A deductive argument for Scripture? Or... Several questions on defending Scripture.

[Afterthought]

I have several questions concerning defending Scripture to be the Word of God. I thought I'd put them all in this one thread. I have parallel questions concerning how to deal with arguing for the existence of God, but I'll put them in another thread. Apologies for asking a few basic questions in here that should be answered by apologetics books (and some that have come up in many threads prior to this one; I ask them here too for completeness).

(1) Is there a deductively sound argument for the Scriptures being the Word of God?

(2) It seems that the WCF works with inductive arguments in its brief defense of the Scriptures being the Word of God. That would mean we could never be certain that Scripture is the Word of God by arguments and evidence alone. But does that really fit with Scripture being self-authenticating and plainly showing itself to be the word of God? I thought the problem wasn't with the arguments but with the unbelieving, rebellious mind? Unless this is a special case of induction where the argument is so inductively strong that it is certain to anyone who thinks about it?

(3) Obviously, only the Holy Spirit can make such arguments convincing to a particular person. And once that person is convinced, there is 100% certainty. How do the people know that the Holy Spirit residing within them is the Spirit of Scripture? Perhaps the answer is something similar to what Turretin said (and could someone try explaining what Turretin was getting at for me?)?

"Although, in the language of the philosophers, the "circle" is a sophistic argument, by which something is proved by itself, [an argument] which is developed in a closed series using the same kind of cause recurring within itself, we cannot be accused of such circular reasoning when we prove the Scripture by the Spirit and then prove the Spirit by the Scripture. For there are two different questions, and two different middle terms or kinds of causes: we prove the Scripture by the Spirit, as efficient cause by which we believe, but we prove the Spirit from the Scripture as from the object and argument on account of which we believe. In the first case the question answered is "why, or in virtue of what, do you believe that the Scripture is of divine quality?" In the second, the question is "how, or on account of what, do you believe that the Spirit within you is the Holy Spirit?" The answer is, on account of the marks of the Holy Spirit that are in Scripture."

(4) But along with the correct answer to 3, how do we argue with the unbeliever concerning this issue, especially considering there are false religions that imitate Christianity with their "holy" books and attempt similar arguments (e.g., I think some defend their books by calling them "the most beautiful books in the world")?

(5) And finally, if an unbeliever were to ask you why you believed the Scriptures were the Word of God, what would you say to (a) a philosophy professor and (b) an average but intelligent person? (a somewhat different question than 4--though related to it--because our answers to such questions don't always turn into long arguments)


For reference, the WCF:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a 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.

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping this thread because I don't want it to get locked and die. However, I don't have time to keep up with this thread atm and wish to spend some more time in my "Chance" thread first when I get the time.

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping this thread with a quote from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, which seems to confirm my suspicion that all arguments for Scripture are inductive, though such that any reasonable person wouldn't doubt them (and it appears Shedd would say the same about other aspects of Christianity), and such that the Holy Spirit removes all possible doubt when a person is converted.

"The assent of faith is therefore different from the assent of intuitive perception. We do not intuitively perceive that Christ rose from the dead, or that the Logos was born of a virgin, any more than we do that Alfred the Great was king of England. Intuitive knowledge is direct perception either by the senses, or by the reason. There is no possibility of doubting a sensuous impression, or a mathematical intuition. Each is self-evident. But for moral and historical truth, there is not the certainty of self-evidence but of prob ability, more or less. Consequently, in history and in morals, there are degrees of certainty, but not in mathematics. In moral and historical truth, there is a sufficient reason for believing the truth or the fact, though not such a reason as renders disbelief impossible. We may therefore doubt or disbelieve in regard to religious truth, because, while it is credible by reason of testimony and other kinds of evidence, it is not self-evident like an axiom or a physical sensation.

Faith is reasonable, in case there are more reasons for believing than for disbelieving. It is not necessary that there should be such evidence as overwhelms all objections and renders them absurd, in order to evince the rationality of faith. The preponderance of evidence justifies the act of faith, and condemns that of unbelief. A criminal is sentenced to death in a court of justice, not by reason of an absolute demonstration that admits of no possibility of the contrary, but by reason of a preponderance of testimony which conceivably might be erroneous."

"For these reasons it is impossible to produce by the historical and moral arguments for the truth of Christianity, such a conviction as is absolutely invincible to the objections of the skeptic, and what are still stronger, the doubts of a worldly and unspiritual mind. The human heart and will has such a part in the act of belief in the gospel, that any opposing bias in it is fatal to absolute mental certainty. Saving faith is far more certain than historical faith. It is a mental certainty that is produced by the Holy Spirit. He originates an immediate consciousness of the truth of the gospel; and wherever there is immediate consciousness, doubt is impossible. Saving faith implies a personal feeling of the truth in the heart; historical faith is destitute of feeling. This makes the former far more certain than the latter, and less assailable by counter arguments. When an inward sense and experience of the truth of the gospel is produced by the Divine Spirit in a human soul, as great a mental certainty exists in this instance as in those of sensuous impressions and axiomatic intuitions. A dying believer who is immediately conscious of the love of God in Christ Jesus, is as certain in regard to this great fact as he is that fire pains the flesh, or that two and two make four. When St. Paul said, 'I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come; nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ Jesus our Lord' (Rom. 8:38, 39), he was as sure of this as he was of his own existence. And this, because of his immediate consciousness of the redeeming love of God."

