This morning in our adult class we
started a series of lessons on evidences that support the validity of
the Bible, specifically the evidence that can be used when talking to
atheists and other non-believers. But, I have noticed over the years
that many Christians think that knowing the evidences for the validity
of the Bible is a bad thing. Some will even go so far as to
intentionally avoid learning about evidences. So, today we are going to
talk first about why some Christians oppose learning about the evidence
that supports the Bible, then we will talk about the reason the Bible
says learning about evidences is important, and finally we will talk a
little about some of the evidences for the Bible and for Christ.
The Scripture for this morning’s
sermon is:
1
Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your
hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a
reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
More on this scripture when we get to
the need for a faith based on evidence.
Many Christians say that faith
must be “blind.” That we must have faith because the Bible tells us
that we must. The problem with this stance is that many books claim to
be inspired and demand the faith of their readers, the Koran, Hindu
scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, and the Book of Mormon just to name a
few.
A second problem with the idea of we
must have faith because the Bible tells us that we must. Is that it is
an example of circular reasoning. The definition they give for faith is
belief in something that cannot be proven. This form of faith has been
described as a leap into the dark. The argument these Christians make
comes primarily from
John 20:29:
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you
have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed.”
And,
2 Corinthians 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.
They pair these verses with the logical
argument:
You can have either proof or faith, not
both. The presence of faith makes proof unnecessary, and the presence
of proof makes faith impossible.
They rely solely on the testimony of the
Bible. Which on its surface seems praiseworthy, however, when they are
challenged by non-believers they do not have any explanation for their
faith other than, “because I do.”
So, is this argument valid? The
first thing we must do is define faith.
Before we use scripture to define faith,
let us use the preeminent secular source for the definition of a word,
the dictionary. Which defines faith as:
“The assent of the mind to the truth of
what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on the
reliance of testimony.”
Interestingly enough the Bible defines
faith similarly,
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The Hebrew words we often
translate as faith and/or truth, emunah and emet, share the same root,
aman, which translates as firmness, certainty, and reliability. This
shows that the Hebrew definition of faith was based on the reliability
of truth which is firm and certain.
The Greek word we translate as
faith, pistis, at its most accurate translates as “an active trust.”
A point to note, none of these
definitions describe faith as blind. They say that faith is an active
trust in truth. There are many examples that could be made here, but I
will take a Bible verse that is used to support the idea of “blind
faith” and show how it is being misused when being used that way.
We read 2 Corinthians 5:7,
For we walk by faith, not
by sight.
I do this regularly in my life, and no I
am not talking about my faith in God and the Bible in this case. You
see, I am legally blind, so much so that my eyesight has deteriorated
past the point where it is correctable. I walk with one of those white
and red canes most of the time when I am not in a familiar location.
But when I am in an unfamiliar location and without my cane there is
another way for me to confidently get around. It is called sighted
guide. This is where my wife or my son, both of whom were taught the
correct way to guide, guide me through the environment. In this case I
am literally walking by faith and not by sight. You see, I have no
proof that in the future they will not run me into one of those big red
balls in front of Target; instead, I have faith that they will not based
upon the evidence of their past performances and their training.
Since now we know that the
definition of faith is an active trust based upon the certainty of
truth, let us look at some Scriptures that teach that faith should be
built on evidence, rather than being blind.
Romans 1:19-20
because what may be known of God is
manifest, or evident, in them, for God has shown it to them. For since
the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, or deity, so that they are without excuse,
Here Scripture says that all of
creation gives evidence for the existence of God. There are many
logical arguments that can be made here, from the humorous, which came
first the chicken or the egg, to the serious, such as water’s solid
form, ice, is unique. The quick version of the ice argument goes like
this:
As a substance loses energy it passes
through its states becoming more and more dense. Thus, the gaseous
state is less dense than liquid state which is less dense than solid
state. This is true of most substances. Water, however, one of the
most prevalent substances on the planet, violates this basic principle
of science. And it is a good thing. If solid water was more dense than
liquid water; then ice would sink, and the oceans would all be solid ice
and the temperature of our planet would be too cold for man to exist.
If that argument is too technical for
you, here is the “which came first, the chicken or the egg” anecdote.
A well-educated man came up to an
elderly Christian woman, and said his education gave him all the answers
so he had no need of her crutch, Christianity.
So, she said, “Really? Where do chickens
come from then?”
He replied confidently, “From chicken
eggs.”
She then asked, “Where do chicken eggs
come from?”
He again replied confidently, “From
chickens.”
She smiled and asked, “Which came first?
The chicken or the egg?”
He replied, “The chicken.”
She said, “How did you get a chicken
without a chicken egg?
He then replied, “I was mistaken, the
egg came first.”
She said, “How did you get a chicken egg
without a chicken? All your learning cannot even explain the chicken
and the egg. I will trust the answers in my Bible.”
Both these logical arguments use nature,
and science, as evidence that supports the Bible. Here is an example of
faith based on evidence given in the Bible:
Exodus 14:31
Thus Israel saw the great work which the
Lord had done in Egypt; so the people feared the Lord, and believed the
Lord and His servant Moses.
Why did the Israelites put their faith
in God? Was it because God told them to? Was it because Moses to them
to? Was it because Aaron told them to? No, it was because they saw
the evidence of His power, and then believed. Now, the Israelites had a
lot of evidence at this particular moment in history. They had just
witnessed the 10 plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea. There is not
one person in here who would dare to doubt God’s power if he parted
Shoal Creek so that we could cross on dry ground, much less a body of
water as large as the Red Sea.
Here are some other verses that show
that faith must be built on evidence.
John 17:11
These were more fair-minded than
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these
things were so.
The Berean Christians checked their
Scriptures daily to verify the words of Paul and Silas. This gave
evidence for their trustworthiness.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is
good.
Romans 10:17
So then faith comes by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.
Again here though faith comes from the
testimony within the Bible, and not from thin air.
2 Timothy 2:14-15
Remind them of these things,
charging them before the Lord not to strive about words (strive about
words also means to argue or debate) to no profit, to the ruin of the
hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who
does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Key word there, truth. Only arguments
or debates based upon truth are profitable for the hearer.
So, we can see that our faith indeed
should be built upon evidence, not only because scripture says so, but
because the very definition of faith demands it. So, why are we
supposed to have evidence to support our faith? Because, we are called
upon, as Christians, to defend our faith, the Bible and our God. Which
brings us back to our scripture for this morning.
1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your
hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a
reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Here are a few more scriptures to
emphasize this point:
2 Corinthians 10:5
casting down arguments and every high
thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every
thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Casting down arguments that exalts
themselves against the knowledge of God or defend the knowledge of God.
Jude 1:3
Beloved, while I was very diligent to
write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to
write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was
once for all delivered to the saints
To contend earnestly for the faith,
earnestly defend the faith.
Philippians 1:15-17
Some indeed preach Christ even from envy
and strife, and some also from goodwill: the former preach Christ from
selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my
chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the
defense of the gospel.
Paul says here he was appointed to
defend the gospel.
Now, we know our faith must be
built on evidence of truth. But, when we speak to non-believers, before
we can teach the Scriptures, we must show the validity of the Bible.
How can we do that? None of us living today can testify to the accuracy
of the testimony of the four gospels, much less the accuracy of the Old
Testament testimonies.
The first place we can go to for our
defense of the Scriptures is science. I gave a couple of examples
earlier. The problem with using science is that many will take an
argument such as the ones I gave and rather than admit that science has
no answer, they will throw on a yet: science has no answer, yet. That
yet they claim invalidates any argument that can be made that they can
add yet to. So instead of arguing on the subjectivity of scientific
results specific to testing criteria and observation method. Which
admittedly most of us are not capable of (myself included). We are
going to look at three scientific facts about our world that the Bible
declares. Here they are: The earth is round; it orbits our sun; and it
hangs in the vacuum of space. Why bring those up? After all, these are
well known and accepted facts. The reason is in the Old Testament we
can find these three facts mentioned in Scripture, millennium before
they would be accepted as fact. Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is round,
Job 26:10 says the earth orbits the sun, and Job 26:7 says that earth
hangs in a vacuum. Now the most recent of these scriptures date to
approximately 700 BC. The first of these three facts would not be
proven until 1492 the last of these would not even be an accepted
theory, not fact but a theory, of science until 1887 (that is more than
2 millennium later). These are objective scientific facts. And it is a
fact that the inspired writers of the Bible knew and recorded them long,
long before any “scientist.”
Perhaps though an even greater source of
evidence is found in the archeological record and ancient writings that
give us corroborating evidence for the Bible. It is hard to call the
Bible a Judeo-Christian fairytale when they go to dig where the Bible
says something is and then they dig something up that they were sure
would not be there.
A notable archeologist, Nelson Glueck
summed up Archeology’s relationship to the Bible like this:
It may be stated categorically that no
archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical
reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm
in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.
We have already briefly mentioned the
parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. This Bible “story” is corroborated in
Egyptian histories, and archeological divers have found remnants of
chariots on the bottom of the Red Sea. Egyptian histories also mention
the slavery of the Jews and the plagues. They even have a figure whose
story matches Joseph’s from the Bible.
There are Persian histories that have
been unearthed that tell the story of a queen that matches the book of
Esther.
Jericho was dug up in the 1950’s despite
doubts of its existence before its discovery. And most recently the
city of Sodom has been uncovered so recently in fact that they are STILL
working there.
There is also the work of the
archeologist and historian Sir William Ramsay, who wished to disprove
the New Testament. He concentrated primarily on the Gospel of Luke and
the Book of Acts. Dig after dig the evidence without fail supported
Luke’s accounts. Governors mentioned by Luke that many historians never
believe existed were confirmed by the evidence excavated by Ramsay’s
archaeological team. Without a single error, Luke was accurate in naming
32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands. Ramsay concluded this about the
authenticity of Luke’s two Biblical accounts:
Luke is a historian of the first rank;
not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be
placed along with the very greatest historians
Here are a few other things that have
been corroborated by archeology real fast, the existence of the
Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate.
Through the rise and fall of
multiple civilizations, including the destruction of the nation of
Israel, twice. The Bible is still unique of all ancient documents
because of the amount of corroborating evidence that has been found, and
the lack of any contradictory archeological evidence. Anyone who is
being honest must admit that the evidence that shows the historical
accuracy of the Bible is overwhelming.
If we can make that last statement, we
can now say, our faith in the Bible comes from the trust we have in its
factual testimonies. Now, we have a faith in the Bible that we can
defend even to non-believers. Which means to be Christians all we must
now do is show a defendable faith in Jesus Christ.
So, the last thing we will look at are a
few evidences for the existence of Jesus Christ. As with the evidence
for the Bible I am going to first talk about evidences for the existence
of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible. I mentioned it earlier, that
there was archeological evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate.
Along with that evidence, there are records that show the order for a
man named Christ, who was a Jew, to be crucified. We also have other
Roman documents from the life of Christ which show that when the Bible
says Christ lived, a man name Jesus Christ did indeed live. Those are
merely extra-Biblical sources.
But we have shown the Bible is a valid
historical book we can now use it to defend our faith in Christ. So,
first thing we notice when we read the New Testament is the first four
books are eye-witness accounts of the life of Jesus. Four eye-witness
accounts that tell the same story. While there is variation of the
details reported they do not contradict one another, which argues to
their accuracy, ask anyone who has more than one kid the likelihood of
getting four identical eyewitness accounts. (I am just surprised there
is not the gospel of “wasn’t me!” sorry, bad dad joke.) I mean even if
you and your wife or best friend (for you unmarried folks) go to the
same event, it is likely you will remember, and describe slightly
different details.
There is another rather important fact
to point out. Teaching the Gospel in the first century could not have
been done for selfish motivations as some have suggested. It was not
done to start a new religion. By teaching the news of the Gospel, Jews
were cast out of their society. Romans and Greeks likewise became
outcasts from their idol worshiping societies. The Roman Government
greatly persecuted Christians. Just by admitting you were a Christian,
the government could confiscate all you owned and feed you animals for
the entertainment of the masses. There was no “value” to be had in
being a preacher, or follower of the Gospel. Yet, so many were, and so
many became martyrs, why were they willing to? It can be summed up like
this, they said, “I saw him die, then I saw him come back to life.”
Before I finish up, I want to point out
that building your faith on evidence is even commanded by Christ
himself:
John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am
the Father and the Father lives in me; or at least believe (have faith
in) on the evidence of the works themselves.”
Why would I have saved this scripture
for last? Because, when it came to the evidence of the works of Christ,
he had to fulfill all the “Messianic” prophecies. Every last one, more
than 300, and if you want to sit here another 3 or 4 hours we could even
look them all up. But I save this as my last point for this reason.
Christ had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was who he
claimed to be so that our faith would not be blind, but that it would be
in a Savior whose love and sacrifice would be beyond all doubt. So that
our faith could be supported by the overwhelming evidence of the whole
of the Bible, and we could know, absolutely know. that our salvation
through Christ will be eternal.
If this morning, you have decided that
the weight of the evidence for the Bible has overcame your doubts and
want to put on Christ in baptism or have a need that requires the
prayers of the congregation please come forward as we stand and sing.
Sermon Outlines on All Topics:
