John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7, and Hebrews 11:1 are often abused for anti-apologetic purposes. It happened again during a recent discussion between Alex O'Connor and Rhett McLaughlin. There are a lot of other problems with their discussion, but I want to focus on the misuse of the three Biblical passages I just mentioned. I want to address that misuse among skeptics in general, not just Alex and Rhett.
I've addressed the passages before, like here, here, and here. The second of those three provides an illustration of the principles involved in John 20 in the life of a modern skeptic.
Here are a few things to keep in mind with regard to all three of these passages:
- Bringing up one or more of the passages doesn't address the other material that's relevant in the same documents and other sources. There are apologetic references to eyewitness testimony, prophecy fulfillment, apostolic miracles, etc. in John, 2 Corinthians, Hebrews, and other relevant sources. Appealing to an anti-apologetic interpretation of one passage from each of the three documents under consideration, without addressing the relevant material in the surrounding context, is inadequate. If an alternative interpretation of these passages makes more sense of the surrounding context, then that's an advantage for that other interpretation.
- Sight isn't the same as evidence. They're different concepts. Evidence often takes on forms other than sight, such as the hearing referred to in Hebrews 2:3.
- None of these passages are addressing faith as a whole. They're addressing an element of faith that allows for the inclusion of evidential sight in other contexts and other forms of evidence, even though sight isn't included in the aspect of faith under consideration in these passages. Hebrews 11, for example, is focused on trusting God for the future, but faith involves more than that. For further discussion of the subject, see my post on Hebrews 11 linked earlier.
- We can illustrate the absurdity of the anti-apologetic interpretations of these passages by thinking of some examples in modern life. Let's say you run a business. There's a business partner you've worked with for a couple of decades. In the past, he always gave you the products he said he'd give you at the time when he said he would after you paid him. It's Thursday, and you just paid him for something he's supposed to deliver to you on the following Monday. There's a sense in which your faith in him doesn't involve sight. Monday hasn't arrived yet. But it's not as though you have no evidence for your faith in him. If you made some comments about trusting him to deliver what you ordered, even though you haven't seen the products yet, it would be ridiculous for somebody to single out those comments, interpret them in an anti-evidential manner, and ignore the contrary indications (the indications that you're not being anti-evidential) in the surrounding context. That sort of faith without sight happens all the time, when we go to a doctor, when we make financial decisions, etc. It not only isn't inherently anti-evidential, but, in fact, involves a lot of interest in evidence and the presence of a lot of evidence.
For a broader discussion of the importance of apologetics, in scripture and elsewhere, see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment