Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace didn't know that God honors non-forensic faith

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

The Danger of Belief “In” Without Belief “That”

Posted: 09 May 2018 04:36 AM PDT

279I’ve been writing lately about the difference between belief “that” and belief “in,” following a recent radio interview with John Stonestreet for the BreakPoint Radio program. As I’ve described in previous posts, I came to belief that the gospels were a reliable record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

That's not biblical. The bible says the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit (1st Cor. 2:14).  While it might be true that you found the NT to be historically reliable in all that it says before you came to actual faith, your experience runs contrary to the biblical explanation.

But at that early point in my investigation, I still didn’t understand the Gospel message of Salvation. As a result, I hadn’t yet placed my trust in Jesus as my Savior.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me:  there was a time when you believed the NT was a reliable record of the resurrection of Jesus...in which you also didn't yet have faith?  

I had belief that, but not belief in. There’s a big difference between rational assent and reasonable trust. Years later, I now appreciate the difference between these two states of mind and the important relationship they have to one another. In fact, I’ve come to realize belief in, without belief that, can be quite dangerous.

But "belief in" without "belief that" is still biblical. In the bible, the hope which saves, is the hope that is blind by definition:

 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Rom. 8:24-25 NAU)

As a skeptical investigator, my journey toward reasonable trust in Jesus was inseparably linked to a rational examination of the evidence.

 All Mormon apologists claim the same thing.

As I was becoming interested in the claims of the New Testament, my Mormon sister introduced me to the Book of Mormon. I decided to work through this second text, even as I was investigating the New Testament gospels. I was equally skeptical of both books, and I examined them critically with the template I typically use to evaluate witnesses. While the Bible held up under this scrutiny, the Book of Mormon did not. Based on the evidence, there was no reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was true, and for this reason, I could never trust in it for anything it may say about God or salvation.

 then apparently you forgot:  hope that is seen, is not hope.

But this was not the case for my Mormon family. As I’ve talked with them over the years, I’ve discovered that none of them came to trust in the claims of Mormonism after first examining them evidentially to make sure that they were true. Instead, they came to trust the Book of Mormon after reading it, praying about it, and experiencing some form of “spiritual” confirmation.

It's your own god's fault if a person goes to him in prayer about the Book of Mormon and comes away think the still small voice is telling them the Book of Mormon is true.  Nowhere does the bible express or imply that prayer is an irrational method of truth-seeking on the question of which alleged "holy books" are actually from god.  And since most bible scholars see bits of polytheism expressed by the biblical authors, you cannot even argue that Mormonism's denial of monotheism pre-empts any need to "pray" about it:  the average unbeliever doesn't have the time to wade through countless writings of OT scholars to decide whether the ancient Israelite religion was first polytheistic.  Under your logic, kids should never ask their parents for anything, since if they just do an analysis of the evidence, they will figure out what mom and dad's most likely response will be, hence negating any need to ask.

These personal experiences varied from one member of my family to another; each had a personal testimony they would have been happy to share. But if you asked them for some evidence to support their belief in the reliability of the Mormon scripture, none of them could have provided a response beyond their own subjective experience.

How did you answer them when they referred you to Mormon apologists?

Mormons aren’t the only believers who embrace this subjective “epistemology” (approach to assessing and accepting a truth claim).

But some Mormons are "apologists" and have been answering your Protestant criticisms for decades.

As I’ve travelled across the country making the case for the reliability of the gospels,

Thus indicating your desire to draw attention to yourself and make money by selling Jesus, since you are surely smart enough to recognize that the county or city in which you live has plenty of its own problems rejecting the gospel. You don't need to go galloping around the world, and original Christianity did not express or imply that all of it's members take on the responsibility of apostles, teachers or evangelists.  There is every possibility and probability that you only chose the more "hey-everybody-look-at-me" style of Christianity because you simply wish to get fame and fortune selling Jesus.  Maybe I should nickname you as "apostle Paul".  The original 12 disciples had no intent to preach to anybody except Jews (Galatians 2:9), a biblical rebuttal to post-ascension legends saying they went their separate ways and evangelized far away countries.

