# Self-Attestation of Scripture or Circular reasoning?



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2004)

am firmly convinced on the Protestant and Biblical doctrine of Sola 
Scriptura; however, I am having trouble with Bahnsen's analysis of Van 
Til's view on the Bible. Bahnsen raises the question this way (and 
procedes to answer it, although I am having difficulty following him on 
this one):

[i:32ed19da4d]"For how did we know that God's revelation found there is true" For 
us who did not see the miracles or speak to the Savior, what is the 
evidence that warrants believing the claims made by the Bible about the 
Savior (Bahnsen, CVT: Readings and Analysis, 198)?[/i:32ed19da4d]

I agree with what will be CVT's (Bahnsen) answer, but how do we justify 
it in light of the charge of 'circular reasoning?' Now, I have 
answered this charge with respect to God's existence with a 'rough' form of 
the Transcendental Argument. Would a similar approach be necessary for 
defending Sola Scriptura? I am on the edge of figuring this one out, but 
any help would be nice. I think what Bahnsen is getting at is 
something similar to the "impossibility of the contrary.' For he goes on,

[i:32ed19da4d]Who is in an authoritative position to say? The answer is that only 
God could tell us reliably and authoritatively would qualities mark out 
His word as really His...At some point, the message claiming to be from 
God would have to be its own authority, and there is no reason, then, 
why that should not be at the first point. Thus, only God is adequate 
to bear witness to himself or to authorize His words (emphasis his, 
199).[/i:32ed19da4d]


----------



## crhoades (Aug 5, 2004)

I think the second part answered it for you. I'm sure that it could use some "fleshing out'.

For some more resources on this...

Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith Vol. I, The Doctrine of Scripture
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=339&1=345&3=8826

Bahnsen, Autographs, Amanuenses and Restricted Inspiration (article)
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt006.htm

Bahnsen, Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt034.htm

Bahnsen, The Inerrancy of the Autographa
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm

Bahnsen, The Concept and Importance of Canonicity
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt093.htm


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 5, 2004)

All argumentation is circular. Do you mean that it is viciously circular? Honestly the only way we can come to stop resisting God's word is by regeneration, though there are plenty of proofs that accompany it.


----------



## DTK (Sep 24, 2004)

I think the second part you quoted from Bahnsen is relevant, and scriptural. Any time there is an appeal to an ultimate authority, it is by nature of the case circular. 

Heb 6:13 underscores this reality: "For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself..."

As does 1 John 5:9: "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater..."

It is the age old question concerning the self-attesting nature of Scripture. If Scripture is indeed the breathed-out word of the true and living God, then what greater, higher, more reliable authority can be appealed to than God Himself?

In my experience with Roman Catholics, they deny the self-attesting authority of Holy Scripture, in order to establish the authority of the Roman communion. But, as in so many cases, here they have departed from the expressed position of many of the Early Church Fathers concerning the self-attesting authority of Holy Scripture. If you're interested in their witness, I'll offer you some quotes to that effect from them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2004)

By all means offer me some quotes (or PM me for that matter). I am glad that you resurrected this thread. I was thinking hard about this matter for the past week (actually, I was more like pulling my hair out).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 24, 2004)

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6381

See this thread too. It's kinda related.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 24, 2004)

[quote:074883fad2="DTK"]
It is the age old question concerning the self-attesting nature of Scripture. If Scripture is indeed the breathed-out word of the true and living God, then what greater, higher, more reliable authority can be appealed to than God Himself? [/quote:074883fad2]
This is a very important statement. I believe it whole-heartedly.

This is what I don't understand: if appeal to final authority is finally circular, then is this not a denial of the above statement, a denial of a direct appeal to God Himself? 

If I know God in person, and appeal to Him, then it is not circular. On the other hand, if by circular argument we mean that we need to make a leap of faith in our reasoning, then it denies direct contact with that final authority; we argue on the basis of an assumption of God rather than the basis of the real God. 

The blanket statement, we all agree, that "all argument is circular" is self-defeating, since it must itself rely, by its own standard, on circular argument to make such an assertion. So we all know that this is not what it means. It must mean that all arguments eventually lead to circularity when traced to their root presuppositions. But belief in God is not a presupposition. It can be used as a presupposition, but is itself not a presupposition. At least belief in God ought not to be just that. A personal relationship with God is much more than that. It doesn't matter what all the intellectuals say about my belief, it is not circular. 

Having said that, it is true that to the unbelievers my arguments for my faith can be seen as circular by them. But it is they who are not playing with a full deck, not me. To their understanding, which is rooted in rebellion, it seems circular; but in fact it is their arguments that turn out to be circular in the end because they deny their predicates, or what we know in our circles as basic presuppositions. So it is their arguments, arguments from a blind faith in a rootless system, that is hanging in mid air without a base. It is their system of reasoning that is endlessly circular, without a solid foundation. The Christian's faith has a solid foundation, and so is not circular. 

If my faith were circular I would not value it as much as I do. If I were to argue for my faith, I would insist that my arguments are not circular.


----------



## DTK (Sep 24, 2004)

Here are a few ancient testimonies to the self-attesting nature of God speaking in Holy Scripture.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Justin Martyr (wrote after 151):[/b:96bf9a86dc] The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak. [i:96bf9a86dc]ANF: Vol. I, Fragments of the lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection[/i:96bf9a86dc], Chapter I.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):[/b:96bf9a86dc] The exercise of faith directly becomes knowledge, reposing on a sure foundation. Knowledge, accordingly, is defined by the sons of the philosophers as a habit, which cannot be overthrown by reason. Is there any other true condition such as this, except piety, of which alone the Word is teacher? I think not. Theophrastus says that sensation is the root of faith. For from it the rudimentary principles extend to the reason that is in us, and the understanding. He who believeth then the divine Scriptures with sure judgment, receives in the voice of God, who bestowed the Scripture, a demonstration that cannot be impugned. Faith, then, is not established by demonstration. "œBlessed therefore those who, not having seen, yet have believed." [i:96bf9a86dc]ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata[/i:96bf9a86dc], Book II, Chapter II.""The Knowledge of God Can Be Attained Only Through Faith.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):[/b:96bf9a86dc] It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves. [i:96bf9a86dc]ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata[/i:96bf9a86dc], Book IV, Chapter 1.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Lactantius (260-330):[/b:96bf9a86dc] For since all error arises either from false religion or from wisdom, in refuting error it is necessary to overthrow both. For inasmuch as it has been handed down to us in the sacred writings that the thoughts of philosophers are foolish, this very thing is to be proved by fact and by arguments, that no one, induced by the honourable name of wisdom, or deceived by the splendour of empty eloquence, may prefer to give credence to human rather than to divine things. Which things, indeed, are related in a concise and simple manner. For it was not befitting that, when God was speaking to man, He should confirm His words by arguments, as though He would not otherwise be regarded with confidence: but, as it was right, He spoke as the mighty Judge of all things, to whom it belongs not to argue, but to pronounce sentence. He Himself, as God, is truth. But we, since we have divine testimony for everything, will assuredly show by how much surer arguments truth may be defended, when even false things are so defended that they are accustomed to appear true. Wherefore there is no reason why we should give so much honour to philosophers as to fear their eloquence. For they might speak well as men of learning; but they could not speak truly, because they had not learned the truth from Him in whose power it was. [i:96bf9a86dc]ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes[/i:96bf9a86dc], Book III, Chapter I. See also FC, Vol. 49, The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter 1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), pp. 165-166.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):[/b:96bf9a86dc] For he is the best student who does not read his thoughts into the book, but lets it reveal its own; who draws from it its sense, and does not import his own into it, nor force upon its words a meaning which he had determined was the right one before he opened its pages. Since then we are to discourse of the things of God, let us assume that God has full knowledge of Himself, and bow with humble reverence to His words. For He Whom we can only know through His own utterances is the fitting witness concerning Himself. [i:96bf9a86dc]NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity[/i:96bf9a86dc], Book I, Â§18.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Nemesius of Emesa (Late 4th Century):[/b:96bf9a86dc] But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul"(tm)s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because inspired of God. William Telfer, ed., [i:96bf9a86dc]The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. IV, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa: On the Nature of Man[/i:96bf9a86dc], Chapter 2 Of the soul (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), p. 292. It is believed that Nemesius of Emesa wrote this work sometime between the years 392-400 AD (p. 206).

[b:96bf9a86dc]Epiphanius (310/320-403)[/b:96bf9a86dc] expressed his belief that "œthe truth is self-authenticating and cannot be overthrown even if wickedness shamelessly opposes the precept of truth;" Frank Williams, trans., [i:96bf9a86dc]The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis[/i:96bf9a86dc], Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), 66. Against Manichaeans, 10,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 230. 

[b:96bf9a86dc]Augustine (354-430)[/b:96bf9a86dc] stated explicitly that "œthe truth is sufficient for its own testimony." [i:96bf9a86dc]NPNF1: Volume VII, Tractates on John[/i:96bf9a86dc], Tractate 7, Â§16, John 1:34-51. Latin text: sufficit sibi ad testimonium suum veritas. [i:96bf9a86dc]In Joannis Evangelium[/i:96bf9a86dc], Tractatus VII, 16, PL 35:1445.

[b:96bf9a86dc]Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):[/b:96bf9a86dc] I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God"(tm)s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth. [i:96bf9a86dc]FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God[/i:96bf9a86dc], Book 5, Â§2 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.

Therefore, when [b:96bf9a86dc]Calvin[/b:96bf9a86dc] affirmed that "œGod alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word," he was but echoing the patristic consensus itself, which recognized and submitted to the witness of God in Holy Scripture. [i:96bf9a86dc]Institutes[/i:96bf9a86dc], I.vii.4 or p. 79.


----------

