3 Why I am (still) a Christian: The Irrefutable Proof for Christianity

Introduction

In my first blog post, I established that I am a Christian because the one and only self-existing Trinitarian God of Christianity demands in His self-attesting Bible that I must have faith in Jesus Christ. In my second blog post, I wrote that I am NOT a Christian because the Traditional Proofs convinced me.

Why? The Traditional Proofs set human beings in the judgment seat over God. God never proves His existence; He proclaims it. They assume sinful unbelievers have intellects unmarred by sin, that reason is somehow neutral. At best, the Traditional Proofs only prove the possibility that a "god" exists. They do not verify the Trinitarian God, who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nor do they prove Jesus Christ's deity.

Does This Mean God Doesn’t Exist?

Does this let the unbeliever off the hook? Does the failure of the Traditional Proofs mean that the God of the Bible doesn't exist? Does it allow for people to deny or question His existence? Are Atheists justified in their assertion that God does not exist or Agnostics to say they just don't know? Does this mean religion is up for grabs? That all religions stand on equal ground and that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something or not? Does this mean that the only thing we can know for sure is what the logicians and scientists tell us? Are they the only reliable truth-tellers of our world?

To each of these questions, I answer a resounding "Not at all!" The self-existing Trinitarian God of the Bible exists, and I can prove it. It is a beautiful proof, and it is based entirely on the authority of the self-attesting Bible, which is where I started in the first place.

What is this Proof?

Apart from the self-existing God who revealed Himself through the self-attesting Bible, you cannot prove anything.

This proof is different from the Traditional Proofs because it shows that the Trinitarian God of the Bible necessarily exists. If He does not exist as He revealed Himself in the Bible, then there is no basis for logic, rationality, science, ethics, faith, or meaning.

This proof excludes all other "gods" from all other religions and the distortions of the orthodox Christian faith by Gnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Neo-Orthodox, Liberals, or any other "faith" that does not begin with the sole authority of the self-attesting Bible. Why? Because every other religion or faith has the Bible and something else. True Christianity begins and ends with Sola Scripture (The Bible alone). Every other worldview, philosophy, or religion does not.

Put On Your Thinking Cap

Before you continue, I must warn the reader that you are going to have to think and think hard. Thinking can be like exercising. We can get lazy and when challenged, want to quit. I encourage you to persevere through the end. It will be worth your time and effort.

Those who are not used to being challenged intellectually may be shaking their heads at this point and saying, "that's no proof at all." I'm glad you are saying that because you prove the proof when you doubt that it is no proof at all.

Doubting Proves The Proof

You see, doubt is only possible if there is Truth. So I ask you, dear skeptic, "What is Truth?" And, more than that, "How will you know Truth when you encounter it?" On what basis of Truth will you refute the proof that “Apart from the God of the Bible, you cannot prove anything”?

You have a serious problem on your hand. To deny this proof is to acknowledge Truth. To recognize Truth means you have assumed something that you haven’t proved, which is the existence of Truth itself. Without Truth, you cannot prove that my proof is false.

What Truth will you appeal to prove me wrong? Yourself? Your reason? Do you believe that not only do you know the Truth, but you are the Truth? If you are the source of the Truth, then you must be Truth itself. But that is absurd. You are not the Truth, and apart from the Truth revealed in the Bible, you have no way of knowing what Truth is.

Apart from Biblical Christianity, you cannot prove “proof.”

Jesus Is the Truth

The self-attesting Son of God and son of man, Jesus Christ, claims to be the Truth. He says in John 14:6:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

He claims that the Bible is the Truth:

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

The Bible claims to be "the word of Truth":

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

Biblical Christianity alone can answer the difficult philosophical and theological questions of life. The Bible says that in Christ are:

Hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Colossians 2:3

Apart from the God of the Bible, you cannot prove anything false.

The Necessity of an Objective Standard

To show that this proof is wrong, you have to have an objective standard of Truth, which you do not. But I have an objective standard of Truth. It proves all other worldviews, philosophies, theologies, and beliefs are wrong.

If someone denies or contradicts the Truth of God revealed in the Bible, they cannot prove anything because there is no objective standard; all is relativity.

The Meaninglessness of Atheism

Atheists cannot prove anything because atheism is meaningless. If atheists attempted to open their mouth to refute this proof, they would prove the proof because the basis of refutation assumes Truth, Meaning, Logic, Rationality, and so on. In other words, atheism must accept the Biblical Christian worldview to refute the Christian worldview. Atheism must borrow Truth, Meaning, Logic, Rationality, and so on from the Christian worldview in order to refute Christianity because atheism is completely bankrupt. Atheism cannot have Truth, Meaning, Logic, Rationality because it is founded upon absolutely nothing.

Without assuming Biblical Christianity, atheism cannot prove anything.

This goes for the humanist, the agnostic, and every other worldview, philosophy, or religion.

The Absolute Adequacy of Biblical Christianity

Reality

As a Bible-believing Christian, I can account for reality because the Bible states:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Logic and Reason

I can account for reason and logic because the Christian God of the Bible reveals that He is reasonable:

Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord. Isaiah 1:18

Those who believe there is nothing beyond the material universe cannot explain the immaterial laws of logic or man's rationality. The Bible can and does. God made human beings in His image, so I can account for why human beings are reasonable and rational creatures:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

The Foundation of Science

As a Bible-believing Christian, I can tell you why and how science is possible. Foolish Christians think that science and faith are mutually exclusive. Biblical Christians know that science is not possible unless the God of the Bible exists. Otherwise, there is no way to explain nature's uniformity, that is "consistent cause and effect."

David Hume showed that, as an atheist, there is no reason (there's that word again) to assume that consistent cause and effect will necessarily happen in the future just because something happened in the past. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can tell you why specific results follow particular causes, why there are "laws" of physics, why observation and repeatability are possible. It is because of the God of the Bible who:

works all things according to the counsel of his will. Ephesians 1:11

Apart from Biblical Christianity, science is impossible.

Life, Motion, and Being

Only the Christian worldview can account for Life, Motion, and Being which pretty much covers the most important philosophical questions:

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

Apart from the God of the Bible, you cannot prove life, motion, or existence.

The Solution to the One and the Many

Apart from the Trinitarian God of the Bible, there is no way to reconcile the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Philosophers cannot explain how we can have particular facts and universal laws, how we can have a uni (one) verse (many), or how a specific object like "ball" can have an abstract characteristic such as "blue."

Only Biblical Christianity can explain all the mysteries surrounding unity and diversity because the Originator of all is both Three and One. We know this because God revealed this to us in the Bible, for example:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deuteronomy 6:2

But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. John 15:26

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16-17

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. 1 Peter 1:2

Apart from the Trinitarian God of the Bible, you cannot prove particulars and universals or whether a relationship exists between them.

No Christ, No Moral Law

Finally, there is no way to explain morality apart from the God of the Bible. If all there is in this universe is material, and human beings evolved in a random chance universe, how do you account for ethics, morality, and law?

You can't, but I can. Speaking about right and wrong and good and evil is nonsense in a materialistic, atheistic evolutionary world. The best they can do is have faith in a religion of "survival of the fittest" that results in a political system where "might makes right."

I can explain right and wrong because God revealed in the Bible that He is the standard of good and evil.

Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him! Psalm 34:8

A legal system built upon human wisdom is foundationless, arbitrary, and ever-changing. Just compare the Ten Commandments to the 300,000+ Federal laws there are in the United States alone.

Apart from the God of the Bible, you cannot prove good and evil or right or wrong.

Salvation Through the Spirit of God

This proof will not convert my reader to Christianity. If you turn to Christianity, it will be because God has breathed His life into your soul and brought you forth from spiritual death. The last thing I want to show that this proof proves is, that apart from Him, you have no hope of forgiveness of sins, eternal life, or salvation in Christ.

How To Be Saved

If God has opened your eyes, repent before Him, trust in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and ask God to fill you with the Holy Spirit. The promise of the Bible is:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved Romans 10:13

This includes you!

---

Note:

I am particularly indebted to Augustine, Dr. Cornelius Van Til, and Dr. Greg Bahnsen for showing us from Scripture the necessity of trusting in the self-existing Christ of Scripture.

2 Why I am (still) a Christian: Not Because of the Traditional Proofs of God

Introduction

In my first blog post, I clearly state that I am a Christian because the Bible commands me to be. I am a Christian because the one and only self-existing Triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has revealed all we need for faith and practice in the pages of His self-authenticating Bible.

That last sentence is a mouthful, but in our day in age, one has to be precise on what you mean when you talk about God, even the Christian God. There are too many imposters even in the Church who mean something vastly different when they talk about God than what the Bible means when it refers to Him.

Traditional Proofs

Be that as it may, in this blog post, I take time to write why I am NOT a Christian because of the Traditional Proofs (from now on I will use “TPs” for the Traditional Proofs) for the existence of God. 

I am not a Christian because the TPs for the existence of God convinced me. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the TPs are an abysmal failure when it comes to proving God's existence. If they weren't, why doesn't every unbeliever fall on their faces before the feet of Jesus Christ when they hear them?

Essentially the TPs consist of the ontological, cosmological, teleological arguments. Some argue for the existence of God based on design, motion, causation, and being. Whatever form the argument takes, they all share one common theme; they claim to prove the existence of God.

I think there is irrefutable proof of God's existence, but I will save that for a future blog post. For now, I will outline why the TPs did not, and still do not, convince me of God's existence. Included in each of my critiques is why I do not think these arguments will persuade unbelievers.

The TPs put the unbeliever in the seat of judgment of God. 

Interestingly, you cannot find any proof for the existence of God in the Bible. God never proves His existence. The Bible starts, "In the beginning, God…" (Genesis 1:1) This is not a proof; it is a statement of fact!

The Bible has many passages that repudiate putting man in the judgment seat, demanding God prove Himself. When Satan asked Jesus for proof, He replied:

It is said, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." Luke 4:17

In Job 38:1-5, God asks Job 77 questions that proclaim His existence starting with these questions:

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know!

Finally, God says in Romans 9:20:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

I started this series on Why I am (still) a Christian with the authority of Scripture. God is not asking us to believe in His existence; he commands it.

TPs assume the unbeliever's reason hasn't been affected by sin.

When Christian Apologists try to convince an unbeliever using the TPs, they assume that the unbeliever's mind has not been marred by Adam's original sin. They suppose that man’s fallen nature doesn’t affected man's intellect. They believe the reason an unbeliever isn’t convinced is because there is a flaw in the argument or in the deliverer of the proof.

The Traditional Proofs for the existence of God are perfectly valid, but they are ineffective for converting a sinner to trust in Christ alone for salvation.

The Bible doesn’t offer proofs because it states that the revelation of God is clear to everyone:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Romans 1:19-23

Furthermore, unbelievers have the proof of God already in their hearts:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Romans 2:14-16

The unbeliever isn’t convinced because they are blinded. The Bible states in 2 Corinthians 4:3+4:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Unbelievers do not acknowledge the truth of God’s existence because:

by their unrighteousness (they) suppress the truth. Romans 1:18

I will give one last Scripture and consider this matter closed. Unbelievers are spiritual “dead men walking” as it says Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

The TPs fail because the intellect of unbelievers is dead to the things of the Spirit. It's not that they aren't intelligent; it's that they are spiritually blinded and cannot see unless the Spirit of God enables them:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 1 Corinthians 2:12+13

TPs can only prove that a "god" may possibly exist and nothing more.

At best, all the TPs can do is prove to the unbeliever that there might be a "god" who possibly exists. The proofs are a matter of probability to the skeptic rather than necessity. If the proofs prove theism, that a “god” exists, we have to ask, “what god?” The god of Islam, the Mormons, the Gnostics, the Pagans, the Deists, or just "god"? Proving a "god" exists is a far cry to proving the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Faith Comes By Hearing the Word of God

The method of converting sinners to the gospel does not come by intellectually proving the existence of God. The Bible is clear that faith comes by the work of the Holy Spirt through the proclamation of His word:

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17

This is why my first blog post simply points to the Bible as the only authority for Christianity. As I proclaim the Bible through whatever means, the Holy Spirit will use this proclaimation to open the spiritual eyes of blind sinners.

