifty-four Old and New Testament people havenowbeenhistoricallyverified by archaeological discoveries. Aselectionof specific archaeological finds is itemized in chapter 2 ofSBF. Archaeological evidence usually elicits a greater response from us than manuscript evidence, perhaps because we understand it better. What we should understand from thisevidence is,itvalidatesthat the Bible is written about real people and real events, rather than myth.

Author’s Thoughts: The Jews who lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus would very likely have been able to detect fabrications about His life. Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. Peter began preaching details about Jesus within fifty days in Jerusalem (Acts 2:22-24); Paul wrote the first New Testament letters within seventeen years; and the first Gospel was penned within about twenty-five years. If they were inventing stories about Jesus, such as His resurrection, surely the local Jews would be quick to object and point out that it never happened. Why? They were also eyewitnesses to these events and would have known better. The fact that we are unable to find any eyewitness writers who objected to the records of Jesus supports the truth of the accounts. (Read again the illustration of former president John F. Kennedy in this regard on page 49 in SBF4 [page 53 in SBF3].)

We would definitely discern better if we were an eyewitness rather than having heard about it second or third-hand. In a court of law, information gained by being passed from generation to generation is considered hearsay. It cannot be confirmed by eyewitness testimony. At least an eyewitness can be cross-examined to determine the consistency of his/her observations. If we were not eyewitnesses, we would be accepting the testimony based on tradition. This is generally unacceptable as proof.

Author’s Thoughts: The early date of the New Testament writings supports the position that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or they consulted eyewitness sources. Even Luke (who was probably not an eyewitness of Jesus) says that his information was derived from eyewitness sources (see Luke 1:2). Since this is so, then these accounts can stand as legitimate legal evidence for Jesus. They are not hearsay. Prior to the early manuscript discoveries resulting from the last 100 years of archaeology, it was customary in writings critical of the New Testament, to place the date of its composition in the second century, A.D. With so much time between Jesus and the New Testament accounts, it was said, it was not possible for eyewitnesses to have written them. Thus, it was alleged that the stories included considerable legendary material. The current dating of the New Testament writings in the first century within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses makes the allegation of “legend” a weak one.

Author’s Thoughts: Archaeology can provide convincing evidence for the Bible’s historicity. It is a valuable revealer of ancient life and times, and confirms the underlying historicity of events, places, etc. For example, archaeology can provide answers to questions like: Is there a historic Jericho? Was it destroyed by invasion? Did the walls fall out? When did this occur? Likewise, archaeology can verify the historical existence of the governor of Judea, of Pontius Pilate, as well as the high priest Caiaphas, and the Pool of Siloam.

Author’s Thoughts: It is the first condition for testing the God hypothesis (SBF4, p. 16 [SBF3, p. 27]). Without the historically-valid New Testament records, the Christian claim that Jesus is God is reduced to experience and allegation, i.e., it has little advantage over the truth claims of other religions. Therefore, the historical incarnation of God to earth would no longer be testable in a legal sense, and the way to know God with reasonable certainty would be gone.

Author’s Thoughts: The responses here will be personal. Most of us will probably acknowledge that few of our friends know about this evidence.

None of us “know it all.” If we each were to tell someone about one or two facts we have learned, then many more would begin to be informed. We can make a difference. Furthermore, the book SBF can be shared with others who desire a more thorough explanation of the evidence. Finally, each of us could host the Discovery video in our own homes and invite our neighbors, friends, and family to hear the evidence. Eventually, entire communities can be informed about the truth.

