My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 3

Having evaluated the two major viewpoints concerning apologetic methodology in our first and second posts, we shall consider the biblical data in constructing a theological answer to the question, “How do we know the Bible is God’s Word?” In formulating our answer, over the next few posts we shall cover several areas: how the Bible evidences itself to be God’s Word, why belief in it can be justified as properly basic, and how sin affects our cognitive faculties in addition to how they are restored at conversion. We will begin our discussion of how the Bible evidences itself by looking at its own claim to be the Word of God.

Subjective experience, mere opinion, and tradition are not enough to bestow divine authority upon the words of Scripture. The Bible must make this claim for itself. However, when turning to its pages, we find such a claim made rather frequently. In fact, in the Old Testament alone, we find such statements as “The LORD said,” “The LORD spoke,” and “The word of the LORD came” nearly 4,000 times.[1]

The prophets themselves never claimed to speak upon their own authority. Quoting the covenant LORD of Israel, Moses writes, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18, emphasis mine). In other words, when the prophets speak, God speaks. Consequently, this covenantal framework allowed for the sum of the Old Testament canon to be seen as divinely authored and inspired (Ps 119:160; Prov 30:5-6).[2]

The New Testament not only recognizes the authority of the Old Testament but also sees itself as on equal authority. The apostles saw the Old Testament as authoritative and inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Paul himself made clear his words were to be equated with those of the prophets. Writing to the Corinthian church, Paul states, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). What’s more, Peter attributes divine authority to Paul’s letters, equating them with “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15-16).

The authority to speak for God of course did not come from the apostles themselves. It was the Lord Jesus Christ who sanctioned their writings. In John 14:26, Jesus promises the apostles divinely aided understanding and divinely aided memory by the Holy Spirit: “. . . he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” Moreover, Christ promises them divinely aided knowledge (John 16:13).[3] In addition, Jesus himself recognized the authority of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17-20; 19:4-5) and saw his own words as having divine authority (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28; 24:35).

Still, since our conviction that the Bible's authority stems from its own internal claims, are we really able to say that we believe the Bible because it says so? Yes! Shouldn't we consider such a proposal circular and therefore invalid? Certainly not! We must realize that when appealing to an ultimate authority one will inevitably become circular at some level. What matters is if the professed ultimate authority can withstand its own claims, that there is no hidden dependency on another authority.

As we discussed in an earlier post, all worldviews at some point become self-attesting. In other words, if a worldview is true--and thus provides the right outlook upon reality--one must evaluate it on its own terms. After all, if the worldview is true, it need not appeal to external criteria derived from somewhere else in order to authenticate its claims. One must assume his or her respective outlook on reality in order to demonstrate its truthfulness.

For instance, a naturalist--one who holds that all things in the universe can ultimately be explained by natural processes--will exercise naturalistic presuppositions in making his case for the naturalist worldview, assuming any claims to the supernatural are at best suspect if not entirely impossible.

What's more, the naturalist may hold that science is his highest authority for testing truth claims and arriving at epistemic certainty. If asked to show how science is the highest authority, he would be inconsistent if he did not appeal to some form of science to verify his claim. However, this is where the naturalist's worldview falls apart since certain preconditions must exist in order to render our attempts at scientific study even possible (i.e., the external world, the law of causality, uniformity in nature, etc.). In other words, a philosophy of science must be in order to account for the possibility of conducting the scientific method. At which point, we come to see that at least philosophy proves itself to be more foundational than science in terms of one's noetic structure. Henceforth, science cannot be one's ultimate authority since it must appeal outside of itself in order to be justified intellectually.

The naturalist then has no epistemic right to assume this sort of rationality inherent to the universe since according to his worldview the current state of the universe is but a product of irrational forces, the result of chance events with no pre-vision of their outcome. As with any worldview, in its attempts to make any sort of claims or arguments, naturalism assumes the universe to be cosmos rather than chaos, something that from a logical outworking only the Christian worldview can account.

With this in mind, Christians as those submitting our lives--including our intellectual energies (2 Cor 10:5)--to the lordship of Christ must remain faithful to our King in the apologetic enterprise. We not only act inconsistently when depending on other authorities to legitimize the truth claims of the Gospel, but we do a disservice to Christ. How can we tell the unbeliever he must make Christ and his Word his ultimate authority while looking to other authorities in making our case? This seemingly implies that there are more evident truths than Christ himself, who in actuality is the truth (John 14:6). Greg L. Bahnsen puts it this way:

If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God's wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God's wisdom - namely, the supposed wisdom of one's own chosen, intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard.[4]

Additionally, Bahnsen writes:

Evangelicals sometimes utilize an autonomous apologetic method which does not assume the authority of Christ, treating it like a ladder to climb up to acceptance of Christ's claims, only then to "throw the ladder away" since Christ is now seen as having an ultimate authority which conflicts with that autonomous method.[5]

As God is self-existent, depending on nothing outside himself for his own existence, the Word of God is self-attesting, depending on nothing outside itself for its own authority. Only the biblical worldview can provide such a self-sustaining claim to ultimate authority, that of the Word of God.

In our next post, we will look at just how the Bible evidences itself to be of divine origin. Accordingly, we will then examine why many still do not recognize and respond to these evidences to no detriment of the Bible itself.

This article is the third in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Parts one and two can be found by clicking the corresponding links.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2006), 98.

[2]Ibid., 102.

[3]Ibid., 107.

[4] Greg L. Bahnsen, "Autonomy is No Ladder to Christ's Supreme Authority," Penpoint I:1 (1990) [on-line], accessed 19 June 2009; available from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa095.htm; Internet.

[5] Ibid.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 2

If someone asked you why you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, how would you answer? In our last post, we began formulating a response to that question by looking at the traditional and most typical method employed by evangelical Christians, that of classical apologetics. In this post, we will look at a different position, one I find to be more biblically cogent and epistemically satisfying.

The second of the two views is what many refer to as the presuppositional approach. According to Cornelius Van Til (the renowned apologist pictured to the right), “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method.”[1] In other words, this method seeks to discover a person’s ultimate authority, their starting point that makes knowledge possible.

For the presuppositionalist, the Bible is our starting point for knowledge since its area of authority includes that of epistemology (Prov 1:7; Col 2:3, 8). As we will examine later, the Bible makes the claim for its divine authority. This is what is known as self-authentication or self-attestation. John Calvin explained this concept to mean that Scripture “carries with itself its own credibility in order to be received without contradiction, and is not to be submitted to proofs or arguments.”[2]

When a person wishes to validate a testimony or claim, he or she will appeal to a higher authority. However, there is no higher authority than God, as it is written, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (Heb 6:13).[3] Therefore, the Bible must serve as its own witness.[4] To subject the Bible to external criteria would seem to imply that the criteria were somehow more authoritative or more reliable. Only God is fit to tell us what qualities we should expect in his Word, so a message given by God must serve as its own authority.[5]

The Christian in holding this position should not feel intellectually incompetent, trapped in a circle and forced to arbitrarily exercise faith. Eventually, all worldviews must refer to a self-attesting starting point, if for no other reason than to avoid an infinite regression in seeking validation. Subsequently, in making the case for the authority of the Bible, the Christian should argue the “impossibility of the contrary.” Greg L. Bahnsen explains:

Here the Christian apologist, defending his ultimate presuppositions, must be prepared to argue the impossibility of the contrary—that is, to argue that the philosophic perspective of the unbeliever destroys meaning, intelligence, and the very possibility of knowledge, while the Christian faith provides the only framework and conditions for intelligible experience and rational certainty. The apologist must contend that the true starting point of thought cannot be other than God and His revealed word, for no reasoning is possible apart from that ultimate authority.[6]

In other words, the biblical worldview is the only perspective that from a natural outworking can account for the intelligibility of the universe (i.e., the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and morality), something all non-Christian worldviews presuppose but take for granted.

The Christian’s mode of argumentation then takes a two-fold procedure. Proverbs 26:4-5 reads, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” First, the Christian should not answer the fool by attempting to prove the Bible on the unbeliever’s criteria. Otherwise, in accepting the unbeliever’s false presuppositions, the believer will become a fool in his efforts. The case for the Bible should instead be made on its own terms, the same as with testing any worldview. Second, the Christian should answer the fool by providing an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview (i.e., “according to his folly”). At this point, the Christian shows that the unbeliever’s assumptions about reality cannot even allow for the possibility of knowledge if followed through consistently.[7]

In later posts, we will look more thoroughly at what it means for the Bible to be considered necessary basic belief. In other words, only God's revelation given in Scripture can suffice as the ultimate presupposition for making sense out of the world. Before we get there, however, we must first establish that the Bible actually claims to be God's Word. Our next post will provide a survey of the Bible's own testimony about its divine authority and inspiration.

