Book: 《美中不足 Remedial Christianity Series》Chapter 1-3 Author: Rev. Paul Viggiano Translation: 王兆豐、楊永麗
About the book
It is a collection of sermons from pastor Paul Viggiano at Branch of Hope OPC church in southern California. The author addressed a few critical theological topics/questions that are usually misunderstood by Christians. It is a great book for me because it corrects my misconceptions. I would like to share what I learnt with you.
My ratings
- Easy to understand: 3/5
- Thickness: 3/5
- Aha moments: 4/5
- Potential target readers: If you are a seeker, the first 5 chapters are highly recommended. For new believers and Christians who seek a solid theological foundation, this book is for you.
Notes about ratings:
- Of course, ratings are subjective :)
- A book cannot be decomposed into a few numbers. Thus these numbers are for you to get a big picture only.
“What is the basis of our knowledge?”
What is the source of our knowledge? For example, what is the basis of our morality? How do we prove that things that we think are right are indeed right?
Consider following questions:
What is your moral standard for accepting homosexuality and refusing pedophilia? Why is one acceptable and the other not?
Consider the following answer and logic:
-> It may be because pedophiles are not lawful or legal. -> If so, then your morality is probably based on the law. -> Is everything lawful/legal right? How do we know which laws are right and which are not? -> You need another layer to back it up, right? What is that? -> Your conscience; then what is conscience? your experience; then what if your experience changes? Your education; then what if it’s wrong? -> So far, we have learnt that the basis of our knowledge and morality is unclear. -> Is there an absolute basis/foundation/source/starting point to build up our morality? Or does truth exist? -> A simple answer is: God designed it this way. -> Problem solved.
“Why the Bible?”
“Ok, I understand that God’s will may be the ultimate basis of everything. But why the Bible?”
Because there should be a way to make the truth perceived and understood by human beings – yes, through books/words/knowledge.
You don’t have to agree with me at this moment, but you can’t deny the great possibility of it either. It would be great if you can hold this possibility and don’t overlook it.
Sola Scriptura
First of all, there’s no evidence in the universe 100% proving that “Bible = Truth,” like the way we prove a geometry theory. However, there is much evidence pointing to the fact that “Bible = Truth”, directly or indirectly – scientific findings, historical record, fulfillment of prophecy, change in every Christian’s life, etc.
However, when preaching the gospel, we do not debate with non-believers using evidence only (e.g., scientific findings, historical record, fulfillment of prophecy, change in every Christian’s life), even though those are easy to digest for non-believers.
There are 2 reasons for this.
Firstly, it’s because evidence is not the basis of Christians’ knowledge. The ultimate source of a Christian’s knowledge should be the Bible – God’s words. If we try to convince non-believers by holding up strong evidence over God’s will, then the foundation of our faith is no longer God anymore – the evidence becomes the basis. That’s what we should be mindful of. (The author cited an excellent comment from Williams. However, I’m not sure which Williams he is, and I can’t find the English original citation either. Please let me know if you know.)
Secondly, the debate will be endless and even meaningless because the two parties hold different bases of knowledge. In fact, even the most eloquent and knowledgeable Christian can’t convince a non-Christian that “Bible = truth,” if the basis of unbelievers’ knowledge is science, logic, empirical evidence, data, etc., whereas Christians’ knowledge comes directly from the Bible. Therefore, the prerequisite to communicate is to let one side realize that their basis is unreliable. For every believer, the Bible eventually replaced whatever they had as their basis of knowledge.
“Wait, isn’t that circular reasoning?”
The above logic may sound ridiculous to unbelievers. When I was a seeker, I didn’t buy it. How could one use the Bible to prove the Bible? I would trust more if one provides reliable historical evidence than one cites the Bible. However, this is problematic in 2 ways:
Firstly, what is “reliable historical evidence”? How reliable is “reliable”? Why should one trust the authors of regular historical books rather than the authors of historical books in the Bible? Both are subjective to some degree.
Secondly, if Christians don’t cite the Bible, what would they cite? If Christians prioritize empirical evidence more than the Bible, that means empirical evidence is the basis of their faith. If “circular reasoning” is the reason that Christians don’t cite the Bible, then logic is the new “bible.” Now that Christians claim that the Bible is the highest authority, it’s reasonable for them to cite whatever they want from the Bible to support their claim.
My point is that God’s words are the ultimate cause of all other stuff, such as empirical evidence. It doesn’t mean that I am against evidence. In fact, God’s words and evidence are always aligned. However, it is important to differentiate between supporting evidence and the ultimate cause. We should be mindful that the Bible is the basis of our faith. Don’t get lost in “evidence” and forget where we come from when preaching to non-believers.
(PS. In chapter 2 there’s a great summary on all books in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.)
