What Does the Bible Teach About racism?

I think that most people have a general sense that Christians should oppose racism and that the Bible must condemn racism. God is love and you’re supposed to love your neighbor as yourself, right? While this intuition is good and correct, I wonder if most Christians would be able to give a thorough explanation of how the Bible addresses racism. The purpose of this post is to provide a detailed survey of Biblical teachings that are relevant to the current discussion around race and racism. While the church has sadly often fallen short of the teachings and standards laid out in scripture, I thought it would be helpful for Christians and non-Christians alike to understand what the Bible actually says about racism in the first place.

First, I need to clarify that the term “racism” doesn’t appear in the Bible and our modern day understanding of race is a later development. Webster’s Dictionary defines race as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits” and, in America, the trait that we predominantly use to categorize people is skin color. This does not mean that there was not enmity or conflict between different groups of people in the Bible. Far from it. However, people were likely divided more by ethnicity, which classifies “large groups of people...according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.” Of course, this doesn’t mean that people didn’t notice physical differences and use those differences to categorize people, but that grouping didn’t have the heavy emphasis on skin color that we see in America. Regardless of how we define race and ethnicity, the important point is that the Bible definitely is written in a context and addresses issues in which people were divided into groups based on a variety of different factors. 

With those preliminaries aside, the best place to start is in the beginning. Regardless of the framework that is used to interpret the creation account in Genesis, God created “man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). This verse provides the basis for the Christian doctrine of the Imago Dei, that every human being is an image bearer of God, created with intrinsic worth and value. Being created in God’s image doesn’t mean that humans are themselves gods, but that humans are the only animals that possess some of the qualities of God’s nature, such as the ability to enjoy beauty, create works of art, think rationally, and desire justice. The doctrine of the Imago Dei not only establishes the worth of each human being, but also establishes that there is really only one human race, all created in the image of God, which is supported by modern science.1

Moving on in the Old Testament, it is clear that God’s plan of redemption has always included people from all nations. When God called Abraham to follow him, he promised, “I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:2-3). Though God would work specifically through the nation of Israel and they would be his chosen people, his plan has always been to bless people from all corners of the earth. 

Furthermore, prophecies of God’s deliverance through the Messiah clarify that God created and cares for all peoples of the earth and planned to bring light and freedom not only to the nation of Israel, but also to the Gentiles (i.e. non-Israelites). 

“This is what God the Lord says - the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all the springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: ‘I, the Lord, have called you (the Messiah) in righteousness; I will keep you and make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” (Isaiah 42:5-7). 

It is too small a thing for you (the Messiah) to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob (the nation of Israel) and to bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

Not only did God’s ultimate plan of salvation include people from all nations, but the Old Testament law gave specific protections for foreigners or aliens who came to reside in Israel. The following are just a few of many references showing God’s care for non-Israelites.

“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)

“Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.” (Deuteronomy 24:17-19)

Although God did have a special purpose for Israel as his chosen people, foreigners and aliens were welcome to become followers of the Lord. When Moses led the Hebrews out of slavery in the land of Egypt, “many other people went up with them” (Exodus 12:38) and were given the right to partake in the Passover meal, provided that they became circumcised as a sign of their new commitment to God (Exodus 12:48). Rahab the prostitute joined the nation of Israel after providing refuge for Hebrew spies during the conquest of Jerhico. When she promised to follow her widowed mother-in-law back to Israel, Ruth the Moabitess declared that “your people will be my people and God my God,” (Ruth 1:16). Both of these women ended up marrying Jewish men and becoming ancestors of Jesus (Matthew 1:5).

As we move to the New Testament, both God’s plan of salvation and his love for all people of the earth reaches greater clarity. During his earthly ministry, Jesus primarily focused on serving the nation of Israel, but also healed and blessed Gentiles, including driving out a demon from the daughter of a Canaanite woman (Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 15:21-28), healing the paralyzed servant of a Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10), and bringing physical and spiritual freedom to a demon-possessed man in the region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39). 

More striking, though, is Jesus’ interactions with and presentation of the Samaritans, who were despised by the Jews. The Samaritans lived in the area of the former northern kingdom of Israel and were considered by Jews to be half-breeds and apostate worshippers of the Lord. In fact, when travelling Jews would make a point to avoid walking through Samaria. This context makes Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman by the well in Sychar even more remarkable. When he asks her for a drink of water, she is taken by surprise because he was a Jew and she was a Samaritan and Jews did not associate with Samaritans (John 4:9). Not only did Jesus reach across ethnic and cultural divides to treat the woman with dignity and respect, but he goes on to offer her living water that will become “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:14). As a result of her life-changing interaction with the Messiah, many Samaritans came to believe that Jesus was the Christ (John 4:39-42). God’s salvation clearly extended beyond the borders of Judea.

Another shocking example of Jesus’ view of this despised group is his choice to feature a Samaritan as the hero in the parable of the Good Samaritan. A teacher of the law wanted to justify his prejudicial selection of which neighbors he chose to love as he loved himself by asking Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). Jesus goes on to tell the now famous story of a Jewish man who was nearly beaten to death by robbers on his way to Jericho. After being ignored by two Jewish religious leaders, a Samaritan had compassion for him, brought him to a hotel, cared for his immediate needs, and financed his full recovery. When questioned by Jesus about who had acted as a neighbor, the teacher of the law couldn’t even bring himself to say that it was the Samaritan, but only acknowledged that it was “the one who had mercy on him.” (Luke 10:37).

