M. Bittinger, The Faith Equation.
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament.
F. F. Bruce and W. J. Martin, 'Two Laymen on Christ's Deity.”
J. Buell et at, Jesus.
N. L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics.
N. L. Geisler and A. Saleeb, Answering Islam.
C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, chap. 8.
H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
J. McDowell and B. Larson, Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity.
R. Rhoads, Christ before the Manger.
P. W. Stoner, Science Speaks.
B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ.
Christ, Humanity of. See Christ, Deity of; Docetism.
Christ, Uniqueness of. Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God in human flesh (see Christ, Deity of). However, some unbelievers, who may or may not believe Jesus existed, do not believe that Jesus was necessarily a wise or a particularly good man. Others, such as Muslims (see Islam), think that Jesus was a prophet, along with other prophets. *Hinduism depicts Christ as one among many great gurus. Liberal Christians and many others hold Christ as a good human being and a great moral example.
In his book Why I Am Not a Christian, the agnostic Bertrand *Russell wrote, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we know nothing about him” As to Christ’s character, he said, “I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above him in those respects” (Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, 594).
Deity and Humanity. Christianity is unique among world religions, and Christ’s true uniqueness is the centerpiece of Christianity. The truth about Christ is based primarily on the New Testament documents, which have been shown elsewhere to be authentic (see New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament Manuscripts). The New Testament record, especially the Gospels, is one of the most reliable documents from the ancient world. From these documents we learn that numerous facets of Christ are absolutely unique.
Jesus Christ was unique in that he alone, of all who ever lived, was genuinely both God and man. The New Testament teaches the fully unified deity and humanity of Christ. The Nicene Creed (325) states the uniform belief of all orthodox Christianity that Christ was fully God and fully man in one person. All heresies regarding Christ deny one or both of these propositions. This as a claim alone makes him unique above all other religious leaders or persons who have ever lived, and it can be backed up with factual evidence. Some of this evidence is seen in other aspects of Christ’s uniqueness (see Christ, Deity of).
The Supernatural Nature of Christ. Unique in Messianic Prophecies. Jesus lived a miracle-filled and supernaturally empowered existence from his conceptionto his ascension. Centuries before his birth he was foretold by supernatural prophecy (see Miracles in the Bible; Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible).
The Old Testament, which even the most ardent critic acknowledges was in existence centuries before Christ, predicted the where (Micah 5:2), the when (Dan. 9:26), and the how (Isa. 7:14) of Christ’s entry into the world. He would be born of a woman (Gen. 3:15) from the line of Adam’s son Seth (Gen. 4:26), through Noah’s sonShem(Gen. 9:26-27), and Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 15:5). He would come through the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and would be the son of David (2 Sam 7:12ff.). The Old Testament predicted that Christ would die for our sins (Ps. 22; Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10) and would rise from the dead (Pss. 2:7; 16:10).
All of these supernatural prophecies were uniquely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is not true of any great religious leader or person who has ever lived, including Muhammad (see Muhammad,
Alleged Miracles of).
Unique in Conception. Christ was not only supernaturally anticipated but also miraculously conceived. While announcing his virgin conception, Matthew (1:22-23) points to the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14). Luke, a physician, records this miraculous inception of human life (Luke 1:26ff.); Paul alludes to it in Galatians 4:4. Of all human conceptions, Jesus’s stands as unique and miraculous (see Virgin Birth of Christ).
Unique in Life. From his very first miracle in Cana of Galilee (John 2:11), Jesus’s ministry was marked by its miracles (cf. John 3:2; Acts 2:22). These were not healings of delusional illnesses, nor were they explainable on natural grounds. They were unique (see Miracle) in that they were immediate, were always successful, had no known relapses, and healed illnesses that were incurable by medicine, such as persons born blind (John 9). Jesus even raised several people from the dead, including Lazarus, whose body was already to the point of rotting (John 11:39).
Jesus turned water to wine (John 2:7ff.), walked on water (Matt. 14:25), multiplied bread (John 6:1 Iff.), opened the eyes of the blind (John 9:7ff.), made the lame to walk (Mark 2:3ff.), cast out demons (Mark 3: lOff.), healed all kinds of sicknesses (Matt. 9:35), including leprosy (Mark 1:40-42), and even raised the dead to life on several occasions (Mark 5:35ff.; Luke 7:11-15; John 11:43-44). When asked if he was the Messiah, he used his miracles as evidence to support the claim, saying, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised” (Matt. 11:4-5). This outpouring of miracles was set forth ahead of time by prophets as a special sign that the Messiah had come (see Isa. 35:5-6). Nicodemus even said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2).
