I hope that helps. It is a good question.

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking theological work. This post brought up a question for me in relation to your last post on the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate:

You state here, and correctly, I believe, that it is the life, death and resurrection of Christ that are the center of Christian faith and the means of salvation, and the Scriptures need not even have been written for this to be true. This begs the question for me, that if God has saved the elect unconditionally and requires no response, why did God even bother to tell us about Jesus? God would have, in Jesus, accomplished God’s purpose: saving the elect. It seems to me that the simple fact of God having preserved a record of Jesus is evidence of God requiring a response. No?

Blessings,
Ryan

You stated, “I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options.”

I agree. But I’ve seen an even worse false dilemma and poison in the church advocated by many a King James Onlyist who takes this a step further by teaching that one either:

A) believes in the inerrancy of the King Jame Bible

or

B) denies inerrancy and is a categorical “bible doubter” for not believing that God has perfectly preserved His word as found in the Authorized KJB.

I can’t count how many times these advocates have categorically labeled me “apostate” and “doubter” and “spiritually blind” and “my own final authority” for not believing this notion that the KJV is alone the perfect, inspired and inerrant word of God. As somone who has endorsed inspiration and inerrancy for over 20 years, it’s quite a slap in the face from my supposed brothers in Christ, and it’s worse than being told I haven’t yet received the “2nd blessing” of the Spirit.

Regards
-Steve

You said, “The Bible nowhere describes itself as “the Word”.”

What about these:

“…The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (*and the Scripture cannot be broken*)…” (John 10:35)

CMP,

You said, “Christ did not die of the cross because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because He died on the cross.”

“But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” (Matthew 26:56)

“‘Was it not *necessary* for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:26)

These things happened because God said in His Word (which cannot be broken) that they would.

The Bible is a collection of texts which contain that early presentation of the Gospel message, and it is a collection that God has ordained and guided us to because the particular texts were inspired by Him to aid us in our walk and guide us to correct belief.

So, God is revealed to us through Scripture, that is true, but God revealed his new covenant to believers for a few hundred years before many had the full collection of texts we now call the New Testament.

I agree that God’s word is of vital importance to our salvation, but my point was that ultimately it does not make Christianity true. It simply attests to its truthfulness. It is the primary source from which we get the message, but the source of the message and the truthfulness of the events behind the message are not the same thing. In other words, truth is not subject to its proclaimation, much less subject to its accurate proclaimation. Christ did not die of the cross because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because He died on the cross.

Does that make sense.

The Cross is revealed to us through the Word. Without the Cross people will not be saved. Without the preaching of the Word people will not be saved (Romans 10:13-17). God did not choose to reveal Himself through magic tricks or totem poles, rather He chose a more sure word of prophecy. It is the foundation for the central truth of the cross. If we take away the foundation we erode the credibility of the Cross.

Stephen Stallard

You said, “Saint, I too hold to presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics comes in many varieties of application, but it does not exclude evidence in the slightest. Even Van Til would have room for the use of evidence.”

I would agree. However, my point was that the very basis upon which the apostles and the early Christians *knew* that Christianity was true was because they believed in God’s inerrant Word. Inerrancy was foundational to their worldview.

Also, inerrancy in revelation is a corollary to God’s character.

You wrote, “I don’t think these people would necessarily say that God was lying, but that the authors were mistaken or simply following the common knowledge of the day.”

I was speaking of that specific apostate’s spritual state (which in turn, will determine whether he believes in Scripture).

You wrote, “I think that this is rather simplistic and impossible to test. He may simply not have intellectually accepted the proposals for reconciliation. He cannot make himself believe something he just does not believe.”

You might be right, but it is my universal experience with atheists.

You said, “Again, this may be the case, but I still contend that this is an easy out. There are some problem in the Scripture which are VERY hard to reconcile.”

Which is why you wait patiently and give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. Determining who the last Chaldean king of Babylon was before its fall to the Persians was “VERY hard to reconcile”. Now, it’s not.

You wrote, “True, but can you always expect people to?”

God expects us to, and unbelief has disastrous consequences since it accuses God of being a liar. The apostate you mentioned above is going to find out the hard way on the day of judgment.

You wrote, “As one conservative Evangelical said, “Liberals cannot find a contradiction because we make the rules for finding one so difficult that it is beyond anyones ability to find a legitimate discrepancy.” There is humor in this, but also much truth.”

I’m not trying to be jerk when I say this but…so what? I KNOW that Scripture MUST be the Word of God via transcendental argument. Everything else, including those “rules,” stem from that presupposition. In fact, God *demands* that we start with this presupposition.

Thanks for the conversation. Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. God bless.

Presuppositionalism is just that, a presupposition behind the worldview to which one holds. This type of argument does not excude that presupposition or the validity of such arguments.

Also, I did not get this from your comments. While I would not completely exclude someone who could not reconcile particular parts of Scripture from service, I would exclude them from teaching so long as it was not simply a hermeneutical difference (like so many times it is).

You said:
a.) His spiritual father was the devil, his eyes were blinded to the truth, Scripture is spiritually appraised, and he was incapable of accepting the truth due to his spiritual status (John 8:43-44, John 12:39-40, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7, John 6:64-65).

I don’t think these people would necessarily say that God was lying, but that the authors were mistaken or simply following the common knowledge of the day.

You said:
b.) He was intellectually lazy. He only read the simplistic arguments of infidels and became an apostate because of it. He should have called a professor at DTS or Westminster, asked for the best Conservative commentary on that specific book of the Bible, and compared the two sides.

I think that this is rather simplistic and impossible to test. He may simply not have intellectually accepted the proposals for reconciliation. He cannot make himself believe something he just does not believe.

You said:
c.) His thinking was uncritical. He simply accepted the presuppositions of historical-critical scholars rather than examining them.

Again, this may be the case, but I still contend that this is an easy out. There are some problem in the Scripture which are VERY hard to reconcile.

You said:
d.) He was impatient. Archaeology has a track record of making charges that the Bible is unhistorical disappear.

True.

You said:
e.) He didn’t give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. There are constantly new discoveries that shed light on the writing style of ancient documents which, in turn, show that a surface-level contradiction between two narratives can be reconciled.

True, but can you always expect people to?

As one conservative Evangelical said, “Liberals cannot find a contradiction because we make the rules for finding one so difficult that it is beyond anyones ability to find a legitimate discrepancy.” There is humor in this, but also much truth.

I like your two last statements, but I would say that we need to start first with the historicity of Scripture when evidence is the issue. The presupposed authority is there either way.