There’s almost nothing on that site. How did you get all that from the website? I think you’re desperate to say I “was never really a Christian,” which is really annoying.

Incidentally, faith and feeling are two different things. Are you familiar with Saint Augustine’s contrast of faith and reason?

My father is a non-denominational evangelical protestant pastor. Basically Baptist theology, but our church did a lot of work on “church unity” (aka ecumenicism). Here is the website.

If you read through all the comments here, you may have found that I also tried asking Luke this question, especially after he admitted learning what he learned (i.e., imbibing higher critical works about the historical Jesus, early church, etc.), in his “community of faith.” Well, Luke never did answer me (none that I could find or track, at least) on this subject. So I had to find out on this blog, via his “about” section. Turns out Luke is a PK, from Minnesota, and it appears his “community of faith” was the church his father pastored. Not sure which one this was, or precisely what it taught him about faith, the church, Jesus, etc. Parts of this story Luke has not yet told….

No, I didn’t read it ‘during’ my deconversion, but I read it shortly after the book came out. That one I actually saw at my library in Minnesota. I was once planning to do a post series responding to it here, but that one went on the way-back-burner.

As I’ve said, I read way more apologetics material than critical material, because I was trying to preserve my faith. Keller’s book was among them.

Re: #2….most of the time, you had no idea if the book you were reading was written by somebody who was actually a Christian or not? I’m not sure how scary this might be… or how much of a lack of understanding. If I’m reading something, I’d like to have an idea of its relation to the subject matter (pro or con) and if the author is authoritative or not (i.e., Bart Ehrman will be highly critical of Christian faith; NT Wright will be very supportive of Christian faith). This is the very foundation of intellectually honest scholarship.
I’ll take a look at the list you reference in your blog entry. It’ll be interesting to see what pro- stuff you read. ‘Cause if you believe everything on the critical side, that would be quite the leap of faith.

Books and articles by all kinds of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian. Much of the time I had no idea if the book I was reading by a Christian or not. I wanted a well-rounded presentation of the ideas. Look for the post ‘My Journey to Atheism’ for a few example book titles.

I suppose it’s easier to ask this way:
1) What community of faith (presumably in addition to self-study) were you part of, which taught you about Jesus, and led you away from Christian faith? (Church, home group, etc.)
2) I’m assuming that in addition to critical/skeptical material on Jesus and Christianity, you must also have read conservative/believing material as well, designed to bolster one’s faith, to be equally well-informed, and make a truly informed, intelligent decision. What were the books/authors you read, and most persuasive reasons in favor of faith in Christ and Christianity, and the reasons you ultimately found them lacking?
Thanks.

I didn’t study Jesus or the Bible or Christianity or religion at all while at the University of Minnesota.

Grace for Christmas my friend and thanks again.

David

What are you talking about? I didn’t study Christianity or the Bible at university. I studied all that within the Christian community, exactly as you accused me of not doing.

Thanks for chiming in.

“Many of the New Testament letters are known to be forgeries even by the most conservative scholars. The books of the Bible are written by very different authors with very different theologies. The gospels contradict each other all over the place.”

Aside from the books of the Bible being written by very different authors, I can’t recognize any of these statements. Can anyone out there give me an example of what you’re talking about?

I’ve enjoyed a number of these types of conversations, and as a Challies reader, I’m particularly interested in hearing this with him involved. As I write this comment, I haven’t read what he wrote (though I will as soon as I finish here). From what I can see in your post here, though, I’m impressed, as I have been the few times I’ve read here in the past. As a Christian, I obviously disagree about some of the big issues you’ve raised, but I respect the way you’ve gone about writing this so far.

Totally looking forward to reading the rest of this.

-Marshall Jones Jr.

Ouch! Wright’s thinking is pathetic, and those otherwise sensible people in the Society of Biblical Literature are falling for Wright’s pathetic thinking.

That said, I don’t have enough expertise to really assess whether or not Price is being fair to Wright, but I’m already skeptical of him, just based on his tone.

Wright is a pretty bad historian, I think. See here.

Hey Luke,

Have you ever read the writings of NT scholar N.T. Wright? You made some sweeping, and very misleading, statements. I would suggest you read some of his works to gain a different perspective.

I would suggest 1) Jesus and the Victory of God – Jesus was indeed a Jewish “Apocalyptic” Prophet but did this mean that Jesus expected the ‘end of the world’ to take place immediately? Jesus was announcing that God’s kingdom was breaking into the present and God was at last becoming King. Jesus believed that God was doing what he promised he would do for Israel, and for the whole world, and that it was coming true through him. Yet this didn’t always look like what the people expected…..Anyways, you can read it for yourself; 2) The Resurrection of the Son of God and 3) What Saint Paul Really Said – Although I don’t agree with everything Wright says in this book it is a great response to the statement you make about Paul’s teaching not being in line with what Jesus spoke. Paul actually did believe that through Jesus Israel’s story had reached it’s climax. God was rescuing his people like he did in the Exodus but now it was taking place through the Messiah, Jesus. Now if you want to be a part of God’s covenant people you must believe in Jesus. Again, so much more to be said but I would suggest you read these books before making such sweeping statements.

Barring a few qualifications here and there, that sounds about right to me.

Thank you for explicating your position. I don’t think my dilemma applies to your views, since you are not making any strong claims about the comprehensibility of God’s plans. All I wish to point out is that if you want to take the position that God’s plan is unfathomable by humans, you’ve just eviscerated your own ability to discuss the merits of said plan in terms of its consequences. Once you go down that path, you are of course perfectly free to insist that you have it on good authority that the plan is good, it just becomes nonsensical for you to tell us about your own understanding of how the plan will work out for the best.

Fortuna: Robert;The issue is not with whether you personally understand the plan as such, the question we’re discussing is whether any human being could understand it. If you take the position that God’s plan can’t be fathomed by humans, then from that point on, you cannot explain to us why it’s good in terms of the plans’ merits. The second you try, you are behaving as if you understand the plan, at least partially, and that contradicts your position.If that’s your position, of course, note that I am not saying that this is in fact something you are obligated to defend. I am attempting to address a contradiction that may be present in Mark’s viewpoint.  

Hi Fortuna,

I think we need to slow down a bit so we make sure we don’t talk past each other. I’m going to present my view on our knowledge of God’s providential plan, and then think about what you wrote above.

So, suppose I think God is a trustworthy authority. Suppose I think God lets people know that He is looking out for them. But now suppose that I admit as well that it often appears as though God is not looking out for them, and that it’s very hard for us, if not impossible, to understand how it could be that God’s letting what happens at least to some people is overall for the good.

I am not saying that we are completely in the dark about what God’s reasons are for letting things happen to people. I say we are partially in the dark. I think we can get to a certain point in describing the good that comes out of some evils. For instance, some evils really do make people appreciate the goods in life more; some evils really do seem to be deserved by people; some evils seem to be the cost of giving people free will; some evils turn people to God; and so on. (Obviously, some evils make some people jaded; some evils are undeserved; some evils seem to have nothing to do with free will; and some evils make people turn away from God; and so on.)

So, I think I can explain to some degree why God’s plan is good, but I admit that to some degree, perhaps a very large degree, I can’t explain how it could be that God’s plan is good. And perhaps it’s the case that it’s impossible for me or any other human being to explain, in a way any of us could understand, how it could be that God’s plan is for the good. (Indeed, perhaps God Himself can’t explain it to us given our limited cognitive abilities.)

So I admit that if I *cannot* *fully* fathom how God’s plan could be good for me and for you, then I of course cannot *fully* *explain* how God’s plan could be good for you and me. But it’s one thing to be able to partially or fully explain X, and it’s another thing to be justified in being assured that X has an explanation.