On Christianity - with Jed Sanford

• 5 Objections
• Response to 5 Objections
• The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
• 3 Points of Departure
• On Christian Origins
• On the Holy Spirit
• On Belief
• The Trouble with (Traditional) Worldviews
• Imagination, Authority, and Knowledge
• On Marxism
• Christianity and Marxism
• In Defense of Skepticism
• Skepticism and Ethics
• Where I’m Coming From
• Tradition, Knowledge, and Metaphysics

The Background

This dialogue has its origins in a recent request from my pastor for me to write out my most significant doubts concerning the truth of mainstream Christianity. I came up with the following 5 objections, written in question form, and sent a copy to the pastor. I also sent a copy to my brother, who quickly and aptly responded to each of them, sparking the present series.¹ This exchange began over email, and the first few of these posts are simply copies of those emails. There have been some edits for the purpose of adapting the conversation to this medium and footnotes added for citation and clarification, but for the most part, we’ve kept things exactly as we originally wrote them. Certainly, the main lines of argument remain the same.

My role in the dialogue is, of course, that of the skeptic. I begin from the position that we cannot be reasonably certain of some important claims of mainstream or traditional Christianity, or at least that we have good reason to doubt those claims. For more information on my background and perspective, readers may visit the About Me page.

Jed Sanford takes the role of the apologist, defending the traditional orthodox Christian doctrines. I’ll allow him to reveal more of his background and perspective should he so choose. For now, I’ll just note that he holds two masters degrees related to the topics under consideration here, one in Theology and one in Biblical Interpretation, and he knows how to use them. He also happens to be my actual brother.

The Objections

1. In what sense can or should the Bible be considered the “Word of God?”
   The writings of the Bible contain quotations of God (and of course Jesus), but they also contain all kinds of other writings clearly authored by humans, sometimes explicitly so (e.g. Paul’s Letters or the Gospel of Luke). If we consider these documents God-authored through divine inspiration, then what are the limits of that inspiration? Why only these books? On what criteria can or should we judge a book as inspired — especially considering the lack of any explicit claims within many of these documents to their own inspiration?
2. In what sense can or should the Bible be considered inerrant, factually correct, true, or reliable — whether in its historical, prehistorical, or theological claims?
   We can dig further into details, but suffice it to say here that I have come across numerous instances of apparent error in the Bible. Some of these are inconsistencies between different books, some are inconsistencies between different manuscripts of the same books, some are based on textual-critical examinations of a book or books, and some are based on apparent inconsistencies between leading scientific theory and Biblical claims.
3. Why should we consider the canon of the Bible to be correct and/or closed?
   I touched on this in #1. Basically, I am asking about canon creation: “Why only these books? Why not others? and Why accept these books in the first place?” This one isn’t a huge issue for me, but it is worth noting just how many traditions there are that get dismissed out of hand by the mainstream Christian community over precisely this issue. I have yet to come across a very good argument in principle against someone receiving inspiration from God and adding a book to the canon. At the same time, I think it is important to note the complex historical process out of which a canon was created in the first place. That so many modern Christians unquestioningly accept the canon in its entirety seems to me, at the least, problematic (especially considering how many other Christian traditions Protestant Christianity has abandoned or redefined).
4. How can we be reasonably certain that Jesus’s resurrection as described in the Gospels actually took place?
   My skepticism here has to do partly with a lack of extra-biblical evidence. As I understand it, outside of the Gospel accounts, we have no extant corroborating accounts of this event taking place (for example, from a witness other than the disciples who may have seen Jesus after the resurrection or someone who was witness to the incredible events in Matthew 27:51-53).²“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (ESV). Upon revisiting this passage, I realize the context of these events is actually immediately after Jesus’s death, not his resurrection. However, it remains the case that the events as described are incredible and they do clearly indicate that Jesus’s death was miraculous and related to resurrection. My point here is that, if this is all true, it seems unlikely to have gone unnoticed and leads me to believe there should be at least some independent corroborating evidence. It seems rather what we have are the accounts of the Gospels themselves, which I find suspect partly for reasons outlined in #2 and partly simply because the Gospel writers (like all writers) have an agenda they are after. All the considerations here get complex pretty quickly, and I know we simply might not have the amount or quality of evidence that I would prefer. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and it doesn’t mean it did. My basic point I guess is that, taken on the whole, along with other considerations, there is good reason to doubt this claim. But, I’m actually less concerned with this than I am with the next one . . .
5. How can we be reasonably certain that Trinitarian Theology as outlined in the Nicene Creed is the most accurate understanding possible of God and his relationship with Jesus Christ?
   I am pretty familiar by now with the philosophical and logical reasoning behind the Trinity, and I don’t deny that there is a coherence to it as a theory. I suppose it is actually its coherence that causes me pause, because it seems to me to function best as a theory, not as a definitive statement of orthodox faith. This is because it functions as a way to reconcile monotheism with some of the claims of the Gospels and Paul by way of particular philosophical concepts that happened to be convincing to many of the Church Fathers (but hold very little weight among most philosophers today). At the very least, this goes beyond the explicit claims of the Bible and is a construct of human tradition. Arguably, that human tradition was inspired by God to develop a God-inspired statement of faith, but for me that places this one in the same boat as #3 above: Protestants have rejected all kinds of traditional Christian beliefs and practices, why is it necessary or proper for us to hold on to this one? Another question that may be begged by this is “if not the Trinity, then what?” We can talk more about that, but basically, I don’t know that it’s necessary that we replace it with anything, or at least not anything so precisely defined.