As much as possible, I have always tried to observe and interact with people of many different religions and faith backgrounds. My current job affords me this opportunity much more than ever before.
A question I keep coming back to is “How do we know that Christianity is right and other faiths are wrong?” When I pose this question to various people of Christianity, I generally get one of four answers (if I am not immediately condemned for asking such a question). They are:
- I’ve experienced God and so I know it’s true.
- Christianity results in more substantial life change than other faiths. In other words, Christians live better lives, so it must be true.
- The Bible, which Christianity is based on, doesn’t have the errors and contradictions that are present in the “Holy books” of other faiths. It doesn’t contradict itself, nor does it contradict the facts of history and science (considering evolution is a theory). Therefore, the Bible can be trusted as true revelation from God.
- God answers prayer and provides signs and wonders, which proves Christianity is true. This includes things like prophecy and healing.
Here is the curious thing: As I interact with people of other religions, and through the course of conversation find out why they hold their beliefs, I find that nearly all people of all religions have these same four basic arguments for why their beliefs are true. Some throw in a few other explanations (I just grew up with it… It’s the oldest religion… We have a great tradition.), but generally, these are the four I hear.
Personally, I think only one of these answers has much merit, but none of these four are the top reason I believe the Christian faith is uniquely true.
So before I tell you what my primary reason is, I am curious what you think. What do you think of the four reasons above? Are they compelling? Why or why not? Are there others you frequently hear? Why do you think that Christianity is (or is not) true?
The 4 reasons above are what I here all the time as well.
Number 4 is the only one that could really be considered legitimate in my opinion, yet other people from other religions claim the same thing as you said.
There are many reasons I believe Christianity (believing in Jesus for eternal life) is true.
The method of salvation doesn’t involve any human effort. Simply believing Jesus can give you eternal life (though you are full of sin and undeserving of any such grace).
in every other faith, works play at least some part in determining your eternal destiny
Kirk,
It’s interesting you mention number 4, because that is originally what this post was going to be about…and then it evolved into what you see. TIME magazine recently did a series of articles on faith and healing. It is quite an interesting study. I will try to post some more about this later.
I like knowing that Jesus is true.
Whether ‘Christianity’ as I/You/Others know it is true, may be debatable. (I think there are many forms of ‘Christianity’ out there…unfortunately).
My faith doesn’t hang on the religion of ‘X’ (no matter what ‘X’ may be for me/others). My faith rest in the person, life, death, crucifixion and ultimate resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Good insights. Looking forward to reading more soon.
Stephen,
Good to hear from you! We miss you guys!
I completely agree with you about the definition of Christianity and whether that particular definition is true or not. Excellent insight and clarification. Say hello to everyone at Mosaic!
To me it appears that #1 and #4 are pretty similar, experience based statements…
I would have to agree with the above post that Christianity is the only faith that offers something so “other”, as in not of human origin, as grace. Every other concept of attaining salvation/eternal life/forgiveness of sin seems so natural that to me, it appears that they must be natural.
Josh,
You are right…1 and 4 are quite similar. Thanks for the input!
There are MANY good books on this and the answers are very simple. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of Judeo Christian historicity. Whether that leads someone to faith in Christ is another question. We are living in a time when all truth is being questioned. Unfortunately most people are UNWILLING to investigate the truth claims of anything. It has become very chic for people to claim that their religion is truthful but their understanding of truth is scatterbrained and logic and evidence play NO role in their claims. Talking to people in this mindset about evidence is similar to speaking two different languages. The contemporary NEED to be tolerant and not the traditional usage of the word (accepting that someone else’s view be heard) we have a new definition which is framed as being only able to say that their claim is as valid as any other. Truth is excised in post modern thought and language loses its meaning. Every claim begins with certain neccessary pre-suppositions and a primary one is that TRUTH and EVIDENCE exist. Without those pre-suppositions one is left with NOTHING but incessant chatter and emotion laden harangues. An example of much of this would the book of Mormon which has absolutely ZERO evidence of any history which has been recorded or evidence archeologically- yet many Christians would be hard pressed to argue this with a Mormon because they know so little of the evidence for their own faith. Martin Luther stated that apologetics was the hand-maid of the gospel- and it is so very unfortunate that we have a gospel seemingly unhinged from its mate. — I would recommend books by Josh McDowell and John Warwick Montgomery as starters on the quest to know and understand the valuable evidence that exists for Christianity as well as Judaism.
Mark,
I have read over 30 books on Christian apologetics, including the ones you mentioned in your comment.
Don’t misunderstand my post. I am not doubting the truth of “Christianity” (or as Stephen pointed out…the truth about Jesus Christ), but only how we assert and defend that truth.
Thank you. This info, I’m sure, will be much helpful in my quest.
Again, Thank You!
Jeremy,
That’s my point. We (meaning a large portion of Christianity) dont know that truth. I must say I was pretty surprised by your response. I understand your article here to mean just what you said and I am stating the facts as I see them regarding the gospel. It hasn’t changed in all the years of Christian belief. We assert it by first knowing it. Most believers I know dont know it. Also, we have to realize the world we live in and quit allowing ourselves to be beat up by the intellectuially dishonest. My post wasn’t about persuading you, it was about what we are up against. I am certainly not claiming to know it all, but I felt I answered the question. Your question is “How do we know Christianity is right and other faiths are wrong?” isn’t it? I would say that of the choices you gave #1 and #2 #4(partially) are totally out of the realm of objectivity. They could be made by anyone in any faith. That leaves #3 as the only viable option. Anyway, sorry if I struck a nerve- the amount of books one has read is irrelevant-only the truth one has garnered –Another thing you say in your article is “None of these four are the top reason I believe Christianity is true”. Where you came up with the idea I was challenging your belief that Christianity is true baffles me. My point was that the only truly effective way is objective reality- not subjective emotion. I think my time on this blog is over sadly. I am angered by this.
Mark,
Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are saying now, and agree with you. Of course, I am not sure where the fault lies. We cannot expect all Christians to read all these books and study apologetics. Nor can we expect pastors to be able to teach all this stuff to the people in the church.
I guess it’s a process of learning and defending…
The resurrection. It is the fact that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and presented Himself to witnesses that all of Scripture hangs on. Jesus either rose from the dead or He didn’t. If He didn’t, then the Bible is nonsense and Christianity is just another choice on the religious smorgasbord. On the other hand, if He did, then every person, skeptic or otherwise, needs to seriously consider the claims of Christ.
I think that John the Apostle understood this when he penned his gospel. As John records Jesus’ ministry, he makes it clear that Jesus did many signs, including His resurrection of Lazarus as well as that of Himself, but that “these were written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life, even in His name (Jn. 20:31)”. Jesus’ demonstrable power over death is the ultimate attestation to the truth of Christianity.
“Most believers I know don’t know it.”???????? How this works I don’t know…
#3 is claimed by other faiths as well. Overwhelming evidence is fine in the courtroom when you are trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t prove truth however…
The question wasn’t how do we know the bible is true (what I think you mean by “Judeo-Christian historicity”), because certain claims the bible makes are beyond questions of historicity.
The question is how do we know Christianity is true…in other words…the Gospel (to use Larry Moyer’s most concise definition, “Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead”). The Virgin Birth is not provable on the basis of historicity… the historicity of the rest of the bible makes it more reasonable to believe it. They are inferred from the text, but historicity of other (secondary?) events cannot and do not definitively prove truth.
In other words, the fact that it is the most reasonable choice, does not in and of itself make that choice truth.
I’m interested to see what Jeremy’s reasoning is here…
Sometimes I feel like we try to prove Christianity is true as if God himself was dead. We look down our nose at the subjective reasons people believe because we have more objective arguments we have come to understand. We ignore the fact that most of us “Objectivity Snobs” did not BECOME Christians after considering objective reasons, but after experiencing subjective events. However, over time, we were cemented in our faith after thinking about it objectively.
The same is true for people in other religions… their reasons for believing in their religions in the first place are mostly subjective (or regional/cultural) too. So, we tend to think that the only thing that will bump them over to our faith is an objective reasoning approach they have never considered since they only have believed for subjective reasons. I think this may be true some of the time and it is worthwhile making an objective appeal.
But remember the last thing Jesus said in Matthew? “I am with you always…” If Jesus is with us, and if that is really TRUE, then we can assume he is with us to do something, not just observe us. He is not dead. He is not just a theory. He is alive and active. And if that is the case, then I think God’s actions will and SHOULD influence people to believe in him.
I know without a doubt my grandpa lived. Why? I might explain objectively that if he had not lived then I wouldn’t be here. (Which would be completely legitimate and true.) But long before I ever considered the objective truth of that statement I would have said with passion that my grandpa once lived because I KNEW him. It was my very experience with my grandpa that makes his existence the most relevant to me. Now, if I want someone else to meet and know my grandpa–well, it is too late. He is dead. But if we introduce people to Jesus… shouldn’t we think that Jesus will somehow interact with them UNLESS he is NOT really alive?
But we have this sneaking feeling that God will not do any personal revealing anytime we tell someone about him. So, because we can’t know that God will give someone an experience with him or not, we go to our more dependable and reliable objective reasons for believing in God. Because God is not reliable we do not depend on him.
I think it would do us well, though, to remember that Jesus called his disciples to be witnesses. Not lawyers. Not judges. Not jurors. But witnesses. What do witnesses do? Testify to what they have seen and heard. Testify to their experience. And it is up to people to decide if the witness is credible or not.
The burden of proof for God lies with God. I am called just to be a witness.
I find this slightly stumbling… what do I base my faith upon other than these 4? Glad we are witnesses….
I would especially agree with #3 & #4, but in addition to this, the more I study the Bible, and the more I live in this world, the more I see that the Bible describes this world so incredibly accurately. It tells me I’m a sinner, and that we live in a corrupt world of people that are in desperate need of a Savior. I know this is true deep down in my soul. Jesus’ promise of life to all who believe in Him (John 3:16, etc.) is the way it has to be, because no one is worthy of heaven. I have a lot of questions, but when a religion tells me that I have to be good enough, that is a red flag to me that it is not from God. There are many more things I think the Bible hits right on the head, but you get the picture.
Christianity,some more western institutionilisation?Where in the bible do the apostles call themselves Christians?
Mands,
In Acts 11:26, that “the disciples were first called Chrsitians at Antioch”
In Acts 26:28, Herod Agrippa refers to Paul as a Christian.
In 1Peter 4:16, we are told to glory in being persecuted for being called Christians.
As far as western institutionalism, you should really study history. Nearly all of the church language, literature, and scholarship for the first several hundred years was located in Palestine, Asia Minor and Eastern Europe. The Christian church as a western institution is a relatively new thing historically speaking.
You appear to have a lot of animosity toward Christianity, may I ask why? I understand, maybe better than most, that the church as it exists today is not really a good reflection of what Christ wanted. This does not mean that all who call themselves Christians are getting it wrong. Just a thought.
May you be blessed of God,
FedEx
Fed,your thoughts are more assumptions than anything else.In the scriptures the apostles never call themselves christians,they were hebrews.Thanks
Mands,
I will give you that point, there is no place in the bible where the apostles call themselves “Christians”.
Conceding this does not make Christianity a Western institution as you state. Its origins are not western, but middle eastern, central asian, and eastern european. Just saying.
If I concede the point that the apostles did not call themselves Christians will you answer my question.
What is the source of your animosity toward Christians? What has been done to you in the name of Christianity that has resulted in these feelings?
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Fedex.In my opinion christianity has and is doing a lot of damage to sincere followers of messiah and those who don’t know him yet.thanks for your concern.I think that there is too much interpretation of scripture which is being used to support christianty.personally I don’t believe christianty is scriptural.read some of your other comments and you have some good thoughts. P.s I am from south Africa and we had something called colonisation and apartheid initiated by Christians.thanks for reading.
I don’t really want to step into the middle of this, because I am enjoying the dialogue and don’t want to mess it up. I guess I agree with both of you.
I am not opposed to people who follow Jesus calling themselves “Christians,” but at the same time, what most people think of as “Christians” today is probably not the same thing that was meant 2000 years ago. Today, when most people think of “Christians” they do think of a Western, militarized, power-hungry, egocentric, expansionist Christendom.
Jesus and his followers are more about love, service, humility, self-sacrifice, and mercy. I would love it if these things became the norm for “Christians.” I see signs here and there around the world that they are, which makes me hopeful.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents…
Mands,
Thank you for your openness. I agree that many terrible things have been done the World around in the name of “Christianity”. I can openly and honestly say that this is not true Chhristianity. The word as it appears in the Bible, and is used only 3 times as discussed earlier, simply means one who follows Christ. I am proud to cal myself a Christian, in that I make every attempt to live my life following the example of Jesus Christ, the revealed Messiah. I agree that the name “Christian” has been tainted by many claiming the name while living lives in direct oposition to the teachings of the Messiah. I do not know of a way to get around the use of the term Christian, or of a way to remove the stigma created by those who have used the name of Christ without actually following His example.
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Thanks for your two cents and respecting my view even if you don’t agree with it.
Mandy,
I might actually agree with you quite a bit. I agree that what goes by “Christianity” often does a lot of damage to the world, and to people who are truly following Jesus. And I agree that much interpretation of Scripture is wrongly used to support some of the damaging and abusive elements of Christendom.
Have you ever read “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola? Also, “The Subversion of Christianity” by Jacques Ellul is fantastic. Both show how the early forms of following Jesus became warped by power, money, greed, and other harmful elements.
all 4 answers are simply, at least partially, false. especially #1 and #2
I know a lot of muslims who live lives to ashame every christians that I know.
I know a lot of who experienced anything, … so they believe it…
#4 is not an “objective” proof in my mind. It’s an evidence for the one who experiment it, but working with sick people all day long taught me that subjectivity has a big effect on how people feel. anybody could claim that his god healed him…
#3 is true… but only to those who follow Christ. One cannot try to prove that the Bible is true if the person who we try to convince is not a follower. This is not merely a theoritical book. One cannot believe it if he doesn’t live it.
what convinced me that christianity is true is the fact that it is the only religion on Earth which has love at his very core. it is also a religion who doesn’t try to escape from reality (by either saying that reality is an illusion, like buddhism, and hinduism, or by making a dichotomy between “earthly/profane/common = bad” vs “spiritual/hereafter = the only important thing, so much important that one would wish to kill himself in order to reach it” …. like islam), but has a radical realism, demonstrated by the incarnation/crucifixion/resurection of its founder… and, ideally, by its followers…
correcting myself…
I would say that #2 answer is true. But one ought to see it and taste it. We cannot prove it, and make statistics about it. I’ve seen life changed by Christ, and I know they would never had change if it would not have been because of the gospel. I know it, I can testifie it. I cannot prove it. (see the first verses of 1 John)