Many Infallible Proofs

   Most of us are familiar with the 40 days Jesus spent with His disciples before His ascension back to Heaven, to reside at the Father’s “right hand.” During this period of 40 days, He reportedly gave His disciples much in the way of additional evidence for His Deity, which was called many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3),  and which was rendered “many convincing proofs” by the NASB, or simply “many proofs” by the ESV.  In 1886, Arthur T. Pierson wrote a book (one of his 50 during his lifetime) entitled, Many Infallible Proofs (New York/Chicago: Revell 1886).  The book focused on evidences for Christianity, from essentially the Scriptures and the character of Christ. 

   Pierson was born in 1837 and died in 1911. He is buried in Brooklyn, New York. He was a contemporary of Dwight L. Moody (with whom he worked in lectures, etc.), G. Campbell Morgan, and F. B. Meyer. He served as a Presbyterian preacher for a number of years, amassing over 13,000 sermons. While preaching in Detroit, Michigan, the congregation he was serving burned to the ground. Shortly after this, he accepted a position at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, where he served from 1891 to 1893 after the sudden death of Charles H. Spurgeon. 

   He wrote in the Introduction to the aforementioned book: “The teachings of the Bible are at once so peculiar and so important, that it is one of our first duties and privileges to attain a certainty of conviction as to the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, and the divine character and mission of Jesus Christ. Such certainty ought to be attainable” (9).

   He continues:  “There is a kind of doubt that is entirely right, and of that sort is the doubt of one who does not believe what he has no reason to believe, and what he has no proof of, as true” (10). Yet again, he states:

    God himself, then, asks of us no blind faith.  We should know what we believe and why we believe it.  Nothing is to be accepted unless based on good evidence; to believe hastily may be to blindly embrace error and untruth.  Equally certain is it, inasmuch as God gives the Bible for the guidance of all men, that the proofs that this is his Word will neither be hard to find nor hard to see; they will be plain . . . to be found and understood by the common average man.  (11)

    I find Pierson’s approach to be refreshing when compared to the rampant skepticism and lack of interest we find in many people today. Pierson says, “These proofs, if they are candidly examined, will cure all honest doubt” (11).  He also said, “A careful study of the evidences makes intelligent believers” (13). Immediately after this statement, he makes what I consider to be an extremely important observation:

    A faith not firmly founded upon good evidence deserves not the name of faith, for the basis of all true faith or trust is belief, which is the assent of the mind, or understanding, to truth supported by adequate proofs.  Some things we believe on the evidences of the senses; other things, on the testimony of others; and yet other things, on the evidence of reason; in each case there is, at the bottom of belief, some form of evidence or proof.  To seek to make broader and firmer the basis of knowledge upon which our faith rests, is to show respect for our own power to know, and respect for the Creator who honored us by conferring such noble powers.  (13)

While still in the Introductory stage of this book, Pierson gives several suggestions for a person’s study in Christian Evidences. He says, first, that one should study “in a truly impartial and scientific spirit” (20). This means that a person will clearly comprehend truths or facts. It is clear that a person should not wish to weaken their position by simply assuming what is true rather than a careful examination of the evidence. Second, there must be a “concentration of attention” (21). It should be the result of a focused mind. Third, one needs discrimination, in order “to learn to distinguish things that differ” (21). Facts and inferences are not strictly the same, so, one needs to depend on the facts, but it is still possible that one might distrust the conclusion. Fourth, the nature of evidence is adapted to its object. One can prove that two and two make four, but we cannot prove mathematically that honesty is a virtue. Fifth, “we should cultivate scientific impartiality, not coming to the study of truth with a bias of prejudice, or a preconceived theory, to hinder impartial investigation and conclusions” (22). There is always the danger of “confirmation bias,” which means that a person assumes their case and then sets out to find supposed supporting evidence.   The sixth point is very much related to this one we have just discussed. Pierson says:  “we should avoid ‘begging the question,’ and therefore beware lest we assume things to be true, which are false, or false, which are true” (22). Begging the question is assuming what must be proved, while confirmation bias is assuming one’s case, but then seeking some sort of support. In begging the question, one does not need to do more than simply assuming the case. So, you can likely see that the fifth and sixth points are closely related to one another. Seventh, “much depends upon our mental and moral attitude, whether we are willing to be convinced, or deliberately take a position of hostility” (23). Eighth, “ridicule is not argument, and leads to no safe conclusion” (23). This should be obvious and really needs no elaboration, except to say that it doesn’t matter who is guilty of the ridicule. Ninth, “perspicuity, both of thought and speech, is very needful. Obscurity may mislead even an honest man” (24). Tenth, “it is safe to distrust any argument that insults common sense” (24).   

   These ten principles are the tests used in this book as Pierson seeks to unfold the evidence that he maintains form “many infallible proofs.” I can say, however, that these ten principles should be taken to heart by contemporary apologists as well. I will only add the necessity of love and respect for those who may indeed be our adversaries. On the other hand, though they may be our adversaries, they should never be our enemies!