After finishing John, I have decided to keep reading about the life of Christ in my daily quiet time. I’ve decided on the book of Luke next.
I noticed a couple of things in the first chapter. The first is how Luke states the purpose for his writing…
“Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.”
Luke 1:3-4 (New Living Translation)
I am seeing a blurring of the lines or whatever you might call it here. On the one hand, I have found the Christian faith to be one of just that, faith. What I mean is that I shouldn’t have to see the scars to know that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. However, I also see how a lot of emphasis is put on the parts of the Bible that are easily shown through historical artifact or can be proven to have happened. I know from living here in Utah that the line seems to be drawn between an ancient church with a rich history that has been well-documented and one that has little to substantiate it’s relatively new beginnings.
My question today is, how do faith and fact walk together? I have to believe that both are supposed to be important as both the story of Thomas and Theophilus are mentioned. One asked for proof and was chastised for it. The other was freely given proof to assure him of what he had come to believe.
So, if anyone is reading this, what do you think? Where do faith and fact collide for you? Post your thoughts for everyone else to enjoy and join in the discussion!