Chapter 6.18

The Essential Ingredients of Biblical Faith

Revelation & Evidence

Table of Topics

A) Faith & Revelation: Faith comes by hearing the word of God

B) Faith & Evidence

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• It should be rather obvious that in order to believe something, there needs to be something to believe in.
• From a biblical perspective, there is no such thing as faith if there has not been a revelation from God to believe in. Where revelation stops, wisdom begins and certainty ends.
• Biblical faith requires more than mere exposure to a revelation. The revelation must be understood.
• While so many voice concern over people who have knowledge but no deeds, do we have an equal concern about those who have “zeal without knowledge” (Prov 19:2)?
• We would suggest that it was a lack of understanding that explains the wavering faith of even someone like John the Baptist.
• God has never expected us to believe anything without evidence. Rather, our faith will never be stronger than the practical, objective evidence that we have to support it.
• The very common tendency to pit faith against reason has led to the misconception that faith somehow is without reasons or violates our reason.
• The importance of evidence in regards to faith and action is clearly demonstrated in the significance and effectiveness of persuasion for humans.
• God-pleasing faith is simply good thinking.
• A. H. Strong: “Faith . . . is never opposed to reason, but only to sight.”
• Faith without a revelation is fantasy. Faith without evidence is foolishness.

A) Faith & Revelation: Faith comes by hearing the word of God

It should be rather obvious that in order to believe something, there needs to be something to believe in. In other words, there is content to our beliefs, and therefore, we must have knowledge of a claim and understand it before we can have faith in it. Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey him . . . ? I do not know the LORD” (Exod 5:2). This was obviously because he had never heard of the Lord. Likewise, the Athenians knew nothing, and therefore had no relationship whatsoever, with the “unknown God” they had built an altar for (Acts 17:23). Therefore, in order that they may be saved, the Apostle said, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you” (v. 24).

Along these lines, we have quoted Charles Hodge (1797-1878) elsewhere as saying:

A proposition to which we attach no meaning, however important the truth it may contain, cannot be an object of faith. In other words, knowledge is essential to faith . . . The first and indispensable office of reason, therefore, in matters of faith, is the cognition or intelligent apprehension of the truths proposed for our reception. ^[1]

This can be illustrated in even such a foundational faith as saving faith. The influential Presbyterian Bible Teacher, James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), wrote:

The most common misunderstanding is to think of faith as subjective feelings. Some years ago in a rather extended discussion about religion a young man told me that he was a Christian.

As we talked, I discovered that he did not believe that Jesus Christ was fully divine. He said he was God’s Son, but only in the sense that we are all God’s sons. He did not believe in the resurrection. He did not believe that Jesus died for our sin or that the New Testament contains an accurate record of his life and ministry. He did not acknowledge Christ as Lord of his life.

When I pointed out that these beliefs are involved in any true definition of a Christian, he answered that nevertheless he believed deep in his heart that he was a Christian. The thing he called faith was only a deeply held gut feeling. ^[2]

Accordingly, Professors of Theology at Denver Seminary, Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, point out:

Many approaches to meditation today under the influence of Hindu and Buddhist mysticism ask that a person’s mind be rid of all conceptual thought from any source whatever, including propositional revelation. That may be an appropriate way to identify with the impersonal, nonintelligent energy of the cosmos, but it is not an acceptable way to commune with the heavenly Father to whom Jesus asked us to pray without vain repetition.

Authentic spirituality is not a mere social activism (Paul Van Buren), a feeling of dependence on God (Schleiermacher), an ecstatic experience (Tillich), nor even a personal encounter with God. Authentic spirituality involves a personal response to a personal God with assent to the instruction of revelation concerning what is most ultimate and of highest value.

Without reliable information one may expend his life for nothing; without faithfulness to the highest values, one may be a hypocrite. Accurate information and fidelity are both crucial for their respective purposes. Neither can substitute for the other.

