Chapter 6.20

Faith & Reason in the NT & Church

 

Overall Objective

To demonstrate the NT evidence that God-pleasing faith is based on objective evidence that can be evaluated and appreciated by our God-given reason.

Table of Topics

A) Christ’s Perspective on Faith & Evidence

A.1) His Willingness to Give Signs to Authenticate Himself

A.2) His Condemnation of Pharisees’ Request

A.3) Primary Target of Signs is Believers

A.4) Zechariah’s Condemnation vs. Mary’s Commendation

A.5) “Doubting” or “Trusting” Thomas?

B) The Apostles’ Perspective on Faith & Evidence

C) The Church’s Perspective on Faith & Evidence

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Jesus never asked for blind obedience, but clearly assumed that faith is always to be accompanied by evidence. He even told a crowd, “Do not believe Me” unless He gave sufficient evidence for doing so.
• Christ’s refusal to the Pharisees to grant miraculous signs was because they had already witnessed abundant authenticating miracles from Christ and they asked with evil intentions.
• The primary purpose for miraculous signs is for believers, not unbelievers.
• The difference between how God viewed the response of Mary and Zecharias, accepting one and condemning the other, is explained mainly by the fact that God saw something different in their hearts.
• Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for wanting to see Jesus before believing.
• If either the message or the messenger of the Gospel had characteristics that were contrary to reason or trust, it or they would not be accepted.
• A very ancient document of the Church coming from the second century sums up the majority view of the Church throughout the ages: “Do not think that we say that these things [concerning Christian beliefs] are only to be received by faith, but not to be asserted by reason. It is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason.”

 

A) Christ’s Perspective on Faith & Evidence

As we move on to the NT, we see the same pattern as we discussed in the previous chapter in the OT. Jesus never asked for blind obedience, but clearly assumed that faith is always to be accompanied by evidence. This was already demonstrated in section 6.9.A when His thoughts on trusting in God’s provision because of how we view His care of Creation in the Sermon on the Mount.

A.1) Christ’s Willingness to Give Signs to Authenticate Himself

Christ also made His perspective clear when in response to a request for proof of His claims, He said:

I have testimony [evidence] weightier than that of [the verbal testimony of] John. For the very work [miracles] that the Father has given Me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36).

At another time He said, “The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me” (John 10:25). He even told a crowd, “Do not believe Me unless I do what My Father does,” (John 10:37) referring specifically to the evidence of miracles (cf. v. 38). Again, He says to His disciples, “Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (John 14:11). Jesus made it clear that the purpose of His miracles was to provide the necessary evidence for believing His claims (cf. John 2:11; 10:38; 20:30-31; Matt 11:2-5). Accordingly, we read in Acts that, “After His suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive” (Acts 1:3). ^[1]

While it was by direct, divine revelation that the Apostle Peter knew Jesus was, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16; cf. v. 17), it certainly was not without evidence, as the supernatural deeds of Christ had clearly and repeatedly proven who He was. It was not with a blind, baseless faith that people came to Jesus to be healed, as He had famously demonstrated He could heal anyone of anything. In fact, Christ was always willing to provide the necessary evidence someone needed in order to believe in Him.

One example in the Gospels that is often used to suggest that faith is without evidence is the calling of the disciples. For example, we read in Matthew:

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.  ¹⁹“Come, follow Me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”  ²⁰At once they left their nets and followed Him. ²¹Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them,  ²²and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed Him. (Matt 4:18-22)

Again, the suggestion is made that the disciples made their decision without any, or very little, knowledge of who Christ was. While the details and chronology of Christ’s interaction with the disciples is admittedly more obscure than we would like, such an interpretation simply seems unlikely and most commentators reject it. In addition, it seems likely that the encounter Christ had with Peter in John 1:35-42 and with Peter, James, and John recorded in Luke 5:1-11, all preceded or coincided with Christ’s calling of them in Matthew 4:18-22. Therefore, if the disciples experienced the miraculous catch of fish recorded in Luke 5 before the encounter in Matthew 4, then they certainly witnessed Christ’s miraculous changing of water into wine before both of these encounters because John says, “This, the first of His miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed His glory, and His disciples put their faith in Him” (John 2:11). This then would easily explain why Peter, Andrew, James, and John all immediately left their fishing to follow Christ upon His call. At that point, they had plenty of reasons to trust Him to do so. ^[2]

A.2) His Condemnation of Pharisees’ Request

Some will object that asking for evidence, miraculous or otherwise, before exercising faith is even evil. These are the same people who would deny that Gideon was a man of faith. Normally, the proof text for this position is the following:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested Him by asking Him to show them a sign from Heaven. He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks [epizetei: “to search”] for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away. (Matt 16:1-4; cf. Matt 12:38-41; Mark 8:11-13 ^[3])

Christ’s response to the Pharisees has often been interpreted as a universal condemnation of those who expect God to miraculously and convincingly authenticate His words. This is clearly not the case.

First of all, it should be noticed that Christ was speaking specifically to the Pharisees. ^[4] These men had obviously and uniquely demonstrated hardened hearts beyond belief, regardless of what miracle Christ might perform. Immediately prior to their request here, Matthew records that “great crowds” had witnessed Christ perform miracles that “amazed” them and for which “they praised the God of Israel” (Matt 15:30-1).

Then, we read of the supernatural feeding of “four thousand [men] besides women and children” (Matt 15:38). It would seem beyond question that at least some of the Pharisees had personally witnessed such deeds, and if they hadn’t, they had heard enough testimonies of them to be beyond doubt. To have already received such signs and still seek for more, is evidence of an evil, disbelieving heart, which is looking for excuses not to believe, rather than evidence to believe. ^[5]

The condition of the Pharisees’ hearts are additionally exposed in the text when Matthew tells us that they came to Christ not to innocently and sincerely request a sign, but to arrogantly and insidiously “test” (peirazontes) Christ, which can even mean to “tempt” Him. Christ knew their motive was to gain evidence to condemn Him, rather than to believe in Him. Accordingly, Calvin commented:

By this word [tempting] the Evangelists mean that it was not with honest intentions, nor from a desire of instruction, but by cunning and deceit, that they demanded what they thought that Christ would refuse, or at least what they imagined was not in his power. Regarding him as utterly mean and despicable, they had no other design than to expose his weakness, and to destroy all the applause which he had hitherto obtained among the people. In this manner unbelievers are said to tempt God, when they murmur at being denied what their fancy prompted them to ask, and charge God with want of power. ^[6]

Jesus as well describes their sinful state when He remarks that while they can reason properly from weather signs, they “cannot [and actually, will not] interpret the signs of the times,” which clearly refer to His miracles. Calvin again commented:

This leads to the inquiry, Does Christ address them with such harshness of language, because they wished to have a sign given them? For on other occasions God manifests that He is not so much displeased on this account . . . It is not . . . because they ask a sign, that Christ makes this attack upon the scribes, but because they are ungrateful to God, wickedly despise so many of his wonderful works, and try to find a subterfuge for not obeying his word.

What a display was this, I do not say of indifference, but of malice, in shutting their eyes against so many signs! There was, therefore, no proper ground for this annoyance; and they had no other object in view than to appear to have a good reason for rejecting Christ. ^[7]

In addition, we might also suggest that there is indeed something “evil” about a person who, “seeks [epizētei: “craves” ^[8]] after a sign” (Matt 16:4 NASB). The Greek word here is a strong one, used in the active sense, and which in classic Greek referred to a “striving after . . . to investigate” ^[9]

In the parallel passage in Matthew 12:39, The NASB gets the sense right when it translates Jesus as saying, again, to the Pharisees in response to their request for a sign: “An evil and adulterous generation craves [epizētei] for a sign.” Likewise, Jesus uses this word when He says, “the pagans run after [epizētousin] all these things” (Matt 6:32). We suggest that Jesus was referring to a critical investigation for authenticating signs, rather than a more passive expectation of such signs. The latter is legitimate when being asked to believe and obey someone claiming to speak for God, as Jesus did.

In fact, as noted in the previous chapters, God will faithfully provide such signs for His people to base their faith on, and if someone needs to be described as seeking them, it implies that God has not already provided them, which will never be the case. It has never been God’s way to require His people to search and seek for signs, for He always abundantly provides them with, or even before, any revelation or demands He is making. If one is said to be seeking them, it indicates that they may have in fact ignored the ones God has surely already given, demonstrating the hardness of their heart, not the scarcity of miraculous, authenticating signs.

A.3) Primary Target of Signs is Believers

Here we will note that the primary purpose for miraculous signs was and is for believers, not unbelievers. As discussed elsewhere, miracles to unbelievers often only serve to bring them greater condemnation, especially illustrated in the miracle of Creation. ^[10] This is because no miracles have any spiritual value for unbelievers unless the greater miracle (cf. John 14:12) of regeneration occurs. ^[11] As the Apostle Paul said, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14), and this includes the significance and purpose of divine miracles. This is why Christ refused to perform any miracles for King Herod, as it was obvious that the wicked unregenerate was seeking entertainment, not evidence to believe (cf. Luke 23:8).

Some have noted Christ’s reluctance at times to have His miracle working advertised. For example, Matthew records that after Jesus heals a leper, He tells him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Matt 8:4; cf. 9:30; 12:15-16; 16:20; 17:9). We notice here that Christ still wanted the miracle to be “a testimony” “to the priest,” so such an occurrence cannot be used to deny that Christ desired to provide evidence for belief in Him.

