A Presuppositional Defense of Scripture - Conclusion

In my last post, I introduced the concept of sovereignty in my argument for a presuppositional defense of the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. This is a critical component in the argument because it is indelibly linked to the nature of the God that is, that God that we have already shown to exist due to the impossibility of the contrary. I have said that only Christian theism provides the preconditions necessary for human predication as well as the intelligibility of human experience.

One by one the efforts of the non-Christian worldview have taken their place in the section of philosophy reserved for irrational beliefs. This will continue to be the case with any view that attempts to contradict the truth claims of Christian theism. The reason is really quite basic: Christian theism is true. The subject of our present series however, is how do we as Christians move from the truth of Christian theism to affirming that the Bible, the book of Christianity, is the Word of God. And how do we do that while remaining faithful to Scripture and consistent with the presuppositional framework I have set forth?

First, we must inquire what Christian theism affirms about the question. If Christian theism is the only true worldview that humanity should embrace, and if this system is the only essential expression of truth and the only way for man to possess genuine knowledge, then it follows that we must look to this system to see if it furnishes some assistance around the question we are tackling.

There is no philosophical argument available that will bring a person to genuine knowledge that the Bible is the Word of God. Recall that we said knowledge, properly defined is 1) It is in fact the case; 2) I believe it is the case; and 3) I have reasonable grounds for believing it is the case. One may wrongly infer that (3) asserts that a person can and should arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God by rational means. That would be reading more into (3) than is necessary. Second, (3) will turn on how one defines “reasonable grounds.” To defend the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, we have no recourse but to turn to Scripture itself. The reason we must turn to Scripture itself is due to the fact that Christian theism contends that Scripture is self-authenticating, self-vindicating, authoritative, our final source of appeal for what qualifies as true knowledge, that it is in fact the standard and source of how humans know anything at all not only about the world, but how we should go about constructing our very theory of knowledge to begin with. By what standard then do we call into question the precise basis for how we know anything?

To where then do we turn to put forward the case that the Bible is the Word of God? It could rightly be said that we are dealing with a question that maybe does not require an answer. Some theologians believe that those who know the truthfulness of this statement do not need an argument based in logic or human reason to support their belief and that those who do not, cannot possibly be convinced by any argument put forth for the claim regardless of it cogency or rational persuasiveness. This is a fair and perhaps keen observation to which we shall return shortly.

Writing some 500 years ago, John Calvin said, “Nearly all wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” [Calvin, Institutes, I.i.1] For the reformer, the key to knowledge rests in our knowledge of God and our knowledge of ourselves. This begs the question, how do we possess this knowledge? “There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty.” [Ibid. I.iii.1] Christian theism asserts that human knowledge comes, not through empiricism nor through a bankrupt system of autonomous human reason, rather, all knowledge comes through divine revelation. God makes Himself known to man and reveals to man, makes available to man everything that man understands about Himself, the created order, and God. While God’s self-disclosure serves as the basis of all knowledge, it is true that not all knowledge is acquired in the same manner. This Christian theism admits. Some things we know by way of induction and inference. We know that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Other things we know by experience. We know that fire is hot, ice is cold, and they each provide a unique experience when encountered in certain ways. Just as we know these things in their own respective way, we also know God according to His own method of self-disclosure. We know Christ in this way. We have not so learned Christ from the philosophers, or, the logicians, or the scientists. Should it come as a surprise that we should learn the Scripture as the Word of God any differently?

What I have been driving at is the fundamental difference between the nature of Scripture as the Word of God and the proposition that Scripture is the Word of God. The former dictates how we should go about finding our answer to the question. One philosopher argues, “…theists are right in affirming the reality of God but wrong in insisting that His reality is capable of proof.” [Halverson, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, 174] We must stare the traditional response in the face and ask if it is proper for the Christian to attempt to prove that Scripture is the Word of God by means of scientific reason. Is this the way we ought to tackle the question? I do not think it is.

All of reality, to include human reality is a manifestation, a disclosure of sorts. There are categories of disclosure, such as physical reality, and the reality of human minds, and also the reality of moral law. That there are different ways for how these disclosures appear to us is indisputable. For example, the reality of other minds is beyond the ability of scientific reason to verify. But it is nonetheless true.

