Recently, I was asked to provide an objective basis for my belief in God. How do I know there is a God? And if there is a God, what makes me think the Bible is His one-and-only special revelation to mankind?
Given the questioner's sincerity, and given my conservative Baptist commitments, it seemed reasonable that I should post something on the subject in this forum. Feel free, dear brethren in the Lord, to add what you feel I have missed.
THE OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR MY BELIEF IN GOD:
1. The Cosmological Argument: The first law of metaphysics states that "Anything that begins to exist, has a cause." The vast majority of contemporary scientific evidence suggests that the universe began to exist -- that is, the universe is not eternal. Therefore, it follows that the universe has a cause.
2. The Intelligent Design Argument: Contemporary science has increasingly uncovered the vast complexity underlying the many mechanisms operating in the universe. The vast complexity and organization of these mechanisms strongly suggests the presence of intelligent causation. Logically, one need not provide an explanation for one's explanation. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that the uncaused intelligent causation is transcendent.
3. The Information Argument: All living things possess DNA. DNA contains vast quantities of information. Since the only rational explanation for the existence of information is the thinking mind, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the intelligent cause of the universe intentionally applied this mind to the formation and sustainment of the created order. Information also implies purpose.
THE OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR MY BELIEF IN THE BIBLE:
To avoid circularity, one must begin with the assumption that the Bible is not necessarily the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given. I am clarifying this point up front, since my opponents often misunderstand the logical basis of my argument, assuming that I am defending biblical authority based exclusively on biblical authority. In short, my position flows as follows: If it can be demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is an historical fact, then it follows that Jesus had to have been raised miraculously, there is a God, Jesus is God's Son, and therefore Jesus' high opinion of Scripture should be affirmed and adopted. Here is an exceptionally brief (and admittedly deficient) synopsis of my argument:
1. We acknowledge that the Bible -- specifically the 27 documents of the New Testament -- are (at a minimum) what the vast majority of critical scholars believe they are. The majority of New Testament scholarship, including unbelieving and skeptical scholarship, has been forced to admit that the documents of the New Testament are by far the best preserved, best attested examples of ancient literature in existence. Even those who question the theological significance of the texts, nevertheless recognize their elemental historicity.
2. Since the historicity of the NT documents is broadly reliable, and these documents provide us with the best and most thorough accounting for the life of Jesus, we are free to derive from them certain historical facts that require explanation.
3. The following facts are widely affirmed by the majority of biblical scholars today:
DEATH: While it might seem obvious, one cannot have a resurrection without a death. Therefore, since some groups (like Muslims) claim that Jesus never died on the cross, it is necessary to establish that this event did in fact take place. No historical scholar worth his PhD will challenge that Jesus of Nazareth died at the hands of the Romans.
BURIAL: It is no surprise that a Jewish Rabbi would be buried following his death. But the fact that the tomb was sealed and guarded makes it very unlikely that the ultimate evacuation of the tomb was a result of body-snatching.
EMPTY TOMB: Again, the empty tomb is significant in that, were Jesus' body still in the cave, it would be impossible to argue for his resurrection. The majority of NT scholars acknowledge that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty on the third day after his burial.
FEMALE WITNESSES: If the story of Jesus' resurrection were mythological, it seems highly unlikely that the all-male writers of the New Testament would have chosen to make women the initial witnesses of this most critical event. Indeed, in ancient times the testimony of women was generally considered to be untrustworthy and many courts of the day would not permit a woman to serve as a witness. The fact that all four Gospel accounts, written by four independent authors, indicate that women were the first to view the empty tomb and to see Jesus alive, suggests the event is historical.
TRANSFORMED APOSTLES: Preceding the resurrection, Jesus' eleven remaining Apostles were reeling from the loss of their friend and master, the betrayal and suicide of their friend Judas Ischariot, and the impending doom of their own arrest, torture, and death. While skeptical scholars might debate what the Apostles actually experienced in the upper room, only the most radical and irrational critics debate the sincerity of their belief that they saw Jesus alive following his death. These men went on to suffer greatly for their testimony that they had seen Jesus Christ risen, and it seems utterly implausible that they would be so eager to die for a lie.
CONVERTED ENEMIES: Saul of Tarsus, along with Jesus' half brothers James and Jude, provide us with a serious problem -- that is, if one believes that the resurrection did not take place. Unless one is determined to blindly discard the whole Pauline Corpus, it becomes impossible (from a textual/historical perspective) to argue that Saul was not driven to faith in Christ through his personal encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. Similar convictions drove James and Jude to faith in their sibling as the Son of God.
4. While many liberals have tried to dismiss the NT accounts of the resurrection, none have offered naturalistic explanations for the above facts that outweigh the most likely and obvious solution. Why was the tomb empty? Why did the women and Apostles believe they saw Jesus resurrected? Why were the Apostles and others so radically transformed after experiencing these post-resurrection appearances? The simplest and most likely explanation is this: Jesus the Christ rose from the dead on the third day after his execution.
5. There can be no naturalistic explanation for Jesus' resurrection from the dead after such an extended period of expiry. Not even the best modern medical science can bring someone back after so long a time. Therefore, it is logical to infer that the explanation for the resurrection must be supernatural.
6. Since Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, and said that it was God who would accomplish both according to his perfect will, and since Jesus did in fact come back from the dead, then it is logical to conclude that Jesus was right. He is the Son of God -- a fact that is proven by his return from the dead [Romans 1:4].
7. Since Jesus has been proven to be the risen Son of God, then his view of Scripture bears absolute authority [Mt. 5:18; Lk. 4:1-13], as does his appointment of Apostles who held an equally high view of Scripture [2 Timothy 3:16-17].
8. Since no other religion past or present can authenticate its holy book like the resurrection of Jesus Christ authenticates the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be: The exclusive, all sufficient, verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given.
Given the questioner's sincerity, and given my conservative Baptist commitments, it seemed reasonable that I should post something on the subject in this forum. Feel free, dear brethren in the Lord, to add what you feel I have missed.
THE OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR MY BELIEF IN GOD:
1. The Cosmological Argument: The first law of metaphysics states that "Anything that begins to exist, has a cause." The vast majority of contemporary scientific evidence suggests that the universe began to exist -- that is, the universe is not eternal. Therefore, it follows that the universe has a cause.
2. The Intelligent Design Argument: Contemporary science has increasingly uncovered the vast complexity underlying the many mechanisms operating in the universe. The vast complexity and organization of these mechanisms strongly suggests the presence of intelligent causation. Logically, one need not provide an explanation for one's explanation. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that the uncaused intelligent causation is transcendent.
3. The Information Argument: All living things possess DNA. DNA contains vast quantities of information. Since the only rational explanation for the existence of information is the thinking mind, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the intelligent cause of the universe intentionally applied this mind to the formation and sustainment of the created order. Information also implies purpose.
THE OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR MY BELIEF IN THE BIBLE:
To avoid circularity, one must begin with the assumption that the Bible is not necessarily the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given. I am clarifying this point up front, since my opponents often misunderstand the logical basis of my argument, assuming that I am defending biblical authority based exclusively on biblical authority. In short, my position flows as follows: If it can be demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is an historical fact, then it follows that Jesus had to have been raised miraculously, there is a God, Jesus is God's Son, and therefore Jesus' high opinion of Scripture should be affirmed and adopted. Here is an exceptionally brief (and admittedly deficient) synopsis of my argument:
1. We acknowledge that the Bible -- specifically the 27 documents of the New Testament -- are (at a minimum) what the vast majority of critical scholars believe they are. The majority of New Testament scholarship, including unbelieving and skeptical scholarship, has been forced to admit that the documents of the New Testament are by far the best preserved, best attested examples of ancient literature in existence. Even those who question the theological significance of the texts, nevertheless recognize their elemental historicity.
2. Since the historicity of the NT documents is broadly reliable, and these documents provide us with the best and most thorough accounting for the life of Jesus, we are free to derive from them certain historical facts that require explanation.
3. The following facts are widely affirmed by the majority of biblical scholars today:
DEATH: While it might seem obvious, one cannot have a resurrection without a death. Therefore, since some groups (like Muslims) claim that Jesus never died on the cross, it is necessary to establish that this event did in fact take place. No historical scholar worth his PhD will challenge that Jesus of Nazareth died at the hands of the Romans.
BURIAL: It is no surprise that a Jewish Rabbi would be buried following his death. But the fact that the tomb was sealed and guarded makes it very unlikely that the ultimate evacuation of the tomb was a result of body-snatching.
EMPTY TOMB: Again, the empty tomb is significant in that, were Jesus' body still in the cave, it would be impossible to argue for his resurrection. The majority of NT scholars acknowledge that Jesus' tomb was indeed found empty on the third day after his burial.
FEMALE WITNESSES: If the story of Jesus' resurrection were mythological, it seems highly unlikely that the all-male writers of the New Testament would have chosen to make women the initial witnesses of this most critical event. Indeed, in ancient times the testimony of women was generally considered to be untrustworthy and many courts of the day would not permit a woman to serve as a witness. The fact that all four Gospel accounts, written by four independent authors, indicate that women were the first to view the empty tomb and to see Jesus alive, suggests the event is historical.
TRANSFORMED APOSTLES: Preceding the resurrection, Jesus' eleven remaining Apostles were reeling from the loss of their friend and master, the betrayal and suicide of their friend Judas Ischariot, and the impending doom of their own arrest, torture, and death. While skeptical scholars might debate what the Apostles actually experienced in the upper room, only the most radical and irrational critics debate the sincerity of their belief that they saw Jesus alive following his death. These men went on to suffer greatly for their testimony that they had seen Jesus Christ risen, and it seems utterly implausible that they would be so eager to die for a lie.
CONVERTED ENEMIES: Saul of Tarsus, along with Jesus' half brothers James and Jude, provide us with a serious problem -- that is, if one believes that the resurrection did not take place. Unless one is determined to blindly discard the whole Pauline Corpus, it becomes impossible (from a textual/historical perspective) to argue that Saul was not driven to faith in Christ through his personal encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. Similar convictions drove James and Jude to faith in their sibling as the Son of God.
4. While many liberals have tried to dismiss the NT accounts of the resurrection, none have offered naturalistic explanations for the above facts that outweigh the most likely and obvious solution. Why was the tomb empty? Why did the women and Apostles believe they saw Jesus resurrected? Why were the Apostles and others so radically transformed after experiencing these post-resurrection appearances? The simplest and most likely explanation is this: Jesus the Christ rose from the dead on the third day after his execution.
5. There can be no naturalistic explanation for Jesus' resurrection from the dead after such an extended period of expiry. Not even the best modern medical science can bring someone back after so long a time. Therefore, it is logical to infer that the explanation for the resurrection must be supernatural.
6. Since Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, and said that it was God who would accomplish both according to his perfect will, and since Jesus did in fact come back from the dead, then it is logical to conclude that Jesus was right. He is the Son of God -- a fact that is proven by his return from the dead [Romans 1:4].
7. Since Jesus has been proven to be the risen Son of God, then his view of Scripture bears absolute authority [Mt. 5:18; Lk. 4:1-13], as does his appointment of Apostles who held an equally high view of Scripture [2 Timothy 3:16-17].
8. Since no other religion past or present can authenticate its holy book like the resurrection of Jesus Christ authenticates the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be: The exclusive, all sufficient, verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God as originally given.
Last edited:
