八、“自圆其说”吗？ 下面我要引用的是《威敏斯特信仰告白》中的一句话。顺便说明一下，我绝不是要把这个《告白》举到与《圣经》齐平的高度；我之所以引用《告白》，是因为我同意它的话。这是我的观点；但我们会来看看这样做到底是否合理。 《威敏斯特信仰告白》第一章第4节： 我们应信服圣经的权威，这权威不在乎任何人或教会的见证，乃完全在乎神(他自己就是真理)。神既是圣经的作者，所以我们应当接受圣经，因为圣经是神的话。[注2] 你现在大概知道我为什么把这一小段的标题定为“自圆其说”。这段话听上去的确是自圆其说──圣经应该被接受，因为它是神的话。我们之所以知道它是神的话，是因为圣经说它是神的话。或许《威敏斯特信仰告白》的这些作者们根本就没有想要隐瞒这一“自圆其说”。 在一定的形式上，每个人都是自圆其说的。罗伯特．布瑞厄斯说过： 各门科学都以科学原则、定理为论据，但从不试着要证明这些原则、定理。神学也是一样，其原则就是相信。哲学上低级的科学既不能对高级科学的原则进行否认，也不能肯定。圣经则是科学中最高的科学。 当人们来辩论什么是最高真理的时候，每一个人都是以自圆其说来辩论的。“自圆其说”可以被看作是一种“逻辑错误”，因为你的结论是基于你的前提，是一种循环往复的思想。但我要来辩论的是(我的哲学老师也同意我的观点)，论到永恒的事情时，每个人都是自圆其说的。 实验家总是假设他的观点最可靠，他就用实验法来论证他的观点是真理。就像是那些大学里的教授，他们辩论时都假设他们的论据是最充份的。理性主义者也采取同样的态度。假如某人相信自己的世界观是真实的，最能对现实世界作出解释，那么他唯有以自己的世界观原则为辩论的基础。 我来解释一下：假如我是个科学家，我相信“解释绝对真理的最可靠的方法就是观察”，我的论据是什么？我当然会用我个人相信是最可靠的辩论方法──观察──来立论，于是我的结论就已经包含在我的前提里了。 理性主义者也是一样。他想：“我为什么要放弃我认为是最可靠的思维方式，仅仅是为了要进行辩论呢？既然那是我所相信的最可靠的方法，那么我当然要坚持用那种方法来讨论、辩论啦！” 这使我想起了一次与一个佛教徒关于禅功的对话。佛教徒不相信亚里斯多德的逻辑思维。他辩论说，我的世界观不如他的世界观那么可靠，然而他用的却是亚里斯多德的逻辑思维方法和我辩论。你看，他们不相信逻辑，却相信一只手可以发出击掌的声音之类的玄而又玄的东西。但是他却明明在使用逻辑思维的方法与我讨论，认为这样可以来说服我。他为什么放弃了他所相信的东西，为什么不用他的“禅功逻辑”来和我辩论呢？因为他知道那玩意儿是行不通的；我们都在依靠一定的法则来进行讨论。你当然会用你认为是最可靠的方法来进行讨论啦。你为什么要放弃呢？你为什么该用“不那么可靠的方法”呢？ 布瑞厄斯接着说：“一个哲学家可以列出证明神存在的各种证据，但他一定是在已经相信神这样一个前提之下──他绝不会哪怕是暂时的成为无神论者。” 九、有“中性立场”吗？ 我所说的这种中间立场正是今天很多基督徒所采用的，是极流行的，却是需要被纠正的。假如基督徒视无神论者是错误的、愚拙的，那么他们为什么还要再以无神论的世界观作为起始点来与人辩论呢？这就是现代中性立场之迷的所在。威廉姆森对此有过这样的评论： 有时候基督徒也是采取这种很不明智的做法；这常常发生在他们向不信者传福音的时候。不信的人宣告说：他根本看不出圣经是上帝的话，凭什么要人相信它？太多太多的时候，基督徒先同意了不信者的这种观点，认为它是有一定根据的。基督徒甚至会想像出一个双方都同意的“中性”的起始点来，然后他就希望一系列的辩论可以建立在这个“中性”的起始点(或标准)之上。或许在辩论结束的时候，他可以证明圣经是神的话，当然也可能证明圣经不是神的话。于是，人的理性、考古学、历史等等就可以成为起始点。不知不觉地，这个起始点就成了(比圣经)更高的标竿。结果上帝自己必须努力越过(这个标竿)才能证明他是真的。事实上，这就造成了比神的权威更高的权威。然而这(种权威)是不可能(存在)的。(参来 6:16-18) 班森博士将此方法与不道德列为同罪。他说： 这种调和是不可能的。