回顧 前兩講我們已經談到了在對真理、知識、倫理道德的認識上，必須建立起一個起始點。我用了這三個詞是因為哲學上有下麵的三種分類：形而上學、倫理學、認識論。形而上學研究什麽是真實的──真實發生的事。倫理學，我們都知道，是關於道德的。認識論就是我們是怎麽知道事情(獲得信息)的？假如你研究人的思想，就一定會麵對這三件事：什麽是真實的？什麽是對的？我們怎麽知道？ 我講的時候，會用比較簡單的表達方式來應用這三種概念。“形而上學”我用“真理”；“ 認識論”我用“知識”，“倫理學”還是叫它“倫理學”。假如沒有一個關於真理的起始點，那麽所有的討論都是徒然。假如一個人認為道德標準隻需要靠他自己的好、惡感覺來定，那麽除非是碰巧，他就永遠不會與一個把甘地(印度的著名領袖)或者把美國憲法當作真理的標準的人有共識。 我們又論到了基督徒關於真理、知識和倫理道德的標準──或起始點──就是聖經。我們也對聖經作了簡介：它由40位作者曆經1500年時間寫成的66卷書，其中貫穿著一個信息，那信息就是：有一位公義、美善的神，他創造了萬物，並且造得全都美好。神造了人，人背叛了神，死就進入了世界。但神並不喜悅人被死亡奴役，因此作了一個應許(立了一個約)，通過女人的那個後裔──就是耶穌──的誕生，要毀滅神子民的仇敵──撒但、罪、死亡。 聖經的主要信息是：有一位神，通過基督的十字架拯救罪人，榮耀他自己的名。正如耶穌所說：“你們查考聖經，以為內中有永生。為我作見證的就是這經”(約5:39)。耶穌說的這句話要麽是真的，即39卷舊約、27卷新約都是關於耶穌的；要麽他就是在說有史以來最自吹自擂的話。我們當然相信耶穌說的是真理。 一、你要看什麽？ 今天早上我們要討論的主題是：我們為什麽相信聖經是神的話？ 假如我說我有一些證據能向你證明聖經是絕對無誤的，你期望看到的是什麽？除了(我麵前的)這杯水之外，我手上是沒有東西的。是都靈上空的幽靈？是約櫃？是古羅馬權貴的手跡？十字架上的一片木頭？到底要我拿出什麽證據來，才能讓你相信聖經是真的？ 即使我真的有這些實物作證據，你怎麽知道它們是真的？ 我可以說，“因為聖經是真理，所以我們應該相信。”事實上，真是這麽回事！這就是我要作的結論。但是，我們既然都是有理智、講理性的人，那麽我們當然就不能被這種自圓其說的聲明說服啦！結論就包含在前提之內。對此，我們當然要來作出解釋。 既然我們如此地講理性，那麽我們怎麽建立起一個起始點呢？為什麽我們以聖經作為衡量一切真理的標準呢？我是否能用考古學、人類學和曆史上的發現來證明、來肯定聖經的絕對無誤呢？這就是我所針對的現代基督教想要證明“聖經是真理”的那種方式──這就需要被糾偏。 二、科學的證明 我可以列舉出考古學對於其關於古代文化的錯誤結論所作出的修改。例如，考古學家一度斷言說，舊約中記載迦南的赫族人從來沒有存在過。他們找證據，為了反對基督教，掘地三尺，突然間找到了證據──赫人原來存在過！噢，那麽聖經可能是真的了？考古學家們隻好認錯。這類的證據比比皆是。 這些就是所謂以證據為基礎的護教學，要來辯論說聖經是真理。眼下，這類的努力多如牛毛；赫人隻是其中的一例而已。很多人終其一生為了要找出考古學家是怎樣來證明聖經的。事實上，所有的科學發現都不過是證實聖經早已教導的。 我並不想以尖刻的口吻說話，無論科學的根據有多驚人，這決不是證明“聖經是真的”正確的方法。正如班森博士指出的：“這種方式隻能說服那些頭腦簡單的人。”原因何在？很簡單，因為你如果是因著科學證據而相信聖經，那麽你的起始點、你的標準就是科學而不是聖經。下麵讓我們來稍加討論。 現在有一群人，自稱為懷疑論者。有趣的是，他們找岔的對象倒並不是宗教，而是科學。他們懷疑、質問科學是怎樣作出結論來的？他們對科學研究的步驟和方式提出質疑。你有沒有發現，科學家們從不需要來證明他們所獲得的知識的起始點。試驗觀察者驕傲地宣稱，他隻相信他能觀察到的東西。說一件事是真的，就必須用科學方式來證明。科學方法一般說來是指可測試性、可測量性、可觀察性以及重複性等等。當然，科學方法並不具有這些特性；它本身是不可測、不可量、不可觀察也不可能重複的。科學方法的本身是哲學性的，其整個原則的起始點是理性的，而不是試驗性的。科學的確很好，科學方法行得通，但科學家知其然卻不知其所以然。科學本身必須依靠被稱為真實的、已經存在的東西才能運作。但基督徒卻能知道其所以然；基督徒能理解自然界的一致性。連愛因斯坦也說過，我們研究科學，根本就沒學到真理，隻不過是將我們所觀察到的很好地加以組織而已。 做研究有三個步驟：假設、理論、事實。 就拿宇宙的起源來說吧。你怎麽可能真正知道五億年前發生的事？這是不可能在顯微鏡下觀察的。你怎麽知道碳14測量法[注2]是準確的？此方法使用了不過一百年的時間；它在許多方麵很準確，但你怎麽知道全球性的大洪水對化石、對碳14測量法所產生的影響？假如神創造世界的時候看上去就像是已經有很多年的樣子了，例如他造人的時候，不是嬰兒而是成人；造樹的時候不是樹苗而是大樹；你砍倒它，就已經能看到年輪呢？你要是取亞當的 DNA，他會是在什麽年紀？這些事，你是根本不可能測的。但我們整個一代人都跪在科學麵前，好像科學就是真理的起始點。我之所以說這些，是因為我們基督徒也應該用一點懷疑的眼光來查驗一下他們所宣告的。 三、曆史 另一個很流行的證明聖經的論據是曆史。比方說，引用羅馬總督的話來證明聖經的真實性。有一次我聽到一個人引了19處非基督徒的古代文獻來證明基督的十字架是真的，雲雲。我在校園布道團事奉期間，與人辯論時最得意的例子就是：十字架在曆史上的真實就像拿破侖在滑鐵盧戰役一樣有證可查。但今天我卻不能完全確定拿破侖到底是否在滑鐵盧打過仗；我隻知道拿破侖有個雙胞胎的兄弟。這裏的要點是，假如我能向你證明聖經是真的，就像證明其它曆史事件是真的一樣。比如說曆史上有位凱撒大帝，有位柏拉圖等等，但我不知道這到底是不是真的。我怎麽知道二、三千年前發生的事？我連一個星期前發生的事還不清楚呢！眼下正在進行美伊戰爭，電視上整天都在播放。但我們在電視上仍然看到各種不同的、相互矛盾的報導。用這類證據作你靈魂永遠去處的依靠是不那麽可靠的。 四、生命的改變 另一種需要糾偏的方法是以聖經使人們身上所發生的變化來影響人相信。一位年輕人向知識分子傳福音，辯論不過他們。他告訴我說：“他們不能否認我的見證。”他們為什麽不能否認你的見證呢？其他人也有他們的見證──伊斯蘭教徒有自己的見證；猶太人有自己的見證；其他各種異端邪說也都有自己的見證。見證是不錯，十字架當然改變人的生命，那是毫無疑問的。我決不是要否認見證；我隻是說這不是一個好的方法。你若想要說服那些老練而善於思考的人，他們不相信你所相信的，他們有自己的見證，看上去比你還幸福呢。 五、聖經預言的實現 聖經舊約中多處詳細地對基督的誕生、生活、受死、複活所作的預言在新約裏都成為事實。最有名的要算是那本《鐵證待判》了。那上麵列出的證據、數據的確驚人，但這對那些根本不信舊約或新約的人，就不是那麽回事了──因為你想要聽眾根據你的論據來相信你所說的。 六、辯論無效 我認為，所有的論據──無論多麽強而有力──都不能說服人相信聖經。所有的科學、考古學、人類學或其它任何方式，隻要是正確地進行調查、研究，都一定會證實聖經是真的。我們可以從早到晚列出這些數據，但卻無法叫任何人相信聖經的確是真的。若有人就是不信，他們對所有的論據都會用他們那把不信的尺子來量一量。這裏我是在對你們基督徒說的。你們若是非基督徒，我也希望你們聽到我們這麵的這一點：“許多不信的人認為自己對生活現實是以理性的態度來對待的，而基督徒則是以非理性的態度。”我卻要辯論說，不信的人是通過他們不信的框框來看待世界；他們是下了決心要不信。那些不相信神跡奇事的人永遠不會相信神跡奇事會發生。因為他們的起始點是：“神跡是不存在的。”他們信奉的是福爾摩斯[注3]的方法，即：“排除一切不可能的之後，所剩下的無論可能性多小，就是你唯一的選擇。” 假如你的認識論的起始點是不允許神跡奇事存在的，那麽即使你看見我行一個神跡，你也會說這裏一定有一個自然的解釋，隻不過你目前還不知道那個解釋是什麽而已。就拿耶穌的例子來說，耶穌所行的神跡是否證實了他的神性？當然是。看到的人受感動嗎？不一定。他行了神跡，上千人跟隨他；他轉過身來講道，結果怎樣？他們都走開了。你們稍微想一想吧，聖經裏的那些人見過的神跡最多了──他們在埃及看到了那麽多神跡，但都因為不信，死在曠野。因此，無論你列出證據也好，顯出神跡也罷，人是不能被說服的。 七、照辯不誤 既然這麽多方法都不靈，而我的題目又是“我為什麽要信聖經？”那麽現在我隻好讓你們回家了。我對今天所講的主題所作的種種努力都可悲地失敗了。但是，正因為我相信在人不可能的事，在神是可能的。下麵我就從三個方麵來辯論聖經的真實。聽上去好像有點矛盾，不是嗎？請您忍耐片刻，容我慢慢道來。 我的第一個論點比較無力，第二個也不怎麽樣；但我的第三個論點將是不可否認的。 論點一：沒有一個任何其它的世界觀可以對我們所知道的這個世界或現實作出解釋。 論點二：聖經的確對這個世界或現實給出可信的解釋。 論點三：我們走著瞧罷！ 論點之一： 我的這個論點剛才基本上已經論證過了。除了聖經之外，沒有任何一個世界觀可以來解釋我們大家所觀察到的這個現實世界。那些相信這個宇宙是永恒的人，不能解釋我們是如何走到今天的，因為無限的時空是不可穿越的。讓我來解釋一下：今天早上你若是從橙縣[注4]來，開車大概一個小時吧；你若是從聖地亞哥來，那就是兩個小時；若是從南美洲來，那麽就要兩天。假如你從無限遠的永恒來，假如你要走的距離是無窮遠，那麽你要多久才能到這裏呢？你永遠也到不了！因此，“宇宙是永恒的”這一論點是不攻自破的──你是永遠無法到達今天的。這無論是在哲學上還是數學上都是不可能的；正如班森博士所說的，自然主義者不得不借用基督教的世界觀才能開始他們的那一套世界觀。 有人說，宇宙是從某個時刻之後才開始的。持這種觀點的人是無法解釋使宇宙開始的那些物質是從哪兒來的，或者說，若沒有外力，為什麽會發生大爆炸？因為這是違反物理定律的。 那些不相信聖經關於創世的記載的人，是不能解釋倫理道德的本質是什麽或者說從何而來的。假如沒有一位從永恒之前就一直存在的神，我們也沒有從他得知錯、對、是、非的話，哪裏來的絕對正確、絕對錯誤？假如不是以聖經而是以人來決定是非，那麽誰是那個人？我記得曾經和別人就這些事辯論過。他們常常提出各種假設──“假如在亞當之前火星上就有人，他們造了亞當”等等、等等許許多多的“假如這樣......”、“假如那樣......”。我回答他們說：“聖經上說上帝創造了人，你看，我們周圍男男女女就有許多人；但你卻情願去相信各種稀奇古怪的假說。”他們反駁說：“你一開口就是聖經，就是上帝，好像上帝可以解釋一切似的。”我說：“正是這樣。聖經就是答案。”這是再簡單不過了。英國著名的學者C.S.Lewis魯易斯以他常有的幽默感和發人深思的方式說過下麵這段話： 假如太陽係是偶然碰撞所產生的，那麽地球這顆行星上的生命也出於偶然，人進化也就當然是出於偶然。果真如此的話，那麽眼下我們的思想也僅僅是偶然──不過是原子運動的偶然副產品而已。並且這一觀點適用於所有人，不管他們是唯物主義者，是天文學家還是任何其他人。但是，假如他們的思想，即唯物主義或天文學理論等等不過是偶然的副產品，我們為什麽要相信它們是真的？我找不出任何理由去相信一個偶然事件居然能夠來正確地解釋所有其它的偶然事件！這就好比說，要讓一杯從不小心打翻了的杯子裏潑出來的牛奶所偶然產生的形狀來解釋這個牛奶杯子是怎樣做成的、為什麽它會被打翻一樣。 我記得當時讀到這類論據時的確印象深刻；這些描述是準確的、有說服力的，但我們仍然不能確定這就可以用來證明聖經是真的。 論點之二：一個具有說服力的世界觀 其實我的第二個論點也已經都闡明了。聖經對創世的記載、對現實世界給出了具有說服力的解釋；而哲學家們、科學家們多少世紀以來都在絞盡腦汁地尋找。聖經告訴我們有一位永遠存在、自有永有的神，他創造了萬事萬物，包括物質的和非物質的東西。哲學家們之所以能清晰地思辨是因為他們是按神的形像被造的；科學之所以會有成果是由於神所創造的是一個統一有序的宇宙。這些都已記載在聖經中。道理很簡單，都是真實的。它能解釋所有的事。然而，人卻仍然大頭朝下，費盡心思要去找其它的、不可靠的解釋。我相信這是真理，但我也承認，人就是堅信可以對觀察到的現實世界找到其它的解釋。到此為止，我已經完成了我的論述，當然我仍然未證明任何東西。我能夠向你證明別人的概念不正確，我能夠聲明我的觀點，但這與我來向你證明“聖經是對的”完全不是一回事。 論點之三：神的話 我們已經談了許多關於科學、曆史等等的事。我知道這不是一篇正常的講道，這是在討論關於知識的理論。我的目的是想要你們中間喜歡思考的人，好好思考一下“我們為什麽信我們所信的？”“什麽是站得住的辯論？”下麵我們就來看一看曆史： 1643~1648年，由121位英國最傑出的清教徒牧師、30位英國議員[注5]在倫敦威敏斯特大教堂裏花了五年半的時間，寫成了一份基督教有史以來最偉大的信仰告白。它的第一章第1節是這樣開始的： 我們的自然理解力、神的創造之工與護理之工如此清楚地顯示了神的美善、智慧和大能，以致於人若說沒有神是毫無藉口的。但單憑這些不足以向人提供得救所必需的、關於神的知識和他的旨意。因此，神出於他的美意，在不同的時候以不同的方式向人啟示他自己，宣告他對他的教會的旨意。後來，神出於他的美意將這一切啟示付諸於聖經，好叫教會在與肉體的敗壞、撒但的邪惡和世界的爭戰中得以確立，並得到安慰。既然神不再以從前的方式向他的子民啟示他自己，聖經就成了絕對必要。 簡言之，一般啟示(神藉被造之物向人啟示自己)隻能叫人無可推諉(羅馬書1章,詩篇19篇)；神救贖的旨意與計劃則必須有進一步的啟示。神以特殊的方式，通過使徒與先知啟示他自己，並將這些啟示付諸於聖經，使他的話更好地被傳遞、保守。 在陳述了聖經的本質之後，這些傑出的教師們是如何來證明他們所作的“聖經是神的話”這一宣告呢？他們的論據是什麽？假如你在四百多年前走進這一百多位出類拔萃的神學家當中，對他們說：“你們證明一個來給我看看，說聖經是真的？”他們會怎麽回答？這是我們下個禮拜要來討論的。 讓我們一起來禱告： 父神啊，我們切切地禱告，求您打開我們的眼睛，好叫我們看見那真理，那叫人無可推諉的真理。賜給我們智慧，讓我們能夠識破那些自作聰明的把戲。幫助我們，叫我們知道那些自稱是知識起始點而實際上是虛空的東西。父啊，我們已經造成了一種基督教文化，在信仰上滿足於浪漫情調，停留在情緒的滿足上。父啊，我們忽視了那根本的。 願教會回到正路上來，願教會再一次成為這樣的一種地方，最出色地宣講一位聖潔的、公義的神這個真理。願教會充滿智慧，充滿思考的頭腦、聖潔的心靈和建立在磐石上的生活。奉基督的名禱告，阿們！ _______________ 注釋： [注1]
《基督教信仰綱要》是加爾文最重要的係統神學著作。他在二十五歲時寫成第一版，直到五十六歲離世前完成第四版。此後的幾百年裏一直被作為各國神學院的教材。 [注2]
這是最常用的測年代的方法，依據的是碳的放射性同位素半衰期。 [注3]
英國偵探係列小說中塑造的一位以理性推理著稱的私人偵探。 [注4]
洛杉磯南麵地區。 [注5]
當時的英國議會以清教徒為主。 | Review We’ve addressed the need to establish a starting place for truth, knowledge, ethics, etc. If there is no agreement regarding a starting place for truth, all discussions will be futile. If one person believes that the starting place for ethics is what he feels is right, he will never come to agree (other than by coincidence) with another person who believes the starting place for truth to be the teachings of Gandhi or the Constitution. We then offered the assertion that the starting place for truth, knowledge, and ethics for the Christian is the Bible. We gave a brief overview of what the Bible actually is—sixty-six books written by forty different authors over a fifteen hundred year period. Along with the overview we discussed the overarching message of Scripture. That message, in short, is that there is a God who is good and holy. He created all things and created them good. God created man who rebelled against God and death entered. It did not please God, though, to leave men at the mercy of death so God made a promise (a covenant) that through the seed of the woman (speaking of the eventual birth of Jesus), the enemy of God’s people (Satan, sin, death, etc.) would be destroyed. The primary message in Scripture is that there is a God who will glorify Himself through His redemptive plan to save sinners through the cross of Christ. This is what led Jesus to say, “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39). What Do You Need to See? The question before us this morning is why should we believe the Bible? If I said I had some evidence behind the podium that will convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is true, what would you expect to see? The Shroud of Turin? The Ark of the Covenant? An old dusty scroll written by some Roman potentate? A piece of the cross? Just what would I have to come up with in order to convince you to believe that the Bible is true? Even if I had all those artifacts, how would you know they’re legit? I could say that we should believe in the Bible because it is true. In fact that is what I will end up saying. But being the reasonable and rational people that we are, we would certainly be unconvinced at such a circular statement. The conclusion is contained in the premise. We have begged the question. Since we are, therefore, so very rational, what would convince us to make our starting place—our bedrock—our standard to measure all truth—the Bible? What if I were to pile payloads of archeological, anthropological, and historical data demonstrating and affirming the impeccable accuracy of Scripture? Testimony of Science I could also produce archeological recantations of errors regarding cultures (like the Hittites) that scientists said never existed, but of which the Bible spoke; cultures that archeologists later unearthed, thus further verifying the testimony of Scripture. There are bags of this kind of evidence. All good science affirms things already found in Scripture. Evidential argumentation for the veracity of the Bible is a very common practice for remedial Christians. And, as Dr. Greg Bahnsen stated, “they work if you have an unsophisticated audience.” Why is this unsophisticated reasoning? It should be obvious that if you decide to believe the Bible due to the testimony of science, science, and not the Bible, is your starting place for truth. Let’s briefly pursue this. Do you not find it interesting that scientists never feel the need to justify their starting place for knowledge? The empiricist (scientist) proudly asserts that he only believes that which he can observe. In order for something to be true, it must fall under the scientific method. (The scientific method is usually something like testability, measurability, observe-ability and repeatability.) Of course the scientific method itself is none of these. Science, as a starting place for knowledge or truth, crumbles under its own method. We all know that looks can be deceiving. The oar, when placed in the water, appears to be bent. It will appear to be bent if I place in the water a thousand times. But we all know it does not bend. Or does it? Do you trust your sense of sight over touch? I have great respect for good science. But science cannot be the starting place for truth. Science is dependent on there being a thing called truth in order for it to work. If all this is too difficult, read a sixty-year-old science book and find out how much of the truth then is still truth today. History A very popular evidential argument for the truth of the Bible is found in the assertion that the Bible is historically verifiable. Things are cited like clear testimonies from non-Christian ancient Roman governors regarding the truths contained in Scripture. An argument I was fond of using was that the fact of the cross is as historically verifiable as the fact that Napoleon was at the battle of Waterloo. But I don’t know if Napoleon was at the battle of Waterloo. I might have a hard time finding Waterloo on a map. For all I know Napoleon had a twin; pretty slim evidence on which to rest your eternal soul. Changed Lives Another tactic for remedial Christians is to seek to impress people with the effect the Bible has had in the lives of people. As one young man said regarding a discussion he had with unbelievers, “They can’t deny my testimony.” Why can’t they deny your testimony? Others have testimonies. Muslims have testimonies. Jews have testimonies. AA members have testimonies. Tony Robbins’ followers have testimonies. Certainly the Bible is responsible for changing the lives of billions, but that is relatively unimpressive in terms of an argument for it being true. Fulfilled Prophecies What of all the fulfilled prophecies? There were numerous and detailed prophecies made about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ in the Old Testament that came to pass in the New Testament. But this argument is not compelling to someone who simply doesn’t believe in the Old or New Testaments. The Futility of Argumentation It is my opinion that all the arguments in the world, no matter how sound, will not convince someone to believe in the Bible. If someone is committed to unbelief, they will interpret all arguments through their grid of unbelief. Those who hold the position that miracles can’t happen will never believe it was a miracle. Considering the event to be miraculous is not an option. They will employ Sherlock Holmes’ methodology, “eliminate the impossible and then whatever is left, regardless of how improbable, is your only option.” If your starting place for knowledge doesn’t allow for miracles and you saw me perform a miracle you would simply assert that there is some natural explanation, even if you don’t yet know what it is. Arguing Nonetheless So what to do! I guess I could just dismiss everybody right now. I have miserably failed at accomplishing the thesis of my sermon. But since I believe that that which is impossible with man is possible with God, I would like to go ahead and make a three-fold argument for the truth of the Bible. My first argument will be weak, my second argument will be weak as well, but my third argument will be undeniable. My first argument is that no other world view can give a plausible explanation for reality as we know it. My second argument is that the Bible does give a plausible explanation for reality, and my third argument is…well, we’ll get to that. No Plausible World View My first argument has, pretty much, already been made. There is no world view (other than the one found in the Bible) that can explain the reality we all observe. Those who believe that the universe is eternal cannot explain how we reached today since it is impossible to cross an infinite span of time. Those who believe that the universe did not exist at one time cannot give any explanation as to where the material came from that started the universe or why it exploded when it was not acted upon by an outside object (a violation of the laws of physics). Those who don’t believe in the biblical account of creation cannot explain the essence of ethics. If man, and not the Bible, is the final determiner of what is right then which man? In short, those who reject the Bible cannot give any rational explanation for the material or immaterial world we all observe. C.S.?Lewis said it in his usual humorous and thought-provoking fashion. If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If?so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-products of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset the milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. I remember finding this type of argument quite compelling. I think the statements are accurate and we should all be properly impressed to think this out. But I certainly haven’t proven the Bible to be true. A Plausible World View My second argument has already been made as well. The Bible’s account of creation gives a plausible explanation for the reality that has caused philosophers and scientists to scratch their heads for centuries. There is an eternal self-existent God who has created everything both material and immaterial. The reasons philosophers have any ability to think clearly is because they have been made in the image of God, and the reason science works is because God has created a uniform nature. We learn all this in the Bible. It is simple, it is true, it explains everything, yet men bend over backwards to find other, less tenable, explanations. Though I believe this to be true I also recognize that men can simply assert that the quest of history will find some other explanation for the reality we?all observe. I have made an argument but I haven’t proven anything. Argument #3 God’s Word in Writing Let us cruise into my third argument (the undeniable one) with a little history lesson. In the 1640’s one of the greatest Christian confessions (The Westminster Confession of Faith) ever written (by men wiser than I) began by addressing and defending the Bible. They wrote, I, 1. Our natural understanding and the works of creation and providence so clearly show God's goodness, wisdom, and power that human beings have no excuse. However, these means alone cannot provide that knowledge of God and of His will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare that this revelation contains His will for His church.?Afterwards it pleased God to put this entire revelation into writing so that the truth might be better preserved and transmitted and that the church, confronted with the corruption of the flesh and the evil purposes of Satan and the world, might be more securely established and comforted. Since God no longer reveals Himself to His people in those earlier ways, Holy Scripture is absolutely essential. In short, general revelation (things creation reveals about God) is only sufficient to hold men without excuse. Further revelation is necessary for salvation. God revealed Himself, in a special way, through apostles, prophets, etc., and then committed the revelation to writing, that the transmission of His word might be better preserved. Having put forth the essential nature of the Holy Scriptures, how would these brilliant teachers justify their assertion that the Scriptures are the word of God? What is their ar |
