Should we trust the Bible because it gives us a good feeling when we read it, or because it changes lives? How should we deal with the claim that we can't trust the Bible because it's only written by men?Audio

 Video

Don't use iTunes? Subscribe here.TranscriptHello, and welcome to Unapologetic, a podcast about defending, not apologizing for, our Christian convictions. Today, we're going to talk about the Bible. We're going to examine some reasons that are common for why people trust the Bible. And we'll see, are they good reasons?(0:23) But the first thing that must be said, is that in order for the Bible to be true, truth must exist. And this is why, a couple of weeks back, we talked about truth, and two views on it. Is it subjective, is it about me and my preferences and my opinions and my thoughts? Or is it objective, is it about something that's outside of myself, that accurately reflects reality? (0:44) Well, in order for the Bible to be true in any type of helpful way, it must be objectively true. It can't just be my opinion or preference or thought. And so, for the next few weeks we're going to look at how to make a case for the truthfulness, the objective truthfulness, of the Bible. (1:01) Well, there are two views on how you should view the truthfulness of the Bible. The first is simply that you presuppose that the Bible is true. You could call this a presuppositionalist view. It's a big word, maybe not that helpful. But, some people, as their starting position, say the Bible is true. It's not a conclusion, it's a starting position. And on this view, Divine authority is accepted unconditionally by Supernaturally-endowed faith.(1:29) So, someone who holds this view would say that their faith enables them to unconditionally accept that the Bible is true. That they don't need evidence. And if we try to reason with people, we're putting reason over God. Now that sounds really compelling. No one wants to put something over God, right? Well here's the thing, such an argument, saying "if we try to reason with people, we're putting reason over God," well, that seems pretty much the same as saying, "well in order to read the Bible, you need to know language and how to read, so we're putting language and reading over God." That doesn't make much sense there.(2:04) And in order to actually understand what Scripture says, we have to use reason. You use reason all the time, when you read a statement and you realize that statement means what it says and not it's opposite. And you come to understand how two different statements fit together. That's using reason. So, I don't find the whole, "reason over God" argument very compelling.(2:27) Additionally, someone who presupposes the Bible is true is probably going to reject all attempts to independently verify that the Bible is true. Because sinful, rational man has no legitimate standard that we could test God, or His revelation by. (2:43) So that's the first view. A presupposing, a presuppositionalist view. And on the other end of the spectrum would be the idea that you could prove the Bible. And you could do this by historical and logical arguments. There are some notable people who have used this approach and have actually come to Christianity because of it. Josh McDowell, who wrote Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Lee Strobel, who wrote A Case for Christ, A Case for Faith, and many other Cases. Jay Warner Wallace, who was a cold-case homicide detective, who set out to prove Christianity wrong and Atheism true, and was actually converted to Christianity in the process. He wrote a book called Cold Case Christianity. Nancy Pearcey, who …