INTRODUCTION
It has become increasingly popular in recent years to compare the teachings of Jesus Christ to those of the Buddha. Allegedly, the doctrinal teachings of each regarding morality, knowledge, and salvation so parallel each another that one could propose that there exists some type of dependence upon one another. Some even go so far as to claim that Jesus Christ was actually a practicing Buddhist. This trend has reached such a fever pitch that even the fourteenth Dalai Lama stated that Jesus Christ was no mere man, but a bodhisattva.
Those who wish to compare the supposed doctrinal similarities of Christianity and Buddhism often do so by highlighting the common acknowledgment of divine grace in the act of salvation. It is believed that when the Christian and the Pure Land Buddhist speak of grace, each is referring to the same concept. The purpose of this research is to examine the Christian and Buddhist notion of grace, subsequently providing a Christian response to the Buddhist concept.
THE BUDDHA
Buddhism was born in sixth century B.C. in northeastern India. The Prince Siddhartha Gautama, who grew up in a sheltered lap of luxury, experienced four successive visions. In these four visions he witnessed death, disease, a funeral, and a monk who renounced life. After experiencing these visions, Gautama left the comfort of his palace and began a life of renunciation. After thoroughly studying meditative practices and living life as an ascetic, he become desperate for enlightenment. In the midst of this desperation he decided to starve himself until he achieved enlightenment. He reportedly, while sitting under the bodhi tree, experienced spiritual enlightenment in which he learned that all is illusion. He then developed a series of doctrines that were codified into the “four noble truths.” These truths became the foundation of Buddhism.
THE RISE OF PURE LAND BUDDHISM
Out of the Buddha’s thoughts came two primary systems. The first, Theravada, is primarily a monk-based school of Buddhism. The second major system, Mahayana (also called the greater vehicle), is a layperson-based system. Out of the latter system, a popular form of Buddhism, called Pure Land, was born.
Pure Land Buddhism formed in China during the Jin Dynasty (256-429 A.D.). The basis for this sect was formulated by Hui-yuan (334-416). A monk in Jiangxi, China, Hui-yan began to interpret the Sukhavati Vyuha sutras in such a way that he believed all beings would eventually find rebirth in a heavenly realm called pure land. In 402, Hui-yuan began the Pure Land Society. Hui-yuan taught that one could gain entrance into the pure land through meditative practices. After the passing of Hui-yuan, another monk, Tan-luan (476-542) began to teach that one could gain entrance by merely reciting the name of the Buddha who reigns over the pure land. This being, Amida Buddha (Buddha of Limitless Light), would benevolently grant entrance to the land of bliss if one were merely faithful in reciting his name.
Following the work of Tan-luan, were teachings of a man named Shan-tao (613-681). Attempting to attract those not disciplined enough to engage in meditative Buddhism, Shan-tao taught that Amida would eventually grant all beings entrance into the pure land through his own grace (tariki). If one should diligently devote himself to the recitation of the name Amida, he could gain this entrance in a single lifetime.
The system finally codified during the Tang dynasty (618-907). It was during this dynasty that Pure Land Buddhism began to rapidly expand. In 713, imperial disfavor was directed toward various forms of Buddhism. This resulted in extensive attempts by Pure Land Buddhists to convert large amounts of people. The simple doctrines espoused by the Pure Land leadership, coupled with imperial condemnation of the Three Ages school of Buddhism, brought about surges of support for the Pure Land sect.
After Pure Land Buddhism began to wane in China, it found new life in Japan. According to Ross Reat, “The ninth century Tendai monk Ennin (794-864) is credited with having brought from China to Japan the practice of devotion to Amitabha [Amida] Buddha.” The movement began to grow through the publication of tracts. These tracts were primarily written by a monk named Genshin (942-1017) and found great success because of their incorporation of visual imagery within the written text. Genshin presented an array of images depicting the splendor of the pure land and the terrors of “hell.” Through his work and the work of others, Pure Land began to take hold within Japan.
In 1175 a monk named Honen (1133-1212) published his work entitled Senchaku-shu, thereby infusing Pure Land doctrine into Japan. Following the publication of his treatise, Honen began evangelizing Japan with the doctrines of Pure Land Buddhism. All but denying the validity of all other Buddhist doctrines, Honen focused his attention to the repetition of the phrase namu amida butsu, which means, “I bow down to worship the Buddha Amida.” Through his teachings, Honen became so popular that the Japanese leadership viewed him as a threat to government. As a result, he was eventually banished.
Following Honen’s death, his disciple Shinran (1173-1226) carried on his teachings. Shinran attempted to further simplify the doctrines of Honen by removing the few restrictions that remained within Pure Land Buddhism. Shinran effectively removed the requirement of celibacy, taking for himself a wife and fathering a number of children. In addition, Shinran stressed that one reached “salvation” through the grace of Amida, and nothing else. Perhaps the most noteworthy innovation delivered by Shinran was his denouncement of repetitious recitation. According to Shinran, one need not recite the nembutsu repetitiously; instead, a single heart-felt statement of reliance upon Amida would effectively provide grace for the adherent. With the population of followers growing since the time of Shinran, Pure Land Buddhism has reached incredible popularity, especially in the years following World War II. Adherents now comprise of over half the Japanese population. Pure Land Buddhism has allegedly established itself as another “grace based” religion alongside of Christianity.
THE PURE LAND DOCTRINE OF GRACE
According to Pure Land mythology, a monk named Dharmakara, while going through his series of incarnations, became overwhelmed with the pain and suffering of human beings. He was so horrified by the number of people who would fail to ever reach nirvana that he vowed to one day return, providing a way for the average lay person to reach a state of bliss. This is the eighteenth vow, it reads: “If, when I attain buddhahood, the sentient beings of the ten quarters, with sincere mind entrusting themselves, aspiring to be born in my land, and saying my name even but ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain the supreme enlightenment.”
After Dharmakara spent an innumerable number of lifetimes performing good deeds and learning the dharma, he became fully enlightened. Thus, Dharmakara took on the role of a bodhisattva. Putting off his own release into nirvana so that he might stay behind and help others attain enlightenment, he now dwells in the land of pure bliss (pure land) as the Amida Buddha. In a sense, Amida is vicariously suffering on behalf of others in order to aid them in their quest for salvation.
Pure Land doctrine teaches that, if one is born into the realm of the Amida Buddha, he has attained the position of “nonretrogression.” The term means the adherent will not be reborn into a lower level of existence. This is vital to Buddhist thought. The fear of regressing and falling further into the trap of samsara dominates the thoughts of most Buddhists. According to Honen, mankind now dwells in an age that makes it nearly impossible to reach enlightenment through traditional Buddhist practices. Therefore, Honen reasoned that the nembutsu is superior to all other Buddhist practices, for it alone can provide an avenue for ultimate spiritual progression. Honen summarized his teachings in the following statement:
The method of final salvation I have pronounced…is nothing but the mere repetition of the namu Amida Butsu without a doubt of his mercy, whereby one may be born into the Land of Perfect Bliss…Thus without pedantic airs, one should fervently practice the repetition of the name of Amida, and that alone.
Shinran would expand upon Honen’s thought by stating that reciting the nembutsu repetitiously does nothing but store up merit in an attempt to reach enlightenment. This repetitious effort shows a total lack of trust in the eighteenth vow, thereby denying the power of Amida. According to Paul Chung, “He [Shinran] came to the realization that human works and conduct such as meditation and the study of sutras become meaningful only when done out of gratitude for having been liberated and enlightened by the power of Amida rather than for the purpose of attaining enlightenment.” In Shinran’s estimation, the first time that the adherent recites the nembutsu, he has attained “salvation.” All recitations that follow are nothing more than acts of gratitude.
