Cold Case Christianity: Why We Need a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith (Video)Here's the link.
Posted: 16 May 2017 01:34 AM PDT
J. Warner Wallace is interviewed on the Harvest Show and talks about his book, Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith.
What difference can an evidential faith make in the life of believers?
How is Christianity uniquely evidential?
How can believers make an impact in culture by rethinking the definition of “faith”?
This interview was first posted by the Harvest Show LeSEA Broadcasting. Be sure to check out their network and daily show.
Merriam-Webster says "sufficient" means "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end."
Cambridge Dictionary says it means "enough for a particular purpose."
So if Wallace believes
The bible alone is sufficient for Christian faith and practice
then what he means is
The bible alone is enough to meet the needs of Christian faith and practice
Bible-study is part of Christian practice. Is the bible alone "enough to that task?
Apologetics is part of Christian practice. Is the bible alone "enough" to that task?
How can Wallace seriously say he thinks the bible is "enough" to meet the Christian-practice need of apologetics/evangelism, given his relentless and fanatical promotion of his own books, by which he seeks to help people better understand Christian faith and practice?
Worse, the bible characterizes itself as having some sort of magical quality that performs all things necessary to educate, edify and respond:
104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way. Nun.
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
106 I have sworn and I will confirm it, That I will keep Your righteous ordinances. (Ps. 119:104-106 NAU)
10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;It does not matter that there is biblical support for the premise that we need more than the scriptures alone. If there is such support (Acts 8:30-31?), the authors of those words would not have believed the bible alone is "enough" for faith and practice, so those authors would still disagree with Wallace.
11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:10-11 NAU)
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb. 4:12 NAU)
Wallace and the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians would be far more accurate if they changed their statement of faith to reflect what their works prove them to actually believe:
God's word cannot be properly understood in many places without
the help of imperfect commentaries on its meaning, written by sinners who
are less inspired by God in this task than the biblical authors were
My point is that Wallace exhibits by his works (i.e., his relentless promotion of his own opinions and books) that he thinks the bible alone is NOT enough for Christian faith and practice, so honesty would counsel that he stop telling people that he thinks the bible alone is "sufficient" for Christian faith and practice. If that were true, he wouldn't be authoring books to help the omnipotent Holy Spirit do His job.
