That’s why in the talk I urge thinkers to take the long route through more general metaphysical features of the eschatological hope, rather than the short route of apologetic arguments for the second coming. If we think more deeply about what underlies traditional eschatological language, we find principles that (in my view) remain plausible today. I mention a few of these toward the end of the talk: contingency, providence, the participation of the created world in its divine source, and others. The more we’re able to defend such principles, the more we reduce the sense of an outright contradiction of the sort that Joe worries about. And I think that we also address the task that Alex is raises, the task of giving reason for the hope that is within us. If we can get Christian thinkers focused on these deeper questions, rather than on predicting the year of Christ’s return (and making claims like “the United Nations is the Antichrist”), we greatly strengthen the credibility of the Christian hope.

– Philip

Thanks for providing this resource, as well as all the other helpful web resources on the site. After listening to the podcast, one question comes into focus for me. For those of us who have faith coloured with doubt, is there anything that we can lean on to reinforce our faith when we are struggling with it? Is there any instances in which science actually provides us with hope for our worldview rather than just getting out of the way of it? I have personally found that as my theology has become more liberal over a couple of tumultuous years, I have been less able to look to my Christian background for hope, and thus need other counterpoints against the materialist viewpoint. I get the sense from a lot of your writing and speaking that you have a deep faith that gives you the confidence to question and explore a lot of these questions that we face, and I am wondering (and am hoping to share in) what provides the deep core of faith that is not so easily shaken.

Thanks for any advice you could provide!

Alex

I really enjoyed your lecture. However, I do have one question. If current research in physics tells us that our universe is destined for a “not so good” end (an eternal cold), then how can we as Christians postulate a future hope without contradicting physics? You mention a redeemed earth (I agree), but how can this redemption occur without violating the information we have from physics?

Thanks for your time.

Joe Bankard