Believing or Not Believing Because of Evidence

[Hornet]

I have heard that if you believe that the Bible is the word of God because of some evidence outside of the Bible, then you don't believe that the Bible is your final authority. Is this true? What do you think about this?

Suppose someone asks you, "If you were shown strong evidence that Christianity is not true, would you be willing to give up your belief in Jesus?" I have heard some people say that if you answer "Yes" to that question, then you don't believe that the Bible is your final authority. What do you think about this?

[Cow Poke]

I have heard that if you believe that the Bible is the word of God because of some evidence outside of the Bible...

From whom have you heard this?

[rogue06]

From whom have you heard this?

[lee_merrill]

Suppose someone asks you, "If you were shown strong evidence that Christianity is not true, would you be willing to give up your belief in Jesus?" I have heard some people say that if you answer "Yes" to that question, then you don't believe that the Bible is your final authority. What do you think about this?

[KingsGambit]

The Bible is not our final authority. God is our final authority. So I have a real problem with the claim posed with the OP in the first place.

But, when Jesus let Thomas touch his hand, he accepted his belief even upon demanding evidence.

[LeaC]

I have heard that if you believe that the Bible is the word of God because of some evidence outside of the Bible, then you don't believe that the Bible is your final authority. Is this true? What do you think about this?

I don't understand this line. I believe in the Bible because the evidence recorded in it is in accordance with evidence outside of it, to the best of my knowledge to research it. The Bible is the word of God, but that doesn't mean we should blindly assume our understanding of it is infallible. That's why I read different arguments, weigh their merits, and try to understand objections/counter-arguments made about various passages. The Bible alone doesn't grant me, at least, perfect understanding of the context in which it was written.

If strong, definitive evidence were offered that major tenants of Christianity were incorrect, then I would consider it. But frankly, if that were going to happen, it would have by now. I'm not worried.

[KingsGambit]

This sounds like the sort of argument you would see from some hardcore presuppositionalist who is more interested in discussing how people specifically are supposed to come to faith... than in actually helping bring people to faith.

There are many ways the Holy Spirit works through and I don't want to be in the business of dismissing any of them.

[Cow Poke]

This sounds like the sort of argument you would see from some hardcore presuppositionalist who is more interested in discussing how people specifically are supposed to come to faith... than in actually helping bring people to faith.

There are many ways the Holy Spirit works through and I don't want to be in the business of dismissing any of them.

Well said.

[Hornet]

From whom have you heard this?

I heard it from a Christian apologist.

[Hornet]

This sounds like the sort of argument you would see from some hardcore presuppositionalist who is more interested in discussing how people specifically are supposed to come to faith... than in actually helping bring people to faith.

There are many ways the Holy Spirit works through and I don't want to be in the business of dismissing any of them.

You are correct. It is from a presuppositionalist. The presuppositionalist that I heard would say that if something other than God or the Bible gives proof that the Bible is the word, then that proof is your final authority. In other words, he would say that if X proves that the Bible is the word of God, then X is your final authority.

[Hornet]

The fulfilled prophecy in the Bible would be considered evidence that the Bible is the word of God. Since it is part of the Bible, it is not something outside of Scripture that validates Scripture. Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible is an example of the Bible validating its own truth claims.

[Rushing Jaws]

The Bible is not our final authority. God is our final authority. So I have a real problem with the claim posed with the OP in the first place.

But, when Jesus let Thomas touch his hand, he accepted his belief even upon demanding evidence.

I agree with all this. The Bible is a means to believing, not the ultimate basis of belief. The Bible is not, and cannot be, ultimate.
It does not matter that I cannot prove that God is real and trustworthy. To be able to prove that, would be be a weakness, not a strength; a God who could be proved to exist, would not be God at all, but a mere god.

[Sparko]

Christianity is based on evidence, not blind faith. The reason we believe is because of the evidence shown that it is true.

So that means if clear and strong evidence shows that it is not true, we would need to stop believing.

But I am like Leac, I think it would need to be very strong evidence to convince me.

[seer]

You are correct. It is from a presuppositionalist. The presuppositionalist that I heard would say that if something other than God or the Bible gives proof that the Bible is the word, then that proof is your final authority. In other words, he would say that if X proves that the Bible is the word of God, then X is your final authority.

But that is correct isn't it? If Scripture is inspired then it has to be the final authority. Other proofs and evidences may play in, but something has to have the last word.

[seer]

But I am like Leac, I think it would need to be very strong evidence to convince me.

Yet we have to remember there are dark intelligent forces that may be able to make black look white. To deceive the very elect, if that is possible.