Like Button

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Faith and Reason

You know as well as I do that many (most?) people pit faith against reason. That is, they assume something like, "Faith is something you believe for no reason." Some go farther and claim that faith is when you believe in something that the evidence says isn't true. Not the absence of reason, but in the face of it. So imagine my surprise when I came across this interesting statement from the pen of Luke, the physician.
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after His suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:1-3)
Get that? Luke doesn't base his arguments on "faith without reason". No "blind faith" here. He says that the reason he (and the rest) believe that Christ rose from the dead was because of "many proofs". In fact, that's the English Standard Version. The King James says "many infallible proofs." Young's Literal Translation uses "certain proofs". The New American Standard says "many convincing proofs." The word there is τεκμήριον -- tekmērion -- meaning a criterion of certainty, or, as Thayer's puts it, "indubitable evidence".

It's not like Luke was alone here. It was Jesus who pointed to the same argument. In John 10 He said, "The works that I do in My Father's name bear witness about Me." (John 10:25) He said, "If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father." (John 10:37-38) Later He said, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." (John 14:11) Jesus encouraged faith on the basis of His (reliable) words, but pointed to the evidence of His miraculous works as proof.

We might be tempted to think we live in a skeptical world. It is true, but it's not true that it is more skeptical than it was. The eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus went to the chief priests and Pharisees to report it and the response was "Let's kill Him!" (John 11:35) ... "and Lazarus" (John 12:10). We're not living in an exceptionally skeptical world. Those who observed the miraculous weren't swayed. But you, those who believe, don't let it dishearten you. They are skeptical, to be sure, but we have "convincing proof" on our side. Well, that and the Son of God. We know how that will come out. And we can be sure that The Lord is Risen indeed!

6 comments:

David said...

Apologetics wouldn't be a thing of faith was without reason. I always try to question why I believe what I believe. If it is against reason, I have to conclude I'm wrong. We have a reasonable God. It stands to reason that faith in Him would be reasonable. It's that faith in His reasonable-ness that led to our earliest great scientific minds. Without a reasonable Creator there can be no reasonable creation.

Stan said...

Without a Creator, you can't have a creation. But, of course, that's the argument. "There is no Creator ... and nature is irrational."

Bob said...

i was of the opinion that true faith always follows fact. that is to say that we are given the gift of faith to believe that which is already true. people came to believe in Jesus after the fact of his healing and resurrection. faith is the transparent connection between the believer and the object of truth that support his faith. ok i am even confusing myself... i though i knew what i was trying to say...

Stan said...

Would it be "true faith"? I, for instance, don't have enough "faith" to be an atheist. The leap of faith that requires is beyond me. Theirs would be a "true faith" even if their faith is in something that is not true. Or would it?

Bob said...

ok now my brain is cooking. what the atheist does is exercise an opinion that is not supported by the facts. whereas the christian is basing his/her faith upon the fact of the Resurrection.
an event that actually occurred. faith in Christ is based upon the truth. thus we call it true faith. all other faiths/opinions are considered blind because they are not based upon the truth. i feel i have oversimplified the subject. the whole point of the exercise to discover the truth of God's revelation of what is in fact true. the atheist wants to debate that facts so as to diminish the weight of the evidence.

Stan said...

Okay, yeah, I get it now. In English, it is "true faith" if you simply "truly believe". In Christianity, faith has three components. The first is the truth. The second is that you mentally assent to the truth. The third is that you place your confidence in the truth. So that would be "true faith" in a biblical sense.