Jesus and the Sufficiency of Scripture

I love the Bible. I read it all the time, but I wish I read it more. I make a strong effort to apply it to my life. I know Greek and a little Hebrew. I believe that it is inerrant in its original form (autographs), and that what we have today is a fully trustworthy and reliable representation of those original documents. I also believe that these documents, though written by human hands, were inspired (almost literally "breathed into") by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). I believe that they provide an accurate historical account of the miraculous intervention of God into the world of Men, as well as instruction for Godly living.

Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture says that the Bible provides all that we need for the Christian life. It gives us the story of Jesus-- his life, death and resurrection. It tells us how to live our lives as believers, even tackling some specific and difficult issues. Many go a step further and claim that Scripture is all that is really needed to bring a person to Christ (No fancy presentation, exposition, application, interpretation, etc.). Not to put too fine a point on it, the Sufficiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura, as the Reformers called it) means that Scripture alone is the authority in matters of doctrine and faith (as opposed to the church or a Man, say, the Pope, for instance).

The point that I am going to make here is that we have forgotten one of the other Solas of the Reformation: Solus Christus.

To be precise, Solus Christus (Christ Alone) claims that we are saved by Christ alone, and there is no other mediator between Man and God. And, although I'm sure it was never anyone's intent, this has become the only place for Jesus in the Church. He is our Savior and Mediator, but He has no place in our regular lives.

Why is that?

I think that the problem is that the Bible has taken the place of Jesus in our lives. As a minister, I am constantly encouraging my students to get into the Bible every day. I do it myself (most of the time). How often do I say, "Spend time with *Jesus* every day"? Not very often.

In The Present Future, Reggie McNeal says, "The church is print reliant. The Bible has become for the modern church the supreme manifestation of the Word of God (not Christ) because it is "objective" truth (a modern distinction). It became the fourth member of the Trinity." [the parenthetical comments are McNeal's] It took me a few days to unpack this statement. One of the overall points of the book is that we have gotten so good at "doing church" that we no longer need Jesus to show up. I think that he is saying that we don't need Jesus in our lives anymore because we have a book (that is the "Word of God") to replace that relationship. Do you think Jesus would rather have us turn to a Book -even if it is His Book- instead of coming to Him personally? Is Jesus allowed to speak outside of the printed page?

I already know what you're thinking. It's the same thing that I struggle with all of the time: "If we abandon the Bible, how can we know if what we are "thinking" or "feeling" is really from Jesus?" I share this concern. I'll be the first one to tell you that the human heart is easily led astray by the myriad of distractions and influences around it. However, hear this: I'm not suggesting we abandon the Bible. I just think that we need to keep it in its place.

The Bible has hijacked the place of Jesus in our lives because it is easier to just skip the Jesus step and go straight to the Book. This, I think, is why McNeal said, "It has become the fourth member of the Trinity." We are print reliant and not Jesus reliant. We think that the Word of God is a Book and not a Person. If you asked the Apostle John to describe the Word of God what would he say? "A collection of 66 Books"? No way. He would say, "The Word was God and the Word was with God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (See John 1:1-14)" John would describe a person: Jesus, the Christ.

Going back to the original definition of the Sufficiency of Scripture, the Bible is an authority. It is a guide. It is a standard. I wholeheartedly believe that anything we think Jesus is saying to us will align (and therefore, not conflict) with what the Bible already says (because the Bible is from Jesus anyway, right?). The Bible truly has been given to us for this purpose. This is the traditional, orthodox belief on the Bible.

I'm saying that what we should first go to Jesus and listen to His instruction in any given situation, and *then* consult the Bible to authenticate the instruction we think we've heard. In fact, you probably hear this in Sunday School all the time, but have never thought long and hard about what it means. This means that we have to spend time with Jesus, not just time in "prayer and Bible study." We have to ask him about things, and then we have to listen, and if you've ever tried it, that's a lot harder than it sounds.

