回顾 前两讲我们已经谈到了在对真理、知识、伦理道德的认识上，必须建立起一个起始点。我用了这三个词是因为哲学上有下面的三种分类：形而上学、伦理学、认识论。形而上学研究什么是真实的──真实发生的事。伦理学，我们都知道，是关于道德的。认识论就是我们是怎么知道事情(获得信息)的？假如你研究人的思想，就一定会面对这三件事：什么是真实的？什么是对的？我们怎么知道？ 我讲的时候，会用比较简单的表达方式来应用这三种概念。“形而上学”我用“真理”；“ 认识论”我用“知识”，“伦理学”还是叫它“伦理学”。假如没有一个关于真理的起始点，那么所有的讨论都是徒然。假如一个人认为道德标准只需要靠他自己的好、恶感觉来定，那么除非是碰巧，他就永远不会与一个把甘地(印度的著名领袖)或者把美国宪法当作真理的标准的人有共识。 我们又论到了基督徒关于真理、知识和伦理道德的标准──或起始点──就是圣经。我们也对圣经作了简介：它由40位作者历经1500年时间写成的66卷书，其中贯穿着一个信息，那信息就是：有一位公义、美善的神，他创造了万物，并且造得全都美好。神造了人，人背叛了神，死就进入了世界。但神并不喜悦人被死亡奴役，因此作了一个应许(立了一个约)，通过女人的那个后裔──就是耶稣──的诞生，要毁灭神子民的仇敌──撒但、罪、死亡。 圣经的主要信息是：有一位神，通过基督的十字架拯救罪人，荣耀他自己的名。正如耶稣所说：“你们查考圣经，以为内中有永生。为我作见证的就是这经”(约5:39)。耶稣说的这句话要么是真的，即39卷旧约、27卷新约都是关于耶稣的；要么他就是在说有史以来最自吹自擂的话。我们当然相信耶稣说的是真理。 一、你要看什么？ 今天早上我们要讨论的主题是：我们为什么相信圣经是神的话？ 假如我说我有一些证据能向你证明圣经是绝对无误的，你期望看到的是什么？除了(我面前的)这杯水之外，我手上是没有东西的。是都灵上空的幽灵？是约柜？是古罗马权贵的手迹？十字架上的一片木头？到底要我拿出什么证据来，才能让你相信圣经是真的？ 即使我真的有这些实物作证据，你怎么知道它们是真的？ 我可以说，“因为圣经是真理，所以我们应该相信。”事实上，真是这么回事！这就是我要作的结论。但是，我们既然都是有理智、讲理性的人，那么我们当然就不能被这种自圆其说的声明说服啦！结论就包含在前提之内。对此，我们当然要来作出解释。 既然我们如此地讲理性，那么我们怎么建立起一个起始点呢？为什么我们以圣经作为衡量一切真理的标准呢？我是否能用考古学、人类学和历史上的发现来证明、来肯定圣经的绝对无误呢？这就是我所针对的现代基督教想要证明“圣经是真理”的那种方式──这就需要被纠偏。 二、科学的证明 我可以列举出考古学对于其关于古代文化的错误结论所作出的修改。例如，考古学家一度断言说，旧约中记载迦南的赫族人从来没有存在过。他们找证据，为了反对基督教，掘地三尺，突然间找到了证据──赫人原来存在过！噢，那么圣经可能是真的了？考古学家们只好认错。这类的证据比比皆是。 这些就是所谓以证据为基础的护教学，要来辩论说圣经是真理。眼下，这类的努力多如牛毛；赫人只是其中的一例而已。很多人终其一生为了要找出考古学家是怎样来证明圣经的。事实上，所有的科学发现都不过是证实圣经早已教导的。 我并不想以尖刻的口吻说话，无论科学的根据有多惊人，这决不是证明“圣经是真的”正确的方法。正如班森博士指出的：“这种方式只能说服那些头脑简单的人。”原因何在？很简单，因为你如果是因着科学证据而相信圣经，那么你的起始点、你的标准就是科学而不是圣经。下面让我们来稍加讨论。 现在有一群人，自称为怀疑论者。有趣的是，他们找岔的对象倒并不是宗教，而是科学。他们怀疑、质问科学是怎样作出结论来的？他们对科学研究的步骤和方式提出质疑。你有没有发现，科学家们从不需要来证明他们所获得的知识的起始点。试验观察者骄傲地宣称，他只相信他能观察到的东西。说一件事是真的，就必须用科学方式来证明。科学方法一般说来是指可测试性、可测量性、可观察性以及重复性等等。当然，科学方法并不具有这些特性；它本身是不可测、不可量、不可观察也不可能重复的。科学方法的本身是哲学性的，其整个原则的起始点是理性的，而不是试验性的。科学的确很好，科学方法行得通，但科学家知其然却不知其所以然。科学本身必须依靠被称为真实的、已经存在的东西才能运作。但基督徒却能知道其所以然；基督徒能理解自然界的一致性。连爱因斯坦也说过，我们研究科学，根本就没学到真理，只不过是将我们所观察到的很好地加以组织而已。 做研究有三个步骤：假设、理论、事实。 就拿宇宙的起源来说吧。你怎么可能真正知道五亿年前发生的事？这是不可能在显微镜下观察的。你怎么知道碳14测量法[注2]是准确的？此方法使用了不过一百年的时间；它在许多方面很准确，但你怎么知道全球性的大洪水对化石、对碳14测量法所产生的影响？假如神创造世界的时候看上去就像是已经有很多年的样子了，例如他造人的时候，不是婴儿而是成人；造树的时候不是树苗而是大树；你砍倒它，就已经能看到年轮呢？你要是取亚当的 DNA，他会是在什么年纪？这些事，你是根本不可能测的。但我们整个一代人都跪在科学面前，好像科学就是真理的起始点。我之所以说这些，是因为我们基督徒也应该用一点怀疑的眼光来查验一下他们所宣告的。 三、历史 另一个很流行的证明圣经的论据是历史。比方说，引用罗马总督的话来证明圣经的真实性。有一次我听到一个人引了19处非基督徒的古代文献来证明基督的十字架是真的，云云。我在校园布道团事奉期间，与人辩论时最得意的例子就是：十字架在历史上的真实就像拿破仑在滑铁卢战役一样有证可查。但今天我却不能完全确定拿破仑到底是否在滑铁卢打过仗；我只知道拿破仑有个双胞胎的兄弟。这里的要点是，假如我能向你证明圣经是真的，就像证明其它历史事件是真的一样。比如说历史上有位凯撒大帝，有位柏拉图等等，但我不知道这到底是不是真的。我怎么知道二、三千年前发生的事？我连一个星期前发生的事还不清楚呢！眼下正在进行美伊战争，电视上整天都在播放。但我们在电视上仍然看到各种不同的、相互矛盾的报导。用这类证据作你灵魂永远去处的依靠是不那么可靠的。 四、生命的改变 另一种需要纠偏的方法是以圣经使人们身上所发生的变化来影响人相信。一位年轻人向知识分子传福音，辩论不过他们。他告诉我说：“他们不能否认我的见证。”他们为什么不能否认你的见证呢？其他人也有他们的见证──伊斯兰教徒有自己的见证；犹太人有自己的见证；其他各种异端邪说也都有自己的见证。见证是不错，十字架当然改变人的生命，那是毫无疑问的。我决不是要否认见证；我只是说这不是一个好的方法。你若想要说服那些老练而善于思考的人，他们不相信你所相信的，他们有自己的见证，看上去比你还幸福呢。 五、圣经预言的实现 圣经旧约中多处详细地对基督的诞生、生活、受死、复活所作的预言在新约里都成为事实。最有名的要算是那本《铁证待判》了。那上面列出的证据、数据的确惊人，但这对那些根本不信旧约或新约的人，就不是那么回事了──因为你想要听众根据你的论据来相信你所说的。 六、辩论无效 我认为，所有的论据──无论多么强而有力──都不能说服人相信圣经。所有的科学、考古学、人类学或其它任何方式，只要是正确地进行调查、研究，都一定会证实圣经是真的。我们可以从早到晚列出这些数据，但却无法叫任何人相信圣经的确是真的。若有人就是不信，他们对所有的论据都会用他们那把不信的尺子来量一量。这里我是在对你们基督徒说的。你们若是非基督徒，我也希望你们听到我们这面的这一点：“许多不信的人认为自己对生活现实是以理性的态度来对待的，而基督徒则是以非理性的态度。”我却要辩论说，不信的人是通过他们不信的框框来看待世界；他们是下了决心要不信。那些不相信神迹奇事的人永远不会相信神迹奇事会发生。因为他们的起始点是：“神迹是不存在的。”他们信奉的是福尔摩斯[注3]的方法，即：“排除一切不可能的之后，所剩下的无论可能性多小，就是你唯一的选择。” 假如你的认识论的起始点是不允许神迹奇事存在的，那么即使你看见我行一个神迹，你也会说这里一定有一个自然的解释，只不过你目前还不知道那个解释是什么而已。就拿耶稣的例子来说，耶稣所行的神迹是否证实了他的神性？当然是。看到的人受感动吗？不一定。他行了神迹，上千人跟随他；他转过身来讲道，结果怎样？他们都走开了。你们稍微想一想吧，圣经里的那些人见过的神迹最多了──他们在埃及看到了那么多神迹，但都因为不信，死在旷野。因此，无论你列出证据也好，显出神迹也罢，人是不能被说服的。 七、照辩不误 既然这么多方法都不灵，而我的题目又是“我为什么要信圣经？”那么现在我只好让你们回家了。我对今天所讲的主题所作的种种努力都可悲地失败了。但是，正因为我相信在人不可能的事，在神是可能的。下面我就从三个方面来辩论圣经的真实。听上去好像有点矛盾，不是吗？请您忍耐片刻，容我慢慢道来。 我的第一个论点比较无力，第二个也不怎么样；但我的第三个论点将是不可否认的。 论点一：没有一个任何其它的世界观可以对我们所知道的这个世界或现实作出解释。 论点二：圣经的确对这个世界或现实给出可信的解释。 论点三：我们走着瞧罢！ 论点之一： 我的这个论点刚才基本上已经论证过了。除了圣经之外，没有任何一个世界观可以来解释我们大家所观察到的这个现实世界。那些相信这个宇宙是永恒的人，不能解释我们是如何走到今天的，因为无限的时空是不可穿越的。让我来解释一下：今天早上你若是从橙县[注4]来，开车大概一个小时吧；你若是从圣地亚哥来，那就是两个小时；若是从南美洲来，那么就要两天。假如你从无限远的永恒来，假如你要走的距离是无穷远，那么你要多久才能到这里呢？你永远也到不了！因此，“宇宙是永恒的”这一论点是不攻自破的──你是永远无法到达今天的。这无论是在哲学上还是数学上都是不可能的；正如班森博士所说的，自然主义者不得不借用基督教的世界观才能开始他们的那一套世界观。 有人说，宇宙是从某个时刻之后才开始的。持这种观点的人是无法解释使宇宙开始的那些物质是从哪儿来的，或者说，若没有外力，为什么会发生大爆炸？因为这是违反物理定律的。 那些不相信圣经关于创世的记载的人，是不能解释伦理道德的本质是什么或者说从何而来的。假如没有一位从永恒之前就一直存在的神，我们也没有从他得知错、对、是、非的话，哪里来的绝对正确、绝对错误？假如不是以圣经而是以人来决定是非，那么谁是那个人？我记得曾经和别人就这些事辩论过。他们常常提出各种假设──“假如在亚当之前火星上就有人，他们造了亚当”等等、等等许许多多的“假如这样......”、“假如那样......”。我回答他们说：“圣经上说上帝创造了人，你看，我们周围男男女女就有许多人；但你却情愿去相信各种稀奇古怪的假说。”他们反驳说：“你一开口就是圣经，就是上帝，好像上帝可以解释一切似的。”我说：“正是这样。圣经就是答案。”这是再简单不过了。英国著名的学者C.S.Lewis鲁易斯以他常有的幽默感和发人深思的方式说过下面这段话： 假如太阳系是偶然碰撞所产生的，那么地球这颗行星上的生命也出于偶然，人进化也就当然是出于偶然。果真如此的话，那么眼下我们的思想也仅仅是偶然──不过是原子运动的偶然副产品而已。并且这一观点适用于所有人，不管他们是唯物主义者，是天文学家还是任何其他人。但是，假如他们的思想，即唯物主义或天文学理论等等不过是偶然的副产品，我们为什么要相信它们是真的？我找不出任何理由去相信一个偶然事件居然能够来正确地解释所有其它的偶然事件！这就好比说，要让一杯从不小心打翻了的杯子里泼出来的牛奶所偶然产生的形状来解释这个牛奶杯子是怎样做成的、为什么它会被打翻一样。 我记得当时读到这类论据时的确印象深刻；这些描述是准确的、有说服力的，但我们仍然不能确定这就可以用来证明圣经是真的。 论点之二：一个具有说服力的世界观 其实我的第二个论点也已经都阐明了。圣经对创世的记载、对现实世界给出了具有说服力的解释；而哲学家们、科学家们多少世纪以来都在绞尽脑汁地寻找。圣经告诉我们有一位永远存在、自有永有的神，他创造了万事万物，包括物质的和非物质的东西。哲学家们之所以能清晰地思辨是因为他们是按神的形像被造的；科学之所以会有成果是由于神所创造的是一个统一有序的宇宙。这些都已记载在圣经中。道理很简单，都是真实的。它能解释所有的事。然而，人却仍然大头朝下，费尽心思要去找其它的、不可靠的解释。我相信这是真理，但我也承认，人就是坚信可以对观察到的现实世界找到其它的解释。到此为止，我已经完成了我的论述，当然我仍然未证明任何东西。我能够向你证明别人的概念不正确，我能够声明我的观点，但这与我来向你证明“圣经是对的”完全不是一回事。 论点之三：神的话 我们已经谈了许多关于科学、历史等等的事。我知道这不是一篇正常的讲道，这是在讨论关于知识的理论。我的目的是想要你们中间喜欢思考的人，好好思考一下“我们为什么信我们所信的？”“什么是站得住的辩论？”下面我们就来看一看历史： 1643~1648年，由121位英国最杰出的清教徒牧师、30位英国议员[注5]在伦敦威敏斯特大教堂里花了五年半的时间，写成了一份基督教有史以来最伟大的信仰告白。它的第一章第1节是这样开始的： 我们的自然理解力、神的创造之工与护理之工如此清楚地显示了神的美善、智慧和大能，以致于人若说没有神是毫无藉口的。但单凭这些不足以向人提供得救所必需的、关于神的知识和他的旨意。因此，神出于他的美意，在不同的时候以不同的方式向人启示他自己，宣告他对他的教会的旨意。后来，神出于他的美意将这一切启示付诸于圣经，好叫教会在与肉体的败坏、撒但的邪恶和世界的争战中得以确立，并得到安慰。既然神不再以从前的方式向他的子民启示他自己，圣经就成了绝对必要。 简言之，一般启示(神藉被造之物向人启示自己)只能叫人无可推诿(罗马书1章,诗篇19篇)；神救赎的旨意与计划则必须有进一步的启示。神以特殊的方式，通过使徒与先知启示他自己，并将这些启示付诸于圣经，使他的话更好地被传递、保守。 在陈述了圣经的本质之后，这些杰出的教师们是如何来证明他们所作的“圣经是神的话”这一宣告呢？他们的论据是什么？假如你在四百多年前走进这一百多位出类拔萃的神学家当中，对他们说：“你们证明一个来给我看看，说圣经是真的？”他们会怎么回答？这是我们下个礼拜要来讨论的。 让我们一起来祷告： 父神啊，我们切切地祷告，求您打开我们的眼睛，好叫我们看见那真理，那叫人无可推诿的真理。赐给我们智慧，让我们能够识破那些自作聪明的把戏。帮助我们，叫我们知道那些自称是知识起始点而实际上是虚空的东西。父啊，我们已经造成了一种基督教文化，在信仰上满足于浪漫情调，停留在情绪的满足上。父啊，我们忽视了那根本的。 愿教会回到正路上来，愿教会再一次成为这样的一种地方，最出色地宣讲一位圣洁的、公义的神这个真理。愿教会充满智慧，充满思考的头脑、圣洁的心灵和建立在磐石上的生活。奉基督的名祷告，阿们！ _______________ 注释： [注1]
《基督教信仰纲要》是加尔文最重要的系统神学著作。他在二十五岁时写成第一版，直到五十六岁离世前完成第四版。此后的几百年里一直被作为各国神学院的教材。 [注2]
这是最常用的测年代的方法，依据的是碳的放射性同位素半衰期。 [注3]
英国侦探系列小说中塑造的一位以理性推理著称的私人侦探。 [注4]
洛杉矶南面地区。 [注5]
当时的英国议会以清教徒为主。 | 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 |