The traditional approach to the question of Scripture as the Word of God attempts to put this fundamental awareness of the reality of Scripture and its nature into a form of argument that is acceptable to scientific reason and to autonomous human logic. It is because both of these methods are exactly the wrong category, and because both of these methods employ, in the unbeliever’s worldview, presuppositions that are dismissive of the claim prior to even having the discussion, that the effort is doomed before the project can even get going. Just as science and reason have their starting point, the foundation for what qualifies as knowledge, so too we may say the same about Scripture. We do not place the nature of the claim into a class and then subject it to scrutiny. Instead, we acknowledge, just as we acknowledge the tree outside the window, that Scripture is the Word of God. Scripture is not only the product of divine revelation; it is divine revelation. How then do we acquire this knowledge that the Bible is the Word of God?

Jesus Himself addressed this explicitly in John 10:3-5. The sheep hear the voice of God, and they follow Him. The sheep follow Him because they know His voice. The sheep, by nature, will not chase after the voice of a stranger. So then, how do these sheep know God’s voice? The sine qua non of embracing the Bible as the Word of God is simply this: He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47) Only those who have been born again can, and will genuinely affirm the Bible to be the Word of God.

From a presuppositional standpoint, all knowledge comes through divine disclosure. God discloses knowledge about Himself, His creation, and humanity to humanity. This revelation takes two distinct forms: natural and special. The natural revelation of God has been disclosed to all humanity by means of man’s conscience and by means of the creation all about him. Man knows God, himself, science, reason, logic, morality, love, etc. because they are components of natural revelation. Justification for revelation is unnecessary since revelation is the ground to which the chain of justification is anchored. It is on the ground of God’s revelation that justification serves rather than legislates.  

In the same way that the unbeliever knows that God exists, what we call the sensus divinitatis, the believer knows God’s word. He recognizes God’s voice just like a sheep recognizes the voice of His shepherd. He knows it. He knows it not because he has subjected it to empirical, historical, and rational scrutiny and argumentation. He knows it because God has made sure He knows it the same way God makes sure that every human knows He exists.

Paul informs us that the gospel of Christ is one thing to the believer (power of God unto salvation) and quite the opposite to the unbeliever (foolishness and scandalous). (1 Cor. 1:18) Paul also informs us that it will not be through intellectually compelling and persuasive arguments that the world will come to believe this truth about the Bible. (1 Cor. 1:21) You see the linchpin of this question is not science, it is not historical evidence, it is not human reason. Instead, the linchpin is faith. (1 Cor. 2:4-5) 1 Thess. 2:13 tells us that the believers in Thessalonica received the Bible for what it really is, the Word of God.

The demand for justification according to the standards set forth by science, and by autonomous human reason cannot be imposed on the Christian claim with any legitimacy. It is no secret that science and reason serve as their own foundation for human knowledge and they too reach a place where justification is not offered and for that matter, not possible. The Bible is the Word of God and this Christian theism affirms without hesitation. If you want to convince men of this truth, the only way to go about it is to give them the gospel. Only God, through divine intervention can bring one to the place where they are not blind to the tree outside their window. The Bible is not subject human testing and judgment so that we can know that it is the Word of God. If it were, it would not be the Word of God. Quite the contrary, because the Bible is the Word of God, it is the standard by which all other claims to knowledge must be tested.

Christian theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. Without God, human predication would be impossible. God has disclosed Himself to us in nature and in Scripture. Without these disclosures, humanity would be hopelessly ignorant of anything and everything around him, including itself. I will defend the nature of Scripture when unbelievers can defend the basis of their attack against it. And this they cannot do. If the history of philosophy has proven anything, it has proven that man simply cannot account for reality and for human knowledge as we experience it apart from God.

A Presuppositional Defense of Scripture - Part 4 of ???

As a reminder, the question we are asking in this series of articles is this: “Is the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, True?” Some say that it is. Others say that it is not. Still others simply say they do not know. There are some who say that some of it is and some of it is not. Finally, there is the skeptic that says we simply cannot know. Traditionally, Christians have attempted to answer this question using empirical and historical evidence along with rational argumentation. In His book, “When Skeptics Ask,” Norman Geisler outlines his argument for the Bible as follows:

God Exists.
The New Testament is a historically reliable document.
Miracles are possible.
Miracles confirm Jesus’ claim to be God.
Whatever God teaches is true.
Jesus, who is God, taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

As you can see, one has to prove a lot, in Geisler’s method, if one is to prove that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. The skeptic will have to concede that God exists, that the NT is historically reliable, that miracles are possible, that miracles confirm Jesus’ claim to be God, and that God does not lie, and finally, that Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God. And these are the sorts of things that the skeptic is certainly unwilling to accept. Now, I am not saying these arguments are bad arguments in and of themselves. I believe every one of them. That is not the problem with Dr. Geisler’s method. The problem is that Dr. Geisler makes the mistaken assumption, as do all classical apologists as far as I can tell, that the manner in which the skeptic justifies beliefs is identical to that of the Christian. This is, after all, a rational argument designed to appeal to rationalist justification for accepting beliefs or claims to knowledge. It seems that Dr. Geisler’s argument is constructed in a manner that is precisely designed to meet the unbelieving criteria of the skeptic. The skeptic replies, “prove it” to each one of these propositions. And when the skeptic says, “prove it,” she has some very strict criteria for what qualifies as proof.

                In order to illustrate why this argument is insufficient at the outset, we need to look no further than the claim that miracles are possible. In the mind of the skeptic, miracles are not possible. The argument that miracles are possible most assuredly means that the skeptic is not holding to a skeptical worldview and that would mean she isn’t a skeptic at all. If it is true that we must show that miracles are possible before we can show that the Bible is the Word of God, then we must examine the argument for the possibility of miracles.          

In contradistinction to this way of answering the question, the presuppositional approach would object to the very ground for the skeptics challenge from the start. In order for the skeptic to mount a challenge against the claims of Christian theism, to include her claims about the Bible, she must demonstrate that her skepticism can offer the necessary preconditions to make the human experience intelligible. She must be able to demonstrate that her skepticism offers genuine, true knowledge. But if the Christian can show that her skepticism reduces to absurdity, he has effectively eliminated her challenge to the Christian claim by showing her methods to be foolish and implausible. In this case, we don’t even get to the question before us. The skeptic is eliminated before she can launch her derisible assault against Scripture. For the younger generation familiar with levels in video games, you know very well you must pass level one to advance to level two. The skeptic must pass level one, which is the Christian’s criticism of the skeptics own basic presuppositions. The Christian need not worry, because when this is done correctly, no non-Christian can effectively get pass level one.

                The presuppositional defense of Scripture begins with Christian theism’s understanding of the nature of God’s sovereignty. This is no piece-meal, building block approach where we first demonstrate that God exists and then step by step seek to conclude that Scripture is the Word of God. Van Til comments on Warfield’s view on Sovereignty and Scripture,

For him the classical doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God could not be sovereign in his disposition of rational human beings if he were not also sovereign in his revelation of himself to them. If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge.^[1]

Christian theism, without reservation, affirms the doctrine of absolute divine sovereignty. Christian theism affirms that Scripture is God’s special revelation to those whom He has called unto Himself. Who would argue that God could not or would not be sovereignly and intimately involved in His own self-disclosure? Is it reasonable to accept the theory that God was either unable or unwilling to provide an adequately well-defined and sufficient revelation of Himself to humanity in the form of His Word? Such a preposterous scheme would mean the demise of anything remotely resembling Christian theism.

The transcendental argument for God, which shows Christian theism to be true because only it provides the necessary preconditions to make the human experience intelligible, is at the heartbeat of this question. If Christian theism is in fact true, then all that it teaches is true as well. Notice, I did not say all that proponents of Christian theism claim it teaches is true. If Christian theism is true, and Christian theism claims that the Bible is the Word of God, then it must follow that the Bible is the Word of God.

            I will end this post at the place where our answer to the question, “Is The Bible the Word of God?” must begin. Greg Bahnsen liked to structure the argument in the form of a disjunctive. Either A or ~A. Either Christian theism or not Christian theism.

A v ~A

~~A

∴ A

The argument seeks to show that if Christian theism is not the case, then human intelligence is not the case. But human intelligence is the case. Therefore Christian theism is not not the case. In other words, because human intelligence is the case, Christian theism must be the case. Why? Because only Christian theism provides the conditions necessary for human intelligence. There is no other view for the Christian to hold. The necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience is the Christian worldview. All other views reduce to absurdity. Hence, the Christian worldview contends that since God is the author of all reality and of all knowledge, His Word serves as the final reference point for what qualifies as true knowledge and what does not! It is impossible to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God unless we begin with the view that Bible as the Word of God. I should say it is impossible if we want to be consistent in how we reason. We will pick up on this theme in my next post, which should conclude this mini-series nicely.

---

^[1] Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward, The Articles of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. (Labels Army Company: New York, 1997).