In A Theology of Christian Devotion Thor Hall observed, “Spirituality without understanding is not faith; it is superstition. Faith without knowledge is not biblical devotion; it is blind fideism.” ^[3]

All of which exposes the error in the statement of John Wimber (1934-1997), founder of the Charismatic Vineyard Association of Churches who remarked, “When are we going to see a generation who doesn’t try to understand this book (the Bible), but just believes it?” ^[4] We hope never to see such a generation and do not think one would even be possible. This popular disparagement of the mind in our relationship with God is discussed more thoroughly elsewhere. ^[5]

While the necessity of knowledge and understanding is relevant to any kind of faith, it is particularly important to apply this to biblical faith which is in God. If one studies the Scriptures, it will become evident that God’s calls to faith always came as a result of a revelation. It was not some pie in the sky idea that God expected them to have faith in, but rather, in something He had clearly said or promised. In other words, from a biblical perspective, there is no such thing as faith if there has not been a revelation from God to believe in. Where revelation stops, wisdom begins and certainty ends.

One of many places this can be illustrated is when the Apostle writes:

How can they believe in the One of Whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? . . . Faith comes from hearing [and mentally understanding] the message [revelation from God], and the message is heard through the word of Christ. (Rom 10:14, 17).

The obvious answer to the Apostle’s questions is that people cannot believe unless they are exposed to the revelation, and that at least partially, faith requires such an exposure.

Along the same lines, the Apostle introduced himself as, “Paul, a servant of God and an Apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the [necessary] knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness” (Tit 1:1). The Apostle understood that knowledge was necessary for faith. This does not only apply to the saving faith that he is specifically speaking of here, but all types of biblical faith. Accordingly, we have noted in previous chapters that saving faith is founded on a knowledge of the Gospel, empowering faith is completely dependent on Scripture, miracle faith is based on an immediate direct revelation, and visionary faith is prompted and given parameters by biblical revelation.

However, biblical faith requires more than mere exposure to a revelation. The revelation must be understood. Accordingly, the Apostle writes of the Jews:

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God [the Gospel] and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. (Rom 10:1-3)

The Apostle may be suggesting that the Jews had not even heard the Gospel, which is why they did not have “knowledge” of it. Regardless of whether they had heard it or not, the reason he gives here for their lack of faith was a lack of mental understanding of the Gospel, which is necessary for any kind of biblical faith. ^[6]

This is why the Apostle John says, “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know [and have faith in] Him Who is true” (1 John 5:20). Likewise, God put all these elements together in the context of faith in Him when He said to the nation of Israel: “You are . . . My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He” (Isa 43:10).

Accordingly, John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote that, “faith consists, not in ignorance, but in knowledge” ^[7] and that “there is no faith without knowledge” ^[8] Likewise, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) said:

He that doth not understand, can receive no faith, nor any other grace; for God deals with man as with a rational creature; and when faith is in exercise, it is not about something he knows not what. Therefore hearing is absolutely necessary to faith; because hearing is necessary to understanding: Rom. X. 14. ^[9]

Along the same lines, Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul writes:

New Testament faith is not empty of content nor is it a faith-in-general. The gospel has a content which is to be recognized, understood, and affirmed. Here we see the primacy of the intellect, for one cannot worship a God with his heart if he has no prior mental awareness of Him . . . The first aspect of faith is cognitive. ^[10]

Also, Leon Morris (1914-2006) noted that in the NT, “The verb pisteuō [“believe”] is often followed by ‘that’, indicating that faith is concerned with facts.” ^[11] Finally, we will quote the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland who writes:

It is important that you grow in the clarity and depth of understanding of the specific things you believe about God and related matters. You really cannot believe something that is vague.

For example, to the degree that there is fog in what actually comes before your mind when you remind yourself that prayer works or that God is sovereign, to that degree these items will have little affect on how you really live and think about life.

Discipleship unto the Lord Jesus is a thoughtful life. The simple truth is that those who are not thoughtful about the real content of what they actually believe about God will not actually believe very much. ^[12]

Because the first requirement of faith is knowledge, it is simply a lack of knowledge that explains why many people are not saved. Contrary to a growing number of Christian teachers today, a person must hear and understand the Gospel before they can believe it and be saved. Christ illustrated the need for knowledge in saving faith in His parable of the “sower and the seeds” when He said: “When anyone hears the message about the Kingdom and does not understand it [sunientos: lit: to put together, to comprehend mentally), the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart” (Matt 13:19). Here, the King points out that mere exposure is not enough, but that the Gospel revelation must be understood as well, in order to bear fruit in the human heart. This is, of course, what knowledge means—not just an exposure to truth, but an understanding of it.

We also see here the need for divine revelation as the object of biblical faith. As Luke renders it, the King explains, “The seed is the word [revelation] of God” (Luke 8:11). The “seed” of any biblical faith is the “word of God.”

Understanding is essential to empowering faith as well, because we cannot really believe in promises, obey commands, or appreciate doctrines if we do not comprehend them. Accordingly, the Apostle writes, “I want them [those who haven’t met him] to have full confidence because they have complete understanding of God’s secret plan, which is Christ Himself” (Col 2:2 NLT). He understood that “full confidence” requires “complete understanding” and therefore he worked to improve people’s knowledge of the doctrines concerning Christ. While so many voice concern over people who have knowledge but no deeds, do we have an equal concern about those who have “zeal without knowledge” (Prov 19:2)? American Christianity is more than content with such people, but God is not.

We would suggest that it was a lack of understanding that explains the wavering faith of even someone like John the Baptist. Upon meeting Christ, John had rightly proclaimed Him to be “the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world!” (cf. John 1:29-33). Yet a relatively short time later he had doubts as to who the King really was and sends his disciples to ask Christ, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt 11:3).

Because of John’s limited understanding, he expected all of the prophesied attributes of the Messiah to be demonstrated when He came to Earth the first time. The Prophets had said the Coming One would not only heal and teach, but would rule as well. When John only observed the former occurring and not the latter, he no longer had faith in Christ’s claims because the evidence did not match his expectations, and his expectations were wrong because he lacked the understanding that Messiah would come twice, first to die, then to rule. ^[13]

Pastoral Practices

• The fact that any Christian faith depends on knowledge emphasizes the importance of teaching in the Church. Teaching “the faith” to God’s people increases both the breadth and depth of their faith in God. All of which is a primary responsibility of a shepherd.

B) Faith & Evidence

use Heb 11:1 for chapter about faith and evidence

Many today would balk at our claim that biblical faith is a commitment of reason to a divine revelation, based on evidence. J. Oliver Buswell (1895-1977), former President of Wheaton College, reflected this view when he wrote in his helpful book, A Christian View of Being and Knowing: An Introduction to Philosophy:

The small boy in Sunday school explained to the teacher, “Faith is tryin’ awful hard to believe sumpin’ that really ain’t true except on Sunday!” It is not at all uncommon, if faith is mentioned in a work of philosophy, to find that it is assumed to be opposed to reason, or at least quite beyond and outside of the area of reasonable evidence. On the contrary, faith should be defined as the wholehearted acceptance of conclusions for which there is good and sufficient evidence. ^[14]

Likewise, in his insightful book, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland writes concerning “the impact of anti-intellectualism on today’s evangelicalism”:

First, while few would actually put it in these terms, faith is now understood as a blind act of will, a decision to believe something that is either independent of reason or that is a simple choice to believe while ignoring the paltry lack of evidence for what is believed. By contrast with this modern misunderstanding, biblically, faith is . . . a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason. ^[15]

The very common tendency to pit faith against reason has led to the misconception that faith somehow is without reasons or violates our reason. The popularity of this fallacy is demonstrated by its presence in Webster’s Dictionary when it defines faith as a, “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” ^[16] Mark Twain, as usual, said it even better when he wrote that faith is, “believing what you know ain’t true.” ^[17] Unfortunately, such an understanding of faith is not only found among pagan fiction writers but Christian theologians as well, as will be demonstrated in a subsequent chapter discussing the fallacy of fideism.

While in the previous section we demonstrated that biblical faith requires understanding and knowledge of a revelation, in this section we wish to add that biblical faith requires reasons and evidence for what we believe in. In other words, the idea that biblical faith is “a leap in the dark” is not biblical because God has never expected us to believe anything without evidence. Rather, our faith will never be stronger than the practical, objective evidence that we have to support it.