Shinran believed that the age had become so evil, mankind could no longer know good from evil. Without the ability to distinguish right from wrong, one no longer had the ability to reach genuine enlightenment. Thus, only faith in Amida makes it possible to attain enlightenment. Timothy Tennent recounts a Buddhist analogy for this “unmerited grace:” Tennent recounts the story of the kitten, “The baby kitten is the perfect picture of grace. Just as the kitten must totally surrender to the will of its mother, so the devotee must totally surrender…” Therefore, it could be said that Honen and Shinran believed in a form of sola gratia. In addition, because they proposed that salvation was only attainable through faith in the vow, it could be said they prescribed to sola fide. Last, they also believed in a type of solo Christo. Much like those of the reformed tradition in Christianity, Shinran believed that even the desire for faith in Amida is a gift from the lord of pure land. Thus, the act of salvation is from Amida and by Amida alone.
Would it be fair to say that Pure Land Buddhists are the “Protestants of Buddhism?” Is their doctrine of grace really the same as the doctrine found within orthodox Christianity? Only after clearly defining the orthodox doctrine of grace can one begin to assess the similarities and differences between Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism.
THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE IN CHRISTIANITY
Christianity teaches that mankind is separated from God by sin. Wayne Grudem defines sin as “Any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.” Sin originated within the human race by the willful rebellion of Adam and Eve to God’s command to not eat from the tree of knowledge. The result of this was that Adam and Eve’s nature became inherently sinful. According to the Apostle Paul, mankind inherited Adam’s sin nature: “…just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” In addition, Paul states that mankind lacks any good before the Lord: “…I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh…” The prophet Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” No person can accomplish any good deed in the eyes of God. Paul wrote, “[t]hose who are in the flesh cannot please God.” According to Jesus Christ it is only through Him that mankind can do what is good before God. Jesus said, “[h]e who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.”
The state of mankind is hopeless. “Adam and Eve died spiritually at the moment they sinned. They also began to die physically that very day.” If God did not provide mankind with a substitute sacrifice, it would have died eternally. Man can do no good before the Lord; he is left with no avenue to attain salvation on his own. Because man is completely corrupt in the eyes of God, he is in desperate need of a savior. Therefore, God the Father sent God the Son as a substitute sacrifice for the sin of man. According to John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The way to receive this eternal life is to place one’s faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The biblical idea of faith is best represented by the notion of trust. Grudem likens saving faith to the trust we have for a person as we grow closer to them.
While faith is essential to salvation, apart from repentance it is ineffective. This repentance could be described as:
An intellectual understanding (that sin is wrong), an emotional approval of the teachings of Scripture regarding sin (a sorrow for sin and a hatred of it), and a personal decision to turn from it (a renouncing of sin and a decision of the will to forsake it and lead a life of obedience to Christ instead).
One must repent of his sinful actions and trust Christ. He must repent of dead works and place his faith in God. Paul summarizes this process in his letter to the Romans. Paul writes, “…If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved…” According to Scripture, God foreknew those would trust Him and repent of their sins. This foreknowledge can be seen in Romans 8:29: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…” Based upon His knowledge of those who would freely choose to accept Him, God predestined them to salvation and the inheritance of Christ.
According to Norman Geisler, “Salvation refers to the process by which God, through the work of Christ, delivers sinners from the prison of sin.” Salvation is the gracious act of God by which He and He alone redeems man. In addition, He regenerates the person that accepts the free gift of salvation. This regeneration is that which imparts spiritual life to the believer. In one’s regeneration, he is justified before God. This justification takes place apart from the works of man. According to Romans 3:20 “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight…” Additionally, Paul summarizes the doctrine of grace through faith in his letter to the Ephesians. He writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
In the Protestant tradition, works do not impart salvation but instead act as evidence for what has already occurred, salvation. According to Paul, the Christian is predestined to do good works. Salvation is brought about by saving faith alone. Works join faith as an outward expression of gratitude for the inward work of God in regenerating the believer.
