‘Evidences’ are not Proof––Let us suppose that, on the other hand, they have been fortified with ‘Christian evidences,’ defended by bulwarks of sound dogmatic teaching. Religion without definite dogmatic teaching degenerates into sentiment, but dogma, as dogma, offers no defence against the assaults of unbelief. As for ‘evidences,’ the rôle of the Christian apologist is open to the imputation conveyed in the keen proverb, qui s’excuse, s’accuse [‘he who excuses himself, accuses himself; a guilty conscience needs no accuser’]; the truth by which we live must needs be self-evidenced, admitting of neither proof nor disproof. Children should be taught Bible history with every elucidation which modern research makes possible. But they should not be taught to think of the inscriptions on Assyrian monuments, for example, as proofs of the truth of the Bible records, but rather as illustrations of those records; though they are, and cannot but be, subsidiary proofs.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI