Do we have to prove anything?
- Thread starter Denny
- Start date
- Status
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
--1 Peter 3:15
--1 Peter 3:15
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
The lost are usually not reading McDowell and Strobel though...
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
--2 Timothy 2:24-25
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Because of the sovereign nature of the Spirit's regeneration, faith of course does not need explicitly realized proof in order to be effective, and in fact proof itself will not be effective without the Spirit's opening of one's eyes to see it. That said, when the Spirit does that to a previously unregenerate heart, that heart sees itself, God and everything else in a whole new light, seeing how the fear of God is the beginning of all knowledge (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10) and how everything from matter to logic to morality are all existent and intelligible only because of and through God, and so the regenerated heart implicitly realizes the proof already, realizing that the proof of God is everywhere and in every fact, even if the person has not yet explicitly and fully thought out all those necessary implications.
And like Ryan noted above, we are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15) - and we are to make that defense committed to God and His truth, and with the goal of displaying that truth as it is revealed in Scripture, which is by explaining the Christian worldview (which includes the Gospel), and showing that the fear of God truly is the beginning of all knowledge in that it is necessary for anything to be existant or intelligible at all. When we show that, we have biblically given the defense for the hope we have, and absolutely illustrated the proof for that faith and presented the Gospel in the midst of doing so, at which point we can only pray that God will use the Word and the Gospel we just presented to open the unbeliever's mind and heart to realize the true, sufficient nature of the real proof we just gave.
And like Ryan noted above, we are commanded to always be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15) - and we are to make that defense committed to God and His truth, and with the goal of displaying that truth as it is revealed in Scripture, which is by explaining the Christian worldview (which includes the Gospel), and showing that the fear of God truly is the beginning of all knowledge in that it is necessary for anything to be existant or intelligible at all. When we show that, we have biblically given the defense for the hope we have, and absolutely illustrated the proof for that faith and presented the Gospel in the midst of doing so, at which point we can only pray that God will use the Word and the Gospel we just presented to open the unbeliever's mind and heart to realize the true, sufficient nature of the real proof we just gave.
The personal theologies of Hannegraaff and Strobel are up for question. They're also into book sales....lecture circuit fees.
I do know after locking-down Reformed soteriology, all the doodads that come with endless lists of evidences have gone by the wayside, for me. Calvin and Machen have much better tactics.
Scripture says we are to "persuade" not prove. There's a difference.
Robin
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have no idea what lies between these three men, except maybe miles. But as to whether faith needs proof in order to be effective, there are several answers that can apply, depending upon what question or defence you are referring to.
Augustine defines faith, in his Enchiridion as belonging with hope, in that these two refer to what is not seen; while love refers to those things which are seen. In that sense the proof of faith is in other things, such as not the proof lying in God Himself but in the things He has done to reveal His presence and governance. For example, the water being divided so that Moses and the people could pass through the sea on dry ground. This, along with the many plagues, the water coming from the rock, the despoiling of their captors, etc., these all were proofs that God was near, watching and guiding His people. God gave many proofs of Himself through other things, not of Himself by showing Himself personally.
I don't think that faith can be without those proofs. Whether it is that we believe those proofs the Bible relates to us, or whether there are some proofs which we ourselves know of, these are all proofs that are intrinsic to faith.
And then, if a person has a true and abiding faith, then he sees many proofs that he did not before see. If he knows God so well that he can trust Him for his salvation, then he also sees God's presence and governance in other things as well.
So I don't see how faith can be without proofs. But that was not the question.
Does it require proofs in order to be effective. And I suppose that this in reference to presenting the proofs of faith to others so that they too may have faith. My question would be, what would you present to others if you do not present proofs? Would you present Jesus raised from the dead? But that is a proof. Would you present a propitiatory offering in Jesus' crucifixion for the sins of the other? But that too is a proof. Are they not proofs? Or are they proofs only after a person receives faith? But surely they are true historical occurrances whether or not the person receives faith, and so are forever proofs of God's salvation to all who receive it.
Or would you only present the ideology, showing that all other ideologies fall flat for not being consistent? But what is it that all these other ideologies are inconsistent with if not the proofs? And are we bringing others to ideologies or to faith?
As a Christian I see all kinds of proofs, so much so that it is sheer nonsense to me to speak of the fallibilities of evidences, or the presenting of them. They are more sure than the intellects of men, which change with the wind; at least the proofs remain the same. If I were to present the faith to others, I would most certainly point to the proofs, the multitude of them; and then carefully show how faith in any other religious conviction is nothing more than evasions and deceptions, to the best of my limited abilities. I will do what I can; and if the other requires more, then the Spirit will provide that in another.
[Edited on 9-6-2005 by JohnV]
In my humble opinion, wrong question. None of us know who the elect are. God does, alone. God calls His elect according to His own desire and the means are His as well. The bible is clear that God uses the gospel to call sinners to repentance. But does that mean that God will not use other media or means? Even as a Calvinist, I am not prepared to say that He will not. At this point in my theological journey, I believe there is a drawing of God (a process, as it were) that eventually leads the elect to the gospel. So, do we have to prove anything to the lost? No. But in the words of Paul, "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Cor. 5:20
[Edited on 9-6-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
[Edited on 9-6-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]
Caveat to my last post
Although God dictates the means to His end, that does not mean I support bad theology. Did God use my Catholic rearing and former Pentecostal background as means to bring me to my current understanding? Maybe. Maybe not. But I certainly would not prescribe my journey to others.
Although God dictates the means to His end, that does not mean I support bad theology. Did God use my Catholic rearing and former Pentecostal background as means to bring me to my current understanding? Maybe. Maybe not. But I certainly would not prescribe my journey to others.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Bill:
Unbelievers are not the only ones we prove faith to. We have to prove the things of the Spirit every day, so that we can respond as faithfully as we can in each situation. We're always weighing the evidences to ourselves, even subconsciously; as well as with and for others when we have discussions such as on this Board or at church Bible studies. Wouldn't you call a "proof text" proof as well? If so, why is it called proof, the same as if we would call design proof?
Unbelievers are not the only ones we prove faith to. We have to prove the things of the Spirit every day, so that we can respond as faithfully as we can in each situation. We're always weighing the evidences to ourselves, even subconsciously; as well as with and for others when we have discussions such as on this Board or at church Bible studies. Wouldn't you call a "proof text" proof as well? If so, why is it called proof, the same as if we would call design proof?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Bill:
I was taking the question in general, not specifically to unbelievers only, but to those whose faith lacks understanding in some areas as well as those who have no faith. As you say, our pastors are presenting the gospel all the time. There may be well rounded Christians as well as newcomers, and perhaps some unbelievers, but also some whom we take to fellows in Christ but whose faith is in shallow or rocky or weedy soil, whose faith does not overcome the cares of this world.
The proofs mean the most to the mature Christian because he sees more of them; while they mean less to the immature because they see less. Some proof that seems common to me may seem overwhelming to someone else. But I can remember the time when I greatly rejoiced to see that same proof too. And we can both wonder how the unbeliever, seeing the same proofs yet does not see them as we do. Or rather, why he kicks against the pricks when he sees what we see.
Have you read C. S. Lewis' book, Pilgrims Regress? Its somewhat about his own journey from unbelief to belief, while yet not precisely his own story. He allegorizes the path along which he himself trod, but with philosophical continuity included. It shows, it seems to me, how we often use our own story to help others to the same end. That's how I am tying them together.
I was taking the question in general, not specifically to unbelievers only, but to those whose faith lacks understanding in some areas as well as those who have no faith. As you say, our pastors are presenting the gospel all the time. There may be well rounded Christians as well as newcomers, and perhaps some unbelievers, but also some whom we take to fellows in Christ but whose faith is in shallow or rocky or weedy soil, whose faith does not overcome the cares of this world.
The proofs mean the most to the mature Christian because he sees more of them; while they mean less to the immature because they see less. Some proof that seems common to me may seem overwhelming to someone else. But I can remember the time when I greatly rejoiced to see that same proof too. And we can both wonder how the unbeliever, seeing the same proofs yet does not see them as we do. Or rather, why he kicks against the pricks when he sees what we see.
Have you read C. S. Lewis' book, Pilgrims Regress? Its somewhat about his own journey from unbelief to belief, while yet not precisely his own story. He allegorizes the path along which he himself trod, but with philosophical continuity included. It shows, it seems to me, how we often use our own story to help others to the same end. That's how I am tying them together.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
The almost one million jews who died in A.D. 70 saw Christ crucified and knew of the resurrection; that didn't change anything for them. Evidence doesn't matter, a regenerate heart does.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Do we "have to" prove anything? (as the thread states)
No.
No.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As I explain in my post above, the question of whether we "have to" prove the Christian worldview in order for the Gospel to succesfully be used to regenerate hearts is a distinctly different question from that of whether we are nonetheless commanded to prove anything. With regard to the question of whether we have to prove anything in the former sense, we are of course fully agreed, and answer it in the negative; furthemore, I believe that the question of whether we have to prove anything in the latter sense is answered in the affirmative by 1 Peter 3:15 - do you agree?
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm not sure I understand your question.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I don't understand this, Gabriel. It would have been my conclusion from the same premise that evidence matters very much, as it is that they did not believe even though they had such evidence before them. It demonstrates the hardness of their hearts. Wasn't that the indictment against the Israelites in the OT, that they did not believe even though they had seen the many mighty works, and that many who did not see them would come to faith with lesser evidences?