Even the Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to faith imply that reasons are involved. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes that the Greek verb pisteuō (“to believe”) is closely related to the verb peithō ^[18] which means “to apply persuasion, to prevail upon or win over, to persuade, bringing about a change of mind by the influence of reason or moral considerations.” ^[19]

The importance of evidence in regards to faith and action is clearly demonstrated in the significance and effectiveness of persuasion for humans. Marketing, politics, and a substantial part of all human communication involve an attempt to influence in some manner with reasons for believing. Even the King and the Apostles recognized the God-ordained place of evidence and persuasion for faith, and their words are filled with what one might call argumentation, in which they are trying to persuade believers of truth. ^[20] As James Sire notes:

One way we reason is to give “reasons” why we take something to be true. That is, we make a case for our views. This is precisely what Jesus does in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John. ^[21]

Such argumentation obviously assumes the vital role that evidence plays in forming our convictions and beliefs.

Not only is the importance of evidence reflected in the fact that apart from it we normally have no beliefs, but also in the fact that it naturally dictates the level of certainty which we give to our beliefs. Accordingly, the Christian philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), in his classic, but rather dense essay regarding human reason, wrote:

Rational belief is proportionate to the strength of the evidence at one’s disposal. The mind, if it will proceed rationally, ought to examine all the grounds of probability, and see how they make more or less for or against any proposition, before it assents to or dissents from it; and upon a due balancing of the whole, reject or receive it, with more or less firm assent, proportionably to the preponderancy of the greater grounds of probability on one side or the other. ^[22]

Likewise, the eminent Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) wrote:

We should proportion our degree of assent to the probability of the proposition in question . . . and this is just what we do . . . Faith is by no means blind: it has eyes of its own with which, before it completes itself in giving that assent which, when added to thinking, constitutes it believing, it must see that to which it assents [revelation], and the ground of which it assents to it [evidence]. As we cannot believe without knowing what it is to which we accord our faith [i.e. divine revelation], so we cannot believe without perceiving good grounds [evidence] for according our faith. ^[23]

Likewise, Warfield reflected the importance of the issue when he remarked that the kind and amount of evidence needed for certain beliefs will differ between individuals. What is good and convincing evidence for one person, may not be for another:

The amount, degree, and quality of evidence which win secure consent varies from mind to mind and in the same mind from state to state. Some minds, or all minds in some states, will respond to very weak evidence with full consent; some minds or all minds in some states, will resist very strong evidence.

There is no faith and belief possible without evidence or what the mind takes for evidence; faith and belief is a state of mind grounded in evidence and impossible without it. But the fullest faith and belief may ground itself in very weak evidence – if the mind mistakes it for strong evidence.

Faith and belief does not follow the evidence itself, in other words, but the [subjective] judgment of the [individual’s] intellect on the evidence. ^[24]

Likewise, the very influential Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster, John Murray (1898-1975) observed:

Faith is trust. Trust presupposes an object [revelation]. An object evokes trust when there is an antecedent judgment of the mind that the object is trustworthy [i.e. evidence]. ^[25]

More recently, Christian philosopher Stephen Davis says that we, “Give to any hypothesis . . . just that degree of credence which the evidence as you see it warrants.” ^[26]

In other words, our reason works much like a courtroom, having a decision forced upon it, it gathers evidence, and makes a decision, with various degrees of certainty, based on the perceived value of that evidence. God has made us such that the difference between something being reasonable or unreasonable, acceptable or unacceptable, believable or unbelievable, is the kind and amount of evidence attached to it.

The need for evidence in regards to our beliefs is demonstrated by the potential effect of a lack of evidence for our beliefs as well. As Yandall Woodfin notes:

It is by no means self-evident that the believer is predetermined to believe in God regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Did not the apostle Paul concede, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain”? (I Cor. 15:14). ^[27]

Likewise, C. S. Evans writes:

In the case of a religious belief that has historical content, . . . it seems wrong to say that the believer would always be right to ignore evidence that falsified the belief. Suppose, for example, that we found overwhelmingly powerful evidence that Jesus never existed, and that the whole of Christianity, along with its early history, had been invented in the fifth century. If the evidence were really powerful, would it still be possible to continue to believe that an historical figure from first-century Palestine, Jesus of Nazareth, was divine? ^[28]

While such a scenario is in the realm of the impossible, the answer to Evans’ question has to be “no,” and it is because God did not make us to believe anything against “overwhelmingly powerful evidence,” and therefore He does not expect us to do so. Even in the case of miracle faith, God is providing a direct, miraculous, undeniable revelation as the evidence we need to believe the miracle.