AREAS OF DIFFERENCE
While there are certainly some similarities between the Pure Land and Christian notions of grace, there also a number of differences between them. First, a stark difference lies within the concept of from what one is being saved. Through Christianity one believes that mankind must be saved from his sin. Mankind is evil and therefore requires the grace of a holy and righteous God. Buddhists deny the reality of sin. The Buddhist believes that evil results from the period in which we exist (Age of Mappo). According to Tennent, “Mappo is an external force of impersonal karma, whereas sin is rebellion against God.” The quicksand that is negative karma is the evil from which the Buddhist is being saved.
Second, in Christianity man is redeemed by the personal Creator of the universe. In the Pure Land school of Buddhism, man is “saved” by a functional deity who takes on the role of deity in order to provide an easy avenue to bliss. He was a monk who, after countless lifetimes attempting to “get it right,” finally achieved enlightenment. Thus, he is nothing more than an enlightened man acting as savior. Jesus Christ is God Almighty who became a man that He might save those who trust in Him.
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
The Pure Land school of Buddhism’s notion of grace has been presented. Likewise, the Protestant doctrine of grace has also been clearly defined. Two major points of disagreement have already been outlined. In spite of these differences, Christianity must admit that Pure Land Buddhism represents a clear challenge to Christianity’s claim to be the only grace-based religion in the world. How should a Christian respond to this challenge?
First, Pure Land Buddhism is focused upon the efforts of an exalted monk who has become the Amida Buddha. Christianity is based upon the historical work of the historical God-man, Jesus Christ. In addition, the existence of Jesus Christ has been verified through various historical witnesses. The Amida Buddha is a product of mythology and legend. The question has been asked,
Amida is said to be “the primordial Buddha who embodies the essence of all Buddhas”; and this ultimate reality is taken to be utterly “formless,” characterizable by such various terms as “emptiness, suchness, dharma-body, thusness, oneness.” If such characterizations are really appropriate, is it not quite misleading to put such emphasis on the importance of a particular personal name (“Amida”) and to suggest that this reality makes “vows” and then acts in certain specifc ways to carry them out?
Therefore, the foundation of Pure Land faith is in speculation rather than reality.
Second, the Pure Land Buddhist must trust that Amida will rescue him from the karmic system by which he is enslaved. It must be pointed out that the karmic system itself defies logic. Buddhism denies the existence of God. Yet, karma needs intelligence to be a viable system. Can an impersonal force that lacks personal consciousness carry out actions which would reflect some type of conscious reflection and decision making? That is to say, how can a blind system hold a human being in the wheel of life and death unless it consciously knows what said human has or has not done in his previous life? As Hendrik Vroom has pointed out, karma demands a celestial bookkeeper. Without said bookkeeper, how can there be anything from which Amida Buddha saves the adherent from? The entire system lacks logical coherence.
Third, not only is the Amida Buddha’s existence rooted in mythology, but also his role as a bodhisattva. Chapter fourteen of the Lotus Sutra prescribes four rules of operation by which the bodhisattva can preach the law. Rule one states that a bodhisattva should only associate with those who are viewed as appropriate to be in communion with. Rule two demands that the bodhisattva view all phenomenon as entirely empty. The third rule states that a bodhisattva must delight in preaching the law at all times and with a proper attitude. The fourth and final rule requires the bodhisattva to have compassion upon all people at all times. For the topic at hand, only the value of the first and fourth rules will be evaluated.
According to rule one, the bodhisattva must avoid any association with any of the following people: untouchables, farmers, hunters, monks, women, children, homosexuals, non-Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus. He cannot come into contact with or preach the law to anyone from the preceding list. Rule four contradicts this prohibition. According to rule four, the bodhisattva must pity all mankind, preaching the law in order to aid them in gaining enlightenment. However, if the bodhisattva follows rule one, he cannot possibly follow rule four. One cannot pity all mankind and preach the law to those yet to receive enlightenment while also avoiding nearly every class of human being. This contradiction results in only two logical outcomes. First, because the bodhisattva cannot possibly follow both rule one and rule four at the same time, he is incapable of preaching the law. Thus, the bodhisattva cannot fulfill his mission, which is helping all mankind reach enlightenment. Second, because the bodhisattva cannot logically follow the premises for his own existence, he is at best useless in aiding mankind, and at worst does not exist. If the bodhisattva cannot fulfill the rules foundational to fulfill the office of bodhisattva, it is only rational to assume he does not actually exist.
