Speaking of Logic ...

I part ways with many of my evangelical brethren on the idea of "proving" the validity of the Christian faith. I hold no such hope of "proving" it. Further, I would argue that the one of the foundational elements of the faith requires that it not be provable. In John 20:24-29, the account is retold of Thomas requiring "proof" of the resurrected Jesus being real. Jesus provides Thomas the opportunity to physically touch his wounds, thus providing proof. Only then does Thomas believe. Jesus then offers a mild rebuke:

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29, NIV, emphasis
added)

In other words, the very foundation of the Christian faith is based on the idea that we are to believe what we have not seen for ourselves; believe what we cannot "prove." I may argue for the validity of the supporting evidence, but the ultimate issue -- that Jesus was the Christ -- is a personal decision of faith.

I part ways with some evangelical Christians in my view of the Bible. I do believe that it is inerrant; the inspired and True Word of God. But I can't prove that ... I choose to believe it. What irritated me before I believed -- and still does, for that matter -- is when people try to "prove" the Bible by using verses from the Bible. I'm sure that's a logical fallacy, I'm just not sure the name of the fallacy. A more difficult test is to support the validity of the Bible without relying upon passages within the Bible.

Note: Here there is much scholarly work. I'm not an expert on it, but from what I gather, based on techniques used to validate other antique writings, there is as much reason to believe the authenticity of the written text (not necessarily the message, but the text itself) as there is reason to believe the authenticity of other ancient writings. The book of Luke, for instance, has proven to be an extraordinarily accurate report of events from that time.

I firmly believe that the placing of trust in the Bible as the inspired Word of God is ultimately an act of faith. Logical deduction can be used to take a person a good way in believing that the Bible is a credible ancient text, but that last step -- that the text is God's written word -- necessarily must be an act of faith. I have chosen to believe that the Bible is inherently True; therefore, based on that, I now believe X, Y and Z.

Some might brand me a heretic for writing this, but those who do aren't reading my words very carefully. I'm as strong a believer in the "Inerrancy of Scripture" as any Bible thumper. I'm not a literalist (I don't, for instance, believe Jesus is physically a door, 28" wide and 6'8" high). But I do believe that the Bible as structured represents God's True Word, in ways obvious and in ways obscured.

I just can't "prove" it ... and I don't think it's God's plan for it to be proved.

Belief and Trust ... that's what it's all about. Not proof and acceptance, but belief and trust.