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).
No comments:
Post a Comment