It goes without saying that, once you are truly a Christian, you do indeed accept the reality of Jesus Christ and God.
But therein lies a problem. Suppose you are not sure that Christianity is true, or God exists? Does that make you somehow, not a Christian? After all, a true Christian believes in the existence of Jesus and God. So how can one be an honest doubter and be a true Christian at the same time?
Perhaps a solution lies in how we look at the evidence for and against Christianity. I think we should follow it this way: If Christianity is true, then the evidence will speak for itself*. If it isn't, then naturally, the evidence will show us otherwise.
In all this, we approach with the firm conviction in our hearts that Christianity is, indeed, true. And so, we approach the facts not with selective picking (of what will support us and throwing away what doesn't) but with honest seeking, knowing that if it is indeed true, the hope that is within us, we will know that it is true.
But is the tension really resolved? One can say so, but certainly, you cannot go around believing in something without some proof. Such will amount to nothing more than wishful thinking, and our faith will go no further than such.
On the other hand, as William Craig put it, faith cannot hold its breath while reason finds the truth. Why so? Because we do not wait until we are absolutely certain. Psychological "certainty" is very much elusive. What we need is reasonable proof (which is, by itself, very much subjective).
But if we were to wait until old age, until we are sure, after studying all the religions in the world, all the philosophies, all the facts, that Christianity is true, then we will have missed a lot had we trusted much earlier.
So should we have a "belief first, proof later" attitude? Or should we (as some, like Craig) assert that religious experience is a good enough foundation? That, I think is debatable, but the Bible clearly shows us- the Holy Spirit regenerates people whether or not they care about the evidence.
What was important was the Message being preached. And that is the confirmation of our faith, on Jesus Christ does our faith stand or fall.
__________________________________
* "Letting the evidence speak for itself" is very much a loaded term, since evidence is almost always subject to interpretation. That said, there may be some evidence that are plainly perceivable, and easily understood by all.
But therein lies a problem. Suppose you are not sure that Christianity is true, or God exists? Does that make you somehow, not a Christian? After all, a true Christian believes in the existence of Jesus and God. So how can one be an honest doubter and be a true Christian at the same time?
Perhaps a solution lies in how we look at the evidence for and against Christianity. I think we should follow it this way: If Christianity is true, then the evidence will speak for itself*. If it isn't, then naturally, the evidence will show us otherwise.
In all this, we approach with the firm conviction in our hearts that Christianity is, indeed, true. And so, we approach the facts not with selective picking (of what will support us and throwing away what doesn't) but with honest seeking, knowing that if it is indeed true, the hope that is within us, we will know that it is true.
But is the tension really resolved? One can say so, but certainly, you cannot go around believing in something without some proof. Such will amount to nothing more than wishful thinking, and our faith will go no further than such.
On the other hand, as William Craig put it, faith cannot hold its breath while reason finds the truth. Why so? Because we do not wait until we are absolutely certain. Psychological "certainty" is very much elusive. What we need is reasonable proof (which is, by itself, very much subjective).
But if we were to wait until old age, until we are sure, after studying all the religions in the world, all the philosophies, all the facts, that Christianity is true, then we will have missed a lot had we trusted much earlier.
So should we have a "belief first, proof later" attitude? Or should we (as some, like Craig) assert that religious experience is a good enough foundation? That, I think is debatable, but the Bible clearly shows us- the Holy Spirit regenerates people whether or not they care about the evidence.
What was important was the Message being preached. And that is the confirmation of our faith, on Jesus Christ does our faith stand or fall.
__________________________________
* "Letting the evidence speak for itself" is very much a loaded term, since evidence is almost always subject to interpretation. That said, there may be some evidence that are plainly perceivable, and easily understood by all.
1 comment:
OK, you're a truth seeker, but you're not yet a critical thinker, nor is Craig. "The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use of reason can be allowed... Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith." (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth & Apologetics p 36)
When you're ready for the next step, check out my website:
www.sanityquestpublishing.com
Post a Comment