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I guess you missed my point. The evidence before their eyes - and their subsequent lack of repentance and belief - shows that evidence doesn't matter. All that matters, essentially, is God giving someone a new heart.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Chris:
In reference to the power of the gospel, I would argue that it has evidence enough on its own. But I don't see this as questioning the power of the gospel, but rather the amount of hardness of heart that must be surmounted in the presentation of it. For some it takes more than for others. We are called to give a good reason for the hope that is within us, and the proofs are intrinsically part of that, I would think. Even if you're a Presuppositionalist, I would still call the presuppositional arguments proofs; and whether you are or not, I would also call the gospel itself a set of proofs too. I don't see how proof can be avoided; it is necessarily part of the gospel presentation. That is one reason why many have such difficulty finding the exact dividing line between apologetics and evengelism, if they see one at all.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think I saw that point. I understand that it is the Spirit that gives light. But the means by which He does that are still very important. The evidences presented become witness against them if they do not believe them. It seems to me that this is what Jesus meant in the gospel of John, chapters 6-8, or thereabouts.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm basically pointing out that we all agree that we don't have to prove anything in order to make an evangelistic Gospel presentation effective, but noting that I also believe we are nonetheless commanded to prove our faith when intellectually asked or challenged about it. John has been thoroughly explaining the same point I'm trying to get at as well.
[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Me Died Blue]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Ah, okay. I agree.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
We have different ways to say the same thing, and helps me, as well as each of us, to understand the whole better.
Yes, converting the heart is the Spirit's work. It is not a failing on our part if we do present the evidences but the unbeliever does not believe them. It is our failing, though, if we do not present the evidences as we should, perhaps causing a stumbling block for the unbeliever.
So the key word in the original question, I guess, is effective. We agree that faith has its proofs, and we all agree that faith is effective, and we all agree that sometimes proofs aren't effective, in that they alone do not achieve the desired ends. And we all agree that if the gospel is believed, it is because the Spirit has used various proofs. It seems to me, then, that the question that remains is whether we are to rely on proofs anyways, and if so, how the proofs are to be used by us in apologetics or evengelism in order to be effective, as far as it is up to us?
Yes, converting the heart is the Spirit's work. It is not a failing on our part if we do present the evidences but the unbeliever does not believe them. It is our failing, though, if we do not present the evidences as we should, perhaps causing a stumbling block for the unbeliever.
So the key word in the original question, I guess, is effective. We agree that faith has its proofs, and we all agree that faith is effective, and we all agree that sometimes proofs aren't effective, in that they alone do not achieve the desired ends. And we all agree that if the gospel is believed, it is because the Spirit has used various proofs. It seems to me, then, that the question that remains is whether we are to rely on proofs anyways, and if so, how the proofs are to be used by us in apologetics or evengelism in order to be effective, as far as it is up to us?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Excellent way of stating it all in a summarized fashion!With regard to the first question of whether we are still commanded to use proofs, I doubt many here would answer in the negative, based on 1 Peter 3:15, and since we are given so many assurances in Scripture that the truth of God that we possess in Christ has the power to intellectually and logically trump the true foolishness of unbelief.
With regard to the second question of just how such proofs are to be used and even constructed to be biblical and thus effective from our standpoint, I would expect there to be various and significant disagreements here simply based on the differing beliefs in presuppositionalism, classicism and evidentialism, and that the issues that are at stake at the heart of those positions are what will determine one's answer to the "how" and "what" of the proofs.
Apologist4Him
Puritan Board Freshman
No, but we should always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks us to give a reason for the hope that is in us.
No, but if the Christian worldview is correct (and I believe it is), the objective proof is not neutral, and confirms the Christian worldview. The proof is not in conflict with nor opposed to, nor does it take anything away from Christian faith, rather it is complimentary to the Christian faith, and helps to strengthen a Christian's faith.
Finally, I think it would help to make a distinction, you probably agree that we are to have child-like faith, not a childish faith.
J Andrew Deane
Inactive User
Evidence definitely matters.
The reference to the Jews who saw the temple destroyed just as Christ had predicted overlooks that the same event strengthens the faith of those who trust him.
I think the proper negation that needs to be made is that evidence is efficacious. The notion which states that if we just preach the right way or point to the right fact is wrong. As it stands, even the best argument which points to someone's faulty presuppositions is not efficacious. Therefore, this idea of not needing to "prove" anything is flawed. That we have proven something doesn't mean we have persuaded someone of the truth.
The reference to the Jews who saw the temple destroyed just as Christ had predicted overlooks that the same event strengthens the faith of those who trust him.
I think the proper negation that needs to be made is that evidence is efficacious. The notion which states that if we just preach the right way or point to the right fact is wrong. As it stands, even the best argument which points to someone's faulty presuppositions is not efficacious. Therefore, this idea of not needing to "prove" anything is flawed. That we have proven something doesn't mean we have persuaded someone of the truth.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
