The God Contention

By what criteria do you attribute veracity to your faith's sacred text(s,) and thus the basis of that faith? Is that criteria objective?

CHRISTIAN View

by Timothy McCabe

Christians accept the Bible as authoritative and true for a variety of reasons.

INDIVIDUAL, PERSONAL CONVICTION

As Jesus states, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me" (John 10:27). When God brings us to Christ, we recognize our Master's message, both spoken and written. God Himself causes this to be the case. If He has chosen you to receive His mercy, you will also recognize His message.

This is personal revelation of objective truth from the only truly objective authority, God.

PRACTICAL FUNCTIONALITY

According to 2 Timothy 2:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the Bible is true, if it is scripture inspired by God, then it will be beneficial for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. It has demonstrated itself to be exactly that for thousands of years to the church as a whole, and to every individual Christian in a personal way. If your life is devoted to Christ, you too will find the Bible to be useful.

As a promise from the only objective authority, this too is objectively true.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

The Bible contains multiple eyewitness testimonies of numerous events. Facts can be confirmed through the testimony of two or three witnesses, as Christ explains, "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed" (Matthew 18:16). As one example, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus were witnessed by many. Matthew and John, both eyewitnesses, record their versions of these events in the books of the Bible bearing their names (Matthew 27-28; John 19-21). The Qur'an, on the other hand, written centuries after the fact in a different country, denies these events (4:157).

It is objectively true that confirmation can be provided through two or more witnesses, but the perspectives of witnesses may be somewhat subjective in many cases. In this case, since the authors were writing under the influence of the authoritatively objective Spirit of God, their witness is confirmed by His objective authority and is therefore likewise objective.

FULFILLED PROPHECY

God has repeatedly demonstrated His power and authority by announcing events before they occur (Isaiah 46:9-10). The suffering and crucifixion of the specific person of Christ, for example, was described (Isaiah 53, c700BC; Zechariah 12:10, c510BC) long before Christ Himself died (c30AD), with Isaiah's prophecy apparently spoken before crucifixion as a method of execution had even been invented (c600BC). Many of the prophecies of the Bible are so stunning that skeptics have claimed they must have been written after the fact, because if they had been written before the fact, they would be undeniably miraculous. These would include Daniel's prophecies of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:21) and Antiochus Epiphanes (8:23-25), the prophecy of the coming of Josiah (1 Kings 13:2), and the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD (Matthew 24:2).

God Himself, the objective authority, claims that He does this, so this too is an objective criteria.

INTERNAL COHERENCY

In spite of millennia of attacks on the Christian scriptures, no argument has ever been able to stand against them. If you yourself have sincerely searched and genuinely cannot find an answer to a supposed Biblical contradiction, or an attack of some other nature on the scriptures, feel free to ask.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY

How can we know anything at all? Every worldview or faith has some attempt at an answer to this question, but only the Bible provides an intellectually satisfying framework for knowledge.

If there were no God, we would have no authoritative promise that anything could be trusted. At best, if atheism were true, we could only promise ourselves that the laws of logic were valid. But since we know full-well that we are not in charge of the laws of logic, our promise to ourselves is empty and groundless... no more than wishful thinking. Were atheism true, then even if it were possible for us to believe something, we would have no justification for that belief -- we would have no real reason for believing it. Without a singular sovereign God, there is no one who can truly guarantee anything. If polytheism were true, then yet again, no one could authoritatively promise us that the laws of logic are valid. We would have no grounds for believing that they are, and thus we would have no ground or justification for any belief at all. Under a monotheistic God who does not make promises about His own consistency or character, again we would have no authoritative promise that the laws of logic are valid, and all humanity's beliefs would be completely unjustified.

The Bible, on the other hand, presents a God who, when He declared His own chosen name to Moses, described Himself with a permanent guarantee that His own identity correlates exactly to His own identity, "I am who I am" (Exodus 3:14). The Law of Identity, the most basic law of thought, is practically God's proper name! He further has informed humanity that He is incapable of denying Himself (2 Timothy 2:13; cf 1 John 1:5), so if He creates something He cannot also not-create it at the same time and in the same way, guaranteeing that what is created, is created -- if it is, it is. What He causes, He causes; what He plans, He plans; what He promises, He promises. The Bible further guarantees that He will always be this way (Malachi 3:6; Psalm 55:19; Hebrews 1:12, 13:8). He is completely sovereign over all things (Deuteronomy 4:35, 4:39; Psalm 119:90-91; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 45:5-6, 45:21-22, 46:9; Mark 12:29; John 1:3; Acts 4:12; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:16-17, 2:10; Hebrews 3:4, 6:13), so His promises are authoritative, and it is utterly impossible for Him to lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; John 14:6; Numbers 23:19; Proverbs 8:8-9; 1 Samuel 15:29), so His promises can always be trusted. Further, God has informed humans of these very promises from the moment of our creation, such that all people have an innate knowledge of them (Romans 1:20), which explains why even those who have never read the Bible, including atheists, know and completely trust these promises inscribed on their consciousness by their authoritative Creator.

If the Bible is true, it is possible to actually know something -- to have a justified, true belief. Under other worldviews, knowledge itself is not possible, because no belief has any more justification than any other belief. Objectivity itself can only be known if the God of the Bible is genuine.

CONCLUSION

The Bible offers the only possible source of knowledge. It has withstood every attempt to demolish it. It was written by eyewitnesses, contains fulfilled prophecy, and offers practical wisdom and guidance for every-day living.

What's more, God has provided in the Bible a clear message about you. You are a sinner -- you have done things that you should not have done (Romans 3:23). Because of this, you don't deserve the life you live (Romans 6:23). But you can be forgiven if you trust in the person of Jesus (Romans 10:9-10).

ATHEIST View

by Richard Carrier

Naturalism does not accept the authority of any text as sacred. All knowledge claims are fallible and correctable. They have to be testable and verified by many people, and the more this is the case for any given claim, the more we trust it; whereas the less this is the case, the less we trust it.

Our criteria are as objective as we can confirm any criteria to be: evidence observable, directly or indirectly, actually or in principle, by everyone, and conclusions drawn from that evidence that obey all the requirements of valid logic (and thus do not succumb to any known fallacies or errors of reasoning).

For more on this see Part II ("How We Know") of Sense and Goodness without God (pp. 21-62).

Comments

Sgeo writes:

"If the Bible is true, if it is scripture inspired by God, then it will be beneficial for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. It has demonstrated itself to be exactly that for thousands of years to the church as a whole, and to every individual Christian in a personal way."
This does not work, from a logic perspective: If a then b. b. Therefore, a. Yet this is exactly what you do. There could be a point that, at least in some cases, b does suggest a, but it's not as ironclad as (a -> b), a, therefore b.

Tony writes:

What Tim fails to mention is that each and every one of the arguments that he puts forward for the veracity of the Bible is, and has been, put forward by Muslims for the veracity of the Koran.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Sgeo, The argument you address was inductive or evidential rather than deductive. As an evidential or inductive argument, it works just fine. As a deductive argument, which it is not, you are correct that it would fail miserably.

http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Logic.html

God bless.

Neddie Seagoon writes:

Does anyone else find it hilarious that Tim goes on about evidence and logic when he has admitted that nothing could or would change his mind?

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=396

This isn't intellectual honesty, this is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalalala I can't hear you".

Phil writes:

Tim, how about a straight answer to a straight question, just for a change? Can you give me one line from the bible (just one will be plenty, thanks) that could *not* have been written by an ordinary, non-divinely inspired human being? Thanks.

Timothy McCabe writes:

If by "the Bible" you mean the collection of writings inspired by God, then my answer is "all of them". If by "the Bible" you mean our translations of copies of copies, then my answer is "none of them". The KJV-only people will disagree with me here.

Phil writes:

So...no, then? Yep, that's pretty much what I expected you'd say.

Neddie Seagoon writes:

Tim, taking a line at random, from 1 Chron 6.
"And Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub".
Can you explain precisely what it is about that line that says it could not possibly have been written by an ordinary human being? What *specifically* identifies that line as being of divine, and not human, origin?

J S writes:

Tim,

That you use a section you label "INDIVIDUAL, PERSONAL CONVICTION" in your defense of the Bible's objectivity is very interesting. A more polar opposite definition of objectivity would be difficult to come by. However, I do understand that from within the framework of the Christian worldview, that makes perfect sense. But it does not hold up to the standard of objectivity within the context of the question asked.

In the section "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY," Jesus' own words appear to confirm some incredible claims made by groups of people over time. Things like Bigfoot, stigmata, UFO's, and Joseph Smith's Golden Plates come to mind. I find it hard to believe that this standard ("EVERY fact,") put forth by Jesus, is one that you live by and use in determining fact from fiction.

Timothy McCabe writes:

JS, thanks for the comment on Eyewitness Testimony. When I myself read the NASB version of the passage, I understood it very differently than you have. You seem to take it to mean "something is a fact if two people say it is". I see why you took it that way. I did not. I understood "confirmed" to mean "corroborated":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confirm

Corroboration supports a claim and makes it more convincing. Many Christians are convinced that the Bible is true due to its corroborating testimonies. That was all I was saying.

Looking at the Greek (and the Hebrew that Christ was referencing), it appears the NASB may not offer the clearest translation of this verse. It appears as though a better translation may be something like:

"...by the mouth of two or three witnesses, testimonies can become powerful."

http://goo.gl/R4OE2 (the verses I investigated)

Thanks again for pointing this out.

God bless.

Phl writes:

Tim, do the corroborating testimonies from multiple witnesses at the Salem witch trials make it likely that witches actually existed in that time and place?

Neddie Seagoon writes:

Tim, aren't you blatantly contradicting yourself with this answer? In a previous answer, you said that knowing or understanding the bible isn't necessary for salvation. If that's the case, why bother with the bible at all?

J S writes:

Thanks for that clarification, Tim.

Re-reading your response to this question is it fair to interpret the following about your version of the Christian worldview:

1. The Bible itself creates the framework of all objectivity.
2. (Individual) human belief in the Bible is the product of predestination, or being "chosen" by God. One need only look between the Bible's two covers to justify its claims of absolute authority as the word of God. It is a self contained defense of truth, not needing to be, and not able to be, supported by any external defense.
3. Thus, belief in the Bible, and subscription to its framework of objectivity, is by definition an individual, subjective experience, the product of having been chosen individually by God.

Again, I understand the Christian belief that the Bible is absolute truth, error free, and complete. I'm also familiar with your definition of knowledge. No need to rehash any of that.

...

J S writes:

...

But it does sound as if you've laid out a very subjective, individual case for belief in the Bible.

A subjective experience leads to a framework of objectivity, correct?

Timothy McCabe writes:

"1. The Bible itself creates the framework of all objectivity."

To describe my view it would be more accurate to say the Bible "offers", "presents", "explains", "describes", etc rather than "creates". God's nature or essence "provides" the framework. The framework isn't really "created" per se, but it is a direct and inevitable result of the existence of the God described by the Bible.

"2. (Individual) human belief in the Bible is the product of predestination, or being 'chosen' by God."

"Chosen" to believe in the Bible, yes. That may or may not, for humans, equate to being among the "elect" -- those who believe the Bible and those who are saved are not necessarily the identical set of people.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

"One need only look between the Bible's two covers to justify its claims of absolute authority as the word of God. It is a self contained defense of truth, not needing to be, and not able to be, supported by any external defense."

No, I would disagree, unless I misunderstand your meaning. Looking between the Bible's two covers requires the use of eyes, reading its words requires an intellectual processing of information. The Bible does not do these things for us. To a degree we learn how to do these things through experience, which factors in to our conclusions. When we process the information, we use tools God has given us (and presented or described in the Bible), like the laws of logic, the validity of using experiential evidence, eyewitness testimonies, etc. We do, can, and should use these tools ourselves, as we are directed to do by scripture, to understand what it teaches.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

So the defenses offered are not purely "Bible, Bible, Bible". Rather, they are Bible + Logic + Reason + Experience, etc. The defense must begin with divine revelation to be epistemologically justified though, and the Bible is divine revelation. So, for the Christian, starting a defense of the Bible with the Bible is generally a good way to go, as absurd as it may seem to people who embrace non-coherentist epistemologies.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

"3. Thus, belief in the Bible, and subscription to its framework of objectivity, is by definition an individual, subjective experience, the product of having been chosen individually by God."

No human can arrive at any conclusion on a personal level (no one can honestly say "I have come to the conclusion that...") apart from going through some sort of subjective process involving the personal interpretation of facts / information / evidence, etc. If that is all you are saying, then yes. However, only Christianity offers an objective (absolutely true) foundation or epistemological justification for this subjective (or personal and individual) process.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

"But it does sound as if you've laid out a very subjective, individual case for belief in the Bible."

The question was about the criteria that I individually utilize. I also offered in my example criteria that many other Christians individually utilize. If every Christian individually utilized the exact same criteria, it would still be individually utilized, and each individual would still draw their own conclusion, even if everyone's conclusion was the same. This is true for all conclusions drawn by humans.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

"A subjective experience leads to a framework of objectivity, correct?"

God's nature or essence provides the framework, so it exists objectively. Our subjective usage of that framework leads us to conclusions and sometimes our conclusions are about the very objective framework that makes our conclusions viable. But if our subjective conclusions lead to a rejection of the objective framework that was used to develop them, they have denied their own epistemological justification. Such a conclusion has made itself unjustified.

Neddie Seagoon writes:

I've been reading Tim's responses on these pages for quite some time but this sublime and spectacularly meaningless and outstandingly tautologous drivel surpasses even his usual superlative gobbledegook. That's not ad hominem by the way - I think most reasonable people would call it fair comment.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Which part of it didn't you understand, Neddie?

Neddie Seagoon writes:

Come now, Tim. You and I and everyone else reading this knows that it's not that I don't understand. It's that there is almost nothing *to* understand. Casuistry abounds. Questions are avoided. Words are given meanings depending solely on your whims. It's pointless.

Neddie Seagoon writes:

Cont.
I would observe that the level of intellectual dishonesty you display is almost worthy of William Lane Craig, if I weren't worried that you would take that as a compliment.

J S writes:

I prefer to maintain some level of civility, even in strong disagreement. No need for insults.

Tim, my statements around the idea of predestination and its role in defining objective truth for your version of the Christian worldview were based on your statement, "If He has chosen you to receive His mercy, you will also recognize His message." Hence, my assessment and request for affirmation of your position as stated by me, "A subjective experience leads to a framework of objectivity, correct?"

I appreciate what sounds like your acknowledgement of the subjective nature of the Christian position on the defense of the Bible's truth.

We likely stand in disagreement over acceptance of what "objectivity" truly is, however.

Thanks for your reply.

moose writes:

tim-since you accept the (un) holy bible as authoritative, does that mean we should bring back slavery, since the god of the bible advocates owning and beating slaves? (ex 21)

Tony writes:

FAO Moose - Tim said in previous comment that...
"One human treating another as property is in itself perfectly acceptable from a moral perspective (Leviticus 25:44). This does not mean that every example of slavery throughout history was perfectly acceptable".

Good luck making sense of that...

Timothy McCabe writes:

Moose,

Scripture makes it clear that we are all either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ (John 8:34; 1 Corinthians 7:22). Slavery is alive and well, and always will be. The claim that any human is free from all forms of slavery is nothing less than a claim to their absolute divinity.

Further, a morally proper response to foolishness is a beating (Proverbs 26:3, 10:13). For this reason, for example, the spanking of children is a long-held, much-valued, and highly effective parental disciplinary measure (Proverbs 22:15).

God bless.

Tony writes:

The concept of being owned and at the same time having to love the one who owns you is repugnant and repulsive.
Many civilised people decided long ago that it is not acceptable for one human being to own another as property. That the Christian faith leads some people to the opposite conclusion is even more evidence of that faith's corrosive effect on basic human decency and its innate barbarism.

Anonymous writes:

Thanks for sharing your feelings, Tony.

Tony writes:

You're welcome, Anonymous. I particularly love it when the Christian bible is very clear about how you are permitted to treat your slaves. For example, it's OK to beat your slave to death, as long as he/she lives for a day or two after the beating (Ex 21:20-21). Presumably this applies to child slaves too. It puts Tim's spiel about the morality of beating children into perspective doesn't it?!

Comment on this topic

Follow:

By what criteria do you attribute veracity to your faith's sacred text(s,) and thus the basis of that faith? Is that criteria objective?

Comments

More Questions