八、“自圓其說”嗎？ 下麵我要引用的是《威敏斯特信仰告白》中的一句話。順便說明一下，我絕不是要把這個《告白》舉到與《聖經》齊平的高度；我之所以引用《告白》，是因為我同意它的話。這是我的觀點；但我們會來看看這樣做到底是否合理。 《威敏斯特信仰告白》第一章第4節： 我們應信服聖經的權威，這權威不在乎任何人或教會的見證，乃完全在乎神(他自己就是真理)。神既是聖經的作者，所以我們應當接受聖經，因為聖經是神的話。[注2] 你現在大概知道我為什麽把這一小段的標題定為“自圓其說”。這段話聽上去的確是自圓其說──聖經應該被接受，因為它是神的話。我們之所以知道它是神的話，是因為聖經說它是神的話。或許《威敏斯特信仰告白》的這些作者們根本就沒有想要隱瞞這一“自圓其說”。 在一定的形式上，每個人都是自圓其說的。羅伯特．布瑞厄斯說過： 各門科學都以科學原則、定理為論據，但從不試著要證明這些原則、定理。神學也是一樣，其原則就是相信。哲學上低級的科學既不能對高級科學的原則進行否認，也不能肯定。聖經則是科學中最高的科學。 當人們來辯論什麽是最高真理的時候，每一個人都是以自圓其說來辯論的。“自圓其說”可以被看作是一種“邏輯錯誤”，因為你的結論是基於你的前提，是一種循環往複的思想。但我要來辯論的是(我的哲學老師也同意我的觀點)，論到永恒的事情時，每個人都是自圓其說的。 實驗家總是假設他的觀點最可靠，他就用實驗法來論證他的觀點是真理。就像是那些大學裏的教授，他們辯論時都假設他們的論據是最充份的。理性主義者也采取同樣的態度。假如某人相信自己的世界觀是真實的，最能對現實世界作出解釋，那麽他唯有以自己的世界觀原則為辯論的基礎。 我來解釋一下：假如我是個科學家，我相信“解釋絕對真理的最可靠的方法就是觀察”，我的論據是什麽？我當然會用我個人相信是最可靠的辯論方法──觀察──來立論，於是我的結論就已經包含在我的前提裏了。 理性主義者也是一樣。他想：“我為什麽要放棄我認為是最可靠的思維方式，僅僅是為了要進行辯論呢？既然那是我所相信的最可靠的方法，那麽我當然要堅持用那種方法來討論、辯論啦！” 這使我想起了一次與一個佛教徒關於禪功的對話。佛教徒不相信亞裏斯多德的邏輯思維。他辯論說，我的世界觀不如他的世界觀那麽可靠，然而他用的卻是亞裏斯多德的邏輯思維方法和我辯論。你看，他們不相信邏輯，卻相信一隻手可以發出擊掌的聲音之類的玄而又玄的東西。但是他卻明明在使用邏輯思維的方法與我討論，認為這樣可以來說服我。他為什麽放棄了他所相信的東西，為什麽不用他的“禪功邏輯”來和我辯論呢？因為他知道那玩意兒是行不通的；我們都在依靠一定的法則來進行討論。你當然會用你認為是最可靠的方法來進行討論啦。你為什麽要放棄呢？你為什麽該用“不那麽可靠的方法”呢？ 布瑞厄斯接著說：“一個哲學家可以列出證明神存在的各種證據，但他一定是在已經相信神這樣一個前提之下──他絕不會哪怕是暫時的成為無神論者。” 九、有“中性立場”嗎？ 我所說的這種中間立場正是今天很多基督徒所采用的，是極流行的，卻是需要被糾正的。假如基督徒視無神論者是錯誤的、愚拙的，那麽他們為什麽還要再以無神論的世界觀作為起始點來與人辯論呢？這就是現代中性立場之迷的所在。威廉姆森對此有過這樣的評論： 有時候基督徒也是采取這種很不明智的做法；這常常發生在他們向不信者傳福音的時候。不信的人宣告說：他根本看不出聖經是上帝的話，憑什麽要人相信它？太多太多的時候，基督徒先同意了不信者的這種觀點，認為它是有一定根據的。基督徒甚至會想像出一個雙方都同意的“中性”的起始點來，然後他就希望一係列的辯論可以建立在這個“中性”的起始點(或標準)之上。或許在辯論結束的時候，他可以證明聖經是神的話，當然也可能證明聖經不是神的話。於是，人的理性、考古學、曆史等等就可以成為起始點。不知不覺地，這個起始點就成了(比聖經)更高的標竿。結果上帝自己必須努力越過(這個標竿)才能證明他是真的。事實上，這就造成了比神的權威更高的權威。然而這(種權威)是不可能(存在)的。(參來 6:16-18) 班森博士將此方法與不道德列為同罪。他說： 這種調和是不可能的。主耶穌在《馬太福音》六章24節說：“一個人不能事奉兩個主。” 毫不奇怪，在一個萬物都由基督所造(參西1:16)、也靠他的話的權能托住(參來1:3)的、一切智慧與知識都在他裏麵藏著的(宇宙中)，他就是真理，所有的思想都應當順服他(參林後10:5)。在這個世界上，中性立場不是別的，就是罪。“與世俗為友的就是與神為敵”(雅4:4)。 我就曾與一位神學院的著名教授有過一次對話。如果我說出他的名字，你們一定都知道[注3]。那是一次在課堂上，我問他說：“是否有這樣一種可能性──不是虛構而是真實的可能性──就是‘神不存在’？”這位基督教神學院的基督徒教授竟然回答說：“ 是的，有這個可能性。”你看，他願意來認同這種可能性。而班森博士指出：那是不道德的──認同這個可能性就是否認你生活中的最高前提；說到底，就是等於否認你的信仰。 我可以作一個虛構的假設，說：“就算是暫時讓步，說一下‘沒有神’......。”但我若同意說“可能沒有神”，那麽我所謂的“相信聖經是真理”就是不誠實，就是對我自己的最高信仰不誠實。我們以為這樣做(暫時認同、妥協)可以開始與不信的人進行討論，但這多麽容易就使我們放棄了我們的最高信仰啊！我們絕不能這麽做。 有人說過一個比喻：你拿著槍到商店去搶東西；你的槍就是你的最高權威。假如對方說他不承認槍的權威，你怎麽辦？你不會說：“讓我們拿櫃台上的那把雞毛撣來作為中性起始點吧！”你會開槍打他！你不能放棄你的最高權威。 十、聖經是(羅馬天主教)教會定的？ 今天在基督徒中很流行的說法是：“教會確定了聖經，而不是承認了聖經的權威。難道我們不相信事實上是教會把那些《正經》編篡在一起成為《聖經》的嗎？” 果真如此，教會的權威就應該高於聖經；而這正是羅馬天主教所宣稱的。這是羅馬天主教的觀點。我以前在抗羅宗神學院裏也是被這麽教導的。有了這種觀點就辯不過羅馬天主教。因為羅馬天主教說，聖經是教會定的，因而教會的權威自然就高過聖經了。 對此，著名神學家赫治在他的《信仰告白》一書中關於“聖經在基督教中的地位”這個極重要的問題上寫過如下的話： 此立場的目的就是要否認羅馬天主教的異端──他們說受神默示的教會是一切從神來的知識的真正源頭；聖經和教會的敬拜傳統等等之所以可信靠，是由於羅馬教會的認可。於是他們就使聖經成為聖靈對教會作工的產物。但事實上正相反：教會是聖靈通過神的話──聖經──的教導之下所產生的。 也就是說，聖經是出於教會呢？還是教會是出於聖經？是教會決定了66卷聖經呢？還是教會隻是認識和承認了聖經？這裏的差別極大。那種說“人(教會)可以來評價、鑒別神的話”的想法是可笑的。果真那樣，人(教會)的權威不就高於聖經了嗎？我們從這一認識開始尋求，當然不允許人(教會)把自己置於聖經之上來評估、評價它──就仿佛我們在邏輯上、智慧上真的高於聖經似的。 十一、見證難免出錯 無論是科學、哲學，還是教會的權威，都不能高於神的話。聖經的權威絕不依賴這些很難不出錯的見證。保羅在《羅馬書》三章4節指出：“神是真實的，人都是虛謊的，正如經上所記”──請注意：保羅將他的聲明與聖經所記等同起來。 R.C.司布羅在他的書中引用加爾文的話說： 再也沒有一種杜撰比這一虛構更荒唐了，即：“評判聖經的權利在於教會(特指羅馬天主教)，聖經的可信性也在於教會。”當教會接受聖經，蓋上她的大印時，她並沒有使本來有疑問的或有爭議的東西變為權威；她所做的不過是承認聖經是神的真理，教會的責任就是毫不猶豫地對神的話表示敬畏。 十二、證據的價值 《威敏斯特信仰告白》並沒有貶低教會或其它資源的作用，而是給它們所提供的證據以合適的然而卻是附屬的地位。《告白》的作者們不像我們今天這樣到處找證據。宗教改革之所以發生，是因為羅馬教廷(當時的唯一教會)將自己的權威置於聖經之上。因此，《威敏斯特信仰告白》的作者們所針對和糾正的，就是這種對聖經的挑戰。 今天我們麵臨的威脅是科學的權威──他們(科學家)成了權威。每當《時代周刊》或《今日》[注4]封麵上發表一篇報導說找到了新的證據證明聖經是真的時候，人人都大聲驚呼：“噢，原來聖經是真的！”這就是侵入了我們靈魂的思想方式，我們必須加以抵製。 《威敏斯特信仰告白》第一章第5節： 我們可能受教會的見證感動與影響，因而高舉聖經、敬重聖經，認為聖經屬天的性質、教義的效力、文體的莊嚴、各部的一致、整體的要旨(“將一切榮耀歸給神”)、人類唯一得救之道的完整彰顯，和其它許多無比卓越、全然完美之處，都足以證明聖經本身就是神的話。雖然如此，最讓我們完全確信聖經無謬真理與屬神權威的原因，是聖靈在我們裏麵動工，藉著神的話在我們心中作見證，也與神的話在我們心中一同作見證。[注5] R.C.司布羅在論到加爾文關於證據的價值時這樣寫道： 加爾文列舉了聖經的神聖源泉與權威的證據。他論到聖經的尊嚴、聖經教義的神聖性、聖經宏偉的設計與內容、聖經前後一貫的教導、聖經中對事物或情節描述的真實性、聖經裏的神跡奇事、預言的實現、曆代以來聖經的應用、以及烈士們用鮮血所作的見證。加爾文顯示這一切的證據不是軟弱無力，而是客觀上強而有力，令人折服。 看來，加爾文也好，《威敏斯特信仰告白》的神仆們也好，並非完全視外在的證據於不顧；相反，任何證據──隻要是實事求是的評估──都會證明神那神聖的話語是真理。毫無疑問，聖經完全能夠經得起任何合法的嚴查細考或最挑剔的目光。你不必逃避科學；相反你所需要的隻是嚴謹的、優秀的科學。你不必遠離天文學家──真正好的天文學家真實、客觀地應用科學原則，一定會發現原來聖經所宣告的是真的。假如考古學、人類學、天文學都正確地進行研究，客觀地作出結論，那麽現代科學的所有原則也都會證明聖經是不可否認的。 十三、外在證據附屬於內在見證 我們可以肯定地說，與聖經相比，任何其它的評估手段充其量也隻能被稱為“不太有把握”。正如上述《威敏斯特信仰告白》一章5節所述：“最讓我們完全確信聖經無謬真理與屬神權威的原因，是聖靈在我們裏麵動工，藉著神的話在我們心中作見證，也與神的話在我們心中一同作見證。” R.C.司布羅還引用加爾文的下麵這段話： 那麽就讓以下兩條作為我們無需更改的公認：第一，那些被聖靈從心裏教導的人對聖經必定堅信不疑；第二，聖經本身就帶有明證，不僅不需要人的辯論與佐證，而且由於聖靈的見證，就叫我們全然接受、堅決信服。 至此為止，我們可以一眼就看出：那種把《聖經》綁在被告椅上，召來川流不息的證人與證據的法庭式的做法，是何等地愚蠢、可笑！聖經本來就不屑於這些論證與辯論。今天我們把聖經放在被告席上，找人來為神的話作證──這不是愚人演戲，又是什麽?!就好像是讓我2歲、4歲、6歲的三個孩子來評價我，要我4歲的兒子養成一個習慣來評論我所做的是不是合體統。他當然也有對的時候，但絕大部份時間他是錯的；他還沒有到看清整體性的時候。他常常相信：“我爸爸最懂了。”長大後他會知道真相。對於神的話，我們都不過是嬰孩而已。我們中間最成熟的也不過就是僅僅知道一點點而已；我們所知道的這一點點足以讓我們曉得：有一位神，他通過耶穌基督救他的子民。 我們會不會問：“像加爾文這樣傑出的學者為什麽不來為聖經辯護一番呢？”(順便說一下，假如你對我引用《威敏斯特信仰告白》和加爾文的話有疑問，請你在主日學討論的時候提出來。)你可能會問我：“為什麽不單單引用聖經呢？”我之所以沒有單單引用聖經，是因為聖經裏沒有一處寫道“所有66卷書”，也沒有說“這66卷書就是聖經”。“這66卷書是聖經”這個概念是我們的前提。 或許加爾文根本連想都不會想到要讓聖經來拿出證據，他而是要求他的對手拿出證明來。或許他根本不會守在城堡裏，而是以回答愚頑人的荒唐問題來摧毀對手的營壘。他的辯論詞大概會是：“假如是那樣的話，您有何高見呢？......”我不想在此多作猜想。 我們隻要知道這一點就夠了，那就是加爾文是不會讓神的話來屈就塵土的審查的。我們也不應該這樣做。加爾文說： 但這些證據本身並不足以讓人對聖經產生堅信，直到我們的天父在聖經裏顯明他自己，從而確定人對聖經的敬畏之心。......當然，人的見證也會不無效果地加以證實──假如它們是從屬於聖經本身最高的證據，也能被用來作為輔助手段幫助我們的軟弱。但是，若有人試圖以此來向不信之輩證明聖經是神的話，那可就是愚拙之舉了。除了信心，絕無旁門左道。 布瑞厄斯指出，不僅加爾文，也不僅是《威敏斯特信仰告白》的神仆們，早在一千多年前，“根據教會先父們的立場，聖經就是真理，無需任何外在的權威加以證實。”讓我們千萬不要誤會布瑞厄斯的這段話是指聖經是不可理喻的；不可理喻的是人要用自己那有限、有誤的理性來審查、判斷最高的真理。他不是說，我們應當放棄理性；他說的是我們必須認清我們理性的有限性。 我給這一篇講道起的題目叫《我為什麽應該相信聖經》。假如你期望我舉出各種論點、證據，好使你用理性來對神的話進行評價的話，那麽你就失望了。我希望你們大家都能看出，如果我走的是這條路的話，那是多麽沒有理性啊！ 十四、不可否認的論點 我的第三個論點是：因為聖經是真理，所以人應當相信；否認我們明明知道是真的，那就是否認真理。耶穌教導我們說： 48棄絕我，不領受我話的人，有審判他的──就是我所講的道在末日要審判他。(約12:48) 不是證據，不是他行神跡的能力，不是因為他應驗了先知的話。耶穌宣告什麽？他宣告他說的話就足夠來審判世人了。到時候人就不得不承認：“是的，這是真的，這就足夠審判我了。”這是什麽？這是他的話。 神的話具有足夠的權威來審判全人類。我向神禱告，叫我們因著神的恩典能認識到：人若想要審判那必要審判我們的，實在是與瘋子無異。 12神的道是活潑的，是有功效的，比一切兩刃的劍更快，甚至魂與靈，骨節與骨髓，都能刺入、剖開，連心中的思念和主意都能辨明。13並且被造的沒有一樣在他麵前不顯然的；原來萬物在那與我們有關係的主眼前，都是赤露敞開的。(來4:12-13) 這裏說的“神的話”是指聖經呢，還是指耶穌？我不認為二者有什麽差別，因為當耶穌來到世上的時候，他說了話，他的話就要審判人。 我的論點就是：相信聖經是真的，不是依靠證據，也不是出於猜測，當然更不是要人盲目地信從一種神秘的、不可知的神話故事。相反，是要人回到他們的正常理智上來，不要再否認那明擺著的東西。 有人說：“我就是不相信聖經。”你的這種態度就等於在說：“我相信偷竊是對的。”我認為，人拒絕聖經的時候，就是在拒絕他們知道是真理的東西。這點他們是明明知道的。聖經上明明要求我們因此而悔改；人卻爭辯，問“聖經是否是真理？”這就好像爭辯“空氣是否存在”一樣。你每說一句都必須呼吸一次空氣；你的觀點就一次比一次弱。 任何願意來到神聖潔話語麵前的人，都必定會找到光，找到生命。福音的信息是來自天上的信息，是救贖的信息。神就是用這一信息來拯救罪人。神的兒女們，讓我們一起來頌讚、傳揚神的話。阿們！ 我們一起禱告： 父神啊，我們以自己的不義來壓製真理。我們聽到耶穌的話就遠遠地逃離，因為他的話揭露了我們的真相；因為他是光，而我們想藏在黑暗裏。我們求您賜給我們一顆心，叫我們不要逃離，而是要尋求那美善的、公義的、真實的。我們向您禱告，求您打開我們的眼睛、耳朵，好叫我們看到您話語的寶藏。求您賜給我們堅強的信心，讓我們把這樣的信息告訴人：“有一個地方，神在向人類說話；那地方就在神的話裏。” 父啊，叫我們絕不把您的聖言去以證據來證明，讓我們不要把珍珠丟給豬，因而羞辱您的聖潔，將您的聖潔、您那賜生命的話語，讓區區有限的人的理性來品頭論足。 神啊，讓我們高舉您的話，讓我們明白它有拯救的大能。正是通過它，您將人從死亡救到生命。讓我們相信，您必定做這拯救的工作。願您的話受人尊崇，因為它所宣告的就是您的生命之道──基督耶穌。我們奉他的名禱告，阿們！ _______________ 注釋： [注1]
意即將順序改變為“聖經、聖父、聖子”。這實在是誤解了“以聖經為起始點”之意義──它絕非否認聖靈，更不是用“聖經”取代“聖靈”的位置。 [注2]
另一譯文：“聖經以權威向人說話，因此人必須相信、遵守。聖經的這一權威不依賴任何人或教會的見證，而完全依賴於神。他是聖經的作者，他自己就是真理。因此，聖經應當被人作為真理接受，因為它是神的話。” [注3]
維牧師當年所讀過的是主流自由派神學院。 [注4]
美國著名的暢銷雜誌和國家廣播公司的晚間電視專題節目。 | Circularity? I, 4. The Bible speaks authoritatively and so deserves to be believed and obeyed. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any man or church but completely on God, its author, Who is Himself truth. The Bible therefore is to be accepted as true, because it is the word of God. This sounds very circular. The Bible is to be accepted because it is the word of God. We know it is the word of God because it says it is. Perhaps circularity was not something from which the divines of Westminster sought to hide. In some form, it seems that circularity is practiced by everybody. Robert D. Preus, in his explanation of Thomas Aquinas on Scripture states, as we mentioned earlier, All sciences argue from principles and do not try to prove their principles. This it is also with theology, whose principles (principia) are the articles of faith. In philosophy the lower sciences cannot dispute or prove the principles of a higher science. Sacred Scripture offers the highest science. The empiricist, assuming his position to be soundest, uses empiricism, to?argue the truth of his position. The rationalist does the same. If someone believes their world view to be true and the soundest explanation of reality, it is?only reasonable for them to make the arguments for their world view, using the principles of their world view. Why would anyone abandon what they believe to be the soundest principles available for the development of their argument? Preus also states, The philosopher will, for instance, work out proofs for the existence of God, but only with the presupposition that he already believes in God. He does not make himself temporarily an atheist. Neutrality? If Christians view the atheist as wrong and foolish, why would they adopt the atheistic worldview as a starting point for their argumentation? Herein lies the modern myth of neutrality. G.I. Williamson comments on this: Sometimes Protestants have unwittingly done this too. It has often happened in the dealings of Christians with unbelievers. The unbeliever claims that he sees nothing in the Bible to demand belief that it is the word of God. And the believer has all too often, in effect, granted that the unbeliever has had some justification for his position. The believer may even imagine that?he can find a “neutral” starting point at which he and the unbeliever are in agreement. Then, it is thought, a series of arguments can be erected on the neutral starting point which in the end might possibly prove that the Bible is the Word of God (or perhaps equally as well that it is not). Thus human reason or archaeology or history, etc., may be made the starting point, and unconsciously this starting point becomes the “higher authority” before which judgment bar God must pass muster. This in effect makes some authority higher than the authority of God. And this cannot be done (cf. Heb. 6:16-18). Dr. Greg Bahnsen equates this methodology with immorality: No such compromise is even possible. “No man is able to serve two lords” (Matt. 6:24). It should come as no surprise that, in a world where all things have been created by Christ (Col. 1:16) and are carried along by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3) and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in Him who is the Truth (Col. 2:3; John 14:6) and who must be Lord over all thinking (2 Cor. 10:5), neutrality is nothing short of immorality. “Whoesoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4). According to Bahnsen, and others, to approach the defense of the Scriptures as if they are not the primary authority on earth is dishonest. This is?not to say I am not allowed to view things hypothetically. For example I can hypothesize, “Let’s say for a moment there is no God.” But for me to actually grant that there may not be a God when I actually believe the Bible is true would?be dishonest to my highest belief. The Church Made the Bible It is not uncommon for Christians to argue that the church somehow established, rather than recognized, the authenticity (canonicity) of Scripture. Don’t we have to believe that the church accurately put the canon together (in?which case the church has authority over the Bible—a common claim of Roman Catholicism)? A.A. Hodge points out the, all important, canonical position in Christendom: This proposition is designed to deny the Romish heresy that the inspired church is the ultimate source of all divine knowledge, and that the written Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition alike depend upon the authoritative seal of the Church for their credibility. They thus make the Scriptures a product of the Spirit through the Church; while, in fact, the Church is a product of the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word. Fallible Witnesses Neither science, nor philosophy nor the church can take precedent over the authority of the word of God. The Bible will not be a defendant at the mercy of these fallible witnesses. As Paul wrote, “let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written…” (Romans 3:4). Notice that Paul equates his statement to?that which is written. R.C. Sproul (actually quoting John Calvin) writes, Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scriptures is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. The Value of Evidence What we will see in paragraph five, is that the Westminster Confession did not discount the value of the church (or other lesser resources) but found a proper, yet subordinate, place for these evidences. I, 5. We may be influenced by the testimony of the church to value the Bible highly and reverently, and Scripture itself shows in so many ways that it is God's word; for example, in its spiritual subject matter, in the effectiveness of its teaching, the majesty of its style, the agreement of all its parts, its unified aim from beginning to end (to give all glory to God), the full revelation it makes of the only way of man's salvation, its many other incomparably outstanding features, and its complete perfection. However, we are completely persuaded and assured of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible only by the inward working of the Holy Spirit, Who testifies by and with the word in our hearts. Sproul writes about the value Calvin saw with evidence (indicia). Calvin enumerates the indicia or evidence the Scriptures have for their divine origin and authority. He speaks of the dignity of the matter, the heavenliness of its doctrine, the content of its parts, the majesty of its style, the antiquity of its teaching, the sincerity of its narrative, its miracles, predictive prophecies fulfilled, its use through the ages, and its witness by the blood of martyrs. He sees this evidence not as being weak and tentative but objectively strong and compelling. It doesn’t seem that Calvin, or the divines of Westminster, would have eliminated the value of external evidence altogether. To the extent that any evidence is credibly evaluated, it will testify to the truth of God’s holy word. The Scriptures will, no doubt, stand up under any legitimate scrutiny or evaluative gaze fixed upon it. The historical testimony of the church (and other lesser resources) is quite?impressive. The spiritual subject matter contained in the Bible along with?the effectiveness of its teaching is also worthy of our respect. The majesty of its?style, the agreement of all its parts, its unified aim from beginning to end (to?give all glory to God) leaves the Scriptures unsurpassed as an historical document and reaches the zenith of any literary or historical analysis. For sixty-six books written by forty different authors over a 1500-year period to have?such harmony is practically beyond human explanation. If archeology, anthropology, or astronomy were properly pursued, and their conclusions properly evaluated, there is little doubt that these modern disciplines will also testify to the Scriptures in such a way to be virtually undeniable. Evidences—Subordinate to Internal Testimony But let us be firmly convinced that compared to Scripture, all other evaluative tools are dubious at best. We “are completely persuaded and assured of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible only by the inward working of the Holy Spirit, Who testifies by and with the word in our hearts.” Sproul, quoting Calvin: 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. Blindingly obvious it should be now to observe the folly of strapping the Scriptures to the defendants’ table while marching witnesses and evidences in and out of courtroom. The Scriptures deign “not to submit to proofs and arguments.” One wonders how a brilliant scholar like Calvin might proceed in this defense of Scripture. Perhaps he would not deign the Scriptures to submit to proofs but require the views of his opponents to submit to proofs. Perhaps, rather than guarding the castle, he would cast down the strongholds by answering the fool according to his folly. His argumentation might go, “If that be so, then how do you explain…?” I don’t wish to speculate too much here. Suffice it to say, Calvin would not subject the word of God to the scrutiny of dust, nor should we. As he states: These [indicia], 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… 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 cannot be known to be, except by faith?(VIII/13). Preus indicates that Calvin’s position was nothing new. Below we read of?the disposition of the church Fathers a thousand years before Calvin or the divines of Westminster: According to the Fathers, Scripture is a priori (from the former) true, irrefragably so. Scripture needs no verification of any kind from outside authority. It would seem that the church fathers also viewed the Scriptures as a priori true. Verification may be well and good. It might even be part of a discussion. But it was not needed. Preus, quoting Luther, shows this to be the position leading into the Reformation as well: Paul takes them all together, himself, an angel from heaven, teachers upon the earth, and masters of all kinds, and subjects them to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must reign as queen, all must obey and be subject to her, not teachers, judges, or arbiters over her; but they must be simply witnesses, pupils and confessors of it, whether it be pope or Luther or Augustine or an angel from heaven. Preus, commenting on Luther’s position, This statement of Luther indicates also that Scripture is infallibly true in all its assertions, irrefragable. We need not test it with reason, experience, or any other authority. Its utterances can and ought to be accepted a priori. Let’s not mistake Preus’ comments here to suggest that the Scriptures are?not reasonable but that it is unreasonable for man (whose reason is at best flawed) to?subject the pinnacle of truth to his feeble scrutiny. The Undeniable Argument My third and undeniable argument is that the Bible is to be believed because it is true and because to deny its truth is to deny something we know to?be true. Jesus taught, He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day (John 12:48). The word of God has sufficient authority to act as a judge for all mankind. It is my prayer that by the grace of God we will all recognize the insanity of seeking to judge that which in reality judges us. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:12, 13 NASB). My argument for believing the Bible to be true is not a matter of evidences or speculation. And it certainly isn’t a matter of convincing people to make a blind leap of faith into a mythological, nonsensical fairy tale. It is more like bringing people to their senses—to quit denying the obvious. Specifically we are?called to repent of our rejection of that which we all know to be true. To argue against the truth of Scripture is like arguing against the existence of air. Every time you inhale in order to make your next point, your argument becomes?weaker. But those who are willing to acquiesce before the profound truths of the?Holy word of God will find on these pages light and life. The message is a message from heaven, a message of redemption. The message itself is the means by which the redemption is applied. Come and Thy people bless and give Thy word success. Amen. Questions for Study 1. Why is it important to have an established starting place for truth (page?1)? 2. How many books are in the Bible? How many authors? Over how long a?period (page 1)? 3. What is the over-arching theme of Scripture (page 1)? 4. What would impress you to believe the Bible to be true? Why would it be?sufficiently impressive (page 1)? 5. Why is science a poor starting place for truth (page 2)? 5. Why is historical documentation insufficient to validate the Bible (page?4)? 6. Are “changed lives” a powerful argument for the truth of the Bible (page?2)? 7. Why are evidential arguments for the truth of the Bible futile (page 3)? 8. What is wrong with an unbiblical worldview (pages 3, 4)? 9. How does the Bible plausibly explain the world as we know it (pages?4,?5)? 10. In what way does everyone argue in a circular fashion (pages 5, 6)? 11. Why is neutrality a myth (pages 6, 7)? 12. Did the church make the Bible (page 7)? 13. What value is evidence (pages 8-10)? 14. What is the undeniable argument for the truth of the Bible (pages 10, 11)? |