In life, Jesus showed compassion and love towards Gentiles and Samaritans, but in his death and resurrection he extended salvation to all peoples of the Earth. Before ascending into heaven, Jesus commissioned his followers to “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) and to be his “witnesses in Jerusalem, and all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). Jesus affirms the messianic prophecies that salvation through faith in Christ is not only for the Jews, but for people from all nations.

However, the early church needed a little bit of divine prodding to accomplish God’s plan of taking the gospel to all people. An excellent example of God using all things for his glory and the good of those who love him comes in the book of Acts, where persecution against the Christians breaks out, but this actually causes them to disperse throughout Judea and Samaria, preaching the gospel as they went and fulfilling Jesus’ charge to be his witnesses in these areas (Acts 8:1-4). More prodding comes when God gives Peter a vision in which he shows him that he should “not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15). Immediately after this vision, Peter receives a call to share the gospel with the friends and family of a Roman centurion named Cornelius. Upon hearing the gospel, Cornelious and his kin believed the message, received the Holy Spirit, and were baptized, leading the early church to conclude that “even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18).

In the coming years, the gospel would be preached around the Roman empire and many Gentiles believed the message and decided to follow Christ. The Apostle Paul was God’s “chosen instrument to proclaim [his] name to the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15) and was used by God, along with others, to plant churches across the Roman world. The Christian church, which started as a Jewish sect, became multicultural and multiethnic as the gospel broke down the “dividing wall of hostility” not just between man and God, but between Jew and Gentile. The hostility between these two groups was likely greater than the hostility between racial groups in present-day America, yet the gospel brought peace where there was once enmity. Listen to these words of radical reconciliation:

“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:13-20)

Even though the gospel brought transformation and reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, early Christians still had to battle against the sinful nature and lived in a fallen world, as do Christians in the present day. As a result, it is not surprising that they would still need to correct unjust systems and battle against personal prejudice. In the early years of the church, a dispute arose that Greek widows were being neglected in the distribution of bread. As a response, seven faithful men were selected as the first diaconate to ensure that both Jewish and Greek widows received a fair distribution of financial assistance from the church (Acts 6:1-6). 

Later, another dispute arose after large numbers of Gentiles came to faith in Christ. Some Jewish Christians had gone to these new believers and told them that they needed to be circumcised and follow the customs of Moses in order to be saved. A council was convened in Jerusalem and it was determined that the Gentiles were saved by grace in the same manner as the Jews. As a result it was decreed that Gentile Christians should not be impeded from receiving salvation through grace by the construction of cultural barriers.

Despite these systemic corrections, early Christians still needed to guard against personal prejudice, which is a good reminder for us today. Peter was the rock of the early church and had directly received from God the message that Gentiles were not impure, but recipients of eternal life through faith in the gospel. Yet, when he was visiting the church in Antioch, he abandoned his custom of eating with Gentile believers when this act was witnessed by members of the circumcision party, who believed circumcision was necessary for salvation. His hypocrisy led other Jews, including Barnabas, into error and prejudice. The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter because his “conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” (Galatians 2:14). Just as we do today, early Christians needed to be reminded that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.” (Romans 10:12). 

Which leads us to the ultimate end of God’s salvation story. While exiled on the island of Patmos, the Apostle John received a vision in which he saw “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” (Revelation 7:9-10). People from all nations, languages, tribes, races, ethnicities, and cultures will be joined together in heaven in glorious worship of God. I have received a taste of this by worshipping with people from every continent on Earth and can’t wait until God’s plan of salvation of people from all the Earth is realized.

To summarize in a paragraph, all people are created in God’s image with intrinsic value and worth. God’s plan of salvation has always included people from all nations and God’s law provided specific protections and requirements for justice for foreigners and aliens. Jesus, the Messiah, demonstrated culturally radical love and concern for Gentiles and Samaritans and commissioned his followers to bring the gospel to all people and all nations. The early church, while not perfect, corrected examples of both unjust systems and personal prejudice, and reconciled Jews and Gentiles through the breaking down of walls of hostility. Finally, God will achieve his ultimate plan of salvation by drawing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation to receive grace and eternal life through faith in Christ and to be united in worship before his throne. 

So, yes, the Bible definitively and thoroughly condemns racism. Sadly, as sinners living in a fallen world, Christians and the church have not always lived up to the high standards detailed in scripture. That will be the topic of my next post.

SOURCES

Kolbert, Elizabeth. “There is no Scientific Basis for Race - It’s a Made Up Label. National Geographic. March 12, 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

Faith and Evidence: Why I Don't Use a Presuppositional Approach (Most of the Time)

Alright, this post is going to be geared more towards apologetics nerds, a rare breed most likely, but I will try to make this informative and enjoyable for everyone. You may not have known that there are actually different schools of apologetics, including classical, evidential, and presuppositional. In this series, I have been arguing for an evidential approach and my series on evidence for the resurrection would also fall under that category, though I would say that overall I follow more of a classical approach. One does not have to strictly adhere to only one approach and different conversations will require different tactics. However, as the title of this post explains, I generally do not use a presuppositional approach, though I will explain the ways in which I draw from its toolbox.