I’ve discovered this to be the approach of most committed Christians as well.

 Thank you for a great rebuttal to the so-called "Impossible Faith" theory that says Christianity could never have taken hold in the first century unless real provable miracles had really taken place.  We all know how stupid and gullible religious people can be, don't we.

Many of the people in my audiences have never previously considered the evidence I’m presenting. In fact, most tell me they’ve never even thought about the role evidence might play in their faith.

Sounds like the bible they've been reading for decades doesn't exactly support Paul Little's "Know why you believe what you believe!" bullshit.

Few have ever read an “apologetics” book.

yet they somehow maintained a faith in Christ nonetheless.  Apparently, those who push apologetics drugs are highly expendable with little to no effect on Christianity as a whole.

When I ask them about their own journey of faith, they sound much like my Mormon siblings. Some were raised in the Church, some have had personal experiences they’ve interpreted as confirmation, and some were convinced by the loving nature of the Christian community. Most have come to trust in Jesus without ever examining the evidence beyond their own personal experience.

 I see no reason why it should be otherwise with Christianity's first 300 years.

Of course these brothers and sisters in the Lord are saved; their trust in Christ as Savior has secured their salvation.

You mean God was willing to "save" the type of person who doesn't give two shits about apologetics?

But if they had been exposed to Mormonism prior to being exposed to Christianity, it’s they may have been Mormons today (if they had approached and examined Mormonism as they eventually approached and examined Christianity).

And if they had been exposed to the fallacies of Christian thought by informed skeptics who are capable of demonstrating the stupidity necessarily inherent in Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", they might have become atheists.

This is the danger of belief in without belief that. While rational assent is insufficient, an unreasonable trust is deficient and dangerous.

 then you must think apostle Paul was guilty of unreasonable trust, since he insists he took a real trip to heaven, and yet 14 years after the fact, still cannot tell whether this was a physical or spiritual event:

 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
 3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. (2 Cor. 12:1-4 NAU)

Would you advise Paul that his belief "in" this experience is dangerous since he confesses to not knowing "that" or "how" it happened?  In light of your previous condemnation of subjective experiences, your answer would presumably be "yes".

An unexamined faith can be misplaced and, if nothing else, difficult to defend when challenged by others.

Only if you assume that the god of the bible gives two shits about his people "defending" their faith.  The fact that he doesn't may be inferred from the biblical requirement to excommunicate any morally or theologically errant brother/sister after a second warning (Titus 3:9-11), and the prohibition on wrangling words (2nd Timothy 2:14), since that amounts to prohibiting 99% of everything ever stated in conservative bible commentaries and apologetics books.

I want people to eventually place their trust in Jesus as Lord, but I want them to arrive at this saving trust by first examining the evidence.

Five Point Calvinists believe all the "essential" doctrine you do, but say the precise way somebody came into a saving faith is the way God infallibly predestined them to.  The more you slam subjective faith, the more you slam God's infallible decree.  Or maybe telling your audience about this in-house Christian debate wouldn't contribute toward successfully advertising your wares?

As they move through belief that to belief in, they’ll have confidence they’ve placed their trust in the true God of the Universe.

By your own admissions, supra, they achieved that level of confidence without the help of any "apologetics", and you also admit that such subjective faith had resulted in genuine salvation.  Like the Holy Spirit, "apologetics" appears to be nothing more significant to God than a gratuitous afterthought.  How many Christians between 200 a.d. and 1900 a.d. were genuinely saved despite their obvious inability to research bbilical bullshit as deeply as we can today?  How did they manage to enter into and nurture a spiritually progressive genuinely saving faith without being able to google "how to answer bible contradictions", and without being able to read "Cold-Case Christianity"?

You'll excuse me if I find that your desire to become famous by selling Jesus isn't too different in principle from the like of Benny Hinn and other obvious con artists.