As I have reflected on this question, three categories have developed in my head (and now on this blog): philosophical, historical, and biblical. Generally speaking, philosophical objections come from culture, historical objections from academia, and biblical objections from within the church. Of course all three areas overlap a considerable amount. Nonetheless, I think it is helpful to tackle them independently.
Below is Part 1 of 3 attempting answer contemporary philosophical concerns about the Bible.
Philosophical:
When someone asks the question "how can I trust the Bible" from a philosophical perspective, relativism is usually in view. The primary concern is the search for "truth." What is truth? With so many different truths in the world how can I know which truth is correct? These questions often times lead to a view of relativism which suggests that absolute truth cannot be discovered. Hence, the Bible is relegated to one of many ways to think about "god" or spirituality in general.
This philosophical concern is valid, especially in a 21st century pluralistic culture. Nonetheless, I find relativism lacking for two reasons: the law of non-contradiction and emotional reasons.
My first concern is a matter of logic. With all the differing spiritual views that exist in culture there are clear disagreements. For example, Christians believe, and the Bible states, that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam would say that Jesus was just a prophet. Buddhism altogether neglects the historicity of Jesus and His role in spirituality. All three of these "truths" cannot all be correct. There are also various examples of differing perspectives on the afterlife, and what is takes to enter into the afterlife (if it exists at all according to some theological positions). Contradictions clearly exist and in order to discover truth contradictions either need to be reconciled or some views need to be disregarded. Philosophers call this the "law of non-condtridiction." All this said, my concern with relativism is its propensity to not explain truth. In my view, relativism provides an easy way out of difficult or uncomfortable questions and answers. My argument here is not in defense of the Bible but the defense of truth. This leads me into my second concern about the philosophical angst against the Bible.
It's hard for me to find the proper word for my second reason why relativism is an inadequate response against the Bible. I use the word "emotional" because time and again I have seen Christians who love the truth found in the Bible but move into a direction away from its authority. The reasons have everything to do with sin. Because the Bible speaks truth about morality when someone does something that the Bible condemns, a gradual transition takes place to placate one's emotions about sin. This does not happen to everyone and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But, for people who do not want to come to terms with sin, the Bible becomes less authoritative and eventually less trustworthy. All in all a philosophical shift regarding the Bible has taken place. The truth and authority of God's Word has been replaced within the individual—hence an innate form of relativism.
Back to the original question of "how can I trust the Bible?" One of many responses is this: a standard of truth exists somewhere, it's just a question of where. In my opinion, the Bible stands out as a standard of truth because it addresses two critical questions. First, what or who is God? Second, what or who are human beings in light of God? The answers to and interplay of these questions reveal much about how the Bible continues to speak timeless truth in every culture. And so, countless people from around the world, who love Jesus and Bible, have been changed by the message of this Book. This is an experiential response, but this in conjunction with the law of non-contridiction paint a larger picture of why the Bible is trust-worthy.
Additional responses to this question will be answered by forthcoming posts.
Stay turned for Part 2 (historical objections and answers) and Part 3 (biblical objections and answers).
Below is Part 1 of 3 attempting answer contemporary philosophical concerns about the Bible.
Philosophical:
When someone asks the question "how can I trust the Bible" from a philosophical perspective, relativism is usually in view. The primary concern is the search for "truth." What is truth? With so many different truths in the world how can I know which truth is correct? These questions often times lead to a view of relativism which suggests that absolute truth cannot be discovered. Hence, the Bible is relegated to one of many ways to think about "god" or spirituality in general.
This philosophical concern is valid, especially in a 21st century pluralistic culture. Nonetheless, I find relativism lacking for two reasons: the law of non-contradiction and emotional reasons.
My first concern is a matter of logic. With all the differing spiritual views that exist in culture there are clear disagreements. For example, Christians believe, and the Bible states, that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam would say that Jesus was just a prophet. Buddhism altogether neglects the historicity of Jesus and His role in spirituality. All three of these "truths" cannot all be correct. There are also various examples of differing perspectives on the afterlife, and what is takes to enter into the afterlife (if it exists at all according to some theological positions). Contradictions clearly exist and in order to discover truth contradictions either need to be reconciled or some views need to be disregarded. Philosophers call this the "law of non-condtridiction." All this said, my concern with relativism is its propensity to not explain truth. In my view, relativism provides an easy way out of difficult or uncomfortable questions and answers. My argument here is not in defense of the Bible but the defense of truth. This leads me into my second concern about the philosophical angst against the Bible.
It's hard for me to find the proper word for my second reason why relativism is an inadequate response against the Bible. I use the word "emotional" because time and again I have seen Christians who love the truth found in the Bible but move into a direction away from its authority. The reasons have everything to do with sin. Because the Bible speaks truth about morality when someone does something that the Bible condemns, a gradual transition takes place to placate one's emotions about sin. This does not happen to everyone and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But, for people who do not want to come to terms with sin, the Bible becomes less authoritative and eventually less trustworthy. All in all a philosophical shift regarding the Bible has taken place. The truth and authority of God's Word has been replaced within the individual—hence an innate form of relativism.
Back to the original question of "how can I trust the Bible?" One of many responses is this: a standard of truth exists somewhere, it's just a question of where. In my opinion, the Bible stands out as a standard of truth because it addresses two critical questions. First, what or who is God? Second, what or who are human beings in light of God? The answers to and interplay of these questions reveal much about how the Bible continues to speak timeless truth in every culture. And so, countless people from around the world, who love Jesus and Bible, have been changed by the message of this Book. This is an experiential response, but this in conjunction with the law of non-contridiction paint a larger picture of why the Bible is trust-worthy.
Additional responses to this question will be answered by forthcoming posts.
Stay turned for Part 2 (historical objections and answers) and Part 3 (biblical objections and answers).
No comments:
Post a Comment