4 thoughts on “Going for the jugular (Habermas & Licona post #1: Introduction)”

• 

  Reply ↓

  Mark Lofgren May 4, 2022 at 4:31 pm

  This maybe a little long and inconclusive but you asked for our thoughts…so in your previous blog you mentioned a couple things that got me thinking: 1) evangelizing atheists 2) a drop of reason in a sea of confusion.
  I’ve met or interacted with many believers who have some good reason and understanding of theological truths but in other doctrines of faith they are very confused or unbelieving. Sometimes theological scholars spend more time studying historical books and evidence apart from the Bible either to convince themselves what the Bible is saying is true and that in their hearts they believe or to be able to convince or convert an atheist or unbeliever, and they might even overlook something the Bible states and lean on man’s understanding more. For example – and tell me if I’m wrong on this and why: in the movie clip that you’ve linked above of “The Case For Christ” Habermos (or the character playing him) states that there are historical accounts of people seeing the risen Lord “months” after He died and rose again. If I’m not mistaken, the Bible declares that Christ ascended into heaven – never to be seen in the flesh again – before the first Pentecost after His resurrection which was just fifty days from the Passover when He was crucified; so why does Habermos say “months”?
  His reasoning against vested interest does make sense or is reasonable: why would someone or a group of people be willing to die for something they believe to be a lie?

  I’ve learned that many or most Christians who believe in the Lord’s death and resurrection don’t understand or know the doctrines of total depravity, election and sovereign grace, and faith. The latter they think they understand and will be ready to claim that they have exercised it in order to secure their salvation not knowing of course that if it wasn’t for God putting His Spirit in them to begin with they wouldn’t have any faith to exercise and believe the resurrection. They believe rather that it takes us to be convinced by our own reasoning and free will to accept it and that takes often miracles to convince people there is a God period. We know however from the Biblical record that their were many in Christ’s day who saw and demanded to see miracles but still didn’t believe. His response to many of them was that they could not believe because they were NOT His sheep. So He didn’t bother trying to convince them because He knew they were not born again and therefore had no God given faith to believe. Nicodemus on the other hand was a child of God and believed but had little understanding so the first lesson he got from the Lord was to know about sovereign grace and that no one could understand and believe unless they are born from above (Jn.3:3).

  In my last comment I cited Jesus’ response to Thomas who was a born-again disciple that followed Christ but doubted that it was He who had risen from the grave, interestingly and contrary to what Jesus told Mary Magdalene in Jn.20:17, He allowed Thomas to touch Him and His piercings from the crucifixion to convince him but consider the Lord’s final comment to Thomas “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”.
  I ask you FOTF, as you read these books by these scholars who believe, let me know if any of them understand the doctrine of total depravity.
  Remember also the faithful sayings of Paul:
  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)

  “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2Th 3:1-2)

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF May 6, 2022 at 7:07 am

    Hey Mark, thanks for your thoughts! Responses below.

    MARK:

    Sometimes theological scholars spend more time studying historical books and evidence apart from the Bible either to convince themselves what the Bible is saying is true and that in their hearts they believe or to be able to convince or convert an atheist or unbeliever, and they might even overlook something the Bible states and lean on man’s understanding more.

    TFOTF:

    Agreed, they might overlook something. But, as a counterpoint, when I see reviews like this on Amazon…
    “The information described in this book and others like it have been instrumental in returning me to the Christian faith after a decade of a lack of belief.”
    …it tells me that the arguments/evidence contained in this book truly can be positively impactful for some people.

    MARK:

    For example – and tell me if I’m wrong on this and why: in the movie clip that you’ve linked above of “The Case For Christ” Habermos (or the character playing him) states that there are historical accounts of people seeing the risen Lord “months” after He died and rose again. If I’m not mistaken, the Bible declares that Christ ascended into heaven – never to be seen in the flesh again – before the first Pentecost after His resurrection which was just fifty days from the Passover when He was crucified; so why does Habermos say “months”?

    TFOTF:

    Good question. Since he says “within” months, he seems to be placing an upper bound on the dates of the sightings. He’s not necessarily saying that Jesus was seen 3 months after the crucifixion…he’s just saying you can use historical records to show that people claimed to see him at some point less than, “within”, 3 months after the crucifixion. In addition, I’m not sure if he’s making claims about the dates of the sightings themselves…he specifically mentions the words “reports”. So he could be talking about the date the report was made, not the date that the sighting itself occurred.

    MARK:

    His reasoning against vested interest does make sense or is reasonable: why would someone or a group of people be willing to die for something they believe to be a lie?

    TFOTF:

    Yes, I think this is a very powerful argument. However, when I mentioned vested interest, I was referring to Strobel’s challenge related to Habermas’s loss of his wife. This is the part I’m still processing….i.e., you could say Strobel was committing the vested interest fallacy by rejecting Habermas’s argument, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair to Strobel. Strobel merely asked if Habermas’s longing to see his wife again weakened Habermas’s argument for the resurrection. You can take the vested interest concept to either of two extremes: One is to say that you reject anybody’s argument whenever they have a vested interest in their conclusion. This is the vested interest fallacy. However, the other extreme is to completely ignore someone’s motivations when they are trying to persuade you (or themselves) of something. The wiser choice for Strobel, instead of asking Habermas if Habermas’s desire to see his wife again weakened Habermas’s argument, would have been to say to himself (Strobel): “I see that Habermas has a strong desire to see his wife again, and I have to consider the possibility that this desire could be robbing him of his objectivity. However, I can’t just reject his argument on the basis of a vested interest. Instead, I will continue to carefully investigate this topic.” And after watching the whole movie, that seems to be exactly what Strobel did.

    MARK:

    I’ve learned that many or most Christians who believe in the Lord’s death and resurrection don’t understand or know the doctrines of total depravity, election and sovereign grace, and faith. The latter they think they understand and will be ready to claim that they have exercised it in order to secure their salvation not knowing of course that if it wasn’t for God putting His Spirit in them to begin with they wouldn’t have any faith to exercise and believe the resurrection. They believe rather that it takes us to be convinced by our own reasoning and free will to accept it and that takes often miracles to convince people there is a God period. We know however from the Biblical record that their were many in Christ’s day who saw and demanded to see miracles but still didn’t believe. His response to many of them was that they could not believe because they were NOT His sheep. So He didn’t bother trying to convince them because He knew they were not born again and therefore had no God given faith to believe. Nicodemus on the other hand was a child of God and believed but had little understanding so the first lesson he got from the Lord was to know about sovereign grace and that no one could understand and believe unless they are born from above (Jn.3:3).

    TFOTF:

    Agreed. I’ve already noticed (what I consider to be) some deeply confused soteriology in the book. However, I don’t think this takes away from Habermas’s citations of ancient historical references to Jesus (such as in the writings of Tacitus).

    MARK:
    In my last comment I cited Jesus’ response to Thomas who was a born-again disciple that followed Christ but doubted that it was He who had risen from the grave, interestingly and contrary to what Jesus told Mary Magdalene in Jn.20:17, He allowed Thomas to touch Him and His piercings from the crucifixion to convince him but consider the Lord’s final comment to Thomas “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed”.
    I ask you FOTF, as you read these books by these scholars who believe, let me know if any of them understand the doctrine of total depravity.

    TFOTF:

    Sadly, I’m not expecting to find a good understanding of total depravity in these books. But I took a stab at the topic here:
    https://www.theformofthefourth.com/2017/11/26/are-you-dying-inside-part-2c2/

    MARK:

    Remember also the faithful sayings of Paul:
    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)
    “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2Th 3:1-2)

    TFOTF:

    Amen, thank you brother. Through an eye of faith I can see Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

    God bless you and yours!

    • 

      Reply ↓

      Mark Lofgren May 8, 2022 at 8:35 pm

      Thanks for your response brother, I have to admit that I’m not entirely sure what vested interest means in this context and to say the “vested interest fallacy” makes it more confusing. I think I do understand why you are still chewing on Habermos’ testimony at the end regarding his hope or faith that he will see his wife again in heaven based on his belief from the historical and biblical record of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Hope and faith are not something tangeable but for those who have been given faith to believe by the grace of God it is a vested interest and one shared by others who have that gift of faith. Paul wrote about this:

      “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” (1Co 15:12-18)

      My point was that it is fruitless to try and get a natural man to believe in an intangible concept or something that we cant see with our own eyes. They are spiritually blinded. The fig tree (Israel as a nation – Hosea 9:10) would not produce fruit because of unbelief and therefore was cursed (Mt.21:19).

      “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in OUR hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2Co 4:3-6)

      Only God can evangelize an atheist when He shines His light in their hearts. Most Christians don’t understand this because they believe in Arminianism which holds that one must exercise faith in order to be saved and therefore one must be convinced/convicted by preachers of the Gospel or preachers of eternal damnation (scared into believing). Studying historical records outside of the Bible that corroberate the Bible’s claim can be interesting and help solidify the weak or immature faith of some but so too can good and accurate Bible teaching which rightly divides the word of truth.

      • 

        Reply ↓

        TFOTF May 12, 2022 at 6:53 am

        Mark:
        I have to admit that I’m not entirely sure what vested interest means in this context and to say the “vested interest fallacy” makes it more confusing.

        TFOTF:
        I understand it like this: Imagine a used car salesman says “the transmission works fine”. If you immediately conclude he’s lying, just because he has a vested interest in selling you the car, then you’ve committed the vested interest fallacy.

        Mark:
        My point was that it is fruitless to try and get a natural man to believe in an intangible concept or something that we cant see with our own eyes. They are spiritually blinded.

        TFOTF:
        Agreed, but I don’t think it’s always clear who is a natural man and who is a disobedient spiritual man. If someone is behaving like a swine, though, we have Jesus’s admonition to not cast our pearls before them…regardless of their regenerate or unregenerate status.

        Mark:
        “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in OUR hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2Co 4:3-6)

        TFOTF:
        Thought-provoking passage. A question: if the god of this world needed to blind their minds to keep the light of the gospel from shining unto them, doesn’t that mean we’re talking about regenerated people? Because if they were unregenerate, Satan wouldn’t have to do anything.

        Mark:
        Only God can evangelize an atheist when He shines His light in their hearts.

        TFOTF:
        Yes, but I would broaden that to include all unregenerate people. And I might restrict it too…meaning, you can know something without believing it. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God. And yet Romans 1 tells me that they do understand God’s eternal power and Godhead. They know about it. But they disobediently refuse to embrace it. That’s what belief is…it’s the embrace of a concept, beyond just the knowledge of a concept. “lief” is the same root as “lieben”, which means “love” in German. But wait…we’re all guilty of unbelief from time to time. Look at how often Jesus chided the disciples about their unbelief. Atheists are more brazen and consistent about their unbelief than Christians are. But we’re all guilty.
        So, maybe there are two overall types of atheists: An atheist could be a regenerated person, who has faith (“substance faith”, as in Hebrews 11:1), but refuses to exercise it through belief. Or, an atheist could be unregenerate….an unreasonable and wicked man who has no faith. Your thoughts?

        Mark:
        Most Christians don’t understand this because they believe in Arminianism which holds that one must exercise faith in order to be saved and therefore one must be convinced/convicted by preachers of the Gospel or preachers of eternal damnation (scared into believing).

        TFOTF:
        I’m with you, I completely reject Arminianism. I think the faith in Ephesians 2:8 is substance faith. It’s not a decision, and it’s not belief. It’s a part of the regeneration package, not the trigger for regeneration.

        Mark:
        Studying historical records outside of the Bible that corroberate the Bible’s claim can be interesting and help solidify the weak or immature faith of some but so too can good and accurate Bible teaching which rightly divides the word of truth.

        TFOTF:
        I think of the historical records as perhaps an extension, to some degree, of the “many infallible proofs” mentioned in Acts 1:3. True, the historical records don’t pack as much of a punch as seeing the resurrected Jesus in the flesh. But Habermas is arguing that the historical records (including passages of the Bible that even secular historians overwhelmingly consider authentic) taken together form a powerful body of evidence for the resurrection. I wouldn’t be comfortable limiting its benefit to the weak or immature of faith. Maybe studying it is one way we can love God with all our mind? But yes, good and accurate Bible teaching is so important to solidify our faith. Thanks again!