So what is presuppositional apologetics? As the name suggests, presuppositional apologetics presupposes the existence of the triune God divinely revealed through the Bible and claims that this presupposition alone allows one to acquire knowledge and make sense of reality. Presuppositionalists point out that everyone makes presuppositions when adopting a worldview and other presuppositions, such as materialism, lead to an incoherent universe where knowledge is not possible. For example, if one accepts the materialistic framework, one can not appeal to non-material things like laws of logic inorder to investigate or describe the physical universe. When one adopts materialistic presuppositions and a worldview that depends on empirical experimentation, they have no basis to assume the uniformity of natural law on which their empiricism depends. The renowned skeptic and philosopher David Hume concedes that circular reasoning is required to assume the uniformity of natural law from a naturalistic worldview.

In summary, the presuppositional apologist is trying to prove that Christianity is true because any presupposition outside of the Christian worldview leads to an incoherent universe. It is a reductio ad absurdum, or attempt to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd and self-contradictory position. A universe in which laws of logic, reason, and the uniformity of nature exist is only possible if one presupposes the existence of the triune God revealed in scripture.

While I do think that the presuppositional approach makes important contributions, I tend more to the evidentialist side of the spectrum. I think that the different schools of apologetics can work in harmony and an effective apologist will utilize different approaches depending upon the specific context and flow of a conversation. However, I have found that some presuppositional apologists claim that their approach is the only Biblical method of apologetics and that evidential and classical apologists put man in the judge’s seat and God on trial. Most presuppositional apologists that I have read or listened to will only use the presuppositional method, refusing to engage in conversations or debates around evidence. While I see value in what the presuppositional approach brings to the apologetics discussion, I have decided not to adopt a strict reliance on presuppositional apologetics for the following reasons.

1. An evidential approach is clearly seen in both the Old and New Testaments

I am not going to completely rehash my previous arguments, but I wrote two full blog posts on the connection between faith and evidence in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament, there was a culture of remembrance in which the Israelites would construct monuments as evidence for future generations of what God had already done on their behalf. The prophet Elijah did not challenge the presuppositions of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, but engaged in an evidentiary test to determine who was the true God, Baal or Yahweh. Jesus repeatedly pointed to his miracles and Old Testament prophecy as evidence of his identity and lordship. This approach was also followed by the early church as the apostles appealed to eyewitness testimony of the resurrection, miracles, and prophecy to argue and reason that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Since an evidential approach is clearly used throughout scripture, I think that modern day apologists and evangelists should also appeal to different forms of evidence supporting the truth of the Christian worldview.

2. A varied approach can be used to be “all things for all people”

As with anything, there is variety within presuppositional apologetics, with different tactics and points of emphasis. Some, such as Greg Bahnsen, brilliantly argue in a manner that highlights the absurd and self-contradictory claims of atheism. An excellent example of this can be seen in his 1985 debate with author and skeptic, Dr. Gordon Stein. Others rely on texts such as Romans 1:18 to argue that unbelievers already know that God exists, but are suppressing this truth in order to follow their own passions and desires. They also point out that the “fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1), which is further proof that they are foolishly suppressing the truth of God’s existence.

While I agree with the presuppositional apologists’ interpretation of these verses, I have observed that their use in apologetics and evangelism often fails to present a defense for Christianity with “gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15). There certainly are times to use these verses when sharing the gospel or defending the faith, but I have watched encounters where this approach seems to completely miss the heart and mind of the other person, only causing anger and resentment. It seems that a varied approach, which draws from classical, evidential, and presuppositional methods, would be better at meeting the intellectual, psychological, and emotional needs of each person. I think that flexibility in approach enables apologists to be like the Apostle Paul and “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [they] might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22).

3. A presuppositional approach cuts out some of the strongest arguments for the truth of Christianity

Not only does Romans 1 teach that unbelievers suppress the truth that God exists, it also argues that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen [and] understood from what has been made.” (Romans 1:20). Despite arguments from the new atheists that science has disproved the existence of God, modern cosmology actually provides some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. The cosmological argument states that if our universe had a beginning, as is strongly suggested by scientific evidence, then there must have been an incredibly powerful first cause outside of time, matter, and space - namely God. The fine-tuning argument points to the intricate fine-tuning of the universe, in which the initial conditions of the universe and the natural laws which govern its interactions are so exquisitely fine-tuned that even miniscule changes in various ratios and physical constants would have resulted in a universe that would have no possibility of supporting complex life. Such data led atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle to concede, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”1

Furthermore, a robust historical argument can be made to support the truthfulness of Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. I wrote an entire series on this evidence and would encourage believers to equip themselves with this powerful defense of the Christian faith and nonbelievers to consider this evidence with an open-mind. A presuppositional approach cuts out all of these powerful lines of reasoning that support the truthfulness of Christianity.

Yet, as the title suggests, I do see value in the presuppositional approach and do utilize it from time to time. I think that the presuppositional approach is an excellent strategy for exposing contradictions and absurdities in foundational worldviews. This is particularly relevant to our current day. For example, my Facebook feed has been filled the last few months with calls for justice and protection of the dignity and worth of all people. These calls are rightly made, but I do think it is worth asking whether our underlying worldview supports the manner in which we live and the future that we hope to realize.

I wrote a Facebook post with a similar theme, and despite my best efforts to anticipate the disconnect, I was misunderstood on a key point. So, I want to state it here as clearly as possible. I am not saying that atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians in general can not act morally or can not have a strongly held system of morality. What I am saying is that the underlying atheistic worldviews of naturalism and materialism do not support the desire for justice or the claim that human lives have intrinsic dignity, value, and worth. A presuppositional approach causes us to examine the foundational assumptions of a worldview to see whether they support the superstructure of the worldview.

Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist and author of the best-selling book “The God Delusion”, writes the following in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life - “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and gene replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor JUSTICE. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL, NO GOOD, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”2

The atheistic worldview is built on the foundational assumption that humans are nothing more than matter in motion. How can we define good and evil when the only realities are matter, energy, time and chance? How can we call for justice in a world of blind forces with no design, no purpose, and ultimately nothing that we can truly say is good and evil? 

Presuppositional apologetics points out the absurdity to stand behind one podium to call for justice and the protection of the value and dignity of all human beings and then jump behind another podium to claim that there is no ultimate purpose and design in the universe; the cosmos is solely governed by matter, energy, time and chance; and that humans are simply the accidental byproduct of highly evolved colonies of bacteria. Yet, there is no contradiction or absurdity to call for justice and to value the intrinsic worth of all human beings when the universe was created with design and purpose, which includes absolute moral standards of goodness and justice, and all humans were created as image bearers of God. 

Not only is the Christan worldview supported by evidence, but it provides a foundation from which we can coherently seek the justice and peace that we experientially desire. The presuppositional approach has the potential to lead people to this realization and should be part of any apologists' toolkit, though not to be used exclusively. As I said earlier, by wisely integrating evidential and presuppositional approaches, I think that we can present a respectful and generous defense of the Christian faith, while at the same time meeting the needs of each individual person that will enable us to “become all things to all people, so that by all possible means, [we] might save some.”

Sources:

1) Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. 8–12.

2) Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Science Masters Series, 1996.

Faith and Evidence: What if I Don't Need Evidence to Believe?

In the first three parts of this series on faith and evidence, I thoroughly examined Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to demonstrate that Biblical faith is not “belief without evidence", but instead is a confident trust and hope based upon the evidence that God has revealed about his nature and his ability to protect and care for his people. Yet, some Christians may be thinking, “But I don’t need evidence to believe in God. I just have faith.” Even more, some Christians may believe that the desire or pursuit of evidence reveals unbelief. The purpose of this post is to address those concerns.

First, whether they are aware of it or not, I would claim that every Christian has at least three pieces of evidence that support their faith: the conviction of the Holy Spirit, personal experiences with God, and general revelation of God’s power and design through nature. The evidence of God’s invisible attributes through nature is something that we may not recognize overtly but is something that we absorb unconsciously from a very early age (See Romans 1:19-20). It has been demonstrated that young children, even children with secular parents and no exposure to religion, believe that the design seen in nature requires a creator.¹ It appears that we have to outgrow this natural intuition to reject belief in God.

All Christians also have personal experiences that they can share about how Christ has transformed their life, brought them peace and freedom from guilt, or worked in providential or even miraculous ways in their life. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit ministers to every Christian, confirming the truth of the Christian worldview in their hearts. Jesus promised his disciples, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:13). So, while I agree that Christians can have a sincere and genuine faith without any knowledge of apologetic arguments for the Christian worldview, all Christians do have some evidence for their faith.

However, I would also argue that two of these types of evidence, personal experience and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, are insufficient in demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview to non-Christians. Some apologists have noted that there is a difference between “showing and knowing.” Through personal experience and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, I might have a very strong personal conviction or knowledge of the truth of Christianity, but it is difficult to use these experiences to show that truth to others.

Furthermore, followers of other religions also point to personal and spiritual experiences to support their beliefs. During a lonely season in college, I met with Mormon missionaries for a few sessions. In one of the very first meetings, they quoted the following verses: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord.” (James 1:5-7). The message was that the Holy Spirit would confirm the truth of Mormonism to me if I asked God and did not doubt that he would answer my request. I ended up breaking off the meetings, but a few years later, when I was more established in my Christian faith, a friend and I met with Mormon missionaries to try to engage them in reverse evangelism. Predictably, the missionaries used the exact same verse to challenge us to ask God to reveal the truth of Mormonism in our hearts. My friend responded, “I did ask the Holy Spirit, and he told me that you’re wrong.”

Admittedly, our discussion with the Mormon missionaries was not very productive for either side, but the question remains, how do we discern truth when people from different religions claim to have personal and spiritual experiences that confirm their worldview? This is where additional evidence is beneficial. Let’s say a Christian, a Mormon, a Muslim, and a Hindu all claim to have personal and spiritual experiences that confirm their religious beliefs yet are open to examining their worldview. I think the best thing would be for each person to acknowledge that their experiences are real, but that personal and spiritual experiences can also be deceptive. The human heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9), so we need to be aware that our emotions and experiences can sometimes mislead us.

I also think each person should acknowledge that it is impossible for each person’s worldview to be true, since they make contradictory claims about the nature of reality. They could all be false, but they can’t all be true. Then, I would encourage the group to openly and honestly evaluate the historical, literary, archaeological, and scientific evidence supporting each worldview. In my opinion, the Christian worldview clearly comes out on top in this approach. The group would discover that there is no archaeological evidence confirming the accounts in the Book of Mormon, but there is substantial archaeological evidence confirming elements of the Old and New Testaments. They would discover that there is a robust historical case supporting the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, events that the Christian worldview affirms but that Islam denies. Scientific evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning, approximately 13.7 billion years ago, an event that points to an all-powerful, infinitely intelligent, personal creator outside of time, space, and matter. Such a description fits the description of God in theistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but does not fit pantheistic religions such as Hinduism or new-age movements, where the divine is found within creation itself. I think that such an investigation would lead the group to conclude that the spiritual experiences of the Christian are leading to truth whereas the other spiritual experiences are leading to deception. Such a conclusion would fit with the Biblical description of the spiritual realm, one in which the Holy Spirit leads to truth, but false spirits also seek to lead people into error.

In addition to guiding such discussions, evidence is also useful in answering the questions and doubts of people within the church, often youth. Survey data indicates that young people are leaving the church at an alarming rate. While sometimes they leave the church for emotional or experiential reasons, such as hypocrisy amongst believers or abuse within the church, often they leave because no one was able to answer their intellectual doubts.

In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a study of religious “nones” who were raised as members of a particular religion before shedding their faith in adulthood. Fifty percent of respondents said “lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mentioned ‘science’ as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said ‘I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.’ Others reference ‘common sense,’ ‘logic’ or a ‘lack of evidence’ – or simply say they do not believe in God.”²

Consider, the following anecdotes atheists who formerly considered themselves to be Christians and were asked to explain why they no longer believed in God:

“I think I was around 9 or 10. I was reading the Bible…I didn’t read the whole thing, but the first 30-40 pages. I had a lot of questions in those few pages. A majority of the questions were answered with "you just need to have faith." If you cannot explain to me why things are the way they are, I do not believe what you say. Even as a kid, I could not chalk anything up to faith. There were also a lot of things I didn't agree with.”

“In my teens I started questioning. I would ask questions like "Why would God create a person that he knows will be evil and will go to hell?" I really enjoyed when the religion teachers had no answers. Still, fear made me stick with it. Eventually intelligence won out. I simply couldn't get religion to make any sense. Letting go of it was very freeing.”

“Every time I asked a question like where is a god or if he was real, why can't we see him? And the answers that I got back were, " He works in mysterious ways", just doesn't make any sense.”³

I want to say respectfully, yet boldly, that the responses of the Christians in these persons’ lives were not good enough. If your child, a friend, a family member, or a young person in the church comes to you with similar questions, you must be prepared to give a more substantial response than, “Well, you just need to have faith.” This doesn’t mean that everyone needs to major in apologetics, but I think that all believers should have an introductory level knowledge of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, evidence for the reliability of scripture, answers to the problem of evil and suffering, and scientific evidence for the theistic worldview.

When you don’t know an answer to someone’s question, it is okay to do some research and get back to that person later (but not too much later) or to direct them to another person in the church who is equipped to answer their questions. There are many great resources that Christians can access to build a foundational understanding of apologetics. A couple book recommendations are Talking with Your Kids about God or God’s Crime Scene. I have picked up a lot of knowledge listening to YouTube while I wash the dishes. I recommend checking out the following channels: Mike Winger, Capturing Christianity, Inspiring Philosophy, or Trinity Radio (though I recommend watching videos that feature Braxton Hunter. I find his occasional co-host to be a little bit too snarky).

While I think that each individual believer has the responsibility of pursuing basic apologetic knowledge, I also challenge the church to better equip the flock. In my opinion, pastors should regularly incorporate apologetic teachings into their sermons. Churches should make apologetics workshops and classes available to their members. Youth groups should not only teach their students evidence for the Christian worldview but should also equip them to share this information with their friends and in environments that are hostile to the Christian worldview. In this video, apologist J. Warner Wallace makes the point that instead of merely teaching our students, we need to train our students to defend the truth of the Christian worldview.

This post in no way minimizes the role of the Holy Spirit in leading people to faith in Christ. Ultimately, no amount of evidence is going to lead to saving faith unless the Holy Spirit convicts a person of their sin and their need of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is the power of the gospel that leads to salvation, not the power of apologetic evidence, though God often uses evidence to overcome people’s intellectual objections to Christianity. It may be that you do not feel a strong need for apologetic evidence to bolster your faith in Christ. We are all wired differently, and many people are led to Christ through the sacrificial love shown by a Christian friend or personal experiences of God’s providential protection and provision. Yet, others are either led to Christ or prevented from leaving the church in part through evidential arguments and survey trends suggest that the American church is failing to answer the intellectual doubts and questions of our children. By investing in learning the robust apologetic evidence for the Christian faith, believers will be equipping themselves to “become all things to all people, that by all means [they] might save some.” (1 Corithians 9:22).

References:

1)              Barrett, Justin. Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs. Atria Books, 2012. 

2)              Wallace, J. Warner. “Are Young People Really Leaving Christianity?” Cold-Case Christianity. January 12, 2019. Retrieved from https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-young-people-really-leaving-christianity/

3)              “Atheists of Reddit, What Made You Leave Your Religion?” Reddit. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/csn64k/atheists_of_reddit_what_made_you_leave_your/

Does Hebrews 11:1 Teach that Faith is Belief Without Evidence? Responding to Misrepresentations of New Testament Teachings on Faith

In my last post, I quoted a popular atheist YouTuber, Aron Ra, who claims, “Faith is an assertion of unreasonable conviction, which is assumed without reason, and defended against all reason. In my essay, I specified that by ‘reason’, I meant ‘evidence’, the only reason to believe anything. Since defenders of the faith often refuse to amidst that faith is a belief that is not based on evidence, then I’ll have to prove that I’ve got that right.”¹ In his essay, Aron Ra uses a number of scriptures to argue that the Bible teaches that “we are expected to believe without reason; in fact we are blessed if we readily believe the most outrageous illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory claims from even the most credulous and questionable people without any evidence at all.” Aron Ra is not alone in his claim. It is not hard to find atheists and skeptics quoting scripture to allege that faith is belief without evidence. However, it is hard to find them using context to attempt to understand what these verses actually teach. Let’s take a closer look at six verses that Aron Ra references in his essay to see if they support his aspersions about Christian faith.

1.   “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

This is probably the most misrepresented verse about faith in the entire Bible. In order to better understand its meaning, skeptics like Aron Ra need to follow one of the most basic rules of Biblical interpretation: keep reading. The entire chapter of Hebrews 11 is known as the “Hall of Fame of Faith”, but it doesn’t define what faith is, rather it gives examples of what it looks like to live by faith.

If faith is truly belief without evidence, we should look at the examples of “faith heroes” in Hebrews 11 to see if they had any evidence to believe or trust in God. The LORD directly appeared to Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, and Samuel. Moses saw the angel of the LORD in a burning bush that was not consumed, and when Moses doubted whether the Israelites would listen to him as their deliverer, God provided two miraculous signs as evidence that he would deliver his people. Before crossing the red sea by faith, the Israelites had witnessed God’s mighty power through twelve plagues against the nation of Egypt. 

Then, there is the case of Gideon. When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon and told him that he would deliver Israel from the oppression of the Midianites, Gideon questioned how he could accomplish this since he was the least in his family and his clan was the least in the tribe of Manasseh. Before responding to God’s call, Gideon proposed the following test: “I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said.” (Judges 6:37). After this occurred, Gideon still requested another sign by asking for God to produce the opposite result, leaving the ground dry and the fleece wet. It is from this story that we get the idiomatic phrase “putting out a fleece.” If Hebrews 11:1 truly teaches that faith is belief without evidence, then there is no way that Gideon and the other “faith heroes” would be used as models of a life of faith. They trusted God with a strong conviction, but they had plenty of evidence that he could be trusted.

Moreover, Aron Ra’s misinterpretation of Hebrews 11:1 completely misses the point that the life of faith is forward looking. When it speaks of “conviction of things not seen”, it does not mean that they believed in God in spite of a lack of evidence, but that they trusted that he would complete his promise in the future, things that had yet to be seen. They were commended for their faith, even though they did not fully receive what was promised in their lifetimes, since God would bring his promises to complete fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2.  “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the word, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) 

In his essay, Aron Ra doesn’t bother quoting the last sentence of this verse, which is actually quite important. The entire point of this section of Romans is that NO ONE has an excuse to suppress the knowledge of God (i.e. deny that he exists) because the EVIDENCE of creation so clearly points to the creator. Sometimes, it is hard to be charitable to hyper-skeptics such as Aron Ra because it seems like they don’t even make an effort to understand what the Bible says or Christians believe. He uses this verse to claim that faith is belief without evidence when it is making the complete opposite point. The evidence of God’s power and purpose in creation is so clearly evident that all people “are without excuse” for denying God’s existence and living unrighteously.

3.   “Jesus said to (Thomas), ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” (John 20:29)

Once again, Aron Ra only quotes part of the verse, the last sentence, and fails to include the context of the verse. Hopefully, you are seeing that pattern emerge. This is important to note not only for this topic, but anytime anyone wants to support their position with scripture. If they are only including segments of verses and omitting context, it is time to take a closer look.

So, let’s do that. Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to both his women followers and the rest of his disciples, but he had not yet appeared to Thomas, who famously said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (John 20:25). Jesus then appears to Thomas and honors his request, prompting Thomas to proclaim, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). In response, Jesus says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 

Now, did Jesus say, “Blessed are those who have not received evidence and yet have believed.”? No, and I don’t think that this is splitting hairs. Consider a few things. First, if Thomas would have believed in Jesus before seeing him, he still would have had the following pieces of evidence: Jesus miracles prior to his death, the eye-witness testimony of the women and the disciples, and Old Testament prophecy that predicted the resurrection. Second, when the disciples shared the gospel and the early church emerged, they appealed to the following pieces of evidence: miraculous healings and deliverances, eye-witness testimony, and Old Testament prophecy. Finally, prior to his death Jesus encouraged people to believe in him based on his miraculous works and after his resurrection he “showed himself to (the disciples) and gave many convincing proofs he was alive.” (Acts 1:3). Please consider reading my post on the connection between faith and evidence in the New Testament for a more in-depth analysis of how Jesus and the early church connected evidence and faith. It should be clear that just because most Christians have not shared Thomas’ experience of literally seeing and feeling Jesus’ pierced hands and wounded side, they still have received other forms of evidence.

4.  “We look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

5. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7)

I have combined these two verses from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian church because they are both written in the same line of thought, only a few sentences apart, and are explained with a similar response. One thing that is important to remember is that New Testament epistles were real letters, written to real people, who were facing real issues. Some portions of the epistles are careful expositions of Christian doctrine, while others respond to specific issues in the church or provide encouragement or exhortation. In these verses, Paul is encouraging the Corinthian church to not lose hope in the face of suffering and persecution. He writes:

“So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

Paul is encouraging the Corinthian believers not to focus on their current suffering, which they can see with their eyes, but on their future glory with Christ in heaven, which they hope for and cannot presently see. Does this mean they have no evidence for their hope? Paul, the author, received extraordinary evidence on the road to Damascus when the risen Christ appeared to him, prompting him to transform from an enemy of the church to a bold witness of the resurrection. In fact, Paul’s conversion is a compelling piece of evidence in the case for the resurrection. After his conversion, Paul met with Jesus’ disciples and it is reasonable to assume that they directly passed on to him Jesus’ own teachings on heaven, so this hope of future glory is a reasonable expectation if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. The Corinthian church was born out of sessions in which Paul “reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4), likely using eye-witness testimony of the resurrection and Old Testament prophecy as evidence. Once again, to claim that Paul is teaching that faith is belief without evidence completely misses the context and historical setting of the verse.

6. “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.” (Romans 14:22)

I honestly am not sure what point Aron Ra was trying to make by including this verse. Perhaps, he is trying to argue that Christians should not share the gospel and try to convince others of the truth of Christianity, but should keep their faith, or personal convictions not based on evidence, to themselves. If that is his argument, he once again completely missed the point of this verse, which is in a section teaching how Christians should interact over disputable matters such as dietary restrictions and holy days. Paul is teaching that Christians should not let their convictions over such matters be a stumbling block to their brothers, but should pursue peace and mutual edification. It has nothing to do with whether faith is based on evidence.

At this point, I have now completed extensive surveys of the Old Testament and New Testament teachings on the connection between faith and evidence and have responded to verses that some skeptics erroneously use to claim that faith is belief without evidence. Now, it is possible that skeptics will still view faith in that way, but they cannot claim that when the Christian says, “I have faith”, they really mean, “I pretend to know things for which there is no evidence.”

Still, some Christians may feel that they don’t have or even need evidence to support their faith. Some may even say that seeking or desiring evidence actually weakens one’s faith. I will be addressing those concerns in the next post in this series.

References:

Ra, Aron. “Religious Faith IS ‘Belief Without Evidence.” Reason Advocates. August 29, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/08/29/religious-faith-is-belief-without-evidence/

Faith and Evidence in the New Testament

If you’ve missed the first couple posts in this series, here’s a quick summary to bring you up to speed (although I’d also recommend reading the introduction). A common critique of Christianity from skeptics and atheists is that faith is belief without evidence. Aron Ra, a popular atheist speaker and writer with almost 250,000 subscribers on YouTube, asserts the following: “Faith is an assertion of unreasonable conviction, which is assumed without reason, and defended against all reason. In my essay, I specified that by ‘reason’, I meant ‘evidence’, the only reason to believe anything. Since defenders of the faith often refuse to amidst that faith is a belief that is not based on evidence, then I’ll have to prove that I’ve got that right.”¹

Well, if Aron Ra wants to prove that he’s “got it right”, it seems a good place to start would be accurately representing New Testament references to faith. The word “faith” appears far more often in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. For example, in the English Standard Version the word appears 278 times in 257 verses, approximately nine times more than in the Old Testament. In approximately 90% of the cases, “faith” is translated from the Greek word “pistis”, which is defined by Strong’s Concordance to mean “conviction of the truth of anything” or “belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it.” In the Old Testament, the term “faith” seems to often be synonymous with devotion, whereas in the New Testament the term does seem to be more closely associated with one’s beliefs. However, are the critics such as Aron Ra correct when they claim that this belief is without evidence?

There are far too many occurrences to examine every one, but let’s take a look at a few times in which the Greek word “pistis” is translated as “faith” and see if it fits the representation as “belief without evidence. In a famous gospel story, four men lowered their paralyzed friend through a hole in the roof of the home where Jesus was preaching to a packed crowd in hopes that he would heal their friend.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son your sins are forgiven.” (Mark 2:5)

Would it be accurate to describe the friends’ faith as belief without evidence? Up to this point in Mark’s gospel, Jesus had already driven out demons and healed many, including a man with leprosy. As a result of reports of these miracles, the crowd that had gathered around Jesus was so great that the men had to improvise and dig a hole in the roof to bring their friend to Jesus. They took such extreme measures because they trusted that Jesus would heal their friend based on the power and compassion he had already demonstrated. Their faith was not belief without evidence, but active conviction as a result of evidence. 

A couple chapters later, Jesus and the disciples were crossing the Sea of Galilee when a strong storm arose and threatened to swamp the boat. The disciples ran to Jesus, who was sleeping in the stern and asked, “Don’t you care if we drown?” After rebuking the storm and calming the waves, Jesus turned to his followers, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mark 4:38-40). If faith is belief without evidence, what grounds would Jesus have for rebuking his disciples? If they had not been given any evidence that they could trust him or any proof of his identity as the Son of God, then they should have been afraid in a life-threatening storm. Yet, they had already seen him perform many miracles. In this context, the disciples would have had faith if they had trusted that Jesus would guide them safely through the storm, but not without reason to do so.

Now, it is true that the word faith is more synonymous with belief in the New Testament than the Old Testament, where it often connotes devotion. For example, a major theme in the New Testament is that Christians are justified by faith. For example, Galations 2:16 says, “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” To examine whether this faith is belief without evidence, we must examine the full gospel message that the apostles preached, but first it will be fruitful to analyze how Jesus’ actions and words shed light on the connection between faith and evidence.