On other occasions, Christ’s contentment to authenticate Himself merely to the healed individual or a small group, as opposed to having the miracle advertised, reflected His desire to primarily authenticate Himself to believers instead of unbelievers, as discussed above. Other times He may have wanted to limit the publicizing of His miracles in order to avoid unnecessary opposition from the Pharisees (cf. Matt 12:9-24). ^[12] In addition, unlike modern “faith healers,” Jesus did not want to be known merely as a miracle worker, but rather as a messenger of new divine revelation from God, and therefore He would have avoided instances of miracle working that may have only communicated the former. ^[13]

Some have also seen the following statement by Christ as a rebuke against the need for evidence for faith: “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders . . . you will never believe” (John 4:48). This is simply a statement of fact, not a rebuke, and the only reason people see it otherwise is because of a fideistic bias that would skew our perspective. Christ said this in response to a man who simply, “went to Him and begged Him to come and heal his son, who was close to death” (v. 47).

Surely Christ did not mean to rebuke him for such an understandable request, and this is proven beyond doubt by the fact that this man didn’t even require a sign to believe Christ’s promise to heal his son, but rather, when, “Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live.” The man took Jesus at His word and departed” (John 4:50). Neither is Jesus using the man’s request as an opportunity to universally rebuke others for seeking evidence for faith. Christ is simply stating what He knows about even regenerated, believing human nature, and as His example once again proved even here, He was glad, not reluctant, to give the needed evidence when it would be helpful.

A.4) Zechariah’s Condemnation vs. Mary’s Commendation

As a point of clarification, we would again simply suggest that there is a big difference between a good heart expecting authenticating signs and a bad heart demanding them, and God knows that difference. Those who suggest that requiring miraculous authentication for supernatural communication is automatically unbiblical ignore that difference. This is precisely the difference, and the explanation for God’s different responses to Gideon and Mary (cf. Luke 1:18-20), as opposed to the Pharisees and Zechariah (cf. Luke 1:13). Calvin is again helpful here when he comments:

It might, at first sight, appear harsh that God is so much offended by [Zechariah’s] reply [to the angel]. He brings forward his old age as an objection [to the promise of having a son]. Abraham did the same; and yet his faith is so highly applauded that Paul declares, he but unhesitatingly relied on the truth and power of God [Rom 4:19]. Zacharias inquires how, or by what proof, he might arrive at certainty. But Gideon was not blamed for twice asking a sign (Judges 6:17, 37, 39). Nay more, we are shortly after this informed of Mary’s objection, How shall this be, since I know not a man? (ver. 34,) which the angel passes over as if it contained nothing wrong. How comes it then that God punishes Zacharias so severely, as if he had been guilty of a very heinous sin?

I do acknowledge that, if the words only are considered, either all were equally to blame, or Zacharias did nothing wrong. But as the actions and words of men must be judged from the state of the heart, we ought rather to abide by the judgment of God, to whom the hidden secrets of the heart are naked and opened (Hebrews 4:13). Unquestionably, the Lord beheld in Zacharias something worse than his words may bear, and therefore his anger was kindled against him for throwing back with distrust the promised favor. We have no right, indeed, to lay down a law to God which would not leave him free to punish in one the fault which he pardons in others. But it is very evident that the case of Zacharias was widely different from that of Abraham, or Gideon, or Mary. This does not appear in the words; and therefore the knowledge of it must be left to God, whose eyes pierce the depths of the heart. ^[14]

In addition, we may note a slight difference between the wording of the responses of Zecharias and Mary. The former seemed to question whether or not the event the angel had proclaimed would even occur when he asks, “How can I be sure of this?” (Luke 1:18). However, Mary seemed to accept what the angel said, but is understandably curious how a virgin will be made pregnant, merely asking, “How will this be?” (Luke 1:34). One can understand Mary’s question, as the prospect of being miraculously made pregnant might have given rise to some fear.

A.5) “Doubting” or “Trusting” Thomas?

Another illustration of Christ’s perspective regarding faith and evidence is His statement to Thomas regarding His resurrection: “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen [present tense] and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Christ implies here that at this time there were others who had believed without seeing. This did not include any of the other Apostles, as they had already seen the resurrected Christ before Thomas (cf. 20:19-20).

Those who had believed without seeing possibly included those disciples that Luke refers to as apparently simply believing on the testimony of the Apostle Peter (cf. Luke 24:33-4). But even here, the King did not intend to imply that those who had apparently believed without seeing, believed without evidence. Whoever it was, it is obvious that if they believed on the mere testimony of someone else, it was because they had good reason to believe that person. In other words, as we have already noted in the previous chapter regarding faith in God’s promises or claims, it is not that we will have direct evidence for the claim itself, but rather, the person (or God) has demonstrated their testimony is trustworthy and to believe them is a reasonable conclusion.

For example, if a doctor tells us that some prescribed medicine will help us, we believe it, not because we have seen it help others, but because of what we believe about doctors. Our belief then may be based more on who is making the claim rather than immediately available evidence for the claim itself. Still, our perception of a doctor, God, or anyone else wanting our trust, is always based on other evidence for their trustworthiness. This is the power of the philosophical term testimony. ^[15]

Christ’s words to Thomas were not intended by the Apostle John to be a disparagement of evidence for faith, as immediately after John writes:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-1)

The Apostle understands the importance of evidence for faith in Christ and it would seem to be the very reason he even wrote his Gospel.

Accordingly, it also needs to be pointed out that there is no hint of a rebuke here for Thomas’ refusal to believe until he had the evidence he demanded. This disciple has, of course, been infamously dubbed, “doubting Thomas,” suggesting that there was something wrong with him. This is commonly assumed as is demonstrated when Calvin accuses Thomas as being “obstinate,” having “dullness,” and even “wickedness,” and, as if that were not enough, he adds:

The stupidity of Thomas was astonishing and monstrous; for he was not satisfied with merely beholding Christ but wished to have his hands also as witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. Thus he was not only obstinate, but also proud and contemptuous in his treatment of Christ. ^[16]

We would suggest that if Christ had intended us to understand the passage in this way, He would have said so, but He does not. It was not out of a hardened, pharisaical heart that Thomas made such a demand. Rather, for whatever reason, personality differences or whatever, he legitimately required more evidence than some of the others who had evidently believed without seeing. And obviously Jesus was graciously willing to provide it. We would suggest that this is yet another example of biblical support for the right of private judgment discussed at length elsewhere. ^[17]

Again, there is no hint that Christ rebukes Thomas for requiring more evidence. ^[18] In fact, Thomas was only asking for what the other Apostles had already received! (cf. John 20:19-20; Matt 24:17; Luke 24:11-13). As F. F. Bruce points out, “he was not really any more doubting than the others; had he been with them on the evening of that first Easter Day, his doubts would have been removed at the same time as theirs.” ^[19] Likewise, Leon Morris remarks:

Some commentators think that Jesus is administering a rebuke to his hard-headed follower. This may be so, but if so it is a very gentle rebuke. We must bear in mind that if it is true that Thomas believed on the basis of what he himself saw, this is also the case with all the others John has so far mentioned. While some may well have believed on the basis of the testimony of Mary Magdalene and others John has not said so. There is possibly significance also in the fact that when Jesus goes on to speak of those who believed without seeing he says they are “blessed” (cf. 13:17), not “more blessed.” This does not look like a comparison, with Thomas worse off than the others [for he was certainly blessed!]. ^[20]

Finally, for those who would insist that Thomas was a man of weak faith, we note that when Christ said He was going to make what appeared to be a dangerous journey to Bethany, John records: “Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him”” (John 11:16). It would seem he should have been dubbed “trusting Thomas” instead of “doubting.”

B) The Apostles’ Perspective on Faith & Evidence

We have already discussed at length in section 6.17.B that the Bible prescribes sources of evidence to strengthen our empowering faith. These include how the Holy Spirit objectively changes our lives, remembering how God has intervened in our lives, and being reminded of and experiencing the central truths of the Christian faith through the sacraments of baptism and communion.

Here, we wish to point out that even saving faith is based on evidence, not a blind “leap in the dark.” In other words, saving faith comes with its reasons through our reason. When the Apostle says that, “[saving] faith comes from hearing the message . . . of Christ” (Rom 10:17) he is clearly implying that both the source and the contents of “the message” have characteristics that are acceptable to our reason, and are therefore believed to be true. If either the message or the messenger of the Gospel had characteristics that were contrary to reason, it would not be accepted.

The message of Christ is reasonable and acceptable for several reasons. First, through regeneration, our mind has been freed to accept such a reasonable message. ^[21] Secondly, the Gospel message itself is very logical and it makes perfect sense that we cannot save ourselves in the sight of a holy, perfect Judge, but need the Savior He Himself has provided. The message of the Gospel is easily seen as the perfect solution to reconciling our belief that God is both holy and loving.

