Burden of Proof

The term, "burden of proof", refers to the obligation to prove one's statements. In our legal system, the burden of proof -- the obligation to prove their claims -- rests on the prosecution. Without sufficient proof, the defendant is innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"). Here's the problem. What constitutes "proof"?

I've been told that all understanding of Scripture is pure opinion, not fact, and cannot be claimed to be fact because it cannot be proven. That is, "You're making claims about what Scripture says; you have the burden of proof." But that's not all that is being said. Included is the claim, "It cannot be proven." So "You have the burden of proof" is followed by "It can't be proven" and we are given an impossible task. Under this particular method of reasoning, then, there is no actual, reasonable claim to anything biblical as fact. Did Jesus say what it says He says or not? Can't know for sure. Did Elijah actually call down fire from heaven? Can't know for sure. Is the Bible actually God's Word as it claims to be? Can't know for sure. Was there an actual Adam? Can't know for sure. When Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me," did He actually mean that no man comes to the Father but by Him, or did He mean something else entirely? Can't know for sure. Those who claim to know answers to these questions do so from a false impression that their opinions are facts because none of it can be proven. Of particular note is that last thought. No proof is possible. Ergo, no fact can be known in regards to Scripture.

I played that game when I was younger. "Prove it!" It didn't matter what they claimed. I would answer, "Prove it!" "My name is Jim." "Prove it!" "I have a birth certificate to prove it." "Prove it!" And so on. It didn't matter what the claim was, what the reasoning behind it was, or what evidence was presented. As long as I questioned all of them, there was no proof possible.

Proof, you see, is a tricky thing. The dictionary defines proof as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." Do you see the problem? "Sufficient to establish a thing as true, to produce belief in its truth" depends on the willingness of the listener to believe. If the listener is unwilling to believe, no evidence or argument is sufficient and proof is impossible. So "the burden of proof" becomes impossible if the audience refuses to allow it. That's why our courts use the standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt." Except, of course, nowadays "reasonable doubt" is vague and variable. And so it is in biblical interpretation.

So, here's how it goes. I say, "The text says X" and I say, "The context says X" and I say, "X is the same thing said over and over everywhere else in the Bible" and I say, "X has been the historical, traditional, orthodox position" and I conclude, "X is true." "No!!" they deny. "That's your opinion, your idea, your 'hunch'. It is not fact!" So you, the outsider in this conversation, let me ask you. Did I present evidence? I think I did. Did I provide rationale? I think I did. So for you, in your mind, what would constitute "proof"? There is text, context, the whole text of Scripture, the history of the textual understanding, and more. What is required to consider it "proven"? Or is the burden of proof in these matters an impossible task? Can we never actually know what is true? Is proof nonexistent? Shall we always be asking, "Did God really say ...?" and concluding, "Can't be sure."? What is the measure of "proof"? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" or is it "only if everyone agrees" or something else? I would say that the requirement of proof while disallowing the possibility of proof is a nonsensical concept. Further, I would say that a God who gives us His Word without giving us anything reliable with which to grasp even the simplest concepts is a sketchy God.