To demand empirical and observational proof of miracles to produce knowledge that expansionism is false or true, has all the logical fallacies associated with empiricism, observation and induction.

If this is used as a personal attack against me, then it is a logically irrelevant point. It is a pointless argument for pointless people.

The first issue is that scripture was not used as an epistemology.

2 Kings 3:16-24 shows an infallible testimony that empiricism and observations and inductions from this are not always correct. This would lead to skepticism. I know that I don’t know. But skepticism denies the law of contradiction that is self-authenticating and which Jesus also appealed to. Elijah made an attack against God that went like this, “I observe no one else who believes but me, therefore, no one else believes but me.” God rebuked him and said there was 7000 more according to His election and grace. Elijah had to dismiss his observation and induction, and believe there were 7000 because God said so. Thus, our observations are not always correct and thus they produce no knowledge about anything. To say observation produces any knowledge would be a violation of the law of contradiction. To be true, it would have to be false at the same time.  

Some see the insanity of this, and so do not apply it to things such as forgiveness of sin. For example, I have never seen forgiveness. I have never seen Jesus Christ. Thus, I cannot believe my sins are forgiven based on observation, I believe it because the Scripture tells me so. Abraham observed that Sarah and himself were not able to have a child. God’s promise contradicted his observations. If observation produces knowledge then Abraham should not have believed God’s promise.  

The second issue is that empiricism and observation are used as starting points for knowledge. Thus, we have different worldviews. Any attack using empiricism or observation is no longer about the fine details of theology; rather, this is now an apologetic attack.  We deal with such as we deal with atheists. Our epistemology does not include empiricism, nor does it allow inductive based arguments to prove or disprove the scripture (Rom.11:3, 2 Kings 3:16-24). We do not allow them to speak one word against us until they prove their anti-scriptural epistemology, gives them knowledge. If their epistemology does not allow them the possibility of knowledge, then they cannot use knowledge to demand anything from us.

However, another issue has to do with the logical fallacy of public knowledge versus private knowledge. To say public knowledge and private knowledge are the same thing, is to violate the laws of contradiction and identity. It is like saying grace and works are interchangeable. The demand for observational experience, even if possible, would only result in private knowledge and if this private knowledge is then used in a public forum to produce public knowledge that a doctrine is wrong, then it is a fallacy which violated the laws of logic. Even if I could be transported by the Spirit to 100 million locations around the world showing me various Christians performing many miracles, it still would only amount to private knowledge, and so unusable as a public truth claim. Thus, the demand for observational proof is a demand that makes any public truth claim impossible. This is a maneuver from an opponent to frame a debate against a Christian to make it impossible for them to prove anything.

Also, observation already makes man the starting point for knowledge, and this feeds into more and more human focus. Example, how does one determine how much miracles and resurrection need to take place for expansionism to be true or false? Is it a 5% increase or 77% increase? With which miracles does this apply? Who and how is this determined? Over how much time would this increase need to take place? Who and how is this determined? If man, then man is the starting point for knowledge, not the bible. Also, how many Christians need to be observed to determine this? All or just a sample size? Who and how is this determined? Is it just Christians right now, or do we include the past and present? If the past and future need to be observed to determine if the increases has happened, then how does one observe the past and future? Who and how is this determined? What counts as an observation? Is it only what I see, or do I count the observations of others, which I did not observe? If I accept observations that I did not see, then observation is no longer my epistemology. Who and how is this determined? I could go on and on with this for pages and pages. Another big issue with all of this is that God and the scripture are nowhere to be seen.

This also shows another reason why I left the Reformed world. Even the best trained Gordon Clark students revert to induction when faced with doctrines of faith and the Spirit.

Most Reformed material contains inductive arguments against faith, and so it is habitually trained into the mind for its practitioners. Thus, even if a reformed person reads Clark and agrees with logic and deduction, and is against observation and induction, they will still use observation and induction against faith doctrines. They are too intellectually malfunctioned to apply logic. Logic is wasted on them.

As Andrew Wommack says, “some people have decided not to let Scripture get in the way of them believing what they see and feel.”

God’s promise for the Elect is that He causes them to believe His word. When a so-called Christian uses observations as an epistemology to produce knowledge it is a sign of God’s judgement and reprobation. We pray they will repent and enjoy God’s good promises; however, their demand for us to use an anti-Christian epistemology is an attack at the foundation of our worldview.