主耶稣在《马太福音》六章24节说：“一个人不能事奉两个主。” 毫不奇怪，在一个万物都由基督所造(参西1:16)、也靠他的话的权能托住(参来1:3)的、一切智慧与知识都在他里面藏着的(宇宙中)，他就是真理，所有的思想都应当顺服他(参林后10:5)。在这个世界上，中性立场不是别的，就是罪。“与世俗为友的就是与神为敌”(雅4:4)。 我就曾与一位神学院的著名教授有过一次对话。如果我说出他的名字，你们一定都知道[注3]。那是一次在课堂上，我问他说：“是否有这样一种可能性──不是虚构而是真实的可能性──就是‘神不存在’？”这位基督教神学院的基督徒教授竟然回答说：“ 是的，有这个可能性。”你看，他愿意来认同这种可能性。而班森博士指出：那是不道德的──认同这个可能性就是否认你生活中的最高前提；说到底，就是等于否认你的信仰。 我可以作一个虚构的假设，说：“就算是暂时让步，说一下‘没有神’......。”但我若同意说“可能没有神”，那么我所谓的“相信圣经是真理”就是不诚实，就是对我自己的最高信仰不诚实。我们以为这样做(暂时认同、妥协)可以开始与不信的人进行讨论，但这多么容易就使我们放弃了我们的最高信仰啊！我们绝不能这么做。 有人说过一个比喻：你拿着枪到商店去抢东西；你的枪就是你的最高权威。假如对方说他不承认枪的权威，你怎么办？你不会说：“让我们拿柜台上的那把鸡毛掸来作为中性起始点吧！”你会开枪打他！你不能放弃你的最高权威。 十、圣经是(罗马天主教)教会定的？ 今天在基督徒中很流行的说法是：“教会确定了圣经，而不是承认了圣经的权威。难道我们不相信事实上是教会把那些《正经》编篡在一起成为《圣经》的吗？” 果真如此，教会的权威就应该高于圣经；而这正是罗马天主教所宣称的。这是罗马天主教的观点。我以前在抗罗宗神学院里也是被这么教导的。有了这种观点就辩不过罗马天主教。因为罗马天主教说，圣经是教会定的，因而教会的权威自然就高过圣经了。 对此，著名神学家赫治在他的《信仰告白》一书中关于“圣经在基督教中的地位”这个极重要的问题上写过如下的话： 此立场的目的就是要否认罗马天主教的异端──他们说受神默示的教会是一切从神来的知识的真正源头；圣经和教会的敬拜传统等等之所以可信靠，是由于罗马教会的认可。于是他们就使圣经成为圣灵对教会作工的产物。但事实上正相反：教会是圣灵通过神的话──圣经──的教导之下所产生的。 也就是说，圣经是出于教会呢？还是教会是出于圣经？是教会决定了66卷圣经呢？还是教会只是认识和承认了圣经？这里的差别极大。那种说“人(教会)可以来评价、鉴别神的话”的想法是可笑的。果真那样，人(教会)的权威不就高于圣经了吗？我们从这一认识开始寻求，当然不允许人(教会)把自己置于圣经之上来评估、评价它──就仿佛我们在逻辑上、智慧上真的高于圣经似的。 十一、见证难免出错 无论是科学、哲学，还是教会的权威，都不能高于神的话。圣经的权威绝不依赖这些很难不出错的见证。保罗在《罗马书》三章4节指出：“神是真实的，人都是虚谎的，正如经上所记”──请注意：保罗将他的声明与圣经所记等同起来。 R.C.司布罗在他的书中引用加尔文的话说： 再也没有一种杜撰比这一虚构更荒唐了，即：“评判圣经的权利在于教会(特指罗马天主教)，圣经的可信性也在于教会。”当教会接受圣经，盖上她的大印时，她并没有使本来有疑问的或有争议的东西变为权威；她所做的不过是承认圣经是神的真理，教会的责任就是毫不犹豫地对神的话表示敬畏。 十二、证据的价值 《威敏斯特信仰告白》并没有贬低教会或其它资源的作用，而是给它们所提供的证据以合适的然而却是附属的地位。《告白》的作者们不像我们今天这样到处找证据。宗教改革之所以发生，是因为罗马教廷(当时的唯一教会)将自己的权威置于圣经之上。因此，《威敏斯特信仰告白》的作者们所针对和纠正的，就是这种对圣经的挑战。 今天我们面临的威胁是科学的权威──他们(科学家)成了权威。每当《时代周刊》或《今日》[注4]封面上发表一篇报导说找到了新的证据证明圣经是真的时候，人人都大声惊呼：“噢，原来圣经是真的！”这就是侵入了我们灵魂的思想方式，我们必须加以抵制。 《威敏斯特信仰告白》第一章第5节： 我们可能受教会的见证感动与影响，因而高举圣经、敬重圣经，认为圣经属天的性质、教义的效力、文体的庄严、各部的一致、整体的要旨(“将一切荣耀归给神”)、人类唯一得救之道的完整彰显，和其它许多无比卓越、全然完美之处，都足以证明圣经本身就是神的话。虽然如此，最让我们完全确信圣经无谬真理与属神权威的原因，是圣灵在我们里面动工，藉着神的话在我们心中作见证，也与神的话在我们心中一同作见证。[注5] R.C.司布罗在论到加尔文关于证据的价值时这样写道： 加尔文列举了圣经的神圣源泉与权威的证据。他论到圣经的尊严、圣经教义的神圣性、圣经宏伟的设计与内容、圣经前后一贯的教导、圣经中对事物或情节描述的真实性、圣经里的神迹奇事、预言的实现、历代以来圣经的应用、以及烈士们用鲜血所作的见证。加尔文显示这一切的证据不是软弱无力，而是客观上强而有力，令人折服。 看来，加尔文也好，《威敏斯特信仰告白》的神仆们也好，并非完全视外在的证据于不顾；相反，任何证据──只要是实事求是的评估──都会证明神那神圣的话语是真理。毫无疑问，圣经完全能够经得起任何合法的严查细考或最挑剔的目光。你不必逃避科学；相反你所需要的只是严谨的、优秀的科学。你不必远离天文学家──真正好的天文学家真实、客观地应用科学原则，一定会发现原来圣经所宣告的是真的。假如考古学、人类学、天文学都正确地进行研究，客观地作出结论，那么现代科学的所有原则也都会证明圣经是不可否认的。 十三、外在证据附属于内在见证 我们可以肯定地说，与圣经相比，任何其它的评估手段充其量也只能被称为“不太有把握”。正如上述《威敏斯特信仰告白》一章5节所述：“最让我们完全确信圣经无谬真理与属神权威的原因，是圣灵在我们里面动工，藉着神的话在我们心中作见证，也与神的话在我们心中一同作见证。” R.C.司布罗还引用加尔文的下面这段话： 那么就让以下两条作为我们无需更改的公认：第一，那些被圣灵从心里教导的人对圣经必定坚信不疑；第二，圣经本身就带有明证，不仅不需要人的辩论与佐证，而且由于圣灵的见证，就叫我们全然接受、坚决信服。 至此为止，我们可以一眼就看出：那种把《圣经》绑在被告椅上，召来川流不息的证人与证据的法庭式的做法，是何等地愚蠢、可笑！圣经本来就不屑于这些论证与辩论。今天我们把圣经放在被告席上，找人来为神的话作证──这不是愚人演戏，又是什么?!就好像是让我2岁、4岁、6岁的三个孩子来评价我，要我4岁的儿子养成一个习惯来评论我所做的是不是合体统。他当然也有对的时候，但绝大部份时间他是错的；他还没有到看清整体性的时候。他常常相信：“我爸爸最懂了。”长大后他会知道真相。对于神的话，我们都不过是婴孩而已。我们中间最成熟的也不过就是仅仅知道一点点而已；我们所知道的这一点点足以让我们晓得：有一位神，他通过耶稣基督救他的子民。 我们会不会问：“像加尔文这样杰出的学者为什么不来为圣经辩护一番呢？”(顺便说一下，假如你对我引用《威敏斯特信仰告白》和加尔文的话有疑问，请你在主日学讨论的时候提出来。)你可能会问我：“为什么不单单引用圣经呢？”我之所以没有单单引用圣经，是因为圣经里没有一处写道“所有66卷书”，也没有说“这66卷书就是圣经”。“这66卷书是圣经”这个概念是我们的前提。 或许加尔文根本连想都不会想到要让圣经来拿出证据，他而是要求他的对手拿出证明来。或许他根本不会守在城堡里，而是以回答愚顽人的荒唐问题来摧毁对手的营垒。他的辩论词大概会是：“假如是那样的话，您有何高见呢？......”我不想在此多作猜想。 我们只要知道这一点就够了，那就是加尔文是不会让神的话来屈就尘土的审查的。我们也不应该这样做。加尔文说： 但这些证据本身并不足以让人对圣经产生坚信，直到我们的天父在圣经里显明他自己，从而确定人对圣经的敬畏之心。......当然，人的见证也会不无效果地加以证实──假如它们是从属于圣经本身最高的证据，也能被用来作为辅助手段帮助我们的软弱。但是，若有人试图以此来向不信之辈证明圣经是神的话，那可就是愚拙之举了。除了信心，绝无旁门左道。 布瑞厄斯指出，不仅加尔文，也不仅是《威敏斯特信仰告白》的神仆们，早在一千多年前，“根据教会先父们的立场，圣经就是真理，无需任何外在的权威加以证实。”让我们千万不要误会布瑞厄斯的这段话是指圣经是不可理喻的；不可理喻的是人要用自己那有限、有误的理性来审查、判断最高的真理。他不是说，我们应当放弃理性；他说的是我们必须认清我们理性的有限性。 我给这一篇讲道起的题目叫《我为什么应该相信圣经》。假如你期望我举出各种论点、证据，好使你用理性来对神的话进行评价的话，那么你就失望了。我希望你们大家都能看出，如果我走的是这条路的话，那是多么没有理性啊！ 十四、不可否认的论点 我的第三个论点是：因为圣经是真理，所以人应当相信；否认我们明明知道是真的，那就是否认真理。耶稣教导我们说： 48弃绝我，不领受我话的人，有审判他的──就是我所讲的道在末日要审判他。(约12:48) 不是证据，不是他行神迹的能力，不是因为他应验了先知的话。耶稣宣告什么？他宣告他说的话就足够来审判世人了。到时候人就不得不承认：“是的，这是真的，这就足够审判我了。”这是什么？这是他的话。 神的话具有足够的权威来审判全人类。我向神祷告，叫我们因着神的恩典能认识到：人若想要审判那必要审判我们的，实在是与疯子无异。 12神的道是活泼的，是有功效的，比一切两刃的剑更快，甚至魂与灵，骨节与骨髓，都能刺入、剖开，连心中的思念和主意都能辨明。13并且被造的没有一样在他面前不显然的；原来万物在那与我们有关系的主眼前，都是赤露敞开的。(来4:12-13) 这里说的“神的话”是指圣经呢，还是指耶稣？我不认为二者有什么差别，因为当耶稣来到世上的时候，他说了话，他的话就要审判人。 我的论点就是：相信圣经是真的，不是依靠证据，也不是出于猜测，当然更不是要人盲目地信从一种神秘的、不可知的神话故事。相反，是要人回到他们的正常理智上来，不要再否认那明摆着的东西。 有人说：“我就是不相信圣经。”你的这种态度就等于在说：“我相信偷窃是对的。”我认为，人拒绝圣经的时候，就是在拒绝他们知道是真理的东西。这点他们是明明知道的。圣经上明明要求我们因此而悔改；人却争辩，问“圣经是否是真理？”这就好像争辩“空气是否存在”一样。你每说一句都必须呼吸一次空气；你的观点就一次比一次弱。 任何愿意来到神圣洁话语面前的人，都必定会找到光，找到生命。福音的信息是来自天上的信息，是救赎的信息。神就是用这一信息来拯救罪人。神的儿女们，让我们一起来颂赞、传扬神的话。阿们！ 我们一起祷告： 父神啊，我们以自己的不义来压制真理。我们听到耶稣的话就远远地逃离，因为他的话揭露了我们的真相；因为他是光，而我们想藏在黑暗里。我们求您赐给我们一颗心，叫我们不要逃离，而是要寻求那美善的、公义的、真实的。我们向您祷告，求您打开我们的眼睛、耳朵，好叫我们看到您话语的宝藏。求您赐给我们坚强的信心，让我们把这样的信息告诉人：“有一个地方，神在向人类说话；那地方就在神的话里。” 父啊，叫我们绝不把您的圣言去以证据来证明，让我们不要把珍珠丢给猪，因而羞辱您的圣洁，将您的圣洁、您那赐生命的话语，让区区有限的人的理性来品头论足。 神啊，让我们高举您的话，让我们明白它有拯救的大能。正是通过它，您将人从死亡救到生命。让我们相信，您必定做这拯救的工作。愿您的话受人尊崇，因为它所宣告的就是您的生命之道──基督耶稣。我们奉他的名祷告，阿们！ _______________ 注释： [注1]
意即将顺序改变为“圣经、圣父、圣子”。这实在是误解了“以圣经为起始点”之意义──它绝非否认圣灵，更不是用“圣经”取代“圣灵”的位置。 [注2]
另一译文：“圣经以权威向人说话，因此人必须相信、遵守。圣经的这一权威不依赖任何人或教会的见证，而完全依赖于神。他是圣经的作者，他自己就是真理。因此，圣经应当被人作为真理接受，因为它是神的话。” [注3]
维牧师当年所读过的是主流自由派神学院。 [注4]
美国著名的畅销杂志和国家广播公司的晚间电视专题节目。 | 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)? |
