A New Argument for Christianity? w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund

In this video, Dr. Gavin Ortlund lays out C. S. Lewis' famous 'Liar, Lunatic, or Lord' trichotomy. This is actually a really fun argument to think about. If it works, it's another way to know that (a) God exists, and (b) Christianity is true.

---------------------------- FREE STUFF ----------------------------

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #Jesus #CSLewis

[marcleysens]

This guys voice is emblematic of the state of his soul. Securely at rest and humble.

[annapobst]

I love listening to Gavin, learning so much from him and being inspired! Cannot wait for the new book on humility to come out 🤩🤩🤩 Thank you for this conversation ❤️

[nailsdaysway]

Excellent interview. Good to see him incorporate Legend into the argument. As he noted, Lewis definitely did talk of this in other books.
One thing that needs dug into is the Q document that Dr. Ortlund referred to. One of my professors at Asbury Seminary, Dr. Joseph Wang, New Testament scholar par excellence dealt with Q. He reconstructs this theoretical document based on the proponents' own description and comes up with a document that no one would write, totally illogical. Logic was one of Dr. Wang's specialty too. He also uses the Q document and the arguments by scholars as to Mark's priority to "prove" that Mark was written first, that Luke was written first and that Matthew was written first. His conclusion, held tentatively, is we don't know which was first, and that oral tradition is a better explanation for the similarities. Our culture doesn't understand memorization because everything is in books or on the internet.Then he goes on to show how this negatively affects our theology. When you look at many atheist arguments, they are going on the "fact" that Mark was written first. Dr. Wang is retired now and I believe he is in Texas. He'd be great to have on your show.

[brandon_pc]

In his book that Cameron showed off….Dr Gavin wrote, “However difficult faith in God may be when faced with the terrible reality of suffering in the world, it’s only alternative is an un-liveable despair.” Man that hits deep😓

[ProfYaffle]

Gavin is so gracious. I can learn by his example

[AleInBywater]

Hi Cameron,
Love your content, but would you please mind removing the countdown in the beginning of your interviews?😅 It makes sence you countdown when going live, but i always try find the right spot to skip to when watching a non-live video🌞 Other than that, please keep up the good work✌️ God bless.

[cleaningtheglass]

So, the Lewis Trilemma is a "new argument". Not so much for the truth in advertising, are we Cameron?

[JonathanRedden-whun]

Thank you very much for this video. It might be worth applying a modified type of trilemma approach to other religious founders or leaders.

[JonAdamsMinistries]

Gavin is awesome. Great interview guys!

[anthonywhitney]

@Nathaniel Robinson Dr Gavin covered the myth option where Jesus was built into a Messiah a few ways, but basically saying that the rapid growth of the church has to be explained by something very compelling, and that if the Gospels were faked and Paul was a liar, there were people around still who knew Jesus to fact check that.

[clarekuehn]

Gloria in excelsis Deo and Ave Maria 😍

[MACHO_CHICO]

Yo Cam get some Orthodox peeps on like Jonathan Pageau or David Bentley Hart

Also what’s your opinion on Pope Leo 1 “upgrading” the papacy’s status because of its supposed link to Peter? Obviously this was a very late change and a clear demonstration of doctrinal development

[beyond]

Hey Cameron have you checked out Steve Ray in your studies on the papacy, he’s one of the best and he’s an ex Southern Baptist. God bless you 🙏

[beowulf.reborn]

James, the Brother of the Lord, had such a high view of the Law of Moses, that it is inconceivable that he would believe that his Brother was God in the flesh, unless he had seen Him raised from the dead. It is also a powerful testament to the sinlessness of Christ, that even those who grew up with Him, and knew Him as intimately as His own brothers, could not think of a single time that He had ever done anything wrong. And again, James' view of the Torah was so high that he would never attribute someone who was just a "good person" as being literally sinless, unless they were.

[philipatoz]

If one were to assert that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic (Liar, Lunatic or Lord), then they must explain the rational and motivation for the remaining 11 (of the original 12) to likewise lie - or would one assert they were ALL crazy liars? Because Jesus' disciples absolutely knew the truth of whether or not they had seen the risen Christ, post-Crucifixion! Read their recorded writings - somber, serious, straight-forward, absent of hyperbole - not in any way the writings of crazy cultists willing to risk a similar brutal fate, for preaching a risen Jesus. Which makes no sense UNLESS they HAD seen Him back to life. So, two of the three options one would ask about Christ should logically be asked about the disciples as well. Men don't die for a lie they KNOW is a lie - as what would be their motive? And, post-Resurrection, they turned from fearful shells of men hiding out from the authorities to boldly and publicly preaching a risen Lord! What changed? What's the only sensible answer?

[incredulouspasta]

_"how this belief [in the divinity of Jesus] arose in his followers so quickly?"_

Paul says that it came from revelation and scripture. Paul is adamant that his gospel message _can't_ be traced back to the historical Jesus: "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." - Gal 1:11

[dooglitas]

I know this wasn't the main point of the discussion, but had a problem with the comment about humility. I see in scripture that humility is a command and obligation. I don't see that it is a path to joy--at least not in this world. Jesus was humble more than any human, and it led to persecution, torture, and death. I would not call that joy. The world, as a rule, does not respect humility. In fact, it is more likely to spawn hatred and violent reactions. People generally hate pride in others, but they do not hate it in themselves. But they also hate true humility even more than they hate pride. Humble people are inevitably going to be taken advantage of. I just don't see how it is a path to joy, unless you are referring to the ultimate joy we will have in eternity, at which point God will finally reward humility.

[chipperhippo]

Cool to hear from Gavin.

For me the trilemma is interesting, but I do have some issues. For one, as a non-Christian, it's difficult for me to see the benefit of framing the discussions in this way.
From my perspective, any theory that results in the gospels/ Paul's writings such that Jesus is not "Lord" is consistent with the "not-Christianity" position. These accounts are often highly nuanced and go to great lengths to explain the historical data, so it's not clear what is gained from categorizing these hypotheses as either "liar" or "lunatic" as opposed to approaching them as-is. It seems that if we wanted to opt for a rigorous approach, we'd need to examine each of these abductively. I'm not accusing Cameron or Gavin of this, but often in online discussions it comes across as though folks just end up substituting the weakest version of the liar or lunatic hypothesis, at which point of course only Lord remains.

I also think it's important to assess the plausibility/ epistemic probability of the "Lord" hypothesis as well, as opposed to simply relying on process of elimination, which appears to be the most common approach in my limited experience (I'm thinking of William Lane Craig's resurrection argument, the McGrew's chapter in the Blackwell companion, the original LLL trilemma, etc.). To see why, we might consider the argument from the skeptic's perspective (where here I only mean skeptical of the gospel accounts). For the skeptic, there's really only a dilemma to consider (versus trilemma): "gospel" v "not-gospel" (gospel = gospel accurately describes all events; not-gospel = doesn't). If we employ the same process of elimination, beginning instead with the "gospel" hypothesis, I don't think it's too much to imagine that the skeptic may be able give a plausible justification as to why we should assign a low epistemic probability to the "gospel" hypothesis absent some other argument, at which point the alternative wins by default.

[monkkeygawd]

1. Liar, 2. lunatic or 3. Lord?

Or, more than likely he was just a myth.

[thegoatofyoutube]

As a Christian, it’s hard for me to imagine these arguments would ever convince a skeptic today; maybe in Lewis’s time. I think their main function is to strengthen the faith of believers.