In conclusion, please allow me to clarify what I have said. I believe the Bible is the word of God (I may even believe it more than you do). However, we should not let it take the place of Jesus in our lives. It is an easy thing to do.

...the scribe tells us what he has read, and the prophet tells us what he has seen. The distinction is not an imaginary one. Between the scribe who has read and the prophet who has seen, there is a difference as wide as the sea. We are today overrun with orthodox scribes; but the prophets, where are they? The hard voice of the scribe sounds over evangelicalism, but the Church waits for the tender voice of the saint who has penetrated the veil and has gazed with inward eye upon the Wonder that is God.A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

---

Some other things to think about regarding the Bible:

-What did Jesus have in mind when he talked about "the word" in, Matt 4:4; 13:18-23, 24:35, Mark 4:33; 13:31; Luke 3:2; 5:1; 6:47; 11:28; etc.?

-Furthermore, what was the author's concept of "the word" when they wrote the following passages: Romans 10:17; Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23, 1 John 2:14; Revelation 19:13. (Keep in mind that they didn't have a print copy of what we now call the Bible at that time.)

-Finally, what was Paul referencing when he said, "All scripture is god-breathed... What was Scripture at that time, when the Bible (as we know it) was still being written?

---

Links to consider:

9Marks: "Sufficiency of Scripture"
Piper: "Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture: What it Does and Doesn't Mean"

Praying for Gas Prices

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Source]

Rocky Twyman has a radical solution for surging gasoline prices: prayer.



Twyman - a community organizer, church choir director and public relations consultant from the Washington, D.C., suburbs - staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday, asking God for cheaper gas. He did the same thing in the nation's Capitol on Wednesday, with volunteers from a soup kitchen joining in. Today he will lead members of an Oakland church in prayer.SF Chronicle

HT to Purgatorio

Thinking Through Al Mohler and Archaeology

Today Al Mohler wrote about George Washington's boyhood home, Gabriel's Revelation and Archaeology.

...Christians are too often overly excited about the latest "discovery" that gains media attention -- either in elation or travail. Archaeology is an important scholarly discipline, but it is not immune from ideology and many of the conclusions and arguments announced to the public are actually not at all what they first appear to be. Furthermore, archaeology is largely a matter of historical reconstruction, often with little actual evidence. As a rule, the more distant the time, the more difficult the reconstruction. That makes sense, of course, as time destroys both evidence and the preservation of memory.What Should We Think About Archaeology and the Bible?

I'm not sure I agree with Mohler's conclusion, however:

Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority. In the end, archaeology cannot prove or disprove the biblical text. Nothing can be found, or not found, that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God. Archaeology can expand our knowledge and understanding, but cannot establish the authority for our faith.

I love Al Mohler, but I'm either missing his point, or he's using some strange logic. By saying "Nothing can be found, or not found that should shake our faith in the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Word of God" is he assuming that the Bible is true a priori, without considering any outside evidence as to its accuracy? Is he assuming the Bible is true, regardless as to what evidence can be found against it?

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm an Biblical Inerrantist (and so is Mohler). I trust it totally, but that's because it stands up to intense and constant scrutiny. If there was compelling "archaeological" evidence to show that it was a fake (say, if there was a security tape from one of the Councils of Nicea, showing church leaders making it up), I'd have to toss it out and find faith elsewhere. My faith in God comes from my trust in the Bible, not the other way around. (Mohler agrees when he says: "Authentic Christianity is based upon the inscripturated revelation of God -- the Bible -- as our authority.") Without the Bible, we have no record of God's words, and that would make all teachings about Him potentially subjective, and therefore unreliable.

