The Bible In the Post-Christian World (Part 2): Is the Bible Trustworthy?
In the introduction to this series, I gave the story of a young woman who was aspiring to be a pastor and her claim that she followed Jesus, not Paul. In saying such a thing, she could have meant that the writings of Paul were just that, the writings of Paul, a man who was culturally conditioned against women in positions of authority. Effectively, by saying this, she would be questioning the trustworthiness of Scripture. She might say that all Scripture is not inspired by God.
If this is the argument, how would you defend your belief in the trustworthiness of Scripture? In a broader sense, as you witness in the world, how do you reach the point where a skeptical 20-something will accept the testimony of Scripture? There are a number of ways that people have approached this, but I want to mention two not-so-effective ways, one decent, yet lacking way, and one way that is, in my opinion, unassailable.
“The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!”
The first, and probably the most popular way to offer a defense of the trustworthiness of Scripture is just to appeal to Scripture from Scripture. One might begin by saying, “Well, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 says that all Scripture is God-breathed”. Or, a person might just simply state what so many fundamentalist Christians do: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
But, there is a glaring problem with both of these appeals: they assume that the hearer accepts the trustworthiness of Scripture. The assumption is made before the conversation even begins that everyone in the conversation holds to the fact that Scripture is trustworthy. So, when you appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 you are already assuming that the other person believes that Paul was an apostle, appointed by God and led by the Spirit to write 2 Timothy. Whatever passage you quote, whether from the Old or New Testaments, you are working from the presupposition that those passages are inspired and therefore authoritative.
Worse yet, if you just simply appeal to the sensibilities of a bygone era in claiming the authority of Scripture just because it has “Holy Bible” written on it, you are only working from the acceptance of culture, and not even from the appeal of Scripture itself.
Truth by Consequence
Another appeal that is often made is not to Scripture itself, but to the testimony of so many people who have been changed by Scripture. Someone might say that Scripture is trustworthy because of all of the converts that the Bible has produced. While it is true that God has used a Bible placed in a motel room or passed along by a stranger to save many people, and the proclamation of that Word has brought great harvests, this in and of itself isn’t enough to prove that the Bible is trustworthy.
There are literally billions of people in the world today who testify to the trustworthiness of the Quran. In fact, Islam is estimated to be the fastest growing religion in the world today. If we are judging the truthfulness of a book based on adherence, then we might be at an impasse, if not at a loss.
The Power of Prophecy
A third argument that is given is the argument from the fulfillment of prophecy. There are two different ways that this argument can go. I will lay them out in increasing effect.
First, some might say that the Bible is trustworthy because it has been confirmed on many counts by modern sciences like archeology. The names of kings have been discovered on inscriptions after years of doubting the testimony of Scripture, as in the case of the king of Malta in the book of Acts. The trouble is, even though there are many events and places which are attested by archeology, there are also many that are questioned by it. That is not to say that archeology has disproven anything in Scripture, but there are just some events and places that are so ancient that they may never be unearthed.
The second variation of this argument is to say that Scripture is trustworthy because of the fulfillment of prophecy. There is a powerful case to be made that passages like Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53 have been clearly fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and because they have been fulfilled, Scripture must be trustworthy. While this argument has a great deal of merit, we run into a problem of interpretation. Jews, to this day, do not believe that these passages and others like it are speaking of Jesus at all. So, how do we establish the trustworthiness of Scripture for someone who rejects our interpretation of these prophecies from the word “go”?
The Final Argument
The fourth and final argument finds its basis where all of Christian doctrine should: in Jesus Christ himself. This argument finds its root in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19. In this passage, Paul establishes a line of argument which plants the confirmation of the Christian claim squarely in the realm of history. Paul says that Christianity is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then everything we have done and said has been in vain. But, if Christ has been raised, then it affirms the Gospel that Paul preached.
So, we can have confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture because Christ has been raised from the dead. And, if Christ has been raised from the dead, that means that Christ is more than just a mere man, for no one else has raised from the dead after being brutally killed on a Roman cross, placed behind a 2000-pound stone, and left for three days.
Objections
But, if you have been paying attention, you may call me out on my methods by saying, “Wait a minute, you have already disqualified the appeal to Scripture from Scripture, and now you are saying that we should accept the testimony of Paul and the Gospel writers.” But the key word here is “testimony”. You see this argument brings together all of the valid aspects of the other arguments:
· Paul and the Gospel writers were offering eye-witness testimony to what they had seen and heard (1 John 1:1).
· This eye-witness testimony is still verifiable to this day through archeology and extra-biblical history. Herod The Great, Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, Pontius Pilate, Gamaleal, Ciaphas, and others were all political and religious figures who really lived during this time. Also, the Gospels and New Testament as a whole appeal to various eye-witnesses whom first century readers could have questioned for themselves. In fact, Paul asserts this very thing in 1 Corinthians 15:6.
· Jesus and the Apostles connected the dots between his life, death, and resurrection and the fulfillment of prophecy.
How do we get there from here?
So, you might still be wondering, “How does this prove that the Bible as a whole is trustworthy?” Well, that actually brings us to a slight variation of the first argument as our closing argument: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.”
· The Gospels are eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which support one another and have been confirmed by history and archeology.
· The writings of the Apostles, such as 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, and so on, are trustworthy because of the authority given to them by Jesus in Matt. 28:19–20 and Acts 1:8.
· The writings of Paul are trustworthy because of his Apostleship, supported by Peter (2 Pet. 3:15)
· Jesus quoted extensively from the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets (Luke 24:27) (Robinson, 2017).
Conclusion
We can trust the Bible as God’s Word, not because it is culturally attested, scientifically attested, or even personally attested. We can trust the Bible because it is attested to by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If Jesus really did rise from the grave, then he is indeed the Son of God. If Jesus is indeed the Son of God, then what he says is true and right. If what Jesus says is true and right, and he says that the Old Testament is true and right, then we can trust the Old Testament. And, if what Jesus says is true and right, and he says that his apostles are witnesses of him, then we can trust the New Testament as well.
So now that we’ve established the trustworthiness of Scripture, what authority should it have in our lives and the life of the Church? This question is the natural follow-up and where we will find ourselves next time.