Author’s Thoughts: There are several reasons why this is true. From the perspective of our thesis in this study, it is critical because Jesus is our historical contact with an otherwise invisible God (review SBF4, pp. 8-10, 14-16 [SBF3, pp. 20-22, 26-27]). Because of Jesus’ incarnation, Christianity’s claim for God’s existence becomes testable using historical evidence. This separates Christianity from all other religious truth claims about the existence of God. Some Christian people object though, stating that they do not need all this evidence and reason complicating their faith. They pride themselves that theirs is a simple faith based on the inner testimony of assurance by the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the testimony of the Holy Spirit within is a valid claim, but we ought to be concerned with our effectiveness in communicating the truth of the Gospel message to those who are honest skeptics in our contemporary, post-modern society. Only if the people to whom we share our faith do not have any objections, might we then be okay in expressing only the “what” of the Gospel. What if the honest skeptic says they have trouble believing the Bible, or that they doubt Jesus is God? To answer their objections, we must be prepared to tell them why it is true. Unfortunately, those who don’t feel that “why” explanations are necessary, often walk away from a person with honest objections, concluding that they have a hardened heart and are unwilling to accept the truth.

Author’s Thoughts: If we were to do what the question suggests, it would give us an experiential appreciation of the extreme nature of what Jesus said. Your family would likely either laugh or cry. They would assume that you were either joking or had lost your mind! Indeed, if much of what Jesus said would come out of our mouths, we would be considered as prime candidates to be locked up or given psychological treatment. Albert Schweitzer was so overwhelmed by the extraordinary statements of Jesus that he addressed his M.D. dissertation at Strasburg in France to how Jesus could make such claims and still be considered sane.

Author’s Thoughts: As recorded in John 5:17-18, the Jewish leadership was so incensed by Jesus’ statements that they felt justified in seeking His death. The only basis in the law for this would be blasphemy, that is, Jesus’ claim to be equal with God. That must be what they understood Jesus to be saying. Likewise, their reaction in John 8:59 was to seek to stone Him to death because He claimed the name of God for Himself, that is, “I AM.” Again, they spoke the same language and shared the same culture—they should know what He said and meant. Similarly, their reaction to Jesus’ statement in John 10:30 was to seek to stone Him to death because of blasphemy: “…You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (v. 33). Clearly, the reactions of Jesus’ own contemporaries reinforce the position that He really was claiming to be God.

Author’s Thoughts: Jesus demonstrated His familiarity with the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah when He identified Himself with the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 61:1-2 (recorded in Luke 4:18-19). This means He also knew that the “glory” of Galilee and the “great light” they would see was none other than the child who would be born there (Isaiah 9:1-2, 6). And this child would bear the names “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father” (v. 6). During Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, they asked whether He was the Christ (Messiah). He not only acknowledged that to be true, but He went beyond and quoted a prophetic passage from Daniel regarding the “Son of Man” (Luke 22:66-69). The Sanhedrin understood this to be a claim to be God as indicated by their question, “Are you the Son of God, then?” Jesus replied, “Yes, I am.” Clearly, Jesus connected His claim to be the Messiah with His claim to be Divine.

Author’s Thoughts: This calls for a personal response and will vary within the group. Hopefully, those of us who were uninformed about what Jesus claimed, or had misconceptions about His statements, will consider changing our attitude and response toward Jesus and the Christian faith.

Author’s Thoughts: Psalm 49:7 with Mark 10:45 – Jesus claimed that He gave His life as a ransom for sin, but God says in the Psalm that no man can redeem the life of another or ransom them (because they themselves are sinners). Jesus must be claiming to be a man without sin as well as to be God.

Matthew 28:18 – “All authority” includes everything. No other human could say this and be considered credible and sane.

Luke 4:8 with John 9:38, Matthew 14:33 and 28:17 – Jesus cited Scripture stating that we must worship only the Lord your God—and then in His ministry accepted worship several times. This is incredible hypocrisy, or else He meant us to understand that He is God.

Luke 5:20,21 – Jesus put Himself in God’s place to forgive sin which was between a man and his God only. The man did nothing to Jesus; he may not have even known Him. What did Jesus have to forgive him for? Nothing, unless Jesus was God against whom all sin is accountable.

John 5:17,18; 10:30 – God established the Sabbath as a day of rest. Jesus claimed authority over the Sabbath and redefined its meaning. By doing so He was claiming the authority of God and being equal with God.

