The most famous objection to belief is aimed at a definition no serious believer has ever held. Here’s the one they actually hold, and why it’s harder to dismiss.
"The instinctive answer, the one baked into our whole culture, is that faith is an act of will. You decide to believe." This is, almost word for word, what a pastor said to me about 20 years ago when I pointed out that I found 'the evidence' unconvincing, I had asked how I could accept what couldn't be proven true to me. Let me say that I'm not an atheist. I believe in an intelligent creation. I don't even have a particular problem with Jesus. I've found parts of the bible to be quite compelling. But I cannot accept what the teachings of Jesus evolved into in the form of modern Christianity. I do appreciate you gearing much of your writing here to those you describe as seekers. (I might have made a decent Essene or gnostic. It's a pity the latter were excluded by what became The Church, Inc.) In any case, I read what you write here with interest and try to keep an open mind.
This is one of the most honest comments I've had here, and I want to engage it properly rather than wave you toward a pew.
Start with where I think you're simply right. The gap you're naming, between Jesus and what a lot of what calls itself Christianity became, is real, and I'm not going to defend the franchise to you. A great deal of my writing exists precisely because I think "The Church, Inc." has, in places, built something Jesus would have walked into and overturned tables about. He reserved his hottest words not for doubters or outsiders but for the religious management of his own day. So if your quarrel is with the institutional accretion, you and I are not actually on opposite sides of that. I'd just gently distinguish the building from the founder. Rejecting what men made of him is not the same as rejecting him, and you seem to already sense that, since you say you don't have a particular problem with Jesus.
Now let me push, in a friendly way, on the Essene-or-Gnostic line, because I think you've been sold a romance there, and it's worth knowing what you'd actually be buying.
The Gnostics are usually remembered as the free-thinking road the rigid Church closed off. But look at what they actually taught, because I suspect it's close to the opposite of what you'd want. The Gnostic systems generally held that the material world is a mistake, that the creation was the botched work of a lesser, ignorant, sometimes malicious deity, and that the body and the cosmos are a prison you escape through secret knowledge available to an elite few. Read that again next to your own words. You told me you believe in an intelligent creation. The Gnostics would have called that creation the trap. You find parts of the Bible compelling. The thing you find compelling, a good world made on purpose by a good Author, is the orthodox position, the Genesis line that God looked at what he made and called it good. It's the Gnostics who would have taken that from you, not the Church.
So the irony, and I mean this warmly, is that the man who believes in intelligent creation and is open to Jesus is standing much closer to the old creed than to the suppressed alternative he's half-mourning. The Gnostics weren't excluded because they were too free. They were excluded partly because they despised the very thing you affirm: that the material world is real, good, and made.
Keep reading with the open mind. It's the rarest and most honest posture available, and it's the only condition the oldest promise in the book ever actually asks for. I'm glad you're here.
I appreciate your thoughtful and generous comments. I read quite a bit of Gnostic writing many years ago, whilst trying on different versions of asceticism. Then, to use Mario Puzo's phrase, I was "hit by the thunderbolt." Ironically, I met and married a devout Christian. (We just celebrated our 45th anniversary.) Contemplating a married life together caused me to become more worldly, and any ascetic tendencies fell by the wayside. I was referring to the process by which the Bible included/excluded the various writings of the day; their decisions about what was considered authoritative. It is interesting that I encountered your publication after a cancer diagnosis has me face to face with my mortality. I'm fighting for my life, and grateful to have a loving and supportive wife. Perhaps that's why I read publications like yours. I'm glad to be here!
Many are not mere "doubters," but instead, hardened deniers spouting words of mockery of anyone and anything professing the God of the Bible. Today's "demand for a sign" comes from the same position of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart as that of the Jewish leaders during Jesus's life. They refuse to "hear" the Word or "see" the light of testimony.
Demanding evidence is not a symptom of spiritual blindness. It is the minimum condition for distinguishing a true claim from a false one.
What you have described is a belief system that classifies its own challenges as moral defects in the challenger. Under that structure, no evidence could ever count against the belief, because anyone who requests evidence has already been diagnosed as hardened rather than engaged. That is not a defence of the position. It is a method of insulating the position from examination.
The demand for a sign is only intelligible as mockery if the sign is impossible. If God exists and acts in history, evidence of those acts should be available. Asking for it is not hardness of heart. It is the ordinary standard applied to every other claim about the world.
Asking for evidence after refuting the evidence which has been produced in my opinion exemplifies "spiritual blindness and hardness of heart" condition. It's not a honest enquiry. After witnessing "signs and wonders" they asked for a "sign from heaven." We hold biblical text as divine revelation of God and the "mockers" of this world will never accept the article on which we establish our basis for faith in the God of heaven and hope for eternal life through Christ Jesus.
The essay counters the accusations of blind faith. The essay attests to the validity of intelligent evaluation of the historical evidence in support of one's faith in God.
You're on your own, bud, to weigh the types of “evidence.” Sounds like to me you have already hardened your conclusions.
I must correct you, bud: falsifiability is not a requirement for scientific proof. It is the minimum condition for any claim about reality to be meaningful. Historical claims, legal claims, and ordinary empirical observations are all held to this standard without requiring a laboratory. Reducing it to scientific proof is a method of making a reasonable standard appear unreasonable.
On hardened conclusions: you have spent this exchange arguing that those who request evidence are spiritually blind, hardened of heart, and now conclusionally hardened. Meanwhile the position you are defending is explicitly structured to survive any outcome, including catastrophic suffering, as evidence of God’s reliability. A conclusion that cannot be revised by any conceivable evidence is the definition of a hardened conclusion. The description fits the position you are defending, not the standard being applied to it.
And this doesn't even begin to focus on consistent historical evidence revealing the accuracy of Biblical archaeology. Each time an atheist says the Bible is wrong because they haven't found evidence of the Hittites, of Israel in Egypt, of King David, of key people in Christ's day etc. – they are proven wrong again and again; there is no recognition of their confirmation bias, their pseudo-independence, and their demand for evidence. Then the archaeological evidence proves them wrong again. But - instead of reassessing their being wrong time and again, in their independence and arrogance, instead of considering their pattern of being wrong time and again, they continue on in the same path. This is why Romans 1 describes God's passive wrath as letting them experience the consequences of their choices, even as again, what do they gain by their pseudo-independence and confirmation bias, denying the depth of complexity of design in DNA, the fact that we have so much historical evidence for Jesus, even outside of Christianity, and the evidence of archaeology? They keep their pseudo-independence, their arrogance and pride, rejecting what God is offering, despite all the evidence that points to a Designer and Creator. And God gives them that freedom. He doesn't want obligation. He wants people who can look at the evidence in nature, in archaeology, in history, at the amazing colors and designs and nature, and the way the body is designed and connect the dots just like they do with their cars, their computers, their phones, their clothes (which is often color-coordinated), the airplanes they fly on etc. etc. At least Lewontin and Huxley and a few others are honest enough to admit their bias, which is exactly what keeps them from being honest enough to follow the evidence to where it is leading them. But again, God gives them freedom to live in denial, demanding evidence despite [A] the evidence in science, in history, in nature, and in archaeology etc. [B] Their willingness to reject the evidence because they don't want a Creator, they don't want to live within His protection. They see freedom from God as the way of life. AC is sharing truth that some will see. Some will be convicted by. While others will use it to reinforce their denial-based confirmation bias. Which means that interacting with them, will only reinforce their a priori commitment to reject truth. This is why Romans 1 says that, assuming they are wise, they became fools. It's not a lack of intelligence in understanding the evidence. It is a lack of integrity in admitting the evidence that is already there, that they are already rejecting. And thus, no amount of real evidence is ever enough, revealing the double minded standard that comes with the mental gymnastics needed to deny the evidence that is already there. AC is offering an evidence-based trust in science, in history, in archaeology. What we do with that is our responsibility. And eventually, one day, we will all answer for the choices we made to receive or reject the evidence. AC's whole article is an argument against the "just trust me bro" game of mental gymnastics. And to the degree Honest Trap knows the main premise of this article/blog, and continues playing words games - ignoring or denying the main premise of AC's article, he is lying to himself, revealing a lack of integrity within himself. And to the degree this is true, that is 100% about him, not about the article. Is he actually giving us the "evidence" that he is like Lewontin and Huxley, WITHOUT the same level of honesty and integrity they have, WITHOUT admitting that he has the same confirmation bias? I hope not... But if he were to be honest about his confirmation bias like many of these evolutionists I've quoted, in their own words, we could form the foundation of a honest conversation. Until then, it's impossible to have an honest conversation with him. And any effort to "reason" together will result in more mental gymnastics and more word games, deflecting from the main premise of this article, reinforcing his bias against evidence, while asking for evidence... Which leads to more trolling rather than truly seeking evidence. But again, he is free to take this approach to avoid the main premise of this article and others articles by AC (and many others) sharing the historical accuracy of the Bible etc. etc. He is free to live with a double-minded approach to life, even as there is always a cost to compromising integrity and living with the internal conflict between saying one is seeking truth, while actiely undermining all evidence that gets in the way of supporting conclusions already reached to maintain pseudo-independence from our Creator. One of the costs is a lack of self-respect, revealed in the way he avoids the main premise and purpose of the article, evidence that many atheistic scientists have eventually followed to the reality that we were created, and the world and universe were created. Einstein is famous for NOT wanting the universe to have a beginning. He fudged one of his formulas to avoid reality. Then, the Hubble telescope exposed the truth, and he followed truth where it led him: that our universe had a beginning. Anthony Flew was considered to be the leading atheist in the world for many years. Then he began to believe in a creator, even as he was not sure who it was. Sir Hoyle was an atheist who eventually came to see a bigger picture through science, math, and physics. Does that mean they all become Christians? NO, not at all. Does it reveal open minds who follow the impossibility of life beginning from non-life and the incredible complexity of DNA, RNA etc. etc.? Yes.
Adj. 1. falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
confirmable, verifiable,
empirical, empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
Thank you for this. I can honestly say I didn't subscribe to you for this but this ultimately is the best possible outcome I find.
I am not in edge, was but I long since entered the room and still walk the road. This hits so well because it perfectly resonantes with my journey and gave it more meat than I could ever have given it alone.
You described faith so well and practical that it makes sense now.
To the guys that said "Church, inc" He is not wrong, at least in that and the way you replied was splendid. This building differs from the founder. I would like to go to say, this (The Church, Inc) is not the building He founded but a poor approximation. The building—His body exists and is real, I hope he finds us.
Great insight! In our community, our teachings make a clear distinction between 'believing' and 'having faith', so we have a clearer understanding of the belief and faith process a person goes through, clearing the confusion, and making it practical in understanding why and what we believe and have faith in. If this helps anyone, here's a brief write-up of it: https://forthebetterco.substack.com/p/believing-vs-having-faith
A coworker occasional likes to point out to me that “you *believe*”, emphasizing “believe”. It always lands strangely. It seems to me the emphasis should be on “you”, not “believe”, unless I’m just taking it wrong. If belief is relegated to some ethereal, nebulous, mystical, intangible, “blind” thing than can never be experientially known, I suppose it fits. But if it’s trust founded on knowledge and experience, or sound judgement based on evidence and testimony, then I suppose otherwise.
It seems to me that’s the way every verdict is arrived in criminal court. The judge wasn’t there, the lawyers weren’t there, and the jury isn’t supposed to know too much from the news so that they remain objective. Eyewitnesses aren’t jurors, and vice versa. Evidence is presented, testimony is heard, security footage is played, the DNA matches and his dropped credit card is found at the scene. Based on that, reasonable doubt is suspended.
Belief is a funny thing, atheists believe in at least 6 Miracles:
1- Something came from absolutely nothing.
2- Order from chaos.
3- Life from non-life.
4- Person from non-personal.
5- Reason from non-reason.
6- Morality from matter.
Now because i don’t have enough faith to be an atheist i will add two more for good measure.
7-Diversified complexity from random chance.
8- The magical-fairy-dust of “time” sprinkled generously over conundrums, solves all.
I suppose this list does sound a bit flippant, but i wish to illustrate that we all "Believe" in something. To shame those who believe, that they see design evidenced in created things, implies a creator, Is not reasonable. To claim that design is not there is simply unscientific. It is to deny the evidence. Everyone Believes in something. Belief is not the issue people pretend it is. That is the Atheist "anti christian" rhetoric and animosity towards God creeping in to the language. It is best not to take on someone else's anger. And don't let them put it on you either.
This is great stuff, thanks AC. I agree with every word, and I hope that many people get to read it. This whole idea of the leap of faith has been SO damaging. Ironically, I believe it was a Christian philosopher - Kierkegaard - who first came up with it. Sometimes you can be too clever for your own, or anyone else's, good!
What you say is false, in my opinion. Faith is precisely the same as trust. It is what God calls us to, every day, and step by simple step. "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed..." In other words, trust me but a little, and I'll show you the full scope of what I can do.
Sometimes people get caught up in specific words, instead of the key point. Trust and faith can be interchangeable, depending on the situation. As our trust grows, so does our faith. And we can trust in God when we lose a child or spouse, when we don't get the promotion, when we are betrayed. So, I appreciate what you shared TD. Sometimes it is dangerous and self-defeating to miss the practical application of faith and trust. God is inviting us to trust Him, and in fact, in Isaiah 5:3-4, asks us to judge Him based on the evidence of whether He had done enough for them. He is saying He has done things for them, and based on what He has done, He invites them to have trust and faith in Him. In Exodus 20, He begins by telling them what He has done for them, before sharing the 10 commandments. He is sharing why they can trust Him, why they can have faith in Him and His kingdom of grace and truth. Daniel's 3 friends trusted God whether He would save them from the fire or not. And they had already been taken from Babylon, castrated and called to serve a rage-a-holic king with no evidence that anything would change for them - except the possibility of things getting worse if they were thrown into the fire. They had no evidence that Christ would show up in the fire with them. They had zero evidence that Christ would keep them from being barbecued. And they had no evidence that they would not even have the smell of smoke upon them. But they chose to trust their lives in God's hands regardless of the outcome. That is real trust and real faith in real time, overlapping with the reality that they had no evidence that they would be protected from trials or death. But they had a relationship with God in the midst of their trials, the "Immanuel: God WITH us," IN our trials and in our losses. :-)
The Daniel passage confirms the distinction rather than dissolving it. Your own words establish it: they had no evidence Christ would appear, no evidence they would survive, and they committed regardless. Commitment in the complete absence of evidence is not trust. Trust is calibrated by evidence and revised by outcome. What you described is revised by neither.
The phrase that is most revealing is your own: regardless of the outcome. Trust does not function regardless of outcome. If you trust a bridge and it collapses, the trust is revised. Outcome is precisely the standard against which trust is measured. Regardless of outcome is the grammatical signature of faith, not trust. You have used the defining characteristic of faith to describe what you are calling trust.
On Isaiah and Exodus: the argument that God presented his track record before requesting commitment is structurally the correct kind of argument. The difficulty is that the track record is contained in the same texts whose authority is under question. The evidence that God delivered Israel from Egypt is the biblical account of the Exodus. Using that account to establish God’s reliability requires the account to be reliable independently of the conclusion it is being used to support.
The interchangeability concession is also more significant than intended. If trust and faith are interchangeable depending on the situation, they are not identical. The question is which situations require which, and whether commitment without external verification is one where the distinction is material. The Daniel example suggests it is.
PS: without establishing definitions nor agreeing to them, will make ambiguity prevail.
The trust and the Faith that Paul is referring to, i understand to be placed in multiple things, and that is how and why they overlap. The Trust is in the character and person and justice of God. Who God is and who God claims to be. The Faith is their belief in action. The belief that God has spoken true and that He is trustworthy. The faith is the manifestation of the belief. The action. That is why it is said that faith without works is dead. Because if you say you have faith but will not act upon it you are simply holding loosely to a theory that you do not trust enough to act upon.
You are committed to your belief, your interpretation, and seeking to prove you are "right" about your interpretation, even though others, including myself do not agree with you. You are welcome to your interpretation, just as I see it as a limited interpretation (and it is one interpretation, not the only interpretation), trying to fix square pegs into a round hole. We can all have confirmation bias, and I am going to trust you in your walk with God, while knowing that I see things in a different way, and also knowing that the 3 Hebrews were exhibiting trust and faith that God could rescue them, despite never seeing people rescued from a life-size firey furance. Blessings as you continue studying...and with prayers that what we study leads to a New Covenant, mind and heart experience with God, as opposed to settling for head knowledge alone. (and after I've taught in universities and seminary, I've seen theologians live in their heads with little to no practical application, much like the religious leaders in Christ's day who had head knowledge they believed in, while they also rejected Christ's words and killed Him, inviting us to turn Scriptures like Psalm 139:23-24 and Hebrews 4:12 into personal prayers so we are growing in our minds and hearts, (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 etc.).
There is a prior question neither response has addressed.
The trust is placed in God’s character. The knowledge of God’s character derives from scripture. The reliability of scripture is established by faith in its divine origin. The faith is then described as trust because it has an object. But the object was installed by the faith. What is being called trust is confidence in a conclusion that faith itself produced.
Rosenthal’s formulation states it precisely without appearing to notice: the faith is the manifestation of the belief. But where did the belief originate? From the texts. And the reliability of the texts is what faith was supposed to be grounding. The structure is circular: faith in the text produces belief in God, belief in God grounds trust in God, trust in God is then presented as the basis for faith in the text.
Paul Coneff’s version runs the same structure through experience: heart knowledge rather than head knowledge, the New Covenant mind and heart encounter. But an experience interpreted as an encounter with God requires prior belief that God is the source of the experience. The faith is performing the interpretive work that produces the experience, and the experience is then cited as confirmation of the faith.
Both responses describe a closed system and point to the internal coherence of its parts as evidence of external grounding. What they are trusting, in both cases, is faith itself.
To be direct about my own position: I hold no belief that is immune to revision. If the evidence changes, my conclusions change with it. That is not a limitation. It is the minimum condition for intellectual honesty. A position that cannot be falsified by any conceivable evidence is not a position. It is a fixture.
The Honest Trap, you handed me a standard I actually agree with: a position immune to all possible evidence is a fixture, not a position. So let me take you up on it, on the Bible's own ground.
First, in good faith: a lot of what apologists repeat is junk. "10 manuscripts of Caesar" (it's ~250). "All but 11 verses reconstructable from the church fathers", a debunked myth from a half-remembered 18th-c. anecdote. I'm throwing those out before I make my case.
What's left, honestly: the NT text reaches us through the most uncontrolled, cross-checkable transmission of any ancient document, thousands of independent witnesses no authority could have altered, which is why we can detect the few variants that exist. Uniformity you can verify, not uniformity you're ordered to trust (contrast Uthman burning the Quran's variants).
And it makes falsifiable bets about the world. Hittites, dismissed as myth, found 1906. King David, called a legend, then "House of David" in stone, 1993. Pilate, no evidence, then the Pilate Stone, 1961. Critics bet against the text; the spade kept vindicating it. Again and again…
That's not a fixture. That's "calibrated by evidence, revised by outcome", your definition of trust, not faith.