John the Baptist was appointed to herald and prepare the way for the coming Messiah. However, as a result of John’s critique of his illegitimate marriage, Herod had thrown John in prison and John began to question whether Jesus truly was the Messiah. Like the rest, John had expected a conquering Christ and this turn of events didn’t fit his expected script. So, John sent some of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the promised one or whether they should expect someone else. Jesus’ response is telling. Does he instruct John to just believe and take it on faith? No, instead after healing diseases, freeing people from evil spirits, and bring sight to the blind he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Luke 7:22-23).

We see in this account two ways in which Jesus consistently gave evidence or proof for his identity: miraculous signs and Biblical prophecy. Jesus demonstrated his identity to John’s disciples by first performing miracles and then directing them to scripture that attests that he is the expected savior (compare Jesus’ words to Isaiah 61:1-2). Instead of expecting the questioners to believe without evidence, Jesus sends them away with two powerful forms of confirmatory evidence.

Jesus points to his miracles as evidence of his identity in an altercation with unbelieving Jews. They threatened to stone him because, in their eyes, he had committed blasphemy by “claim(ing) to be God” by saying, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30,33). Jesus responds, “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). Once again, Jesus’ response completely undercuts the claim that faith is belief without evidence. Even though the unbelieving Jews don’t believe in Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, he points them to his works as evidence that should lead to belief.

In another altercation, the scribes and Pharisees approach Jesus asking for a sign of his authority. Knowing that their intentions were not genuine, Jesus refuses their request but does give a prophetic sign saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Johah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Although Jesus denies their immediate request, he ends up giving a prediction of the greatest evidence for his identity: his resurrection. Once again, this evidence is connected to the Old Testament scriptures, which weave a narrative of God’s redemptive work that further confirms Jesus' work and identity as Messiah. 

After Jesus death and resurrection, his disciples took the baton in preaching the gospel and continued to prove the truthfulness of their message through miracles and Old Testament prophecy, but also added their eye-witness testimony of the resurrection as an added line of evidence. These three types of verification are woven throughout the early church and all three can be seen in an incident that occurred soon after the resurrection (See Acts 3:1 - 4:4 for the entire text). Peter and John healed a lame beggar as they were walking to the temple and the onlookers were astounded by this miracle. As a crowd gathered, Peter shared the good news of the forgiveness of sins through Jesus, “whom God raised from the dead” and declared, “To this we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:15). He also tied these events to Old Testament Scripture by explaining, “Brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your rulers (when they crucified Jesus). But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:17-18). As a result of these three lines of evidence - miracles, eye-witness testimony, and Old Testament prophecy - “many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” (Acts 4:4)

The earliest surviving creed of the early church, which likely dates to within three years of the resurrection, incorporates both eye-witness testimony and Old Testament prophecy. This is one of the earliest teachings of the Christian church and it is clear that faith is supported by evidence, not held in absence of evidence.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis added)

These two examples are not isolated occurrences. The apostles healed many people, drove out evil spirits and performed miraculous signs; as a result, many people came to believe in the Lord (Acts 5:12, Acts 8:6-7, Acts 9:32-42, Acts 13:6-12, Acts 14:8-10, Acts 16:16-18, Acts 19:11-12). The Apostle Paul’s routine on his evangelistic missions was to go to the synagogues and reason from the Old Testament scriptures to provide evidence that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 17:2-4, Acts 17:17, Acts 18:4, Acts 18:9). The Bereans are praised for having noble character because they received the gospel with eagerness and examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). The apostles routinely appealed to their status as eye-witnesses of the resurrection and the life of Jesus in their public sermons and letters to the churches (Acts 2:32, 1 John 1:3, 2 Peter 1:16). Hopefully, this landslide of examples proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christian faith is not belief without evidence.

Yet, there is more. Bertrand Russell, one of the twentieth century’s most famous atheists, was asked on his deathbed what he would say to God if his atheistic hypothesis was incorrect. Russell replied, “I think I should say to him: Sir, why didn’t you give us more evidence.”² Unfortunately, this excuse will not hold-up in God’s court of law. A clear teaching in the New Testament is that every person has received sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. In his letter to the Roman church, Paul writes:

For what can be known about God is plain to (all men), because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20).

When one looks at the wonder of nature and ponders the vastness of the universe, even in an age when people knew far less about the mind-boggling dimensions and intricate fine-tuning of the cosmos, it should be obvious that there is an all-powerful, creator God. Furthermore, when one looks within they see that humans have been given a conscious and innate knowledge of right and wrong, which points to a moral law-giver. Paul puts it this way:

For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

So not only does the history of the early Church show that the gospel message was accompanied by miracles, eye-witness testimony, and Old Testament prophecy as corroborating evidence, but Paul clearly teaches that everyone, even those who claim that faith is belief without evidence, have received sufficient evidence to believe in God.

However, there are a few passages that some skeptics, such as Aron Ra, will cite to claim that Christian faith really is belief without evidence. The most famous of these is Hebrews 11:1, which says, “Now faith is the assurance of this hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” I will be dealing with that passage, and other objections, in the next post in this series.

References:

1)     Ra, Aron. “Religious Faith IS ‘Belief Without Evidence.” Reason Advocates. August 29, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/08/29/religious-faith-is-belief-without-evidence/

2)     Kreeft, Peter. Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascals’ Pensees Edited, Outlined and Explained. Ignatius Press, 1993.