In an attempt to debunk the notion that belief in an involved Creator is incompatible with science, astrophysicist Ethan Siegel writes in Forbes, “Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity.”
Siegel’s definition explains his vehemence about there being a hard distinction between theology and science. Insufficient knowledge, he contends, is faith’s weak point, and certainty is something faith can never provide.
Yet faith doesn’t require belief without evidence. The contention that the historic person Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, for example, is grounded in reliable accounts from eyewitnesses and persons informed by those who saw a formerly dead man alive. This is a phenomenal assertion, yes, but it’s no less credible for being old (the claim of a resurrected Jesus was made in the early first century). The documentary evidence is sound, and those bearing witness to what they saw made clear they meant what they said. As Jesus’s disciple Peter explained years later, “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses” (2 Pet. 1:16).
The insistence of Jesus’s early followers that what they asserted was true implies they knew it sounded incredible. That’s why they went to such lengths to provide careful accounts of what they’d seen and heard. The Gospel accounts have no ring of fantasy about them.
Just for the sake of argument, then, let’s assume the Gospels and Acts are historically credible. And if so, they provide sufficient information to believe in the Jesus they characterized as God in human flesh.
Click here to read more.
SOURCE: The Gospel Coalition
Rob Schwarzwalder serves as senior vice president for the Family Research Council. He previously was chief of staff for two members of Congress and an appointee in the administration of George W. Bush. He is a longtime member of the Evangelical Theological Society.