Posted on 10/20/2004 1:16:10 PM PDT by gobucks
Years ago, when I began pastoring, I faced an unexpected problem. Each Sunday, after preaching to my small congregation, I would go home wondering if my sermons were true. What if Christianity was just a grand hoax? What if it was all a myth?
These doubts drove me to study apologetics, from the Greek apologia, meaning defense. Paul used this word in 2 Timothy 4:16 and Philippians 1:7,16. Peter wrote, "Always be prepared to give an answer [emphasis added] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pet. 3:15). I found apologetic -- the defense of the truth of Christianity -- demonstrates that our faith is not a blind leap into the dark but a sensible step into the light.
Faith and Foolishness
Faith, however, is not foolishness. It is not the man who started across a pond of thin ice by saying, "I just believe! I have faith this ice will hold me up." His faith is all we -- or it will be shortly.
Unrealistic faith collapses in college classrooms when challenged. It cringes when hearing about newly discovered "proof" of evolution. It harbors nagging doubts when facing a crisis. But genuine faith is believing on the basis of powerful evidence, not in spite of inadequate evidence. To be valid, Christianity must be logical and real with a "provable" quality to it. And as any courtroom observer knows, proof requires evidence. That evidence exists!
The Very Existence of the Universe
Anyone who wants to deny the existence of Almighty God has to provide an answer to one supreme question: Where did the universe come from? I remember hearing a science professor reduce to shreds the arguments of an agnostic student by simply asking him a series of repetitive questions. Where did life come from? "It evolved from chemicals in some sort of primeval pond," said the student. Where did the primeval pond come from? "From elements existing as residue of the Big Bang." Where did the Big Bang come from? "From a speck of matter that exploded." Where did the speck of matter come from? That is where the discussion ended, for the student's only answer was, "I don't know."
Since that is not a very satisfying answer, scientists try to couch it in sophisticated language. They talk about the universe "exploding into existence" and the "spontaneous generation" of matter.
But increasingly, honest scientists are admitting the deficiency of such language. R. C. Sproul, a scholar with degrees from the Free University of Amsterdam, Geneva College, and Grove City College who lectures widely on apologetics, wrote:
For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For something to create itself it must be able to transcend Hamlet's dilemma, "To be or not to be." Hamlet's question assumed sound science. He understood that something (himself) could not both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. This is impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for light and heat. It is impossible for God. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself. 1
What would you think, for example, if an apple suddenly materialized from thin air on top of this newsletter? What if it just "poofed" into existence? Can you imagine it appearing by "spontaneous generation"? If such a thing happened, you might call it magic or perhaps a miracle. But you would not call it science.
Scientists have been unable to dispute the simple truth that nothing comes from nothing. For example, the evolutionist and agnostic Robert Jastrow, America's Science Laureate, wrote several textbooks on evolution and served as professor of geology and astronomy at Columbia University and professor of earth science at Dartmouth College, as a regular columnist for Science Digest magazine, and as founder and director of the NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. Several years ago, he shocked the scientific community by admitting that he was unable to explain the existence of the universe without God. He wrote in his book God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. 2
About a decade after Jastrow's quote, scientists were further shaken by the announcement by NASA that it had discovered the possible origin of the universe in cloudlike structures detected by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite which seems to prove that the universe was created during a moment in the past rather than having always existed. Following that announcement, Dr. Frederick B. Burnham, science historian and director of the Trinity Institute in New York City, confessed that many scientists would consider the idea that God created the universe "a more respectable hypothesis at this point in time than at any time in the last 100 years." 3
There is, in other words, an undeniable law of cause and effect in the universe. Everything that exists is the result of a chain of events which has its root in some omnipotent First Cause. Furthermore, by studying the effects we can draw some implications about the First Cause. Henry Morris states it in these terms: "Every observed phenomenon is an effect, and its cause must be adequate to produce it. No effect can be quantitatively greater or qualitatively extrinsic to its cause. Every effect must be assimilated in principle to its cause." 4
Simply put, since the universe appears almost limitless in extent, the First Cause must be virtually infinite. Since the universe appears almost endless in duration, the First Cause must be virtually eternal. Since the universe pulsates with energy, the First Cause must be virtually omnipotent. Since the universe is phenomenally complex and contains intelligent life, the First Cause must be virtually omniscient. Since the universe contains feeling and emotions and love and human relations, the First Cause must be personal. Since the universe contains goodness and righteousness and love and justice, the First Cause must be moral.
"Thus," says Morris, "reasoning from cause-and-effect leads us to conclude that the great First Cause of all things is an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal, emotional, moral, spiritual, living Being. And this, of course, is nothing less than a description of the God of the Bible." 5
Can We Know for Sure?