Perhaps Mohler is arguing something along the lines of Spurgeon, speaking on our efforts to defend the Bible:

"How are we to defend the Bible?" Spurgeon was once asked. The great Nonconformist preacher, with a true spiritual insight and a shrewd common sense sometimes lacking in profounder theologians and more versatile scholars, answered, "How would you defend a lion? Open his cage and leave him to defend himself!"Source

Perhaps Mohler's point is that it is improbable that any single archaeological find will ever totally prove or disprove the entire Bible. Furthermore, we, as Christians do not have to defend it, it can defend itself. To paraphrase Voddie Baucham, we don't have to defend the Bible, but we need to be prepared to defend our belief in it. I think that is the distinction that needs to be made here.

Do you agree with Mohler's conclusion? Am I way off base here?

Does it Matter if the Resurrection was an Original Idea?

[Image Source]

Following in the footsteps of James Cameron's Jesus Tomb, Gabriel's Revelation, an "ink on stone document" that shows some literary links to the Dead Sea Scrolls, is causing a stir in the archaeological community over the Bible's theological roots.



Now, I have no reservations that this is a genuine artifact. I'm concerned that so many sources seem to anticipate that this will cause problems for Christianity, as the stone may contain an allusion to "living" in three days, written in a time that probably pre-dates Jesus and the writers of the Bible.

But what may make the Gabriel tablet unique is its 80th line, which begins with the words "In three days" and includes some form of the verb "to live." Israel Knohl, an expert in Talmudic and biblical language at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who was not involved in the first research on the artifact, claims that it refers to a historic 1st-century Jewish rebel named Simon who was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C., and should read "In three days, you shall live. I Gabriel command you." If so, Jesus-era Judaism had begun to explore the idea of a three-day resurrection before Jesus was born.



This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?Time: Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?

I'm sorry. Did you say "novelty"?



I'm not familiar with the argument that claims the Resurrection is true because it was an original idea. I don't see the logic in that. Frankly, I don't think that argument would be very convincing, let alone one of the "strongest" that Christians have to offer.



Furthermore, think that Israel Knohl's interpretation is sketchy at best. All he has to go on is "...some form of the verb 'to live'"? This is hardly Time-worthy scholarship.



The related NY Times article uses similarly ominous language, as though the very foundations of Christianity will be shaken by this [possible] interpretation:

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.NYT: Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Here's a bit on Knohl's personality and past work (also from NYT, emphasis added):

...Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem...posited in a book published in 2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of rabbinic and early apocalyptic literature as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But his theory did not shake the world of Christology as he had hoped, partly because he had no textual evidence from before Jesus.

Let's stop for a moment to recap: A scholar seeking to "shake up" views on Christianity (this is mentioned more than once in the NYT article) finds a barely-legible text, and interprets it in a manner that would shake up Christianity. Is anyone surprised? I'm not.



However, I am surprised by the amount of attention this is getting in the media. Look again at the headline: "Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection." One scholar and a faded, smudged text. Newsworthy? Only if it involves doubting the Messiahship of Jesus.

---

To go a little deeper, let us assume the Dr. Knohl's interpretation is correct, and that the idea of a third-day resurrection existed before Jesus' death. Does that instantly make it untrue? Does it necessarily follow that the disciples used this theology to invent a resurrection story? Hardly.



It may be argued that the Old Testament already holds this theology. Isaiah 53:10-11 references a resurrection, as well as Psalm 16:10 (which could also imply a three-day death), additionally Jesus mentions Jonah's three day ride in the belly of a great fish, which could also hint at Old Testament texts influencing Resurrection theology.



And even if Knohl is right, all this "Revelation" will do is prove to further connect Jewish and Christian beliefs, which should be intimately intertwined, as Christianity sprouts from Judaism, and Judaism finds its completion in Christianity.



Here are a few brief reasons why I trust that the resurrection accounts are true. And, just to be "fair" to those who don't believe it, I'm leaving out mounds of evidence from within the Biblical text itself:

• If he was dead, Jesus' grave would've stopped the excitement.
  
  
  
  
  • Opponents would only have to point to Jesus' grave to discredit his Disciples
  
  
  • Christianity exploded in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus' Resurrection. This was the town where he should have been buried
  
  
  
  


• Jesus' Disciples were changed, and even gave their lives because they witnessed the Resurrection.


• The New Testament was written and circulated during the time when witnesses to his death could have spoken out against them. Why weren't claims of Resurrection thrown out as lies?

---

Links of Interest:

Original Article in Biblical Archaeology Review

Text Translated into English

Reason vs Faith?

Oh my goodness.

Source

Created or... What?

Cectic.com



This is a common argument against Intelligent Design: "If complexity necessitates a creator, wouldn't our creator need a creator?" Or, to put it another way, if God made the world, then who made God? While this seems to make Creationism untenable, I do not find this argument compelling once one examines the alternatives.



Two Alternatives:

1. The universe came from nothing. Assuming that everything has a cause, or everything that exists was created by something else, this is ridiculous. This viewpoint would say that everything was caused by something, until you get to the beginning of the universe, then... what? Regardless of how one may try to explain it away, the logical terminus of this naturalistic viewpoint is that the universe popped out of nothing. How's that for a miracle?



2. The universe created itself. Very similar argument, very similar response. Nothing can create itself, as it would have to exist before it could create itself. This just doesn't make sense. (Kinda mind-numbing, isn't it?)



I argue that the universe was created by something outside of itself (for instance, God). As the cartoon above shows, this does sound incredible, but when you consider the other options, it actually makes more sense to assume that something beyond our natural system (super-natural, perhaps?), made the universe to exist. If so, it is also possible for this being to be self-existent, needing no cause for itself (a first cause, or uncaused cause).



Now, this is not proof positive, I'll give you that, but look at the alternatives. Which is more ridiculous?



More info at Wikipedia: Cosmological Argument.

...Thank God for Charles Darwin?

"Evolutionary evangelist" Michael Dowd, released an article yesterday to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Darwinian Evolution. The article, entitled "Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin," explains what evangelicals would call Dowd's "testimony," or story, of how his life has been changed... by accepting both Christ and evolution.



Dowd makes some very interesting claims in his article. Here are a couple:

...It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.



...No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.

I found it interesting that Dowd thought the reason behind the Christian aversion to evolution was a moral one. ("it would seduce me away from godly living" --I'm not sure I see the logic in that, but that's what he said... or was told) I don't think that is the main problem that Christianity has with evolution.



Dowd (and most others who claim to accept both Christianity and Evolution) is missing an important point: if Darwinian Evolution is true, the Bible is not, so we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty, therefore Christianity is truly as baseless as its opponents claim.



Here's what I mean: In Mark 10:6-7 Jesus directly references Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and it is easily inferred that he believed that humans existed from the beginning of the world. Jesus believed in a young Earth, and even if one may argue that he didn't, Jesus certainly never tried to correct the "false teachings" from the opening chapters of Genesis.



If the world was created through evolution (either Darwinian or Theistic), the Christian is faced with one of two major problems: 1. Jesus was either mistaken or a liar, or 2. The Bible did not correctly record his statements. If option 1 is true, then Jesus certainly was not the Son of God, as how could Deity who was supposedly present at Creation (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16) be mistaken about how the creation occurred?



If option 2 is true, then we can know nothing about Jesus with any degree of certainty. For instance, if this account in the Bible is wrong, how can we know that the account of the resurrection isn't wrong as well?



Everything that Christianity has to offer hinges on the Bible's veracity. If it is inaccurate, then it is not even good enough to be called a good 'spiritual' book, or even a piece of literature (as it would then be fiction that tries to present itself as truth).



As convenient as it may be to try to find a way to reconcile the two, evolution and Christianity are incompatible.



If you'd like more information on Dowd, you can visit his website. I've also found this video. You may find InternetMonk's review of his book helpful as well.

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons

That's not my title. It's the title of this video from Break.com

Christian Guy Totally Owns Mormons
As Christians, should apologetics be about "owning" our opponent, or sharing the Truth in love? Did this guy go too far, or was he justified in his defense of the Bible?

How to Show that Evolution and Naturalism are Incompatible

Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, has developed a very keen argument to show that Evolution and Naturalism are incompatible. I like this argument because it deals with Evolution head-on.

The Veritas Forum has the full lecture to download as either a video or MP3.

Plantinga defines:

• N as naturalism
• E as the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine
• R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cites a thermometer stuck at 72 degrees placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 degrees as an example of something that is not "reliable" in this sense and suggests that the conditional probability of R given N and E, or P(R/N&E), is low.

Wikipedia: EAAN

The following is a very, very, basic breakdown, put in layman's terms. Forgive me if I'm not technical enough on some of the deeper portions of this argument. This isn't intended to be a defense of Plantinga's argument, it's just a simple presentation of the argument's basic points.

1. What is Naturalism?
2. What is Evolution?
3. What's the problem?

Naturalism simply put, is the assumption that there is no supernatural; the universe is a closed system, and only natural "laws" apply. There are no ghosts, no miracles, no unicorns, no Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no God. In many ways (in fact, in most circumstances) this can be a helpful assumption. This is how man has developed medicines, by assuming that diseases were caused by something natural instead of evil spirits, for instance.

Naturalism depends upon observation and the brain's ability to correctly interpret what it observes. This is why it is so "rational." The Naturalist only believes what he/she can see. If you can't see it, then it doesn't exist. (Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation of this matter)

Evolution is a part of Naturalism. If there is no God or Flying Spaghetti Monster to create the world, then it must have come from, well, nothing, and evolution explains how that occurred.

The driving force behind evolutionary change is reproduction. Plantinga goes into the details of this in his lecture. Simply put, everything an organism develops is ultimately for procreation, spreading its genetic code.

If evolution is true, then our ability to observe and interpret the world around us is most likely unreliable. If the mind of man has evolved as an engine to get us to procreate, then it probably isn't very good at discovering things like "what is true." And, if it's not reliable for that purpose, how then can it say with any certainty that something like evolution is true?

Naturalism says that Evolution is true, but Evolution in turn, says that we can't trust our ability to be "rational." Then, if we can't trust our ability to be rational, how then can we know that Evolution is true in the first place? See how crazy this cycle becomes?

What are your thoughts on this? Before you respond, I highly recommend listening to Plantinga's presentation of this. I know that this is an over-simplified version of the argument, and frankly, I don't want to spend the next week listening to how flawed my argument is when you can hear the expert for yourself.

High IQ Equals Atheism?

In a forthcoming paper for the journal Intelligence, Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, will argue that there is a strong correlation between high IQ and lack of religious belief and that average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 countries.

The paper...cites studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.

Professor Lynn told Times Higher Education: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."Times Higher Education

This may seem threatening enough, but do you see the flaws in Lynn's argument already?

Andy Wells, senior lecturer in psychology at the London School of Economics, said the existence of a correlation between IQ and religiosity did not mean there was a causal relationship between the two.

So, what is a "casual relationship"? It means that just because both numbers seem to match, there is nothing that proves that higher intelligence causes lack of faith. Here is a diagram that illustrates another seeming correlation but no causal relationship (click for larger):

This is disappointing scholarship. I'm shocked that a person could get any press or even an audience to present this kind of work. I don't think I could get away with it in my current Master's program. Lynn is jumping to conclusions based on simple data without any investigation as to the cause of these trends.

Of course, this totally ignores the poor logic that Lynn uses, see the third quoted paragraph above. He equates an "academic" with "higher intelligence."

At this point, Lynn's conclusions are simple conjecture. He would need to do some significant studies to find some correlation between "higher IQ" and agnosticism/atheism.

Colson: Greenhouse Pigs Must Die

Chuck Colson has a great article about the results of the "misanthropic [use that word sometime this week!] worldview of the environmental movement."

He writes about an online game for kids that shows them how much their lifestyle impacts the environment. However, it shows how long you should have lived according to the rate at which you consume environmental resources. If you exceed the amount allowed, it shows you the age that "you should die at."

Is it worth killing humans if it means saving the planet? If you follow a naturalistic worldview to its logical conclusion, yes. And this game subtly shows us this.

Colson's article is quick and to-the-point. It only takes a few seconds to read, then you should check out that crazy game

Using the Bible to Prove God is not [always] Circular Reasoning

Let me begin by saying that more often than not, the Bible is used in a circular argument. But what is circular reasoning? It is a logical fallacy in which the original premise is assumed true, and it therefore provides no evidence for its conclusion. Thus: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."* Sometimes this can be called “begging the question.”

Common boneheaded example:
Q1: Is there a God?
A1: Yes.
Q2: How do you know?
A2: Because the Bible says so.
Q3: How do you know the Bible is correct?
A3: Because it was inspired by God.
From “How Thinking Goes Wrong”

I hope that this argument seems silly to you. Can you see how the next logical question is to start over again with “Is there a God?” This could go on forever. Yet, I hear this kind of argument all the time. So do many non-Christians, specifically atheists and agnostics. And people have seen this so many times that if you even begin a conversation about the existence of God with the reason that the Bible says so, instantly the other person in your conversation will plug his ears and begin screaming, “Circular Reasoning! Circular Reasoning!”

---

The trouble with this (besides making a person burst out screaming in a public place) is twofold: 1.) The person screaming is using a term from logic, and that makes them look smarter than you, whether they are or not, and 2.) The circle in the circular reasoning hasn’t quite been completed yet. They may think you are begging the question, when in fact, they are jumping to conclusions.

Here’s what I mean: They haven’t asked Question 3 yet (How do you know the Bible is correct?), and you haven't had a chance to respond. This is where things get interesting, and this is where we Christians need to understand what we believe. (By the way, if you don’t know why the Bible is reliable, can you really say that you trust the Bible?) For, if your response to Question 3 is nothing more than Answer 3, you have nothing to offer neither yourself nor the person to whom you speak.

---

I’ve been working my way through Voddie Baucham’s The Ever-Loving Truth, a book about engaging post-Christian culture. Additionally, I’ve found some of his stuff on YouTube, and I like his approach. Here’s what he says about the Bible:

[The Bible is…] a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine, rather than human in origin.

I like that he points out the Bible is made up of “historical documents.” It is not merely a silly “spiritual” book. It includes accounts of actual events, documented by lots of people (not just one person).

My argument here is that if one can prove that the Bible is a reliable source of historical fact, then one has a good start on proving that the Bible is a reliable source of information on the existence of God.

---

Now, one common counter to this kind of claim is that there is no “scientific proof” that the Bible is true. Let me just let Baucham speak for himself on this one.

Seriously, go check out that link. The original poster disabled embedding, so I can't post it here. Just be sure to come back.

Here’s the main point: the Scientific Method cannot prove anything unless it is observable, measurable, and repeatable (this is part of the problem I have with all of the certainty about evolution, but that’s another post for another day). The past is “proven” through the Evidentiary Method which requires internal consistency, corroboration, and reliability. Baucham’s argument is that the Bible meets these three requirements far better than any other historical documents from that time period.

I would like to add that this is not a new, groundbreaking argument. It is very similar to things I have seen from Josh McDowell and Hank Hanegraaf. But the reason why it is used often is because it makes the point very well. Baucham simply clarifies the difference between the Scientific and Evidentiary Methods.

---

Conclusion: The Bible can be used to support the argument of the existence of God, but its reliability must be proven first, and that cannot be done by the scientific method, but rather by evidentiary means (which are just as “rational”). Furthermore, the Bible stands up to this test quite solidly.

---

Here’s the playlist of his entire message, just in case you’d like to hear the whole thing.