John 8:53-59 – Jesus claimed the Holy name of God (I AM) for Himself and He claimed to be pre-existent as well. Only as God could He claim this. (See Exodus 3:13-15.)

John 10:27,28 – Jesus claimed He could give and guarantee eternal life to His followers. Only God would have such knowledge, power and authority.

Author’s Thoughts: Perhaps the fruit of the Spirit would be a good place to start here: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22). Other traits that some may add are a sense of humor, tolerance, honesty, loyalty, etc. Most would agree that these are nearly universally desirable. Usually we demonstrate their presence in our life through action. As people get to know us, they find out what character traits we actually have. In other words, people really know us by our walk, not just our talk. The longer people got to know Jesus, the more they became convinced He was who He claimed to be. His divine qualities were evident in His walk.

Author’s Thoughts: Since the alleged healing is a historical event which is not repeatable, we would have to use the legal method of persuasion. This consists of examining all forms of evidence to see whether it will convince us beyond a reasonable doubt that the healing actually took place. The evidence will consist of weighing the credibility of the witnesses as in question one above. You would gather x-rays, lab tests, and other evidence from before and after the event, to determine whether there was actually any cancer present before, and that it is in fact gone. You would cross-examine the attending physicians and ask for their medical judgment whether the patient is now cancer free. You may even look for precedents of such healings and interview others who claim a supernatural healing. Whatever else you may pursue, eventually you will come up with a verdict which represents the most reasonable conclusion to the matter. This same process is also involved in determining a verdict about who Jesus is.

Author’s Thoughts: Jesus’ claims to be God are hollow without the actions which back them up. Repeatedly, Jesus referred to His miracles as evidence for who He was (John 5:36; 10:25, 37-38; 14:11; Matthew 11:1-6, 20-24). Even the apostle John includes miracles (“signs”) in his Gospel account as evidence for the reader to believe in Jesus (John 20:30-31). Bernard Ramm (Protestant Christian Evidences, [Chicago: Moody Press, 1953], p. 142) states a relevant point here: “Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is already believed, but in biblical religion miracles are part of the means of establishing the true religion.” If Jesus is truly One (equal) with the Father, there could be nothing over which He did not have authority, including the demons (spirit realm), death (eternal realm), sin (moral realm), and nature (physical realm). That is, in fact, what He demonstrated in His life, ministry, and resurrection.

Author’s Thoughts: Thomas (John 20:24-28) changed from skepticism to faith when he saw the evidence of visible nail marks in Jesus’ hands and wound in His side. Saul, who became the apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-20) changed from skepticism to faith when he saw the evidence of Jesus’ physical appearance to Him on the Damascus Road. Many of Jesus’ contemporaries changed their minds when confronted with the evidence (see John 11: 45-48). That evidence was in the form of Jesus’ claims and His actions (miracles). However, His resurrection was the critical and unique evidence that Jesus was who He claimed Himself to be. The title, “Lord” (translates the Hebrew for “God” in the Old Testament) became the most common title of Jesus only after the resurrection.

The nature of faith part of the question anticipates the discussion of faith in the next discovery. The definition of faith given there will contend that faith requires an object in which to place one’s trust. To trust that object requires knowledge of the credibility of that object. The nature of faith referred to in this question is that it is based on evidence or knowledge concerning Jesus. The evidence we have covered in this “Ah-ha!” Discovery gives people a reasonable basis on which to trust Jesus as the object of their faith.

Author’s Thoughts: When Jesus raised the young man at Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-16), the text says that “fear gripped them all” and they immediately attributed this to God. It seems obvious that this was a unique experience for them. In Luke 8:25 we find the disciples wondering who Jesus could possibly be since He has power to control nature itself. Those people who witnessed Jesus exorcise demonic spirits from a man to make him well (Luke 8:26-39) became frightened (v. 35). When Jesus fed 5,000 families with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:5-14), they immediately identified Him as the “Prophet who is to come into the world” (v. 14). The fact that Jesus healed a man born blind (John 9:1-12) was seen as evidence that He was from God (v. 33). Finally, Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:38-45) convinced many of the Jewish religious leaders to turn to follow Him in faith (v. 45). In all these cases the miracles were responded to as evidence that Jesus was from God or was God. They were so unique in the eyewitnesses’ experience that there was no mistaking their significance of authenticating Jesus. Ultimately it was the miracle of His own resurrection, and the subsequent time on earth for forty days after His resurrection, which became overwhelming evidence for His deity.

