Question About Open Theism

I recently received the following from a friend and thought my response may be beneficial to share. I changed the names involved (except my own) for their privacy:

Hi Jacob,

Lori's brother Michael is visiting us for a couple days. He likes to talk theology. He thinks that because we have free choice, God doesn't know everything.  Like would God put a tree of knowledge of good and bad in the garden if he knew man would choose evil?  Would you put a culvert in your back yard and then tell your kids not to go near it?  I'm not doing his position justice, but you get the idea.

So can you give me a few scriptural references we could discuss with him to straighten him out? 

ThanksYour brother in Christ,Jason

Hello my friend, thanks for your question. The position your brother-in-law is taking is called Open Theism which is a heresy that denies God's omniscience.The argument is essentially that if man has free will then God cannot know for sure what man will choose to do. If God knew the future decisions of men then those decisions would be predetermined in the mind of God. Could a person be free to do action "P" if God knows he will actually do action "Q" before he does it? They would say there is no freedom if God already knows what we will choose but this conflates knowledge of a future event with causation of said event. 

Also Open Theism is used as a dodge to the problem of evil, that is, If God is good then why is there so much pain and suffering in the world?

The argument for the problem of evil states:

1. God is defined as an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being.

2. Such a being would want to stop evil/suffering from occurring, would see it coming, and be powerful enough to prevent it.

3. Evil/suffering still occur.

4. Therefore there is no such God.

So in reaction to this argument some have said that God is all-loving and all-knowing but not all powerful. He wants to stop evil and suffering but he is not always able to do so because he lacks omnipotence (Finite godism). Others have said that God is all-knowing and all-powerful but not all-loving. He foresees evil and suffering, he could stop it, but he does not care to do anything about it (Deism). Others take the position that God is all-loving and all-powerful but not all-knowing. So then God wants to stop evil and suffering, and he is powerful enough to do so but because he cannot foresee with certainty what will occur there are things that he was unable to stop. Finally, others simply accept the argument as is and conclude that there is no God at all.

The appropriate response to this argument, however, is the Free-will defense. God is, in fact, omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving) and evil/suffering exists but this is not a logical contradiction. The reason it is not a contradiction is because God created human beings with free will, able to make decisions between right and wrong. Making free moral creatures God allowed for the possibility of evil and suffering to enter the world (although he did not create it, he made is possible) through the rebellion of his creatures. God has deemed the freedom of the will to be a greater good than determinism. Free willed creatures can obey or disobey, they can love or they can hate. Determined creatures can only do what is forced upon them to do. In order for any relationships we have as human beings to be meaningful, whether with friends or spouses or the Lord himself, then we must have the freedom to not love, to not obey, to not honor.

God most certainly did know that evil and suffering would occur. He knew Adam and Eve would disobey. God did not cause it but he allowed it because he valued having meaningful relationships with those who would choose to love and follow him. Furthermore, God is more glorified in a world where sin and evil and suffering occur because he has been able to demonstrate both his justice and his grace in this world in such a way that a non-fallen world could never know. So God is perfect love, but he does not force people to love him. God is perfect knowledge but knowledge is not the same as determinism nor does he always choose to use his knowledge in combination with his absolute power to stop all evil and suffering because 1) in many instances that would be to eliminate freedom of choice and human responsibility and thereby invalidate the possibility of meaningful relationships and actions, and 2) because some of the evil and suffering in this world is part of the curse because of the fall (Genesis 3) and God is actively judging mankind through those means. God often uses evil people and actions to accomplish his greater purposes (Genesis 50:20; Judges 3:7-8). Although God never does evil himself he sits above the world and orchestrates the evil therein to bring about his purposes such as the punishment of the wicked and also the greater good of those who love Him and are called by God (Romans 8:28).

So evil and suffering do not stand in contradiction to God's existence as perfectly good, all-knowing and all-powerful but they fit within a world where God made people who have free and meaningful decision and in which God is actively punishing the wicked.

Now, all philosophy aside, the Bible simply outright denies the notion that God doesn't know the future with certainty. In Isaiah 41:21-24 God challenges the idols to demonstrate their own deity saying:

Set forth your case, says the Lord;

   bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.

22 Let them bring them, and tell us

   what is to happen.

Tell us the former things, what they are,

   that we may consider them,

that we may know their outcome;

   or declare to us the things to come.

23 Tell us what is to come hereafter,

   that we may know that you are gods;

do good, or do harm,

   that we may be dismayed and terrified.

24 Behold, you are nothing,

   and your work is less than nothing;

   an abomination is he who chooses you.

Notice one of the distinctions God makes between himself and false gods and the challenge he issues that they may prove their divinity “Tell us what is to come hereafter that we may know you are gods.” The Lord says his ability to know what will happen in the future is part of his divine nature and it sets him apart from dumb idols and false deities. Again in Isaiah 46:9b-10 the Lord says “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’”.

All of the predictive prophecy that the Bible contains depends on God’s ability to know the future, including the free choices of men. The fact that his word stands and he always accomplishes his purposes and brings about what he intends demonstrates with absolute assurance that he knows not only all possible choices of men but the ones they will actually make. The Bible leaves no room for an impotent God that empties him of any of his qualities. If we strip him of even one attribute he ceases to be God and becomes a demi-god, a finite being.

Click Here for more on Open Theism

The 50 Books I Plan to Read in 2015

I want 2015 to be a year where I do more intentional reading than I have in the past. As such I have made a list of 50 books I am going to try to read this year (but not necessarily in this order). Some of them are rereads (such as Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia which I intend to read every year) but most I have never read before. I may read some books not on this list (especially those assigned in my current classes) but I intend to read at least these this year. I want to do this every year and then keep a list of what books I read each year so I can look back on the list and see 5-10 years later what I read and when. So what do you plan to read this year?

1. The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas J. Kostenberger (01/10/2015)

2. Jesus, The Final Days by Craig A. Evans & N. T. Wright

3. The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton

4. Out of Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis (01/12/2015)

5. Perelandra by C. S. Lewis (01/15/2015)

6. That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis (01/21/2015)

6. Come Let us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics, edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig

7. The Omnipresence of Jesus Christ: A Neglected Aspect of Evangelical Christology by Theodore Zachariades

8. The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Orczy

9. Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe

10. Mere Apologetics by Alister McGrath

11. If I Had Lunch With C. S. Lewis by Alister McGrath

12. Real Christianity by William Wilberforce

13. The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien

14. A Shot of Faith to the Head by Mitch Stokes

15. The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

16. Think by John Piper

17. The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias

18. Euthyphro by Plato (06/15/2015)

19. Whatever Happened to Truth by Andreas J. Kostenberger

20. The Man Who Knew too Much by G. K. Chesterton

21. 1984 by George Orwell

22. Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in Lewis' Chronicles by Joe Rigney

23. Lives by Plutarch

24. The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

25. Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham

26. The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas (03/03/2015)

27. The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas

28. Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

29. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis

30. Prince Caspian by C. S. Lewis

31. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis

32. A Horse and His Boy by C. S. Lewis

33. The Silver Chair by C. S. Lewis

34. The Magician’s Nephew by C. S. Lewis

35. The Last Battle by C. S. Lewis

36. The Giver by Lois Lowry (01/24/2015)

37. History of the Church by Eusebius

38. The Apologies of Justin Martyr

39. Christian Reflections by C. S. Lewis

40. Miracles by C. S. Lewis

41. An Experiment in Criticism by C. S. Lewis

42. Reflections on the Psalms by C. S. Lewis

43. Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

44. On Fairy Stories by J. R. R. Tolkien

45. C. S. Lewis - A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet by Alister McGrath

46. Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis by George Sayer

47. George MacDonald by C. S. Lewis

48. The Time Machine by H. G. Wells

49. David Copperfield by Charles DIckens

50. Dracula by Bram Stoker

Books I Didn't Plan to Read This Year (But Did Anyway):

51. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson (2/7/15)
52. Gathering Blue by Lois Lowry (3/7/15)
53. Messenger by Lois Lowry (3/8/15)
54. Son by Lois Lowry (3/11/15)
55. Gorgias by Plato (7/20/15)
56. The Lost Tools of Learning by Dorothy Sayers (12/20/15)
57. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis: Volume 1 (12/21/15)
58. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (12/28/15)




***Highlighted titles are ones I have completed reading so far.***

What Do I Think About YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution?

I was asked recently by a friend to weigh in on the debate about young earth creationism versus evolution. I don’t think I have touched this issue with a ten foot pole before (at least not on my blog) because people get so wound up about it. But I decided this morning that I would share my response to my friend with all of you. Now you can know where I am at on this. I will take this Thursday’s Thanksgiving to thank God for the ability to disable blog comments. Here you go:

My personal view of Genesis 1 is a bit undecided. I am confident that it is meant to teach 1. That all things existing which are not God were made by God. 2. That God made all living things (both plant and animal life) according to their own kind which negates the possibility of evolution in the sense of common ancestry. 3. That God made mankind unique and separated them from all the other creatures he had made, making male and female in his own image. 4. All that God made in its original state was “very good” and free from defect.

I am not convinced, however, that the purpose of Genesis 1 is to tell us about “when” God created. I think it is to tell us “that” he created and “how” and “what” but the question of “when” may not be in view at all. I think the best exegetical argument for a young earth, literal six 24-hour day creation is to cite Exodus 20 and the Sabbath day command which seems to strongly suggest a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Even so, I think there are things in the text of Genesis 1 that suggest it might not be meant to be taken in a “literal” sense. For instance if you take day 1 and day 4, day 2 and 5, and day 3 and 6 and compare them you will see something interesting. You will see “forming” and “filling”. God makes light and separates it from the darkness on day 1 and on day 4 he makes the Sun, Moon and Stars. God separates the waters below and sky above on day 2 and on day 5 he makes fish of the sea and birds of the air. On day 3 God makes dry land and vegetation and on day 6 God makes land animals and man who will walk on the land and eat the vegetation.

So we have interesting questions to ask. Did God really make light apart from the Sun? If so, why? Does this parallelism suggest that we ought to read the text in the same way we read Genesis 2 which breaks into a more narrative form of story? Also there is a difficulty between Genesis 1 and 2 about the order of creation (was man first or was vegetation?) so how do we best resolve it? Both young earth creationists and old earth creationists tackle these question differently but they both have strengths and weaknesses.

It is important, however, to make clear that there is a real difference between an old earth creationist (OEC) and a Theistic Evolutionist (TE). Not every Christian who thinks the earth/universe is very old also thinks that God used evolution. Many OEC’s are “progressive creationists” which means they believe in special creation, where God makes living things unique apart from evolution, but he did so periodically over a large amount of time. So God may have created one thing and then a million years later, perhaps, he created something else. It is not particularly important that you agree with this point of view, but to be fair I think you must acknowledge the difference between this view and theistic evolution. Too many young earth creationists (YEC) group all who believe in an old earth together and do not make reasonable distinctions as they ought.

So in this debate you have at least three main party lines. YEC’s, OEC’s, and TE’s. I believe TE is thoroughly unbiblical and I also do not believe the weight of scientific evidence is in favor of evolutionary theory. YEC and OEC then are the only options on the table for those who believe in the authority of Scripture and they ought to be decided between exegetically first and scientifically second. I do think that we ought to consider the evidence of science on the matter, especially since I believe the text allows us the possibility of the earth being young or old. It is for this reason that I am “agnostic” about the age of the earth. I tend to think it is probably pretty old and I would mostly align with an OEC view but am ready to be a YEC if tomorrow I am shown to be wrong.

You mention that you are afraid that many are compromising on this issue because of evolutionary theory. Some most definitely are. Some people think they have to accept evolution if they want to be a thinking Christian. Those people are misguided, as are all evolutionary theorists. But many who hold to OEC do so apart from believing in evolution. Some find textual reasons that suggest Genesis 1 may not be meant to be read in a literal fashion (the word “yom” in Hebrew which is translated “day” can mean a 24 hour day or it can refer to a larger or undetermined period of time). Augustine who lived in the 4th century found the idea that God needed 6 days to create the world to be kind of silly. After all God could have created all things instantly because nothing is impossible for God. Likewise God doesn’t need “rest” on day 7 as if he gets tired. Perhaps the model laid out in Genesis 1 is for our benefit and not God’s. It is also interesting that Hebrews suggests that God is still in his Sabbath day’s rest, which is a bit more than 24 hours (Hebrews 4:4-11).

All of this to say, there is an exegetical case for both YEC and OEC as well as a scientific case for both positions. We each must study, pray and make a conscientious decisions about where we stand on the matter. We need to keep the main things the main things, however, and practice Romans 14 principles on that which we disagree about when they are non-essential. Like I said above I think there are things which Genesis 1 clearly teaches (“who?”, “what?”, “how?”, perhaps even “why?”) and there are other things that are more debatable (“when?”). But evolution is not permitted by the text as far as I can see. YEC’s and OEC’s should spend less time fighting each other and they should unite against the common and real enemy of evolution.

Rare C. S. Lewis Audio Recordning

Free-Will Has Always Had Limitations

I think it’s funny how people talk about “free will” sometimes. Not that the discussion isn’t an important one, because it is, but I think the discussion is often flawed before it starts. Now here I am speaking generally, of course, and there are those who go to great pains to carefully define their terms when they speak on this matter. Still, most people seem to speak of “free will” in a way that I think is nonsensical. Let us first consider why the issue of freedom, as it relates to the will, is important at all and then we will address the matter of how we ought to properly think of freedom of the will.

The reason the issue is important is not difficult to discern. If all of the decisions a person makes are determined in such a way that they could not make different decisions than the ones they do then that person can hardly be considered morally culpable for their actions. It is for this reason that any kind of holistic determinism must be considered outright foreign to the Christian worldview. Moral responsibility must rest upon the shoulders of individual persons if those persons are to be justly condemned for their immoral (sinful) behavior. If all of a person’s decisions are controlled by forces which they themselves have no control over then they can be neither praised nor reprimanded for any act or moral consequence whatsoever.

This being the case, and with Christianity being a religion which unashamedly speaks of God’s goodness, his absolute justice, and the wickedness of sinful mankind, the freedom of the will is a crucial matter. It’s no small wonder, then, why so many people speak about it with passion and force as they do. To strip man of his free exercise of will is to free him from culpability for his actions and if God then punishes creatures who are not morally culpable it, in turn, impugns the goodness and justice of God. All of this said, as one who is Reformed in my theology, I understand the reason why many people rabidly defend the issue of free will. They are not primarily defending free will, they are defending the goodness and justice of God and for that they are to be commended.

It is my contention, however, that many speak of free will in a way that simply cannot be the truth about how human will is exerted. Many times when I listen to someone talk about free will I hear them speak as though free will means “a person can make any choice they desire to.” Not only can they exercise their will and make an inward mental choice, but many proponents of free will seem to suggest that such a mental state as “choice” (which is an internal reality) must not be hindered in physical action or follow through (which is external). Allow me to demonstrate what I mean.

A person with free will can decide he does not want to be handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. That same person may not, however, be able to do anything but be handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. But the person’s freedom of will is not thereby annulled because he cannot do what he wants to do. The fact of the matter is that there are always external (and sometimes internal) factors which constrain our ability to do what we might desire to do.

Even in the state of absolute freedom, the Edenic state prior to the fall, where man was surely as free as ever he has been, Adam, presumably, could not burst into the sky like Superman. It was not in his nature, as God designed him, to be able to fly in the sky even if Adam willed to do so. The freedom of the will simply does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that a person can do anything that they want to whenever they want to do it.

To be sure, there are situations where actions are forced or coerced in which it might be fair to say “they were not acting of their own free will” such as when a man is put into the back of a police car although he wills to do otherwise. But it does not follow that because of this the man, as a being, ceases to have control of his will. He remains able to make decisions and to will things internally regardless of his outward ability. Outward ability and inward will are two different issues that really ought to never be confused.

Often when there are discussions about “Calvinism” and “Arminianism” the debate is coined in terms of “determinism” vs. “free will.” But here, again, I think many who have these heated debates aren’t careful about their terms. To be sure there are some Calvinists who believe in a holistic determinism in that they would say every single decision of mankind (and everything that occurs in the natural world) is predetermined by God’s decree. Not merely that God knows what will occur (and could change it if he desired), or that he is actively engaged in the salvation of the elect and bringing certain things about, but that the reason that all things occur the way they do is because God causally-determined them to occur before the foundation of the world (including actions like rape or even basic choices like what kind of toothbrush you pick at Wal-Mart). On the flip side there are extreme Arminian positions which exalt the freedom of human choices to the extent that they deny God’s ability to definitely know what will occur in the future. They reason that if God knows man’s choices beforehand then those choices are not free.

But I believe both of those extremes are flat out denied and refuted by Scripture. Indeed I think Christians can affirm the genuine exercise of freedom of human will and the total sovereignty of God without falling into either of these extremes. We may disagree on how God works within the hearts of men and women to draw them to himself by his grace but we need not suggest that the Calvinism/Arminian debate is merely about determinism versus free will. We must all, as Christians, affirm that freedom of choice is essential for moral culpability and therefore necessary to maintain the goodness and justice of God in condemning the wicked. But we must also all realize, as Christians, that the will is not free in this fantastic sense which says “there are no factors which can narrow your range of desire or ability.” Our very nature as human beings narrows our field of ability we can make (again, we cannot fly in the sky like Superman). The fall of mankind into sin (unless we affirm Pelagianism) further funnels our range of ability due to our inherited sinful nature. Indeed man’s fall was something like being put into the back of the police car, the will is still in tact but my range of ability has been significantly limited.

What freedom of the will must mean is that when given a choice between A or B, all thing otherwise being equal, I can choose either one. And we most certainly do have free will in that sense. I’m convinced that when you walk into the toothbrush aisle at Wal-Mart and are trying to decide between a blue Oral-B or a red Reach toothbrush that the decision is really and truly yours. God knows what you will pick, but he didn’t predetermine it. God could intervene if he wanted to, but in many such cases he really just leaves that to us. But all things are not always equal. We must admit there are other constraining factors that limit our ability to carry out desires, or even their are constraints that sometimes limit our very desires themselves.

But if we can ever say about a man that he has the above kind of free will, and option A was to do something morally praiseworthy and option B was to do something morally reprehensible and he chose B, then we have someone who is morally culpable who is a sinner and deserves God’s judgment. Just because their are constraining factors that limit mankinds range of of choices or that change their desires thereby affecting their range of choices does not thereby invalidate the genuineness of the decisions before them or the culpability they bear for the decisions that are theirs to make.

Are Apologetics Degrees Worthless?

I have heard it said several times lately that apologetics degrees are worthless and not looked well upon by others. The reasons given for this statement is that apologetics degrees are by their nature “interdisciplinary”, that is, they don’t focus on one subject but a broad spectrum of subjects and therefore those who gain a degree in apologetics are not an expert in anything. Another problem with apologetics degrees, I’m told, is that people simply don’t know what apologetics is. When you say Philosophy, Biology, Theology, at least people have some perception of what you do, but “apologetics?” Finally, you’ll never be able to teach in a secular university (and maybe not even in a lot of Christian universities) with that kind of degree, it’s just useless.

Well…is it useless? Honestly, “useless” is probably the last thing an apologetics degree is. A good apologetics degree will basically help you to become an evangelism ninja, ready for anything, equipped to deal with some of the most relevant and frequent questions and objections that Christians face as they share the gospel message with the world around them. That’s hardly useless.

But let’s get down to brass tacks. The real question when considering furthering your education and considering an apologetics degree is this: “What do you want to do with your life?” That has to be your starting point when making a decision about continuing (or starting) your education. So here is the God’s honest truth, if you want to do groundbreaking research on Intelligent Design, the Resurrection, God’s Existence, etc., then you don’t want an apologetics degree. If that’s your heart’s desire then get yourself a degree (probably 3) in one of the sciences, history, New Testament studies, Theology, or Philosophy. If you want to teach in the university, you are probably best served to do the same (although there is no promise of a career in teaching even with a Ph.D.). If that’s what you want to do, then an apologetics degree (or at least only an apologetics degree) will not as likely take you where you want to go.

On the flip side, if you want to serve in pastoral ministry (adults or students), if you want to be a college campus missionary (Ratio Christi for instance) or if you want to start your own apologetics ministry, or even just become a more effective ambassador for Jesus Christ while working in a secular field, then an apologetics degree has your name all over it! The beauty of apologetics training is that it equips to deal with and answer the questions and objections that you deal with every day in real life ministry. An apologetics degree will train you to be an effective evangelist who can boldly proclaim the gospel without fear of any response by an unbeliever or skeptic.

The truth is, we need both kind of apologists. We need the highly focused on one field, professional academic apologists whose presence in academia provides real challenges to secularism and who can rebut bad ideas from other Ph.D’s on the other side of the culture war. People like Dr. Michael Licona whose work on the resurrection of Jesus topples so many erroneous arguments presented by atheist, agnostic and skeptic scholars, J.P. Moreland whose mind rivals the brightest secular philosophers and who has so ardently argued for the existence of God and even the human soul, etc., these guys (to mention only two of our giants in apologetics) are needed.

But you know what else is needed? We need apologists who are youth pastors and campus workers with groups like Ratio Christi and Cru, we need people who will spend their lives pouring into young people the truth of God’s word and the reasons we have to believe all that it tells us. We need pastors who faithfully shepherd one church for 10, 15, 30 years and who faithfully preach the text of Scripture and reinforce their congregations faith in the word of God and the power of the resurrection! We need the street evangelist who works a secular job during the day but faithfully, week after week, goes out to share the good news with those who pass by. We need these guys too.

People like Michael Licona, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, etc., these guys are those who develop the weapons, and strategies to effectively defeat the enemy. The other group, are the ones who get their boots dirty every day carrying those weapons that have been developed to the battlefield and getting bloody. You tell me, which is more important? The correct answer is “neither.” In the end both kind of apologists are absolutely essential to the overall war for the truth.

I proudly throw my name in with the ranks of the foot soldiers and I admire greatly the minds who have helped train and equip me to effective fight the enemy for the sake of the gospel and all that the Christian wordview entails. So is an apologetics degree worthless? Not on your life. But which part of the battle do you want to take part in, weapon development or ground combat? That’s the question which you have to answer for yourself.

What is the Relationship of Faith and Reason and How Does this Relate to Salvation through Faith?

In our last post we discussed what the nature of faith is and whether or not the concept of faith (as it is used in the Bible) is rational. In short we determined that the popular concept of what faith means is not how the Bible uses that terminology. Faith, in the Bible at least, is really the idea of trust or having confidence in something or someone. We then determined that whether or not faith in an object is rational depends on the circumstance and reasoning that one has for placing their faith in that object. Furthermore we determined that faith without an object is inherently irrational whereas faith in something or someone is not inherently irrational and that faith in the God of the Bible is demonstrably rational.

With all of that established there now comes another question, what is the relationship of faith and reason/evidence as it relates to obtaining salvation? Now, in our last post, we killed the idea that faith and reason are opposites. This would only be true if faith were defined as believing against or contrary to reason and evidence or if it were defined as something that is above reason and not comprehensible by it. But because the Bible uses faith so as to communicate the idea of having confidence or trust in God, these definitions of faith are irrelevant as it relates to biblical Christianity. So then faith is not something that is inherently opposed to reasons and evidence, rather, it is something that can exist apart from it or strengthened by it. Let me demonstrate what I mean when I say faith can be something apart from reasons and evidence, but can also be strengthened when it has reason and evidence.

Imagine a frozen pond before you. Is it safe to walk on? The answer is ‘C’ not enough information, right? But let’s say you decide to walk on it anyway, you think you’ll be okay if you do. Essentially you’ve place your faith/trust in the strength of that ice to hold your weight. Will you be okay? It just depends on the reality of the situation. If it has been cold enough for a long enough period of time so as to allow the water to freeze and the ice to thicken to a dense enough state then, yes, you’ll be fine. But if it hasn’t then, no, you’ll fall through and you may just drown.

Now if you say to yourself, “I have all the faith in the world that this ice will hold me!” Does this affect the density of the ice? Not at all, but your belief may determine your willingness to walk on the ice. In the same way, perhaps you say to yourself “I’m scared to death that this ice won’t hold my weight but I am willing to take my chances and trust it.” Does your meager faith affect the density of the ice? No again. So what is the crucial issue? Is it the amount of faith one has in the ice or is it the whether the ice itself is sufficient to bear your weight? Obviously it is the latter.

This illustration of the frozen lake will serve us well to demonstrate the relationship of faith, reason and how they relate to salvation. Imagine that the frozen lake represents a religion, philosophy or worldview. You might look at the frozen lake and call it Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, or Christianity, etc. People all around the world have chosen to place their trust in a certain worldview (frozen lake) and many, if not most, have done so without sufficient reason or evidence to be certain that the metaphorical ice will hold their weight. In other words the majority of people in this world are skating on ice that they don’t know for sure will hold them. They may believe very strongly that it will hold them; they may have unwavering confidence that it will hold them but they don’t have sufficient reasons or evidence to support their faith in the ice they are. In these cases then I would agree with the idea that they have a faith that is irrational. It does not follow, however, that all faith is necessarily irrational just because many people don’t believe for rational reasons.

Now if we take the metaphor of the frozen lakes to be that only one of them is actually capable of bearing the weight of people walking upon it which correlated to only one religion is actually true and able to offer people salvation and eternal life, then a lot of people are in very real danger of falling through the ice right now because they are believing without sufficient reason that they are on the right ice. All people, in fact, are in danger except those who happen to be walking on the right frozen lake. As we have established already the level of one’s confidence that the frozen lake will bear their weight doesn’t strengthen or weaken the integrity of the ice. So what is the primary issue for that person’s safety? The issue is that they are on the right frozen lake which has thick enough ice to support them.

This is also true of religion. A person can fully believe that Islam is true, or Buddhism, etc., but because it is indeed false they will eventually fall through the ice. But because Christianity is true (which I will not here defend but for the sake of this article we are taking for granted) then people on this frozen lake are safe even if they had only the weakest faith but just enough to put their lot with Jesus. The degree of faith/trust/confidence is not what brings about salvation, rather, it is picking the right belief system that will actually save you.

In this way there are many Christians who believe in Jesus for salvation for just as insufficient of reasons that the Muslim believe in Allah and the Qur’an, however, the Christian will fare much better at the judgment because they have just so happened to trust in the one frozen lake that will bear their weight. It is in this way that faith can exist apart from reason and evidence and if a person happens to have put their faith in the right object that they will still have salvation whereas others who have just as much faith but chose the wrong object will not have salvation. So faith can be irrational, even faith in the right object (Jesus) can be irrational but the issue of whether or not that faith saves a person leans wholly upon whether they chose the right object of faith. So saving faith can exist apart from reason and evidence but it is a dangerous game of Russian Roulette and not one that I recommend people play. So then, a person ought to have a faith/trust informed by reason and evidence because this is what can lead them towards safety and away from danger, show them that they need to get off the thin ice they are on or that they happen to be standing on thick ice.

Imagine once again that you are standing before a frozen lake and pondering walking across it. You can decide to blindly place your confidence in it and hope you are going to be okay, or you can do some research. You can pull out your smart phone and look up the weather report for the last month or two and see how cold it has been. You could then find out how long it takes ice to form under certain temperatures and you could try to figure an approximate volume of the lake, you could even take a heavy rock and hurl it onto the ice and see whether the ice cracks. There are lots of things you could do to try and determine the strength of the ice before blindly walking on to it. You could then determine with some level of confidence whether or not this frozen lake is safe to walk on. And the level of your confidence in the ice should be proportional to the evidence and reasoning that you’ve established.

So the relationship of faith and reason are not polar opposite so that if you have one you cannot have the other but nor does faith necessarily entail reasons and evidence because a person can believe without them (have irrational faith). But the wise person will investigate what they are considering believing/trusting in before they step out onto the ice so that they may know if it will support their weight. As a Christian, given that our religion is actually true, reason and evidence will serve to support and strengthen your confidence that you are on strong ice whereas for other religions it will hopefully encourage them to get off the thin ice before they fall through.

While faith can be irrational, and if you’re lucky it may even save you from your sins if you’ve haphazardly ended up on strong ice, this is not the kind of faith the Bible would commend us to. If we as Christians blindly believe then we are no different from the sincere Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, etc., who blindly believes other than being luckily on the right lake. So inform your faith, look into it and see how solid the ice is beneath your feet. If you’re a Christian you’ll find you’re in luck and standing on solid ice, but if you’re not I think you’ll find you have reason to be less confident about where you’re standing.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Also “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16). The intensity of your belief doesn’t make this true or false, rather, the fact that Jesus actually lived, was crucified and died and then rose back to life in history makes it true. How much better to not just believe in Jesus but to actually be able to say “I have good reasons to believe that Christianity is true!”? Christians your irrational faith may save you but you are much better off with having reason and evidence to support why you believe you’re in a safe place with Christ. Let’s put aside irrational faith and trade it in for reasonable faith.