A Presuppositional Approach to the Defense of Scripture Part 2 of ??

When we talk about defending the Christian claim that the Bible is the Word of God, what we are talking about is defending the idea that this specific "belief" about the Bible is actually justified. Now justification for truth claims can be an extremely thorny philosophical issue. My goal is to keep it as simple as possible. Generally speaking, when we talk about epistemic justification, we usually bring in concepts like a posteriori knowledge versus a priori knowledge, and analytic statements versus synthetic statements. If one is not careful, they can end up falling victim to the folly of attempting to use unregenerate, humanistic philosophy and criteria to justify the claim that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. The problem is that empiricism nor rationalism nor any other philosophical system can produce adequate epistemic justification for the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. To think that such a project is even possible exposes serious flaws in one's theological grid. Only genuine Christian theism presented faithfully and consistently as an entire system has the intellectual power to reach the standards necessary to demonstrate the truthfulness of the claim.

Quite frankly, an appeal to human reason and/or empirical data is inadequate to provide a sufficient defense to sustain the claim that belief in the Bible as the Word of God is actually true. To what then must we appeal if we are to demonstrate that belief in the Bible as the Word of God rises to the level of true knowledge? Is this belief self-justifying or can we offer justification for the belief that is itself self-justifying?

The nature of human knowledge, says the Christian worldview is, strictly speaking, entirely revelational in character. Since the state of affairs is what the Bible says it is, all knowledge must be revelational in nature. Everything that man knows about himself and about the universe, and indeed about God, he knows because God has made it known to him. The revelation of God to man is itself sufficiently clear. How man responds to that revelation however, is another matter altogether.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20) The nature of man is such that unless God revealed something to him, he would know nothing at all about himself, about the universe around him, or about God.

“But revelation, after all, is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation.”[2]

Revelation is the sole key to any and all human knowledge. Calvin wrote,

“Nearly all wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”[3]

 Since God is creator of all that is, it necessarily follows that all knowledge is deposited in Him. “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” It follows that human knowledge is entirely dependent on God. Hence, the nature of epistemology, according to the Christian worldview, is revelational. The source for epistemology is God. The mode of epistemology is both natural and supernatural revelation. Human knowledge comes through God’s revelation in nature as well as God’s revelation in Scripture.

Knowledge means that 1) It is actually the case; 2) You believe it is actually the case; 3) You have justification for believing it is actually the case. [Halverson: A Concise Intro to Philosophy] When we apply this to the claim that we know that the Bible is the Word of God it looks like this: The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. We have justification for believing that the Bible is the Word of God. If (1) is not the case, we would say that the claim to knowledge was mistaken. If (2) is not the case, we say that the person ought to know because they have good reason to believe the claim. If (3) is not the case, we would say that the person had a hunch or was lucky to believe a claim that actually turned out to be true, but real knowledge did not exist. True knowledge must meet all three conditions.

The temptation for the Christian in contemporary culture, in evangelism, and in apologetics is to feel some sense of duty or obligation to present the argument supporting belief in the Bible as the Word of God in such a way that it satisfies the demands or criteria of the world. For some reason we all feel it. If we are not careful, we fall into the trap of trying to make belief in the Bible as the Word of God rational in terms of how the unregenerate mind defines human reason. We search for historical evidence to satisfy the empirical demands and such evidence must come from external, supposedly neutral sources or it is ipso facto inadmissible. However, the Christian must give a reason for their belief about Scripture that is itself consistent with the Christian worldview. What we cannot do is violate the Christian ethic in our attempt to defend the Christian system of truth. But when we allow unbelievers to place the Bible in dock and judge it with fallible human reason, we are doing just that: we are violating the Christian ethic. We are judging that which we are commanded to believe. We are calling into question that to which we are supposed to wholeheartedly surrender. When we judge the Scripture in this way, it is our intellect, our science, our own wisdom that serves as the final authority in human predication. And this is the one thing we can never do if we are to be good stewards of the Christian gospel. 

Christians reject the idea that innate knowledge is impossible. Christian theism unreservedly claims to know with certainty that human knowledge is not the product of sense experience. Christian theism repudiates the notion that man can know the world as he ought to know the world apart from God. It is upon this presupposition that Christianity begins its defense of the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. The opponent will object with the retort that such an approach amounts to fideism. We will answer that objection in a future post.

^[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Ro 1:20.

[2]B.B. Warfield, Revelation & Inspiration (New York, NY: Baker Book House, 2003), 12.

