Andy Stanley Christianity vs Biblical Christianity

So, Mr. Stanley, I understand that you believe that the foundation of Christianity is not the Bible. Is that correct? 

Yes skeptical baby, that is correct. 

Additionally, Mr. Stanley, you have said that it was a mistake for Christian leaders to teach Christians that they ought to believe the claims that the Bible makes simply on the grounds that the Bible says so. Do you believe it is true that you should not believe something just because the Bible says it? 

Yes, yes I do! 

So, to summarize your position Mr. Stanley, you reject the idea that the Bible is always true in all that it teaches and that Christianity does not need the Bible in order to exist? You believe Christianity existed before the Bible ever came into existence. 

That is correct. If Christianity never had the Bible, it would still exist.

In other words, Mr. Stanley, you believe that if the Bible were proven to be false, it would have no impact on Christianity.

Well, there is no evidence of the global flood, there is no evidence of the exodus, and stories like Sodom and Gomorrah seem far removed from what we know about the loving God who sent his Son to die for the sins of the world and whom God rose from the dead.

I see. For the record can you just answer the question as it is stated to you? Would Christianity continue to exist if it was demonstrated that the Bible was false? 

Yes, skeptical baby, it would exist and here is why; you see, its all about the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what Christianity is founded on. The historical event of the resurrection is what Christianity is really all about.

I see. Now, Mr. Stanley, I have one more question for you. How do you know that Jesus Christ is in fact the resurrected Son of the Living God?

Well, skeptical baby, all the gospels tell us that Jesus rose from the dead.

Mr. Stanley! You are aware that the gospels are also known as the Bible, aren't you? I asked you a moment ago if the Bible was proven false, would Christianity continue to exist and you said it would. But if the resurrection has to be true in order for Christianity to be true, and the Bible is proven false, and the Bible is your only source for the historical event of the resurrection, how could the resurrection be true and the Bible be false? It's like this Mr. Stanley:

1. If the Bible is reliable, then belief in the resurrection of the Son of God is warranted.
2. The Bible is unreliable.
3. Therefore, Belief in the resurrection of the Son of God is unwarranted
4. And if belief in the resurrection of the Son of God is unwarranted, then Christianity is without justification.
5. Therefore, Christianity is without justification.
6. Now, since you have demonstrated that belief in Christianity is unwarranted, don't you think you should close your church and abandon your belief in Christianity.

Now your just twisting my words.

No, Mr. Stanley. If anyone is twisting someone's words, sir, it is you!

Next witness please.

Biblical Christianity (BC) promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

BC, do you believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity? 

Yes, skeptical baby, I surely do.

BC, surely you are aware of William Clifford's rigorous view on the ethics of belief: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence." Do you agree that it is unethical to believe anything without sufficient evidence?

Not always. Clifford is mistaken. You see, skeptical baby, Clifford had lacks evidence for the ethics behind his belief. So on his own belief, his statement is actually self-referentially incoherent. But more important than that is the fact that we do believe all sorts of things without any evidence and if we did not, knowledge would be virtually impossible. Basic beliefs do not require the sort of inferential support that Clifford claims. We would end up asking for evidence for the evidence, and evidence for that evidence, and this would lead to an infinite regress, a chain of evidence without a beginning or anchor.

Be that as it may, BC, do you have any evidence that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity?

Actually, skeptical baby, I do. The apostle Paul wrote in Eph. 2:20; "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." There is a lot more than just this evidence, but this is more than sufficient to show that the foundation of the Christian Church is the teachings of the apostles and prophets, which is also what we call in modern vernacular, the Bible.

Objection, your honor! BC is using the Bible as evidence to prove that the Bible is the foundation of the Christian Church. This is circular and therefore logically fallacious.

OBJECTION OVERRULED! BC's use of the Bible to prove the Bible is no more circular than your use of reason to argue for the validity of logic. Continue your cross, skeptical baby.

BC, if the Bible is proven to be false in any way, what happens to Christianity? 

Skeptical baby, if the Bible is proven to be false in any part, in any way, then all decisions to believe the Bible in part or in whole are left to human beings. It then becomes our privilege to judge which parts of the Bible are sound and which parts are spurious. If the global flood is false for lack of physical evidence, and so too is the exodus, then how could I claim that the resurrection is true without ultimately being guilty of being arbitrary. 

But don't we have evidence that Jesus actually did raise from the dead apart from the Bible?

Actually, skeptical baby, no, we don't. What we have is evidence that Jesus' followers believed and claimed that he rose from the dead. That is the best we can do where those external sources are concerned. The actual evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only found in the Bible. There is another argument that probably merits mentioning here. That is 1 Corinthians 15. In that text, Paul is arguing for a future resurrection based on the evidence of the resurrected Christ. In that text Paul is basically dealing with a false doctrine that denies any future resurrection from the dead. In order to refute this doctrine, Paul appeals to the established fact that Christ rose from the dead. The foundation for his presupposition of the resurrected Christ is found in 15:3; and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Paul is appealing to the Scriptures as his proof that Jesus rose from the dead. If the Scriptures are unreliable, they would should not be appealed to as the truth by which such arguments can be refuted and contradicted. 

I see. No further questions.

Wait, I have one question for Andy Stanley. Mr. Stanley, you said that you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve because the Bible says there was a literal Adam and Eve, but because Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve. Jesus said that the Scriptures, that is, the law, the prophets, and the writings, cannot be broken. In other words, Jesus said the Scriptures were true in all that they taught. So here is my question: if you believe in Adam and Eve because Jesus believed in Adam and Eve, why don't you believe that the Bible is true in all that it teaches because Jesus believed that the Bible is true in all that it teaches?

Andy Stanley: Shepherd or Charlatan

Andy Stanley is at it again. Many people are up at arms over Stanley's latest comments concerning the fact that Christianity does not need the Bible. In fact, Stanley implies that there was a "pre-bible" version of Christianity. Stanley insists that Christianity is all about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not the whole Bible. Stanley says that "the foundation of our faith is not the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history." Does this comport with what the Scriptures say about the very household of God, the church? Well, let's take a look at the Scriptures and see what they say about Stanley's claim.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Eph. 2:20

What exactly is "the foundation of the apostles and prophets?" Did Paul mean that the foundation of Christianity is actually men? Of course not! The apostles and prophets stand in the place of divine revelation, the divine message of the God's men. The foundation of the church is not the men, but rather, what the men were: apostles and prophets. Apostles and prophets are sent by God with a message from God. It is that message, the message that has at its center the person and work of Christ, that is the foundation of the church, of Christianity. 

Is the resurrection enough to serve as the foundation of Christianity? Andy Stanley implies that the resurrection of Christ is all the message we need. The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is actually the case, why do we have so much more than the message of the resurrection in NT Scripture? Certainly the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a necessary component of the gospel, but the resurrection alone is not sufficient to serve as the foundation of the church. To say that the gospel and the foundation of the Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ is incredibly reductionistic. The gospel does not reduce to "Jesus rose from the dead." Christianity cannot be summed up by saying "Jesus rose from the dead." One thing is for sure, the NT writers thought there was more to the gospel, more to Christ's message, more to the missions of Christianity than resurrection because they talked about a lot more than that. 

The really big problem for Stanley is that he claims that Christianity's foundation rests on an event in history and then he dismisses the very source of that event, attempting to divorce the historical event from the historical record. Yes, it is true that Jesus would have still risen from the dead even if we never had a Bible to read about. But we would have no way of knowing about it then would we. Nor would Stanley. It is difficult to take Stanley serious on this subject because he view seems to be remarkably incoherent. Stanley says he believes in a literal Adam and Eve, but not because the Bible says so, but because Jesus seems to have believed in a literal Adam and Eve. Now, if that doesn't cause you to do the biggest palm slap ever, nothing will. And what book tells us that Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve, Mr. Stanley? Oh, yes, it is called the Bible. So you do in fact believe in a literal Adam and Eve because the Bible says so. In fact, you also believe that Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says it happened. Folks, you can't make this stuff up. On one hand, it is very sad, and on the other hand, it is priceless. 

So, why does Andy Stanley want to say that some things in the Bible should not be believed, like the age of the earth, Noah, the Exodus, and so forth while saying that other things ought to be believed even though their source is the same Bible? I think I understand what Stanley is trying to do. You can hear it in his final plea.

It is no secret that a number of people have left evangelicalism because of the offense of many things found in Scripture. The God of the OT is offensive, judgmental, unloving. The miracles of both testaments are just too hard to believe. The moral standards of Scripture are antiquated and outdated. But the history of evangelicals reveals that they have insisted that their membership take God's word at face value. The idea that the earth is only around 6-7 thousand years old is arcane. The global flood is embarrassing to many. A literal Adam and Eve is absurd. The idea of an eternal hell is over the top. That homosexuals cannot love and marry is hateful. On and on the list goes. Stanley wants these people to reconsider Christ because their view of Scripture and of Christianity was wrong. You can be a Christian without taking the Bible at face value. There is a Christianity that is a pre-bible version, the original Christianity. You can believe things that Jesus said without saying you believe something just because the Bible said it. Somehow,  Jesus saying it and the Bible saying it are not the same thing.

The second reason Stanley is doing this is not because he wants to defend Christianity. No one who says that Christianity can be separated from the Bible is interested in defending Christianity. Let's be serious. Stanley wants to defend his empire. The pressures of the culture are weighing on all of us. Abortion, homosexual marriage, gender dysphoria, and other issues are placing more and more pressure on Christianity to conform to the culture or else. If Stanley can reduce the gospel and Christianity to the resurrection, then perhaps this will free people up to affirm what Jesus says without supposed having to take the Bible seriously everywhere it speaks. This way, we don't quite sound so foolish, you know, like those people who say they believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. There are so many things wrong with what Stanley is saying and I haven't even scratched the surface. I wanted to point out the "why" Stanley is saying what he is saying more than interact with what he actually said. Stanley wants to stop the bleeding of people leaving Christianity. The best way to do that is to remove those elements of Christianity that offend unbelieving hearts. This way, unbelievers can be Christians too. And this way, Stanley gets to keep his megachurch with its thousands of members. That is really what this is all about folks. 

Making (Mis)Use of the Bible

The Bible has a lot of things to say about a lot of different subjects. The sacred book has something to say about how every thing we see around us all began, and one day, how it will all end. And the Bible has a lot to say about a bunch of things that happened and should happen in between the beginning and the end of all things as we know it. And since the Bible has so much to say about so many things, it isn’t surprising to see so many people use the Bible to do and say so many things themselves. People sure do put the Bible to work to do a lot. And the sad reality is that a lot people treat the Bible, especially in our culture, as if it is there to do their bidding, to fight their war, to improve their life, to propel them to loftier places, and much more. For many Christians, the Bible isn’t a book that is there to shape their life, but instead, they shape the Bible in such a way as to make it seem that God has spoken on matters for them specifically that God has indeed not had anything at all to say.

The study of Scripture is a spiritual act. It is a spiritual discipline. There is nothing that is more important to the Christian than Scripture. Scripture informs us, cleanses us, renovates our minds, renews our hearts, transforms our lives! Scripture tells us who Jesus is. Scripture brings us the gospel. Scripture brings us life! Eternal life! Scripture ensures that we will never be deceived. How? Scripture is the truth. So long as we have the truth, we can never be deceived. Is it any wonder that Scripture is at the very core of the non-Christian attacks against the Christian movement? The record of the OT is used to indict the kind of God it portraits, and therefore, undermines itself according to the opponents of Christ. Every Christian must know the Scripture, must know it’s history, must know something about its transmission, must surely know its content, and must know how to let Scripture defend itself. I cannot think of anything more important in the life of the Christian than Scripture. We know nothing about the Christian faith, the Christ who redeems, the Spirit who fills us apart from Scripture.

John MacArthur tells us, “if you are one of those who questions whether truth is really important, please don’t call your belief system Christianity, because that is not what it is.” [The Truth War] Jesus said that God’s Word is truth. For the truth believer there is very little as important as studying God’s Word seriously. [The Hermeneutical Spiral] Calvin said, “At any rate, there is no doubt that firm certainty of doctrine was engraved in their hearts, so that they were convinced and understood that what they had learned proceeded from God. For by His Word, God rendered faith unambiguous forever, a faith that should be superior to all opinion.” [Institutes] Michael Kruger in his excellent work Canon Revisited writes, “What is needed, then, is a canonical model that does not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority, but seeks to ground the canon in the only place it could be grounded, its own authority.” [Canon Revisited] Clearly, the Bible has a place of prominence in the life of the Christian. And with the recent trends in certain cultures, especially Europe and America, it should be obvious to any intelligent Christian that a proper understanding and use of Scripture is as important today as it was in the time of the Apostles. So much for the great downgrade of the significance of theology, the languages, and doctrine in our churches. Any discerning Christian ought to be able to figure out that God was serious when He spoke to us in Scripture. And if we are serious about God, about our relationship with Christ, we will take more than just a passing interest in what God has to say.

Yet, many Christians seem to be almost entirely uninterested in respecting the Scripture’s message and record, willing to take the Bible as a tool to defend their own attitudes, philosophies, and behaviors. Prov. 29:18 is one example. The KJV renders this text, “Where there is no vision the people perish.” More than a few Christians have used this verse to support the idea that we have to “cast a vision” for the mission of our local church, various ministries, and even your own personal career. A text actually means, as the NASB tenders it, “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained.” The idea is where there is no “prophetic word” immorality dominates, and this to the destruction of people’s souls. In other words, where God’s Word is not proclaimed to the community, there is little to no moral restraint. Yet we use it to support our own modern motivational talks. Such recklessness should produce embarrassment and shame.

Sadly, some Christians are far more interested in having God speak to them outside of Scripture than they are in attempting to understand what God is speaking to them in Scripture. These Christians have no clue that God does not speak to men outside of Scripture. This is why Scripture is called the Word of God. If you want to know God’s will for your life, read the Bible with as much energy as you can muster and pray for enlightenment. If we want to know what God wants our church involved in, we can know that by reading Scripture. Other Christians just want to use the Bible for their owner personal agendas, whatever they might be. Perhaps I want to feel better about myself, be a better parent, excel at work and so forth. All these modern, psychological approaches to Scripture rest on a faulty presupposition that the Bible was given to me so that I could use it to become a better me according to what I think a better me is. Scripture was given to make us holy, to shape us into the image of Christ, to transform and renovate our minds so that we have the mind of Christ.

Scripture is the standard by which all men will be measured. Scripture informs us of our sin, our guilt, and our condemnation. For this reason, men want to destroy it, to rip it to shreds, to reduce its credibility. They do not want Scripture to be accurate when it condemns their adultery, their homosexuality, their treachery, their lies, their greed, their idolatry, and their murderous ways. So they attack it on every level and those attacks are relentless. But Scripture also brings glad tidings of good news. Through Jesus Christ, and through Him alone, there is light, life, and eternal peace. Scripture alone brings the knowledge by which we know the truth light, the true life, the true Redeemer of the world.

If you know nothing else, know Scripture. If you can talk about nothing else, be able to talk about Scripture. If your apologetic is weak anywhere, let it be weak anywhere else but in defending Scripture. The entire Christian walk centers around the Jesus Christ who reveals Himself in Scripture. Ignorance of Scripture equals ignorance of Christ!

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 Defense of Scripture - Part 3 of ???

At the most basic level, the nature of human knowledge is such that justification ultimately arrives at its terminus. From the top down, claims to knowledge are accompanied by a requisite justification in order for those claims to rise to the level of knowledge. However, such justification must reach a terminus in order to avoid the problem of requiring justification ad infinitum resulting in the obliteration of all hope for any knowledge at all. It is not difficult to see the necessity of justification for claims to knowledge. But then again, this is in no way to suggest that the criteria of justification are agreed to by all, but only that philosophers recognize that justification is required for most knowledge, but not all. What is not so easy to see is what knowledge looks like when justification reaches its boundaries. At what point do we reach the boundaries of collaborative justification to a self-vindicating justification for claims to knowledge? The Christian has a very distinct starting point for knowledge. This is the place where justification has no jurisdiction, at least not the kind of jurisdiction we have been talking about. In fact, here is where the idea of justification begins in terms of knowledge.The starting point for human knowledge is beyond the jurisdiction of human justification.

“What the Reformers held was that a believer is entirely rational, entirely within his epistemic rights, in starting with belief in God, in accepting it as basic, and in taking it as a premise for argument to other conclusions.”[1] 

At bottom, if knowledge is to remain secure, it must be anchored to something. Knowledge can only be as stable and secure as that to which it is anchored. In other words, knowledge must be anchored to something that does not itself need to be anchored to anything. The presuppositionalist would say that knowledge must be anchored to something that is self-justifying. This explains why knowledge, once it reaches the place of terminus for justification, no longer needs the service of justification, be it rational, empirical, or otherwise. It is nearly impossible to imagine finite knowledge ever being able, on its own terms, by its own nature, to reach the status of being self-justifying. If this is actually the case, and I believe it is, how then does knowledge ever attain the lofty status of being self-justifying?

Only knowledge that is anchored in a non-contingent and absolute being can be self-justifying. This is exactly what one would expect the state of affairs to be given the doctrine of God in Christian theism. In an open universe of pure chance, knowledge could never be fixed, stable, uniform, and secure. It would simply be impossible. Justification demands uniformity. However, uniformity lampoons an open and chance universe. 

To be blunt, uniformity is an outright and blatant contradiction of the theory of an open universe. An open universe frankly cannot provide the necessary preconditions to make human experience intelligible. The metaphysical starting point for the non-Christian worldview, namely an open universe brought about by pure chance rules out any possibility for genuine knowledge before the conversation can even begin. Hence, the nature of epistemology is such that it must be constructed upon something other than that which the non-Christian worldview builds it, finite, autonomous human reason.

For the Christian, we must examine how it is we know that the claim of Scripture to be the authoritative Word of God actually rises to the level of true knowledge. There are a number of ways that Christians and scholars have attempted to answer this question over the years. Indeed, it seems there are nearly as many ways sometimes as there are attempts. Moreover, some Christians actually postulate that how we answer this question is inconsequential, so long as we end up with the right answer at the end of the problem. A math teacher would say "show me your work" in an attempt to gauge your understanding of the problem as well as assess your approach to the solution. It isn't any different for the Christian when we are dealing with this problem. It is just as important for us to get to the right answer, the answer Scripture gives, as it is for us to get to that answer the right way, the way that Scripture says. (Hint, hint)

In my next post I will begin to look at some more traditional methods for how Christians have thought about this problem and attempted to answer it. I will criticize those method in the areas where I think they miss the mark and provide argumentation to support my criticisms. Included in those approaches will be the rational and empirical methods for defending Scripture. Finally, I will attempt to show how my epistemological blathering corresponds with how a Christian should think about defending Scripture and why it matters.

---

[1]Alvin Plantinga, Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 72.

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.