With so many looking for reasons to believe, and with so many attempting to provide those reasons, it is vital for us to rightly define what those reasons should be. If we believe because of a faulty reason, our belief is likely to ultimately end up failing. Plainly put, the word of God alone is the only sufficient and certain reason to believe in God.
There is a lot of buzz surrounding books like, Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back. Many are reading these books and are finding legitimate encouragements to their faith. Others, however, are reading these books looking for a legitimate reason for faith in the first place.
In this post, I am expressing caution for the latter while encouraging the former. It is okay to find encouragements in these books for our faith; but it is not okay to find our ultimate reason for faith in the testimonies of individuals.
These books must find their right place in our epistemological order. The "proofs" they provide for heaven are not sufficient to save. Their words about what they have seen are not more certain or sure than the very words of God himself.
Here is an excerpt from Bahnsen's, Van Til's Apologetic, to provide some more insight into this:
"God's testimony is greater than that of any man - just because it is God's own testimony (1 Jn 5:9). Anyone who believes in the Son of God, according to Scripture, has this self-attesting testimony of God in his heart (v.10). When all is said and done, he has come to believe God's word on God's own say-so. That word is "more sure" and more persuasive than even miracles (e.g., Lk 16:31; 2 Pt 1:19; Jn 20:29, 31)...
So the only authority by which the identification of Jesus as God could be warranted would have to be the authority of Jesus himself, taken as the one whom he claims to be. Such self-identification or self-authorization is, in the very nature of the case, circular. And this is true of the divine information conveyed in other forms of revelation as well. In them God "testifies to himself" because there is nothing more epistemologically authoritative or morally ultimate that could authorize what he discloses."
The kid in the book may end up dying an atheist. He may even contradict himself or Scripture in the book. This is why the Word of God is so good. It helps us to rest. We do not have to sit and wait for the kid to die a believer. We do not have to wonder whether he was wrong about what he said. But we can allow his words to direct us to God's Word. And in those words we find saving power - the only true, certain, and effective reason to believe.
With a closer look, that "the word of God is the only sufficient and certain reason to believe in God" is a bit of a tautology, akin to circular reasoning, bearing in mind how the 'word of God' came to be. Romans 1:20 tells us that creation... all by itself speaks of a Creator, and that one doesn't need to find Rom 1:20 to know this.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, should we really place ink-on-paper from fallible men above ones own experiences entirely, knowing that these men did not agree with each other, and had limited resources? (I'm not speaking solely of Bible authors, but of post-gospel contemporaries.)
Why do you believe it? Because it's true. How is it true? Because we decided to believe it. That's a sticky situation with the history behind these books.
If the Bible itself says it isn't needed to believe in God, what then? Notwithstanding salvation, redemption, the cross, and becoming born again, but you have painted it simply as the Bible being necessary to be a Theist.
Great comment Jonathan. I will address each of your comments/concerns in a bullet format:
ReplyDelete1. On the circularity of the argument. I don't have any qualms about the circularity of the reasoning. God's words are more certain and sufficient than merely human words. I believe in God and what God says because he is God and there is no greater authority upon which to base my belief. A revelatory epistemology is therefore more reasonable than mere rational or empirical ones. We do reason and we do conduct empirical studies, but only because of revelation are these rational and empirical studies consistent and logically cogent.
2. On Creation itself speaking of a Creator. Yes, totally agree. The context of my post should of defined what I meant by "belief." Though, I am glad you pointed this out - I should not assume such things. There is a belief in a creator that every human has (Rom 1). In other words, everyone presupposes God in all they do. But many deny him in their conclusions while using him in their arguments. That is, they presuppose him in their premise only to deny him in their conclusion. This is called logical inconsistency because, at the ultimate level, it is not circular. It would be akin to using a logical syllogism to deny that logic exists.
3. On your Biblical Criticism argument (fallible men and ink on paper). I agree that the writings of post-gospel contemporaries, or, non-biblical authors should be seen as useful, but fallible and questionable (that's the whole point of my post). However, the biblical writings - the Scriptures - while written by fallible men, are infallible, being supernaturally "breathed-out" by God himself. This is the historical and orthodox Christian position. If you disagree there, I would have to defer that to another discussion.
4. Given all of this the "belief" that I am talking about is "faith" or "belief unto salvation." While creation is enough to believe, it is not sufficient to save. This, too, is the historically biblical position.
5. Yes, you are correct (and I should have been clearer), that the Bible is not needed to be a theist. It is, however, needed to be a Christian. And that was the central argument of my post - that we need not look for any other "sign" or "book" to have a saving knowledge of God. We need only the Scriptures - everything else is good, but not ultimately necessary.
Again, great post and very thoughtful. Thanks