Author’s Thoughts: The most common additional answer that someone may offer is that Jesus is a legend. Of course, the person will not usually call it that. Typically, they think that the stories of Jesus are myths resulting from oral tradition or embellishments the church added to the records later (see question two in “Ah-ha!” Discovery four for a response to this view). Some may also suggest that Jesus was only a prophet. Of course, the answer to this is that Jesus never claimed to be only a prophet, but God. And if He were only a prophet, He would be stoned to death because He claimed credit for Himself rather than attributing it to God. Otherwise, there is usually not much argument with the logic here. The options given here are based on evidence and arrived at by logical deduction. If we do have another idea, we need to ask what evidence there is to support that view.

Author’s Thoughts: We will need to understand that evidence and reason are not the same as faith. According to the apostle Paul (Romans 10:13-17), Christian faith cannot even start without knowledge of its object Jesus Christ. We must use our mind and interact with the evidence to determine whether Jesus is a worthy object of our faith. We also must determine why we should believe in Jesus instead of other religions and religious leaders. The fact that Jesus came into history means we can reasonably analyze and test the legitimacy of His claim to be God. On that rational foundation, faith is not blind, nor is it an irrational leap into the dark. Rather, it is an informed choice based on the facts about Him. [See question 3 below for related information.]

Author’s Thoughts: The basis on which we choose the objects of our trust may certainly vary. None of us wants to be accused of believing in something which has clearly been shown to be false. Therefore, objects of faith must be credible as demonstrated by some set of reasonable criteria such as consistency. That is why we spent so much time in this study establishing that Jesus was credible in His claims. This will determine the legitimacy of our faith in Him, not our subjective experience or whether we are emotionally sincere and confident. The list of evidence supporting the Christian faith will include factors like the credibility of the eyewitness Gospel sources and the extent of archaeological confirmation of historical facts. These are objective factors and are of the same nature as factors we rely on for most situations calling for trust.

Author’s Thoughts: Our friend would have missed an important point. Evidence and reason are not required for faith but rather to discern the difference or legitimacy of various objects which compete for our faith commitment. Why trust Jesus rather than Mohammed, Buddha, or Joseph Smith? Without apologetic evidence, this choice becomes arbitrary. John W. Montgomery in Faith Founded on Fact (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 40) is clear on this point:

Evidently, what is necessary for effective Christian witness in a pluralistic world is an objective apologetic—a ‘reason for the hope that is in you’—that will give the non-Christian clear ground for experientially trying the Christian faith before all other options. Absolute proof of the truth of Christ’s claims is available only in personal relationship with Him; but contemporary man has every right to expect us to offer solid reasons for making such a total commitment. The apologetic task is justified not as a rational substitute for faith, but as a ground for faith; not as a replacement for the Spirit’s working, but as a means by which the objective truth of God’s Word can be made clear… [See 1 Peter 3:15; John 16:8.]

Without this grounding in fact, the faith of our friend could be just sentimentalism, sincerity, or even bias. It is the faith he/she grew up with (tradition) or accepts based on someone else’s authority. In contrast, evidence can establish a faith object which is validated by facts and is accepted, not blindly but as informed truth.

Author’s Thoughts: If personal choice is a factor in having genuine biblical faith, then saving faith is limited to those who receive the grace which Jesus offers. Not receiving by faith is a “no” response. The point should be made that if God were to include everyone in heaven, whether they have received His grace or not, then the significance of humankind as a free agent (not a robot) would be eroded. Our choice would not matter to God because He would not be taking that into consideration but rather using coercion – we would be, so to speak, cancelled out. The Bible teaches, on the other hand, the choice we make is so important that it impacts our eternal destiny. Of course, if Universalism were true, the definition of faith as a “commitment-making process” would also be eliminated (SBF4, p. 96 [SBF3, p. 91]).

Author’s Thoughts: The third component (response) is often neglected. We think that if we “know” and “agree” with truth about Jesus, that is the end of the matter. Stopping after being “willing” in the faith triangle can be nothing more than good intentions. The Word of God insists that to truly know something, you also do it (or obey it) (see James 1:22; Matthew 7:21; 21:28-31). The omission of this third component is a basis for the accusation that Christians are hypocrites. When Christians do not walk the talk, they are denying their faith claim rather than acting on it. The reason for this failure is clear – maturity is a process and it takes time to have a disciplined life of obedience. Therefore, some find it convenient to ignore the third component.

Author’s Thoughts: The critical issue here is how to come into a saving relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, “knowledge” is concerning Jesus, “will” is concerning a conviction to acknowledge personal sin and Jesus as Savior, and “response” is concerning a prayer of commitment to receive Him by faith. Some people find it simpler to combine will and response to equal “following Jesus.” People often conveniently equate faith with intellectual assent without any thought of a changed life of obedience. Jesus said, “Follow Me,” which certainly calls for a response to His person and teachings. This is what James 2:14ff is addressing as well. There is no thought here that good works are added to or are a part of faith. Faith alone, without any thought of merit, qualifies us to be acceptable to God. As a result of faith, the indwelling Holy Spirit then bears fruit through us. Another difference from good works is in the sequence of the three steps: “Response” cannot be considered first because it puts the focus upon us, and our merit before God. It is not our “response” which saves us. When it follows the other two components of the faith triangle, the focus is upon Jesus Christ (initial salvation) or the Word of God (spiritual growth process). The “response” then becomes the expected action derived from a proper understanding and submission to Jesus and His Word. The three components do apply to Christian growth as well as initial salvation. For example, once we have trusted Jesus Christ, the three components are applied to spiritual growth. We may read in the Bible that we are to forgive one another (Colossians 3:13). This is “knowledge” concerning God’s Word. We must decide (“will”) if we agree with and submit to God and then do it (“response”). We are to set our minds on things which are true, pure, excellent, etc. (Philippians 4:8 = “knowledge”). Unless we agree with and choose that (“will”) and then act upon it in practice (“response”), it is not a step of faith. Faith growth occurs as we study the Word of God and obey it. Thus, our faith potential is in proportion to our knowledge of the Word of God. Our faith walk is in proportion to our obedience to the Word of God. With that understanding, in practice, it is not biblical faith until it is true in our lives! Of course, it is the power of the Holy Spirit within us which makes salvation and spiritual growth possible at all.

Author’s Thoughts: For the difficulty, see the answers to the questions below as well. It involves admitting our sinfulness and our need for God to be saved. This is often an affront to self-sufficiency. Critical to many people is the issue of autonomy—I am captain of my own ship; I report to no one; and I can make it alone. It is an affront to self-righteous pride to hear that I am a slave to self and sin (Romans 3:10-12, 20; John 8:34) and must become totally dependent on God to take away my sin (1 Peter 3:18). This is the moral issue of question 3 and is the critical issue of becoming a Christian. The Bible says three forces are at work to maintain prideful autonomy from God: the world (1 John 2:16); the flesh (Romans 7:14, 24-25); and the devil (Ephesians 6:12). As C.S. Lewis has written, “As long as you are proud, you cannot know God” (quoted in SBF4, p. 140-141 [SBF3, p. 126]). The discussion of questions 3 and 4 partially addresses this “bottom line” concept. The path to genuine faith involves a change from pride to humility. We can see this throughout the Bible. Read the following Bible passages to verify this for yourself: Jeremiah 17:5; Zechariah 4:6; Matthew 18:1-4, 19:30; Luke 18:9-14; John 12:24-25; 13:12-17; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10; and Galatians 2:20.

