Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?
Thanks!
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Scripture is not and cannot be false in any aspect, because it internally claims to be the very Word of God, and God by definition, is true in all that He does, including His self-revelation (the Scriptures). For the Scriptures to be false at some point or points, infers that God has there failed in His self-revelation.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.
The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.
We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.
The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.
We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.
But, if the body of Christ were found God would be a liar. We know that God is not a liar, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be found (as He sits at the right hand of God the Father).
(and thank you for helping me think this through)
Thoughts?
It disturbs me that you capitalise "Word of God" when referring to scripture. What do you mean to imply by this?
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?
Thanks!
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
The initial statement itself (the possibility of falsehood) seems to be built upon a faulty Cartesian-esque presupposition. It seems to have a post-Enlightenment/modernistic foundation, and may rejected on those grounds alone.
I think it can be said that it is implied that the Bible says it is not possible for it to be false because the Bible asserts that it is true. Accordingly, claiming that the Bible is possibly false, claims that the Bible is wrong about it being not possibly false, and therefore false.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
I don't think it's a true statement. There is much less evidence required for something to be possible than for something to be actual.
The statement, "It's possible that my son will grow up to be president" is true...but, "My son will grow up to be president" is quite a different statement.
We could say, "It's possible for the Bible to be false contingent on the body of Christ being found" - I believe that would be a truthful statement.
But, if the body of Christ were found God would be a liar. We know that God is not a liar, and therefore the body of Christ cannot be found (as He sits at the right hand of God the Father).
(and thank you for helping me think this through)
Thoughts?
I would suggest that the conclusion "God would be a liar" is more restrictive than the context allows for. The conclusion could just as easily be "God didn't inspire the Bible"
-----Added 9/10/2009 at 02:32:59 EST-----
I think there is a much better use of discussing "possibilities." If you can say to an atheist, "If thus and so proved the Bible to be wrong then i would admit my error"...then they would be more likely to answer, "What would prove to you that the Bible is the truth?"
If we are not willing to even admit a possibility in the midst of hypothetically overwhelming evidence, why should they admit a possibility in the other direction?
It disturbs me that you capitalise "Word of God" when referring to scripture. What do you mean to imply by this?
The Scriptures being God's self-revelation, we refer to them as what He has 'spoken' to us, i.e., as His 'word(s)'. As a gathered collection, it is thus appropriate to refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.
Now, to turn the question peaceably and amiably, why would you be disturbed?
I'm also not sure how we avoid worshipping the Bible as content. Not the thing in our hand, but the content. There is something ineradicably divine about it.
I worship Jesus Christ. The only way one can worship Him is as He is revealed to us (contained) in the Bible. You cannot avoid worshipping the content of the Bible because the content is the means through which God has revealed to us Who to worship.
I have also come across something like this before on Wastebook. Often and most usually theological liberals levy the charge against the orthodox that they "worship the Bible", are "Biblolaters", or idolaters of the Bible, citing that we regard God's Word so much that we worship it.
"To claim that it is possible for the Bible to be false is to claim that it is false."
Would you agree with the above statement? What further evidence would you give in support of it? Or, if you disagree, why do you disagree?
Thanks!
The initial statement itself (the possibility of falsehood) seems to be built upon a faulty Cartesian-esque presupposition. It seems to have a post-Enlightenment/modernistic foundation, and may rejected on those grounds alone.
Could you expand on that a little, Pastor Phillips? Specifically, how the "possibility of falsehood" is built upon faulty presuppositions?
Do others here also worship the content of the bible?