Faith: What does that mean?

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11). What then does that entail? Contrary to popular opinion, faith in Christ is not a blind leap into oblvion, which is like a 'hope for the best' kind of theology. On the contrary, this assurance is based on a historical event, and that event is Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead. What was not seen from of old, as detailed in Heb 11, was how God was going to make good on His promise to the woman in the Garden of Eden. It was not until Christ came, died, and raised from the dead that what was once concealed became revealed. Even so, those who are not eyewitnesses (like us who live well beyond that era) trust those who were eyewitnesses. We trust their accounts of the fulfillment of One who was to come and that Christ will make good on His promises to raise us as He has been raised.

Therefore, our faith in Christ today is based on the fact that we trust Christ at His Word that He will make good on His promise to raise us from the dead (that is those who trust in Him). This is why His resurrection from the dead is so critical and thus is so vehemently attacked. Just as He made good on His promise to rise from the dead on the third day, we have no reason not to take Him at His Word in future promises. For this reason, our faith in Him is assured because though we (being those who have lived past that era) have not seen Him, we believe/trust/have faith in Him because He made good on His promises. This then gets into the reliability of the text itself

The crediblity of the NT text is magnfied in the transformed lives of the Apostles who were able to testify to His resurrection and thus document that He made good on His promise to rise from the dead because they were eyewitnesses. They cowered in fear until they saw Him raised; it was then that their courage was renewed and had no reason to doubt His ability to them raise them from the dead and fulfill all which He declared.

The next fundamental issue is then how one becomes empowered to accept the Scriptures that document His Resurrection as being reliable. Obviously, many refuse to do this, so they fabricate other reasons to explain Christianity, etc. However, when one does that one then faces an incredible burden of proof in explaining why Christ was crucified, the fact that even his opposers never denied his miracles (except the resurrection) only the power by which He did them, that He raise from the dead and was seen by many, the incredible growth of the early Church, etc.

It is important to point out that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to reject the claims in the same way that one is innocent until proven guilty (otherise any claim about even the most mundane thing is suspect thus skepticism--which men claim but don't actually live out). For example, one can deny the resurrection, but, if one is going to be intellecutally honest, then one has to explain the immediate and tremendous growth of the Church itself in a cogent and coherent way. If that is denied, then one has to deny extrabiblical texts that attest to this also. To then denies these as well leads to further and further denial until any and all texts on any matter are shown to be unreliable and dubious.

This puts the assailant between a rock and a hard place. If he accepts the NT accounts and the resurrection documented therein, then he is commanded to repent and trust in Christ, something He does not want to do. On the other hand, if he rejects the text and ends up rejecting the reliablity of all human texts as explained above, then he is forced into a position whereby He must reach into absurdity to even accept that George Washington was a real man and that he was the First President of the United States. If he decides to reach into absurdity so as to 'cope' and not end up as mental patient in the local insane ward, then his position is exposed as extremely shaky and unsubstantiated. One then either repents, ends up as a patient in an insane ward, or reaches into the absurd so as to 'cope' but all the while realizing the extreme foolishness that one must take to deny the Resurrection from the Dead.

The desire to reach into the absurd is the Post-modern answer, and this magnfies the depravity of man, for He will willingly submit to that which is absurd before repenting before a Holy God. The truth is that he states he is reaching for abusrdity, but what He is really doing is stealing from Biblical Christianity under a disguise of 'absurdity' in order to justify his suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is demonstrated by the fact that he wants his position to be accurately represented, but this cannot be done if rationality cannot be undergirded. He is boxed in and his position is shown self-destructive. This is why his presuppositional bias must be exposed.

For this reason, the Holy Spirit (Jn 3) must change a man's heart so as to empower him to receive the Bible as authoritative and be set free of all this madness. Only by the Agency of God Almighty will a man ever submit to Him as He has commanded in His Word.

Glory to Him Who sets men free when He was certainly not obligated to do so! Faith in Christ then is far from absurd; on the contrary, denial of Him leads to absurdity! Amen!