1993 issue 7 - apologetics: is christianity probably true or certainly true? - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 1993 Issue 7 - Apologetics: Is Christianity Probably True or Certainly True? - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/3

IsChristianity

Probably True f

Cerl iinlyT

fuel

what

do you think would be the

results

of

a one question examination

given to every evangelical professing

Christian in the

world? The one

question

examination is

-

"Is

Christianity

probably true

or

certainly

true?" Would we not be shocked and

grieved if the results were not a

100%

the Bibleis the

Wordof

God simply because

it

claims

to

be

the very Word

of

God.

jesus,

I

really

need

some real

tangible

proof autside of

what

the Bible says about

you in order for me

to

put

my

total trust

in

yau

. Would

we

not seriously

question whether this person

was

a

genuine Christian?

We

think it is absurd for a person

who says he loves the Lord Jesus with

score favoring the r ~

certainty

of

apologists who would genetaUy

be

classified

~

Evidentialists, and three

quOtes are ftom men

Who

have

espoused Refonned Theology. Josh

McDowell wrote in his book, Evidence

That Demands Verdict,

"Be

careful,

I

did

not

prove

beyond a

shadow

of a

doubt thatJesus was

the Son

of

God.

What

I did was

investigate the

evidence and

weigh

the pros and

cons. The results

showed

that

Christ must

be who

He.claimed

to be,

and

had

to make a

deCision, which

I

did. .

Edwar\l J. Carnell

wrote in his book, An

Introduction To

ChristianApologetics,

First, let us establish

surely

the

fact that

proof

the Christian faith,

s proof for any world

viewworih talkingabaut,

cannot rise above

rational probability ...

Cordial trust in jesus

Christ

is

always

lo'untied

in

reasonable

Christian faith?

When

you

asked

God to forgive you

of your

sins,

pleading for the

mercy of God, did

you probably think

that God exists or

did you cenainly

believe in a

forgiving God? Did

you probably or

certainly think that

Jesus Christ came

into this world to

atoneforman'ssin?

When you repen

ted ofyour sinsand

=========;;.

evidences."

John War

turned

in

faith and accepted Jesus

Christ as your Lord and Saviour, did

you probably

or

certainly believe that

salvation was only in Jesus Christ?

When every genuine Christian

looks to the innennost recesses of his

hean, he

has believed with confidence

that the God of he Bible is the true and

living God whom he has sinned against,

needing forgiveness

of

sins. The

Christian believes with confidence that

Jesus Christ is indeed the way, the

truth,

and

the life,

and

that no man

comes to the Father except through

Jesus Christ. Would we not think it

was a strange anomaly, even a sinful

thought,

for

a Christian to say, "Well,

jesus, I

am not sure whether

or

not yau

are the Son

of

God

come

into this

world

to

save

sinners, but I hope

so.

I

am

not

even

sure

beyond

the shadow of a

doubt that

all his

hean to

think this way.

f

his is

the case, then why do many defenders

of

the

Christian

Faith

present

Christianity as a mere probabiJjty

statement?

One

of the major

perspectives in evangelical apologetics

is that of Evidentialism. The primary

emphases

in

this apologetic school is

that the Christianapologist is to presern

to the unbeliever all the evidences

for

the truthfulness ofChristianity, hoping

to

show the unbeliever that it s rational

to

believe

in

Christ, and that it is

foolish

to

remain in unbeliefin light of

all the evidence faVOring Christianity.

Amazingly, those advocates of this

perspective presern the overwhelming

evidences of Christianity's truthfulness

not as a certainty but only as probably

true.

The following quotes are from three

4 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon September 993

wick Morngomery wrote in his book,

The Shape

Of

The Past,

The

resurrection

provides abasis

in historical

probability for trying the Christian faith.

Granted,

the

basis is only on,e of

probability, not of certainty, but

probability

is the sole

ground on which

finite

human beings

can

make any

decisions. Only

deductive logic and pure

mathematics provide apodictic certainty,

and

they do so

because

they

stem

form

self

evident

formal

axioms

(e.g

the tautology,

if

A

then A involving

no

matter offact.

The

moment

we

enter

the

realm

of

act,

we must depend on probability; this may

be

unfortunate, but it is unavoidable.

The evidernialists,

in

their zeal to

persuade

the

unbeliever to embrace

Christ, do not press the claims ofChrist

as a cenairny of

fact,

demanding the

unbeliever to repent

and

believe

because the

Bible

as God's Word says


2/3

0; they encourage the unbeliever to

objectively look at the evidence (which

is only highly probable) and decide for

himself if the evidence is sufficient to

declare Jesus the Son of

God.

Even Gordon Clark, known

as

a

Reformed theologian, does not present

the certainty of Christianity as one's

governing presupposition or starting

point. Clark has said

in

his book,

A

Christian View o Men

and Things,

If

theism is

indeed necessary

to

the

intelligibility of history,

possibly Mohammedan

theism or

some other

form

wouldjunction as

well

as or

even better than Christian

theism. There has not

been

much

argument

so

far

to

rule out

such

a

possibility.

Apparently

the bestgeneral

procedu

re jor

one

who

wishes

to

recommend

Christian

theism is to show

that other forms of theism

ore

inconsi stent mixtures.

Francis Schaeffer was

another Reformed theologian who did

not present the certainty ofChristianity

as one's ultimate starting point.

Schaeffer has said

in

his Wheaton

lectures, It always

seems to me a

very

false thing to ask

an

honest

man

who

is

wrestling

as to

what the

Bible

is, to

believe

the

Biblical

system

on the basis

that

the

Bible is a suffiCient

authority,

when NJatis

the

subject

under discussion .. Ifwe are

Christians, we

should

realize that

if

I am

going

to

be able tocommunicate

the

gospel

to 20th century people, it must be rooted

in

anareaojtruth thatis open

to

question ..

Scripturally, you

are

not

invited

to

come

and believe and have

life in

His

name

until you have jaced the

question,

is this

true? "

Truth,

therejore, stands bejore

conversion.

Finally, R.C. Sproul, an adherent

to Reformed Theology, equally does

not begin his apologetic with the self

attesting nature

of

Scripture as a

certainty. Sproul has said

in

his book,

Reason

To Believe, "The case jor

the

infallibility of SCripture proceeds

along

both

deductive and inductive lines. It

moves from the premise oj

general

trustworthiness

to the

conclusion of

infallibility. The reasoning proceeds

as

follows: PremiseA: The

Bibleisabasically

reliable and trustworthy document.

Premise

B:

On

the basis of this

reliable

document we

have

sujficient evidence to

believe confidently thatjesus

Christ is the

Son of God. Premise C:

jesus

Christ

being

the

Son of God is an

infallible

authority.

Premise D:jesus Christ teaches

that

the Bible is more than generally

trustworthy; it is

the

very

Word of God.

Premise E: The word,

in that

it comes

jrom God, is utterly trustworthy

because

God is

utterly

trustworthy.

Conclusion:

On

the basis

oj

the infallible authority

oj

jesus

Christ, the church believes

the

Bible

to

be

utterly

trustworthy, i.e.

infallible.

Sproul insists that the above logical

argument is not guilty of circular

reasoning. Sproul has said that Van

Til's starting pOint, which is the self

attesting nature of Scripture (the

Bible

is true because it claims

to

be true) is

circular reasoning

and

is invalid.

Concerning the above logical argument

given by Sproul, he has said, Note

that

this

progreSSion

does not involvecircular

reasoning

.

Rather this

method follows

a

linear pattern oj development.

The

argument itself is not injallible

as

each

premise involves

matters of

inductive or

deductive reasoning thatis done by

fallible

human beings... That the

Bible

claims

to

be the

Word oj

God

is not

enough to

authenticate

the claim. Any book can

make such a claim. . .

Why

should

you

trust

the

Bible?

You

should

trust the

Bible

because the

Bible

has been proven

trustworthy.

What is the problem

with Sproul's argumen-

tation? Sproul has said

that the strength of his

argument

is

that

Scripture's infallibility

moves from general

trustworthiness to

infallibility. Foralogica

argument to bevalidand

convincing, the

con-

clusion to the argument

must follow rigorously

from

the

premises.

Sproul's argument does not. It is a

devastating andan unbiblica1statement

to say that the Bible is a "basically

reliable" document. What does

basically mean? It must mean at least

51

reliable so that it has a majority.

Is theBible 75 or 80% reliable? Saying

that the Bible is "basically" reliable

definitely leaves the impression that a

pOltion of it might not be reliable.

Which portion of the Bible is not

basically reliable? Is it those areas

dealing with Christ's deity

or

atoning

work that arenot reliable? The minute

we

do

not

emphatically claim the

absolute inerrancy of Scripture as a

certainty of fact as

our

ultimate starting

point,

we

have inadvertently opened

Pandora's box. The Bible is

not

"baSically reliable"; it is absolutely

certain and reliable. The Bible givesno

evidence of its certainty outside of its

own authority as the very breath of

September,

1993

THE COUNSEL

of Chalcedon 15


3/3

Almighty God. Even though Sproul is

committed

to

and

a defender

of

the

inerrancyofScripture, he has exposed

himself to the same pitfalls of neo-

orthodoxy and

liberalism.

AsecondmajorcriticismofSproul s

argumentation is

that

his premises B,

C, and D can onlybe accepted as valid

i f

we

accept what

the

Bible says about

Jesus, but

the

authority of the Bible is

the issue under debate. How do we

know

esusis

the

Son ofGod,speaking

as

an

infallible authority and giving

His divine stamp of approval on the

authority of Scripture outside of the

Bible s

own

t e s ~ i m o n y ? It is from the

Bible itself that we learn who Jesus is

Sproul s conclusion that the Bible is

infallible because Jesus Christ is

infallible

is

a conclusion

not

validly

deduced from his premises. Sproul

has

not empirically proved

with

certainty that any of his premises are

true unless one presupposes that the

Bible is true, which is a presupposition

that Sproul refuses

to

accept at the

outset.

So much

for avoiding circular

reasoning. Sproul cannot escape it,

nor

can any other apologist who is

faithful

to

Scripture. One cannot move

from general reliability

to

infallibility

(whichiscertainty withoutintermediate

steps which are absolutely certain.

As

we have said

in

last month s

article, many have criticized Van Til

for his presupposition as the ultimate

starting point for defending the faith -

a presupposition which proclaims the

self attesting nature of Scripture (the

Bible is the Word of God because it

claims divine authority foritself). What

do these opponents

to

this perspective

offer in its place? They offer to the

unbeliever highly probable evidences

for him to consider whether Jesus is

worthy of his commitment. Though

the

men

that have been mentioned

in

this article have made some great

contributions to the field ofapologetics,

they have

not been

totally faithful in

proclaiming the Bible s

greatest

strength - it comes

to

us withabsolute

certainty

as God s

revelation.

When I came to Jesus Christ

acknowledging

that

I was a worthless

sinner, deserving God s

wrath,

repenting of my sins, and committing

myself wholeheartedly to Christ s

Lordship, I did

not

come thinking that

Jesus was probably true

but

certainly

true. Didn t you?

Nextmonth

we

s):Iallgive a detailed

account of the Scriptural texts

demonstrating that the Bible s own

testimony about itself is that

it

is

certainly true,

not

probably true.n

C A ~ r O O N

~ ~ U S r R A r e p

BOOKS 6c; We LOCKM N

l-l- O ~ IT:; GTA 1

1993 issue 7 - apologetics: is christianity probably true or certainly true? - counsel of chalcedon

Documents