 

[jwright82]

Lets break this question, or questions, down to analyze it. First off, is there a form of the deductive type argument that can prove all the majesty of scripture? I would say no. For one reason the totality of scripture is far too complex to prove in a deductive sense, or inductive sense for that matter. This is why we take the total worldview that the scriptures presents and test it against how we experience the world. Human life is much too rich to be captured in a single deductive argument.

But you raise excellent questions. There are reasons or evidences to believe that scripture is inspired, which are listed in your quote of the WCF. The difference between proof and persuasion is important in the confession and apologetics. We can and should prove all sorts of things in our lives but that is no guarantee that anyone will except that, see Dostoevsky's wonderful book Notes From the Underground as a good example of this.

So as the confession states there is absolute proof that scripture is inspired but no one will except it unless the Holy Spirit moves our hearts to affection, regeneration of the dead, of Christ and all the blessings that are ours as his people that are revealed to us in scripture. It is only on that basis that people will accept the truth of scripture.

I hope this helps, if it does not or is too confusing criticize me and I will attempt to answer.

 

[Afterthought]

You bring up some good points! My only questions concerning your post are.....

So as the confession states there is absolute proof that scripture is inspired but no one will except it unless the Holy Spirit moves our hearts to affection, regeneration of the dead, of Christ and all the blessings that are ours as his people that are revealed to us in scripture. It is only on that basis that people will accept the truth of scripture.

.....what do you mean by 'absolute proof'? If all we have without the Holy Spirit is evidence to reason inductively about the Scriptures, then it doesn't seem that's very 'absolute' in terms of proof, unless you merely mean--along with Shedd--that the evidence is strong enough to convince any reasonable person (and so Scripture **plainly** shows itself to be the Word of God) and so unconvinced people remain unconvinced because of their hardness.

This is why we take the total worldview that the scriptures presents and test it against how we experience the world. Human life is much too rich to be captured in a single deductive argument.

Could you expand on this idea some more? I don't think anyone is advocating capturing all of human life in one deductive argument, unless that's unavoidable if one tries to prove Scripture with one.

 

[jwright82]

.....what do you mean by 'absolute proof'? If all we have without the Holy Spirit is evidence to reason inductively about the Scriptures, then it doesn't seem that's very 'absolute' in terms of proof, unless you merely mean--along with Shedd--that the evidence is strong enough to convince any reasonable person (and so Scripture **plainly** shows itself to be the Word of God) and so unconvinced people remain unconvinced because of their hardness.

That is exactly what I mean. The "proof" is the same proofs that the confession offers.

Could you expand on this idea some more? I don't think anyone is advocating capturing all of human life in one deductive argument, unless that's unavoidable if one tries to prove Scripture with one.

Sure. The presupositional argument takes the general worldview that scripture gives and in theory is the only worldview can absolutly make sense of the world as we experience it, so this indirectly proves the bible to be the word of God.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

Sorry I hit the wrong button, let me continue. We can absolutly prove the bible by an indirect method rather than a direct method. The unbeleiver's worldview can never make sense out of the world as we experience it without borrowing, rather sneakingly, from the biblical worldview. So when the unbeleiver makes sense out of creation it is not because of their worldview but rather them stealing ideas from our worldview without giving credit to God.

The human life as we experience it is so large that any deductive argument can never capture it all, why? Well a deductive argument is very very limited in its scope. For instance the most famous deductive argument is this:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

You see that this argument only establishes mortality and Socrates' relationship to it. How could we possibly capture all of human experience in such a narrow type of argument? It can't, so the presupositional argument can prove the truthfullness of scripture but not all at once. So we can start with any piece of experience and then show how the biblical worldview is the only worldview that can make sense out of reality. In what way could you capture the majesty of God's revealation in one teeny tiny old deductive argument?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

A simple deductive argument for the necessity of the Scriptures could go something like this:

1) God exists.
2) God spoke to mankind through the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament.
3) Therefore, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament are the Word of God.

What do you think?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Afterthought]

We can absolutly prove the bible by an indirect method rather than a direct method. The unbeleiver's worldview can never make sense out of the world as we experience it without borrowing, rather sneakingly, from the biblical worldview.

While I know you are talking about presuppositional apologetics, I do find it interesting that some can be convinced the Bible is God's Word by recognition of how realistic it is to human experience.

Thanks for the clarification! For now, it seems to me what you have said makes sense.

What do you think?

I'll have to think about that one some more. However, it should be noted that both premises require a lot of arguing (or so it seems to me) in order to be accepted and that the argument you have listed in its current form has some other requirements that are only implicit in it right now (e.g., that the prophets and apostles wrote the Scriptures and that they wrote them infallibly).

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping. After some further thought, that argument does seem fine (once the implicit premises are drawn out), but it also seems a difficult argument to use, unless the other person accepts the first premise (in which case, it's still difficult but not as difficult).