Does this mean there is no place for the Traditional Proofs? We are called to defend the faith. The Bible has countless examples of Christian Apologetics. It even commands that we defend the faith in 1 Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

Conclusion

The Traditional Proofs do not do justice to defending the faith. They cater to man’s desire to sit in judgement of God. They assume that people’s intellect has remained untarnished and there is a ability to aprehend things of the Spirit. Finally, the best they can do is possibly prove there might be a “god.”

In my next blog post, I will offer the only sound proof there is for the existence of God, but not just any god. It is the proof for the existence of the one and only self-existent Trinitarian God as revealed in the self-attesting Bible.

1 Why I Am (still) A Christian: Biblical Authority

Why This Series?

I am writing this series so that whoever reads this blog post will come to faith in Jesus Christ and be saved. I also am writing it to strengthen the faith of those who already claim the name of Jesus Christ. Many Christians have seriously compromised their faith through immorality, disobedience, and indifference because they don't obey what God wrote in the Bible.

Why am I a Christian?

My mind races to many answers. I could start by saying that I am a Christian because I heard the gospel (Romans 10:17), and God has given me the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and given me new life in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17) And I would be telling you the truth.

Notice I sprinkled that the last paragraph with Scriptural references. Most unbelievers pass by the verses Christians put in parenthesis because it means nothing to them. Why do I include them? Because as a Christian, I do not trust in my own wisdom. I do not trust human tradition either, nor do I trust human opinion or any other human beings' information.

The Role of the Authority of Scripture

I must start the defense of Christianity by beginning with the authority of Scripture. The information we have about Christianity comes from no other source. There is no higher authority than what God has revealed in the sixty-six books of the Bible. This assortment of books composes a single Book claiming something no other book in all of human history claims - to be the self-revelation of the one and only true God.

I am a Christian because God has communicated all we need to know for the right faith and practice in the Bible. Why do I believe this? Because this is God's own testimony given throughout the pages of the Scripture. 

The Self-Attesting Bible

The Bible is self-attesting. What does that mean? It means that there is no other source of validation than the Bible itself. If anything other than the Bible verified the Bible's authenticity, then that authenticator would be a higher authority than the Bible. 

I can easily prove that no other ancient document even comes close to the historical reliability of the Bible. Many fine books show the Bible not only meets but exceeds any standard used to authenticate ancient documents. While such a study is interesting, it would reinforce the false notion that the Bible needs external authentication. 

Even if skeptics read the finest, most scholarly books that defend the Bible's reliability, they will still walk away, shaking their heads in doubt. Why? Because they come to the Bible with their prejudice already in place. The problem is not whether I can prove the historical reliability of the Bible; the real issue is whether the unbeliever will acknowledge the Bible's testimony about itself.

The Bible’s Self-Authenticating Witness

The Bible claims that God is speaking over three thousand times. I challenge both the unbelievers and believers alike to see for themselves. I issue this challenge because most Christians, let alone unbelievers haven't read through the Bible.

Imagine if I wrote this blog post criticizing a book I've never read. What if I started the blog post writing, "I have never read the book I'm going to critique but..." What credibility would I have? None! Yet, I've listened to unbelievers express their opinion on the Bible without ever having read it. Oh, they may have read a verse here and a passage there, but they've never taken the time actually to read the Bible. 

This goes for most Christians as well. I listen to Christians debate theology, express opinions that don't line up with what the Bible says, or don't reference the Scriptures in their daily lives. My challenge to both unbelievers and believers is to read through the Bible. You can find it read on Audible or read for free on Youtube. There's just no excuse for not having read the Bible.

I have read the Bible through several times. I have read all of it in Spanish as well. I have a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek and have read many passages in the original language. I have also preached line by line through many books of the Bible and lead in-depth Bible studies throughout my time as a pastor. At this moment, I am about three-quarters of the way through rereading it again. I can tell you from experience, you cannot read the Bible without being confronted by God’s own witness of Himself on every page.

