Some people say that we know that the Bible is God's word by the fact that its teachings are not something that man would want to come up with. For example, the Bible presents man as totally depraved, which goes against man's tendency to think of himself as a good person. The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace alone, which is contrary to man's idea that salvation is accomplished by his own effort. God saves sinners. All other religions teach that man can save himself. If man created a god in his own image, it would not be like the God of the Bible. What do you think of this kind of proof?
Proof that the Bible is inspired by God
- Thread starter cih1355
- Start date
- Status
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't know if the argument you present is "proof", but I've always thought it myself. "Proof" is weird when it comes to the things of the Spirit though, because no matter how solid an argument or how verifiable a proof one presents to unbelievers, unless God opens their eyes to the truth the unregenerate will remain in the dark.
Last edited:
EricP
Puritan Board Freshman
I have always felt, since I grew up an atheist, that one of the most convincing proofs that Scripture is the word of God is that no other religious work I ever read (and I read MANY on my frustratingly slow road to salvation!) is so brutally honest about what we are like as men and women--it almost seems like 10 minutes after the Red Sea was parted our spiritual forebears were whining about what they were getting to eat and drink, and where was Moses anyway?
That being said, with all respect I don't think your "proof" works in part due to the phrase "all other religions teach that man can save himself"; in my experience that premise is incorrect--most other religions don't acknowledge that man needs saving at all. One has to accept the concept of sin, and the corruption of our nature through the fall of Adam (our federal head), to begin to accept that we even need a savior. Mind you, this is not how I'd recommend most evangelistic conversations in a coffee shop to go (these often seem to start with personal experience of sin rather than a theological discussion!!). Also, references to "the Bible teaches" mean little to almost every other religion, and sadly to many professing "Christians" today!
That being said, with all respect I don't think your "proof" works in part due to the phrase "all other religions teach that man can save himself"; in my experience that premise is incorrect--most other religions don't acknowledge that man needs saving at all. One has to accept the concept of sin, and the corruption of our nature through the fall of Adam (our federal head), to begin to accept that we even need a savior. Mind you, this is not how I'd recommend most evangelistic conversations in a coffee shop to go (these often seem to start with personal experience of sin rather than a theological discussion!!). Also, references to "the Bible teaches" mean little to almost every other religion, and sadly to many professing "Christians" today!
I agree that the Bible teaches many things about man, God, and salvation that other religions do not want to teach. However, that doesn't prove the truthfulness of the Bible. It is more of an observation or line of argumentation. However, it may be useful to some people in recognizing that Christianity and the Bible are unique among religions and religious texts. I'm sure that God certainly could use this observation as a means to draw someone toward himself.
EricP
Puritan Board Freshman
I'd agree completely--my "experiential proof" of how Scripture describes our condition was valuable to me and helped me see the Bible as true; I'd hardly suggest it as a proof of Biblical inerrancy or the Christian faith, but I'd also agree that it is a helpful coffee shop conversation starter! In my case, through the Spirit's work as I read the bible I was able to see the truth there, rather than being left scratching my head as I was after dipping into Koran, Book of Mormon, L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagavad Gita, Confucianism, and so forth.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Well as with all apologetics we have to ask, Is this a sound argument, or a better argument than others? Is this a good way of reasoning apologetically?
The fact that (all) unbelievers don't (immediately) convert to Christianity on hearing the argument, does not mean that we should stop using the argument or stop doing apologetics, any more than because people do not respond to excellent preaching or evangelism we should stop doing that.
Apologetical arguments and points should be mixed in with preaching and evangelism as Van Til and others have said. Some apologetical arguments are better than others, just as some preaching and evangelism is better than others.
The Holy Spirit can use poor argumentation as He can also use poor preaching and evangelism, but the Christian should always aim for what is best.
The Apostle Paul reasoned with the Jews. We should not give the impression that Christianity is not a rational faith by abandoning/ignoring apologetics, as some do.
Eric P
I wouldn't call it only "experiential" but also "objective" in that you can point others to passages of Scripture which prove your point. Thus you are reasoning from the Scriptures like the Apostle Paul.
And your reasoning by such a line of argumentation can be used by the Spirit, since you have yourself as an example of one that was persuaded by such argumentation. Such arguments can always be improved in their logic, presentation, etc.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Eric,
I'm curious to know how far into your faith journey toward the Christian faith you started appreciating scripture. I've always found among atheists and those of other religions, there is a reluctance to get into any discussion about the bible, except to denounce it. It seems there are much more basic obstacles that need to be cleared before a non believer is willing to consider the Word.
cheers.
EricP
Puritan Board Freshman
It was probably about 10 years (I'm 52); I was saved at 40, spent a good deal of time after college looking into other faiths/philosophies; I'd read a lot of science fiction as a teen/young man, and found much of the foundational documents of other faiths (fine examples are Book of Mormon and anything by Hubbard) to be essentially bad science fiction--inconsistent and poorly written. And with full compliments to the Gideons, when I had to spend time out of town at motels, I occasionally picked up one of their bibles and started looking through them; later I actually bought a bible, but threw it away in a move. It kept coming back to me, and what I'd read was infinitely more honest, brutally honest, then anything else I'd read--transfixed by Scripture, I guess I was.
I find that most of the atheists I know and have known, myself included, never read more than a little bit of Scripture; and (speaking for myself only) were never really honest with themselves about fundamental questions, like life and death. They/I may talk like they do, but atheistic "oblivion" is a poorly thought out concept, as is the futile end of a non-creation based reductio ad absurdem argument.
I find that most of the atheists I know and have known, myself included, never read more than a little bit of Scripture; and (speaking for myself only) were never really honest with themselves about fundamental questions, like life and death. They/I may talk like they do, but atheistic "oblivion" is a poorly thought out concept, as is the futile end of a non-creation based reductio ad absurdem argument.
Der Pilger
Puritan Board Freshman
This is the main reason why I reject apologetics as an evangelistic, or even pre-evangelistic, pursuit: It is not the way to faith. Instead it is a defense of the faith. As such its place is in defending the church and her doctrine against attacks from the world. Evangelism, however, is not a defense but a proclamation and exhortation. Even better, it involves commands: Believe and repent. It can and does employ reasoning, but that is not its primary purpose, as I see it.
I suppose that what it comes down to is that apologetics has benefit for the church, whereas evangelism is directed to those outside the church. I appreciate Calvin's view on Scripture, which seems to follow a similar distinction:
"Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit." (Institutes, I.7.5)
For Calvin, Scripture has its own evidence and thus does not need external evidence to support it. On this he was completely correct, in my opinion, because as soon as you appeal to another authority to establish the truth of something, that thing to which you appealed becomes the higher authority; otherwise you would never have appealed to it. There is no authority higher than God to which we may appeal to establish the truth and inspiration of Scripture.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that certain evidences could be helpful in vindicating the truth against attacks from unbelievers and in assuring the pious:
"There are other reasons, neither few nor feeble, by which the dignity and majesty of the Scriptures may be not only proved to the pious, but also completely vindicated against the cavils of slanderers."
He immediately adds the following caveat, though:
"These, however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith. Justly, therefore, does Augustine remind us, that every man who would have any understanding in such high matters must previously possess piety and mental peace." (Institutes, I.8.13)
The honesty of the Bible about who we are is unmistakably a proof, among many others. In Acts 1.3, it tells us that the Saviour presented Himself alive by "many" infallible proofs, and I think that similarly, the Scripture demonstrates itself clearly to be the Word of God likewise by many infallible proofs. The truth about ourselves is one clear evidence of the divine origin of the Scriptures.
I do recommend a book. Likely, you can find it online. It is the Puritan John Owen's book "OF THE DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY,
SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES," found in Volume 16 of his works. In that wonderful book, Owen proves that there is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures that is known even to the unconverted. Think of it: Scripture tells us in John 3.19 that the unconverted will not come to the light, because their deeds are evil. Now: unless they could perceive the light, they would not know to avoid it. No: they would walk in its presence, oblivious to its influences. But no: men see the light, and then, turn back and shut their eyes. This proves that the unconverted do indeed perceive the light of the Scriptures, that that light is self-evidencing, and it is known even to the unconverted.
This tells us something about the spiritual blindness of the unregenerate, too. If they were totally blind, they would be utterly incapable of seeing the light of the Scriptures at all. They would be oblivious to the light.
However, this is not the case. The facts are, the unregenerate avoid the light, they hate the light. They are blind, because they wilfully shut their eyes. The seat of man's enmity against the Gospel is in the will. This is why Owen also argues in his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit that regeneration is first and foremost a work upon the will of man. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." When Christ works in the heart, the will is softened and won. Man now opens His eyes to the glory and goodness of the Scripture. He willingly now comes to the light, manifesting the work of regeneration in his soul, and willingly renounces himself to follow Christ.
However, before this good work of God, man wilfully shuts His eyes to the light, because he wants to live for himself, and for the lusts of the flesh. Self is on the throne.
But when the will is changed, then, as the Dutch say, there is "tuiging en overbuiging" - conviction of sin, and a bowing down. The man now bows down, and justifies God. He glorifies now the truth of the Scripture, and acknowledges the truth of what it is saying about his own wickedness, and his need for the Divine Redeemer of the Scriptures.
Before this good work of God, however, the man sees the light, and sees that it is going to require something of him. And he doesn't like that requirement - self-renunciation.
Yes, unconverted men know that the Scriptures are divine, because the Scriptures tell them the truth about themselves, and they don't like it.
We believe the Bible is the word of God because that is what God has revealed in His Word. It is accepted as an axiom upon which other issues may be discussed.
Perhaps even more importantly, the non-believer begins to see it is God's word as is it is illuminated via the Holy Spirit. I've known others, like Eric, who kept being drawn back to the scriptures. In one case, a friend read straight through the Bible and as he was reading, became convinced it was God's Word and came to saving faith. Praise God that he works so powerfully through the Bible!
Perhaps even more importantly, the non-believer begins to see it is God's word as is it is illuminated via the Holy Spirit. I've known others, like Eric, who kept being drawn back to the scriptures. In one case, a friend read straight through the Bible and as he was reading, became convinced it was God's Word and came to saving faith. Praise God that he works so powerfully through the Bible!
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
What about the Apostle Paul reasoning with the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. They weren't believers. Why would he reason with them, if the Spirit only blesses proclamation and not also sound arguments? It is of benefit to those outside the Church to see their specious excuses soundly knocked down - for the children of Adam to have the fig leaves that they are hiding behind graciously removed and their spiritual nudity exposed - and have the Gospel presented to them.
This is the case whether their fig leaf of choice is Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Romanism, Agnosticism, Atheism or whatever.
No doubt we are to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us -- if anything, we reformed folks are likely to take the most intellectual route available to us; however, when it comes to "proofs" for God's word, for His existence and so forth, these things are axiomatic and will only become reasonable when we stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness by God's redeeming power.
Der Pilger
Puritan Board Freshman
Excellent post, and right on the money. Understanding is not the sum of the problem, nor is the intellect. These are corrupted by sin, to be sure, but there is still some level of understanding. It's not as if man is completely in a fog and if he could just understand, then he would convert and surrender to God. Even with all the understanding in the world, he would still be at fierce war with God.
---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------
It was never said that the Spirit blesses only proclamation and not sound arguments. In the elect, the Spirit gives the inner assurance that the things being preached are from God and not from man (1 Thess. 2:13). Once the message is clearly seen as originating from God and thus having divine authority, the individual finds it reasonable. The reasoning alone, however, will not accomplish anything.
I should also point out that the Bible says that Paul reasoned from the Scriptures. The Scriptures were his starting point, and the reasoning was based on them. He didn't begin with reason and then work his way to Scripture; rather he began with Scripture and reasoned from it.
I'm not so sure about that--unless the Spirit is working in them, humbling them, enlightening them, etc. The message does not profit anyone unless it is mixed with faith (Hebrews 4:2). Case in point: Recently I was sharing the gospel with a young man--or attempting to. He was nice, and our conversation was peaceful and respectful, but his part of the talk showed an interesting pattern. He drilled me with question after question. Every time I gave an answer to one, he quickly shifted gears to another. He was never satisfied. Finally he ended up asking me a question that I admitted I was uncertain about, and guess what he did. He accepted Christ there on the spot? Not at all. He considered that the end of the discussion and was ready to leave. No more questions after that.
That is the epitome of how the natural man uses his reasoning against God. No matter how sound of an argument you provide to knock down his excuses, he will simply erect another barrier and launch another attack unless the Holy Spirit subdues that rebellion by giving him a new nature. This hostility toward God is evidenced throughout Scripture. Even though the ancient Israelites, for example, saw plenty of reason and proof to follow the one true God, they turned away and committed idolatry, tempted God, provoked him, complained, wanted to return to Egypt, etc.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Here's a good summary:
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.
WCF, Chapter 1, paragraph 5.
In Christ,
KC
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.
WCF, Chapter 1, paragraph 5.
In Christ,
KC
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Evangelism (Proclamation) won't work unless the Spirit blesses it. But you would agree we should still do evangelism.
Apologetics (Reasoning) won't work unless the Spirit blesses it. But you seem to be saying we shouldn't do apologetics, because the Spirit sometimes doesn't bless it.
I agree that apologetics should be Van Tillian rather than crudely evidential.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I’d like to offer a defense of apologetics as a means of (pre)evangelism. When I lived in east Asia, I ran a discussion group with some atheists. Much of it was them taking pot shots at Christianity, but on a number of occasions, I engaged in good dialogue which helped cleared some of their gross misconceptions and led them to an appreciation for certain Christian propositions. Did they convert on the spot? No, not in the time I was there. But if they ever do end up trusting Christ, I am fully confident that God used those few conversations as a means of grace. It only takes one convert to cite apologetics as a helpful too in his conversion for it to be a valid means.
Everything that God puts in the way of his elect is a means of drawing them to him. In his sovereignty, he can choose for that process to be gradual and employ a number of elements that slowly chop away at the hardened heart.
Apologetics is not a denial of the necessity of the inward witness of the Spirit of the truth of God’s special revelation. It is not a denial of effectual calling. The question is whether Christianity has some rational basis that can be discussed so as to present it as a reasonable faith. As William Carey firmly established to his hyper-calvinistic opposers, God uses means in the evangelization of the heathen
Everything that God puts in the way of his elect is a means of drawing them to him. In his sovereignty, he can choose for that process to be gradual and employ a number of elements that slowly chop away at the hardened heart.
Apologetics is not a denial of the necessity of the inward witness of the Spirit of the truth of God’s special revelation. It is not a denial of effectual calling. The question is whether Christianity has some rational basis that can be discussed so as to present it as a reasonable faith. As William Carey firmly established to his hyper-calvinistic opposers, God uses means in the evangelization of the heathen
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked