THE CHANGING VIEWS OF THE WCG ON CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS:

The Rise of Fideism and More Liberal Views on Evolution

[Final Edition]

By Eric V. Snow

Why should we Christians believe that God exists to begin with? Why should we accept the Bible as the infallible word of God in the original autograph (first manuscripts)? Why should we believe that God created us, instead of believing we humans are the product of spontaneous generation[1], random mutations, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest? In short, WHY should we be Christians at all? This question can be answered in two basic ways: 1. By faith--blind faith--alone. 2. By using human reason to support the tenets, preambles, or articles of faith. Today, the traditional Christian theologian who best exemplifies the former approach is the Dane, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55), while the latter is found most classically in Thomas Aquinas (1224?-1274), the AAngelic Doctor@ of Roman Catholicism in the five ways he attempted to prove God=s existence in Summa Theologica. The former approach is known as fideism, the belief that the existence of God (or the truth of the Bible) can ONLY be accepted by faith ALONE. The creed of fideism was best stated in an extreme form by the early Catholic church writer, Tertullian (155?-230?): AI believe because it is absurd.@[2] The opposite view, which could be called evidentialism, was dogmatically stated as Roman Catholicism=s official doctrine at the Vatican I Council in 1870: AIf any one say that it is not possible, by the natural light of human reason, to acquire a certain knowledge of The One and True God, let him be anathema.@[3] Hence, given our belief in Christianity, we can take two highly contrasting approaches to justifying our belief in it.

Now, in the Worldwide Church of God and its split-off groups, wracked by controversy over whether the Sabbath, Holy Days, and tithing are still in force, followed by disputes over the nature of God, we may initially be tempted to say Pasadena=s changes dealing with the general subject of Christian apologetics[4] are small potatoes. We, being the pragmatic Americans (or Anglo-Saxons) that we are, may be much more interested in what Aworks@ rather than what is actually true. But it must be realized that Pasadena=s changes concerning fideism and evolution are a major philosophical and theological disaster in slow motion, for they undermine the foundation of our beliefs rationally. For, after all, why argue about whether the Sabbath is still in force, if you aren=t sure whether God exists to begin with! Or, if dealing with those who believe in another religion entirely, such as Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, why should any of them care about what the Bible says about God being two personal Beings (John 1:1) when they have no reason to believe in it to begin with? Hence, below, Pasadena=s newfound views tending towards fideism and a more liberal view of evolution will be critiqued, while Herbert W. Armstrong=s (HWA=s) views shall be defended.

First, we should note HWA=s diehard AThomistic@ views on the subject of Christian apologetics. He strongly stated that God=s existence could be proven, as well as the Bible=s inspiration:

But now I had, first of all, to prove or disprove the existence of God. It was no casual or superficial study. I continued in this research as if my life depended upon it--as, in actual fact, it did, as well as my marriage. I also studied books on the other side of the question. Suffice it to say here that I did find irrefutable proof of the existence of God the Creator--and I found proof positive of the fallacy of the evolutionary theory. . . . I had proved the reality of the great Majestic God! But my wife=s challenge was still tormenting my mind. Already, in the evolutionary research, I had studied Genesis. I knew each of the world=s religions had its own sacred writings. Once God=s reality was proved, I had expected to continue in the pursuit of comparative religions to see if any such sacred writings proved authoritative. Through which of these--if any--did God speak to mankind? Since I had to research the Sabbath question anyway, and already I had delved into Genesis, I decided to continue my study in the Bible.[5]

Have you ever proved whether, as the book itself purports, it is the authoritative Word of the Creator God? Rather, have you not simply assumed, from what you have heard, read or been taught that it is either authentic, or else the religious writing of an small ancient Jewish race, groping in the darkness of human ignorance and of superstition, trying to develop a concept of God? . . . A world famous evangelist [Billy Graham?CEVS] has confessed publicly that he accepted the authority of the Bible without having seen it proved. Even though he had seen no real proof that the Bible is the authentic word of God, he had decided to accept it as such on sheer faith. But the Bible quotes God saying: AProve me now herewith . . .@ and again: AProve all things.@ This evangelist apparently accepted the authority of the Bible because he had Aaccepted Christ@ and at the same time blindly accepted what those humans who led him into the acceptance of Christ themselves accepted. Isn=t it about time--and the point of rational wisdom, that you prove this important question once and for all? Because, if the Bible is in fact the inspired authentic Word of a living, all knowing, all powerful God, then your eternity will be judged by it.[6]

