Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Bible: What is the Truth? Message-ID: Date: 17 Jun 91 00:36:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center Lines: 82 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Hi, Brian, I am aware of the limitations of apologetics. Faith is a gift from God and depends entirely upon His grace. However, God has chosen to use human beings as instruments of this grace. Sometimes the human instrument just testifies to the effect on his own life of believing in Jesus Christ. Other times the human instrument presents logical arguments for the existence of God, the deity of Jesus, etc. God uses both approaches as He sees fit. In this case I was replying to a specific question from someone who had encountered differing religious beliefs and wanted to know how to determine which is correct. Your specific criticisms seem based on a failure to recognize that I was, as I said at one point, giving a bare bones outline of the apologetic arguments for the Catholic Church. I did not assume that at least one existing claiming divine revelation is true, although I believe that the Catholic Church is true. I suggested _starting_ with those religions that claim to be based on divine revelation. Obviously, if none of the claimants can substantiate their claims one would have to look at other religions, such as Buddhism, which, so far as I know, does not claim revelation. It claims that the Buddha achieved en- lightenment on his own. However, since divine revelation, if it exists, would be the most reliable source of information about God, it makes sense to start with the claims of revelation. No, pointing out that the Gospels are ancient documents does not mean that they are in the same category as other ancient documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. The Gospels are accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth written by eyewitnesses or people who had spoken with eyewitness- es. The Declaration of Independence is not an account of any- thing. It is, as the name implies, a declaration. Historians can learn things from the Declaration of Independence, just as they can learn things from the Gospels, but the kinds of things to be learned are different. No, my wording was correct. The Gospels do not merely report the effect Jesus had on people around Him. They report His words and actions that illustrate and confirm His claim to be God incarnate. This evidence has convinced people today. Spell- ing out the evidence would mean elaborating at length on the bare bones outline I presented. No, my argument was not circular. Without expanding that part of the my outline into a full argument, let me offer a parallel. Some years ago in Brooklyn a baby was born. His parents gave him the name Martin Helgesen. I and that baby are essentially identical. We are one and the same person, at dif- ferent stages of our development. I am bigger than I was then. I have, over the years, learned things I did not know then. I can do things I could not do then. Someone looking at a picture of that baby and a picture of me taken this year might not recog- nize that we are the same person. We look different in many ways. However, a closer look might show some similarities. The way to establish the identity for certain would be to trace the history of my life and show the continuity between the Martin Helgesen of then and the Martin Helgesen of now. The same kind of thing can be done with the Catholic Church, but it takes longer because we are dealing with centuries, not years. Once it is established that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded, then the accuracy of her teachings is guaranteed because He promised to be with His Church for all days, until the end of the world, and, as St. Paul reminds us, the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) Your final statement, "After all... if all this could be logically proven, they wouldn't call it 'faith'!" is also incor- rect. As St. Thomas points out, there are teachings that the learned can know by reason while the unlearned must accept them by faith. There are, of course, truths such as the Trinity that can be known only through faith, but that does not affect my point. Marty Helgesen