In other words, there is nothing offensive to reason in the Gospel, and all of it is in fact very reasonable. The Apostle explained why it might be offensive to some when he wrote: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing [and have devil-darkened reason], but to us who are being saved it is [appealing to our Spirit-liberated reason and is] the power of God.” (1 Cor 1:18)

Also, there is a good deal of objective evidence for the truth of the Gospel message. As noted above, the importance of that evidence for saving faith is demonstrated in John’s Gospel in particular, when he implies that this is the primary reason that he wrote his account of Christ’s miracles and words. Likewise, other Apostles pointed toward objective evidence for the saving claims of Christ as well. Peter tells a crowd: “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). ^[22]

More specifically, the author of Hebrews relates that the early Church believed that the Gospel message had been objectively and overwhelmingly authenticated when he writes:

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.” (Heb 2:3-4)

We suggest that there is no need for us to have direct experience or knowledge of these proofs for the Gospel, but rather, that it would be foolish not to accept them as evidence, although coming through the testimony of history. ^[23]

Accordingly, the resurrection of Christ is certainly intended by God to be evidence for the acceptance of the Gospel message. The Apostle Paul, in the context of an evangelistic message, says to the Athenians:

For He [God] has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man [Christ] He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him [Christ] from the dead” (Acts 17:31).

Again, God always provides evidence for the claims and demands He makes, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is for this very purpose. The Apostles continually point to the objective evidence provided in the resurrection as a basis for our faith, and Paul goes so far as to say that, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Cor 15:17), implying that it would not only be useless, but baseless, and not really faith at all (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-8; 1 Pet 1:21).

However, it is not Christ’s resurrection alone that provides objective evidence of the claims of the Gospel. It is the spiritual resurrection of believers through regeneration and the supernatural virtue that results that is also proof that Jesus saves. In fact, for many, the Christ-like character of another believer may be the most compelling evidence that God will use to convince them of the truth of the Gospel. This is a point that we have discussed thoroughly elsewhere regarding what we have called virtue apologetics. ^[24]

It is not the message of the Gospel alone that requires objective evidence in order to be accepted by our reason and believed on. The messenger as well must gain our trust. In other words, for all the power that is in the Gospel, it is unlikely that anyone would believe it if they thought that the person who was communicating it was not trustworthy. This again highlights the importance of our reason in deciding what we will believe.

This also explains the Apostle’s emphasis on his conduct as a messenger of the Gospel. To the Corinthians he says:

Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. . . . Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. (2 Cor 1:12; 2:17; cf. 2 Cor 4:2; 11:7-13)

Likewise, to the Thessalonians, in the context of his evangelistic ministry among them, the Apostle says, “You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed–God is our witness” (1 Thess 2:5; cf. 1:5; 2:3-13). He took great pains to earn people’s trust. This was because the Apostle knew that mental acceptance of the Gospel is necessary for saving faith, and that such acceptance of the message is thwarted if the messenger is unacceptable for some reason. This is no doubt why the vast majority of Gospel messages believed for salvation come through someone the believer knows and trusts, and not a stranger.

We will also point out here again that this is a rather natural process, enabled by the way God created our minds to operate. We need not believe the things about Jesus Christ with any more certainty than we believe what we do about George Washington. And what we believe about George Washington is based on evidence of some kind, and mostly because we have reasonably concluded that our sources for such belief are worthy of our trust. It is quite enough for our fifth grade history teacher to tell us about our first President, and maybe read something in a book, to gain a rather unshakeable confidence that those claims are true. Such is the same for our confidence in the claims about Christ.

C) The Church’s Perspective on Faith & Evidence

Our position on the relationship between faith and evidence has been the majority one throughout the history of the Christian Church. Long ago, St. Augustine (354-430) said, “No one believes anything unless he has before thought it worthy of belief.” ^[25] Likewise, Augustine wrote, “They are much deceived, who think that we believe in Christ without any proofs concerning Christ.” ^[26]

Even before Augustine, the ancient author of the Clementine Recognitions (c. 2^nd century) wrote:

Do not think that we say that these things [concerning Christian beliefs] are only to be received by faith, but not to be asserted by reason. It is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason. And therefore he who has received these things fortified by reason can never lose them; whereas he who receives them without demonstrations, by an assent to a simple statement of them, can neither keep them safely, nor is certain if they are true. . . . And therefore, [if] one is more [eager] in demanding a reason, by so much will he be the firmer in preserving his faith. ^[27]

Likewise, many years later the seventeenth century Christian philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) helped to reestablish the biblical priority of reason in faith in his very influential treatise, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, in which he wrote:

Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind; which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and error. ^[28]

About the same time, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote:

[I]f the religious affections that persons have, do indeed arise from a strong persuasion of the truth of the Christian religion, their affections are not the better, unless their persuasion be a reasonable persuasion or conviction. By a reasonable conviction, I mean, a conviction founded on real evidence, or upon that which is a good reason, or just ground of conviction. ^[29]

Likewise, Charles Hodge (1797-1898) succinctly explained: “As faith involves assent, and assent is conviction produced by evidence, it follows that faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible.” ^[30] Hodge’s successor at the “Old” Princeton Theological Seminary, B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) wrote some years ago: “We cannot believe, any more than we can know, without adequate grounds; it is not faith but “credulity” to accord credit to insufficient evidence; and an unreasonable faith is no faith at all.” ^[31]