[3]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, London: Westminster John Know Press, 2006), 1:35.

^[4] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Col 2:3.

A Presuppositional Approach to the Defense of Scripture - Part 1 of ??

There are a lot of squabbles written in favor of, as well as in opposition to, the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. Most of these arguments are written predominantly from a traditional or classical apologetics perspective. Typically, we come to this question with criteria for evaluating such claims already in hand. The objective is to answer very basic questions about this specific claim that Christians make concerning the Bible, or to put it another way, the nature of Scripture. The question we are asking is first and foremost, Is the Bible the Word of God? The number of those who deny this claim far outweighs the number that affirms it. Turning to the visible Church and Christian scholarship is of little help in answering this question. The fact most people deny the Christian claim cannot be part of the criteria for judging the truthfulness of the claim. We are not interested in committing the fallacy of appealing to the populace. The truth of a proposition is not determined by the number of people who affirm or deny it.

 A second question that merits attention centers on the type of evidence necessary for making belief in the Bible as the Word of God rational. What kind of evidence is necessary to conclude that belief in the Bible as the Word of God is in fact a rational belief? That is to say, what type of evidence supports the rational justification for the claim that the Bible is the word of God? Some would argue that the question is a religious question and therefore not subject to the laws of science or logic. It is purely a leap of faith. If this is true, then anything goes when it comes to all claims that happen to have a religious nature. However, Christian theism contends that its views are perfectly rational and consistent with sound scientific methods, properly so-called.

 Additionally, what evidence ought to persuade rational human beings to accept the Bible as the Word of God? It is one thing for a Christian to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God. But it is an entirely different matter to claim that there is rational justification for believing that the Bible is the Word of God. If this is true, then every rational person ought to accept the claim that the Bible is the Word of God and respond accordingly. And indeed, this is the message of repentance that is witnessed in and spread by the Christian religion. Men ought to humbly acknowledge God and willingly submit to His authoritative Word, also known as the Bible. Put quite simply, this is the essence of the Christian message.

 These questions, in my opinion, are very meaningful and should contribute handsomely to the discussion I am about to conduct. In fact, if one has read the article by Paul Helm "Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures" in the book "Scripture and Truth," they probably recognize them. Dr. Helm does a magnificent job of framing up the questions for us and a brilliant job of answering them. It is not easy, however, to keep these questions in the forefront of one's mind as they read through the issues that are related to such a weighty topic. And this is especially difficult for a presuppositionalist to do. After all, presuppositionalism fancies itself to situate the foundation of every claim and counterclaim it encounters. It is this way by nature.

 The purpose of this paper is to provide a presuppositional approach for the defense of the Bible as the Word of God. My goal is to deliver an argument that is consistent with Scripture itself, and therefore, one that is consistently presuppositional in nature. Presuppositions by nature demand internal consistency. The difference between the presuppositional approach and the traditional approach is that the traditional approach makes numerous external appeals to autonomous human reason and the so-called brute facts of history in order to support its defense of Scripture as the Word of God. The presuppositional approach, as I shall hope to make clear, is distinguished by its unique place in the transcendental argument for God's existence.

A good analogy for the two approaches is the difference between a portrait and a puzzle. They could both be displaying the same scene. However, the puzzle can be taken apart and put back together piece by piece under the supervision of the person creating it. On the other hand, a portrait is a portrait. It is the finished product of the artist and cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed at the mercy of another. The only option open to the observer of a portrait is that of interpretation. So it is with the methods underlying the arguments in support of or in denial of the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I hope to show how the claim itself is actually part of the complete portrait of the Christian worldview and that it is therefore invalid and unsound to attempt to argue in a jigsaw puzzle fashion, which is what I think the traditional approach actually does.

It seems to me that there is something very curious about Helm’s three questions concerning the nature of Scripture. No doubt it obtains that we must have some idea, about not only measuring claims, but also that we innately know it is right to measure claims. That is to say that we have some preunderstanding about how claims should be measured prior to the fact. We not only know that we should measure, but we also have some basic idea about how we should go about it. The problem enters when we begin to talk about ultimate reference points for measuring. We must ask the question, what must also be true in order for the idea of judging or measuring to be true. Would such a scenario make sense in a world of chance? If the Bible is the Word of God, as it claims to be and as Christianity affirms it to be, it follows that the argument that advances the affirmative must be bound up in and indelibly linked to the argument for the truth of Christian theism.