Evidence Before Conclusion

Start with a question Think of a conclusion you hold with great confidence. Now ask: how much of that confidence comes from the evidence, and how much from how long I’ve held it?

The rule The strength of a conclusion must never exceed the strength of the evidence supporting it. If the Bible states something plainly, we can say so with confidence. If the Bible doesn’t state it, but several lines of evidence point the same way, we show the chain. If the evidence points but doesn’t prove, we call it a possibility. If we can’t verify a claim, we say that, and we don’t fill the gap with an assumption. This doesn’t weaken a good conclusion. It protects it from carrying more weight than it can bear.

Without a standard, we play favorites Here’s the danger. Without a fixed standard, we demand heavy proof from views we dislike and accept thin proof for views we like. We do it without noticing. So we adopt a standard now, before any doctrine is on the table, and we promise to apply one standard to every view.

A statement is not a conclusion Recall Daniel 7. The chapter states that the beasts are kings and kingdoms (Daniel 7:17, 23). That is stated. If we then name which kingdoms they are, we have moved to another level. It may be well supported, but it needs evidence beyond the bare statement. Many discussions blur this line. Someone explains a symbol, proposes how it applies, and then talks as if every detail had been spoken by God. The listener can’t tell where the Bible stops and the inference starts. So we keep the line visible. In every lesson you will be able to see which statements are written in the text and which are conclusions drawn from it, and you can check each conclusion against the text yourself.

Write the test before meeting the candidate A useful method is to ask: what would I expect to find if this conclusion were true? Write the criteria first, from the text itself. Then test the candidate against the whole list. If you name the candidate first and then pick only the criteria that fit, you have not tested anything. A candidate that satisfies one feature and ignores several others has not been established. One that matches many independent features, correctly read, deserves serious consideration.

Counting the same witness twice If three claims all trace back to a single source, they are not three confirmations. If a dozen teachers repeat the same assertion without checking, their agreement may only show a shared source. The Bible’s own rule is two or three independent witnesses: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) And where a witness is doubted, “the judges shall make diligent inquisition” (Deuteronomy 19:18). Notice what happened at Jesus’ trial: “For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together” (Mark 14:56). Many voices, no agreement. Volume is not verification.

Hear the other side “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” (Proverbs 18:17) The first speaker always sounds right. It’s the second who finds the gaps. And: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Proverbs 18:13) A fair test includes the evidence against my view. Contrary evidence may reveal a real weakness, expose a mistaken supporting claim, or require a more careful explanation. Sometimes more study resolves the difficulty. Sometimes it stays unresolved, and honesty means saying so. One difficulty doesn’t automatically sink a view that has wide support. But it must be weighed honestly. A conclusion that has survived real scrutiny is worth far more than one that only looks convincing because its weak points were kept out of sight.

Motive must be shown, not assumed Here is where good people go wrong. We see a belief that benefits someone, or hurts our side, and we assume it was planted for that purpose. Scripture warns against this: “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.” (Isaiah 8:12) King Saul showed what it looks like. He had no evidence of a plot, so he treated the absence of a report as proof of a cover-up: “there is none that sheweth me” (1 Samuel 22:8). Every silence became confirmation. Nehemiah’s enemies built an accusation out of “it is reported” and “Gashmu saith it.” His answer: “There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart” (Nehemiah 6:8). But notice, the Bible does not say there are no real plots. Forty men did bind themselves by an oath to kill Paul (Acts 23:12–14). The difference is evidence: a witness came forward, was questioned, and action followed (Acts 23:16–22). The biblical answer to a theory about someone’s motives is not “that can’t be” but “show me the witnesses.” This matters for us. In this course we will examine teachings, not hearts. We will not claim to know why anyone believes what they believe. A person can hold an error sincerely, and the people who first taught it may have meant well. If we want to say something about someone’s intentions, we need evidence that speaks to their intentions.

The tidy explanation We like explanations that fit neatly. Job’s three friends had one: suffering means sin. “Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent?” (Job 4:7). They were consistent and confident, and the LORD said of them: “ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7). Jesus faced the same reflex. His disciples asked about a man born blind: “Who did sin, this man, or his parents?” Jesus said: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents” (John 9:2–3). And of those killed when a tower fell, He asked, “Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans?” and said, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:2–5). Notice how He turned someone else’s tragedy into a reason for self-examination. The Bible is also at peace with not knowing everything. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29). “Now I know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). A wise reader can say, “The Bible doesn’t tell us that,” and leave it there.

The same standard for everyone Putting it all together:

1. If I demand a primary document before accepting a claim I dislike, I shouldn’t accept a claim I like on repetition alone.
2. If I ask another view to explain every relevant verse, I must be willing to do the same.
3. If I separate “stated” from “inferred” when criticizing someone else’s position, I must do the same for mine. Otherwise I’m not following a method. I’m following my preference. This does not mean every view is equally strong. Where one view accounts for all the relevant passages better than another, we should say so. But the reasoning must be visible, so you can follow it and decide for yourself.