Faith and Evidence - Glenn Conjurske
Faith and Evidence
by Glenn Conjurske
Among the many misconceptions concerning the nature of faith which are current among Christians today, we find the notion that faith is believing something without evidence, or even believing against the evidence. I am bold to say that such believing is not faith at all, but rather superstition, and the principle of believing on such a basis—-or rather, without any basis—-opens wide the door to every kind of error. This is precisely the faith of Mormonism and of Romanism. Alas, it is exactly the kind of faith which is demanded of us by many teachers of Fundamentalism today. Point out to a Mormon the plain facts of history which undermine the foundations of his religion, and he will say that he holds to the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon, and the divine mission of Joseph Smith, by faith. Point out to a Roman Catholic the actual corruptions with which the Roman church is riddled, and he says he holds by faith to the promise of God to preserve his church. Point out to a King James Only man the actual corruptions in the Textus Receptus or the King James Version—-or the actual disagreements between the two of them—-and he says he holds by faith to the promise of God to preserve his word. The error of the Romanist and the King James Only man are identical. Both hold faith to be something which may stand contrary to plain evidence. They both stand, that is, upon a false doctrine of faith, while both plant their faith upon a false interpretation of Scriptural promises, coupled with false assumptions which contradict plain evidence. The Romanist assumes that the promise of preservation mandates a preservation in infallibility, and further assumes that that promise applies exclusively to the Roman Catholic church. The King James Only man assumes that the promise of preservation mandates a preservation in infallibility, and further assumes that that promise applies exclusively to the King James Version, or to the Textus Receptus. Both have strong arguments by which they limit the promise to their own church or their own version, and both set aside the plain facts of history. Both are in fact founded upon the same false notions of the nature of faith. This is not the faith of the Bible, but only superstition.
The faith of the Bible stands upon evidence, and such evidence as may be apprehended by our senses, accumulated by our research, and understood by our reason. The notions which set faith against reason contain indeed a grain of truth, but it is truth misapplied, and misapplied in such a way as to undermine the foundations of true faith, and replace it with superstition. Faith may at times require us to go beyond our reason, but never contrary to it. The belief in the eternal self-existence of God is entirely beyond our reason, but not in the least contrary to reason. We cannot conceive how such a thing as self-existence can be, and yet reason itself leads us directly to the eternal self-existence of God. We have but little choice in the matter. We must either believe that nothing is eternally existent, and that all things which now exist somehow came into existence uncaused and out of nothing—-or that the inanimate material universe is eternally self-existent, and exists in its present form by chance without design—-or that an intelligent and living being is eternally self-existent. Of these choices, reason itself, for those who will seriously and impartially employ it, will lead us infallibly to the third. If men will put the matter strictly upon the basis of the known facts and laws of science, then the fact that something is is the strongest possible demonstration that something always has been. Again, strictly upon the ground of known science, the fact that life is is the strongest possible proof that life always has been. What men would like to believe is another matter. The actual facts and laws of science bring us precisely here. And further, the existence of the most intricate, exquisite, and obvious design, in everything about us and within us, argues irresistibly for the existence of a designer, and puts blind and causeless chance out of the question. I had a biology teacher in high school who was continually talking about the purpose of the various bodily organs—-a term perfectly illegitimate in the mouth of a man who believed in evolution. He may speak of the function, but not the purpose. Yet purpose is so evident in the construction of the body that an infidel cannot fail to see it. If he will but seriously and honestly consider it, he must soon be led to exclaim, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made”—-and this applies as well to the soul of man as to his body, though it may require closer observation and deeper thought to learn it there.
We believe in God, then, on the basis of evidence. The belief in an eternal and self-existent living God is without question the most reasonable of all alternatives, in a realm which is entirely beyond our reason.
But I turn to the Bible to demonstrate that it firmly plants faith upon evidence. We may begin at the most elementary sort of faith, the belief in the being and divine nature of God. Paul says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because 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. 1:18-20). We grant that such matters will never be “understood” at all unless men will think, and the devil does all in his power to keep them from thinking, by radio and television, sports and entertainments, the deceitfulness of riches, the cares of this life, by false philosophies and prejudice, and above all, by the love of sin. Nevertheless, to those who will observe, and think, and honestly seek the truth, the truth will be “clearly seen.” Those who will not proceed thus are “willingly ignorant” (II Pet. 3:5), and are “without excuse.”
In its first rudiments, then, faith is very nearly allied to knowledge. We believe what we know, and in fact cannot believe otherwise. We cannot choose to believe what we please—-though we certainly can choose to examine the evidence, or to refuse to do so. We believe what we are convinced of, and we are convinced by evidence. Though men may profess anything, the actual belief of the heart is another matter. We may profess that the sky is green and the grass blue, or that the sun is square, but we cannot choose to actually believe so, and I strongly suspect that many who profess to be atheists are not actually so in their hearts. They hope there is no God, but they do not know it, and therefore do not believe it. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is his wish, not his faith. “There are no atheists in fox-holes,” an old saying affirms—-that is, no atheists facing death on the battle-field—-for however strongly we may wish something so, we cannot believe it so unless we know it so. “Seeing is believing,” as the proverb has it, and this is as true in the Scriptures as it is in the life of the world, as I shall abundantly prove later in this article.
It is also true that “faith cometh by hearing.” It comes, that is, on the basis of credible testimony. “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24). We know that his testimony is true on the basis of his proved character and his certain knowledge.
Yet while I must strongly insist that the rudiments of faith are founded strictly upon knowledge, I must equally insist that there is more to faith than the mere belief of known facts. Faith is a moral thing, a virtuous thing, and there is no virtue in merely believing what we know. Every man on earth does so. The faith of the Bible is not mere belief of facts, but confidence in a person. It is confidence in God. It is confidence in his veracity, in his wisdom, and in his goodness. Yet all of this is founded ultimately upon knowledge which is easily attainable. The whole creation bears testimony to the wisdom and goodness of its Creator, and his goodness is sufficient proof of his veracity. All of this may be proved by a thousand lines of evidence. The God who created the fragrance of the lilac, and the nose of man, must be both wise and good. The God who created the beauty of a thousand varieties of flowers, and the eye of man, must be the very fountain of wisdom and goodness.
He who doubts that God has created these things has no excuse. This may be proved also, and by numerous lines of evidence. Take that one among them which is perhaps most compelling. If any man will but consider the relationship between the sexes, he must be led by the consideration directly to the existence, the wisdom, and the goodness of God. The very existence of the masculine and feminine natures, so opposite to each other, and yet so perfectly complementary in a thousand complex and exquisite ways, is proof sufficient of the existence and the wisdom of God. That two opposite natures so exquisitely suited to each other should have come into being by chance is altogether out of the question. The flawless complexity of their relationship, both emotional and physical, is full proof that its creator is supremely wise, while the supreme delightfulness, bliss, and satisfaction of that relationship (even when marred by sin), bear irresistible testimony that its creator is supremely good. I need not mention details, for they are not hidden in the depths, or beyond the stars, but are open and apparent in the experience of the whole human race. This belongs to that wisdom which “crieth without.” Men who will but observe and think may find those details as well as I, and find God in them as well as I.
That there are many who are too shallow and too brutish ever to engage in such a process of thought I freely grant, but that is not God’s fault. Men whose hearts are at enmity with God, men who are determined to wrest these sweet waters from the course in which God has decreed that they should flow, may never find God in them at all, though they drink deeply of all their sweets, but that is not God’s fault either.
And here we may be brought also to the higher regions of faith, for the man who honestly, seriously, and deeply considers these things cannot help but be overwhelmed with the sense of the wisdom and goodness of God—-and all this though his own desires remain entirely unfulfilled. He must yet say, “Though I myself am deprived of those sweet waters, yet I am compelled to believe that the God who created them must be supremely good. He owes me nothing but damnation, and though he withholds those sweet waters from me, I yet own him good.” This is the higher region of faith, which Job entered when he said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” And Charles Wesley, when he put into the mouth of a reprobate,
“Though I am damn’d, yet God is love!”
Yet faith does not stop there. The very goodness of God which a man must acknowledge while God deprives him of good, moves him to go forward and obtain the blessing for himself from that hand of goodness.
I have thus followed faith up from its rudimentary form, planted solidly upon concrete evidence which may be apprehended by our senses, to its highest exercises, which can never be anything but perfectly consistent with that evidence. I now descend again to the lower regions, to demonstrate further from the Bible that true faith is founded upon evidence.
The disciples’ faith in the resurrection of Christ was based upon evidence—-evidence which could be perceived by the senses, and understood by the reason. “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days.” (Acts 1:3). Seeing, then, was believing. Hyperspiritual notions of faith wish to set this aside. They may affirm—-and even with some truth—-that the apostles ought to have believed in the resurrection of Christ merely upon his word, without any evidence at all. Yet the facts are these: they did not believe without that evidence; God was careful to give to them that evidence; and on the basis of that evidence they believed. Nor is there the slightest hint that that faith, founded thus upon evidence, was not true faith.
We are not told specifically what most of those “many infallible proofs” were, but we are given enough of them that we may plainly see their nature. The first of those proofs consisted of what is commonly called “the empty tomb.” This is a precious expression of the faith and the heritage of the children of God. The very phrase—-“the empty tomb”—-must send a thrill of emotion through the soul of every devoted disciple of Christ. I have not one word to say against the use of this expression, but the plain fact is, the tomb was not empty. It was empty in the sense in which we mean it—-empty of the body of the Lord—-yet in fact the tomb was not empty. It contained the evidence which formed the foundation of the apostles’ first faith in the resurrection of Christ. What was that evidence? “The linen clothes lying.” This was the infallible proof of the resurrection of Christ.
Consider the whole situation. The stone which covered the mouth of the tomb was sealed, and guarded by soldiers. It was easy enough for them to invent the idle story that his disciples came while the guard slept, and stole away his body, but “the linen clothes lying” disprove it. It was unlikely enough—-a virtual impossibility—-that the whole guard would be asleep at once, for if one soldier was so careless as to fall asleep, the second would not lie down and go to sleep beside him, but wake him. There was certainly more than one man guarding the tomb. The guard was instructed, “Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.” (Matt. 28:13). This is plural. The likelihood that they all slept is virtually nil. But supposing they all slept at once, and supposing they all happened to be sleeping when the disciples arrived to steal away his body, how did anyone roll away the stone without waking any of them? Here is another practical impossibility.
The disciples themselves, of course, knew very well that they had not stolen away his body. The Jews had no will to do so, and if they had done it, they would have had the evidence in their hands with which to refute the claims of the resurrection. But how can we know that someone had not stolen away his body. Again, “the linen clothes lying.” Suppose that anyone had had the will to take away the body of the Lord, and had arrived at the tomb and found all the guards asleep—-had further managed to roll away the stone without waking any of them—-would they have then taken the time necessary to unwrap those yards of linen cloth, praying meanwhile that none of the guards would wake, so that they might carry off the naked body, and leave “the linen clothes lying”? There is not the shadow of a chance of it.
Now see how all of this constituted the evidence upon which the apostles believed in the resurrection of Christ. Peter and John “ran both together, and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, SAW the linen clothes lying, yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and [with his characteristic boldness] went into the sepulchre, and SEETH the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepluchre, and he SAW and BELIEVED. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” (John 20:4-9).
Their faith, then, was founded upon sight. I know very well that Paul says we walk by faith, and not by sight. That is precious truth also, which I shall deal with in its place. For the present suffice it to understand, they SAW and BELIEVED. The “linen clothes lying” were the full proof of the resurrection. His body arose, and went out through the linen clothes, leaving them lie where they were, and out through the side of the hewn rock, precisely as he came in through the closed doors to meet his disciples after his resurrection. “The linen clothes lying” were the evidence of this, which the disciples saw, and believed.
But Thomas was not present at the empty tomb. Neither was he present when the Lord entered the disciples’ room through closed doors, and “shewed them his hands and his feet,” and he did not believe. He had none of that evidence upon which the other disciples believed, and would not believe without it. “The other disciples said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Was this perversity of heart? Did the Lord condemn him for his demand for evidence?
The Lord did not require him to believe without evidence, but rather gave him the evidence which he demanded. “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:26-28). The Lord simply gave him the evidence which he demanded, and the faith of Thomas stood upon that evidence. This is proved by the next verse, which says, “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, BECAUSE thou hast SEEN me, thou hast BELIEVED.”
Seeing, then, was believing—-but not a whit more so for Thomas than it was for the rest of the disciples. Their faith rested upon exactly the same foundation as his did. That same evidence which the Lord gave to Thomas when Thomas demanded it, he had already given to the others. In verses 19 & 20 of John 20, “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side.”
Yet the Lord administers to Thomas what we may consider a mild reproof for requiring this evidence, saying, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” But mark, from this we are certainly not to understand that it is better, nor even that it is possible, to believe without evidence. It is not a question of evidence or no evidence, but of what kind of evidence, or whether he received that evidence at first or second hand. Recall, Thomas already had evidence which should have been sufficient, without his demanding more. He had the testimony of the other apostles, which he had no good reason to doubt. J. C. Ryle paraphrases the Lord’s meaning thus: “Thomas, thou hast at last believed my resurrection, because thou hast seen Me with thine own eyes, and touched Me with thine own hands. It is well. But it would have been far better if thou hadst believed a week ago, on the testimony of thy ten brethren, and not waited to see Me. Remember from henceforth, that in my kingdom they are more blessed and honourable who believe on good testimony, without seeing, than those who insist first on seeing, before they believe.” In neither case is anyone expected to believe without evidence. Such a principle but opens the door, and that very effectually, to imposters like Joseph Smith.
Mormonism stands upon “faith” without evidence—-even upon “faith” which is contrary to the evidence—-and the Mormon church has often been engaged in concealing and suppressing that evidence, as Jerald and Sandra Tanner, of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry in Salt Lake City, have often had occasion to point out. The Lord and his apostles stand upon just the opposite ground. Peter says, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables”—-a perfect description of Mormonism—-“when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And THIS VOICE WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN WE HEARD, when we were with him in the holy mount.” (II Pet. 1:16-18). And John, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life. … That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” (I John 1:1 & 3).
Ah, but the rest of us have no such privilege. We cannot see and hear the Lord. We cannot see his miracles. We cannot hear the voice of God from heaven. Yet we are expected to give credence to credible testimony. It is precisely for this reason that “faith cometh by hearing,” or “by a report,” as we may translate the term. It is a matter of credible testimony to reasonable or demonstrable facts, and we are expected to search out the foundations of that testimony, as well as of those facts. The lukewarm and careless, the wicked and profane, the prejudiced and obstinate, neglect or refuse to do so, and so remain in unbelief, or are ensnared in delusions. Those who will not hear Moses and the prophets will not believe, though one rise from the dead. An evil generation ignores or refuses the credible testimony which is in its hands, and asks for signs. Meanwhile, “Cunningly devised fables” abound. Joseph Smith makes the same sort of claims as the apostles of Christ. How can we know which to believe? On the sole basis of evidence. On the basis of concrete facts—-of credible testimony, and the character of the witnesses—-all of which may be searched out and known for what they are. Mormonism fails on all counts. The deeper a man searches into the character of the witnesses of Mormonism, or into its assertions and allegations, the more he will find to shake his faith—-and the more his elders must preach to him to “stand by faith,” that is, to believe against the evidence—-proceeding precisely upon the same false and unsound notions of faith which are held by many Evangelicals. It is just the reverse with Christianity. The deeper a man searches into its foundations, the more his faith is confirmed. There is nothing ethereal here, nothing mystical, nothing magical, but only standing solid on solid facts. This is the faith of the Bible. Many a man has set out to disprove Christianity, who has instead been converted by the irresistible force of the facts. Generation after generation of the enemies of the cross of Christ have ransacked history and geology to overturn the truth of the Bible, and the more the facts have been sifted, the more the foundations of Christianity have been confirmed.
The time was when I despised such evidence. I had hyperspiritual notions of faith, which disallowed any need for natural evidence, coupled with Calvinistic notions, which made faith a gift of God, communicated directly and without reference to any kind of evidence. Those branches of study called “Christian evidences” and “apologetics” I despised. Indeed, I supposed them to stand directly in the way of true faith, which I supposed had no need of such natural props. But I was mistaken. Though I yet believe that such studies may be misused, and that the faith which stands upon them may stop short of a living faith in God, yet the fact remains that the Bible itself founds faith upon just such “evidences.”
Some may suppose that in all that I have said I have ignored the fact that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” I have not ignored it at all. The word of God itself appeals to our reason and our senses. It presents to us reasonable and demonstrable facts. And how do we know that the Bible is the word of God, and not the Koran, or the Book of Mormon? The book which claims to be the word of God must be subjected to the same test of evidence as every other book. The Bible will stand before that test. Other books will fall. To proceed upon the principle that we ought to believe because the book claims to be the word of God is dangerous and foolish. It opens the door to every delusion. If the Bible stands upon no more solid ground than the Koran or the Book of Mormon, it ought to be no more believed than they are. If it is worthy of our faith, it can prove itself. The man who says, “Just trust me,” without proving himself trustworthy, is almost certainly a fraud—-and so is the book.
Abraham believed on the sole basis of the word of God, but he must first be sure it was God who spoke. When once the voice of God is authenticated, we may then believe with confidence all that he speaks. When the book of God is authenticated, we may believe its contents without question. C. H. Mackintosh somewhere relates that an educated infidel asked a humble believer if she believed the story of the whale swallowing Jonah. She affirmed that she did, and that if the Bible told her that Jonah had swallowed the whale, she would believe that too. This is safe ground, IF we know that the voice which speaks is the voice of God. Otherwise it is dangerous folly, not to say inexcusable presumption. How Abraham knew the voice of God it were fruitless to inquire. If God can speak, he can authenticate his own voice. Suffice it to say, this is not something to be assumed, but proved. It is foolhardy in the extreme to assume, without concrete proof, something upon which hangs our eternal bliss or misery.
Some suppose it is unspiritual, or “not of faith,” to require evidence upon which to believe. They wish to found their faith on intuition, but what saith the Scripture? “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Prov. 14:12). The hyperspiritual will found faith upon the direct witness of the Spirit to their inner man Yes, and so do the Mormons. Such evidence may be counterfeited with ease by the wiles of the devil. “Believe not every spirit,” the Bible says, “but try the spirits whether they are of God.” (I John 4:1). In the nature of the case the true must be tried as well as the false—-for we know nothing of which is which until we have tried them. I spoke years ago with a Pentecostal girl, who claimed that the Lord spoke to her with an audible voice. She then confided that at one time she had heard a second voice, unlike the first. The first voice told her not to listen to the other, for it was a false spirit. I looked her in the eye, pointed my finger at her, and said, “What if they’re both false?” She said very earnestly, “I never thought of that.” I told her she had better do some serious thinking about it.
God does not expect us to believe without concrete and demonstrable evidence. This would be unreasonable and cruel, which God is not.
But do not mistake me. I do not believe the evidences of Christianity lie entirely in the realm of the physical and natural. There are higher evidences also—-evidences which belong to the realm of the heart and the conscience. These evidences are true and powerful. It is of such evidence that Paul speaks when he says, “But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.” (I Cor. 14:24-25). Those evidences which appeal directly to the heart and conscience are perfectly legitimate, as well as very powerful, but they may be very precarious in the absence of what we may call forensic evidence. Those subjective evidences are real and true, but they were never intended to stand independent of the objective evidence of facts. Much less are they to be credited if they stand against the facts. False religions, such as Mormonism, must make their whole appeal to the subjective spiritual and emotional evidences—-and may sometimes make out a good case there, for there is truth in false religions. Witness the following account of the Mormon method, from a man who was for twenty-five years a Mormon elder:
“The first elders were peculiarly adapted for the singular work which they had to perform. They were earnest, fiercely enthusiastic, and believers in everything that had ever been written about ‘visions,’ ‘dreams,’ `the ministering of angels,’ ‘gifts of the spirit, tongues, and interpretation of tongues,’ ‘healings,’ and ‘miracles.’ They wandered ‘without purse or scrip’ from village to village and from city to city, preaching in the public highways, at the firesides or in the pulpits—-wherever they had opportunity—-testifying and singing:
‘The Spirit of God like a fire is burning!
The Latter-day glory begins to come forth;
The visions and blessings of old are returning,
The angels are coming to visit the earth.
We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven
Hosannah, hosannah to God and the Lamb!
Let glory to them in the highest be given,
Henceforth and for ever: Amen and Amen!’
“Half a dozen such verses as these inspired with sentiments that ranged from Adam to the time when ‘Jesus descends with his chariots of fire,’ sung with stentorian lungs, threw over their audiences an influence such as they had never before experienced. The work was of God.’ The barren, speculative, carefully prepared sermons of fifty weeks in the year chilled in the presence of the energy and demonstration of the Mormon elders; the latter had no dead issues to deal with; their Prophet was a live subject. In this manner Mormonism was first announced. It was the feeling of the soul, and not the reasoning of the mind. It was robust believing, not calm, intellectual understanding; and thus by natural sequence ‘the number of the disciples grew and multiplied.’ It was an emotional faith in both speaker and hearer. They felt that God was with them, and ‘feeling’ at such moments sets all argument at rest.”
All of this may be perfectly legitimate, and indeed the absence of any such “demonstration of the Spirit and of power” may be considered sufficient evidence against a movement, even where the objective truth is preached. But when such subjective evidences are put in the place of concrete and objective facts—-as they are and must be in false religions like Mormonism—-they serve only to mislead and deceive. Everything which is built upon such evidence breaks down when we enter the realm of simple facts, such as every man may know by searching. The deeper the Mormon searches into the natural and historical evidences of his religion, the more his faith will be shaken. The deeper the Christian searches into those evidences, the more his faith will be confirmed.
But we do not believe that a man must search out the historical foundations of the Bible and Christianity before he can believe. The proper place for him to begin is with those subjective spiritual and emotional evidences which are nearer at hand. The Bible is suited to the nature of man as the key is to the lock. It meets the needs of his heart, while it commends itself to his reason. And before that, and most powerfully, it reinforces all the demands of his conscience. When a man’s conscience is at war with him, and plain duty stares him in the face, it is mere quibbling—-it is perversity—-to claim that he must first search out the historical foundations of the Bible, before he can believe. It may be altogether too true that he cannot believe, but it is nothing to the purpose. The first thing which God demands of him is that he repent, and he can do that. He must indeed do that to be true to himself, for his own conscience demands it of him. When he has repented, and made thorough work of it, he will likely find it easy enough to believe in the Bible. R. A. Torrey, a seasoned winner of souls, answers the objection “I cannot believe” with, “In most cases where one says this the real difficulty which lies back of their inability to believe is unwillingness to forsake sin.” The sinner complains that he cannot reach the second step of the ladder, while he refuses to put his foot on the first.
We grant, then, that there are various kinds of evidence—-some subjective, and some objective. But granting that, we yet insist—-and believe we have proved from Scripture—-that that objective evidence, which may be apprehended by the senses and the reason, is ultimately the only solid foundation for faith. In the nature of the case it must be so. Faith is not some faculty by which we believe that which is not true. We very rightly suspect the man who continually calls upon us to “just trust me,” and we also rightly suspect those doctrines which profess to stand on faith, without regard to solid and demonstrable facts. Faith believes the truth, and the truth may be demonstrated and proved. God himself provides that demonstration, and appeals to it as the proper foundation for our faith. The Lord Jesus, in the days of his flesh, granted that demonstration a thousand times over, in all the miracles which he did, and the record of those miracles is given to us by inspiration of the Holy Ghost as the foundation for our faith, as we have shown in a former article. The faith of the apostles in the resurrection of Christ stood upon “many infallible proofs.” It stood, that is, upon forensic evidence, which the Lord himself was careful to give them—-natural evidence which may be perceived by the physical senses. They “saw, and believed.” When they doubted and feared, he did not say, “Just trust me,” but gave them evidence.
On the evening of his resurrection day, “Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: HANDLE ME, AND SEE; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” (Luke 24:36-40). This is concrete evidence. He never expected them to believe without it. The man who requires us to accept his doctrines—-whether it be the mission of Joseph Smith or the infallibility of the Textus Receptus—-“by faith,” without providing concrete and incontrovertible evidence for our reason, is either deceived or a deceiver. The truth courts the facts, and stands on those facts precisely by faith. Error fears the facts, while it claims to stand “by faith.” This is not faith at all, but superstition and delusion.
If men seek to base this delusion upon Paul’s statement that “we walk by faith, and not by sight,” then they have mistaken his meaning, and perverted his words to a sense which he certainly never intended. Whatever Paul may mean by that, he certainly does not mean to overturn the Bible foundation of faith. That we walk by faith, not by sight, is most blessed truth also, but I must reserve the exposition of that for another time.
Glenn Conjurske