Evidentally

Pulpit Mag's Nathan Busenitz has given us a testament of evidentiary proofs that the Bible is reliable. Evidentially the Scripture is truth, no doubt. However, all the evidence in the world is not enough to save anyone:

"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Our primary problem is not that we do not have enough evidence. Our problem is that without the Spirit, we are not equipped to receive it. No matter what evidence is presented it is to no avail. Except a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom. Then what evidence, what signs, will save. Jesus said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and no sign will be given except the resurrection. And who was it that saw that first hand? There was none. Even the disciples did not behold it until after it happened. What then can we present that will ever convince anyone that he has risen? Jesus put it bluntly, "Because you have seen me, you have believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Even for Thomas, Jesus says, that faith is not found in this way. Instead, all that we come to know of evidences only affirms but can never confirm the Christian faith. I do agree with Nathan in this: that as believers we are built up in our faith by such things. I disagree, however, with the review's assertion that it is a good method of evangelism. In some ways the evidentialist approach is dangerous and no different that excitations provided by Finney's burlesque evangelism.

The confirmation of the faith is within. Not without. And though we have a testimony to the Word in print and history none of this can excite the conscience to embrace the faith. Simply it is not something that anyone takes upon themselves. As John said, it is not by man's will and Paul would say that these things are spiritually, not carnally (physically) discerned. Did it matter what God did among the children of Israel? No, it did not. If we were today to discover undeniable evidence of the death of Egypt's firstborn and of the first passover, likewise, it would not impress the dead minds of men that are fixed in repressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Contrary to evidentialism, which is just another form of sacramental instrumentalism, the Scripture assigns the remedy to the willful ignorance of the rebellious:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Theological Suicide

I should have known how it was going to go from the start. But they tricked me. It started off really good and I found myself in agreement with them. Walls and Dongell said this:

We hold that the Bible stands beneath us, giving us a foundation to our understanding; that it encircles us, marking boundaries for our speculation; that it resides within us. granting and conforming the true understanding of God and of ourselves; and it ultimately stands over us, judging according to the very mind of God.

I like this quote. But, they commit theological suicide only a few pages later.

They say this:

What are we suggesting? That in matters of biblical interpretation our own sense of certainty about what the Bible says on a given matter can't determine whether our particular understanding of the Bible is viable.

While there is some truth to this, because Catholics are "certain" that the Bible teaches transubstantiation," there is still a problem with this. Using proper hermeneutics, grammatical skills, original languages, one can be alot more certain than what Walls and Dongell suggest.

Here is a question that they pose, and I too would like an answer:

Have we not undercut the entire project of this book? After all, if we are claiming that the Bible may not be clear as we might have hoped, even about those issues directly related to the Calvinist- Arminian debate, why would we invest anytime at all in the swamps and quagmires of this longstanding theological debate?

Honestly, I really don't know. They seek to show how Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, and with the same pen say this Bible really isn't all that clear on the subject.

Another thing that they do is they take a few sentences from creeds and confessions out of their context and make it sound like they are being true to church history. But, its out of context.

OK, IF you believe the Bible is unclear on practically everything, then how in the world can you make the claim that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, if it is so hazy and unclear. That's theological suicide.

Secondly, If the Bible itself is unclear, then the fault is God's. However, God's Word is clear enough to understand, through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and proper means of study that God has enabled us with. (He gave us a brain!!).

The problem is not that the Bible is unclear, the problem is that we live in a fallen world. Even strong Calvinists disagree on finer points of doctrine, but they have all faithfully studied the word of God. Is the Bible unclear on those issues? No. Are men just retarted? No. We live in the context of a fallen world, and that is the primary cause of disagreement on finer points of theology.


Here is the thing: I have never seen any exegesis done by an Arminian. I read a book with the chapter entitled "Approaching the Bible" and they attack the clarity of Scripture.

Here is what I want to say to the Arminians: Just please try to exegete a passage. John 6 for starters, then perhaps Ephesians 1 and 2. Look at the meaning of Greek words. Look at the historical and literary context. Look at the context of the passage in the entirety of the book. Use grammar skills you learned in second grade. That should be a good start. But if you say that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, and then say the Bible is unclear, then you commit theological suicide and have no business debating these issues biblically and making statements like that.