What We Learn in the Bible

I am a Christian because God commanded me to have faith in Christ through the authority of the written word of God contained in the Old and New Testament. From beginning to end, God calls us to trust in Christ.

I learn everything I need to know about this awesome God in the Holy Scriptures. In the pages of the Bible, I learn He is the creator of heaven and earth, that He is Holy, that He is just, that He is good, that He is One God who exists as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I learn that the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh, fully God and fully Man.

I learn that God the Father ordained the crucifixion of Jesus Christ through sinful human beings so that He might forgive the sins of all who believe in Christ. I learn the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, applies the shed blood of Jesus Christ to all who believe in Christ. I learn that all humanity is dead in their trespasses and sins, and only through God's decision can anyone be saved. I know about God's law and how the Holy Spirit writes the law of God on our new hearts. I learn why men and women are equal, why prejudice is evil, and why we should help the poor. It's all there!

No Logic, Science, or Morality Apart from Scripture

I learn that logic is possible only when you start with the Trinitarian God of the Bible. (Isaiah 1:18) Without Him, we cannot account for logical reasoning. Nor can we account for science. I learn that atheists can do science as unbelievers, but they cannot "do" science apart from the revelation of the God who ordains all that comes to pass through the counsel of His will. (Ephesians 1:11). Through Biblical revelation, we have the foundation for morality. The Bible reveals that God is good (Mark 10:18) and that He hates wickedness (Psalm 11:5) and that He will punish those who do not have faith in Christ. (Matthew 7:21-23)

In short, without the self-revelation of the self-existent God, as revealed in the Bible, you cannot prove anything. Without the Bible, we are lost in human subjective opinion and oppression. Without God, the law of the jungle reigns. It's every man for himself; might makes right through the evolutionary survival of the fittest.

Conclusion

I am a Christian first and foremost because God has given us everything we need to know for faith and practice in the pages of the Bible. I believe because apart from this revelation, we can't be sure of anything. Without this revelation, there is no foundation for salvation, logic, science, or morality.

I am a Christian because God has communicated all that we need to know in the pages of the Bible.

What about you?

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.

A Guide to Understanding Ken Ham

Ken Ham is best known because of his debate with Bill Nye on February 4, 2014. He is the former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG) and currently operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter. I contend that most people do not understand where Ham is coming from and what he is trying to communicate. He is often misunderstood, dismissed, maligned, and misrepresented.

This post aims to help people understand Ken Ham. I believe he is crystal clear on what he is saying, where he is coming from, and what he is trying to accomplish. I hope that anyone reading this blog post will, at the very least, be able to understand him better. For the record, I have personally met Mr. Ham and visited the creation museum with my family many years ago.

Ken Ham is a Presuppositionalist

The first thing you must understand is that Ken Ham is primarily making a presuppositional argument. In other words, Ham recognizes the reality that everyone has a fundamental starting point from which they see the world. Another way of saying this is that we all have a worldview. This means that we all have a set of beliefs that we hold that profoundly influence how we see reality.

If you do not understand this point, you will not understand Ken Ham. He is unequivocal that his starting point, his worldview, his presupposition of reality is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I could get into why he believes this, but that is not the purpose of this blog post. I could also spend a lot of time explaining that everyone has a set of presuppositions that they assume to be true through which they view reality. But that again exceeds the purpose of this post.

In his opening statement of the debate, Ham clearly stated:

So, is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? The creation/evolution debate is a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts of origins or historical science beliefs. Creation is the only viable model of historical science, confirmed by observational science, in today's modern scientific era.

Ken Ham Presupposes the Authority of Scripture

The second thing one must understand is that because Ham presupposes the authority of the Bible, anything that contradicts the Scripture is automatically presumed to be wrong. Before you dismiss him for doing this, it is essential to note that Bill Nye does the same thing with naturalistic evolution. Bill Nye immediately presumes that something is false if it does not line up with naturalistic evolution presuppositions.

As Ham often points out, when an archeologist uncovers a bone, it does not come with a date engraved on it. If Ham and Nye simultaneously discovered the same bone, Ham would say that the bone cannot be more than 6,000 years old. Nye would claim that the bone maybe millions of years old. They both are looking at the same bone, but they see it differently because of their presuppositional foundation.

Ken Ham Holds to Observational Science

The third thing one must understand is that Ham is careful in his use of terms. The old axiom is true, "The one who controls the definition of the terms controls the argument." Why? Because definitions are presuppositional. Ken Ham was careful in the debate to define the term "science." Says Ham,

What is science? The origin of the word comes from the classical Latin, which means "to know." The dictionary will tell you that science is the state of knowing and knowledge. But there's different types of knowledge, and I think this is where the confusion arises. There is experimental or observational science, as we call it, that's using the scientific method of observation, measurement, and experiment and testing…

But I want you to also understand: molecules-to-man evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology. You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past; we weren't there; we can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution or whether it's the creation account.

When you are talking about the past, we like to call it origins- or historical-science.

Ken Ham believes in observational science. His point is that since we cannot go back in time and observe evolution, it is speculative as to what happened millions of years ago or whether the universe is millions of years old for that matter. Bill Nye cannot bring us back to the past, and conclusively prove evolution is true. The best he can do is speculate. Speculation is not science. That's Ken Ham's point.

Ham presupposes the Bible gives the correct account of historical science. Nye presupposes the theory of evolution. Both are presupposing something. Because Nye assumes God does not exist, he must come up with a theory to explain how we got here without God in the equation. Ham's point is that Nye is not using observational science. He is philosophizing.

Ken Ham is a Christian Apologist

The final thing one must understand about Ken Ham is that he is a Christian apologist. This does not mean that he ignores observational science. He doesn’t. I believe his primary motive is evangelism through creationism. His point is that you cannot believe in the theory of millions of years and still believe in God’s revelation given through Scripture. He is primarily a Christian apologist defending the integrity of the Bible in the face of naturalistic evolution. His ultimate desire, I believe, is that people come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Two of the most famous Presuppositional Apologists are Dr. Cornelius Van Til and his former student, Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The fact that you can read many of Bahnsen's articles on Answers in Genesis attests to these two Christian apologists' influence.

Both Van Til and Bahnsen articulated and promoted the transcendental argument for God's existence. In essence, this proof states that if you do not start with the self-existing Triune God who revealed Himself in the self-attesting Bible, you cannot prove anything. Apart from the Christian God, there is no way to account for science, reason, and morality. They argue that if one starts from an atheistic evolutionary worldview, you cannot account for the uniformity of nature, the immaterial laws of logic, or human morality. The atheist must borrow meaning from the Christian worldview to attempt to refute Christianity. When atheists begin with atheism's presuppositions, they start with nothing, say nothing, and prove nothing because no meaning exists.

As soon as Bill Nye showed up to the debate, he lost because he has to borrow meaning from the Christian worldview in order to logically argue the supposed science of evolution because he believes Ham is wrong and it is immoral to teach creationism. Understand what I just wrote in that last sentence and you will understand Ken Ham.

Books, Lectures, and Debates I Read and Studied in 2020

Just to toot my own horn a little, here is a list of the books, lectures, and debates I read and studied in 2020. I take my calling seriously and do my best to obey 2 Timothy 2:15:

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You can see where I've been concentrating my studies. I took the time to hyperlink all that I can in case the reader wants to check something out yourself.

Books:

Bible in Spanish (Nueva Biblia de las Americas) Por el único Dios trinitario

Bible in English (ESV) By the One and Only Trinitarian God

Institutes of the Christian Religion (4 Volumes) By John Calvin

Christianity and Liberalism By J. Gresham Machen

Real Dissent: A Libertarian Sets Fire to the Index Card of Allowable Opinion By Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History By Andrew P. Napolitano

An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

Permanent Record By Edward Snowden

A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail By Bill Bryson

Christianity and Barthianism By Cornelius Van Tin

Van Til, defender of the faith: An authorized biography By William White

Van Til’s Apologetics By Greg Bahnsen

Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillenialism By Greg Bahnsen, Robert Booth

