Why the Bible?

[sotzo]

Want to get a flavor for how PBers would address the following impromptu question from an unbeliever...assume this is not a militant atheist nor a religious person with whom you are talking....he/she is an honest questioner...you're on a plane and the ice was just broken from the passenger next to you who noticed you reading your Bible:

"Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine and, assuming I can trust it, why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?"

 

[JohnGill]

Want to get a flavor for how PBers would address the following impromptu question from an unbeliever...assume this is not a militant atheist nor a religious person with whom you are talking....he/she is an honest questioner...you're on a plane and the ice was just broken from the passenger next to you who noticed you reading your Bible:

"Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine and, assuming I can trust it, why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?"

It's a two part question. I would break it down as follows:

1) Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine?

2) Why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?

With regards to the first question, I would answer by the impossibility of the contrary. What happens if we say the Bible is not true? Can we make sense of reality? VanTil Presup and TAG. Then as he brought up other religious books or leaders I would do an internal critique demonstrating their internal contradictions. And then demonstrate that only Christianity meets the preconditions of intelligibility. I wouldn't explain it to him using those words though.

To the second question, I would ask him what he knows about the various interpretations and go through them with him. I would also recommend some literature that he could read to do further research.

 

[sotzo]

Chris:

On question #1, how would you explain that if the Bible is not true, then reality is nonsensical? Would you rely on the Bible itself to make this point?

Also regarding qtn #1, how would you go about showing that only Christianity meets the preconditions of intelligibility?

 

[Pergamum]

I usually refer the question back to the asker. I trust the Bible because it is a faithful testimony of Jesus - what do you think about Jesus? If they say that Jesus was a good man, etc, I ask them how they know, and usually they themselves testify to some amount of trustworthiness in the Bible.

Or, I ask them how they know Julias Ceasar or Nero existed. They reply due to historical records. And then I show that there are so many more records which testify of Jesus.

Then I usually explain to people that the NT came to us in Greek and that the differences in translation are minor. If that is what you mean by interpretation.

If by interpretation you mean, "There is one Bible but so many people believe so many things," I usually refer the person to the basics of Protestantism and show that there are some basic doctrines that are agreed upon by all Christians. There really are not huge differences between us.

 

[JohnGill]

Chris:

1 On question #1, how would you explain that if the Bible is not true, then reality is nonsensical? 2 Would you rely on the Bible itself to make this point?

3 Also regarding qtn #1, how would you go about showing that only Christianity meets the preconditions of intelligibility?

1) I would ask him to explain his view of reality. Once he has explained to me his worldview system I would show that it leads to a logical absurdity due to its internal contradictions.

2) Yes, the Bible is self-attesting.

3) Because without presupposing the truth of Christianity you cannot make sense out of reality. No matter what other worldview system he picks, it fails to bring unity between the many and the one. Either it doesn't give an account of abstract universals or it fails to deal with the reality of particulars. Only Christianity can do this. All abstracts exist within God and all particulars depend upon God for their existence. For this we go back to scripture.

 

[Grymir]

I also would break it down into 2 questions -

1. How do I know the bible is different from other so-called 'holy books', Manuscript evidence, Archaeological evidence, Predictive prophesy, and Science. I also say that this can validate that it come from outside our space-time continuum. It may sound strange, but it throws a curve ball at them, and makes them wonder, and usually start to ask questions.

2. As for any 'particular' interpretation, I usually tell them they can read it for themselves and discover the truth, and not to rely on others.

And then just take it from there. Some people are antagonistic, apathetic, or just don't know or care. And sometimes you'll be surprised that some people do care, and will read.

 

[larryjf]

"Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine and, assuming I can trust it, why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?"

For Question #1 - Since there is no way that one can trust the Bible without the Holy Spirit, this is a question that can't be argued successfully. Even if you made all the sense in the world and spoke of the manuscript evidence,etc. they can't trust in it without the Holy Spirit.
The answer to Q #1 would be something along the lines of, "I trust the Bible because God bears witness to me that it's His Word."

For Question #2 - the analogy of faith - the Bible interprets itself...one must look at the whole of Scripture when interpreting.

 

[Pergamum]

"Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine and, assuming I can trust it, why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?"

For Question #1 - Since there is no way that one can trust the Bible without the Holy Spirit, this is a question that can't be argued successfully. Even if you made all the sense in the world and spoke of the manuscript evidence,etc. they can't trust in it without the Holy Spirit.
The answer to Q #1 would be something along the lines of, "I trust the Bible because God bears witness to me that it's His Word."

For Question #2 - the analogy of faith - the Bible interprets itself...one must look at the whole of Scripture when interpreting.

Sorry brother, but I find these responses to be extremely unsatisfying.

It is more circular than need be and gives no reasons to believe other than "The Holy Spirit testifies to me..." which means, "I think so..." or "Because I say so.."to the unsaved.

What if the Spirit of God testified to me that the Koran was the Word of God?


The reason for Q1 that you give is basically, "You cannot understand anything because you don't have the Holy Spirit."

This is true to a degree, but is not the whole truth. God illuminates people in the process of hearing of the historical reliability of the Bible and manuscript evidence. Even giving someone a list of fulfilled prophecy, which I like to do, is to give evidences and proofs of the Bible's reliability. The Holy Spirit does not often illuminate people with no preparatory work; and evidences and testimony to internal consistency, manuscript evidence and fulfilled prophecies are ways in which the Holy Spirit tills the soil before he choose to regenerate.

There is nothing wrong with a few bits of evidentialist apologetics.


Your anser to Q3, if you use the term "analogy of faith" would just confuse people (if you used the phrase "analogy of faith.") though if you used laymen's terms than this would seem okay.

 

[larryjf]

God illuminates people in the process of hearing of the historical reliability of the Bible and manuscript evidence. Even giving someone a list of fulfilled prophecy, which I like to do, is to give evidences and proofs of the Bible's reliability. The Holy Spirit does not often illuminate people with no preparatory work; and evidences and testimony to internal consistency, manuscript evidence and fulfilled prophecies are ways in which the Holy Spirit tills the soil before he choose to regenerate.

I disagree only because i see the biblical pattern to be different from what you propose here. We can glean much from how Christ interacted with the Sadduccees. They did not believe in the whole of Scripture, but only in the books of Moses. Yet, Christ never tried to convince them that those Scriptures were in fact the Word of God.

It's my understanding that God works through the preaching of His Word. So instead of defending His Word to unbelievers we ought to preach it as the Word of God.

There is nothing wrong with a few bits of evidentialist apologetics.

There's nothing wrong with it, that's true. But it can't do any good. God doesn't regenerate people through manuscript evidence, but through the preaching of the Gospel.

Your anser to Q3, if you use the term "analogy of faith" would just confuse people (if you used the phrase "analogy of faith.") though if you used laymen's terms than this would seem okay.

Agreed. I worded it that way here because i figured most would know what i was referring to. I would never use that terminology to those who would not understand it.

 

[Pergamum]

What is the preaching of the Word, and how does that differ from explaining the word or witnessing to them about the Word?

If you had a friend approach you at work and they ask you about Scripture, would you then amp up the volume of your voice and find something that looked like a pulpit to stand behind so that your "explaining" or "witnessing" can then turn into "preaching" and only then become effectual?

Under some definitions of preaching I rarely "preach" but do plenty of teaching, explaining, witnessing, and even storying the Gospel and etc, and the Lord appears to use this greatly, even if done privately, sitting, in informal settings, etc. In fact, the most fruitful encounters are often the most informal.


It seems to me that our emphasis is on a clear "presentation" of the Gospel and is not an emphasis on a certain class of actions that we do when we present this Gospel. The key is understandability, not a certain sub-set of actions that qualifies our manner of presentation as "preaching."

And presenting the Gospel is, in part, removing obstacles in understanding this Gospel.

 

[larryjf]

What is the preaching of the Word, and how does that differ from explaining the word or witnessing to them about the Word?

Preaching the Word is speaking forth God's Word as God's Word. Preaching the Word does involve explaining the Word, but not setting forth manuscript evidence.

If you had a friend approach you at work and they ask you about Scripture, would you then amp up the volume of your voice and find something that looked like a pulpit to stand behind so that your "explaining" or "witnessing" can then turn into "preaching" and only then become effectual?

I would tell them that it's the Word of God, and that He tells us of His salvation in this Word, then preach the Gospel to them from that Word. I don't think that we have to "amp up the volume" of our voice to preach the Gospel. I put my trust in the fact that God's Word itself is powerful and used by God to change the hearts of the unconverted elect.

Under some definitions of preaching I rarely "preach" but do plenty of teaching, explaining, witnessing, and even storying the Gospel and etc, and the Lord appears to use this greatly, even if done privately, sitting, in informal settings, etc. In fact, the most fruitful encounters are often the most informal.

I don't think that i said the Gospel can't be preached in informal settings.

It seems to me that our emphasis is on a clear "presentation" of the Gospel and is not an emphasis on a certain class of actions that we do when we present this Gospel. The key is understandability, not a certain sub-set of actions that qualifies our manner of presentation as "preaching."

Your distinction between preaching and presenting the Gospel is unnecessary. I would use the terms interchangeably. Clearly presenting the Gospel does not include delving into manuscript evidence, textual criticism, etc...at least not in the biblical model.

And presenting the Gospel is, in part, removing obstacles in understanding this Gospel.

Agreed. But manuscript evidence is not an obstacle in understanding the Gospel...the obstacle in understanding the Gospel is our heart of stone.

 

[sotzo]

Thanks to all...this thread is helpful.

What I'm gleaning from the Perg / Larry exchange is that God's word, including the message of the Gospel itself, is not God's word because it is proved to be so. It is God's word de facto...but it is not acknowledged as God's word de facto until regenereration (Larry's point). But, there is a very real place for showing the unbeliver how God's word displays its de facto nature...these are not "proofs" in the sense of being the ground of the Bible's nature as God's word, but they certainly can be proofs in the sense of demonstrating how this nature is apparent in what it says (Perg's point).

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, this topic also seems to relate to the issue of providing "Proofs" for God. Truly none of us need proof of God because all people know that there is a God and they are not ignorant of that truth, but they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Yet, these proofs do prove helpful in overcoming spiritual strongholds of thought whereby every excuse is stripped away and the person is faced with the fact that they cannot plead ignorant.


This might boil down to a presuppositionalist versus evidentialist issue, but let's not start throwing around heavily philosophical terms.

Presups sometimes throw out providing any empirical evidences and go straight to the philosophical principles, but your average person on the street distrusts philosophical categories and they respond better to evidentialist approaches (perhaps later they can be shown that presuppositionalism reduces all other worldviews into absurdity, but this does not seem to suceed for the average Joe at first).

I am all for providing fulfilled prophesy, archeological evidences, and the classic "proofs" of God and the Bible to the average person. To say that the we know that the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit tells me so is not a satisying answer to the average Joe at first. Later he will affirm that it is true, but will laugh at you at first.

 

[Pergamum]

One last note: We are out to win people not arguments, and we are allowed to use substandard tools (evidentialism as opposed to presuppositionalism if you like) if our intended recipient is more open to these "proofs" of God instead of diving into "worldview" and other more heavily philosophical subjects.

These are all tools, use the one that fits.


In fact, the best apologetic is not even intellectual, but is the apologetic of love and of a changed life and love towards the brethren lived out before the watching world.

 

[JohnGill]

Springboarding

Yes, this topic also seems to relate to the issue of providing "Proofs" for God. Truly none of us need proof of God because all people know that there is a God and they are not ignorant of that truth, but they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. Yet, these proofs do prove helpful in overcoming spiritual strongholds of thought whereby every excuse is stripped away and the person is faced with the fact that they cannot plead ignorant.


This might boil down to a presuppositionalist versus evidentialist issue, but let's not start throwing around heavily philosophical terms.

Presups sometimes throw out providing any empirical evidences and go straight to the philosophical principles, but your average person on the street distrusts philosophical categories and they respond better to evidentialist approaches (perhaps later they can be shown that presuppositionalism reduces all other worldviews into absurdity, but this does not seem to suceed for the average Joe at first).

I am all for providing fulfilled prophesy, archeological evidences, and the classic "proofs" of God and the Bible to the average person. To say that the we know that the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit tells me so is not a satisying answer to the average Joe at first. Later he will affirm that it is true, but will laugh at you at first.

I agree.

But you forgot to mention historical writings proving Jesus such as Tacitus and Josephus. And then there is the tsunami of evidence showing that the text of the apostles and OT prophets exists today. The proof that ice core dating is fraudulent (come to Alaska), radiometric dating has flawed assumptions, et al.

(Of course I mention these because they are some of my all-time favourites!)

Evidences are great for 'embarrassing' the unbeliever when he presents his 'ignorant conjecture' as if it were fact. After that, we have to look at his worldview and where it leads. The trick is taking philosophical language and make it 'simplistic' for the average guy. For me the best way to do this is to explain it to the 6th graders at my church. Or, and I'm not making a comparison, explain it to the pastor's wife. I mention her because she has NO philosophical 'savvy'. If she understands what I'm saying, then Joe Blow will be able to understand me. You bring up, or at least have reminded me, of a valuable point. Presuppers must always remember to keep it simple. I mention this because that is sometimes my problem when dealing with unbelievers. I should also point out that when dealing with the lost, their starting point may have to do with an 'evidence'.

So Pergamum, thank you bringing this up and reminding me of it!

 

[larryjf]

Pergamum,

I certainly understand what you are saying...but....

God has given us tools, and they are divinely powerful and they do tear down the enemy's gates.

There is nothing better than the preaching of the Gospel to change people's hearts.

I find that the evidences are better suited to folks that are already Christian, to establish them in their faith. I don't think they ever have converted a sinners heart.

Even the apologetic of our life is not enough. Christ Himself joined a holy life with the preaching of the Gospel...certainly we can't merely show our life as an apologetic if Christ didn't.

I'm also not interested in "satisfying" the curiosities of unbelievers.I will simply preach it to them, and God willing His Word will be effective.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergamum,

I certainly understand what you are saying...but....

God has given us tools, and they are divinely powerful and they do tear down the enemy's gates.

There is nothing better than the preaching of the Gospel to change people's hearts.

I find that the evidences are better suited to folks that are already Christian, to establish them in their faith. I don't think they ever have converted a sinners heart.

Even the apologetic of our life is not enough. Christ Himself joined a holy life with the preaching of the Gospel...certainly we can't merely show our life as an apologetic if Christ didn't.

I'm also not interested in "satisfying" the curiosities of unbelievers.I will simply preach it to them, and God willing His Word will be effective.

This need not be an either-or issue. There are a variety of tools and explaining the Gospel clearly (preaching as you say) is essential.

I, too, believe that the Bible is powerful and tears down the strongholds of the enemy. This Gospel must, however, be communicated - and thus we must remove all obstacles to that understanding, which may be geographic (jungle tribes), linguistic (foreign language acquisition) or obstacles of unbelief or understanding (apologetical approaches)....

I am not saying that you are like this, but I have know doctronairre folks who have expressed sentiments like yours, and I have never seen them do much but alientate people.

These sort of people get straight to the point, say that the unbelievers' problem is not more evidence but a sin issue and then call the person to repentance. Then, when the curious hearer is alienated and takes the dogmatic preacher for a religious nutjob, the preacher says, "See the Word of God will offend the unbeleiver...the Gospel hardens them..."


By preaching, I hope that you are not discounting the thousand informal and casual ways that even laymen go about loving their circle of contacts and gently showing them the love of Christ.

The apologetic of life is VITAL, though never designed to be alone. Folks who have never read the Bible will read you everyday.

God has given us many more tools than Van Tilllian presuppositionalism. Yes, we "preach" the Gospel, but we prepare the person to hear the Gospel and often our "preaching" is fairly low-key, informal, casual and often not even directly quoting Scripture at all, but gently explaining in simple terms who our God is and why Jesus had to come.

Part of that preaching is to deal with the questions that the unbeleiver has, and this means taking their questions seriously, and these questions are often better answered for the layman in evidentialist fashion (which is why many "Seekers" will read Josh McDowell but only already-Christians usually read Van Til).

 

[CharlieJ]

Pergamum,

I think you might like how John Frame describes Christian worldview in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. He says that although Christianity, like all worldviews, is circular, it is a broad circle.

Although ultimately it is: Holy Spirit --> Faith --> Holy Spirit

You can show forth more internal consistency by broadening the circle:

Holy Spirit --> Manuscript Evidences --> Historical Testimony --> Life Experiences --> Faith --> Holy Spirit

Of course, this is heavily paraphrased, but it shows how even in "presupposition-land", there is legitimate room for all those tools.

 

[larryjf]

I am not saying that you are like this, but I have know doctronairre folks who have expressed sentiments like yours, and I have never seen them do much but alientate people.

These sort of people get straight to the point, say that the unbelievers' problem is not more evidence but a sin issue and then call the person to repentance. Then, when the curious hearer is alienated and takes the dogmatic preacher for a religious nutjob, the preacher says, "See the Word of God will offend the unbeleiver...the Gospel hardens them..."

I'm not qualified to discuss how preaching the Gospel alienates folks versus how apologetics alienate folks. I would presume that both methods could alienate the unregenerate. I think it's wrong for the individual Christian to be offensive, but i do know that the Gospel will be offensive to some...yet that would not stop me from loving people with the Gospel.

Personally i have seen many people drawn to Christ through the direct preaching of the Word, and none drawn to Him through manuscript evidence.

I, too, believe that the Bible is powerful and tears down the strongholds of the enemy. This Gospel must, however, be communicated - and thus we must remove all obstacles to that understanding, which may be geographic (jungle tribes), linguistic (foreign language acquisition) or obstacles of unbelief or understanding (apologetical approaches)....

How did Christ handle obstacles of unbelief?...
Mat 13:58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.
He preached them the Gospel through parables and refused to show them miraculous evidence because of their unbelief. That's one of the reasons i think evidence is better directed towards believers to strengthen faith, it doesn't create faith.

By preaching, I hope that you are not discounting the thousand informal and casual ways that even laymen go about loving their circle of contacts and gently showing them the love of Christ.

By preaching the Gospel i mean speaking forth the Gospel message.

God has given us many more tools than Van Tilllian presuppositionalism. Yes, we "preach" the Gospel, but we prepare the person to hear the Gospel and our "preaching" is fairly low-key, informal, casual and often not even directly quoting Scripture at all, but gently explaining in simple terms who our God is and why Jesus had to come.

Nothing wrong with low-key preaching, but i'm not sure exactly what you mean by "preparing" a person.
I was under the impression that God prepared our hearts to receive the Gospel.

 

[larryjf]

Pergamum,

I think you might like how John Frame describes Christian worldview in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. He says that although Christianity, like all worldviews, is circular, it is a broad circle.

Although ultimately it is: Holy Spirit --> Faith --> Holy Spirit

You can show forth more internal consistency by broadening the circle:

Holy Spirit --> Manuscript Evidences --> Historical Testimony --> Life Experiences --> Faith --> Holy Spirit

Of course, this is heavily paraphrased, but it shows how even in "presupposition-land", there is legitimate room for all those tools.

I would actually more agree with that as it has "evidences" being directed towards the regenerate.

 

[Pergamum]

God prepares people through his people. God prepares people through information. God also prepares people sometimes slowly, one question answered at a time...

When I was 18, I was a scoffer and seeing the manuscript evidences removed one more obstacle of unbelief for me. It did not bring me to belief but it removed obstacles of unbelief. I was helped a great deal by evidentialist approaches such as Josh McDowell and archaeology and historical recors of Josephus and Tacitus.


Let's use all the tools, and bringin out manuscript evidences is legitimate.

 

[cornopean]

Want to get a flavor for how PBers would address the following impromptu question from an unbeliever...assume this is not a militant atheist nor a religious person with whom you are talking....he/she is an honest questioner...you're on a plane and the ice was just broken from the passenger next to you who noticed you reading your Bible:

"Why should I trust the Bible over all other religious books / teachers claiming to be divine and, assuming I can trust it, why should I trust any particular interpretation of it?"

I would first attempt to find some common ground. something we both could agree on and then work from there. For example, is there a God? could we agree to accept the gospels as basically reliable history? Did Jesus exist? Did he claim to be God? Did He really rise from the dead? How can we account for what happened after the resurrection?

I would have to first discover where we were starting from and then I would just chug along with the classical apologetic arguments.

 

[Pergamum]

Paul found common ground.

 

[JohnGill]

Paul found common ground.

If you're referring to Acts 17, he did not find common ground in the evidentialist sense.