QC and SG accountability

We considered the idea of the authority of Scripture – by which we mean the right of Scripture to command us to obedience to its standards. Christians believe that Scripture faithfully conveys the words of God through the writings of men  (cf. 2 Ti 3:16, 2 Pe 1:21). As such, it is infallible, inerrant in the original writings and fully authoritative for all of our life. 

 But, I asked: is it not a circular argument to say,

"The Bible is the Word of God" -> "So it is authoritative and infallible" -> "Based on that authority it claims to be the Word of God" -> "So the Bible is the Word of God"?

There are a number of responses to this allegation:

1.       A circular argument is inevitable when one appeals to ultimate authority. If you say, “I believe only in the evidence of my senses from scientific experimentation as a measure of truth”, when asked “Why?” the only possible response would be, “Because I believe that all that exists is whatever I can measure in experiments”. If we use a different standard, e.g. “Because X says so”, that merely pushes the burden of ultimate authority beyond X ad infinitum. So we need not fear that circular arguments per se are invalid. At the very least they demonstrate internal consistency. We would be foolish indeed to attribute ultimate authority to God’s Word if it does not claim to be ultimately authoritative.

2.      Aside from internal consistency, Scripture is validated by its place in history. In particular, it is validated by the historical person of Jesus, who attributed ultimate authority to Scripture (Mt 5;18, Jn 10:35) and proved His credentials by rising from the dead. We can call on the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies over time in the Bible and in history. There is a remarkable unity of the message of the Bible that spans 66 books and 1500 years of time.

3. The Bible never tries to prove the existence of God - the basic axiom that all Christians accept. We take it (perhaps initially from different sources, e.g. experience, cosmology, philosophy) that God exists and that He speaks to us in revelation to reveal Himself to our knowledge. I said that, for every Christian, the most powerful and important validator of the authority of Scripture is the inner conviction that the Holy Spirit gives us when we as children of God hear His voice in His word. This is a non-negotiable element that gives us the assurance that what the Bible says is true. Without this there will always be intellectual doubts that prevent us from knowing our identity and destiny in God.

It is not possible to ‘prove’ the authority of Scripture beyond all doubt, but I think it is possible to prove it beyond ‘reasonable’ doubt. As I mentioned previously, God is not honoured by 'blind faith'. He is honoured when we trust Him based on knowledge of His trustworthy character. So even though some of us who are not intellectually inclined my skip some steps and move to full assurance based on personal experience alone, we must rest in the knowledge that our faith is not against logic, science and history, but must be consistent with other aspects of truth. We must always be prepared to make a defense (1 Pe 3:15) of our faith and hope.

In the same way, I mentioned some classical responses to common criticisms or comments:

"How can a good God allow suffering and evil?" to which we would ask, "If there is no God, then there is no such thing as good or evil!"

"All of us grasp only a part of the truth, like blind men touching an elephant", to which we say, "So...you get to see the whole elephant?