Hypothetical Scenario: Faith and Evidence
The following conversation took place between FRANK who has properly understood the relationship between faith and evidence and EDWARD who has struggled to see that there is no mutual exclusivity between the two.
EDWARD = Would you still believe in Christianity if the body of Jesus were to be found?
FRANK = Of course, I would. Wouldn’t you?
EDWARD = No, I wouldn’t.
FRANK = Well, if you stopped believing you would be unfaithful.
EDWARD = And what would that make you?
FRANK = I would be a faithful Christian.
EDWARD = But, your faith would be contrary to the evidence that Christ rose from the dead.
FRANK = Faith doesn’t need any evidence. Didn’t Jesus chastise Thomas for requiring evidence?
EDWARD = Yeah in a way.
FRANK = Doesn’t Hebrews 11:1 say that faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen.
EDWARD = Yeah.
FRANK = Therefore, evidence is not required for faith.
EDWARD = How does that follow from Heb 11:1?
FRANK = Faith is THE evidence not AN evidence. So, if faith is THE evidence, no other evidence is needed. Faith itself IS THE EVIDENCE.
EDWARD = Let me get this straight. Since FAITH is THE evidence, not AN evidence, the only evidence needed is faith?
FRANK = Yup.
EDWARD = Since, the only evidence that is needed is faith, all other evidence is unneeded?
FRANK = Yup.
EDWARD = Whether the body of Jesus is found or not found would be another evidence. Correct?
FRANK = Now, you got it.
EDWARD = Therefore, the resurrection is inconsequential to the Christian faith. Correct?
FRANK = You’re a quick learner.
EDWARD = Now, I am confused.
FRANK = What about?
EDWARD = Based on Heb 11:1, you have concluded that faith is its own evidence, and therefore, it does not require any other evidence.
FRANK = What’s so confusing about that?
EDWARD = There is nothing confusing about that in itself. However, I am confused because this contradicts what Paul says in 1 Cor 15
FRANK = What are you talking about?
EDWARD = Paul says in 1 Cor 15:14 that if Christ has not risen, then our faith is “kenos,” whose semantic range is empty, void, senseless, or foolish.
FRANK = What’s your point?
EDWARD = According to the apostle Paul, he says that without the resurrection of Christ, your faith is empty, foolish, and void.
FRANK = And? So, what?
EDWARD = So, Paul is saying that EVIDENCE of the resurrection IS necessary for faith. So you must have interpreted Heb 11:1 incorrectly.
FRANK = I don’t think so. Don’t you know that I hold a seminary degree, and I am filled with the Holy Spirit. I speak in tongues and God talks to me, and God has revealed this truth to me: faith does not need evidence. He also gave me Heb. 11:1 and John 20:29.
EDWARD = Well, I don’t contest that you speak in tongues, nor do I contest that you have a seminary degree. What I am contesting is that God spoke to you and gave you that truth and those verse substantiating that truth.
FRANK = Well, I never heard so much insolence from an uneducated, ungifted and unfaithful Christian. Don’t you know that I hold a bachelor in Bible, a Masters in apologetics, and a doctorate in Theology.
EDWARD = So, does it follow that you are infallible because you hold those titles.
FRANK = Well, no.
EDWARD = So, it is possible that you are incorrect.
FRANK = Possible but not probable.
EDWARD = So, do you think that Paul in 1 Cor 15 was contradicting the author of Hebrew, who some believe to be Paul.
FRANK = No.
EDWARD = Do you think that I have interpreted 1 Cor 15:14 incorrectly?
FRANK = No.
EDWARD = Do you think that contradictions are true?
FRANK = No.
EDWARD = Therefore, there must be a problem in your interpretation of Heb 11:1.
FRANK = Okay, smarty pants if you know so much show me the error.
EDWARD = You stated that faith is the substances of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen. Correct?
FRANK = Yes.
EDWARD = The text does not say that FAITH is the evidence FOR ALL THINGS. Rather, it states that it’s the evidence for things not yet seen
FRANK = Okay, what are those things.
EDWARD = Well, there is parallelism going on in the text. Faith is the basis (substance, means that which stands under) of things hoped for. However, that which is hoped for is not present and is not attained, for if it were attained, one would not hope for it.
FRANK = Okay.
EDWARD = Furthermore, to hope means to have some future expectation of some good
FRANK = So.
EDWARD = Given the parallelism, FAITH is the BASIS for our future expectation of some good.
FRANK = So.
EDWARD = Given the parallelism, faith is also the PROOF (i.e., evidence) of something that is not yet seen (i.e., future).
FRANK = I don’t understand.
EDWARD = Via our action and our words, we demonstrate the faith that we have concerning some future good (e.g., the coming of Christ, the resurrection, etc.) to others and to ourselves, and our faith is the BASIS (i.e., substance) for our HOPE.
FRANK = I get it. Our present FAITH IS THE BASIS AND EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING YET FUTURE.
EDWARD = That’s correct.
FRANK = However, the BASIS FOR OUR FAITH is that which happened in the past: the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
EDWARD = Yeah, hold up a second. Let me draw a sketch on a piece of a paper. It looks like this:
DEATH & RESURRECTION OF CHRIST [IS THE BASIS FOR] FAITH [IS THE BASIS FOR] FUTURE HOPE OF A REALITY NOT YET ATTAINED.
FRANK = So when some one ask me what is the basis for the hope that I have about the future. I can say, “My Faith.”
EDWARD = That’s correct.
FRANK = However, when I am asked what is the basis for my faith. I can say, “The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
EDWARD = Yup. Otherwise, if faith were its own basis, then all religions would be equally true because the adherent of a religion all have faith about their religious tenets.
FRANK = So, the fact that we can point to an historical and evidential event shows that our faith is not solely an experience that Mormons, philosophers, or the adherents of other religions experience. Instead, our faith is more than personal experience. Our faith is grounded in the historical fact that Jesus did rise from the dead.
EDWARD = That’s correct.
FRANK = Now, I am confused.
EDWARD = About what?
FRANK = John 20:29. Jesus chided Thomas for not believing.
EDWARD = That’s only true in part. Jesus chided John for not believing with out seeing. In other words, Jesus left evidence of his resurrection in the mouth of the other apostles, for the other apostle’s had told Thomas that they had see the Lord. Instead of accepting their eye-witness testimony, he wanted to be an eye-witness himself.
Therefore, Jesus says “Blessed are those who did not see, and yet believe.” Jesus did not say, “Blessed are those who did not have evidence, and yet believed.” In other words, Thomas was not chided for desiring evidence, but for not accepting the evidence that Jesus had left. Those of us who have never seen Jesus are blessed for we have accepted the evidence that Jesus left of himself though we haven’t seen him, but some day, we will.
By Max Herrera
