Giving an Answer for Hope

When you first heard someone explain apologetics, you probably heard 1 Peter 3:15. It’s something of a theme verse for apologists:

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect”. 

Giving an answer includes dozens of topics, from the historical accuracy of the Bible, to science manifesting design, to the nature of Christ. And not only are these many topics worth understanding and communicating, they all are part of giving an answer—not for why someone else is wrong or even just why faith in Jesus is logical, but why we have hope.

You see, the world outside the Way desperately wants hope. People search for it, and many even claim to have found it. Science will unlock the future. A political movement will finally bring prosperity and justice. An educated and enlightened human nature will overcome our baser instincts. Messiah will restore Israel. The Twelfth Imam will rule a peaceful Muslim empire. We will escape the painful cycle of birth, life, and death. The Overman will lead humanity to transcend itself.

Every worldview I’ve ever come into contact with believes that something is wrong, that things are not as they should be. And almost every worldview believes that there is a way for things to get better and wrongs to be rectified.

So why is the Christian explanation of the worlds’ problems and solution more worth buying into than the explanation anyone else offers? This is one of the best questions we can ask ourselves before sharing our faith.

Now, I could just offer an answer, but we’re all critical thinkers here, and every Christian should have the privilege of taking ownership of their belief system. I will tell you that I’ve found 1 Corinthians 15 an excellent place to start. It explains the gospel and its reality in space-time history, explains what exactly we’re hoping for, points out what life would be like if we didn’t have hope, and directs us in what to do when we know we have hope. 

Here are more questions to consider:

• How is the Biblical explanation of the fall and sin a more reasonable explanation of reality than that of other world religions?

• Some people believe that humans are basically good and that society will improve as we progress as a species. What evidence might they use as support? What evidence does not support this claim?

• How would your life be different if tomorrow archaeologists discovered what they confirmed to be the body of Jesus? Would you try to find or create the meaning of your life?

• What sins and grey-area activities would you indulge in if you knew there was no God? Do you think that lifestyle would make you happy, if you knew all guilt was fake?

• Does having hope mean that you will always be optimistic about the future?  Is it sinful to feel hopeless, or is it an understandable human emotion even for a believer?

• How do most people in your community regard death? Is this a reasonable attitude based upon the prevalent ideas?

• What great things would you attempt for God if you knew you would succeed? Is this the same as “knowing in the Lord your labor is not in vain”? 

Is Faith Opposed to Reason? What is Faith? Pt. 1

You’ve probably heard people refer to “blind faith”, a “leap in the dark”, “hoping against the odds,” or “believing against the evidence.” While it might be nice to romanticize the faith and pit it against factual, calculated reasoning, this idea of faith is inconsistent with scripture and doesn’t work in the real world.

If we accept the silly idea that faith is the opposite of reason, we’ve bought into our opponents’ lies. Modern atheist Richard Dawkins said in a 1994 lecture, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.” (You can read the entire lecture here.) 

But is faith really just an excuse for intellectual laziness?

Atheist Antony Flew debated theists R. M. Hare and Basil Mitchell on the question of the rationality of religious belief in 1948. Read it! He argued that theists make their propositions meaningless when they say things that have no possibility of contrary evidence. For instance, if a Christian receives an answer to prayer, he might see it as evidence for God, but if he does not, he explains it away by saying, “It just wasn’t God’s will.” This is illogical. Either religious claims are propositions for which the possibility of contrary evidence must exist, or they are meaningless clichés that have no truth value. He would agree with Dawkins that faith fails to take evidence into account.

Flew’s fellow Oxford professor R. M. Hare responded by pointing out that everyone has foundational assumptions that he or she holds to explain the world (he called these “bliks”). Bliks are not subject to evidence the way normal propositions are because they are not really explanations. While it is true that atheists take quite a bit by faith, this is an unsatisfying answer.

The second Oxford theist, Basil Mitchell, responded by saying that as long as we have sufficient evidence for something, it is reasonable to take the rest by faith. Although we can’t always know exactly how much evidence is enough, faith is reasonable as long as it takes the evidence into account. Mitchell’s view makes sense in light of scripture. 1 Corinthians 15 says,

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

In other words, the Bible says for itself that there is a situation under which Christianity is no longer reasonable: if Christ has not been raised from the dead. However, God has left us with overwhelming evidence for the truth of the resurrection, and from this fact we can infer the rest of Christianity. Therefore, no matter how much evil we see in the world, faith in Jesus is still the most reasonable path to take.

Hebrews 11 is all about faith. We see in verse one that “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” and in verse six that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” The rest of the chapter makes it clear that the people listed here were not looking for a pie-in-the-sky easy life. They stuck to their convictions in the middle of extreme suffering because they took God at His word.

Summit Ministries notes in a 2010 article, “The Bible defines faith in a totally different way from the common understanding. Faith is not wishful thinking, blind hope, or surrender of reason. Biblical faith is a decision to believe something about God or Jesus based on evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in any court of law.” 

So believer, hold onto your faith. Weigh the evidence and see for yourself that Christianity is reasonable. And when you have made your choice, stand by your convictions no matter what. 

Want more on faith? Read Part Two!