Here I don=t wish to imply HWA was infallible, and therefore these views of his must be accepted. But the tradition of the WCG in this area should be made clear, because in recent years the waters have been muddied by various fideistic statements, or by views that concede too much to evolutionists. This tradition may not have been entirely clear to the laity either--I distinctly remember running into two laymembers raised in the church, both highly intelligent, both of whom were attending college (one as a grad student) who have made similar fideistic statements. We should not think that having a sophisticated theology involves embracing fideism or weak views on the falsity of evolution. There are three very helpful books by traditional Christians on this subject which show equating naiveté with natural theology or a rationalistic defense of Christianity is unwise: R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984); J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987) and John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Evidence for Faith Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991). With books such as these at our command, as well as the rationalistic Thomist tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, we should be able to see the wisdom and correctness of Mr. Armstrong=s approach to Christian apologetics.

Alas! As in many other areas, Pasadena has been departing from HWA=s position on these kinds of issues, and embarking upon theological error. There are a number of places where fideistic or more relaxed views on evolution manifest themselves: Paul Kroll, AWho Really Wrote the Bible@,@ Plain Truth, October 1988, pp. 7-10; ALetters to the Editor,@ Plain Truth, February 1989, p. 26; Kathy Johnson, AFootnotes--or Fakes@,@ Good News, November-December 1990, p. 28; John Halford, AReligion and Science Bridging the Gap,@ Plain Truth, July 1993, pp. 14-20; Neil Earle, AEyeing the Creation-Evolution Debate,@ Worldwide News, February 1, 1994, p. 4; John Halford, >sabbath: The Days and Nights of Genesis,@ Worldwide News, February 1, 1994, p. 4; Neil Earle, AThe Battle Over Genesis 1,@ Plain Truth, March 1994, pp. 20-23; Neil Earle, AThe AMonkey Trial@ Retried,@ Plain Truth, July 1995, pp. 10-13; Keith W. Stump, ADigging Up the Bible,@ Plain Truth, July 1995, p. 23. Also, Dr. Herman Hoeh=s Apre-Adamic men@ theory will be investigated.

Paul Kroll and the person (Hernan Herrara?) who replied to the atheist/agnostic in the February 1989 Plain Truth were mistaken because they evidently weren=t familiar with modern traditional Christian apologetics--at least outside of what Cornelius Van Til and company have written. For example, Pasadena has intoned:

The writer [the agnostic/atheist] said something almost no defender of the Bible is willing to admit. His point is that it=s not possible to Aprove@ the Bible=s God-breathed authority to another person solely on the basis of rational argument. Something else must be in operation in the person=s mind [i.e. the Holy Spirit as a result of being called--EVS].[7]

Actually, as Josh McDowell describes, all historical documents can be evaluated by three basic principles of historiography.[8] The military historian C. Sanders called them the tests using bibliographical evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence.

The bibliographical test is based upon how many ancient manuscript copies of the document exist, and how many years between the first copy being written to the earliest manuscripts current existing. The Bible ranks very highly by this test, especially the New Testament. The latter has 24,633 known copies in manuscript form, including fragments, and portions of them survive from within a hundred years of its original composition. In contrast, only eight copies of Thucydides= history of the Peloponnesian War exist, and 1,300 years exist between when it was first written, and the earliest copy of it still in existence. Tacitus= Annals were first written about 100 A.D., but the earliest copy presently existing is from about 1100 A.D., and only 20 or fewer manuscripts of it exist.[9] Yet historians don=t doubt the general accuracy of these works (unless they are heavily influence by post-modernism, in which case they doubt just about everything). As F.F. Bruce pointed out: A. . . [N]o classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because they earliest mss of their workers which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.@[10] The same kind of secular reasoning can be used to support the Bible=s reliability.

The internal evidence test involves checking how credible the written record is and to what extent it contradicts itself or engages in self-evident absurdities. One checks how close in time and geographical location the document was written to where the events it narrates occurred. Since the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by people who recorded eyewitness accounts, they have a high a priori[11] possibility of being correct. Also, since they were written in the lifetime of those who saw Jesus preach, hostile witnesses, such as the non-converted Jews, could have attacked harshly any inaccuracies in the Gospels. The non-Christian Jews knew Jesus had done miracles, so as a result Peter could make statements such as Acts 2:22: AMen of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as your yourselves know . . .@ If Jesus hadn=t existed, or hadn=t done miracles, Peter wouldn=t have dared to appeal to the Acommon knowledge@ of the Jews that Jesus did exist, and had done miracles. Hence, the internal evidence test yields powerful secular arguments for the reliability of the Bible.[12]

The external evidence test concerns whether other historical documents or archeological discoveries agree with the document you are presently examining for its reliability. Here, the higher critics have suffered repeated reverses throughout the twentieth century, and especially so since the end of the Second World War. For instance, skeptics have doubted the existence of the Assyrian king, Sargon, the last Babylonian king (according to Daniel), Belshazzar, and even Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea. Archeological discoveries have decisively refuted such views. Likewise, some said the village of Nazareth didn=t exist--up until the Nazareth stone was unearthed.[13] As for archeology=s support for the Bible, the Jewish archeologist Nelson Glueck was willing to say: AIt may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.@[14] John Warwick Montgomery acknowledged the major area where the Bible and archeology may seem to conflict:

[American] Institute [of Holy Land Studies] researcher Thomas Drobena cautioned that where archeology and the Bible seem to be in tension, the issue is almost always dating, the most shaky area in current archeology and the one at which scientistic A PRIORI and circular reasoning often replace solid empirical analysis.[15]

Hence, the Bible has shown itself to be remarkably historically accurate, which again is an assertion backed by human reasoning using the external evidence test.

Fulfilled prophecy could also be called an Aexternal evidence@ of the Bible=s inspiration. The Bible=s prophets have repeatedly seen their predictions fulfilled. The destruction of Babylon (Isa. 13:19-22), Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24), Nineveh (Zeph. 2:13), and the Persian empire by the Greeks (Dan. 8:3-8, 20-22) were predicted long in advance. The destruction wrought against Tyre (to date) was also predicted long in advance (Eze. 26:3-4, 7-8, 12, 14, 21), although this prophecy is not yet totally fulfilled. These predictions often use much detail, yet are fulfilled to the letter, implying the writers had access to knowledge unobtainable humanly. Certainly, their reliability far exceeds that of the supermarket tabloids@ psychics! Again, this argument for the Bible=s reliability just doesn=t blindly accept its claim to be God=s word, but constitutes external evidence for its inspiration and reliability.[16]

Now, the writer of the Plain Truth=s reply to the agnostic or atheist mentioned above implies that only those who are called and obey what the Bible says can prove it is God=s Word: AHis point is that it=s not possible to Aprove@ the Bible=s God-breathed authority to another person solely on the basis of rational or scientific argument. Something else must be in operation in the person=s mind. . . . However, the Bible shows that being able to Ado what it says@ in the true spiritual intent is dependent on God=s calling and on his spiritual power . . .@[17] Mr. Kroll said in the article cited above: AHow can we possibly prove whether the Bible is the inspired Word of this God? . . . The biblical formula for proving the truth of the Bible is simply to do what God says. . . . One Aproves@ the Bible only by living it. There is no other way.@[18]

Fortunately, this argument is incorrect. Many who became traditional Christians (who likely were never called by God based upon Acts 5:32 as applied to Sabbath-keeping) used to be atheists or agnostics. These traditional Christians were persuaded by the rational evidence for God=s existence and/or the Bible=s reliability before committing themselves to a Christian way of life personally. For example, Josh McDowell set out to refute Christianity based on history and philosophy--and came back a believer. Frank Morison, a journalist, set out to prove the resurrection of Jesus was a myth--but came back a believer after carefully investigating the actual historical facts concerning it in the New Testament.[19] Sir William Ramsay, the famed archeologist, was an agnostic who totally distrusted the New Testament. Due to actual field excavations he oversaw, such as the discovery of the city of Lystra mentioned in the book of Acts, he became a believer.[20] Lew Wallace, who wrote Ben Hur, had been an agnostic and intended to portray Jesus as only a man in this novel, but after his run-in with the famed unbeliever Robert Ingersoll and further research, became a believer, and so described Jesus as both God and man in this novel. C.S. Lewis had been an atheist for many years, but his Afaith@ had begun to crumble after having read George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, and various romantics. Then a key nail in the coffin of his unbelief was delivered thus:

But I hardly remember, for I had not long finished The Everlasting Man [by G.K. Chesterton which had made Christianity much more sensible to him] when something far more alarming happened to me. Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. ARum thing ,@ he went on. AAll that stuff of Frazer=s [author of The Golden Bough] about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once.@ To understand the shattering impact of it, you would need to know the man (who has certainly never since shown any interest in Christianity). If he, the cynic of cynics, the toughest of the toughs, were not--as I would still have put itCAsafe,@ where could I turn@[21]

All these cases by uncalled agnostics, atheists, etc. Choosing to become traditional Christian believers largely or entirely based on the rational evidence for Christianity shows these statements in the Plain Truth to be mistaken, for these people didn=t commit themselves to Christ and His lifestyle first, and then see belief in the Bible as rational. Understanding (of a basic sort) preceded obedience.

The writer for the Plain Truth in the letters section also said that:

The article [by Paul Kroll] pointed out that the Bible describes miraculous events, which defy natural laws. They are events that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory; they are events none of us have seen. There is no way to demonstrate scientifically that these events occurred. How much less that they were from the hand of God.[22]

Paul Kroll made a similar point implicitly in his article:

You and I did not see Jesus rise from the dead. We never saw a highway-sized trench open up in the Red Sea except, perhaps at the cinema. None of us have gaped at a grotesquely withered hand and deformed arm being made like new. We haven=t seen God face to face. How do we know Moses did? Or Abraham? Or Jeremiah? Or Peter? Or Paul? Why should we accept countless miraculous happenings recorded in the Bible?[23]

Two philosophical mistakes are made in these passages. The first one is that scientific knowledge and historiographical knowledge are not distinguished. The statement ANapoleon lost the battles of Waterloo and Leipzig@ is not a scientific fact. Nobody alive today observed either of these events, nor are they even reproducible, which are two key parts of evidence for any scientific theory=s or law=s validity. These battles occurred only once in history, and never will happen again, which is the nature of all historical events. By contrast, scientific theories deal with currently observable, reproducible events that can be predicted to occur in the future, such as rocks falling to the ground (as per the theory of gravitation). History deals with particulars normally, such as in biographies, while science deals with the general and the universal, not the particulars as such. I can go out right now and drop rocks to the ground to test the law of gravity, but I can=t go out and refight the battles Napoleon fought in 1814-15. What is past is in the past, and can=t be changed. Therefore, historians can=t be actual observers of events that occurred before their lifetimes. Instead, they rely on eyewitness or secondhand accounts of past events, and check on these primary documents= reliability before using them to write monographs, textbooks, or other historical works. We can be as certain that Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C. as of any law of science, even though nobody alive today witnessed that event. The events that occurred in the Bible can be proven to have happened by the same methods of historiography that we can prove Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States and the author of the Declaration of Independence. The Bible=s history and record of miracles, events, reigns, personalities, etc. Is not scientific--but nor is any history book Ascientific@ either. The epistemology[24] of science and historiography are quite different, and should not be confused.[25]

The second philosophical mistake made in the quoted passages above is that they assume historical accounts are not historiographically provable. Here the ghost of the Scottish philosopher David Hume lurks. But so long as we avoid anti-supernaturalist presuppositions--which are rampant among historians today--and realize others do have such a priori biases, miracles should be as provable as any other witnessed events that occurred in history. We can use the three historiographical tests McDowell listed above, and apply them to the Bible=s eyewitness and/or recorded accounted of miracles to see if such accounts are believable. Since most historians assume ahead of time fundamentalist Christianity is false, that there is no God, and that all reports of miracles to be false in any historical document they encounter, even in one (such as the Bible) which has shown itself reliable otherwise. What we have to realize is that those who assume a priori there is no God and that the miraculous is impossible will then proceed to try to Aexplain@ away or disbelieve any accounts or miracles they encounter. For if there is a God, and He made this universe and set up all its natural laws, it then makes perfect sense this Almighty Creator could have in the past temporarily suspended nature=s laws to accomplish or that purpose. And, if the Bible has shown itself reliable in its history of the kings and others of Judea and the Middle East which can be checked in part, then it=s Avery likely@ its record of various miracles should be believed as well, though those can=t be checked directly.. Much more could be said on this subject of being able to prove miracles did occur, but this much above makes it clear that miracles are not necessarily scientifically impossible or historiographically unprovable.[26]

