As some of you may know I work part-time with an organization called Power to Change, which attempts to help people change their lives by realizing the transforming power of knowing Jesus Christ. Today it was brought to my attention that one of the many links to PowerToChange.com includes a blog post titled ""Lord, Liar, or Lunatic"? Or, I dunno, something in between." I disagree with several points made in that post, and it gives me an opportunity to discuss Lewis' famous argument, which I think was left somewhat undeveloped in its original form but can be redeemed.

The basics of Lewis' "Trilemma" argument can be found at the following Wikipedia entry: Lewis' Trilemma Argument. Unfortunately, it is only quoted in part, and reading the full chapter from Mere Christianity (full text here, see chapter 8) and the preceding material in the book might make things clearer. Nevertheless …

The Wikipedia entry describes the trilemma as below … Asylum Seeker, the author of the blog post linked above, takes issue with every part of the argument. (Hereafter I'll refer to Asylum Seeker as "Asylum", since his real name is not given; and although I am unsure of their gender I will refer to Asylum as "he" for the sake of ease.):

(P) Jesus claimed to be God.
(Q) One of the following must be true.
1. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he believed that he was.
2. Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway.
3. Lord: Jesus is God.
From these premises it follows logically that,
(C) If not God, Jesus is either not great or not moral.

I have edited (Q)1) to remove the word "mistakenly" since, as I explain later and Lewis himself made clear, Jesus' claim is not the sort of thing a person can make an "oopsie" about.

Re (P), Asylum claims that "that Jesus did not necessarily refer to himself as the "Son of God" and he was only claimed to be after the fact by followers" and later claims that "As mentioned above, Premise P is suspect". However, no reason is presented for denying that Jesus thought of Himself as God. Even if Jesus never referred to Himself as "Son of God", the name "Son of Man" still carried similar connotations for his first century listeners. The Wikipedia article contains several suggested reasons that might be given for concluding Jesus didn't consider Himself to be divine, but also presents equally forceful reasons (I would say, better) for believing Jesus did in fact claim to be God. See for example Glenn Miller's summary or more comprehensive articles (on the synoptics and John) on the subject. If we take the biblical texts seriously, I don't see how a case could be made that Jesus considered himself to be anything less than divine.

That's IF we take the biblical texts seriously, of course. What if, however, as several commenters to Asylum's original post suggest, that we should not take the biblical text seriously because they are not trustworthy? This is a more popular was of avoiding the conclusion (C) of Lewis' argument: By positing a fourth way, a fourth "L", namely Legend. Asylum suggests early in his post that "Jesus could be fictional [and/or] the Gospel could be inaccurate".

Regarding Jesus being fictional (ie the "Jesus never existed" hypothesis) this hypothesis is dismissed by nearly all serious scholars on the subject, G. A. Wells being the main notable exception. For more details on this topic, see Dr Gary Habermas' article commenting directly upon Wells' hypothesis A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus, or a more general article Christ Myth Refuted. Whether the New Testament is accurate, however, is more open for debate. This is certainly a worthy objection to Lewis' original argument. Of course, Lewis was operating under the assumption that the New Testament is trustworthy. If that assumption is removed, it must be argued for, as I believe I have done in my free ebook on this subject, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament. I encourage you to download a copy and check it out.

There are, in fact, good reasons to believe the New Testament is trustworthy; especially in contrast to some of the other works commonly mentioned by skeptics of the New Testament such as non-canonical documents written in the second century AD and later. In the comments section of Asylum's post one of the commenters Richelle says "it would have been nice to know what all the other stories of jesus were before they all got destroyed by the church once they decided jesus was going down in history as a superhuman." Here she is referring to another commenter's mention of the Council of Nicaea. Of course, the Council of Nicaea did not discuss which books would be included in the New Testament at all, and we have plenty of information about what the earliest Christians thought about Jesus, first from the New Testament documents themselves, and then from the early Christian letters (some from the first century). Larry Hurtado's recent book argues that in fact "perhaps within only a few days or weeks of his crucifixion, Jesus' followers were circulating the astonishing claim that God had raised him from death and had installed him in heavenly glory as Messiah and the appointed vehicle of redemption." So such ideas are hardly inventions by a church council in the 4th century!

Even if we accepted for the sake of argument that the New Testament is generally untrustworthy and contains numerous errors, Jesus' divinity is proclaimed or assumed throughout, so it still would be difficult to escape the conclusion that the authors believed Jesus claimed to be God unless we were to discount the entirety of the New Testament as being totally and utterly untrustworthy; as even most ardent skeptics won't do, for good reason.

This leads us to (Q)1): "Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was." This is a major point of contention for Asylum, who says: "A "lunatic" is hardly crazy about everything. People who have such a delusion can still have insight." This is true. A person may be perfectly sane in one regard, and completely delusional in another regard.

Yet think for a moment what you might say if someone you know, let's call him Joe, claimed to be God. Not just for a laugh, but seriously and continuously. He seemed normal in certain other respects (he was able to dress himself and engage in normal social conventions) yet he claimed he was in fact God. Now what if a group of people got sick of Joe's ranting and decided they'd kidnap him and, if he didn't stop with this God nonsense, that they would kill him in the most painful way imaginable. What would you say about him if he steadfastly refused to recant and was killed in the most excruciating manner for his claims? I, personally, would not call him sane. Would you?

When Lewis wryly remarks that "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell" he is saying, with his 'poached egg' remark, that Jesus' self-claims are not trivial, they are entirely foundational. A person calling themselves God is either true, or, if false, akin with claiming to be a poached egg! This is not the sort of thing a person could make an "oopsie" about and we would still call "sane".

Asylum notes in the comments that he is "not sure if Jesus's behavior is inconsistent" with Schizophrenia, though he is careful to note he does not think it is per se. It's worth noting that to be able to suggest that Jesus was Schizophrenic, a person would have to get their information from … the New Testament, so they must be claiming that it is essentially reliable. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But is there evidence within the New Testament that Jesus had some kinda of mental illness? In fact there doesn't seem to be anything about Jesus' behavior which suggests mental illness, let alone Schizophrenia. (Compare for example with what is know about Muhammad, where, while far from conclusive, there are at least suggestions that he suffered from epilepsy or a similar mental illness.)

Gary R. Collins, PhD in psychology from Purdue University, concludes that "I don't see any signs that Jesus was suffering from mental illness." Asylum's point prior in his post is that a person may be sane in some areas of life and insane in others, but as noted above claiming to be God (and willing to be put to death for that conviction) is not the sort of claim that is distinct from a person being sane.

So, if we take the New Testament seriously and Jesus' words seriously when he claims to be God, and if Jesus shows no signs of mental illness, we are ruling out the Legend argument, (Q)1), the lunatic argument, and (Q)2) the liar argument. Are there other possible alternatives? Kreeft and Tacelli note at least one additional option in their book (available here BTW, with a much nicer cover than my copy has): Maybe Jesus didn't mean he was literally God, maybe he was just being really mystical and symbolic. They call this the Guru objection. This is rejected, in part, because of the context in which Jesus spoke and lived: He was Jewish, and directed his own ministry primarily to the Jews, no doubt because they (perhaps unlike some of the non-Jewish people around) would not have understood his claims to be mystical. (Certainly those who committed Jesus to death for His perceived heresy did not see the claims as being mystical!) For more on the "mythical Jesus" see for example here: The Persistent New Age Jesus (and other articles on the CAFA site).

All that said, I don't see Lewis' argument as an iron-clad proof that Jesus was who he said he was. It is, I think, a more powerful argument than Lewis is given credit for, especially since he was not a philosopher by trade. And the version put forth by Kreeft and Tacelli is I think a definite improvement (expansion) of Lewis' original. But it is not airtight by any means. When I first read of it, before I was a Christian, I did not drop to my knees and become a Christian immediately afterward.

What's the point, then? It is one of several arguments that I believe suggest that Jesus, and the Gospel message, are actually true. No one will be convinced to become a Christian by rational arguments alone (because the nature of the trust of faith is not merely rational, but also volitional and emotional) but they may at least convince us that such ideas are worth thinking about.

Related reading:
– A better article on one of our sites than the testimony linked by Asylum's blog post: Who did Jesus think He was anyways?
– Peter Kreeft's brief article on the topic on his website: The Divinity of Christ
– Stand to Reason: Christianity worth thinking about

"Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?!" shouts Charlie Brown in frustration. This is Linus' answer:

Linus is quoting the Gospel of Luke chapter 2 … but what reason do we have for believing it? If this message is true, it's certainly the greatest and most important message we'll ever hear. If we have good reasons to trust what the biblical authors wrote, then it would seem reasonable (given the incredible, life-changing meaning of the message) to accept it, nay, embrace it. My short free e-book gives some reasons to believe it's actually true: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament.

But perhaps the more common hindrances to faith are not the intellectual concerns, they are instead the "heart" objections. Before I became a Christian, I wrestled with many of these. "I'll have to admit I've been wrong for the first 20-something years of my life!" I thought. (It's never easy for me to admit when I'm wrong.) I also wondered how my family and friends would react, since most of them are not Christian. And then there was the life changes issue … would I have to give up some of the "sin" I enjoyed?

Well, let me tell you. It does take a mature person to admit they were wrong. It's not always easy talking to friends and family about faith issues. And giving up sin, even when it seems distasteful and wrong … well, frankly it's not always easy. But the all-surpassing joy of knowing Jesus, of knowing God's love and the paradoxical freedom of growing deeper in that love, makes it all worthwhile.

If you're contemplating these issues, or are perhaps considering such things seriously for the first time, you may want to consider reading True or False: Doubters Welcome … or checking out the short flash video about Jesus. Hope you have a wonderful Christmas holiday! Remember, there is reason for the season!

There's a ministry run by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron called The Way of the Master which uses the following evangelism tactic. First, a person is confronted with a list of the ten commandments. They are then asked if they have broken any of them. When the person admits they have (since we all have) they are then told they are a sinner and are in need of God's forgiveness.

Although I do appreciate their ministry efforts, and I think the argument they present is valid and sound, I'm not sure that this method is cogent. Here's why: It's based on an unspoken assumption, namely that the Bible is true! Obviously, if a person believes what the Bible says, they are (or should be) already a Christian. If they don't believe the Bible, why should they believe that the ten commandments will impact their eternal destinies? They are, after all, found in the Bible, which they don't believe in.

However, I think a different type of "good test" might be still valid and sound, but also more cogent. Here's how it works:

A person who doesn't believe in the Bible can still behave morally. Now, whether or not a secular person has any grounding for his or her moral beliefs is a separate question; or as Greg Koukl puts it, "No one argues, though, that an atheist can behave in a way one might call moral. The real question is, "Why ought he?" But we can for now affirm that, from a pragmatic standpoint, any person can behave morally and also possess moral beliefs.

Now, a Christian gets his or her moral guidance from the Bible. (Or, at least, in theory they should do so!) Where does a secular person receive their moral guidance? There could be many influences, such as parents, society, etc. But ultimately it comes down to a personal decision. Everyone has their own personal morality; a set of moral standards that they feel is just, and moral.

Thinking of that moral standard (which a person defines themselves, remember), the question could be asked: Have you lived up to the moral standard that you have set up for yourself? Or put another way, have you ever done (or not done) some of the things that you would call someone else immoral for doing (or not doing)? Most honest people would answer "yes".

So, by even their own minimal standard, which they have defined for themselves, they are not moral. Consider then this question: Would God's standards be higher or lower than the standards I define for myself?

For example, think about a young child whose parents have set the child's curfew at 9:00pm. One day the parents are away and leave the child in the care of an inept babysitter who, rather than enforcing the normal curfew, tells the child they're free to set their own. Do you think the child will set their bedtime earlier or later than their usual curfew? I think we can say they would likely set their own curfew much later … if they go to bed that night at all! Similarly, I think it's safe to assume a standard of behavior we make up for ourselves would be lower than God's, and if we fail miserably at even our own minimal standard, how much more have we failed God's standard and are in need of His help and forgiveness?

So this is the predicament that people find themselves in … if they believe that a God of some sort exists, of course. If opinion polls are to be believed, this includes 90% or so of the population. If a person already believes that God exists, and/or there are good arguments that God exists (and I think there are several good arguments that God exists) then I think this is a decent argument for the idea that there is no such thing as a "good person".

The title of Thomas Harris' still popular book "I'm OK, You're OK" came to mind today. (I can almost hear my high school English prof: "OK is not a word! The word is spelled OKAY!") I have never read the book, but according to the always reliable (*coughs*) Wikipedia entry (linked above) the four basic "life positions" explained in the book are:

1. I'm Not OK, You're OK
2. I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
3. I'm OK, You're Not OK
4. I'm OK, You're OK

Which of these life positions best describes the various world religions?

One of the most prevalent today, IMHO, especially in secular society, is #4: I'm OK, You're OK. This is the pluralist approach … all roads lead to Rome, all paths lead to the top of the mountain, etc. "You believe in and worship Jesus?" someone might say, "That's great … for you." Or "You believe in Muhammad, Krishna, or Adi Da? Wonderful … for you." This life position often takes the colloquialism "Whatever makes you happy …" Of course, even here there are limits … ex, "You believe and worship Satan? … Um. That's … um, great … *cough* … <changes subject>"

#1 is less prevalent but still abounds: I'm Not OK, You're OK. This is a self-depreciating position. It imagines that everyone else is good, and I am markedly inferior to them. I must admit sometimes I fall into this sort of thinking myself, and this sort of unhealthy guilt is sometimes unfortunately common in Christian circles. After all, doesn't the Bible even say "consider others better than yourselves"? (Philippians 2:3) More on that in a moment.

#3 is also prevalent: I'm OK, You're Not OK. In fact, this is the view of most religions in the world. There is a specific set of requirements that you must pass in order to qualify. If you do those things, you pass the test and are "in". If you, for example, pray the confession, pray five times a day, tithe 2.5%, fast, and go on the pilgrimage, you're in! At least, pretty sure you're in. Kinda sure. Well you don't really know but you hope you are. And this view is seen as being pretty "intolerant" and not at all politically correct, not to mention it's not exactly very humble.

#2 is probably the least prevalent: I'm Not OK, You're Not OK. This, in fact, is the view of biblical Christianity, where we read that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves" (1 John 1:8) … moreover, "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). Wow! Isn't that just excessively negative?

Actually, I'd say #2 is accurate. Real Christianity does not encourage people to wallow in self-pity or negativity, nor is it encouraged to gloss over our sins and failings, nor is it taught to think we're "all that" (OK) and point the finger at others (not OK). Instead it recognizes that we're all in the same boat. At least, initially.

The full text of the verse which contains the previous quotation ("consider others better than yourselves") actually reads "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." When we are honest with ourselves, we know that we don't even meet our own self-imposed standards of morality. (See "Good People?" for more about that.) How much more do we not live up to God's standards?

But that is only stating the problem. God also provides the solution: Jesus. Christianity is utterly unique in that we are not saved because we are "OK". We are saved by our acceptance of the fact that we are NOT, and our acceptance of the One who is strong enough, and merciful enough, to carry the weight for us that we cannot bear on our own, as Paul explains: "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." (Romans 5:8)

Are we all OK? No. We're all NOT. As John Piper might say, "John Piper … is … bad!" And that includes me. But I hope I never become complacent in remembering the price that Christ paid for my freedom from sin, not by my own works that I might become conceited and prideful, but instead entirely by the grace of God. And that makes the Christian message unique, and uniquely true, among all world religions and "life positions".

Resources:

• Good People? – Are we really OK?
• Jesus Christ: Who is he? – And why does it matter?

(Image credit: striatic, who of course does not necessarily endorse any of the content of this post!)