We have noted elsewhere that faith involves a “trusting acceptance.” Here, we wish to go further and point out that biblical faith is a trusting mental acceptance. Biblical faith is a reasoned decision based on evidence that occurs in the “head” not the “heart.” As John Stott puts it, “Faith is a reasoning trust, a trust which reckons thoughtfully and confidently upon the trustworthiness of God.” ^[29] This is just another way of saying that God-pleasing faith is simply good thinking.

Such a statement may surprise and even offend some, but it can be demonstrated throughout the Scriptures. Dr. D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) remarks on this very aspect of biblical faith in his well regarded commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. In chapter 6 of Matthew, Christ encourages faith in God’s providence by telling His audience to “Look at the birds of the air” and how the “Father feeds them” and to reason how “much more valuable” they are than birds (Matt 6:26) in order to bolster their faith in God.

Likewise, He instructs them to observe “how the lilies of the field grow” (v. 28) and “how God clothes the grass of the field” (v. 30) and to accordingly reason, “He [will] much more clothe you” (v. 30). It was upon objective, observable, experiential evidence that Christ expected faith in God to be built upon. But more to our point that God pleasing faith essentially amounts to good thinking, Lloyd-Jones wrote:

Faith according to our Lord’s teaching in this paragraph [Matt 6:25-30], is primarily thinking; and the whole trouble with a man of little faith is that he does not think. He allows circumstances to bludgeon him. . . .

We must spend more time in studying our Lord’s lessons in observation and deduction. The Bible is full of logic, and we must never think of faith as something purely mystical. We do not just sit down in an armchair and expect marvelous things to happen to us. That is not Christian faith. Christian faith is essentially thinking. Look at the birds, think about them, and draw your deductions. Look at the grass, look at the lilies of the field, consider them. . . .

Faith, if you like, can be defined like this: It is a man insisting upon thinking when everything seems determined to bludgeon and knock him down in an intellectual sense. The trouble with the person of little faith is that, instead of controlling his own thought, his thought is being controlled by something else, and, as we put it, he goes round and round in circles. That is the essence of worry. . . . That is not thought; that is the absence of thought, a failure to think. ^[30]

And a failure to think will result in a failure of faith because it is based on reasoning from evidence.

Along the same lines, E. J. Carnell (1912-1972) wrote:

Too often faith is used as an epistemological device to avoid the hard labor of straight thinking. How simple, and yet disgusting, it is for one to say when pressed to give an account of his hope, ‘I need give no intelligent account, for my hope is grounded in faith.’

Under such a philosophy there is little wonder that the modern university student looks upon faith as a synonym for ignorance and devotion to religious ideals as a phenomenon that falls under the general head of abnormal psychology.

Surely, if faith is not related to knowledge and truth, it is meaningless. It is more ouija-board than science. The Christian religion is indeed based upon the act of faith, but faith that is not grounded in knowledge is but superstition. ^[31]

It needs to be pointed out that while the evidence that faith is based on is indirect, it is still evidence to base our belief on. As the Baptist theologian A. H. Strong (1836-1921) put it, “Faith . . . is never opposed to reason, but only to sight.” ^[32] This is demonstrated in the clearest biblical definition of faith in the Bible which reads: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). ^[33]

The mistake that many make is concluding that because we do not “see” or have received the divine promise we have put our faith in, it means we do not have evidence for believing that promise. On the contrary, God always gives us evidence to believe in the fulfillment of a yet unfulfilled promise, or in any claims or commands that come from Him.

For example, the writer of Hebrews continues in verse 3: “By faith we understand that the Universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Is not such faith based on a multitude of objective, observable, convincing evidence? The reason we believe this by faith is not because we have no reasons, but because we were not physically present to witness God’s act of creation. So while such a conviction is certainly based on a reasonable faith, it is not what we call direct knowledge, but the indirect knowledge of faith. ^[34]

Likewise, in verse 6 we read: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” Again, we have an abundance of evidence that God exists, but “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18), and so our evidence is “by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7). Also, if anyone believes that “He rewards those who earnestly seek Him,” it is because they have reason to believe this, and God has somehow demonstrated this to be so, not just promised it.