Author’s Thoughts: This is a personal response. We need to think about times in our life when we have been humbled. It does not always have to be negative. For example, it may come at the birth of our first child or even upon receiving an important recognition. Unfortunately, many of us are only humbled by negative experiences such as a failing marriage, lost job, or tragic accident.

Author’s Thoughts: Examples of arrogant pride are not hard to find. Professional sporting events sometimes manifest blatant demonstrations of egos which are embarrassing, if not repulsive. Powerful politicians or lawyers may at times reveal egotistic arrogance when confronted about questionable activities. It is not just highly visible people who manifest wrongful pride. Husbands, teachers, bosses, and people in every other relationship or role throughout society have been guilty of destructive pride. This is because pride is essentially competitive. C.S. Lewis was right when he wrote: “We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others… It is the comparison that makes you proud…Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 118-119). Pride is so difficult to control because it is part of our fallen nature and requires a supernatural work of God to break its power. It should be evident from this that the greatest difficulty in becoming a Christian is not intellectual but moral in nature. We must not be naive. Even though we may be able to provide someone a complete arsenal of evidence which would satisfy even the most brilliant and skeptical mind, this is no guarantee that the person will respond in faith to Jesus.

Author’s Thoughts: These two questions focus on the heart of the matter—who I really think I am compared to how big my God is. Obviously, these are central to our attitude and willingness to even consider a response to the teaching in Discovery. If I see myself as the self-sufficient “pro” or someone who “knows better,” then the thought of spiritual brokenness will seem to be wimpy or a response for the weak. We will feel that it is for those who are not handling life very well, but since we are successful and climbing—why do we need it? From the perspective of the Christian faith, we are not being realistic. We are in denial about the big picture, including eternity. We are acting as if we are autonomous in the universe and not created by an infinite and personal God to whom we are accountable. Unfortunately, life often awakens us, sometimes abruptly and painfully, from our fantasy of thinking “all is well.” These two questions point the way on the path to faith for discovering a proper perspective about self and God without the pain.

Author’s Thoughts:
• Proverbs 8:13. God calls pride an evil, and He hates it.
• Proverbs 16:18. Pride is blind to reality and leads to error and personal destruction.
• 1 Samuel 2:3. God knows our speech and heart and will judge pride.
• Micah 6:8. God desires that we walk humbly with Him.
• 1 John 2:16. Boasting and pride are not of God, but of the evil world system.
• Mark 7:21-23. The human heart is evil, which includes pride.
• James 4:6. God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble.
• 1 Peter 5:6. We are commanded to be humble before God.

Author’s Thoughts: Since eternal life is not dependent on what I have done or accomplished (works), it must be based on grace – what Jesus Christ has done on my behalf. The basis for my assurance then is completed and unchangeable. Since it is the power of God which has saved us by His grace, then it is the power of God which will sustain us in that salvation by His grace (see John 10:27-29; 6:37, 39; Romans 8:28-39). Of course, we must realize that the true child of God does not look for ways to “cheat” or live carelessly because we now have “fire insurance” (see Romans 6:1-7, 15; 1 John 3:4-10). As true children of God, we are grateful and motivated to do good deeds because of our love for Him and enabled to do so by the inner power of the Holy Spirit.

Author’s Thoughts: Salvation is easy because it is a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 6:23) upon repentance of sin. Discovering the “Ah-ha!” of life is only a prayer away. It needs only to be received. Becoming a Christian, then, is easy because Jesus already did the difficult (redemptive) part.

Author’s Thoughts: Jesus came into the world to save everyone (1 Timothy 1:15) but there are those who harden their hearts, will not acknowledge their plight, and refuse to receive Him as their Savior (John 8:33-59). Often this is the result of human pride and autonomy, as was discussed in the last discovery. This was the cause of Jesus’ lament about Jerusalem (unbelieving Jews) described in Matthew 23:37. The “narrow way” to which Jesus referred was not any limitation God was placing on salvation but instead the resistance of humanity to enter by the gate of humility and repentance.