Some might object that one cannot appeal to Scripture in order to prove the authority of Scripture. If the authority of Scripture is in question, they would say, then the Scriptures cannot be used as evidence to prove their own authority.
Regarding this it should be noted that all arguments are either based on an unsubstantiated claim or circular reasoning. The claim that one cannot appeal to the Scriptures to prove the authority of the Scriptures is itself based upon the assumption that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. But if Scripture is ultimately authoritative, then it is completely appropriate to appeal to Scripture to establish its own authority. If God is the absolute authority and if the Scriptures are God’s word, then there is simply no higher authority to which one might appeal to establish the authority of Scripture. To appeal to a higher authority would necessarily require that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. Rather, the thing to which one appealed would be an authority above Scripture since it would be the authority upon which the Scripture’s authority was established.
As Christians, then, let us remember that our position is that the Scriptures are ultimately authoritative. It is for this reason that we hold the Scriptures to be self-authenticating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be...But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him.
ReplyDeleteJustin Martyr, On the Ressurection, ch. I
That is a fabulous quote!
ReplyDeleteI’ve been hearing bits and pieces of Chip Ingram’s radio teaching over the last week. He’s doing an apologetic series.
ReplyDeleteToday, he gave yet another reason why he believes that the Bible is truly God’s Word, namely archeology! (Not regeneration, of course!!!!!!!!)
As you’ve said, this too leads to circularity, and a smaller circle at that. The question now becomes: Why should we accept archeology as a justified means of authenticating the Bible? Moreover, as Justin has the honesty to say above, the Bible is self-authenticating; God won’t submit to fall under the scrutiny of another authority!
I wished that more Christians were this honest in their apologetic. If we’re indeed in postmodernity, and integrity is the supreme virtue of the postmoderns’ value system, then the classical proofs will continue to loose steam as an effective method for defending our system.
If it sounds like this is a bit pragmatic, that’s because the strongest arguments for traditional methods over against presuppositionalism are usually pragmatic in essence.
Have you heard Bahnsen’s debate with Sproul on apologetic method?
I've always wanted to listen to Bahnsen's debate with Sproul, but haven't yet had the opportunity. Do you know where I might find it online?
ReplyDeleteI don't know that it's a matter of being pragmatic. It seems to me to be more a matter of experiencing the consequences of sinful thinking. If we seek to make "what works" the ultimate criterion in our determination of value, then we will find that what we value will not work to achieve the thing we are seeking. Can anyone say lex telionis? (I know that at least you will appreciate that comment!)