OUR REASONABLE FAITH
Warsaw Christian Church, 9/7/25, Richard Bowman, Pastor Emeritus
Is it reasonable to believe in Christianity, or is it a matter of blind faith? I hope to convince you in this sermon that the Christian worldview can be supported by reason. If Christianity is unreasonable and irrational, why would anyone want to be a Christian? If the God of the Bible is the true and living God, I would expect the Christian revelation to withstand intellectual scrutiny. I have no interest in embracing a religion that is simply a matter of blind irrational faith.
Jesus commanded us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. You will notice that we are to include the mind in our love for God. And remember 1 Peter 3:15: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have. The Greek word for “answer” is “apologia.” It means to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for why you believe in Jesus. If we fail to give a reasonable explanation for the faith that is in US, several pernicious results are sure to follow.
The first negative result will be a stunted faith. If we are uncertain whether Christianity can stand up under intellectual scrutiny, we will forever have nagging doubts about the claims of Jesus. Many live with the fear that perhaps their Christian faith is not true, an idea that is reinforced in our society by intellectuals in the scientific and philosophical communities regularly. Once we are convinced that Jesus not only lives in our hearts but also that Christianity makes sense to the mind, our faith will be significantly strengthened.
The second negative result is that the harmony between faith and reason is undermined. I have often heard on TV that faith is one thing and reason is another. Our secular society wants to convince us that it is OK for Christians to have faith, but people of reason cannot embrace Christianity. I hope you don’t buy into that lie. While faith and reason are two distinct categories, I hope to persuade you that having faith in the God of the Bible is perfectly reasonable and that denying the God of the Bible is perfectly irrational.
The 3rd negative result is that we open ourselves up to ridicule from the secular world. Atheists enjoy ridiculing Christianity. They see Christianity as a mere superstition, and if we cannot convince the world that our faith is reasonable, the world laughs at us. I have mentioned before that I once sat in a philosophy class at the University of Minnesota, where the professor challenged us. He said, “If you believe in God, give me your reasons, and I will show you how foolish your faith is.” While many of us attended church, no one dared take on this Goliath of unbelief. I am sure that almost any PhD philosophy professor can dismantle the arguments of a college freshman. While I joined the others in keeping my mouth shut on that day, I would now like to answer that professor.
I begin with the ontological argument. This argument for the existence of God takes various forms and has evolved over the years as theologians have wrestled with the problem of accounting for being or reality. Ontos is the Greek word for being. The first to advance the argument was Anselm, who died in 1109 AD. The great theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, also presented the ontological argument as one of the five arguments that he believed proved the existence of God. We cannot delve into all the intricacies of this argument, as this is not a course in philosophical theology, but rather a brief sermon. This will be the Richard Bowman version of the argument, based on my reading of several ancient, medieval, and modern theologians.
Most of us have at times thought about the origin of reality. We would probably all agree that reality exists. We are surrounded by things that have being. This lectern has being; it exists. I experience the reality of all of you. You have being. You exist. While Hindu theology posits that all reality is an illusion, most of us assume that reality is objective. We look before we cross the street because even if oncoming cars are an illusion and the pain we experience when struck by a car is another illusion, these are illusions we try hard to avoid. It all seems very real to us.
I recall learning a lesson in philosophy from my dad many years ago when I was in college. One evening while we were sitting in the living room, he asked me to turn off a lamp. I decided to try some of what I learned in college on him. I said, “How do you know that the lamp is real? It could be an illusion?” My dad, lacking the sophisticated education I possessed, responded, “How would you feel if I picked up that illusory lamp and hit you over the head with it?” In the end, his common-sense approach prevailed over my courses in philosophy, and I decided not to push the argument any further and turned off the lamp.
I assume none of you are going to argue that reality is an illusion, so I raise the critical question. How do you account for reality? May I suggest that we have only three options? The first option is that reality came from God; the Bible is correct when it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The second option is that reality sprang into existence mysteriously billions of years ago. The third option is that reality is eternal.
One scientist suggested that the universe originated from the fluctuations of nothingness. Some scientists postulate a primordial soup in which the building blocks of life originated, and these primitive life forms evolved over billions of years, finally producing very complex life forms, but it all happened by chance. A popular modern theory posits that all matter and energy were condensed into a tiny ball, which subsequently exploded in the Big Bang, resulting in the present expanding universe.
There is a simple problem with these kinds of explanations of reality. They do not explain where the primordial soup came from, or where matter and energy came from before the Big Bang occurred. Many unbelieving scientists avoid this question or attempt to argue that reality emerged from nothing by chance.
I ask you to think about this. If there was a time when there was nothing, what would there be now? If you start with nothing, no matter how long you wait, you will end up with nothing. It is an axiom of reasonable philosophers that ex nihilo, nihilo fit, or out of nothing comes nothing. If there ever were a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist now. But it is clear to us that something does exist. The reality of our universe is so self-evident that only a fool would deny it. The scientists who declare that fluctuations of nothingness created the universe are speaking nonsense. How can nothing fluctuate? Nothing cannot do anything. Nothing is “no thing,” and if you are no thing, you have no being, and if you have no being, you cannot create being. For nothing to create reality, it would have to be something before it became nothing. I hope you see the absurdity of trying to argue that once there was nothing, and out of nothing came something. I would enjoy exploring that point further, but we must move on.
Some will agree that you cannot get something from nothing, but they still cannot conceive of an eternal God. They assumed that matter and energy are infinite, evolving over the eons of eternity into their present form, but wait a minute. If we can conceive of matter and energy being eternal, what is the problem with postulating an eternal God? Either the universe has always been, or it was created by a being who has always been, an eternal God.
On the face of it, what makes the most sense? Does it make sense to say that matter and energy have always existed, and without the benefit of any mind guiding the process, that simply by chance or by accident this marvelous complex world in which we live evolved? Or is it more reasonable to assume that there is a powerful, intelligent, eternal God who created the heavens and the earth? In my mind, this is a no-brainer. I cannot conceive of the human mind or all the other complexities that constitute a human being evolving by accident, apart from the creative power of God. I cannot conceive of this giant ball on which we live, floating in space just exactly the proper distance from the sun to sustain life, having come into being by accident.
William Paley, in the 19th century, advanced an argument that I find compelling. He asked us to picture ourselves walking in a forest. We see trees planted randomly by the forces of nature. We see a pile of debris created randomly by running water after a heavy rain. Then, suddenly, you see a watch lying on the ground. Immediately, you think, this is not the result of random wind or rain. An intelligent mind has created this watch. Paley then asked us to think deeply about our world and all the complexities in animal and plant life, as well as the marvel of human beings with their amazing power of reason and marvelous sense perception. Does our world seem more like a pile of debris created randomly by the blind power of nature, or is it more like a watch? Paley concluded that this grand universe in which we live must have its origin in an intelligent and powerful watchmaker whom we call God.
Of the three possible explanations for the origin of reality, the eternal God makes the most sense. If God is eliminated from the equation, you are faced with the absurd and irrational idea that this complex world in which we live is the product of mindless chance. To quote Dr RC Sproul in his book, Not a Chance, he writes, “What are the chances that chance created the universe? Not a chance.”
Where did matter and energy come from? If it is not eternal, how did it come into existence? Some scientists shrug their shoulders and say that we cannot get beyond the Big Bang. The universe just is. It just sprang into being from nothing. But, as we have seen, that is an absurd idea. If so, what are we left with? I cannot believe that reality sprang from nothing. I cannot believe that matter and energy are eternal. That leaves us with but one other option. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
If you ask, but where did God come from? We can only say that logic compels us to believe that our creator God has the power of being in Himself, and that He alone is the one entity in the universe that is eternal, infinite, and all-powerful. We cannot embrace the other two options and maintain our rational integrity. Only the idea of a creator God makes sense.
There is much more to say on this theme, but not enough time to say everything. I would like to emphasize that everything I have said today is based solely on reason and observation. I did not simply appeal to the Bible. I am saying that the proper use of reason and logic compels us to affirm the reality of our eternal God. However, I would like to conclude by turning to Scripture. It is interesting to note that while theologians and philosophers have attempted to reason about whether God exists, the Bible does not. The Psalmist simply declares The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). He is not arguing for the existence of God. He is merely stating a self-evident truth. You cannot gaze into the heavens without affirming the greatness and glory of God the Creator.
God has given us two books that declare and reveal His wondrous reality. They are the book of Nature and Holy Scripture. The Book of Nature drives us to affirm the reality of God. Yes, many deny God. I close with what the Psalmist says regarding those who deny the existence of God. The fool has said in his heart, there is no God (Psalm 14:1). Yes, one can deny God, but to do so, we must sacrifice reason and stoop to the level of irrationality. Or, to use the words of the Psalmist, those who deny God are fools. They deny that which is obvious and doom themselves to eternal destruction. What word can describe such a person other than the word fool.
Is it reasonable to believe in God? Is it reasonable to think that God sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to be our Savior? Yes, it is reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that the Bible contains the truth of God? Yes, it is
