How Chess Proves the Existence of God

Thesis:  The game of chess proves the existence of the self-existing Triune Christian God of the Bible.

Chess is, perhaps, the most perfect game known to man. You can learn the moves in a few short minutes and spend the rest of your life trying to understand its intricacies. It is a game so logical and orderly that we can program computers to play and defeat world champions.

I contend that the game of chess proves the existence of God, but not just any God. Chess proves the existence of the one and only self-existent Triune God that has revealed Himself in the self-authenticating Bible. When I claim chess proves God's existence, I am not talking about a general theistic "god." I am specifically referring to the one and only self-existing God who has revealed Himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who mediated the covenant through the Second Person of the Trinity, the God/Man Jesus Christ. 

I want to be quite clear about this point. I am not arguing that chess proves a god exists. Chess does not prove the existence of a god, such as the false god of Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or whatever other gods you can think of. So, for the rest of this article, when I write the word "God," I am referring to the God of the Bible, and when I prove God's existence, I am demonstrating the existence of the Christian God and no one else.

Perhaps you are wondering how I can prove God's existence through chess. It is quite simple. Apart from God, chess is impossible.* What do I mean by this? Let's start with atheism. 

An atheist cannot account for the game of chess in his worldview. It is impossible because an atheistic worldview begins in chaos. In an atheistic world, there is only material randomly falling in space. There is no life. There is no meaning. There is no order. The great enigma of atheism is how we start with chaos and end up with order. Add to that the mystery of how perceiving minds can communicate with other human minds that perceived order. From where did this order and meaning come? The human mind? That begs the question, doesn’t it? How can a human mind that evolved out of chance random processes account for and explain order and meaning? It can’t, especially starting from the presuppositions of an atheistic worldview.

The atheistic worldview is entirely unable to account for the order of the universe. David Hume, the famous Scottish atheist, proved that cause and effect is impossible to prove in a chance-based universe. An atheist cannot account for science, which depends upon the repeatable observation of cause and effect. 

Nor can an atheist account for logic, those immaterial laws that order rationality. If all that exists is material, how does an atheist account for the immaterial laws of logic? This is another great conundrum of atheism.

The atheist has nothing to say in the realm of ethics either. Chance random particles falling through space have no right or wrong, nor any standard to determine what is right or wrong. For the atheist, morality is not possible. 

As a Christian, I can account for science because God has ordered all things according to the counsel of His will. (Ephesians 1:11) I can account for the laws of logic because God has revealed in the Bible that He is the God of reason and logic. (Proverbs 1, 2, and 3, Isaiah 1:18, John 1:1) I can account for morality because the holy God of the Bible is the standard by which good and evil are judged.

What does this all have to do with chess? Chess is a game founded upon the laws of logic. The squares and pieces are meaningless in and of themselves. They don't move, speak, or have personalities. You cannot have two pieces on the same square. The pawn is the only piece that cannot move backward and the only one that can turn into another piece. Knights don't move like Bishops, and Rooks don't have the same power as a Queen. The game can be won or drawn. 

If someone found a chess set, he would not ascertain the rules of chess just from looking at them. The rules are a creation of man's mind, and the function of the mind of man is created and ordered by God. The atheist cannot account for the rules of chess nor the rationality of the mind of man. But as a Christian, I can. 

Each of these aspects of the game presupposes God in order to function, not to mention accounting for the staggering mathematics behind the possible moves in chess. Mathematicians have stated that there are more variations in a chess game than atoms in the universe. I state as a theologian; there is only one Being who knows all these variations and created every one of them.

Next time you play a chess game, you are proving the existence of God; otherwise, you couldn't play. All chess players must leave whatever worldview they hold to and borrow the Christian worldview in order to make a single move, let alone play an entire game. The reason the game is possible is that God exists. 

The interaction of the pieces, the chess clock, the rules, tactical combinations, the sequence of moves, skewers, pins, forks, repetition of position, checks, perpetual checks, discovered checks, and checkmate all are possible because of the existence of God. The impossibility of chess apart from God is the most concrete proof of His existence known to man. So, when two people play chess, they are attesting to the reality of God. They borrow the Christian God to play chess.

Try cheating in chess, and you will see just how fast a person proclaims the Christian God. Chess depends upon God's moral law. Breaking the rules is strictly forbidden. Chess players do not tolerate the violation of God's law by lying, stealing, and bearing false witness. Chess is filled with morality; touch and move, no kibbitzing, no using chess computers, etc. Apart from God's existence, there is no way to account for the rules and the morality behind the rules. Nobody likes a cheater, not in chess and not in life. That’s how God made us.

The traditional proofs for the existence of God can only prove the possibility of God. Chess proves the necessity of the existence of the Christian God because, without Him, you cannot prove anything. Without Him, you cannot play chess. This proof is irrefutable.

The beauty of this proof is that as soon as someone tries to refute it, he has to assume the Christian worldview in order to refute the Christian worldview. In the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, “Antitheism presupposes theism.”

So next time you play chess, you are attesting to the reality of the Christian God.

*Thank you to Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. K. Scott Oliphint for their pioneer work on the transcendental argument for the existence of God.

The False god of Spinoza, Einstein, and Moore.

Recently, I was reading someone’s Facebook page. He shared a post by a woman named Jillene Moore. I will include the text of Moore’s post at the end of this blog post, so the reader can read what each of us wrote and make up your own mind. If you are at all interested in this subject, I encourage you to scroll down now and read it first. Or you can read it here.

Moore begins her post by saying,

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

She then gives a fanciful depiction of Spinoza's god. She paints this god with an optimistic brush. Assuming Spinoza would approve, how does she know what this god would say? It is entirely arbitrary and total conjecture.

This god supposedly reveals itself through sunrises, landscapes, and in the eyes of loved ones. Why didn't she include maggot-infested carcasses, garbage dumps, and train wrecks?

Whether she realizes it or not, Moore borrows her optimism from the Christian worldview. Only in the self-attesting Bible do we have the objective revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. Without this, Einstein, Spinoza and Moore cannot account for why sunrises, landscapes, and the eyes of the loved ones are better revelations than carcasses, dumps, and train wrecks.

What does she mean when she writes that Spinoza's god "loves"? And why is "love" better than "hate"? Neither Moore nor Spinoza's god tell us. They assume it. Without an objective revelation of love, how can we even know what it is?

God reveals in 1 John 4:8 that "God is love." We cannot know what love is apart from the God of the Bible. It says in 1 John 3:16,

By this we know love, that Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters.

Without this objective revelation, any notions of love are purely speculative. Again, Moore borrows from the Christian worldview when she believes that Spinoza's god "loves" rather than "hates" us.

The god of Spinoza, as revealed by Moore, cares nothing for morality. She opines that Spinoza's god says,

I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe."

Would she then say that it's okay to rape, cheat on your spouse, or that it's wrong to have sex with animals? Since this god never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you are a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing, why not do as you please to whomever or whatever you want?

If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you can't say that any form of sexual expression is wrong. And if you do, you once again have borrowed the objective revelation of the Trinitarian God of the Bible, which limits human sexual behavior and says that the violation of His Law is the very definition of sin. 1 John 3:4,

Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The god of Spinoza knows nothing of law and sin. This god cannot say any form of sexual behavior is wrong. As soon as you try to put limits upon human sexual behavior, you assume once again the morality of the God of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. As Jesus said in Matthew 6:24,

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

It's either the self-existing God of the self-attesting Bible or the subjective, amoral, relativistic god of Spinoza.

Moore writes that you cannot know Spinoza's god through any "alleged sacred scripture." While there are many "alleged sacred" scriptures, there are none like the Bible. It is the only self-attesting Book that claims to be the sole and unique revelation of the one and only self-existing Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other book claims that it is "infallible" and "God-breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16)

Only the God of the Bible provides the foundation for rationality, science, and morality. Apart from this self-attesting revelation, we cannot prove anything. How does Einstein, Spinoza or Moore know anything about their god? Again, maybe cesspools reveal more about this god rather than fluffy white clouds. Without an objective standard, it's all fairytales and wishes.

Any person that claims that anything can be proven presupposes the Christian worldview as revealed in the Bible. The very idea that something can be proven presuppose the God of the Bible exists; otherwise, we choose meaningless humanistic subjectivism that cannot prove anything. Who needs proof of anything in a God-empty universe?

We can’t have scientific proof apart from the Bible. The atheist Hume clearly demonstrated that we cannot assume the uniformity of nature. Science is impossible without this assumption. Science is only possible when we start with the God in whom

we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28

Quite frankly, I am terrified of Spinoza's god. Imagine a universe where

"there's nothing to forgive."

This god makes us with

"passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will."

Since this god does not hold us accountable or threaten punishment for "being the way you are," why aren't we "absolutely free" to do whatever the hell we please to anyone we want and not ask forgiveness?

Imagine if humanity believed and acted on this presumption. What's to stop people from carrying out whatever atrocity they want? Even the idea of an "atrocity" must assume the Christian worldview rather than Spinoza's god. To agree with Spinoza's god, you cannot say anything is wrong. You have no moral basis for condemning the holocaust or Stalin's genocide of his people. Moore wants to paint Spinoza's god with a rainbow pallet, but this god paints with the pallet of blood.

Spinoza founded his god by his own subjective idealistic thinking. However, the Bible is the only objective revelation of the one and only God of the universe. Yet, even those who deny God continue to testify to His existence. Moore does so by assuming meaning in what she is saying, by assuming sunsets are better than carcasses, that enjoyment is better than misery, that the god of Spinoza is true, and the God of the Bible is false. She assumes she is saying something meaningful about a meaningless god.

For Spinoza's god, as depicted by Moore, there is no such thing as sin. In the Bible, God revealed that sin is real because He is holy, which means He is wholly set apart from sin. God defines sin, and no one else. The Bible reveals that God punishes sin. The glory and beauty of Biblical Christianity is that the Second Person of the Trinity became fully Human and died as a substitute for all who believe in Him. Believing in Him means that we repent of our sin and look to Jesus Christ for our salvation. The Bible says all who call upon Jesus Christ will be saved.

God then sends the Third Person of the Trinity to fill us and make us as pure and holy as Jesus Christ Himself. The Spirit writes the Law of God on our hearts so that we obey God not only outwardly but inwardly as well. God empowers us to love one another, not according to our subjective whims, but according to His Law given to us in the Bible. This is why it is wrong to rape, cheat on your spouse or have an affair with a goat.

The god of Spinoza speaking to us through Moore hasn't offered anything but meaningless sentimentality and permission to do whatever the hell we please. This god is the ultimate expression of narcissistic humanity.

The god of Einstein and Spinoza is nothing new. You can find it all throughout the Bible. Sometimes it is called Moloch, sometimes Baal, sometimes Astorath, and under many more names. In the end, we learn that this god's name is ultimately Satan.

The choice is always the same, both in Biblical times and in our times:

Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. Joshua 24:14+15

Me? I have made my choice. I answer as Joshua did in the same verse,

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I'm happy to dialogue if you want to talk about what I've written.

Jillene Moore’s Facebook Post, November 19, 2020:

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

According to Spinoza, God would say: “Stop praying. I want you to go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

“Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

“Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe.

“Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes—you will find me in no book!

“Stop asking me, ‘Will you tell me how to do my job?’ Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry or bothered. I am pure love.

“Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you, I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will. Why would I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How could I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

“Respect your peers, and don't give what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life—alertness is your guide.

“My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, not a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now—and it is all you need.

“I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.
You are absolutely free to create in your life. It’s you who creates heaven or hell.

“Live as if there is nothing beyond this life, as if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist. Then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask, ‘Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?’

“Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

“Stop praising me. What kind of egomaniac God do you think I am? I'm bored with being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

“Stop complicating things and repeating as a parrot what you've been taught about me. Why do you need more miracles? So many explanations?

“The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.”

Fides and The Ultimate Measuring Machine

A little boy named Fides had a curious toy that his great grandmother gave him when he was born that he called TUMM. He called it that because on the top of the toy were engraved the letters T.U.M.M. His wise old great grandmother told his mom and dad that she would tell Fides all about the toy, but only after he developed a sense of wonder.

That day finally came on his sixth birthday. He received all kinds of presents, like toys, clothes, and practical things for school, but nothing held his interest as much as TUMM. That night as he was going to bed, he had TUMM in his hands and asked his parents about the toy. 

His parents remembered his great grandmother's words, so they took him to see her the very next day. Fides loved to visit with his great grandmother and was excited to see her once again.

When they arrived at her house, they found her sick in bed. She looked older than usual and close to death. Fides was sad because he loved his great grandmother very much. She was sad too, but not because she was afraid of death, but because she would miss her great grandson until he joined her someday in heaven.

As he sat next to her on the bed, she explained to him the wonders of TUMM. She told him that T.U.M.M. stood for "The Ultimate Measuring Machine." There wasn't anything that this machine could not accurately measure. It was, she said, something of a truth detector. She noted that TUMM would make him rich and famous, but it will also bring him a lot of hardship and pain. She then explained to him all the mysteries of TUMM and how to use it. As he left, his great grandmother placed her wrinkled old hands on his head and blessed him. As she laid her head back down, the fire went out of her eyes, and she died.

For a long time, Fides wanted nothing to do with the toy because it reminded him of his great grandmother. But as he began to miss her even more, he began to play with his toy because it reminded him of her. He remembered everything she told him. Fides played with TUMM every chance he had. He grew very adept at measuring, testing measurements, and detecting when other measurements were off.

As I mentioned before, T.U.M.M. stood for "The Ultimate Measuring Machine." There wasn't anything that TUMM couldn't test and measure. At first, Fides checked all the measuring cups, rulers, thermometers, and scales in the house. With the help of TUMM, he was able to see which were faulty and which were closer to the truth. He was able to tell when food spoiled or if an appliance was ready to break. His parents appreciated Fides because now all their things were as close to perfect as can be.

It wasn't long before friends and neighbors were asking Fides to help them with their measurements as well. With the help of TUMM, the men in the factories were able to calibrate their machines. Honest merchants were able to test their scales. Even the weatherman called Fides every day to find out what the actual temperature was. Fides discovered that he could earn money using TUMM and that it was making him famous.

As Fides grew, so did his abilities and popularity. People from all over the world wanted TUMM's help. What Fides enjoyed most was helping people in a court of law. When Fides became a man, he learned to use TUMM so well that he could use it to tell when people were telling the truth. Fides traveled the whole world truth detecting. Innocent people loved Fides and TUMM, but those who wanted to hide their crime hated them.

Over time, Fides made quite a lot of enemies, not only of those convicted of crimes, but those who used to cheat, lie, and steal. Politicians especially hated Fides and TUMM. During this time, people enjoyed peace, prosperity, justice, and equity. Fides himself became one of the richest and most well-known men in the world. 

Because TUMM ruined the livelihood of many a thief, they plotted to stop it. It was impossible to trick Fides to steal or destroy TUMM, so they came up with a different way to wreck it. They figured since they couldn't beat it, they would erode people's confidence in it.

From that day forward, they began to carry out their plan. They spread rumors that TUMM was wearing out with time and usage. They gossiped that Fides was a charlatan. Every day they told a new lie about Fides and TUMM. In time, the lies began to have an affect.

Crooked politicians publicly renounced Fides and his ridiculous toy. Evil editors published fake news. University professors mocked them in their classes. Philosophy professors wrote lengthy dissertations on the impossibility of the existence of an Ultimate Measure, let alone an Ultimate Measuring Machine. They roared with laughter as they changed TUMM's name to UMM. Whenever they made fun of UMM, they shrugged their shoulders and put a stupid look on their face, and muttered, "umm."

Still, many believed in Fides and TUMM. Because of this, the evil plotters devised a plan to, once and for all destroy people's confidence. They proposed that the scientists make a series of tests to determine whether TUMM was indeed The Ultimate Measuring Machine or a hoax. 

The crooks in government gave millions of dollars in grant money to fund scientists from every discipline you could think of to discredit TUMM. To appear objective, they refused to use anything that had already been measured by TUMM lest they sullied the experiments. 

The scientists agreed with the philosophers that no Ultimate Measure existed. Because of this, they had to come up with their own set of standards, measures, and tools by which they would test TUMM.  This took a long time because the scientists could not agree on a standard among themselves since they believe none existed. In the end, each scientist had his own that he made up for himself.

Finally, the day came to test TUMM. It was a grand event. Everybody who was anyone was there, from the greatest to the least. After several speeches and fanfare, the moment of truth arrived. They called Fides to bring TUMM forward.

Individual scientists came forward one by one with their own measuring test. It was the most significant challenge Fides and TUMM ever had because each scientist had his own idea of what he thought the measurement should be. Each time TUMM displayed different measurements than what the scientist predicted. Every time this happened, the scientist boldly proclaimed that TUMM was indeed defective. How could it have different readings for every test? 

Throughout that day, scientists brought forward their own system of measurements for length, volume, density, pressure, etc. Because the scientist invented each, there was no way for TUMM to be Ultimate in anyone's eyes. By the end of the day, people's confidence in Fides and TUMM was, indeed, destroyed. The awe, trust, and admiration they once had turned to contempt and disgust. Soon the people were demanding Fides be put in prison along with his ridiculous toy. And that's just what happened. From that day forward, everyone believed Fides to be a fraud and his silly toy a fake. 

With Fides and TUMM out of the way, the crooks, criminals, and evil politicians took over the world. Death, disease, famine, violence, and injustice soon filled the land, but instead of blaming the crooks, everyone blamed Fides and his toy TUMM. It was a very long time before Fides escaped from prison with TUMM, but that’s a story for another day.

A Presuppositional Evaluation of Dr. Greg Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic

Introduction to Dr. Greg Boyd and "The Cruciform Standard"

Many people love and admire Dr. Greg Boyd. For those who don't know him, he is a famous theologian, pastor, and author. He is currently the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and is the author of countless books, articles, and blog posts. Superscholar.org lists him as one of the twenty most influential living Christian scholars of the 20th century. 

Since he is so well known, I thought I would familiarize myself by checking out Boyd's Reknew.org blog. Because of my philosophy and theology background, I was curious to get to know his thought. 

As I read through his blog, I could see why many Christians follow him. He is thoughtful, insightful, and innovative. At the same time, I could also see why it would be difficult for Christians to discern his theology problems. He received his Ph.D. magna cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary. He received his Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Yale Divinity School and his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Minnesota. He is pretty darn smart. 

A series of his blog posts from May 1, 2012, May 2, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 16, 2012 caught my attention. These posts, I believe, give insight into the way his mind works. I believe they capture the foundational process and presuppositions that permeate all his work. 

It sounds like his faith took quite a beating from his professors in college and in Princeton and Yale. I think that the attack on his faith caused Boyd to separate his head from his heart. He has difficulty with the Bible and Biblical Reformed Christianity, yet he claims to have a deep love for Jesus Christ.

I guess he didn't have the resources to withstand the onslaught to his intellectual faith. Yet, somehow he emerged with what appears to be "faith" in Jesus Christ. It is my impression that he has spent his professional life trying to reconcile how to believe in Jesus Christ while at the same time, not believing in the certainty of Scripture. It also strikes me that he's trying to be the smart kid in the class by coming up with theological innovations.

I am writing this article for two reasons. The first is for my benefit. As the Bible says, "iron sharpens iron." I want to exercise my intellect by evaluating someone as educated as Dr. Greg Boyd. I intend to apply the Presuppositional Apologetics that I have been learning from Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. K. Scott Oliphint.

The second reason I am writing this article is because of Boyd's prolific influence. He is a famous theologian admired by many Christians. Many evangelical pastors even respect him. However, I believe Boyd's theology is fundamentally flawed. It is difficult for those in the pew to discern the problems with what he is propagating so I will try my hand evaluating a portion of this thought.

In the blogs mentioned above, Boyd fleshes out what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." I will mainly focus on the blog post he wrote on May 16, 2012, titled, Scripture's God-Breathed Imperfections. I think this post best articulates Boyd's presuppositional basis for his theology.

I contend that "The Cruciform Standard" is fundamentally flawed, inconsistent, intellectually confused, unbiblical, and, to be blunt, somewhat deceptive. I do not doubt his sincerity, but a person of Boyd's stature and influence has a moral responsibility to teach sound doctrine. I aim to demonstrate that "The Cruciform Standard" is anything but sound.

Dueling Definitions

The Definition of Biblical Infallibility

The first red flag was how Boyd defined "infallible." While "infallible" may have other nuanced meanings in different contexts, it has a specific meaning when used in connection with Biblical theology.  

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "infallible" as:

1: incapable of error: UNERRING

an infallible memory

2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint: CERTAIN

an infallible remedy

3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "infallibility" as:

INFALLIBIL'ITY

INFAL'LIBLE, adjective [Latin fallo.]

1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only.

2. Not liable to fail, or to deceive confidence; certain; as infallible evidence; infallible success.

To whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs--

The Greek word τεκμηρίοις (tekmēriois) is translated as "infallible" in the King James Version of the Bible in Acts 1:1-3:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ESV (emphasis mine)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek term.

STRONGS NT 5039: τεκμήριον

τεκμήριον, τεκμηριου, τό (from τεκμαίρω to show or prove by sure signs; from τέκμαρ a sign), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down, that from which something is surely and plainly known; an indubitable evidence, a proof (Hesychius τεκμήριον. σημεῖον ἀληθές): Acts 1:3 (Wis. 5:11; 3Macc. 3:24).

The term "infallible" in the context of Biblical theology means "incapable of error." Thus, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is presupposed to be incapable of error. This is in line with what the Bible says of itself. For example:

This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:31, ESV

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Proverbs 30:5, ESV

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:17, ESV

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15, ESV.

Dr. Boyd's Definition of Infallible

Rather than taking the Bible as what God revealed about Himself or use "infallible" as it is typically used in Biblical theology, Dr. Boyd uses a synonym rather than a definition when he defines "infallible." He writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible." "Infallible" means "unfailing," and for something to "fail" or "not fail" depends on the standard you use to measure it.

While some dictionaries use "unfailing" as a sub-definition, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists "unfailing" as a synonym for "infallible." The Bible can be described as "unfailing,"but it does not have the same meaning as "not capable of error." 

Indeed, Boyd is correct when he writes: 

It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

No wonder he equivocates on his definition of "infallible." Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is "not capable of error." 

Throughout these blog posts, what Boyd means by Biblical infallibility is that the Bible is full of error, and another standard must be presupposed. That is why on May 9, 2012, he titles his blog post, "Why Christ, not Scripture, is Our Ultimate Foundation." He wrote:

If the reason you believe is anchored in your confidence that Scripture is "God-breathed," then your faith can't help but be threatened every time you encounter a discrepancy, an archeological problem, or a persuasive historical-critical argument that a portion of the biblical narrative may not be historically accurate. 

For Boyd, Biblical infallibility means the Bible is not only capable of mistakes, it is filled with errors; hence he has to redefine "infallible."

Boyd's Most Important Question

Dr. Boyd asks perhaps the most critical question, not only of these blog posts but of all Christendom:

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

This is the point, isn't it? If the Bible is "infallible," it is the standard. If it is not, then there must be another infallible standard by which the Bible is judged. Before I get into how Dr. Boyd answers his question, it is essential to review what a "standard" is.

The Biblical Canon

The Bible is composed of books that make up the "canon" of Scripture. The word "canon" comes from the Hebrew word "qaneh" and the Greek word "kanon." Both refer to the standard by which other things are measured. 

By definition, the Bible is the standard by which all other standards are measured. The standard must be infallible, or else it is not the standard. If another standard measures a standard, it cannot be the Ultimate Standard. This means that the standard you use to measure the Bible is the Ultimate Standard, and the Bible is not.

I Answer Boyd’s Question

When I confess Scripture is "infallible," I presupposed the Bible itself is the Standard in and of itself. I presuppose what the Bible says about itself, that it is the self-attesting revelation of the self-existing Trinity. This one Standard measures all other standards. There can be no different standard that measures the Scriptures. If there were, it would be the Ultimate Standard. Since the Bible is the self-revelation of the self-existing Triune God, the Book itself reveals the mind of Ultimate Standard; God Himself. Not only does God reveal His mind, but He also reveals His character, His morality, His rationality, His sovereignty over creation, His aseity (self-existence), that He is One and Three, etc. 

The revelation of God gives the preconditions necessary for science, morality, and rationality. In the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til:

The argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. With Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (P&R, 3rd ed., 1967), 298.

This is how Biblical Christianity answers Boyd's question. To answer this question in any other way means there is a higher standard than the Bible. Furthermore, if the Bible is not presumed infallible, nothing can be proved whatsoever.

Boyd - A Standard Unto Himself

The question that needs to be asked of Boyd is: 

So when you confess Scripture is "fallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

Instead of the Bible being the Standard, Boyd presupposes four measures that prove that the Bible is "A Shaky Foundation for Why We Believe." In the words of Boyd:

If your standard is modern science, for example, I'm afraid you're going to have a very hard time holding onto your confidence in Scripture, because last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn't a dome that was "hard as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11). So too, if your standard is perfect historical accuracy, or perfect consistency, you're going to sooner or later run into trouble as well for similar reasons. In fact, I would argue that you're going to run into problems if your standard is even uniformly perfect theology. For example, we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

Boyd presupposes four standards that show the Bible's fallibility; 

• Science

• Perfect historical accuracy 

• Perfect consistency 

• Uniformly perfect theology

It makes no sense to have four ultimate standards; otherwise, there would be a competition amongst his four criteria to see which standard has the right to be the maximum standard. Behind each of these standards is a hidden presupposition that must come to light.

If each of Boyd's proposed standards is not the Standard, what is? If it is not the Bible, as we have seen, then what is? It can be none other than Reason itself. While Boyd does not say it overtly, he presupposes that by Reason we can use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to show that the Bible is fallible. He presupposes the infallibility of Human Reason; otherwise, we could not use science or know what perfect historical accuracy is, or have the ability to detect perfect consistency or uniformly perfect theology. 

Therefore, Boyd is presuppositionally a humanist. He "puts God on the dock" to borrow a phrase from C.S. Lewis. There is no middle ground. Either God and His revealed word are the Ultimate Standard or Human Reason is. 

Boyd is not the first to propose Human Reason as the Ultimate Authority. This presupposition goes right back to the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve by asking: 

Did God actually say…? Genesis 3:1, ESV 

From that moment on, the battle between presuppositions began, is the Ultimate Authority God or Man?

In the end, Boyd has presupposed that his reason is sufficient to determine that science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology render the Bible fallible. Since this is so, Boyd presupposes himself as the Ultimate Standard. The standard he uses is his rationality to measure the Bible, and by his reason, he finds it lacking. 

Evaluating The Tools Of Reason

Since Reason is Boyd's Ultimate Standard, what is the function of science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology then? In the end, they are the practical tools that Boyd uses to measure the Bible.

The questions I want to ask Boyd are these: 

• How do you know that your Reason is accurate? 

• By what standard do you determine whether your Reason is true or not? 

• Why are you willing to give your Reason the status of Ultimacy over the Bible? 

• How can you be that confident in your Reason? 

• And if you are so confident, what standard are you using to determine that your Reason should be the Ultimate Standard? 

Boyd can't use Reason itself to measure his own Reason. That would be absurd. He cannot use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology as measuring tools of his Reason. If he did, then isn't he begging a serious question? How can the tools of Reason be used to measure whether Reason itself is accurate?

• By what standard do we measure the accuracy of science?

• How do we know that something has perfect historical accuracy?

• What standard do we presuppose to determine whether something has perfect consistency?

• And finally, what standard do we using to measure uniformly perfect theology?

Suppose we presuppose Reason as our Ultimate Standard. In that case, we come back to Boyd's original question but we need to apply it to Reason rather than Scripture, "So when you confess Reason is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?"

We come back to the problem of the Ultimate Standard. If Boyd presupposes we can use his tools to discredit the Bible, the same question can be asked, how does he know that his Ultimate Standard is accurate or not? If you use another Ultimate Standard, then that is the Ultimate Standard and not the standard he is evaluating.

In the end, Dr. Boyd has no way of knowing whether his Ultimate Standard is Ultimate or not. His epistemology (how does he know that he knows?) collapses in a series of self-defeating presuppositions. In essence, by rejecting the self-attesting Bible as his Ultimate Standard, he has no way of knowing anything. 

The "Barth" Connection

Boyd writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

Since Boyd believes innovation is a virtue, he proposes an innovative way out of these theological and epistemological problems. 

What does Boyd mean by "infallible?" He believes the solution to all his problems is found in what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." In his blog on May 1, 2012, he posted an article called, "Christ-centered or Cross-centered." In essence, Boyd is trying to refine Karl Barth's "Christ-centered" theology. 

Boyd’s problem with Barth's "Christ-centered" theology, according to Boyd, is that:

the Jesus of the Gospels provides too wide a target, so to speak. His teachings and actions can be interpreted a lot of different ways, depending on what you want to emphasize. 

In other words, Boyd is uncomfortable when others interpret the Bible in ways he doesn't like. 

It should be noted that Boyd does not repudiate Barth's theology. He opens the blog post on May 1, 2012, by saying 

Thanks largely to the work of Karl Barth, we have over the last half-century witnessed an increasing number of theologians advocating some form of a Christ-centered (or, to use a fancier theological term, a "Christocentric") theology.

While an evaluation of Karl Barth’s theology goes beyond the scope of my critique, Boyd greatly admires and imitates his mentor in many ways. I suspect that if you genuinely want to understand Boyd's theology, you must first understand Karl Barth. I recommend reading, The New Modernism, An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner by Dr. Cornelius Van Til.

Introducing "The Cruciform Solution"

Because Barth's "Christ-centered" theology leaves too much room for others to use Jesus in ways that make Boyd uncomfortable, he proposes what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." Just as Barth believed that we must interpret the Bible through the Christ, so Boyd offers that we must interpret Scripture through the cross of Christ. 

Dr. Boyd writes:

If we accept the view that all theological concepts should be centered on the cross, then it means that our understanding of "biblical infallibility," as well as "biblical inspiration," should be centered on the cross.

For Barth, Christ is the interpretive principle by which we must interpret the Scripture. For Boyd, he proposes that we should interpret the Bible through the cross of Christ. Both agree that the presupposition by which you measure the Bible is not the Bible itself but a different standard we learned from the Bible.

For Boyd, the Bible certainly is not the Ultimate Infallible Standard because Reason, through the tools of science, history, the criteria of perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology, has shown him this to be so.

How The Cruciform Standard Crucifies Itself

Boyd believes he has found an innovative way around the problems of Scriptural "infallibility." His solution is to make the cross the infallible standard by which the Scripture must be interpreted and understood. Perhaps this is why he originally defined "infallibility" as "unfailing" rather than "incapable of error." What Christian would affirm that the cross will fail us?

The problem with “The Cruciform Standard” as the infallible standard is that our knowledge of the cross comes from the Bible. In other words, Boyd learned about the Ultimate Standard from a fallible book. This leads to many theological and philosophical problems for Boyd.

Here are some questions that reveal his confusion:

• If the Bible is flawed, how can we know that the information we have about the cross is not based on one of the faulty sections of the Bible?

• How can an "infallible" standard be based upon a "fallible" source?

• How can "The Cruciform Standard" be a higher standard than the Bible if the source of "The Cruciform Standard" comes from the Bible?

• So when you confess "The Cruciform Standard" is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

• Why don't you use Reason and Reason's tools, i.e., science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to evaluate Cruciform as you did with the Bible?

The Conclusion of the Cruciform Standard

The conclusion is that Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard is fundamentally flawed. He is arbitrary in his application of Reason, and its tools. He uses them on the Bible, but not on his Cruciform Standard. 

The bottom line is that "The Cruciform Standard" is unbiblical. While it sounds spiritual to use a "cross-centered" theology, this is not how God used the cross in history. The cross is how God redeems the world through Christ, not the interpretive principle we are to use to understand the Bible.

Van Til to the Rescue

Barth mistakenly used "Christ" as the interpretive principle of the Bible. This is the problem with neo-orthodox theology. It uses Biblical terms and redefines them to suit the presuppositions of the theologian. As Dr. Oliphint wrote to me in a personal email on October 5, 2020:

Van Til's point is not — is never — to reinterpret or redefine Scripture. Never. So, what could he mean?... To "begin with" the ontological Trinity is to begin with God as He is in Himself — the a se Triune God of Scripture. That means that in our reasoning, in our thinking, in our living, in our entire lives, we recognize, as Paul put it to the Athenians, God is never in need of anything. Instead, He is the "interpreter" of all things. All things are from, through and to Him alone, and not to us. The "ontological" Trinity is the Triune God in Himself, and completely self-sufficient. Then, given that truth, we begin to see the centrality of Christ as the Mediator, as the One who reveals the Father to us, and as the One who sends His Spirit to and for the church.

The alternative is to begin with a dependent god, a god who is subject to our every choice, a god whose control of the universe is only partial.

So, CVT's main point was an ontological one, not a redemptive one. He wanted to remind us of who God is in Himself, and urge us to think of all things in light of His character, in the first place, and not in light of ourselves, or even of our relationship to Him, in the first place.

I hope this helps.

K. Scott Oliphint

Professor of Apologetics

Westminster Theological Seminary

PO Box 27009

Philadelphia, PA 19118

The Bible does not just reveal Christ. The Bible is the self-revelation of God who self-exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This raises questions about Dr. Boyd's understanding of the Trinity. God is not just the Son. He is also the Father and the Spirit. The Son's role is the Mediator, who reveals the Father and sends His Spirit, not how we interpret the Bible.

Presuppositionalism - The Way Out

There is a solution to Boyd's theological confusion. This solution not only solves his question about Biblical infallibility, but it solves his problems with the problem of evil, the search for the historical Jesus, his issues with the anger of God in the Old Testament, and a whole host of problems with which Dr. Boyd is wrestling.

What is that solution? The answer can be found in the original question, Boyd asks: 

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

He must presuppose the Bible as the only "infallible" Standard! Anything else is intellectual, theological, ethical, and philosophical suicide. The only way out is to presuppose the only Ultimate Standard, the self-attesting Bible that reveals the self-existing Trinity. 

I encourage Boyd and anyone ascribing to his theology to take a serious look at the Presuppositional Apologetics of Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. While Dr. Van Til can be credited with first articulating Presuppositional Apologetics, Dr. Greg Bahnsen made Dr. Van Til accessible to the person in the pew. 

The Superiority of Presuppositional Apologetics Over "The Cruciform Standard"

Presuppositional Apologetics (PA) talks about the "myth of neutrality." Boyd is caught in the myth that Christians can use Reason as their Ultimate Standard and that the unbeliever will be won for Christ by Reason. PA exposes the humanism behind using Reason as the Standard, as I have demonstrated in this blog post. I used PA to do an internal critique of Boyd's claims and show that his "Cruciform Standard" is no standard at all.

PA takes the Bible's self-attesting claims seriously. While Boyd wants to keep the Bible as a source of knowledge, why would he want to keep a source that is, according to him, fallible? The Bible claims to be the perfect word of the Lord. If it is not, God is a liar, for He claims something in the Bible that is not true.

If the Bible is a flawed book, how can we trust what it reveals? The Bible claims to be the self-revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. If the Bible is fallible, how do we know that God's supposed revelation is even real? The best that Dr. Boyd can claim is "reasonable certainty." In Boyd's own words:

I feel I have very good historical, philosophical, and personal reasons for believing that the historical Jesus was pretty much as he's described in the Gospels. I also feel I have very good reasons for accepting the NT's view that Jesus was, and is, the Son of God, the definitive revelation of God, and the Savior of the world. I, of course, can't be certain of this, but I'm confident enough to make the decision to put my trust in Christ, and live my life as his disciple. (emphasis not mine)

How different this is from what the Bible says of itself. For example:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,  it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4, ESV (emphasis mine)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV (emphasis mine)

How The Bible Makes Reason Possible

Science

As Dr. Greg Bahnsen proved, Presuppositional Apologetics lays the groundwork for the preconditions of intelligibility. He showed the absurdity of using science to measure Scripture since science itself cannot exist apart from Scripture's "infallibility."

Perfect Historical Accuracy

Boyd presupposes a concept he called "perfect historical accuracy." Apart from the Bible, how can Boyd know that anything is perfectly historically accurate? Unless he is omniscient, it is impossible for a human being to claim to know history perfectly. The Bible reveals that God is not only present throughout all of history; he is the creator of history. (Ephesians 1:11) History does not judge the Bible; the Bible reveals an entirely accurate account of history. The Bible judges history. Suppose there is a historical discrepancy between a human document and the Biblical account. In that case, the only logical conclusion is that the infallible Bible is accurate and the fallible human information is false.

Perfect Consistency

The Bible has a perfect consistency. It is arbitrary to claim the Bible does not. Boyd offers no proof of inconsistencies in the Scripture. Even if he or anyone else put forth a supposed inconsistency, because of the Bible’s self-proclaimed infallibility, we know before hand that there is no inconsistency in the Scripture. We do know, however, that human reason is fallible and limited. It comes down to trust; do we trust human reason or God’s infallible word?

Perfect Theology

Finally, PA solves his problem of seeking "perfect theology." Apart from the Bible, how would Boyd know what constitutes "perfect theology?" Apart from the Bible, how does he know that the cross is "perfect theology" as well? The Bible has uniformly perfect theology from beginning to end; Boyd does not. 

It should be noted that the examples Boyd uses in his blog post of May 16, 2012, to show the Bible fallible are poorly done. Boyd writes:

…last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn’t a dome that was “hard as a molten mirror” (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11).

…we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

How does he know whether the “ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this?” The Biblical authors obviously understood metaphor, poetry, similes, hyperboles, and so on. If they didn’t, why else would these literary devises be all throughout the Bible His examples are arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and easily proved wrong.

It's like claiming that since the Bible declares the "trees of the field shall clap their hands," scientifically proves the Bible to be fallible since we know that trees don't have hands. Quite frankly, I'm appalled to see Boyd take pop shots at the Bible like this. It reminds me of the hostile atheistic philosophy professors I had in college. 

A Challenge to Dr. Boyd

I wonder if Dr. Greg Boyd will ever read my blog post. Perhaps he will. If I had the opportunity, I would challenge him to answer, or at least acknowledge what his Ultimate Authority is. I demonstrated that his Ultimate Authority is himself. In other words, Boyd is his own Ultimate Authority rather than the self-existing Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself through the self-attesting Scriptures. 

Dr. Boyd, 

I am calling you to repent. It is time to stop putting human reason or your reason or anything else above the word of God. I understand that it is not popular to presuppose the Bible to be the "infallible" word of God. I understand that professors throughout your "education," destroyed your confidence in the Bible. It is time to decide who you will believe. Will you accept the foolish self-revelation of the Triune God in the infallible Bible, or will you believe the "wisdom of men?" As 1 Corinthians 1:20 says:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ESV

To use any other standard than the Bible is to judge God and His infallible word. As Jesus clearly said to Satan in Luke 4:12:

You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. ESV

I pray that you come to the Reformed faith, presume the Bible to be the Ultimate Standard, reject Barth's presuppositional basis, and become genuinely Trinitarian. 

A Challenge to Disciples of Dr. Boyd

Finally, I am calling those who subscribe to Boyd's teaching to take a closer look. My blog post is only one aspect of his confused teaching. Others have written about the confusion behind Open Theism in books like Bound Only Once. 

Resources for Further Study

I offer a link the following resources for anyone who would like to pursue this matter further. These resources will not only enable you to see where a person or a theologian has veered from the truth; you will be able to think from a truly Biblical perspective. I believe Presuppositional Apologetics is the best articulation of the method given in Scripture on how to defend the faith. Again, I hope that I have demonstrated an adequate PA application in this blog post by evaluating Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard.

 Sola Gloria Deo