John Lennox on the Resurrection (part 1)
Lennox is a professor of mathematics who gets cited a lot by Christians because of his academic credentials. While I assume he is knowledgeable in maths, his apologetics are pretty poor!
Here is a page where he discusses evidence for the resurrection (as part of an interview).
https://scienceforthechurch.org/2021/03/16/john-lennox-on-the-resurrection/
"You cannot argue against miracles in principle."
Lennox spends a lot of time on this, and I accept his point. We cannot just rule out miracles. But that is a long, long way from proving a specific miracle happened.
So let us see what he does have:
"The existence of the Christian church throughout the world is an indisputable fact. What explanation is adequate to explain the transformation of the early disciples… What could have been powerful enough to set all of this going?"
"If we were to ask the early Church, they would answer at once that it was the resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, they maintained that the very reason and purpose for their existence was to be a witness to the resurrection of Christ. That is, the church came into existence not to promulgate some political programme or campaign for moral renovation; but primarily to bear witness to the fact that God had intervened in history, raised Christ from the dead, and that forgiveness of sins could be received in his name. This message would ultimately have major moral implications for society; but it was the message of the resurrection itself that was central. If we reject the first Christians’ own explanation for their existence, on the basis that it involves too big a miracle, what are we going to put in its place that will not involve an even greater strain on our capacity for belief? To deny the resurrection simply leaves the church without a raison d’être, which is historically and psychologically absurd."
So Lennox's argument is that the resurrection happened because the early Christians thought the resurrection happened...
That is it. That is all he is saying here.
How can he be sure the early Christians were right? Blind faith.
This is an article by Lennox:
https://www.evangelicalmagazine.com/article/a-crown-of-hope/
Lennox starts this article:
We need convincing evidence of the goodness of God’s character if we are to trust him. Christianity claims that the man Jesus Christ is God incarnate—the Creator become human.
But no where in the article is there actual evidence, besides the claims of the Bible.
At the heart of its message is the death of Jesus on a cross just outside Jerusalem. The question at once arises: if he is God incarnate, what is he doing on a cross? Well, at the very least it means that God has not remained distant from human pain and suffering but has himself experienced it.
No, Lennox, the first question is whether or not Jesus IS God incarnate. But, of course, Lennox is a Christian, so he blindly assumes Christianity is true.
That, though, is only half of the story. If that suffering had been the end of what Jesus did, we would never have heard about it. But it was not the end. The message that set Jerusalem buzzing that first Easter—the message that riveted the first-century world—was that Jesus had conquered death: that he had risen from the dead and would be the final Judge of humanity.
Lennox assumes the resurrection. He article is all founded on that being true. He talks about needing "convincing evidence", but all he really has is blind faith.
This is an article about Lennox.
https://biblicalpreaching.net/tag/john-lennox/
Yesterday I was reflecting on Dr John Lennox’s concerns as Christians add fuel to the fire of Richard Dawkin’s faulty logic. Faith, by his definition, is knowingly trusting in something which cannot be proven – believing against reason.
Yeah, right...
Yet Lennox yearns for people to understand that the faith is always a response to fact, and the Christian faith is firmly founded on trustworthy facts – not least the resurrection of Jesus.
Lennox claims the resurrection is a trustworthy fact, but what is his basis for that claim?
Lennox tells about when he was discussing evidence at a dinner party.
https://www.evangelicalmagazine.com/article/conversing-about-jesus/
... I was asked by the person beside me why I believed in the resurrection of Jesus. I answered but tried to keep my voice down. .... Finally, one man further down the table could stand it no more. He hammered his knife on the table and shouted, ‘Stop that nonsense. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.’
...
‘In that case, I would be interested to know what you made of the evidence for the resurrection given in the New Testament when you studied it …’
‘I, well, I didn’t know there was any,’ he spluttered.
The opponents of Christianity always splutter! But it seems Lennox's trustworthy fact is that it is stated in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, well, it just must be true, right?
Colour me unconvinced...
See also:
Comments
Post a Comment