Biblical faith is never based on mere feeling or impulses, which would amount to nothing more than fervent foolishness. Rather, the faith that God expects us to live by is always reasonable. While philosophers may attempt to unnecessarily separate our “head” (mind, reason) from our “heart” (will) as if they are capable of working independently, such is not reality. The “heart” will never believe what the “head” will not accept.

Our reason is the gate through which everything must pass before we will trust it. If reason rejects it, we will not believe it. This is precisely why the more reasons we have for a particular belief, the stronger our belief is. To put it metaphorically, God intended the “heart” to be connected to the “head” in order that the former not be misled (cf. Prov 19:2). “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt 19:6) as fideists, charismatics, mystics, and popular devotional writers are prone to do. As C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) said, “The heart never takes the place of the head; but can and should obey it.” ^[35]

All of this is why we wish to stress the fact that biblical faith involves a mental acceptance of our reasoning faculties. As we read in Proverbs, “Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly” (Prov 13:16) by acting on mere feelings or impulses. We noted in the previous section that from a biblical perspective, faith without a revelation is fantasy. Here we claim that faith without evidence is foolishness.

We believe the need for evidence includes all types of biblical faith. Accordingly, even though saving faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9) that our Spirit-liberated reason rather automatically receives, it is still processed by our reason. ^[36] We don’t believe anything apart from reasoning, understanding, or evidence, including the Gospel. The evidence supporting the Gospel may include the perceived character of its messenger, the relief it brings from the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, or the hope it produces to cure our despair. Accordingly, if any of these evidences were absent, we would struggle to believe the message.

In the case of miracle faith, the evidence to believe the revelation which the faith is based on, includes the miraculous manner in which the revelation is provided. Gideon saw an Angel, who offered divine proof that God was speaking to him, and on which he based his miracle faith in the miraculous victory he led. Because miracle faith demands belief without doubt, we suggest God always provides its necessary revelation through an obvious means. Accordingly, we doubt the revelation would come through some sort of subjective, mystical mental telepathy that directly deposits the faith in the mind. On the contrary, we believe that for miracle faith to occur, God needs to provide convincing proof that He has ordained a miracle, and the miraculous way that a revelation of a promised miracle would come would provide such proof.

Pastoral Practices

• Are there any areas of the Christian faith or statements of Scripture which, deep down, you have some doubts about? These are areas to research further in order to find the necessary evidence for your faith to be more certain, as explained in what follows.

Extras & Endnotes

Gauging Your Grasp

1) Why do we claim that biblical faith requires a revelation? Do you agree or disagree and why?

2) Why do we claim that the strength of our biblical faith is based on reason and evidence? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 54, 56. It is important to note that we would not apply Hodge’s statement concerning the need for evidence in biblical faith to that variety of faith we have labeled in the previous chapter as miracle faith. However, we would insist that even miracle faith requires a revelation and subsequent understanding of the object of such faith. For further discussion of miracle faith see chapter 6.8 and 11.5. ↑

2. James Montgomery Boice, Ephesians (Baker 1998), 66. ↑

3. Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), I:124. ↑

4. Excerpted from John H. Armstrong, “In Search of Spiritual Power” in Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church? (Moody, 1992), 79. ↑

5. For further discussion of the place of our understanding in worship and prayer see chapters 4.8-11. ↑

6. Accordingly, Douglas Moo writes, “The Jews’ ignorance involves their failing to understand that God has fulfilled his promise to reveal his saving activity in Jesus Christ.” (The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT) [Eerdmans, 1996], 633). ↑

7. John Calvin, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, online at http://www.ccel.org, II.11.2. ↑

8. John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, online at http://www.ccel.org, Titus 1:1. ↑

9. Jonathan Edwards quoted by John Gerstner in The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.223. ↑

10. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics, R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey eds. (Academie Books, 1984), 22. ↑

11. Leon Morris, “Faith,” in the New Bible Dictionary, J. I. Packer, et al. eds., 3rd ed., (Intervarsity, 1996), 358. ↑

12. J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 132. ↑

13. In the same vein, NT scholar R. T. France comments: “John, as his question shows, was not yet ready to be so positive [that Jesus was the Christ], though he would have liked to be.” (Matthew, [Eerdmans, 1985, repr. 1999], 192). John MacArthur as well rightly suggests that John’s doubts stemmed from his lack of knowledge of NT revelation (MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Parsons Technology, 1997], loc. cit.).

    However, most other commentators seem to miss what appears to be clear. For example, Dr. Morris’ suggestion that “John was simply puzzled” (The Gospel According to Matthew, [Eerdmans, 1992], 275), does not do justice to John’s question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt 11:3). There would seem to be more than confusion on John’s part, but rather a lack of faith as well. ↑

14. J. Oliver Buswell, A Christian View of Being and Knowing: An Introduction to Philosophy (Zondervan, 1960), 194. Buswell adds, “see my article, “The Ethics of Pisteuo in the Fourth Gospel,” in the Biblio Sacra for January, 1923, Volume LXXX, No. 317. ↑

15. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (NavPress, 1997), 25. ↑

16. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Webster’s), Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Merriam-Webster, 1986), 446. ↑

17. Quoted by Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000), 247. ↑

18. O. Becker, “Faith, Persuade, Belief, Unbelief,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), I:587-8. ↑

19. W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nelson, 1996), 469. ↑

20. However, we deny to a great extent that either Jesus or the Apostles attempted to persuade spiritually dead unbelievers with argumentation. See chapters 5.11-5.13. ↑

21. James W. Sire, Habits of the Mind (InterVarsity, 2000), 191. ↑

22. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A. S. Pringle-Pattison ed. (Clarendon Press, 1967), iv. 15-5. ↑

23. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, reprint (Baker, 2000), IV: 138.

    Probably the contemporary theologian that is most known for sharing Locke’s emphases on reason, evidence, and probability is Oxford’s Richard Swinburne, as demonstrated in his books, The Existence of God and Faith and Reason. ↑

24. B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, reprint, 10 Vols. (Baker, 2000), IX:318. ↑

25. John Murray, “Faith,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, Select Lectures in Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth, 1977), 237. ↑

26. Stephen T. Davis, Faith, Skepticism, and Evidence: An Essay in Religious Epistemology (Associated University Press, 1978), 25. ↑

27. Yandall Woodfin, With All Your Mind: A Christian Philosophy (Abingdon, 1980), 21. ↑

28. C. S. Evans, Faith Beyond Reason (Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 111. ↑

29. John Stott, Your Mind Matters (InterVarsity, 1973), 36. ↑

30. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, The Sermon on the Mount (Eerdmans, 1984), 37-8. ↑

31. Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 65. ↑

32. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. (Judson, 1907, 1953), 3. ↑

33. The KJV and NKJV of Hebrews 11:1 reads: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence [elenchos] of things not seen.” This translation suggests that faith itself somehow provides some sort of subjective evidence for what we believe. However, this is not a good translation of elenchos and therefore, modern versions correctly interpret it as “conviction,” the result of faith, making the second part of Hebrews 11:1 simply a reinforcing statement of the first part. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

    Along these lines we read in the NIDNT:

    The interpretation of elenchos in Heb. 11:1 presents difficulties. Its meaning here can be deduced only from its context in the definition of faith given in this chapter. The sentence falls into two parts. The second half is a parallelism, to be compared with the first part: elenchos strengthens hypostasis [assurance], and pragmata ou blepomena, “things not seen,” explains elpizomena, “things hoped for.”

    The concepts are unmistakably Hellenistic in character. The purpose of the statement is not so much to encourage subjective assurance of faith, as if faith could give the status of reality to what lies in the future. It is rather to secure a “firm link with objectivity” (0. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13, 1966, 373).

    Accordingly, elenchos should be interpreted neither subjectively, as if it denoted absence of doubt, nor in a hortatory sense, as if it meant correction, nor yet in an intellectual sense, meaning evidence. Rather it should be understood in its context in the theology of Heb. in a strictly theological sense, as referring to conviction, about the power of the future world promised by God which is here described in the language of secular Gk. as “things not seen” (on the whole subject see 0. Michel, op. cit., 372 ff.) Heb. 11:1 would then mean: “But faith is the pledge of things hoped for, the conviction of things we cannot see.” (H.-G. Link, II:142; cf. F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT) rev. ed., (Eerdmans, 1990), 277. ↑

34. For further discussion on the concepts of direct and indirect knowledge see section 2.3.C.2. ↑

35. C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 2001), 30. ↑

36. For further discussion regarding the “naturalness” of saving faith see section 4.16.B. ↑