The Plain Truth writer in the letters section also said:

The writer [of AWho Really Wrote the Bible?A] was not asking anyone to accept the Bible on blind faith. The article itself implied that the Bible is not to be understood in this way. The writer was stressing that a person can only prove to himself whether the Bible is God=s Word. This is done not by blind faith but by living faith--which means doing what it says.[27]

Behind this particular passage I see the shadow of Cornelius Van Til and his system of presuppositionalist apologetics, or some such similar form of thinking. Norman Geisler described one tenet of fideism this way: AThe tests for truth are existential, not rational. Truth is tested personally in one=s life by submitting to God, and so forth, but not by human reason.@[28] However, we in the United Church of God (UCG) should not accept fideism or presuppositionalism, especially when the following book exists: R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984). This book is a simply devastating refutation of fideism and presuppositionalism. Those interested in seriously pursuing this topic should purchase this book.

First, Let=s define and explain the term Afideism@ more than has been done above previously. Fideism is the belief God=s existence cannot and should not be proven, but that it should be accepted by faith alone. This belief is normally extended to accepting the Bible by faith alone. The first and obvious problem with this doctrine is: How are we to know which religion is correct@ The Muslim will say he believes in the Quran (Koran), the Hindu in the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. and the Christian in the Bible. Obviously, since a contradiction cannot exist, somebody has to be wrong here, for these religions uphold contradictory doctrines. God gave us reason not only to keep us alive physically, but to sort out from among the various religions which one is the true way. Hence, fideism is a doctrine only of possible value to those who have the true religion already--presumably the Sabbatarian followers of Herbert W. Armstrong=s teachings, and various assorted other Sabbatarian Christians. If we accept fideism, we can=t easily rebuke Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Methodism as being errant, since those believing those ways could simply choose to fideistically accept their church=s interpretations of the Bible. Fideism is a doctrine admirably suited to those raised with a certain faith who don=t wish to change, for if all religions are equally blindly chosen, there=s little reason to change from what their parents taught them. Since a fideist doesn=t appeal to objective criteria that support his belief, he has no right to say to those who believe in others must be wrong: They could reply to him, AObeying the Quran works for me!,@ or, AIf I can=t prove any religion to be right, then I=ll stay a Buddhist.@

Now the Bible tells us: AProve all things: hold fast that which is good@ (II Thess. 5:21). If we are to prove all things, may not this include the existence of God and the Bible=s divine inspiration@ ABecause that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse@ (Rom. 1:19-20). Here Paul appeals to the existence of the universe as evidence of God=s existence and certain of His attributes (AHis eternal power and Godhead.@) The gentiles are Awithout excuse@ when they deny God=s existence. A. . . [B]e 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@ (I Pet. 3:15). We can=t do a good job of following Peter=s injunction if we believe there aren=t objective, external-to-the-Bible criteria for belief in Christianity. As it has been pointed out in a slightly different context:

What the advocates of this stance toward Scripture [which maintains you need not believe it is infallible to believe in it--EVS] fail to observe is that it is fundamentally dishonest to adopt the line of least resistance in the face of difficulty and say to the rationalistic skeptic, AOkay, in this instance you may be right. But I still have a right to hang on to my faith, no matter how many technical errors you may be able to discovered in the text of the Bible.@ He who assumes such a position of intellectual surrender can only be classed as a weak-kneed irrationalist who has retreated into his own shell of subjectivity. He no longer has anything meaningful to contribute in the arena of debate and intelligent consideration all thinking men are responsible to engage in.[29]

Paul=s sermon on the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22-31) presupposed external objective criteria existed, especially in its reference Ato an unknown god@ and its quote from a pagan poet, AWe are his offspring.@ Notice Acts 17:27 in particular: AThat they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.@ It seems that even uncalled people may be able to respond to God in some way, even if by mistaken means. Jesus said (John 14:11): ABelieve me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.@ Similarly, he said elsewhere (John 5:36): A[T]he very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.@ As Bernard Ramm pointed out:

Miracles are believed in non-Christian religions because the religion is already believed, but in the Biblical religion, miracles are part of the means of establishing the true religion. This distinction is of immense importance. Israel was brought into existence by a series of miracles, the law was given surrounded by supernatural wonders . . . It was the miracles authenticating the religion at every point.[30]

As pointed out in I John 4:1: ADear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.@ It=s not wise--especially these days--to believe in the first person who says he knows the true way to God. Hence, the Bible doesn=t necessarily support a fideistic view of accepting Christianity and believing in the one true God.

A standard definition for Aprove@ is Ato establish truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one=s claim@[31] Now--why does this term make us Christians so nervous when applied to God=s existence or to the Bible=s divine inspiration@ First of all, we must realize that when we Aprove@ something, we are not creating it out of thin air. There must be facts from the external, real world that support the proof, directly or indirectly, for it to even be a proof. The rise of modern technology shows that the human race=s reasoning processes in scientifically proving nature=s laws, etc. must be getting at something Areal@ that doesn=t immediately appear to the naked eye=s perception, but which lies beneath the surface of things. To say, AThe universe=s complexity didn=t happen by chance, therefore a Creator exists,@ doesn=t create God from nothing due to our argument. If the premises are true, and the inference correct, then there=s nothing to worry about: The conclusion must be true, if its a syllogism (since we are using the laws of logic then). There=s no sensible reason to doubt the human race=s intellectual processes are fundamentally flawed at their base when we have the technology to wipe ourselves from existence on this planet today. (As for being morally flawed--well, that=s another story!)

The main reason why we are nervous when the word Aprove@ is used in connection with proving God=s existence or the Bible=s inspiration is that we think reason=s role here denies the necessity of faith. People think: AIf I can prove God to exist by reason, what=s left for faith?A But this kind of thinking is in error: As Thomas Aquinas observed:

Faith has not that searching of natural reason which demonstrates [through a chain of proofs, such as a geometry theorem--EVS] what is believed, but a searching into those things through which a man is led to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.[32]

Notice that believing in something due to seeing a miracle accompany the revelation in question is not a denial of faith, as is implied in what Jesus said in John 14:11 and 5:36 as quoted above.

The reason why faith is still needed even after seeing a miracle accompany an expression of God=s thoughts through (say) a prophet is that there is no scientific or philosophical demonstration accompanying or proving the statement God inspired the prophet to make. When God said, AYou shall not murder,@ He did not proceed to add a philosophical reason for this statement to Israel.@ He didn=t say, AYou shall not murder because of (say) Athe greatest good for the greatest number, the categorical imperative, or the intrinsic value of human life.[33] The act of doing a miracle is not logically connected to the content of a revelation from God. You can=t derive AYou shall not steal@ from earthquakes, storms, lightning flashes,, or even the hearing of God=s own voice by any philosophical or scientific demonstration. God instead would rely on his authority (ADo this because I am the Eternal@--compare Lev. 19:37) or because of what he had done for Israel (Deut. 5:15): ARemember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.@ Neither of these is a philosophical reason for obeying one of God=s laws. Hence, there would be evidence for accepting God=s decrees--his miracles and actions on behalf of Israel of humanity as a whole--but the decrees weren=t proven directly by logical arguments. Hence, faith is still needed after you have seen actual miracles (i.e. indirectly supporting evidence), as Israel=s murmuring in the wilderness showed despite having seen an incredible series of miracles.[34]

Because of these consideration, the evidence for the Bible=s inspiration still constitutes indirect evidence, which is the kind of Aproof@ being done above. For we can=t prove everything in the Bible independently of the Bible, or else there would be little need for revelation. For the whole purpose of revelation is for God to tell us information we couldn=t--or couldn=t easily or with certainty--find out on our own. Nor can natural theology prove all the attributes and characteristics of the God of the Bible. We can prove the natural can=t always explain the natural, that the universe hasn=t always been there, that God is infinite,[35] that He has a mind,[36] Aeven his eternal power and Godhead,@ but not everything. Proving God=s complete love for humanity by human reason can=t be done, or else we wouldn=t have all these people, including many professing Christians, so uneasy over God allowing evil to exist. As for accepting the Bible itself, this involves an inference that says that if some of it can be shown to imply knowledge unobtainable humanly, and some more of it lines up with archeology or ancient history, then ALL of it is inspired by God. Hence, a degree of faith is always necessary, even if there is excellent evidence for the Bible=s inspiration and for the existence of God.[37]