Yesterday Father Orthoduck quoted Carl Sagan who himself was quoting another scientist. Carl Sagan said:
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of evidence if they are to be believed.” – Carl Sagan
Father Orthoduck agreed with Carl Sagan, and at the end of yesterday’s post suggested that God appears to hold the same opinion!
When Father Orthoduck was but a duckling seminarian nearly 40 years ago, he was taught that God indeed backed up his major claims with major actions. That is, he did not leave humans to completely wonder what an action meant. Rather, before the major action he sent prophets saying that God was about to act, then he acted, then after he acted he sent more prophets to interpret the action in order to make sure that people understood what had happened. Note that the professor was not saying that God only sent prophets when he was about to act, rather he was saying that when one reads the Bible, it appears that no major salvation action would take place without warning from God and then follow-up interpretation by God. As examples, think of the Exodus, the Great Exile (particularly the Books of Daniel and Esther), and the Resurrection.
Years later, scholars such as Dr. Peter Wagner, and Charismatic teachers such as Pr. John Wimber developed the theology of power encounters. This was a variation that spoke more to missionary and local situations rather than major actions by God. The theology basically claims that wherever the Gospel is expanding, there is a special outburst of God’s power whose purpose it is to support the missionary effort by both providing proof that what the evangelist is preaching is real and that the existing spiritual powers are no match for God. There are also special outpourings of God’s grace in order to break the power of evil that has been holding the peoples captive. As an ex-missionary, Father Orthoduck can guarantee you that there is some significant truth behind that statement, as he experienced some events that would be difficult to explain without a special outpouring of God’s power. As examples, look at even the modern history of Orthodoxy as it expanded out of its European, Medittarranean, Arabic, etc., patriarchates. God raised up saints, such as Saint John the Wonderworker, Saint Herman of Alaska, etc., who were called Wonderworkers because of the way in which God used them to pour out his power. Note, however, that Orthodox theology equally holds as outpouring of God’s power those who received the power to die faithfully as martyrs, holding fast to the faith. Such a person was Saint Peter the Aleut.
Actually, variations of this type of theology have been around for centuries, but they have usually been used in a negating fashion. One can go to some Orthodox (and Presbyterian, and Reformed) websites to see how they classify gifts such as tongues and interpretations of tongues, etc., as being “sign” gifts that were only meant to be for a time and in order to prove the reality of the Resurrection. Father Orthoduck has severe problems with such claims. First, as he mentioned in the last paragraph, the Orthodox Church still experiences the outpouring of God’s grace to the whole Church, and especially to certain saints who express God’s grace in powerful ways. More than that, it is the claim that God did this in the Early Church, but now will never do that again. This appears to be a most dangerous claim with regard to God. It is one thing to say that blood sacrifices will never return again. That is clearly stated in both Scripture and Holy Tradition. It is another to claim that certain gifts mentioned in both Scripture and Holy Tradition will never return again. That is a most dangerous claim. The hesychast tradition is itself quite close in many of its expression to the expression of the ecstatic gifts.
But, this is all to say that Carl Sagan actually had a point. Extraordinary claims are much more easily accepted when there is extraordinary evidence. Frankly, it is a neat summary of the human condition. Our God has met us at our human condition. The main place at which he has met us in our human condition is in the Incarnation. God became one of us so that we might become one with him. More than that, in the Resurrection, and in the expressions of God’s grace and power that is found in the Apostolic witness, and in the continuing witness of God’s grace and power that is found in many of the saints throughout history, God has continued to provide the extraordinary evidence that helps us to believe that his extraordinary claims are true.
“Our God has met us at our human condition. The main place at which he has met us in our human condition is in the Incarnation.”
The above claim is also an extraordinary one. What evidence do we have that it is true? You speak of great outpourings of God’s power; others also make this claim. Why this faith and not that one?
There are actually various books written over the centuries for the evidences for Christianity. Rather than list them all, let me point out that there is a difference between evidence and proof. That is why the term evidence is used. Evidence is data that can be interpreted in various ways by various people. You only need to pick up the newspaper to read data (news stories) whose interpretations can vary wildly without even needing to call it spin. Add in the conspiracy theorists and any evidence can become “proof” of almost anything. I am, in that sense, quite aware of the challenges of post-modernism.
Second, let me point out that in historical studies, repeatable scientific evidence is not possible. That is, we cannot have George Washington cross the Deleware multiple times in order to verify that it happened (or did not happen depending on which side of the debate you take). Thus the canons of evidence that have been developed for historical studies are different than for scientific studies.
Given what I have said, I yet claim that the evidences for Christianity (under the canons developed for historical studies) are sufficient to back up a reasonable assertion for the truthfulness of the Christian claim of the death and resurrection of a man called Jesus Bar Joseph (son of Joseph) who was (and is) the fulfillment of the promises concerning the Messiah (the Christ). Notice that this is carefully worded so read it a couple of times.
Your point about the differences between evidence and proof is quite a good one.
And how do these evidences operate on the mind of the faithful? It occurs to me that there is quite a lot of evidence for, say, Shiva or Vishnu whose exploits have been passed down by the ancients in some extensive detail. But we have Jesus, yes; and your claim (and that of others similarly persuaded) that the evidence for Jesus is sufficient. Is this an intellectual position, or some sort of mystical or charismatic sense that admits certain Christian canons as, in fact, orthodox?
Even among confirmed Christians, in whose interpretations shall we find our true faith? Are we to be delivered over to the sophistries of the theologians and historians of every stripe and bias–to the mind of man? As you have posted an article of an epistemic quality, how is it that you can be certain of your own position in this matter? What is the form and nature of your knowledge?
That is a lot to ask. But I am curious about what makes you Orthodox and not Baptist, you see. Why are we all so convinced in our chosen faiths? Many of us claim certain and complete truth, with tantalizing support from scientific, historical, and religious sources. I have no question of the sincerity of all such people. I have no certainty for myself. Where is it to be found?
Hmm, well, I am not claiming certain and complete truth. LOL.
Let me divide it up into two parts. Academically, I do have an intellectual position that the historical evidence for the claims of Jesus Christ is sufficient and reasonable enough for me to hold my head high in the university. Now, let me put in a couple of caveats. First, remember that I am talking about using standard accepted historical analysis. Thus, analyses like the DaVinci Code are not relevant, as they are not accepted by the main historical academic community. Second, just because someone comes up with a rival theory does not automatically destroy the reasonableness of my historical argument, or make it simply my opinion. For instance, it became popular during the 1980’s to claim that King David of ancient Israel either did not exist or was nothing more than a type of local warlord with no self-awareness of being a king. It took over 20 years before evidence began to come forth from further archeological studies that David existed and that he considered himself a king. In the meantime, there were a spate of popularized books that poked some significant mockery at traditionalist Jews and Christians for continuing to believe in what archeology had now “proven” to be wrong. Please realize that not just in this subject but also on other areas, a scholar makes his/her name by proposing controversial theories, not by validating existing canons of whatever. Third, Christianity claims very directly to be a historical religion not a mythological religion. This is why Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 argues so strongly that if the resurrection has not happened then we are fools and still in our sins. In that chapter he adduces many witnesses that could still be interviewed at that time. So, Christianity, in particular, claims a historical base strong enough to withstand the witnesses, with all their variations in accounts, and yes I am aware of the difficulties with witnesses. In fact, almost every argument against Christianity is one that tries to impugn the witnesses. Only a few go to the philosophical side of the issues.
As to why I am Orthodox, I arrived here precisely through epistemology. Eventually, if the witnesses are impugned, the faith perishes. The problem with Protestantism is that it impugns the witnesses and leaves us hanging. There are actually significant areas of agreement on what happened historically as Christianity began to spread. These agreements are among both secular and religious historians. Now, they do not agree on what the events meant, but they do tend to agree on the events. One line of Protestantism argues that after the Apostolic era (basically after 100 AD) Christians fell back into a semi-Christianity which forsook various, but not all, the changes of the New Covenant and began to preach law rather than grace. Other Protestants place this change point as a slow development that sped up after Christianity became a tolerated, then a State, religion. However, if that stance is taken, it ends up creating a vast uncertainty as to whether what we experience today has much of any relation to what the Apostles experienced. This is what has led to the multiplicity of denominations. If the early witnesses are impugned, Christianity becomes an almost contentless religion, or rather it becomes a religion of many contents.
Finally, there is a role for faith, but it is not a role that means that historical arguments have no necessary place in the Church. I live my Christian life by faith, not be historical proofs. But that faith does have, as one of its foundations, the same foundation as Saint Paul who said that if the Resurrection has not happened, then we are fools.
I could comment on Hindu and other religions, but this is already too long.
I am surprised by your admission regarding certain and complete truth! But what of your Church? What are its truth claims?
I am a Mormon… a Mormon agnostic to be precise. You will not find many like me (according to a rather misleading study recently released by the Pew foundation!). Many Christians do not even consider my faith to be a Christian one. They have their reasons. We Mormons make historical claims also: that there was an original Christianity which was subverted by apostasy. Our apologists will spar with those of other faiths over this contentious claim. The central pillar of the Mormon faith is perhaps best characterized as “charismatic.” Do we wish to know the Truth? Then we must ultimately ask God. He will not lie, but will send us the Spirit. So you see, there is an outpouring of “The Holy Spirit” among the Mormons, but it all tends toward epistemology. How do we know? We simply have to “know.” And of course, most of us do–or think we do.
What are some other foundations of your faith besides epistemology? Also, what do you make of Radical Orthodoxy, which seeks through postmodernism to reverse the modern emphasis of epistemology over ontology and return to a more ancient participatory form of religious belief?
Finally, what means has God prepared for the not-yet-converted? Does it matter if one claims allegiance to a particular religion? Can the Roman Catholic be saved as easily as the Eastern Orthodox? When is one so completely overcome by heterodoxy that the grace of Christ cannot save him? How can he be shown the way?
@PeterMcCombs , replies can only be nested so deep, so I have had to start a new set of replies.
Let me put it this way. The Orthodox claim to know certain things, and to know them to be true. That is, we do not have complete truth, but what truth we have is certain. Let me give you one quick example. We know that Our Lord will come back to judge the living and the dead, but we do not know when and we do not know the details. We do know that it will not be a “millenarian” return, but after that we do not claim to know the details other than in a general way. In other words, there are many things about which we know that we do not yet know the truth, and thus cannot speak with certainty about them.
Let me answer your questions in reverse order. What about the not-yet-converted? The Orthodox clearly claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Yet one of our websites says, “But, we confess our ignorance when we say, ‘We know where the Church is; we do not know where it is not.’” We know some who will definitely not be in the Kingdom of God. But, of the vast majority who are not Orthodox Christians, we do not know, but leave it up to the mercy of God to decide who is part of his kingdom. Having said that, we know that there is no salvation outside the Church, and so we do evangelize those who are not Christian and reach out to those who are Christians but not Orthodox to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to “work out their salvation in fear and trembling.” This is the place to receive God’s grace and strength.
As to Radical Orthodoxy, maybe they are right, time will tell. But, there is no requirement that any Orthodox follow their philosophical constructions. Maybe some day I will agree with them. They make some of the same good points as the Protestant Pietists and suffer some of the same problems.
One of the points many Orthodox make is that Protestants are not completely wrong. Rather, they tend to be right about limited matters. In that sense, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct when they say that if we wish to know the Truth then we must ultimately ask God who has already sent us the Spirit. But, that is only part of the Truth. Read the Liturgy and you will see how often the Holy Spirit is invoked. Yet, that leaves a dangerous hole in epistemology.
Here is what Protestants and the Latter-Day Saints miss. The claim of subversion, particularly in the case of those Protestants and the Latter-Day Saints who say that it was an early subversion, actually creates a massive disconnect with the idea that one can know Truth. You see, the Gospels clearly record that the Lord raised up Twelve Apostles whose job it was to make sure that the faith was passed on. Every Christian of any stripe actually agrees on that crucial statement. And, they were to be supported, counseled, empowered, and led by the Holy Spirit in order to ensure the adequate passing on of Truth.
But, here is the problem. If one claims an early corruption, then one is saying that Jesus failed. He failed to train his Apostles well enough to be able to train the teachers who would immediately follow them. “Progressive” theologians have taken that to its logical conclusion. If the Apostles so clearly failed to train those who would pass on the faith after them, then this calls into doubt the memories of the Apostles, called the Gospels. It also calls into doubt the advice they gave, called the Epistles. And, since the Bible was only collected in the fourth century, it calls into doubt whether the very writings upon which we rely are in any way an accurate reflection of Jesus’ ministry.
So, it is not surprising that the Protestants and the Latter-Day Saints have no choice but to rely only upon the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. After all, they have quite crudely destroyed any hope of the external witness of history.
Well, I could go on, but again this is already a long reply.
Thank you for your comments; these have been helpful. Your point about the early corruption of the Church is quite interesting indeed.
One last question, if I may: What do you make of the “internal testimony of the Holy Spirit”? After all, this often comes to the Latter-Day Saint in response to some sincere inquiry as to the veracity of the Book of Mormon, or of Joseph Smith the prophet, etc. How can it be that such a witness is possible when the thing in question clearly contradicts “certain truths” known to adherents of other Christian faiths? I could ask this same question of the LDS, although I suspect many of us would be surprised (unsettled?) to discover that such spiritual confirmations are not uncommon outside of our own religion.
We believe in the internal and the external testimony of the Holy Spirit.
But, there is a thought that is found woven through Orthodoxy. For instance the Second Council of Constantinople says, “We confess that (we) hold and declare the faith given from the beginning by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles, and preached by them in the whole world; which the sacred Fathers confessed and explained, and handed down to the holy churches, and especially (those fathers) who assembled in the four sacred Synods, whom we follow and accept through all things and in all things…judging as at odds with piety all things, indeed, which are not in accord with what has been defined as right faith by the same four holy Councils, we condemn and anathematize.’ Council of Constantinople II (A.D. 553).”
We believe that we have received a deposit which must be kept. So, no internal testimony of the Holy Spirit would be considered valid if it were to contradict the deposit which we have received. It is, after all, the Spirit of Christ, thus he would not contradict the one who sent him. Neither would the bishops consider any decision that would contradict that deposit. So, though many of us have experienced the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, yet that testimony resonates with what has been received and supports it. We are an undeniably historical faith. As I said in an earlier post, without that history Christianity has no definition.
The same is not true of religions such as Hinduism or Bhuddism. Though they speak of divine events happening in history, it is not as important whether or not they actually happened. So, in Bhuddism, there have been either 6 or 600 some Bhuddas, depending on which text one uses. But, it is not important. Hinduism has a multiplicity of gods, both major and minor. Their history does not really matter. In that sense they are not “historical” in the manner in which Christianity is.
Hi there!
Just bumped into your site by searching for evidence for God’s existence ..2012, as I wanted the latest. I see that it’s mostly a conversation between an orthodox and a mormon. I am orthodox by birth, grew up in the baptist church and parents are penticostal. Not a church-goer, yet one of the strongest believers you’ll ever meet and that is because to me God is communicative 🙂 We have a great relationship and I do have lots of proof for it. Curious here to see what’s your own. Please, let me know!
Deyna
Events in my life have given me plenty of evidence for God’s existence.
care to share?