The Bible makes universal truth claims (of the form "All X are Y" or "It is never the case that...").  What is our relation to these claims?  Can we prove them?  Can we reasonably believe in their truth?  Can we know them to be true?  If so, in what sense?  The following is an analogy I came up with to try and relate what I believe to be our position relative to universal claims made in the Bible.

Imagine that Joe creates a computer program for his computer. He sets all parameters, makes all the rules, etc. He and he alone wrote all the code for his program.
Also, only Joe has access to his computer (through passwords, etc.), so he alone has access to the program (the code, etc.)

Joe is in a position to know the truth about his program. He created it, after all. So he is in a position to make universal claims, such as "All X are Y", and "It is never the case that B follows A."

Now Joe has a blog, and many people read it. Many of his readers are also his close personal friends who have known him for many years in many roles, as a friend, brother, fellow church-attender, small group leader, party-thrower, and accountability partner.
On Joe's blog, he posts some true facts about his program. He tells everyone that in his program "All X are Y" and "It is never the case the B follows A."

What he writes in his blog is true and factual.

Then the question comes about how his blog readers are to relate to these universal claims. Can they somehow prove that the claims are true? If they can't prove Joe's claims, are they then to discard them? Or are they believable even if not "provable"?

In this case, Joe's blog readers cannot prove (in the deductive sense) that the universal claims are true. The blog readers have no airtight or indisputable evidence available to them that can prove (in the deductive sense) Joe's claims.
That is, the readers do not have airtight premises with which to construct a deductive argument that deductively proves the truth of the claims "All X are Y" and "It is never the case that B follows A."

But can the blog readers reasonably believe the truth of the these universal claims? Yes. And the readers are more or less justified in their belief in these claims depending on how well they know Joe himself, or Joe's history as a truth-teller, or even given the degree to which they may or may not have used or witnessed the program in action.

If reader Sally-Johnson has known Joe all their lives and verified (1) his competency as a program writer, (2) his invariable history as a truth-teller in all areas of life, (3) the testimony of others who also attest to Joe's truth-telling, (4) that at least some of X are Y, (5) that she has never witnessed B following A, (6) that no one else she has talked to has disproved those universal claims, and (7) any other relevant information, then Sally-Johnson is certainly justified in believing the truth of Joe's two universal truth-claims. Indeed, it is very reasonable for her to believe the truth of those two universal claims.
In other words, for Sally-Johnson, it is very probable that Joe's two claims are true.

Thus, Sally-Johnson can build a strong inductive argument for the truth of the two universal claims.

Another blog reader, Frank, who has no previous knowledge of Joe or of his program will not have as many reasons to believe the truth claims. He may happen upon the blog and not even know if "Joe" is using his real name. He may doubt if the program even exists, much less the veracity of its rules and parameters. Frank certainly doesn't know about Joe's history as a truth-teller; he has no framework by which to judge Joe's character.
For Frank, then, there is also no deductive argument to be made.
But he has so little relevant information that he has only a weak inductive argument for the truth of Joe's claims.
Given all of Frank's evidence, he may remain agnostic, he may email/message Joe to ask for more information, he may ask programming experts about whether or not Joe's claims are likely to achievable in a program or whether they defy the rules of logic and/or computer programming. Or Frank can choose to believe in spite of his lack of evidence. Or Frank can choose to be skeptical and disbelieve Joe's two claims.

From the perspective of both Sally-Johnson and Frank, the arguments that they have to support or attack Joe's statements are inductive. Neither of them can either prove or disprove Joe's universal claims. Whatever they decide about Joe's claims, there will be a certain amount of trust (i.e., faith) that is in play. They are basing their conclusion on a limited set of data, experience, and premises. Therefore, even if their premises are strong, they may (for all they know) be disproven or invalidated by further evidence. Hence, faith and trust.

Hopefully the analogy is clear.

God created the universe, earth, human life, etc. (loosely like a computer program)

God reveals many truths and facts to His readers through the Bible and other special revelations (he has a blog with many readers; some know Him well, others don't even know if "God" wrote the Bible, etc.)

Some of what God reveals are universal truth-claims ("All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2) or "It is never the case that salvation follows as a result of human effort."  ... "All X are Y", "It is never the case that B follows A", etc.)

No human being can directly or deductively prove the universal truth claims in the Bible (at least not the two mentioned above). (We don't have access to the program rules, the code, etc. Moreover, it is impossible for us to know all of history and all of what happens after death, thus empirical verification of the claims is also rules out.)

Some people are in a position to strongly believe the veracity of the Bible's universal truth-claims. (They personally know God and Jesus through a relationship; they know others who attest to God's truthfulness; they see a long history of God's truthfulness and faithfulness; they have heard from experts who verify that it is not impossible to rule out those truth claims, etc.)

Regardless of one's conclusion regarding the reliability or truth/falsity of the universal claims, trust and faith are involved. One may trust that the universal claims are true based on either strong or weak evidence. But either way, the argument involved is inductive.

The fact that humans cannot *know* or *prove*, in the deductive sense, that the universal truth claims are true has no bearing on whether or not the universal truth claims are in fact true or false.

It can be reasonable to trust that the Bible's universal claims are true.

(Jan. 07)

Mercy flowed from one

lonely room with one

visitor once

a year.

The seat of mercy

over a cover,

the cover

that covers

all.

From one

lonely room.

Lonely room

once covered

by the now-ripped

nonexistent curtain.

Uncovered Seat

Unhindered Mercy

Undeserved Presence

Under the Mercy

Within the Mercy, yet

Over-looking the Mercy

Side-tracked by sorrow.

I deserve sorrow,

yet punishment is gone,

satisfied.

Yet Mercy "punishes" too.

Truly, there is a severe mercy.

But what is what?

I need to know.

Justice and punishment and wrath,

or severity in mercifulness?

If indifference,

I will die of

empty pain in

the empty

lonely room

of my soul.

But what is what?

All is confused.

What is

            deserved

            promised

            received

            experienced.

Complete disconnect.

My eyes are lifted;

I believe.

I must be healed

yet I am sick.

I am slain

yet I trust.

To have mercy is to give mercy.

To possess is to share.

Mercy is never lonely

no matter how alone.

In a lonely room

I am uncovered.

Tear down the walls, the curtain, the veil.

Cover me with just a corner of your clothes.

Though I reach, I feel no presence.

Though I lift my eyes, I see no seat.

Let your covering me be the cover.        

Let the cover be the seat once more.

Sorrow survives.

(Joy is, yet not yet.)

You have forsaken

You are far off

or am I far off...

or both...

I am

Alone, far off,

I wring my hands.

I cry and cry out

have mercy

on a sinner.

Have Mercy.