This article is the second in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Part one can be found here.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 128.

[2]Michael E. Wittmer, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 145. In his footnotes, Wittmer indicates Calvin’s definition for self-authentication is provided only in French translations and not English editions of Institutes of the Christian Religion.

[3]Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), unless otherwise noted.

[4]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2006), 120.

[5]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Reading and Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1998), 199.

[6]Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 72-73.

[7]Ibid., 61-62.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 1

How do we know the Bible is God’s Word? I recall posing this question to a brother-in-Christ during my initial months as a believer. At the time, he and I were regularly involved with one-to-one street evangelism, and in this present skeptic age, the question would often come up. In trying to establish an adequate response, I quipped, “How do we know? You can tell by reading it.”

I would like to think that since then my theology and apologetics have become somewhat more sophisticated. However, in my several years of studying, conversing, and thinking about the best answer to the question, I have discovered that I was more on-target than I had first realized despite being young in Christ. The Bible does indeed provide sufficient witness in itself to be recognized as God’s Word. In more lucid terms, we know the Bible is the Word of God because we recognize it as God’s revelation to us on its own terms and on its own claims.

Before looking directly at the Bible’s own claim to divine authority, we will discuss the two major positions concerning how to make the case for the Bible. In other words, how do we argue that it is indeed the inspired, authoritative Word of God? Theologians and apologists representing orthodox, evangelical Christianity are somewhat divided over the issue of methodology. For the purposes of this discussion, we will assess the classical and presuppositional approaches.

In this post, I will provide an analysis of the classical approach in making the case for Scripture, an approach that although adopted by many respected evangelical scholars, I perceive to be erring both in terms of its methodology and in its epistemic prioritization.

Philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig serves as an appropriate example for the first of the two views we will discuss, that of classical apologetics. In answering the question, “How do I know that Christianity is true?,” Craig states it is helpful to distinguish between knowing and showing. “We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit,” he writes. “We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments for its central tenets.”[1] According to Craig, certain truths of Christianity are known by those who come under the influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit. The believer can be said to know the “great truths of the Gospel” apart from supplementary evidence.[2]

Knowing gives way to showing when the Christian comes into contact with an adherent of another religion or worldview who claims to have a self-authenticating experience. Craig acknowledges that such a claim does not undermine the truthfulness of Christianity, but it does force the Christian apologist to appeal to outside proof in order to remain noncircular in his argumentation.[3] Craig shares in common with other apologists a methodology that seeks to establish neutral criteria by which to evaluate worldviews and validate the truthfulness of the Christian faith.[4]

Accordingly, classical apologetics has traditionally sought to first prove God’s existence with the various theistic proofs and then appeal to isolated evidences in order to demonstrate the veracity of Christian theism. As R.C. Sproul notes, the apologist first seeks to prove the existence of God and follows suit by arguing for the authority of the Bible.[5] However, the case for the Bible’s divine authority is not established until the case has been made for the possibility of miracles, the historical reliability of Scripture, and the deity of Christ, which consequently confirms his testimony concerning the Bible.[6] With the classical approach, one can know with certainty that Christianity is true, but one can only show it with probability.

But if one can make a probable case for Christianity, does not the unbeliever remain somewhat intellectually justified in his refusal to submit to the Bible as the Word of God? After all, the Bible could still possibly turn out not to be God's authoritative revelation to mankind once more evidence becomes available. In our next post, we will seek to demonstrate why the presuppositional approach is necessary to make an adequate case for the certainty of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word, both in terms of knowability and argumentation.

This article is the first in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 43-60.

[2]Ibid., 43-44. Craig lists such beliefs as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” and “Christ lives in me” as implied by the work of the Holy Spirit upon a person, bringing not just subjective assurance but objective knowledge.

[3]Ibid., 51-52, 57. Craig later makes clear our common ground with unbelievers is “the laws of logic and the facts of experience.” For Craig, this is where apologetics begins, whereas the earlier discussion pertaining to Christian epistemology serves only as an “in-house discussion.” This implies that rather than to show the unbeliever to have the incorrect epistemology, we should seek to prove the Christian faith on grounds that will appease the unbeliever’s view of rationality.

[4]See for example Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 51-59.

[5]R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 19.