Unique in Death. Events surrounding Christ’s death were miraculous (see Christ, Death of).
This included the darkness from noon to three p.m (Mark 15:33) and the earthquake that opened the tombs and rent the temple veil (Matt. 27:51-54). The manner in which he suffered the excruciating torture of crucifixion was miraculous. The attitude he maintained toward his mockers and executioners was miraculous. He said, “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). The way in which he actually died was miraculous. As Jesus said, “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). At the very moment of his departure, he was not overcome by death. Rather, he voluntarily dismissed his spirit. “Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).
Unique in the Resurrection. The crowning miracle of Jesus’s earthly mission was the resurrection (see Resurrection, Evidence for). Not only was it predicted in the Old Testament (Pss. 2, 16), but Jesus himself predicted it from the very beginning of his ministry. He said, “‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’ . . . But the temple he had spoken of was his body” (John 2:19, 21; Matt. 12:40-42; 17:9). Jesus demonstrated the reality of his resurrection in twelve appearances over forty days to more than five hundred people.
Unique in the Ascension. Just like his entrance into this world, Jesus’s departure was also miraculous. After commissioning his disciples, “he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them” (Acts 1:10). Contrary to the view of some (see Harris, 423), this was not a “parable” but a literal bodily ascension into heaven from which he will return in the same literal body to reign in this world (Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7, 19-20). The great Christian creeds clearly emphasize the miraculous bodily ascension of Christ.
Unique in Sinlessness. Some of Jesus’s enemies brought false accusations against him, but the verdict of Pilate at his trial has been the verdict of history: “I find no basis for a charge against this man” (Luke 23:4). A soldier at the cross agreed, saying, “Surely this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47), and the thief on the cross next to Jesus said, “This man has done nothing wrong”
(Luke 23:41).
Hebrews says that Jesus was tempted as a man “yet without sinning” (4:15). Jesus himself once challenged his accusers, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46), but no one was able to find him guilty of anything. The impeccable character of Christ provides testimony to the truth of his claim. Jesus’s sinlessness was unique.
The Character of Christ Is Unique. Christ’s character was unique in other ways. To a perfect degree he manifested the best of virtues. He also combined seemingly opposing traits.
In Exemplifying Virtues. Even Bertrand Russell, who fancied he saw flaws in Christ’s character, confessed nonetheless that “what the world needs is love, Christian love, or compassion.” But this belies a belief in what most others acknowledge, namely, that Christ was the perfect manifestation of the virtue of love.
Jesus’s willing submission to the ignominious suffering and death by crucifixion, while he maintained love and forgiveness toward those killing him, is proof of this virtue (Luke 23:34, 43). He alone lived perfectly what he taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). He did not retaliate against his enemies; instead, he forgave them. He rebuked his disciples for misusing the sword (Matt. 26:52) and miraculously reattached and healed the amputated ear of one of the mob who came to take him to his death (Luke 22:50).
Jesus was the perfect example of patience, kindness, and compassion. He had compassion on the multitudes (Matt. 9:36), to the point of weeping over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37). Even though he justly condemned (in no uncertain terms) the Pharisees, who misled the innocent (Matt. 23), he did not hesitate to speak with Jewish leaders who showed interest (John 3).
In Combining Seemingly Opposite Traits. One of the unique things about Christ is the way he brought together in his person characteristics that in anyone else would seem impossible. He was a perfect example of humility, to the extent of washing his disciples’ feet (John 15). Yet he made bold claims to deity, such as, “I and the Father are One” (John 10:30) and “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58; cf. Exod. 3:14). The claim, “I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29) sounds arrogant, but he backed his words among little children (Matt. 18). Yet he was so strong as to overturn the tables of those who merchandised God’s house, cracking a whip to chase away their animals (John 2). Jesus was known for the virtue of kindness, yet he was severe with hypocrites who misled the innocent (Matt. 23).
Life and Teaching. As Jesus himself declared, the substance of what he taught finds its roots in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-18). He condemned meaningless traditions and misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:21ff.; 15:3-5; see Accommodation Theory). Though the essence of what he taught was not new, the form and the manner in which he taught it were unique. The Sermon on the Mount employs a fresh teaching method.
The vivid parables, such as those of the good Samaritan (Luke 10), the prodigal son (Luke 15), and the lost sheep (Luke 15:4ff.), are masterpieces of communication. Parables stand at the heart of Jesus’s teaching style. By drawing on the lifestyles of the people to illustrate the truths he wished to convey, Jesus communicated truth and refuted error. Also, by speaking in parables, he could avoid “casting pearls before swine.” He could confound and confuse those who did not wish to believe (the outsider) yet illuminate those who did desire to believe (the insider). While the use of allegories and parables themselves was not unique, the manner in which Jesus employed parables was. He brought the art of teaching eternal mystery in terms of everyday experience to a new height. The “laws of teaching” identified by modern pedagogues (Shafer, Seven Laws of Teaching) were practiced perfectly in Jesus’s teaching style.
The manner in which Jesus taught was unique. The Jewish intellectuals admitted, “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46). As he taught in parables, he was thronged by the multitudes (Matt. 13:34). As a lad, he impressed even the rabbis in the temple. For “everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:47). Later, he confounded those who attempted to trick him so that “no one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions” (Matt. 22:46).
Christ Is Superior. Jesus Christ was unique in every way. From his complete deity to his perfect humanity; from his miraculous conceptionto his supernatural ascension; from his impeccable character to his incomparable teaching—Jesus stands above all other religious or moral teachers.
Christ Is Superior to Moses. As a Jew himself, Jesus had no argument with Moses, the prophet who brought the Jewish law and led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage to freedom as an independent nation. Moses and Jesus were prophets of the same God, and Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law (found in the writings of Moses) but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). Jesus implies that Moses’s words are God’s words (compare Matt. 19:4-5 with Gen. 2:24). However, in many respects, we find that Jesus is superior to Moses.
Christ is a superior prophet to Moses. In Deuteronomy 18:15-19, Moses predicted that God would raise up a Jewish prophet with a special message. Anyone who did not believe this prophet would be judged by God. This passage has been traditionally interpreted as referring to the Messiah. Genesis 3:15 is also understood by many to refer to Jesus as the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent.
Christ ,s revelation is superior to that of Moses. “The Law was given through Moses; Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). While Moses set up the moral and social structures that guided the nation, the law could not save anyone from the penalty of their sins, which is death. As Paul says, “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). The revelation that came through Jesus, though, was one in which the sins that the law made known are forgiven: “being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24). Christ’s revelation builds on the foundation of Moses by solving the problem of which the law made us aware.
Christ ,s position is superior to that of Moses. Moses is the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, but Jesus is more than a prophet. As the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over his house” (Heb. 3:5-6, emphasis added). While Moses served God, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with the right to rule over all servants.
Christ ,s miracles are superior to those of Moses. Moses performed great miracles, but Christ’s miracles were greater in degree (see Miracles in the Bible). Moses lifted the bronze serpent to give healing to those who would look, but in this he was merely following instructions. He never made the blind to see or the deaf to hear. Also, there is nothing in Moses’s ministry to compare with the resurrection of Lazarus or of Christ.
Christ ,s claims are superior to those of Moses. Moses never made a claim to be God and did nothing other than fulfill his role as a prophet. Jesus did claim to be God and predicted his own resurrection to prove it.
Christ Is Superior to Muhammad. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, agreed with Jesus and Moses that God is one (see Islam), that he created the universe, and that he is beyond the universe. There is considerable agreement over the events of the first sixteen chapters of Genesis, to the point where Hagar was cast out from Abram’s house. After this, the Bible focuses on Isaac, while Muslims are concerned with what happened to their forefather, Ishmael. The teaching of Muhammad may be summarized in the five doctrines:
1. Allah is the one true God.
2. Allah has sent many prophets, including Moses and Jesus, but Muhammad is the last and greatest.
3. The Qur’an is the supreme religious book (see Qur’an, Alleged Divine Origin of), taking priority over the Law, the Psalms, and the Injil (Gospels) of Jesus.
4. There are many intermediate beings between God and us (angels), some of whom are good and some evil.
5. Each man’s deeds will be weighed to determine who will go to heaven and hell at the resurrection. The way to gain salvation includes reciting the Shahadah several times a day (“There is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is his prophet”), praying five times a day, fasting a month each year, almsgiving, and making pilgrimages to Mecca.
Christ offers a superior message. Jesus made superior claims to those made by Muhammad. Jesus claimed to be God (see Christ, Deity of). Muhammad claimed only to be a mere man who was a prophet {see Muhammad, Alleged Divine Call of). If Jesus, then, is not God, he is certainly no prophet. Jesus offered a superior confirmation for his claims. Jesus performed numerous miracles. Muhammad performed no miracles and admitted in the Qur’an that Jesus did many. Only Jesus died and rose from the dead.
Christ offers a better way of salvation. Unlike the God of Islam, the God of the Bible reached out to us by sending his Son to earth to die for our sins. Muhammad offered no sure hope for salvation, only guidelines for working oneself into Allah’s favor. Christ provided all that is needed to get us to heaven in his death. “For Christ also died once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).
Christ offers a superior model life. Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life at war. As a polygamist, he exceeded even the number of wives (four) he had prescribed for his religion. He also violated his own law by plundering caravans coming to Mecca, some of whom were on pilgrimage. He engaged in retaliation and revenge, contrary to his own teaching (see Muhammad,
Character of).
Jesus Is Superior to Hindu Gurus. In Hinduism (see Hinduism, Vedanta), a guru is a teacher. The Hindu scriptures cannot be understood by reading; they must be learned from a guru. These holy men are worshiped even after their deaths as supposed incarnations of the gods. They teach that humans need liberation from the endless cycle of reincarnation (samsara), which is brought on by karma, the effect of all words, deeds, and actions in one’s present and all former lives. Liberation (moksha) is obtained when the individual expands his being and consciousness to an infinite level and realizes that atman (the self) is the same as Brahman (the one absolute being from which all multiplicity comes).
In other words, each Hindu must realize personal godhood. Such a realization can only be achieved by following Jnana Yoga—salvation by knowledge of the ancient writings and inward meditation; Bhakti Yoga—salvation by devotion to one of the many deities; Karma Yoga—salvation by works, such as ceremonies, sacrifices, fasting, and pilgrimages, which must be done without thought of rewards. Each of these methods will to some extent include Raja Yoga, a meditation technique involving control over the body, breathing, and thoughts.
Hinduism as it is actually practiced consists largely of superstition, legendary stories about the gods, occult practices, and demon worship.
Christ teaches a superior worldview. Jesus teaches a theistic worldview (see Theism). But *pantheism, the realization of godhood, is the heart of Hinduism.
Christ ,s teaching is morally superior. Orthodox Hinduism insists that suffering people be left to suffer, because it is their destiny, as determined by karma. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He defined neighbor as anyone in need of help. John said, “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17). Also, many, if not most, gurus use their esteemed position to exploit their followers financially and sexually. The Bagwan Sri Raj neesh accumulated dozens of Rolls Royces as gifts from his followers. The Beatles became disenchanted with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi when they learned that he was much more interested in the body of one of the women in their party than with any of their spirits. They admitted, “We made a mistake.” Even the respected guru Mahatma Gandhi slept with women other than his wife.
Jesus gives a superior path to enlightenment. While the gurus are necessary to understand the sacred writings of Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, there is no esoteric or hidden truth in the Bible that must be explained apart from ordinary understanding. Christian meditation is not an effort to empty the mind but rather to fill it with the truth of scriptural principles (Ps. 1). Inward meditation is like peeling an onion; you keep tearing off layer after layer until, when you reach the middle, you find that there is nothing there. Meditation on God’s Word begins with content and opens up the meaning until it yields contentment of soul.
Christ teaches a better way of salvation. The Hindu is lost in the karmic cycle of reincarnation until he reaches moksha and is left to work the way out of this maze alone. Jesus promised that we would be saved by faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7) and that we could know that our salvation is guaranteed (Eph. 1:13-14; 1 John 5:13).
Christ Is Superior to Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha is a title meaning “enlightened one”) is inferior to Christ. Buddhism began as a reformation movement within Hinduism, which had become a system of speculation and superstition. To correct this, Gautama rejected the rituals and occultism and developed an essentially atheistic religion (though later forms of Buddhism returned to the Hindu gods). His basic beliefs are summed up in the Four Noble Truths:
1. Life is suffering.
2. Suffering is caused by desires for pleasure and prosperity.
3. Suffering can be overcome by eliminating desires.
4. Desire can be eliminated by the Eightfold Path.
The Eightfold Path is both a system of religious education and the moral precepts of Buddhism It includes:
1. right knowledge (“Four Noble Truths”)
2. right intentions
3. right speech
4. right conduct (no killing, drinking, stealing, lying, or adultery)
5. right occupation (which causes no suffering)
6. right effort
7. right mindfulness (denial of the finite self)
8. right meditation {Raja Yoga)
The goal of all Buddhists is not heaven or being with God, for there is no God in Gautama’s teaching. Rather, they seek nirvana, the elimination of all suffering and desires and the illusion of self-existence. While a liberal branch of Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhism) now has deified Gautama as a savior, Theravada Buddhism stays closer to Gautama’s teachings and maintains that he never claimed divinity. As to his being a savior, it is reported that Buddha’s last words were, “Buddhas do but point the way; work out your salvation with diligence.” As a variant form of Hinduism, Buddhism is subject to all of the criticisms mentioned above. Jesus’s teaching is superior. The following are also worth mentioning.
Christ fills life with more hope. Jesus’s teaching is superior to Buddha’s in that Jesus taught hope in life, while Buddhism sees life only as suffering and selfhood as something to be eradicated. Jesus taught that life is a gift of God to be enjoyed (John 10:10) and that the individual is to be honored supremely (Matt. 5:22). Furthermore, he promised hope in the life to come (John 14:6).
Christ offers a better way of salvation. The Buddhist also teaches reincarnation as the means of salvation. However, in this form the self or individuality of the soul is eradicated at the end of each life. So even though you live on, it is not you as an individual who has any hope of attaining nirvana. Jesus promised hope to each man and woman as an individual (John 14:3) and said to the thief on the cross beside him, “Today you shall be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).
Jesus is a better Christ. Jesus claimed and proved to be God in human flesh. Buddha was a mere mortal man who died and never rose again. Jesus, however, rose bodily from the grave. Gautama simply wanted to bring his “enlightenment” to others to help them to nirvana, where all desires and individual existence are lost.
Christ Is Superior to Socrates. Although Socrates never started a religion, he has attracted a great following. Socrates never wrote anything, but *Plato, his disciple, wrote a great deal about him, although these accounts may be as much Plato’s ideas as the thought of Socrates. Plato presents Socrates as a man convinced that God had appointed him to the task of promoting truth and goodness by making humans examine their words and deeds to see if they are true and good. Vice, in his opinion, was merely ignorance, and knowledge led to virtue. He is credited as the first person to recognize a need to develop a systematic approach to discovering truth, though the system itself was finally formulated by Aristotle—a disciple of Plato’s.
Like Christ, Socrates was condemned to death on the basis of false accusations from authorities who were threatened by his teaching. He could have been acquitted if he had not insisted on making his accusers and judges examine their own statements and lives, which they were unwilling to do. He was content to die, knowing that he had carried out his mission to the end and that death, whether a dreamless sleep or a wonderful fellowship of great men, was good.
Christ has a superior basis for truth. Jesus, like Socrates, often used questions to make his hearers examine themselves, but his basis for knowing the truth about human beings and God was rooted in the fact that he was the all-knowing God. He said of himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He was, in his very being, the fount from which all truth ultimately flowed. Likewise, as God, he was the absolute Goodness by which all other goodness is measured. He once asked a young man to examine his words by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Jesus was the very truth and good that Socrates wanted to understand.
Christ gives more certain knowledge. While Socrates taught some true principles, he often was left to speculate about many important issues, such as what happens at death (see Certainty/Certitude). Jesus gave a sure answer to such questions, because he had certain knowledge of the human destination (John 5:19-29; 11:25-26). Where reason (Socrates) has insufficient evidence to make a definite conclusion, revelation (Jesus) gives answers that might never be anticipated.
Christ ,s death was more noble. Socrates died for a cause and did so with courage, which is certainly to be commended. However, Jesus died as a substitute for others (Mark 10:45) to pay the penalty that they deserved. He died not only for his friends but also for those who were, and would remain, his enemies (Rom 5:6-7). Such a demonstration of love is unequaled by any philosopher or philanthropist.
Christ ,s proof of his message is superior. Rational proofs are good when there is sound evidence for their conclusions (see God, Evidence for). But Socrates cannot support his claim to be sent by God with anything that compares to the miracles of Christ and his resurrection (see Resurrection,
Evidence for). Pagan prophets and prophetesses, such as the Oracle of Delphi, do not compare with the precise biblical prediction and miracles (see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible). In these acts there is a superior proof that Jesus’s message was authenticated by God as true (see Miracles, Apologetic Value of).
Christ Is Superior to Lao Tse (Taoism). Modern Taoism is a religion of witchcraft, superstition, and polytheism, but it was originally a system of philosophy, and that is how it is being presented to Western culture today. Lao Tse built this system around one principle that explained everything in the universe and guided it all. That principle is called the Tao. There is no simple way to explain the Tao (see Zen Buddhism). The world is full of conflicting opposites—good and evil, male and female, light and dark, yes and no. All oppositions are manifestations of the conflict between Yin and Yang. But in ultimate reality Yin and Yang are completely intertwined and perfectly balanced. That balance is the mystery called the Tao. To understand the Tao is to realize that all opposites are one and that truth lies in contradiction, not in resolution (see Logic and God; Lirst Principles).
Taoism goes beyond this to urge living in harmony with the Tao. A person should enter a life of complete passiveness and reflection on such questions as, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” or “If a tree falls in the forest when no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” One should be at peace with nature and avoid all forms of violence. This system of philosophy has many similarities with Zen Buddhism
Christ brings superior freedom. Jesus allows humans to use their reason. In fact, he commands them to do so (Matt. 22:37; cf. 1 Peter 3:15). Taoism does not, at least on the highest level. Taoism engages in the claim that “reason does not apply to reality.” That statement itself is self-defeating, for it is a reasonable statement about reality. It is either true or false about the way things really are, and not contradictory, yet it claims that ultimately truth lies in contradiction. Jesus commanded, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment” (Matt. 22:37-38, emphasis added). God says, “Come now, and let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Peter exhorts us to “give a reason for the hope that you have”
(1 Peter 3:15b).
Jesus encouraged the use of freedom to choose, never imposing himself on the unwilling (Matt. 23:37). Taoism asks each follower to set will on the shelf, to give up the power to change things.
Jesus says that each person has a choice and that this choice makes the difference. Each chooses to believe or not believe (John 3:18), to obey or disobey (John 15:14), to change the world or be changed by it (Matt. 5:13-16).
Jesus allows each person the freedom to be saved. Taoism offers only a way to resign oneself to the way things are. Christ offers a way to change both who we are and what we are so that we might know the joys of life. Rather than accepting death as an inevitable end, Christ provides a way to conquer death by his resurrection. Lao Tse can make no such claim
Conclusion. Christ is absolutely unique among all who ever lived (see World Religions and Christianity). He is unique in his supernatural nature, in his superlative character, and in his life and teaching (see Christ, Deity of). No other world teacher has claimed to be God. Even when the followers of some prophet deified their teacher, they had no proof for that claim that can be compared to the fulfillment of prophecy, the sinless and miraculous life of Christ, and the resurrection. No other religious leader (except some who copied Christ) offered salvation by faith, apart from works, based on an action to take away the guilt of human sin. No religious or philosophical leader has displayed the love for people that Jesus did in dying for the sins of the world (John 15:13; Rom 5:6-8). Jesus is absolutely unique among all human beings who ever lived.
J. N. D. Anderson, The World’s Religions.
H. Bushnell, The Supernaturalness of Christ.
W. Corduan, Neighboring Faiths.
N. L. Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection.
N. L. Geisler and R. M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask.
M. Harris, From Grave to Glory.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.
B. Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian.
J. Gregory and C. Shafer, The Seven Laws of Teaching.
R. Zacharias, Jesus among Other Gods.
Christ, Virgin Birth of. See Virgin Birth of Christ.
Christ of Faith vs. Jesus of History. The distinction between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history is often traced to Martin *Kahler (1835-1912), though he probably did not mean by the term what most contemporary critics do. Even before Kahler, Gotthold *Lessing (1729-81) laid the ground for the separation of the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history. What happened in that separation through the “quests for the historical Jesus” is discussed in the article, Jesus, Quest for the Historical.
Lessing’s “Ditch. ” As early as 1778, Lessing viewed the gulf between the historical and the eternal as “the ugly ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap” (Lessing, 55). This gulf separated the contingent truths of history from the necessary truths of religion. And there is simply no way to span it from our side. Hence, he concluded that no matter how probable one finds the Gospel accounts, they can never serve as the basis for knowing eternal truths.
Kant’s Gulf. In 1781, Immanuel *Kant spoke in his Critique of Pure Reason of a gulf between the contingent truths of our experience and the necessary truths of reason. Hence, he believed it necessary to destroy any philosophical or scientific basis for belief in God. “I have therefore found it necessary,” he said, “to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith” (Kant, 29). Kant held that one must approach the realm of religion by faith. It was the realm of practical reason, not of theoretical reason. He setup an impassable gulf between the objective, scientific, knowable realm of facts and the unknowable realm of value (morality and religion). This fact/value dichotomy is at the basis of the later disjunction between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history.
Kahler’s Historical/Historic Divide. The title of Kahler’s book described the dichotomy he saw as necessary: The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ (1892). This volume is credited with originating the distinction between “historical” (historisch) Jesus and “historic”
(Geschichtlich) Christ. What Kahler had in mind by “historical,” though, was the reconstructed Jesus of liberal critical scholarship of his time, not the real first-century Jesus.
Evaluation. The dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith is based on highly dubious assumptions. The first has to do with the historicity of New Testament documents. This concept that belief that the facts of the Gospel are historically irrelevant is contrary to the New Testament claim of what is necessary for salvation. The apostle Paul made essential the beliefs that Jesus died and rose bodily from the grave (see Christ, Death of; Resurrection, Evidence for).
This indifference in historicity also is not shared with the New Testament writers themselves, who seem preoccupied with the details of an accurate account, not a broad-stroke myth. Luke actually tells us his research techniques and his goal as historian He wrote, “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”
(Luke 1:1-4).
There is also an unjustified assumption that the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels, lack adequate historical support. This is just not true (see Archaeology, New Testament; New Testament, Dating of; New Testament, Historicity of; New Testament Manuscripts).
Further, the separation of historical Jesus from historic Christ is based on a false dichotomy of fact and faith (see Faith and Reason) or of fact and value. The historic significance of Christ cannot be separated from his historicity. If he did not live, teach, die, and rise from the dead as the New Testament claims, then he has no saving significance today.
Sources
R. Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel.
--, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.
M. J. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship.
C. E. Braaten, "Martin Kahler on the Historic, Biblical Christ.”
G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus.
M. Kahler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ.
I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
S. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript.
--, Philosophical Fragments.
G. Lessing, Lessing's Theological Writings.
J. P. Meyer, A Margined Jew.
R. N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism.
R. B. Strimple. Modern Search for the Reed Jesus.
Christ’s Death, Substitution Legend. The death and resurrection of Christ are absolutely crucial to the truth of historic Christianity (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Indeed, orthodox Christianity stands or falls on whether Christ rose bodily from the dead (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:12-19). But if Christ did not die, then he obviously did not rise from the dead. One of the ways skeptics (see Agnosticism) and critics (see Biblical Criticism) of Christianity have attempted to avoid the truth of the resurrection (see Resurrection, Evidence for) is to posit that someone else was substituted to die on the cross for Jesus at the last moment.
Forms of the substitution or replacement legend were offered as early as the second century by opponents of Christianity as an alternative explanation to the Christian affirmation that Christ died and rose from the dead. But the factual evidence for Christ’s death on the cross is substantial, and it stands on its own apart from any theological beliefs (see Christ, Death of).
Sources
A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim.
R. Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment.
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament.
W. D. Edwards et al., "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ.”
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible.
G. Habermas ,Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus.
F. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.
J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers.
J. Martyr ,Apology.
"Sanhedrin,” in Slotki, The Babylonian Talmud.
Tacitus, Annals.
Chronology Problems in the Bible. See Genealogies, Open or Closed.
Clark, Gordon H. GordonClark(1902-85) was born in Philadelphia and received his PhD in philosophy in 1929. He taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, and Covenant College and was chairman of the philosophy department at Butler University for twenty-eight years. His teaching career spanned sixty years. Clark was a rational presuppositionalist, as differentiated from Cornelius *Van Til, who was a revelational presuppositionalist (see Presuppositional Apologetics). His students included Carl F. H. Henry, Edward John *Carnell, and Ronald Nash. His thirty books cover a wide variety of philosophical, ethical, and theological topics. Some of his works of philosophy and apologetics include Thales to Dewey; A Christian View of Men and Things; Religions, Reason, and Revelation; and Historiography, Secular and Religious. He also wrote a logic textbook.
Clark’s Reformed theology centered on the sovereignty of God, and his apologetics tookthe Triune God as revealed in Scripture as his presuppositional starting point. His test for truth was the law of noncontradiction (see First Principles).
The Test for Truth. Clark was an unyielding defender of the validity of the law of noncontradiction (see First Principles). Noncontradiction was the “inescapable” basis of all knowledge and the test for truth (Christian View of Men and Things, 313). Clark’s defense of the law of noncontradiction was what Van Til would call a transcendental argument. Without the forms of logic, Clark averred, no discussion on any subject would be possible (ibid., 308). Using noncontradiction, apologetics has a twofold task.
Negative Task. Apologetics must show that all non-Christian systems are contradictory within their truth claims. Clark did this in his history of philosophy, Thales to Dewey. He brought all the great philosophers before the bar of rationality and found each of them wanting.
Positive Task. Clark believed that only Christianity is free from contradiction, and, hence, only it can be proven true. Using a geometric method reminiscent of Rene *Descartes, Clark reduced Christianity to its basic axioms in order to show their internal consistency. He concluded, “Christianity is a comprehensive view of all things; it takes the world, both material and spiritual, to be an ordered system” (ibid., 33).
Clark was aware that no finite system could be expected to provide answers to all problems, since no mortal is omniscient. He reasoned that “if one system can provide plausible solutions to many problems, while another leaves too many questions unanswered, if one system tends less to skepticism and gives more meaning to life, if one world view is consistent while others are self-contradictory, who can deny us, since we must choose, the right to choose the more promising first principle?” (ibid., 34).
Evaluation. Positive Contributions. In addition to the overall contributions Clark made to evangelicals rethinking their task, Clark had a strong influence on individual evangelicals, notably Edward John Carnell, Carl Henry, and Ronald Nash
Clark’s system offers a comprehensive test for truth in all systems. Noncontradiction can be applied to every belief system It is offered as a means both for discovering which are false and giving evidence of the true one. The law of noncontradiction is employed by all rational people, so it is something of an indisputable standard, whatever the worldview. It is both fair and universal.
Unlike some multi-step philosophical tests for truth, Clark gives only one, and it is a simple one: Truth cannot conflict with itself. Either a view is noncontradictory or it is not. Clark’s criterion also is rational. It is clear and consistent, not apt to get lost in subjective, mystical experience.
As Nash correctly observes, Clark stressed “the importance of refusing to separate faith” (cited in Robbins, 89). He was an archenemy of *fideism, insisting on the need for rational religious belief.
Another positive feature is Clark’s stress on objective, propositional truth (see Truth, Nature of). He correctly emphasizes this, not only in general but also in the propositional revelation expressed in Scripture.
Negative Critique. Empirical skepticism unjustified. Clark claimed not to trust his senses, yet he needed them to read his Bible. How could he believe what he read? Like other skeptics, Clark inconsistently trusted his senses in everyday affairs. How else could he have eaten or crossed a busy street? Also, how can one know his or her senses are unreliable unless that can be determined by senses? For example, we learn by our senses to make allowances for the appearance of a straight stick that looks crooked when thrust into the water. We could not know not to trust the bent reflection unless we could trust our senses.
And like other empirical skeptics, Clark was not skeptical about his skepticism (see Agnosticism). He accepted it uncritically as a necessary step in his presuppositionalism But why should skepticism have been the starting point? Why not assume we can gain knowledge by way of our senses? Many of the criticisms in the article David Hume as well as in the critique of Presuppositional Apologetics can be leveled at Clark.
Circular reasoning. Clark commits the fallacy ofpetitio principii, or begging the question (see Logic and God). He admits that his system involves circular reasoning but attempts to resolve the problem, in part, by claiming that all other systems have the same problem. “Non-Christian arguments regularly assume the point in dispute before they start. The questions are so framed as to exclude the Christian answer from the beginning” (Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 27). He believes that he escapes the problem because skepticism is self-defeating (Thales to Dewey, 29-30). It hardly seems to further his cause to reduce his argument to the level of the rest, and this does not eliminate the possibility that other views are just as self-consistent.
A survey of all systems? To be fair, before Clark proves his point, he must prove every other system in history and on the contemporary scene to be inconsistent. He takes the conclusion of his argument beyond the evidence. The finiteness of the investigator limits the support for his thesis (Lewis, 119). One lifetime is simply too short to survey every other conceivable system Clark might force the conclusion of a probability that Christianity is true by this method, but Clark reduces all probability to skepticism. By his own standard, then, his apologetic method leaves us in skepticism
Consistency within other systems. A similar problem is that Clark uses internal consistency as the only test for the truth of a system But he cannot know that all systems are contradictory simply by using the law of noncontradiction. By Christian standards this might be possible, but many systems are self-consistent within their own view of reality. The pantheist (see Pantheism) says, “I am God.”
If this were an internally contradictory statement, then God himself could not say it. But he can and does. “God is all, and all is God” may be a contradictory statement to a theistic view, but to a pantheist who believes the real world is an illusion, it is perfectly self-consistent (see Hinduism, Vedanta; Monism).
A negative test only. At best, the law of noncontradiction is a negative test for truth. It can falsify a worldview truth claim, but it cannot verify one. It cannot prove that one alone is true, since more than one view may be internally self-consistent. As Gordon Lewis put it, “Contradiction is the surest sign of error, but consistency is not a guarantee of truth” (120).
Conclusion. Clark has provided a great service to Christian apologetics by stressing the laws of logic on which all rational arguments are based. The law of noncontradiction is absolutely necessary to the affirmation and confirmation of all truth claims. However, logic is only a set of formal principles. It tells what could be true, not what is true. To know what is really true, sooner or later one must touch base with the external world. This is what classical apologetics does.
Clark’s own view depends on his acceptance of the validity of sense impressions and probability (see Inductive Method), which he denies have any validity as a test for truth. On his own principles his view could not be true. He must trust his senses, even when reading books on other views. He must confess only a probability that all non-Christian views are false, since he has not examined each of them He must trust his senses even when he accepts the claim that the Bible is true. Clark’s apologetic method fails to be a comprehensive positive test for the truth of Christianity.