The body of evidence for the truth of Christianity is staggering, and I believe the truth of Christianity can be established to a 99% level of certainty. The remaining 1% is the step of faith you take when you "confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9).
I am glad I grappled with doubts during earlier days, for it drove me to furrow out the facts and uncover the evidence. I found an intellectual basis for my faith that satisfies both my heart and my mind. Beyond Reasonable Doubt was written to provide Christians with reassurance about the validity of their faith while giving them a thumb-nail sketch of how to answer those who are examining Christianity.
Here, then, is a summary of evidence that demonstrates the truthfulness of Christianity -- Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Notes
1. R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994; used by permission), 12. 2. Quoted by Bill Durbin in "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths," Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, 14. 3. David Briggs, "Big Bang Findings Create Calm for Religion, Science," The Nashville Banner, April 24, 1992, A-7. 4. Henry M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs (San Diego: CLP Publishers, 1974; used by permission from Master Books, P.O. Box 727, Green Forest, AR 72638), 101. 5. Ibid., 101-104.
Of course, many 'scientists' just shrug and state 'it's the mark of the stupid to consider those topics that cannot be tested in the lab.....'
How rational of them.
A little self-doubt creeps in into everyone's life sometimes, even John the Baptist experienced it. So dont feel small or ashamed if you feel that way.
God is big enough for you to tell HIM exactly how you feel, besides you cant surprise HIM with anything anyways.
I have that volume; great book. Bit heavy though...
When I first entered college studying chemistry and physics, I had a Professor who stated (paraphrasing here) that science is to understand and define the theory and nature and rational of all things thru provable scientific methods and logic without needing to blame God for those things we haven't grasped yet. He went on to say that in the early years, anything that we did not understand was "God's work". And as mankind learned more, we weren't pushing God out of science, but instead, seeing more and more of God within science.
You may, or may not, find this intersting. :^)
I am a strong believer in Christian evidences, however, Christianity still ultimately is based on faith. One can never amass enough evidence for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." One can only base one's faith upon the evidence that exists.
If 100% proof were available, there would be no need for faith.
Recent writing on life after death shows a brain dead patient who watched and described the surgery taking place on her brain. While her brain had no brainwaves.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
Thanks for the link! The more resources, the better...
"Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis is another good read.
How would you prove that sins were forgiven?
RC Sproul relates an exchange between Carl Sagan and himself. He asked Carl what happened a millisecond before the Big Bang. Sagan responded "That is not important."
Very telling, IMHO
I know what you mean here. When I think of this position, I often consider the twelve disciples. How could they be so blind to the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that stood before them. Miricles galore, insights into reality like never before. The Mount of Transfiguration.
Doubt quickly crept in when they saw the "weakness" of their master at the hands of the authorities.
We are dealing with supernatural issues. Our flesh is warring for domination of our soul. The spiritually dead have no comfirmation in their hearts when they stumble upon spiritual truths.
I have found the most convincing witness to be having a genuine Godly love for unbelievers. It always upsets their applecart. When it can be repeatedly demonstrated; now you have a person who is curious. They can be the biggest wretch on the face of the planet, but that is because they are needing and not finding the love of their Creator.
Oh, if we could love with a Christlike love. The biblical Creation goes over so much better with a believer.
God Bless
arjay: One can only base one's faith upon the evidence that exists. If 100% proof were available, there would be no need for faith.
eklekton: Would you consider seeing the resurrected Christ as 100% proof? Does that mean that the disciples who were witnesses of this event had no more need of faith?
How about "I don't know; we're working on it"?
Of course, many 'scientists' just shrug and state 'it's the mark of the stupid to consider those topics that cannot be tested in the lab.....'
Not "stupid", just outside the realm of experimental science.
But, in the living room, after a few drinks, or in the grad asst coffee room, where the coffee is cold, but the beer keg is frosty ..... Nope.
In these venues, it is quite commonly accepted and remarked upon: thinking about things that are not testable is clearly the mark of the stupid, irrational, mentally suspect, not credible, human. In fact, one's carreer and above all, credibility, depends upon sneering at those who dare voice out loud that they tread the hallways of these thoughts. Especially if 'Jesus' or 'Christ' is even mentioned.
In the end, it's the economics of 80 cents on the dollar of all research being from the US Govt, research which is ultimately used to leverage fame via peer reviewed journals, that drive the thinking and rationalism of your average, unbiased, objective scientist.
fruit
Fruit, in that I would have you ask my kids that question. Specifically, ask them: is the post-Christian gobucks different as a Dad compared to the pre-Christian gobucks such that the difference is sufficient to prove Christ's claims?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.