[6]For an overview of such block-house methodology, see Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Peabody: Prince Press, 2003), 263-377. Geisler gives the outline of the main premises involved in classical argumentation, 264-65.

CALVINISM ON THE MARCH AMONG EVANGELICALS

A 2007 study shows that Calvinism is on the rise in the Southern Baptist Convention and is especially prominent among recent seminary graduates. Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, says that nearly 30% of recent graduates now serving as pastors are Calvinists (“Calvinism on the Rise,” Christian Post, Nov. 29, 2007). Roughly 10% of SBC pastors at large define themselves as Calvinists, but that includes only those who hold to all five points of TULIP theology and not those who hold to sovereign or unconditional election but not necessarily to all other points of Calvinism. LifeWay Research limits their surveys to a very narrow definition of Calvinism, and I suspect it might not want to know the true influence of Calvinism in the convention.

A report in Christianity Today for September 2006 was entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism Is Making a Comeback--And Shaking up the Church.” It documents the rapid spread of Calvinism in Evangelical circles, and I am seeing the same thing among Fundamentalists.

The report cites John Piper, R.C. Sproul, R. Albert Mohler, Louie Giglio, Joshua Harris, J.I. Packer, and the Puritans as among the chief influences responsible for the upsurge in Calvinism. Piper’s book “Desiring God” has sold more than 275,000 copies.

The trend toward the acceptance of Calvinism is evident at leading evangelical seminaries such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Under the direction of Al Mohler, Southern Seminary has become “a Reformed hotbed” and is turning out “a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.”

Updated March 26, 2009 (first published October 18, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

Practice Principle

Ephesians 1:15 (ESV):

15For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,



As we continue to look at Ephesians 1:13 – 23 and determine the principles needed to experience the “fullness” (v. 23) of Christ as “head” (v. 22) of the church, we will look at what Paul says is the second important principle.

Last week, Paul stated that in order to truly experience Christ as head of the church, the church must be made up of believers (v. 13 – 14). One cannot understand nor fully comprehend the true power of the church until Christ is Lord and Savior. I call this the Position Principle.

This week, we will look at what I call the Practice Principle. Look into verse 15. Paul says that the Ephesian church has put two important things into practice: Faith and Love.

First, Paul states that they have faith and that he has heard of their faith. Very possibly, the church in Ephesus put their faith into action. James (James 1:22 – 27) tells us that we must show our faith:

"22But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. 26If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

Notice the sequence however; their working faith is step 2. A person cannot show true faith without salvation. Works religion is a dead religion.

Secondly, Paul says the church at Ephesus practices “love toward all the saints,” They loved other Christians and showed that love.
Christ told his disciples in John 13:34 – 35:

"34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

We are to love other Christians, whether they are of our “fellowship” (local church) or not. If they claim the name of Christ, we are to show our love for them. Notice, Paul states that the Ephesian church had love for ALL “the saints”.

So, this week we must strive to put the Practice Principle into action. Show your faith and demonstrate Christ in the way you live first and foremost; secondly, show your love for other Christians: say a kind word of encouragement, help them with a task, pray together, and help them with a problem. Love them!

May God bless you richly this week.

No God...Know God...

This does not surprise me much. The link below is to a Fox News report concerning the “status of religion” in the United States:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506849,00.html

According to the article, 15% of Americans say they have no religion. The article highlights how this aspect has increased over the last 19+ years, going back to a study in 1990.

This leads me to a question: why is this trend happening? Most who participate on the blog will easily answer this question. But I wanted to pose it anyway.

John MacArthur has a quote in several sermons and interviews: “Hard preaching makes soft people”; conversely, “Soft preaching makes hard people and hearts”. The world is having a hard time distinguishing between truly redeemed and from those who want to call themselves “Christian”…thus, giving people no true reason to look unto Christ. They see no need. The preaching and teaching is swallow, the music only appeals to the ears and not to the heart, and the people do not show the life of the redeemed.

This article is disturbing but also encouraging to me. As encouraging because I personally know men who are dedicated to preaching the true Word of God, staying true to the Scriptures, and proclaiming “Thus sayeth the Lord…”

So to my brothers on this blog, the harvest is white. You have my prayers that your ministries will counter this trend.

King James Only

KING JAMES ONLY
Posted: 25 Feb 2009 04:14 AM PST
Republished February 25, 2009 (first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) –

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”