Oh I suppose

I am a firm believer in presuppositional apologetics. There I said it and if that puts me firmly in the camp of fideism I think my placement there is unwarranted but that is another story. I listened to a sermon at church last Sunday and, although I see the approach taken, I am not inclined to accept it. We have a  pastor that took an evidential approach to proving the accuracy and reliability of the Scriptures. So, for example, since archeology time and time again supports the claims of Scripture then Scripture is valid and can be trusted. I see the approach and it rails against me (and I think God) on a variety of levels.

In holding Scripture up to that kind of inquiry I believe that we put ourselves in the place of God to pronounce what is true and false in the universe. So, if the evidence that is presented meets and arbitrary standard that I have defined, I will look favorably on the Scriptures rather than dismissively. In effect that is what I am saying if I hold the Bible up to rational or evidential inquiry. How much evidence is enough? How many classical apologetic arguments must we take to their reductio ad absurdum until I fall at the feet of God and worship Him? The mind of the unregenerate is much too dark and much too steeped in rebellion for any argument or mountain of evidence to fall it. That is the exclusive work of the Spirit.

I understand and will eventually grok the challenge that God presented in Isaiah to examine the evidence to test and see whether He alone is God among the gods. I need to look into that more. I think that the evidential approach, even if it is loosely based on these passages outlined last Sunday is a bit of a leap. I really do. I need to find the time to document why I do.