Similarly, Charles H. Craig wrote the following in the 1950’s when it was very popular to pit faith against reason:

We must not confuse faith with credulity. You cannot believe what you know is not true. It can of course be alleged that Christian faith . . . rests on inadequate grounds, or that the evidence in behalf of one’s faith is inadequate. It is one thing to say that, but it is quite another to say that a person’s faith is based on inadequate grounds of which he himself is aware. To believe, to have faith, on grounds the inadequacy of which we are conscious, is really an impossibility. If evidence appears to us as adequate, we are convinced, and vice versa. If we are not convinced, faith or belief does not exist for us. ^[32]

Likewise, C. S. Lewis once remarked:

There is, of course, no question so far of belief without evidence. . . . [S]o far as I know it is not expected that a man should assent to these propositions in the first place without evidence or in the teeth of the evidence. At any rate, if anyone expects that, I certainly do not. And in fact, the man who accepts Christianity always thinks he had good evidence. ^[33]

More recently, R. C. Sproul has written: “If it were true that [we] believed for absolutely no reason, [we] would not be believing at all, but acting on superstition.” ^[34] Finally, J. P. Moreland demonstrates the importance of evidence for our beliefs when he writes:

[E]xperience teaches us that we cannot choose or change our beliefs by direct effort. For example, if someone offered you $10,000 to believe right now that a pink elephant was sitting next to you, you could not really choose to believe this in spite of having a good motive to do so! ^[35]

Moreland goes on to rightly criticize the abandonment of reason and evidence when it comes to religion:

Who would respect someone who voted in a jury trial or decided which house to buy with no regard to the evidence relevant to these decisions? If someone used blind faith and bought the first house he or she saw with a For Sale sign in front of it, but made no effort to get information about the house and neighborhood, we would consider that person foolish. Why?

Because when we use our reason and base decisions on the best assessment of the evidence we can make, we increase our chances that our decisions are based on true beliefs. . . . Now if this is the case for day-to-day issues, why should we suddenly abandon the importance of reason and evidence when it comes to religion? We should not. ^[36]

And yet far too many have embraced such fideistic theology, which will be addressed more specifically below.

Finally, we would add that there is no greater proof that a believer’s faith is based on evidence than the extraordinary popularity of apologetic writings among Christians throughout the history of the Church. The Gospels themselves were written and highly prized for this very reason, giving evidence to the early Christians for their faith. The writings of second and third century Church leaders such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian were primarily apologetic and were therefore greatly needed and valued by believers in their day.

Fast forwarding to the thirteenth century, the popularity and influence of Thomas Aquinas’ apologetic writings prove our point as well. Then in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Christians cleaved to the apologetic writings of ones like John Locke and William Paley to combat the doubts raised by the skeptics in their day.

Finally, in our own times, some of the most popular Christian literature has come from the pen of apologists such as C. S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. Even more recently, Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ has remained at the top of sales charts because it too provides Christians with some of the encouraging and rational evidence they need for the defense and strengthening of their faith in God. Our point here also explains the great popularity of books that particularly attack Darwin’s evolutionary theories and defend Creation science. All of this is because our faith will never be stronger than the evidence it is based on, and that is simply how God created us.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, we thank you that you give us such abundant evidence to believe what you want us to believe. Thank You for Your miracles. Thank you even more for the miracle inside of us. All of it convinces us without a doubt that You and Your word are true.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How have we portrayed Christ’s view of evidence for faith and what Scriptures did we use to support our view? Do you agree or disagree and why?
2. What did we claim was the explanation for why Christ refused to grant a miraculous sign to some Pharisees who asked Him too (cf. Matt 16:1-4)? Do you agree or disagree and why?
3. Why do we suggest the primary purpose for miraculous signs was and is for believers, not unbelievers? Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. What is the apparent contradiction in the stories concerning the interaction that Mary and Zecharias had with divine revelation from an angel? What did we claim was the explanation for the different responses God had toward Mary and Zecharias in these situations? Do you agree or disagree and why?
5. We argued that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for wanting to see Jesus personally before believing and that there is no biblical evidence in this story for concluding that God has something against having evidence for our faith. Do you agree or disagree and why?
6. What are several ways that evidence pertains to even saving faith?

Publications & Particulars

1. Avery Dulles’ remarks would seem slightly off, and fideistic, when he says, concerning particularly the Apostle John’s perspective on faith and evidence, that:

   Faith is supported by miracles and frequently takes its rise from them (John 2:11, 23; 4:53; 5:36-38; 10:38). Yet a faith that relies on miracles is only preliminary and inadequate (John 4:48; 6:26), inferior to faith that relies only on the word of Jesus (John 2:22; 14: 10-11). (The Assurance of Things Hoped For [Oxford University Press, 1994], 15).

   A reading of the references Dulles suggests prove nothing of the kind, and there would seem to be a complete omission of the Apostle’s stated emphasis on miracles and faith as he himself states in 20:30-31. ↑

2. For a discussion of Matthew 17:14-20, a related passage which more specifically concerns the relationship between faith and miracles see section 11.5.D ↑

3. All of the following points on Matthew 16:1-4 could be made concerning 12:38-41 as well. Note the “signs” that the Pharisees had also already seen and rejected in this passage as well (cf. 12:13-14, 22-24). ↑

4. Our point remains valid even though Luke suggests that on another occasion, Jesus made the same remarks to “the crowds” (Luke 11:29). The King did not mean for this condemnation to apply to all in the crowd, but to those, like the Pharisees, who sought signs with a wicked, unbelieving heart. In addition, Luke suggests that a short time later, the King warns “a crowd of many thousands . . . Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy,” implying that He certainly recognized a difference between the Pharisees and the people in general. All of this goes toward explaining why the King was so willing to perform miracles for and among the people, but not the Pharisees. ↑

5. Here, we would respectfully disagree with the precise distinctions that the rightly respected D. A. Carson makes between 1) the miracles and signs in Matthew, and 2) the use of signs in Matthew and John. In the Expositors Bible Commentary Dr. Carson seems to use these rather artificial distinctions to imply that the Pharisees had a legitimate request.

   He writes concerning Matthew 12:38:

   A sign was usually some miraculous token to be fulfilled quickly, or at once, to confirm a prophecy. The Jews were not asking for just another miracle, since they had already persuaded themselves that at least some of those Jesus had performed were of demonic agency (12:24); they were asking for a “sign” performed on command to remove what seemed to them to be the ambiguity of Jesus’ miracles. (In John “sign” is not so much something people ask for as the evangelist’s standard label for what the synoptists call “powers” or “wonders.” The “signs” Jesus performs under John’s pen bear implicit and explicit symbolic weight.) (The Expositor’s Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.], Matt 12:38)

   We would simply suggest that the Apostle John reflected the Jewish mindset concerning signs as simply miracles, and that Dr. Carson’s description of the Apostle John’s use applies equally well to Matthew’s. We at least fail to see any reason for thinking otherwise and Dr. Carson doesn’t provide any here. ↑

6. John Calvin, John Calvin’s Commentaries, Matt 16:1-4; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

7. Ibid., Matt 12:38-42. Calvin’s perspective seems much better than that of R. T. France who approvingly quotes E. Schweizer who apparently comments in an unqualified and fideistic manner on this passage, “the demand for a sign spells the end of faith.” (Matthew, [Eerdmans, 1985, repr. 1999], 212). France goes on to suggest that the King is saying that after this request there will be no more signs (Ibid., 213), which the many subsequent miracles would argue against. France’s comments on Matt 16:1-4 seem more on the mark. ↑

8. As will be demonstrated, the NASB and KJV and NKJV translations of epizētei as a more active “seek,” rather than the more passive “ask” as in the NLT, NRSV (changed from older RSV “seeks”), NCV, TEV, TLB, JB, and NEB is preferable. These latter translations do not help in catching the force of the word. The NIV is inconsistent in translating epizētei in Matt 16:4 with the more active “looks,” but in the same context with the more passive “asks” at Matt 12:39 (note the more accurate “craves” in the NASB here). More accurately, the NASB never translates epizētei as merely asking. ↑

9. H.-G. Link, “Seek, Find,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), I:587-8.III:530. ↑

10. For further discussion of the biblical fact that miracles often serve to bring greater condemnation on people see sections 5.11.D and 7.5.A. ↑

11. For discussion regarding the claim that Christ was referring to the supernatural regeneration that occurs with the preaching of the Gospel when He promised we would do “greater works” (John 14:12), see section 10.5.B.2. ↑

12. Accordingly, Colin Brown notes the relationship between the warning of a miracle working false prophet in Deuteronomy 13:1-4:

    Perhaps the Christian church has never fully appreciated the importance of Deuteronomy 13 for the official Jewish understanding of Jesus. It provides the all-important clue to the attitude of the Jewish leaders. The decision to get rid of Jesus was not prompted simply by envy and malice. In their eyes Jesus was a messianic pretender and false prophet who sought to justify his deviant teaching and practices by signs and wonders.’

    To the Jewish leaders, signs and wonders were proof of guilt providing clear-cut evidence (if only they could get competent witnesses to testify) that would justify the purging of evil from the midst of the people of God. In the apostolic preaching, the resurrection of Jesus was God’s vindication and exaltation of the One in whom God (and not Satan) had been active all along. (“Miracles” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols. [Eerdmans, 1988], III:288. ↑

13. Accordingly, D. A. Carson comments on Matthew 8:4:

    While prohibitions against telling of cures and exorcisms are more common in Mark than Matthew, they are not unknown in the latter (8:4; 9:30; 12:16; cf. 16:20; 17:9). They have nothing to do with the so-called messianic secret proposed by Wrede and defended by Bultmann (as Hill rightly holds). Nor does this particular prohibition enjoin silence only till the cured leper has been to Jerusalem to be cleared by the priest (Lenski, Barnes).

    The synoptic parallels (Mark 1:45; Luke 5:15) as well as other similar occurrences in Matthew demonstrate that these commands to be silent have other functions–to show that Jesus is not presenting himself as a mere wonder worker (Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, p. 62; Maier) who can be pressured into messiahship by crowds whose messianic views are materialistic and political. Jesus’ authority derives from God alone, not the acclaim of men (Bonnard); he came to die, not to trounce the Romans. The people who disobeyed Jesus’ injunctions to silence only made his mission more difficult. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein ed., CD-ROM [Zondervan, n.d.]) ↑

14. Calvin, Commentaries, Luke 1:18-20. ↑

15. For further discussion on the biblical importance of faith gained through testimony and the things that strengthen it see section 2.5.D. ↑

16. Calvin, Commentaries, John 20:26. ↑

17. For biblical support regarding the right of private judgment see section 3.1.C and chapter 3.3. ↑

18. Some may suggest that our interpretation disagrees with the account given in the last verses of the Gospel of Mark. However, NT scholars have long and widely agreed, based on ancient textual data, that the last twelve verses of Mark are spurious additions that were not in the original. Therefore, the rendition of these events there carries no divine authority, and this is a good thing, as the passage clearly contradicts the other Gospels and is misleading in regards to our current topic.

    First, this spurious account suggests that none of the disciples believed the two disciples from the road to Emmaus (cf. 16:13), while Luke makes it clear that they all had already believed on the testimony of Peter (cf. Luke 24:33-36). Secondly, the spurious account then reads: “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; He rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen” (16:14). Such an account is not only at odds with Luke 24:33-36 above, but is at odds with God’s perspective on the relationship between faith and evidence as abundantly demonstrated in this chapter. ↑

19. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John (Eerdmans, 1983, repr. 2002), 393. ↑

20. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1995), 754. ↑

21. For further discussion of the freeing of the mind in regeneration for the acceptance of the Gospel see chapter 4.16. ↑

22. When the Apostle says in the context of authenticating divine revelation that “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22) he is not suggesting that miraculous authentication was only designed for Jews, or that God would authenticate Himself to Greeks with wisdom. God’s method of divine authentication is “miraculous signs” whether people are Jews or not.

    The Apostle’s language here is actually contrasting those who are God’s people and know His ways (Jews) and those who are not His people and do not know His ways (the Gentiles). God’s people know that they can rightfully demand miraculous signs to authenticate God-sent messengers and messages based on OT precedent (cf. Deut 18:17-22).

    This is contrary to Dr. Brown who writes that the miracles of Jesus:

    belong to the thought world of Judaism, rather than to the Hellenistic world. The point is corroborated by the apostolic preaching in Acts. Stress on miracles belongs to preaching to the Jews rather than to the Gentiles. (“Miracles,” 380).

    On the contrary, the Apostle Paul preaches that miracle of the resurrection to the Athenians in Acts (cf. 17:16-31) and a careful study of 2 Corinthians 12:12 and Galatians 3:5 will reveal that authenticating miracle working was for the Gentiles as well. ↑

23. For further discussion of the God-ordained place of history as a source of our beliefs see section 2.5.D and chapter 2.7. ↑

24. For further discussion regarding virtue apologetics see Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑

25. Quoted by B. B. Warfield in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Works, reprint, 10 Vols. (Baker, 2000), IV:172. ↑

26. Augustine, Concerning Faith; online at www. ccel.org, 5. ↑

27. Recognitions 11.69, Quoted in Thomas C. Oden, The Living God: Systematic Theology: Volume One (Harper, 1994), 400-01. ↑

28. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV, xvii, 24; online at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu. ↑

29. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (online at http://www.ccel.org), III.5.1. ↑

30. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., Abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 56. ↑

31. Warfield, Works, IX, 326. Cf. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (TNelson, 1996), 222. ↑

32. Charles H. Craig, “A Layman’s Definition of Faith,” The Review and Expositor 49 (April 1952): 154. ↑

33. C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (Harcourt, 1960), 14. ↑

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

35. J. P. Moreland and Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith (Intervarsity, 2008), 75. ↑

36. Ibid., 101. ↑