Why Can I Be A Christian Even If I Do Not Know The Evidence For Its Veracity

            The principal reason I am a Christian is because Christianity is true. The arguments for God’s existence, the infallibility of the Bible, the evidence for the existence of the Historical Jesus and HIS resurrection are sufficient for me to commit my life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and remain strong in HIM.

            But I did not commit my life to Christ upon learning the evidence for Christianity. I committed my life much earlier when I was not aware of the evidence.

            Was I wrong in committing my life to Jesus then? 

            If my commitment to Christ without examining the evidence for Christianity was valid/correct, then on what basis was it valid and would it be valid for everyone who, even now, do not examine the evidence for Historic Christianity?

            Today, there are Christians who do not know or understand the bedrock of evidence on which Historic Christianity stands. There are many simple, unassuming, and humble Christians. They do not know or do not care about the evidence substantiating Historic Christianity. Would an atheist, then, be justified to deem their faith as blind faith or go one step further to deem them as non-Christians?

            Dig deeper. Assume there is no valid evidence for the credibility of Historic Christianity. Should we then cease to be Christians or would Historic Christianity disintegrate?

            Is the legitimacy of Historic Christianity solely based on evidence?¹

            To reiterate, there is reasonable and adequate evidence corroborating the authenticity of Historic Christianity. But even if there is no evidence, would Historic Christianity disintegrate?

            First, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Truth, occasionally, gets suppressed in the court of law. In some instances, the guilty are acquitted and the innocent are convicted. This is common knowledge.

            This phenomenon could be due to many reasons. One reason may be a sincere inability to produce indomitable evidence that would have tilted the case in favor of the innocent.

            Therefore, the lack of evidence, which leads to suppression of truth, need not necessarily posit evidence of absence or the absence of truth or the triumph of an error/lie.

            Second, the Bible unequivocally emphasizes that God has given each person an adequate degree of cognizance to discern HIS presence, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” [Emphasis Mine] (Romans 1: 18-20, ESV).

            That degree of cognizance is more than adequate to perceive God’s existence. However, that measure of perception which motivates an individual to believe in the existence of God or the Lordship of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient to comprehend the philosophical arguments corroborating God’s existence or the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or the demonstration of HIS bodily resurrection as a valid historic event.

            Such Christians would have a hard time defending their faith. It’s not that they believe that their faith in Jesus is inexplicable, but they either are ignorant of the evidence or struggle to comprehend those evidence.

            Third, if an ability to perceive a preliminary notion of God is within our natural ability, then a basic understanding of each theistic religion is well within our epistemic grasp. This brings us to the simplicity of the Historic Christian narrative.

            The Historic Christian narrative is simple to comprehend.

            According to Historic Christianity, God creates mankind. Every man is a sinner who will eventually die a physical (bodily) and spiritual death (eternally). So God gave HIMSELF, in the form of Jesus Christ (God incarnate), to die for our sins, to resurrect and ascend to the right hand of the Father. Thus, those who repent of their sinfulness and believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ will be saved (from the spiritual death). The saved will be with God forever and ever after their physical death.

            God bore the brunt of salvation (the suffering death on the cross), whereas man’s role is merely to believe in what God did for him. This is precisely why the Bible specifies that salvation is God’s gracious gift to man, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9, ESV).

            Thus in the Christian narrative, salvation is a gracious gift of God, through our faith, on the foundation of Christ’s sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension.

            As you see, the Christian narrative is rather simple when compared to that of the other major world religions - Hinduism and Islam.

            Fourth, the means of salvation in Christianity, as already seen, is God’s gracious gift to man. Salvation in the Christian worldview is logical.

1. God, by definition, is maximally great, perfect, infinite, and sovereign.

2. Man is finite, imperfect, and limited.

3. Therefore, in order to save mankind, the all-wise and all-powerful God should play a major role.

4. The Bible teaches that God plays a major role in man’s salvation.

            In the Christian salvific system, God does not burden a man to play a major role; rather God plays that major role.

            It would be illogical for man to play a major role in salvation when the all-powerful, all-wise God is sitting and watching the weak and powerless man struggling to save himself. God, in this salvific paradigm, could be construed as sadistic.

            Christianity teaches that in order for man to be saved he should repent and believe in the Lord Jesus. Man’s good works have no role in his salvation. The emphasis is that man need not struggle to save himself; rather God saves mankind by making the process of salvation easy upon man.

            On the contrary, a cursory observation of the competing worldviews reveal an espousal of a doctrine of ‘salvation by works.’ Under the salvation by works paradigm, man has to either struggle to live innumerable lives or struggle to do good works to be saved.

            Fifth and finally, the Historical Christian worldview justifies God more than that of the competing worldviews. The God of the Bible offers a man a free gift of salvation whereas God, according to the competing worldviews, makes a man work hard to gain his salvation.

            So who’s a loving God? Is it a God who makes salvation easier for man? Or is it a God who makes a man work hard to gain salvation? The answer is rather simple; the God who makes salvation easier for man is a perfectly loving God. Otherwise, man would have been better off not being created.

            Would Historic Christianity disintegrate if there is no evidence for it?

            No! Even if there is no evidence, people could be Christians because of the simplicity and the logical nature of salvation in the Christian worldview, and because the Christian worldview justifies God.

            A Christian cannot be wrong if he places his faith in the Lordship of Christ without examining the evidence that corroborates the case for Historic Christianity. 

            Does this slash the need for every Christian to learn the evidence for Historic Christianity? Not necessarily! This merely guarantees that every Christian who lives a faithful life in Christ is indeed genuine about his/her faith.

Endnotes:

¹At this juncture, a point of clarity is required. This article will strive to convey certain elementary thought patterns of a lay-Christian. The intent of this article is not to either discredit the Evidential² method of Christian apologetics or honor the Plantingian model of Reformed Epistemology.³ Philosophical sophistication of that magnitude is not the intent.

²Evidential Christian apologetics appeals to the evidence from history and nature to argue for the veracity of Historic Christianity.

³Reformed epistemology is a thesis about the rationality of religious belief. A central claim made by the reformed epistemologist is that religious belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument. There are, broadly speaking, two ways that reformed epistemologists support this claim. The first is to argue that there is no way to successfully formulate the charge that religious belief is in some way epistemically defective if it is lacking support by evidence or argument. The second way is to offer a description of what it means for a belief to be rational, and to suggest ways that religious beliefs might, in fact, be meeting these requirements. This has led reformed epistemologists to explore topics such as when a belief-forming mechanism confers warrant, the rationality of engaging in belief-forming practices, and when we have an epistemic duty to revise our beliefs. As such, reformed epistemology offers an alternative to evidentialism (the view that religious belief must be supported by evidence in order to be rational) and fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing). Source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/

Website last accessed on 20^th May 2020.