Full case, prophecy, the Buddhist canon, the Greek historians, line by line, is too much for a comment box, so I will publish one on my Substack, and schedul it for tomorrow.
You have your beliefs. And I was with a small team doing trauma training 30 minutes from Kyiv 18 months into that war. And I agree with A.C. that a lot of apologists (and theologians) pontificate a lot of junk. Sadly, your theological focus would be worse than useless with those people in Ukraine. Why? Because it would distract them from their need for the gospel that heals broken hearts and sets them free in real time (Luke 4:18), in real hearts with real wounds and real questions about God and life. You use lots of theological words that focuses on head knowledge and your definitions...which is your choice. But again, in my 20,000 hours of teaching, training and counseling and discipling in many countries, it would be useless in real time with real brokenness from all the bombing and raping the Ukrainians experienced. The "evidence" for the 3 Hebrews was that God allowed Babylon to conquer them and have them castrated and serve a rage-a-holic king...And sadly, I see your focus as what I have come to describe as: "theological masturbation: a lot of intellectual, religious feel good with little to no spiritual fruit." It doesn't pass the test for real-life problems in Ukraine or any country I've been in, or people I work with. It becomes a real distraction to the real gospel that intersects with real-life people and real-life struggles. So, this will be my last reply to you, because I spend most of my time walking with people who need real faith, real trust in real time, in the midst of real brokenness. And while I do not know your story, I do see a strong emphasis on theoretical, intellectual language/data, consistent with your bias. The Gospel is not a formula. It is the gospel story that shapes the stories of those in Scripture and of people throughout history. It is not the "gospel facts," it is not the "correct gospel linguistics," it is not the "gospel dictionary," according to you. So again, I am happy to agree to disagree - and trust you to walk with God in your way. And I am going to leave you to your focus, that is again, for me, theological masturbation with a lot of religious feel-good for you, with little to no spiritual fruit" in real life. Of course, I expect you to disagree and respond with more theological/theoretical words... And again, you are free to do so, giving you the last word as well :-), which can make you feel good at first, but in reality it leads to emptiness, because it is disconnected from the New Covenant that engages our hearts and minds. When I see God bring deep healing and freedom to people who have lost everything in Ukraine and other places, I want to continue investing my time walking with them because they are real, they are genuine, they are connecting mind and heart. When I see A.C. writing eloquently and genuinely about faith, I want to read more of his work and spend time with him because he is genuine. At the same time, I have no desire to invest more time with the mindset you have chosen for yourself. Living in our heads to engage in theoretical or theological gymnastics and become a critic of others appears to be safe. But it is a safety that is sterilized and sanitized, without real life, without real connection, because it emphasizes "correction" (and/or being better, smarter than others) at the expense of connection, even when the "correction" is incorrect. You say you are open to revision, and I hope you are not living in the self-deception of a theoretical, theological ivory tower that cannot be falsified precisely because it is self-deception masquerading as intellectual honesty, even as you do your best to give that impression. So, I will leave you to your walk with God, and I will invest my time with others who are genuinely open, who are not living in theoretical, theological ivory towers that offer intellectual pseudo-safety... And yet, at the same time, it also creates loneliness via self-deception that disallows real growth and real connection. I'll choose real life over intellectual pseudo-life as I live and work with people who have been betrayed, rejected, raped, experienced deep grief and loss and trauma etc. And again, I have no doubt that you believe what you believe. I just don't want you anywhere near the people I work with and minister to, whether it is Ukraine or the US, or Bolivia, or Brazil, or Thailand, India etc. Your mindset would not be a safe mindset for them to be around, because it interferes with Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, ministering to their broken hearts and minds.
Just to comment here that faith is not merely derived from scripture, but also from our experience of God in our day to day lives and, as Paul writes in Romans, through the universal evidence of Nature. It is simply by moving forward in faith, based on the light that we have been given, that our confidence/faith/trust in God is enabled to grow.
The mustard seed passage actually demonstrates the distinction rather than closing it. What you have described is a falsifiable proposition: invest a small amount of trust, observe whether the return materialises, and scale accordingly. That is precisely how trust operates. If the return does not come, the trust adjusts. The mechanism you described is empirical.
Faith, in the theological sense that does the work in this tradition, is what holds when the return does not come. When the child dies, when the prayer goes unanswered, when the evidence goes against it. That is not a defect from the believer's perspective; it is the virtue. But it is not trust. Trust is falsifiable by design. Faith is the commitment that persists when trust would withdraw.
There is also a prior problem. The passage only functions as an argument if God actually spoke it. If God spoke it, his existence and communicative activity are already established, which is precisely the question under discussion. The text cannot be used to settle a question about the reliability of the text without assuming the conclusion before the argument begins.
The claim that God calls us to faith carries the same difficulty. It presupposes the existence and communicative activity of the very entity whose nature is under discussion. Remove that presupposition and the argument has no content. What remains is the assertion that faith is trust, stated with more confidence than it was defended.
My observation is simple: that God continually invites us to trust in his faithfulness (aka have faith in Him) on account of His prior record of provision. This was the repeated message of the prophets. 'See I led you out of bondage, delivered you from your enemies and led you into the promised land. Therefore, trust that I will help you in this challenge that lies before you.' We are invited to judge God on account of His character as continually revealed to the faithful through history. So, while there may be no direct evidence to suggest that He will come through for us in a particular situation, such as the Lion's Den, yet we trust in Him on the basis of what we know of His (ineffably good) character. Which is something we learn through relationship over time.
This is the most coherent version of the argument so far and it deserves a direct response.
The track record argument has genuine structure: prior acts of provision establish a pattern, the pattern justifies confidence in future provision, and that confidence is what is being called trust. That is a falsifiable proposition in principle. If the pattern fails consistently, the confidence should revise.
The difficulty is the one identified earlier. The track record is known through texts whose reliability is itself established by faith in their divine origin. The Exodus, the deliverance from enemies, the provision in the wilderness: the evidence for these events is the biblical account of them. Using that account to establish God’s character, and then using God’s character to justify faith in the account, is a circular structure. The record grounds the trust; the trust authenticates the record.
You also acknowledge the gap precisely: there may be no direct evidence for a particular situation, yet the commitment holds. That is the definition of faith as originally stated. Trust adjusts when the specific evidence is absent. Faith holds regardless. You have described both in the same reply and called them the same thing.
Let me give it one final shot, because I do not actually think I am being circular. I refer to how God spoke to Israel through the prophets. In doing so, I am not saying that we trust in God on account of the same evidences God gave to them. I am only using this as an example of how 'the faith thing' works. For each of us, the light we are given as to God's character will be different. Say a scriptural insight in one case, a personal experience for another, and an apprehension of Creation for another. In none of these cases will the evidence (light) be conclusive. After all, how could it be? But it will maybe be sufficient to guide our next step in the relationship of trust, should we be willing to take it. And maybe if we take that next step, a little bit more light will be afforded us, thus strengthening that little bit of faith (trust) we exercised in taking that initial step of faith. The important thing is not that we are getting it all right, but that we are moving - however slowly and cautiously - in the right direction. Which is away from fear and doubt and self-dependence and towards the kind of restful collaboration with God that existed before the Fall. At least, that's my take on how it works, based on my own (fairly long) journey of faith. I hope that it may be helpful to some in contending with this whole issue of certainty that seems to hold back so many. PS: these issues, and many others, are all dealt with very well in The Great Divorce, which I have been reading recently with friends.
You have answered the original question while believing you are refuting it.
"In none of these cases will the evidence be conclusive. After all, how could it be?" That is not a qualification. That is the definition of an unfalsifiable position. Evidence that cannot in principle be conclusive is evidence that cannot in principle count against the commitment. You have described exactly the structure the original distinction was pointing to.
The incremental light model does not resolve this. Each step produces more light, which justifies the next step. But the direction of travel was determined before the first step: away from doubt, toward restful collaboration with God. Within that framework, an experience of peace confirms progress. An experience of doubt signals resistance to overcome. The framework determines which experiences count as evidence and in which direction. No experience is available to count against the destination, because the destination defines what counts as progress toward it.
A system that incorporates experience while fixing the interpretation of that experience in advance is not responsive to evidence. It is insulated from it by a structure that resembles responsiveness.
Thank you for writing about a biblical definition of faith—faith that is grounded in evidence rather than belief in spite of evidence. That helps expose a common straw-man argument: that biblical faith means believing something without evidence.
You (and many others) have written elsewhere about archaeological evidence supporting the historical reliability of Scripture. We also know from science how extraordinarily complex DNA and living cells are. And some prominent atheists and materialists have been very open about the philosophical assumptions they bring to the evidence.
Lewontin was remarkably candid about this philosophical commitment. He acknowledged a willingness to accept scientific claims “against common sense” and even “in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” because, he said, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” He went further, explaining that this materialism was not compelled by the methods of science themselves, but by an “a priori adherence to material causes,” concluding, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Aldous Huxley was similarly candid about philosophical, political, and moral reasons for wanting the world to have no ultimate meaning.
I appreciate their honesty. These were highly intelligent men. The issue isn't IQ. The more important question is whether any of us—Christian, atheist, agnostic, scientist, theologian—are willing to recognize our assumptions and follow the evidence even when it challenges what we already believe.
That is why archaeological discoveries are fascinating but cannot force anyone to believe. For generations skeptics questioned whether the Hittites existed as Scripture described them. Archaeology subsequently established the Hittite civilization. Archaeology has also provided evidence concerning ancient Israel and the Davidic dynasty, while non-Christian writers such as Josephus and Tacitus provide independent historical references to Jesus and the earliest Christians.
Does any of that prove Christianity so conclusively that disbelief becomes impossible? No.
Suppose Noah's ark were conclusively identified tomorrow. Would every skeptic become a Christian? Of course not. Suppose the ark of the covenant were discovered afterward. Would that settle every question? No. There would always be another question.
That is part of what I understand Romans 1 to mean when it uses the language of foolishness. It isn't describing people with low IQs. Brilliant people can be foolish, just as religious people can. The question is what we do with what we know and whether we are willing to acknowledge evidence that challenges us.
The same principle applies to Christians. Some doctors are dishonest and others have tremendous integrity. The same is true of lawyers, pastors, scientists, Christians and atheists. Christians sometimes become atheists; atheists sometimes become Christians. None of us is immune to confirmation bias, or to switching sides.
Richard Dawkins warned against the illusion of design, while designing the very sentences he was using in his book, along with designing his book cover, marketing ads etc.
“After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Kindle Edition, pp. 138-139)
It [Darwinian evolution] shatters the illusion of design within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be suspicious of any kind of design hypothesis in physics and cosmology as well. (Dawkins, pg. 143)
That raises a legitimate question: Is the appearance of design merely an illusion, or does it point beyond itself?
We recognize design everywhere else. A book has an author. Its words, cover and layout have purpose and design. Computers, automobiles and airplanes don't assemble themselves. Yet living organisms contain information-processing systems and molecular machinery of staggering complexity. So, is it reasonable to ask where that information, organization,and life ultimately came from – to ask who designed this intricate, incredibly complex process?
That doesn't mean Christians have every answer. We don't. “Where did God come from?” is a legitimate question. The Christian claim is that God isn't another material object inside the universe but the eternal reality upon which space, time, and matter ultimately depend. If that claim is true, we shouldn't expect to put God under a microscope as though He were another physical object.
But we can examine the evidence available to us: the universe had an early hot, dense state and a finite cosmic history as we know it; life exists; DNA carries extraordinary amounts of functional information; nature displays remarkable order; Scripture makes historical claims that can be tested against archaeology and other ancient sources; and Jesus is attested not only by Christian writings but by non-Christian sources.
None of those things forces faith.
But neither is biblical faith a leap into darkness.
Edwin Hubble's 1929 work established the relationship between galaxy distance and recession velocity. Einstein visited Edwin Hubble at Mount Wilson Observatory in January 1931, and shortly afterward accepted an expanding-universe model.
Einstein himself later acknowledged:
“If Hubble's expansion had been discovered at the time of the creation of the general theory of relativity, the cosmologic member would never have been introduced.”
However, we should not claim without further evidence that Einstein altered his equations specifically to avoid God or creation. (and there has been speculation about that, but we can let Einstein’s word speak for him, not going beyond what he has said).
Einstein saw the science and followed where it led. That is true science.
So, thank AC you for pointing us back to a biblical understanding of faith that takes evidence seriously. And again, I appreciate Lewontin, Huxley, Dawkins and other well-known atheists or evolutionists' honesty about what they believe, what they close to the door, because of their a priori beliefs against miracles and the divine, and warning against the “illusion of design,” even though again, the sentence, the book, and message of the book have design and purpose in them. This includes Dawkins' wish that Darwin had succeeded with all of us. Do I agree with Dawkins?
No. In fact, I believe his own words and Lewontin’s, and Huxley’s words work against them, revealing the opposite of Einstein’s growth in changing by going according to what was known. But their honesty is refreshing in the arena of faith and science, because many are not as honest, asking question upon question without ever stopping to admit what is already true. And without admitting what is already true with the evidence, this diminishes credibility. Then there is no next step, there are just more questions, without leading to change like Einstein. And again, Einstein’s change was not towards Christianity, but towards following the evidence wherever it led him.
My prayer is that all of us—believers and skeptics alike—will have enough humility to identify our own confirmation biases, admit what the evidence actually establishes, admit what it doesn't establish, and remain willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You tend to lead with the position from those whose objections are the strongest, so there is no getting around the fact that you see and hear their arguments, especially in this article with an accusation against faith that doesn't hold water when we look at Scripture.
The kind of honesty we need doesn't require an atheist to become a Christian or a Christian to pretend we have answers we don't have. It simply creates room for a genuine search for truth, on a level playing field, based on honest integrity, with questions willing to look at answers that may be uncomfortable ,and in fact, may stretch us beyond beyond our preconceived comfort zones.
The main difference between trusting and coming to know a person isn’t just about whether or not I can interact with the person now, it’s also about how I conclude I can trust them or even come to love them. I trust my husband, and this is indeed a kind of faith because I can’t prove with absolute certainty that he will always be trustworthy. But one reason I trust him is he has consistently shown, over time, that I matter to him and that I can rely on him. If my husband had a track record of repeatedly leaving me in harms way, like letting me drown or be severely and brutally tortured by someone without doing anything to help me (when he had the full power to help), I may be free to continue to trust him but it would be reasonable for other people to wonder if my trust is well placed or if I’m living in some kind of Stockholm syndrome relationship.
Likewise, we would question a parent’s love for their child if the parent did not protect their child from harm. In the worst circumstances, if the parent stood by and let their child be tortured, we would rightly condemn the parent and potentially remove the child from their care. We would see their inaction as evidence of either indifference to their own child or some critical lack of capability to protect them. Either way, we would see it as the child’s trust in their parent being tragically misplaced and misguided. But then with God, Christians ask us to trust the same God who allows terrible things to happen, or to believe God is really there suffering with us in some way. This is a completely different level of faith and trust to trusting a person.
I would invite those responding to consider NOT engaging with "Honest Trap" for a simple reason. "The Honest Trap" is actually a very accurate name because it is a "trap" in the sense that this person loves to live in the theoretical ivory tower of "correction" first, with "connection." I would not be surprised if this person "honestly" sets traps on multiple blogs, seeing a reaction, and then, once there is a need for correction, chooses to live in the head, and shifts the focus away from the reality that theology always has a practical application. And in fact, if it does not apply to real life, then it is nothing more than someone doing theological masturbation, getting a lot of religious feel-good without real spiritual life. The "joy" is in the arguments and getting reactions, living in the head, and being "right" as opposed to truly seeking truth and a relationship with God, with a love to focus on a few key words per confirmation bias...After a short while, "trap" will simply morph onto other sights where people "take the bait" to interact with him...not realizing the spirit that is involved. We can go round-and-round with people like "the trap" that is honestly a trap, and thus, in some ways, for me, is dishonest. I've seen this mindset again and again, and it only reinforces the person living in head knowledge, while avoiding the practical applications in daily life with real people experiencing real brokenness. And while it is convenient to remain in one's head, again, I have never seen it produce real spiritual life. So I will not be interacting with this disingenuous trap that leads to that theological ivory tower, filled with theological masturbation that again, feels good for the ego, but does not produce spiritual life, and has nothing to offer the brokenness in this world, even though Christ said His gospel heals broken hearts and sets people free, (Luke 4:18). Christ was very practical and I appreciate A.C. unpacking faith and trust in a meaningful way, in a way that tells us he has invested quality time, using his gifts, while also wanting to engage and interact with others who are genuinely seeking to grow, to seeking to have a genuine conversation, as opposed to limited, self-made, self-defined defintions of words. That limited approach does make the person feel important and "puffed up," but it also means people reject that mindset. And the part of me that is curious about someone's story, is whether this reflects a theme of rejection that lives inside that theological ivory tower, in a way that invites a repetition of rejection... But to have an honest conversation about the driving source behind this pattern of living in a theological ivory tower would require an honest, genuine conversation about real life, and the deepest thoughts and motives in the heart (Hebrews 4:12). But this kind of honesty and genuineness is a "trap" for those who have chosen to live with a pattern of self-protection, hiding in that tower of theoretical knowledge. Even words about being open to following wherever truth leads us, sounds good... until there is a need for correction, leading to the shift of focusing on another topic, instead of seeing the connection between theology and real life. Keeping theology disconnected from real life is actually a revelation of disconnection in the person, that is in opposition to Scripture.
I meant to say "without connection" as we talk about trust and faith in God, which is talking about and discussing theology, which again is not abstract, disconnected from real life brokenness. I've spent years traveling around the world, teaching and training at colleges, universities etc. And this mindset that lives in a theoretical ivory tower feeds on "trapping" others into an engagement that seems like a discussion, when in reality, it is simply one person's pontification. Head knowledge alone is not just dangerous, it is deadly to personal and spiritual growth. And when it hits a wall on one blog, it simply moves to another blog, to see who will "take the bait" - the "trap" that has the appearance of dialogue without the substance. Just notice how words are used, how the focus is shifted, how much time and energy are invested in minor points...And then ask yourself if it is worth your time to invest in this kind of dialogue, and results in reinforcing the"trap" of head knowledge and the pseudo-safety of the theoretical ivory tower. This is why I never allow this mindset around people who are seeking Christ's healing and wholeness for their brokenness. This mindset misses the whole person, mind and heart, by a mile and creates a lack of saftey that sabotages the application of Scripture and theology in way that reduces faith and trust and the ability to receive real healing for real life brokenness.
"The instinctive answer, the one baked into our whole culture, is that faith is an act of will. You decide to believe." This is, almost word for word, what a pastor said to me about 20 years ago when I pointed out that I found 'the evidence' unconvincing, I had asked how I could accept what couldn't be proven true to me. Let me say that I'm not an atheist. I believe in an intelligent creation. I don't even have a particular problem with Jesus. I've found parts of the bible to be quite compelling. But I cannot accept what the teachings of Jesus evolved into in the form of modern Christianity. I do appreciate you gearing much of your writing here to those you describe as seekers. (I might have made a decent Essene or gnostic. It's a pity the latter were excluded by what became The Church, Inc.) In any case, I read what you write here with interest and try to keep an open mind.
This is one of the most honest comments I've had here, and I want to engage it properly rather than wave you toward a pew.
Start with where I think you're simply right. The gap you're naming, between Jesus and what a lot of what calls itself Christianity became, is real, and I'm not going to defend the franchise to you. A great deal of my writing exists precisely because I think "The Church, Inc." has, in places, built something Jesus would have walked into and overturned tables about. He reserved his hottest words not for doubters or outsiders but for the religious management of his own day. So if your quarrel is with the institutional accretion, you and I are not actually on opposite sides of that. I'd just gently distinguish the building from the founder. Rejecting what men made of him is not the same as rejecting him, and you seem to already sense that, since you say you don't have a particular problem with Jesus.
Now let me push, in a friendly way, on the Essene-or-Gnostic line, because I think you've been sold a romance there, and it's worth knowing what you'd actually be buying.
The Gnostics are usually remembered as the free-thinking road the rigid Church closed off. But look at what they actually taught, because I suspect it's close to the opposite of what you'd want. The Gnostic systems generally held that the material world is a mistake, that the creation was the botched work of a lesser, ignorant, sometimes malicious deity, and that the body and the cosmos are a prison you escape through secret knowledge available to an elite few. Read that again next to your own words. You told me you believe in an intelligent creation. The Gnostics would have called that creation the trap. You find parts of the Bible compelling. The thing you find compelling, a good world made on purpose by a good Author, is the orthodox position, the Genesis line that God looked at what he made and called it good. It's the Gnostics who would have taken that from you, not the Church.
So the irony, and I mean this warmly, is that the man who believes in intelligent creation and is open to Jesus is standing much closer to the old creed than to the suppressed alternative he's half-mourning. The Gnostics weren't excluded because they were too free. They were excluded partly because they despised the very thing you affirm: that the material world is real, good, and made.
Keep reading with the open mind. It's the rarest and most honest posture available, and it's the only condition the oldest promise in the book ever actually asks for. I'm glad you're here.
I appreciate your thoughtful and generous comments. I read quite a bit of Gnostic writing many years ago, whilst trying on different versions of asceticism. Then, to use Mario Puzo's phrase, I was "hit by the thunderbolt." Ironically, I met and married a devout Christian. (We just celebrated our 45th anniversary.) Contemplating a married life together caused me to become more worldly, and any ascetic tendencies fell by the wayside. I was referring to the process by which the Bible included/excluded the various writings of the day; their decisions about what was considered authoritative. It is interesting that I encountered your publication after a cancer diagnosis has me face to face with my mortality. I'm fighting for my life, and grateful to have a loving and supportive wife. Perhaps that's why I read publications like yours. I'm glad to be here!
Baby steps, Mr. Maximus. FWIW, you have made it farther along your way than I had when I was a teenaged agnostic.
Many are not mere "doubters," but instead, hardened deniers spouting words of mockery of anyone and anything professing the God of the Bible. Today's "demand for a sign" comes from the same position of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart as that of the Jewish leaders during Jesus's life. They refuse to "hear" the Word or "see" the light of testimony.
Demanding evidence is not a symptom of spiritual blindness. It is the minimum condition for distinguishing a true claim from a false one.
What you have described is a belief system that classifies its own challenges as moral defects in the challenger. Under that structure, no evidence could ever count against the belief, because anyone who requests evidence has already been diagnosed as hardened rather than engaged. That is not a defence of the position. It is a method of insulating the position from examination.
The demand for a sign is only intelligible as mockery if the sign is impossible. If God exists and acts in history, evidence of those acts should be available. Asking for it is not hardness of heart. It is the ordinary standard applied to every other claim about the world.
Asking for evidence after refuting the evidence which has been produced in my opinion exemplifies "spiritual blindness and hardness of heart" condition. It's not a honest enquiry. After witnessing "signs and wonders" they asked for a "sign from heaven." We hold biblical text as divine revelation of God and the "mockers" of this world will never accept the article on which we establish our basis for faith in the God of heaven and hope for eternal life through Christ Jesus.
What evidence have you provided that is not just "trust me bro, the Bible said it"?
Falsifiable = scientific proof
The essay counters the accusations of blind faith. The essay attests to the validity of intelligent evaluation of the historical evidence in support of one's faith in God.
You're on your own, bud, to weigh the types of “evidence.” Sounds like to me you have already hardened your conclusions.
I must correct you, bud: falsifiability is not a requirement for scientific proof. It is the minimum condition for any claim about reality to be meaningful. Historical claims, legal claims, and ordinary empirical observations are all held to this standard without requiring a laboratory. Reducing it to scientific proof is a method of making a reasonable standard appear unreasonable.
On hardened conclusions: you have spent this exchange arguing that those who request evidence are spiritually blind, hardened of heart, and now conclusionally hardened. Meanwhile the position you are defending is explicitly structured to survive any outcome, including catastrophic suffering, as evidence of God’s reliability. A conclusion that cannot be revised by any conceivable evidence is the definition of a hardened conclusion. The description fits the position you are defending, not the standard being applied to it.
And this doesn't even begin to focus on consistent historical evidence revealing the accuracy of Biblical archaeology. Each time an atheist says the Bible is wrong because they haven't found evidence of the Hittites, of Israel in Egypt, of King David, of key people in Christ's day etc. – they are proven wrong again and again; there is no recognition of their confirmation bias, their pseudo-independence, and their demand for evidence. Then the archaeological evidence proves them wrong again. But - instead of reassessing their being wrong time and again, in their independence and arrogance, instead of considering their pattern of being wrong time and again, they continue on in the same path. This is why Romans 1 describes God's passive wrath as letting them experience the consequences of their choices, even as again, what do they gain by their pseudo-independence and confirmation bias, denying the depth of complexity of design in DNA, the fact that we have so much historical evidence for Jesus, even outside of Christianity, and the evidence of archaeology? They keep their pseudo-independence, their arrogance and pride, rejecting what God is offering, despite all the evidence that points to a Designer and Creator. And God gives them that freedom. He doesn't want obligation. He wants people who can look at the evidence in nature, in archaeology, in history, at the amazing colors and designs and nature, and the way the body is designed and connect the dots just like they do with their cars, their computers, their phones, their clothes (which is often color-coordinated), the airplanes they fly on etc. etc. At least Lewontin and Huxley and a few others are honest enough to admit their bias, which is exactly what keeps them from being honest enough to follow the evidence to where it is leading them. But again, God gives them freedom to live in denial, demanding evidence despite [A] the evidence in science, in history, in nature, and in archaeology etc. [B] Their willingness to reject the evidence because they don't want a Creator, they don't want to live within His protection. They see freedom from God as the way of life. AC is sharing truth that some will see. Some will be convicted by. While others will use it to reinforce their denial-based confirmation bias. Which means that interacting with them, will only reinforce their a priori commitment to reject truth. This is why Romans 1 says that, assuming they are wise, they became fools. It's not a lack of intelligence in understanding the evidence. It is a lack of integrity in admitting the evidence that is already there, that they are already rejecting. And thus, no amount of real evidence is ever enough, revealing the double minded standard that comes with the mental gymnastics needed to deny the evidence that is already there. AC is offering an evidence-based trust in science, in history, in archaeology. What we do with that is our responsibility. And eventually, one day, we will all answer for the choices we made to receive or reject the evidence. AC's whole article is an argument against the "just trust me bro" game of mental gymnastics. And to the degree Honest Trap knows the main premise of this article/blog, and continues playing words games - ignoring or denying the main premise of AC's article, he is lying to himself, revealing a lack of integrity within himself. And to the degree this is true, that is 100% about him, not about the article. Is he actually giving us the "evidence" that he is like Lewontin and Huxley, WITHOUT the same level of honesty and integrity they have, WITHOUT admitting that he has the same confirmation bias? I hope not... But if he were to be honest about his confirmation bias like many of these evolutionists I've quoted, in their own words, we could form the foundation of a honest conversation. Until then, it's impossible to have an honest conversation with him. And any effort to "reason" together will result in more mental gymnastics and more word games, deflecting from the main premise of this article, reinforcing his bias against evidence, while asking for evidence... Which leads to more trolling rather than truly seeking evidence. But again, he is free to take this approach to avoid the main premise of this article and others articles by AC (and many others) sharing the historical accuracy of the Bible etc. etc. He is free to live with a double-minded approach to life, even as there is always a cost to compromising integrity and living with the internal conflict between saying one is seeking truth, while actiely undermining all evidence that gets in the way of supporting conclusions already reached to maintain pseudo-independence from our Creator. One of the costs is a lack of self-respect, revealed in the way he avoids the main premise and purpose of the article, evidence that many atheistic scientists have eventually followed to the reality that we were created, and the world and universe were created. Einstein is famous for NOT wanting the universe to have a beginning. He fudged one of his formulas to avoid reality. Then, the Hubble telescope exposed the truth, and he followed truth where it led him: that our universe had a beginning. Anthony Flew was considered to be the leading atheist in the world for many years. Then he began to believe in a creator, even as he was not sure who it was. Sir Hoyle was an atheist who eventually came to see a bigger picture through science, math, and physics. Does that mean they all become Christians? NO, not at all. Does it reveal open minds who follow the impossibility of life beginning from non-life and the incredible complexity of DNA, RNA etc. etc.? Yes.
Adj. 1. falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
confirmable, verifiable,
empirical, empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
What's evidence have you provided that is falsifiable and not just "trust me bro, the Bible said it"
Thank you for this. I can honestly say I didn't subscribe to you for this but this ultimately is the best possible outcome I find.
I am not in edge, was but I long since entered the room and still walk the road. This hits so well because it perfectly resonantes with my journey and gave it more meat than I could ever have given it alone.
You described faith so well and practical that it makes sense now.
To the guys that said "Church, inc" He is not wrong, at least in that and the way you replied was splendid. This building differs from the founder. I would like to go to say, this (The Church, Inc) is not the building He founded but a poor approximation. The building—His body exists and is real, I hope he finds us.
Great insight! In our community, our teachings make a clear distinction between 'believing' and 'having faith', so we have a clearer understanding of the belief and faith process a person goes through, clearing the confusion, and making it practical in understanding why and what we believe and have faith in. If this helps anyone, here's a brief write-up of it: https://forthebetterco.substack.com/p/believing-vs-having-faith
Excellent article! I've struggled with faith, and I want to believe.
This is really great!
A coworker occasional likes to point out to me that “you *believe*”, emphasizing “believe”. It always lands strangely. It seems to me the emphasis should be on “you”, not “believe”, unless I’m just taking it wrong. If belief is relegated to some ethereal, nebulous, mystical, intangible, “blind” thing than can never be experientially known, I suppose it fits. But if it’s trust founded on knowledge and experience, or sound judgement based on evidence and testimony, then I suppose otherwise.
It seems to me that’s the way every verdict is arrived in criminal court. The judge wasn’t there, the lawyers weren’t there, and the jury isn’t supposed to know too much from the news so that they remain objective. Eyewitnesses aren’t jurors, and vice versa. Evidence is presented, testimony is heard, security footage is played, the DNA matches and his dropped credit card is found at the scene. Based on that, reasonable doubt is suspended.
Belief is a funny thing, atheists believe in at least 6 Miracles:
1- Something came from absolutely nothing.
2- Order from chaos.
3- Life from non-life.
4- Person from non-personal.
5- Reason from non-reason.
6- Morality from matter.
Now because i don’t have enough faith to be an atheist i will add two more for good measure.
7-Diversified complexity from random chance.
8- The magical-fairy-dust of “time” sprinkled generously over conundrums, solves all.
I suppose this list does sound a bit flippant, but i wish to illustrate that we all "Believe" in something. To shame those who believe, that they see design evidenced in created things, implies a creator, Is not reasonable. To claim that design is not there is simply unscientific. It is to deny the evidence. Everyone Believes in something. Belief is not the issue people pretend it is. That is the Atheist "anti christian" rhetoric and animosity towards God creeping in to the language. It is best not to take on someone else's anger. And don't let them put it on you either.
Well said...really appreciate your gift of writing and synthesizing ideas/beliefs - that takes a lot of time...
This is great stuff, thanks AC. I agree with every word, and I hope that many people get to read it. This whole idea of the leap of faith has been SO damaging. Ironically, I believe it was a Christian philosopher - Kierkegaard - who first came up with it. Sometimes you can be too clever for your own, or anyone else's, good!
Brilliant, thought-provoking work!
Thank you very much indeed... 🙏
You have conflated trust with faith and vice versa. (Equivocation fallacy with a touch of strawman)
We trust that our friends or family will not harm us. Faith is exclusively reserved for things that are unfalsifiable.
What you say is false, in my opinion. Faith is precisely the same as trust. It is what God calls us to, every day, and step by simple step. "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed..." In other words, trust me but a little, and I'll show you the full scope of what I can do.
Sometimes people get caught up in specific words, instead of the key point. Trust and faith can be interchangeable, depending on the situation. As our trust grows, so does our faith. And we can trust in God when we lose a child or spouse, when we don't get the promotion, when we are betrayed. So, I appreciate what you shared TD. Sometimes it is dangerous and self-defeating to miss the practical application of faith and trust. God is inviting us to trust Him, and in fact, in Isaiah 5:3-4, asks us to judge Him based on the evidence of whether He had done enough for them. He is saying He has done things for them, and based on what He has done, He invites them to have trust and faith in Him. In Exodus 20, He begins by telling them what He has done for them, before sharing the 10 commandments. He is sharing why they can trust Him, why they can have faith in Him and His kingdom of grace and truth. Daniel's 3 friends trusted God whether He would save them from the fire or not. And they had already been taken from Babylon, castrated and called to serve a rage-a-holic king with no evidence that anything would change for them - except the possibility of things getting worse if they were thrown into the fire. They had no evidence that Christ would show up in the fire with them. They had zero evidence that Christ would keep them from being barbecued. And they had no evidence that they would not even have the smell of smoke upon them. But they chose to trust their lives in God's hands regardless of the outcome. That is real trust and real faith in real time, overlapping with the reality that they had no evidence that they would be protected from trials or death. But they had a relationship with God in the midst of their trials, the "Immanuel: God WITH us," IN our trials and in our losses. :-)
Well said Paul!
I appreciate your writing A.C. It is a blessing.
The Daniel passage confirms the distinction rather than dissolving it. Your own words establish it: they had no evidence Christ would appear, no evidence they would survive, and they committed regardless. Commitment in the complete absence of evidence is not trust. Trust is calibrated by evidence and revised by outcome. What you described is revised by neither.
The phrase that is most revealing is your own: regardless of the outcome. Trust does not function regardless of outcome. If you trust a bridge and it collapses, the trust is revised. Outcome is precisely the standard against which trust is measured. Regardless of outcome is the grammatical signature of faith, not trust. You have used the defining characteristic of faith to describe what you are calling trust.
On Isaiah and Exodus: the argument that God presented his track record before requesting commitment is structurally the correct kind of argument. The difficulty is that the track record is contained in the same texts whose authority is under question. The evidence that God delivered Israel from Egypt is the biblical account of the Exodus. Using that account to establish God’s reliability requires the account to be reliable independently of the conclusion it is being used to support.
The interchangeability concession is also more significant than intended. If trust and faith are interchangeable depending on the situation, they are not identical. The question is which situations require which, and whether commitment without external verification is one where the distinction is material. The Daniel example suggests it is.
PS: without establishing definitions nor agreeing to them, will make ambiguity prevail.
The trust and the Faith that Paul is referring to, i understand to be placed in multiple things, and that is how and why they overlap. The Trust is in the character and person and justice of God. Who God is and who God claims to be. The Faith is their belief in action. The belief that God has spoken true and that He is trustworthy. The faith is the manifestation of the belief. The action. That is why it is said that faith without works is dead. Because if you say you have faith but will not act upon it you are simply holding loosely to a theory that you do not trust enough to act upon.
You are committed to your belief, your interpretation, and seeking to prove you are "right" about your interpretation, even though others, including myself do not agree with you. You are welcome to your interpretation, just as I see it as a limited interpretation (and it is one interpretation, not the only interpretation), trying to fix square pegs into a round hole. We can all have confirmation bias, and I am going to trust you in your walk with God, while knowing that I see things in a different way, and also knowing that the 3 Hebrews were exhibiting trust and faith that God could rescue them, despite never seeing people rescued from a life-size firey furance. Blessings as you continue studying...and with prayers that what we study leads to a New Covenant, mind and heart experience with God, as opposed to settling for head knowledge alone. (and after I've taught in universities and seminary, I've seen theologians live in their heads with little to no practical application, much like the religious leaders in Christ's day who had head knowledge they believed in, while they also rejected Christ's words and killed Him, inviting us to turn Scriptures like Psalm 139:23-24 and Hebrews 4:12 into personal prayers so we are growing in our minds and hearts, (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16 etc.).
There is a prior question neither response has addressed.
The trust is placed in God’s character. The knowledge of God’s character derives from scripture. The reliability of scripture is established by faith in its divine origin. The faith is then described as trust because it has an object. But the object was installed by the faith. What is being called trust is confidence in a conclusion that faith itself produced.
Rosenthal’s formulation states it precisely without appearing to notice: the faith is the manifestation of the belief. But where did the belief originate? From the texts. And the reliability of the texts is what faith was supposed to be grounding. The structure is circular: faith in the text produces belief in God, belief in God grounds trust in God, trust in God is then presented as the basis for faith in the text.
Paul Coneff’s version runs the same structure through experience: heart knowledge rather than head knowledge, the New Covenant mind and heart encounter. But an experience interpreted as an encounter with God requires prior belief that God is the source of the experience. The faith is performing the interpretive work that produces the experience, and the experience is then cited as confirmation of the faith.
Both responses describe a closed system and point to the internal coherence of its parts as evidence of external grounding. What they are trusting, in both cases, is faith itself.
To be direct about my own position: I hold no belief that is immune to revision. If the evidence changes, my conclusions change with it. That is not a limitation. It is the minimum condition for intellectual honesty. A position that cannot be falsified by any conceivable evidence is not a position. It is a fixture.
The Honest Trap, you handed me a standard I actually agree with: a position immune to all possible evidence is a fixture, not a position. So let me take you up on it, on the Bible's own ground.
First, in good faith: a lot of what apologists repeat is junk. "10 manuscripts of Caesar" (it's ~250). "All but 11 verses reconstructable from the church fathers", a debunked myth from a half-remembered 18th-c. anecdote. I'm throwing those out before I make my case.
What's left, honestly: the NT text reaches us through the most uncontrolled, cross-checkable transmission of any ancient document, thousands of independent witnesses no authority could have altered, which is why we can detect the few variants that exist. Uniformity you can verify, not uniformity you're ordered to trust (contrast Uthman burning the Quran's variants).
And it makes falsifiable bets about the world. Hittites, dismissed as myth, found 1906. King David, called a legend, then "House of David" in stone, 1993. Pilate, no evidence, then the Pilate Stone, 1961. Critics bet against the text; the spade kept vindicating it. Again and again…
That's not a fixture. That's "calibrated by evidence, revised by outcome", your definition of trust, not faith.
Full case, prophecy, the Buddhist canon, the Greek historians, line by line, is too much for a comment box, so I will publish one on my Substack, and schedul it for tomorrow.
You have your beliefs. And I was with a small team doing trauma training 30 minutes from Kyiv 18 months into that war. And I agree with A.C. that a lot of apologists (and theologians) pontificate a lot of junk. Sadly, your theological focus would be worse than useless with those people in Ukraine. Why? Because it would distract them from their need for the gospel that heals broken hearts and sets them free in real time (Luke 4:18), in real hearts with real wounds and real questions about God and life. You use lots of theological words that focuses on head knowledge and your definitions...which is your choice. But again, in my 20,000 hours of teaching, training and counseling and discipling in many countries, it would be useless in real time with real brokenness from all the bombing and raping the Ukrainians experienced. The "evidence" for the 3 Hebrews was that God allowed Babylon to conquer them and have them castrated and serve a rage-a-holic king...And sadly, I see your focus as what I have come to describe as: "theological masturbation: a lot of intellectual, religious feel good with little to no spiritual fruit." It doesn't pass the test for real-life problems in Ukraine or any country I've been in, or people I work with. It becomes a real distraction to the real gospel that intersects with real-life people and real-life struggles. So, this will be my last reply to you, because I spend most of my time walking with people who need real faith, real trust in real time, in the midst of real brokenness. And while I do not know your story, I do see a strong emphasis on theoretical, intellectual language/data, consistent with your bias. The Gospel is not a formula. It is the gospel story that shapes the stories of those in Scripture and of people throughout history. It is not the "gospel facts," it is not the "correct gospel linguistics," it is not the "gospel dictionary," according to you. So again, I am happy to agree to disagree - and trust you to walk with God in your way. And I am going to leave you to your focus, that is again, for me, theological masturbation with a lot of religious feel-good for you, with little to no spiritual fruit" in real life. Of course, I expect you to disagree and respond with more theological/theoretical words... And again, you are free to do so, giving you the last word as well :-), which can make you feel good at first, but in reality it leads to emptiness, because it is disconnected from the New Covenant that engages our hearts and minds. When I see God bring deep healing and freedom to people who have lost everything in Ukraine and other places, I want to continue investing my time walking with them because they are real, they are genuine, they are connecting mind and heart. When I see A.C. writing eloquently and genuinely about faith, I want to read more of his work and spend time with him because he is genuine. At the same time, I have no desire to invest more time with the mindset you have chosen for yourself. Living in our heads to engage in theoretical or theological gymnastics and become a critic of others appears to be safe. But it is a safety that is sterilized and sanitized, without real life, without real connection, because it emphasizes "correction" (and/or being better, smarter than others) at the expense of connection, even when the "correction" is incorrect. You say you are open to revision, and I hope you are not living in the self-deception of a theoretical, theological ivory tower that cannot be falsified precisely because it is self-deception masquerading as intellectual honesty, even as you do your best to give that impression. So, I will leave you to your walk with God, and I will invest my time with others who are genuinely open, who are not living in theoretical, theological ivory towers that offer intellectual pseudo-safety... And yet, at the same time, it also creates loneliness via self-deception that disallows real growth and real connection. I'll choose real life over intellectual pseudo-life as I live and work with people who have been betrayed, rejected, raped, experienced deep grief and loss and trauma etc. And again, I have no doubt that you believe what you believe. I just don't want you anywhere near the people I work with and minister to, whether it is Ukraine or the US, or Bolivia, or Brazil, or Thailand, India etc. Your mindset would not be a safe mindset for them to be around, because it interferes with Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, ministering to their broken hearts and minds.
Just to comment here that faith is not merely derived from scripture, but also from our experience of God in our day to day lives and, as Paul writes in Romans, through the universal evidence of Nature. It is simply by moving forward in faith, based on the light that we have been given, that our confidence/faith/trust in God is enabled to grow.
The mustard seed passage actually demonstrates the distinction rather than closing it. What you have described is a falsifiable proposition: invest a small amount of trust, observe whether the return materialises, and scale accordingly. That is precisely how trust operates. If the return does not come, the trust adjusts. The mechanism you described is empirical.
Faith, in the theological sense that does the work in this tradition, is what holds when the return does not come. When the child dies, when the prayer goes unanswered, when the evidence goes against it. That is not a defect from the believer's perspective; it is the virtue. But it is not trust. Trust is falsifiable by design. Faith is the commitment that persists when trust would withdraw.
There is also a prior problem. The passage only functions as an argument if God actually spoke it. If God spoke it, his existence and communicative activity are already established, which is precisely the question under discussion. The text cannot be used to settle a question about the reliability of the text without assuming the conclusion before the argument begins.
The claim that God calls us to faith carries the same difficulty. It presupposes the existence and communicative activity of the very entity whose nature is under discussion. Remove that presupposition and the argument has no content. What remains is the assertion that faith is trust, stated with more confidence than it was defended.
My observation is simple: that God continually invites us to trust in his faithfulness (aka have faith in Him) on account of His prior record of provision. This was the repeated message of the prophets. 'See I led you out of bondage, delivered you from your enemies and led you into the promised land. Therefore, trust that I will help you in this challenge that lies before you.' We are invited to judge God on account of His character as continually revealed to the faithful through history. So, while there may be no direct evidence to suggest that He will come through for us in a particular situation, such as the Lion's Den, yet we trust in Him on the basis of what we know of His (ineffably good) character. Which is something we learn through relationship over time.
This is the most coherent version of the argument so far and it deserves a direct response.
The track record argument has genuine structure: prior acts of provision establish a pattern, the pattern justifies confidence in future provision, and that confidence is what is being called trust. That is a falsifiable proposition in principle. If the pattern fails consistently, the confidence should revise.
The difficulty is the one identified earlier. The track record is known through texts whose reliability is itself established by faith in their divine origin. The Exodus, the deliverance from enemies, the provision in the wilderness: the evidence for these events is the biblical account of them. Using that account to establish God’s character, and then using God’s character to justify faith in the account, is a circular structure. The record grounds the trust; the trust authenticates the record.
You also acknowledge the gap precisely: there may be no direct evidence for a particular situation, yet the commitment holds. That is the definition of faith as originally stated. Trust adjusts when the specific evidence is absent. Faith holds regardless. You have described both in the same reply and called them the same thing.
Let me give it one final shot, because I do not actually think I am being circular. I refer to how God spoke to Israel through the prophets. In doing so, I am not saying that we trust in God on account of the same evidences God gave to them. I am only using this as an example of how 'the faith thing' works. For each of us, the light we are given as to God's character will be different. Say a scriptural insight in one case, a personal experience for another, and an apprehension of Creation for another. In none of these cases will the evidence (light) be conclusive. After all, how could it be? But it will maybe be sufficient to guide our next step in the relationship of trust, should we be willing to take it. And maybe if we take that next step, a little bit more light will be afforded us, thus strengthening that little bit of faith (trust) we exercised in taking that initial step of faith. The important thing is not that we are getting it all right, but that we are moving - however slowly and cautiously - in the right direction. Which is away from fear and doubt and self-dependence and towards the kind of restful collaboration with God that existed before the Fall. At least, that's my take on how it works, based on my own (fairly long) journey of faith. I hope that it may be helpful to some in contending with this whole issue of certainty that seems to hold back so many. PS: these issues, and many others, are all dealt with very well in The Great Divorce, which I have been reading recently with friends.
You have answered the original question while believing you are refuting it.
"In none of these cases will the evidence be conclusive. After all, how could it be?" That is not a qualification. That is the definition of an unfalsifiable position. Evidence that cannot in principle be conclusive is evidence that cannot in principle count against the commitment. You have described exactly the structure the original distinction was pointing to.
The incremental light model does not resolve this. Each step produces more light, which justifies the next step. But the direction of travel was determined before the first step: away from doubt, toward restful collaboration with God. Within that framework, an experience of peace confirms progress. An experience of doubt signals resistance to overcome. The framework determines which experiences count as evidence and in which direction. No experience is available to count against the destination, because the destination defines what counts as progress toward it.
A system that incorporates experience while fixing the interpretation of that experience in advance is not responsive to evidence. It is insulated from it by a structure that resembles responsiveness.
Your circularity is going in circles.
Thank you for writing about a biblical definition of faith—faith that is grounded in evidence rather than belief in spite of evidence. That helps expose a common straw-man argument: that biblical faith means believing something without evidence.
You (and many others) have written elsewhere about archaeological evidence supporting the historical reliability of Scripture. We also know from science how extraordinarily complex DNA and living cells are. And some prominent atheists and materialists have been very open about the philosophical assumptions they bring to the evidence.
Lewontin was remarkably candid about this philosophical commitment. He acknowledged a willingness to accept scientific claims “against common sense” and even “in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” because, he said, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” He went further, explaining that this materialism was not compelled by the methods of science themselves, but by an “a priori adherence to material causes,” concluding, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Aldous Huxley was similarly candid about philosophical, political, and moral reasons for wanting the world to have no ultimate meaning.
I appreciate their honesty. These were highly intelligent men. The issue isn't IQ. The more important question is whether any of us—Christian, atheist, agnostic, scientist, theologian—are willing to recognize our assumptions and follow the evidence even when it challenges what we already believe.
That is why archaeological discoveries are fascinating but cannot force anyone to believe. For generations skeptics questioned whether the Hittites existed as Scripture described them. Archaeology subsequently established the Hittite civilization. Archaeology has also provided evidence concerning ancient Israel and the Davidic dynasty, while non-Christian writers such as Josephus and Tacitus provide independent historical references to Jesus and the earliest Christians.
Does any of that prove Christianity so conclusively that disbelief becomes impossible? No.
Suppose Noah's ark were conclusively identified tomorrow. Would every skeptic become a Christian? Of course not. Suppose the ark of the covenant were discovered afterward. Would that settle every question? No. There would always be another question.
That is part of what I understand Romans 1 to mean when it uses the language of foolishness. It isn't describing people with low IQs. Brilliant people can be foolish, just as religious people can. The question is what we do with what we know and whether we are willing to acknowledge evidence that challenges us.
The same principle applies to Christians. Some doctors are dishonest and others have tremendous integrity. The same is true of lawyers, pastors, scientists, Christians and atheists. Christians sometimes become atheists; atheists sometimes become Christians. None of us is immune to confirmation bias, or to switching sides.
Richard Dawkins warned against the illusion of design, while designing the very sentences he was using in his book, along with designing his book cover, marketing ads etc.
“After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Kindle Edition, pp. 138-139)
It [Darwinian evolution] shatters the illusion of design within the domain of biology, and teaches us to be suspicious of any kind of design hypothesis in physics and cosmology as well. (Dawkins, pg. 143)
That raises a legitimate question: Is the appearance of design merely an illusion, or does it point beyond itself?
We recognize design everywhere else. A book has an author. Its words, cover and layout have purpose and design. Computers, automobiles and airplanes don't assemble themselves. Yet living organisms contain information-processing systems and molecular machinery of staggering complexity. So, is it reasonable to ask where that information, organization,and life ultimately came from – to ask who designed this intricate, incredibly complex process?
That doesn't mean Christians have every answer. We don't. “Where did God come from?” is a legitimate question. The Christian claim is that God isn't another material object inside the universe but the eternal reality upon which space, time, and matter ultimately depend. If that claim is true, we shouldn't expect to put God under a microscope as though He were another physical object.
But we can examine the evidence available to us: the universe had an early hot, dense state and a finite cosmic history as we know it; life exists; DNA carries extraordinary amounts of functional information; nature displays remarkable order; Scripture makes historical claims that can be tested against archaeology and other ancient sources; and Jesus is attested not only by Christian writings but by non-Christian sources.
None of those things forces faith.
But neither is biblical faith a leap into darkness.
Edwin Hubble's 1929 work established the relationship between galaxy distance and recession velocity. Einstein visited Edwin Hubble at Mount Wilson Observatory in January 1931, and shortly afterward accepted an expanding-universe model.
Einstein himself later acknowledged:
“If Hubble's expansion had been discovered at the time of the creation of the general theory of relativity, the cosmologic member would never have been introduced.”
However, we should not claim without further evidence that Einstein altered his equations specifically to avoid God or creation. (and there has been speculation about that, but we can let Einstein’s word speak for him, not going beyond what he has said).
Einstein saw the science and followed where it led. That is true science.
So, thank AC you for pointing us back to a biblical understanding of faith that takes evidence seriously. And again, I appreciate Lewontin, Huxley, Dawkins and other well-known atheists or evolutionists' honesty about what they believe, what they close to the door, because of their a priori beliefs against miracles and the divine, and warning against the “illusion of design,” even though again, the sentence, the book, and message of the book have design and purpose in them. This includes Dawkins' wish that Darwin had succeeded with all of us. Do I agree with Dawkins?
No. In fact, I believe his own words and Lewontin’s, and Huxley’s words work against them, revealing the opposite of Einstein’s growth in changing by going according to what was known. But their honesty is refreshing in the arena of faith and science, because many are not as honest, asking question upon question without ever stopping to admit what is already true. And without admitting what is already true with the evidence, this diminishes credibility. Then there is no next step, there are just more questions, without leading to change like Einstein. And again, Einstein’s change was not towards Christianity, but towards following the evidence wherever it led him.
My prayer is that all of us—believers and skeptics alike—will have enough humility to identify our own confirmation biases, admit what the evidence actually establishes, admit what it doesn't establish, and remain willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You tend to lead with the position from those whose objections are the strongest, so there is no getting around the fact that you see and hear their arguments, especially in this article with an accusation against faith that doesn't hold water when we look at Scripture.
The kind of honesty we need doesn't require an atheist to become a Christian or a Christian to pretend we have answers we don't have. It simply creates room for a genuine search for truth, on a level playing field, based on honest integrity, with questions willing to look at answers that may be uncomfortable ,and in fact, may stretch us beyond beyond our preconceived comfort zones.
The main difference between trusting and coming to know a person isn’t just about whether or not I can interact with the person now, it’s also about how I conclude I can trust them or even come to love them. I trust my husband, and this is indeed a kind of faith because I can’t prove with absolute certainty that he will always be trustworthy. But one reason I trust him is he has consistently shown, over time, that I matter to him and that I can rely on him. If my husband had a track record of repeatedly leaving me in harms way, like letting me drown or be severely and brutally tortured by someone without doing anything to help me (when he had the full power to help), I may be free to continue to trust him but it would be reasonable for other people to wonder if my trust is well placed or if I’m living in some kind of Stockholm syndrome relationship.
Likewise, we would question a parent’s love for their child if the parent did not protect their child from harm. In the worst circumstances, if the parent stood by and let their child be tortured, we would rightly condemn the parent and potentially remove the child from their care. We would see their inaction as evidence of either indifference to their own child or some critical lack of capability to protect them. Either way, we would see it as the child’s trust in their parent being tragically misplaced and misguided. But then with God, Christians ask us to trust the same God who allows terrible things to happen, or to believe God is really there suffering with us in some way. This is a completely different level of faith and trust to trusting a person.
I would invite those responding to consider NOT engaging with "Honest Trap" for a simple reason. "The Honest Trap" is actually a very accurate name because it is a "trap" in the sense that this person loves to live in the theoretical ivory tower of "correction" first, with "connection." I would not be surprised if this person "honestly" sets traps on multiple blogs, seeing a reaction, and then, once there is a need for correction, chooses to live in the head, and shifts the focus away from the reality that theology always has a practical application. And in fact, if it does not apply to real life, then it is nothing more than someone doing theological masturbation, getting a lot of religious feel-good without real spiritual life. The "joy" is in the arguments and getting reactions, living in the head, and being "right" as opposed to truly seeking truth and a relationship with God, with a love to focus on a few key words per confirmation bias...After a short while, "trap" will simply morph onto other sights where people "take the bait" to interact with him...not realizing the spirit that is involved. We can go round-and-round with people like "the trap" that is honestly a trap, and thus, in some ways, for me, is dishonest. I've seen this mindset again and again, and it only reinforces the person living in head knowledge, while avoiding the practical applications in daily life with real people experiencing real brokenness. And while it is convenient to remain in one's head, again, I have never seen it produce real spiritual life. So I will not be interacting with this disingenuous trap that leads to that theological ivory tower, filled with theological masturbation that again, feels good for the ego, but does not produce spiritual life, and has nothing to offer the brokenness in this world, even though Christ said His gospel heals broken hearts and sets people free, (Luke 4:18). Christ was very practical and I appreciate A.C. unpacking faith and trust in a meaningful way, in a way that tells us he has invested quality time, using his gifts, while also wanting to engage and interact with others who are genuinely seeking to grow, to seeking to have a genuine conversation, as opposed to limited, self-made, self-defined defintions of words. That limited approach does make the person feel important and "puffed up," but it also means people reject that mindset. And the part of me that is curious about someone's story, is whether this reflects a theme of rejection that lives inside that theological ivory tower, in a way that invites a repetition of rejection... But to have an honest conversation about the driving source behind this pattern of living in a theological ivory tower would require an honest, genuine conversation about real life, and the deepest thoughts and motives in the heart (Hebrews 4:12). But this kind of honesty and genuineness is a "trap" for those who have chosen to live with a pattern of self-protection, hiding in that tower of theoretical knowledge. Even words about being open to following wherever truth leads us, sounds good... until there is a need for correction, leading to the shift of focusing on another topic, instead of seeing the connection between theology and real life. Keeping theology disconnected from real life is actually a revelation of disconnection in the person, that is in opposition to Scripture.
I meant to say "without connection" as we talk about trust and faith in God, which is talking about and discussing theology, which again is not abstract, disconnected from real life brokenness. I've spent years traveling around the world, teaching and training at colleges, universities etc. And this mindset that lives in a theoretical ivory tower feeds on "trapping" others into an engagement that seems like a discussion, when in reality, it is simply one person's pontification. Head knowledge alone is not just dangerous, it is deadly to personal and spiritual growth. And when it hits a wall on one blog, it simply moves to another blog, to see who will "take the bait" - the "trap" that has the appearance of dialogue without the substance. Just notice how words are used, how the focus is shifted, how much time and energy are invested in minor points...And then ask yourself if it is worth your time to invest in this kind of dialogue, and results in reinforcing the"trap" of head knowledge and the pseudo-safety of the theoretical ivory tower. This is why I never allow this mindset around people who are seeking Christ's healing and wholeness for their brokenness. This mindset misses the whole person, mind and heart, by a mile and creates a lack of saftey that sabotages the application of Scripture and theology in way that reduces faith and trust and the ability to receive real healing for real life brokenness.
Beautiful
https://allendaves.substack.com/p/the-name-of-god-cannot-be-pronounced?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1xhldx