I recently read a quote by Erasmus that states, "By dying for a conviction a man proves only that he is sincere, not that he is right." The quote got me thinking about the evidence we hold for the Resurrection of Christ, being that the disciples were willing to die for their claims. Though this is powerful for those who already believe in Christ's resurrection, it would not give an ounce of proof for skeptics who desire something more. Though, I wonder, is providing "proof" something we should focus on? Can men be "convinced to the point of faith in Christ" by means other than external proof? In Hebrews 6, it is written that God did certain things to convince the "heirs of the promise" of His trustworthiness. In Acts 1, it is written that Christ "gave many convincing proofs that He was alive." Paul went out reasoning (literally, "apologizing") with people concerning Christ many times. My conclusions that follow will be basic. I will not dig deeply into the souls of men and discuss methods by which people are convinced to the point of faith. But I do want to distinguish, since the topic is here, the difference between proof and faith, and each role in bringing people to Christ.
Proof for Christ is limited. But evidence is still there. The Bible speaks of nature showing off God. Not that nature convinces men of the Gospel of Christ. However it is evidence of a theos (though many justifications arise from skeptics about such evidence, just as any one of us so easily and often justifies our own sins. Thus, it is to be expected). This evidence, when received, begs the question of how this theos relates to us, His intelligent and therefore purposeful design. This evidence merely sets us out on an adventure to find the true revelation of this theos. But there are many versions, most of which are wrong. How can we be sure which is correct? How can we be sure that our Christ is the true manifestation of God and salvation? What was Paul reasoning?
I think the best we can do for skeptics concerning proof, without attempting to take the place of the Holy Spirit, is reveal that this book called the Bible reveals a worldview that is not absurd, but rather stands firm in and of itself. And beyond that, the worldview that the Bible presents is the most concrete worldview and the best explanation for what is, thus explaining that it is logical. And this logic is certainly something skeptics are after. This of course requires that we explain the Bible topically. Topics such as the resurrection, the flood, creation, etc. And these are supported by Scripture, logically. But it is only natural to receive criticism, as with the separation between man and God came, as a consequence, so did the separation between man's mind and God's reality. For all men by nature seek their own, and justify it. We eat drink and be merry and do that which is right in our own eyes, and make that which is wrong to be right in our own eyes.
So how is a man won to Christ? Proof wil win the mind. And there is nothing wrong with winning a mind. In fact, the mind must be won before the heart is. But there is everything wrong if a person's mind is the only thing that is won. In all reality, if the mind is the only thing that is won, then the mind has not really been won. When someone understands TRUE Gospel, and chooses to believe it to be true, it will not remain in the mind. How? Because if the TRUE Gospel takes root in the mind, it is only because the Spirit of God is bringing them to it. Otherwise the Gospel that they receive in mind only is not complete. The Gospel is more than mental. It is practical. It is spiritual. We cannot, in our methods of convincing skeptics, expect for our "proof" to win any man to Christ. This is only a work of the Spirit. We can tear down cognitive barriers, but only the Spirit will tear down the barrier of sin between that man and God. We can reveal that someone's beliefs and way of life is un-justifiable, convincing men of sin. But only the Spirit will draw them to saving relational knowledge of Christ. That's what it's all about anyway. We can introduce a couple, and convince our friend that this girl exists, and has exceptional character that far surpasses any other, and that he needs to date her, but we cannot force a relationship upon them. It's up to them to enter into a relationship. And this relationship is far more than mental.