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