Last, as Timothy Tennent has noted, “[o]nce it is clear that Buddhism has neither a doctrine of God, nor a concept of sin, nor…any objective basis for bestowing grace, then despite its…linguistic similarities, the conception of grace must…be dramatically different.” Amida does not grant grace in the same manner as Jesus Christ. The Amida Buddha transfers his merited grace to the adherent, thereby satisfying the karmic system. In Christianity the believer is declared judicially innocent before God.
The Amida Buddha was once a man, a man who merited his enlightenment through countless lifetimes of good deeds and strict Buddhist practices. How can a man who was subject to the law of karma not only overcome the system of karma but actually gain total control of said system? If the Amida Buddha has the power to end one’s need to adhere to Buddhist practices in order to be freed from karmic system, then has he not become the all-powerful god of a godless system?
The reason the Amida Buddha attained enlightenment is because he lived in the “golden age” of Buddhism. In the golden age, one could reach enlightenment strictly through his or her efforts. Allegedly, at some point after the Amida Buddha’s ascension into enlightenment, this golden age passed. Because we are now in the age of Mappo, man can no longer gain freedom from the karmic system. As a result, man has endeavored to save himself through the actions of the Amida Buddha. However, if salvation is based upon the efforts of any one person, salvation is not by grace.
Christianity differs from Pure Land Buddhism in that Christianity teaches that man is saved by God because of the judicial cleansing by Jesus Christ on behalf of those who relinquish any notion of working toward salvation. Only after a man has relinquished any effort to save himself can he find salvation in Jesus Christ. This is not because a golden age of salvation by works has ceased, but because mankind is and always has been completely incapable of saving himself. Christian grace is a just grace because it meets the judicial requirements of God. Pure Land Buddhism merely subverts the law of karma by finding a loophole in the system.
CONCLUSION
During the middle-ages Christianity faced a crisis. The reformation fathers realized that the Roman Catholic leadership had left behind the doctrine of salvation through faith alone. Through the efforts of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the church witnessed a theological reformation. The doctrine of grace based salvation was regained. Since that time, Protestant Christianity has allegedly stood alone as the only grace based path to salvation.
Pure Land Buddhism challenges Christianity’s notion by espousing a grace based path to enlightenment. However, this grace is not what is seems. Pure Land is founded upon a mythological monk that climbed the ladder of spiritual enlightenment. This monk then provided a route by which one can overcome or subvert the laws of karma. This freedom provides the opportunity for enlightenment after one lifetime. While this may seem appealing to the Buddhist, the Amida Buddha’s offer of grace is lacking. Because Amida was a mere man who worked his way to Buddhahood, Pure Land is still based upon works. Grace has only now been offered because the era in which man now exists is far to evil to be overcome through good works.
Christianity’s doctrine of grace is far superior to Pure Land’s doctrine because the grace of Christianity satisfies man’s judicial guilt. Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross, not to act as an example, but to make a just payment for the sin of mankind. In Christian thought, man has always been incapable of saving himself. It is only through the gift of God can man be saved from that which holds him, sin.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews, Alan. “Nembutsu in the Chinese Land Tradition,” The Eastern Buddhist 3, October 1970, 2.
Barry, William, ed. The Buddhist Tradition in India, China, and Japan. New York.: Vintage, 1972.
Chung, Paul. “Martin Luther and Shinran: The Presence of Christ in Justification and Salvation in a Buddhist-Christian Context.” Asia Journal of Theology, October 2004, 18.
Corduan, Winfired. Neighboring Faiths. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology: Volume Three. Bloomington, MN.: Bethany House, 2004.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1994.
House, Wayne. Charts of World Religions. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2006.
Jackson, Roger & Makransky, John, ed. Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. Surrey, UK.: Curzon, 2000.
Reat, Ross. Buddhism: A History. Fremont, CA.: Jain Publishing, 1994.
Ryusei, Takeda. “Mutual Transformation of Pure Land Buddhism and Christianity: Methedology and Possibilities in Light of Shinran’s Doctrine,” Nanzan Symposium 10, 24.
Tennent, Timothy. Theology in the Context of World Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2007.
Watson, Burton. The Lotus Sutra. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Vroom, Hendrik. No Other Gods. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
[1] A being who has reached Buddha enlightenment that elects to limit his own advancement into nirvana in order to remain behind and help others reach enlightenment.
[18] Timothy Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 141
[20] Donald Lopez, ed., Buddhist Scriptures (London: Penguin, 2004), 384. Early in the history of Buddhism it was common for someone to verbally praise the name of the Buddha. As a result it was quite easy to transition into a verbal vow or recitation for salvation as found within Pure Land Buddhism. Cf Alan Andrews, “Nembutsu in the Chinese Land Tradition,” The Eastern Buddhist 3, no. 2 (October, 1970): 2.
[24] William Theodore de Barry, ed., The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan (New York: Vintage, 1972), 331.
[26] Paul Chung, Martin Luther and Shinran: The Presence of Christ in Justification and Salvation in a Buddhist-Christian Context. Asia Journal of Theology Vol. 18( Oct 2004), 302
[27] Roger Jackson & John Makransky, eds., Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars (Surrey, UK: Curzon, 2000), 358.
[32] New American Standard Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), Romans 5:12. All references to Scripture are taken from the New American Standard.
[42] Acts 20:21 “…testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
[45] Ephesians 1:4-5 “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”
[47] Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
[50] Ephesians 2:10 “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”
9 Comments
You arguement has several major flaws. I will just cite what is perhaps the most damaging.
You state that “Amida Buddha is the product of myth and legend” whereas Chrsitainity is concerned with “the historical work of the historical God-man”.
Really? I would assert that belief in Jesus Christ as “God-Man” is not historical at all. It is Faith-based. I mean what historical proof do you have? Written texts? Given that the earliest of these texts was written some 50 years after the fact I would hardly call them “proof”. And even if you stick to the so called “proof” of the Bible, you are immediately presented with another problem. Where does “faith” fit in? If something is a “fact” one has no need for “faith” does one?
So which is it… “Faith” or “Fact” ?
Mike L,
Thanks for reading. Christianity is the belief in a real historical person (Jesus Christ). I believe Jesus is the God man because of the overwhelming evidence for His physical resurrection. I will not recount all the evidence in my response because it is available through my website and many others (see for instance http://www.garyhabermas.com).
Regarding the textual issue…do you believe any ancient historical document is accurate? If so, you have a problem. By your own criteria you have invalidated all ancient history. Even atheist scholar Bart Erhman says that the New Testament is the most well attested ancient document in existence. Futher, we posses over 1.2 million pages of manuscript evidence and over 5,700 complete manuscripts. Based upon textual criticism even many atheist scholars date the originals of Mark to within 20 years of the events. You know what the next best attested ancient document is? The Illiad by homer. We posses 643 manuscripts. They date to nearly 400 years after the original. We have manuscripts dating to less than 100 years from the originals. So again, throw out all of ancient history…or consider the New Testament well attested! And prior to the written text we have overwhelming evidence for there being other texts and oral traditions that maintained continuity in the account…see Richard Bauckham.
Last…Faith is fact…the Bible tells us to “Love God with all your heart, strength and MIND.” Further, it says we can KNOW that we have truth. Paul states that Christianity rests (I Cor. 15) on the EVIDENCE for the resurrection. Jesus said that His resurrection was evidence for His claims (John 20). So, faith and fact are not mutually exclusive…an informed person understands they are related. I have faith (that is TRUST) in the work of Christ BECAUSE of the evidence. You definition of faith is foreign to the Christian theological landscape. We understand faith as complete trust in the work of Christ…not blind belief…no, blind belief is for those who trust in someone they KNOW is a product of myth and legend (i.e. Amida Buddha).
Thanks again for reading!
Thanks for the essay.