Homosexuality: A Biblical View By Greg Bahnsen

By This Standard By Greg Bahnsen

Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended By Greg L. Bahnsen, Joel McDurmon

Theonomy In Christian Ethics By Greg Bahnsen

The Inerrancy of the Autographa By Greg L. Bahnsen

Greg Bahnsen: The Man Atheists Feared the Most By Mike Robinson

The Lost Letters of Cornelius Van Til to C.S. Lewis By Jomo K. Johnson

The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy By R.J. Rushdoony

By What Standard? By R.J. Rushdoony

Law & Liberty By R.J. Rushdoony

Van Til and the Limits of Reason By R.J. Rushdoony

The American Indian By R.J. Rushdoony

The Great Evangelical Disaster By Francis A. Schaeffer

A Field Guide to the Ants of New England By Ellison, Aaron M., Gotelli Ph.D., Nicholas J., Farnsworth, Elizabeth J., Alpert Ph.D., Gary D.

Train Yourself on Blindfold Chess Make yourself a mental athlete By Sourav Sahay

The Psychology of Chess (The Psychology of Everything) By Fernand Gobet

Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance Its Divine Authority By Gregory A. Boyd

The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper

Earl Scruggs and the 5-String Banjo By Earl Scruggs

BlueGrass Banjo By Bill Keith

Audio/Visual:

Greg Bahnsen on Van Til’s Apologetics 4 Parts (YouTube)

Greg Bahsen’s Debate with Gordon Stein (YouTube) Excellent!!!

Greg Bahsen’s Debate with Edward Tabash (YouTube)

Greg Bahsen’s Debate with a Muslim and Jew (Covenant Media)

Greg Bahnsen Reasoning with Unbelievers (YouTube)

5 Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews by Dr Greg Bahnsen (YouTube)

Scott Oliphint - Understanding Cornelius Van Til (YouTube)

The Theonomy Debate Joel McDurmon vs. Jordan Hall

Cornelius Van Til on Karl Barth Part 1 and 2 1968 (YouTube)

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.

By Any Other Standard but the Bible: A Book Review of Dr. Greg Boyd’s, Inspired Imperfections: How the Bible’s Problems Enhance Its Authority

Inspired Imperfections is the story of how Greg Boyd went from an emotional experience he had in an oneness Pentecost apostate "church" to construct a new "faith" built upon mythology, neo-orthodoxy, and his own flawed reasoning. It is an account of how you can believe the Bible is filled with "errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material," yet still use that flawed Bible to construct a mythical Jesus of your own making. 

This book displays Boyd's deep faith in the presuppositions of evolution, historical-criticism, man's reason, and anything else but the Bible itself. It is a book that attempts to rescue the Bible from itself. 

After reading Imperfect Imperfections, Boyd hopes the reader can use ideas he gleaned from this flawed Bible as the guiding principle to interpret the Bible itself. 

In short, Inspired Imperfections is Boyd's brilliant self-deception that he seeks to foist upon unsuspecting Christians. Based upon most of the reviews on Amazon and other sites, he has done a masterful job.

If only Boyd learned the real lesson of his evolutionary biology teacher, who said, "It's always good to critically reexamine our foundational assumptions in science." (see Introduction, page xiii) Boyd swallows the presuppositions of evolution, historical-criticism, and human authority hook, line, and sinker. He has a remarkable faith in Man. He believes in anything but the self-attesting revelation of the self-existing Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, given to us in the Bible. 

Boyd misrepresents Biblical inerrancy throughout his book. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen has shown in his excellent article Inerrancy of the Autographa, any copy errors of the Bible are so inconsequential and infrequent that the Bible's integrity is preserved. Besides, the Bible has so many reliable copies, more than any other ancient book, that any minor copying errors are easily detectable.

Moving along, Boyd holds a heretical view of the Trinity. For him, the Trinity is Father/Mother Godself, he, and she. (see his Introduction, pages xx, xxi)

This book is a guide on how you can believe in Jesus apart from Scripture. On page 18, Boyd relates how C.S. Lewis helped him understand that you don't need the Bible to believe in Jesus. This Jesus is vastly different than the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is given in the historically accurate account of how the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:8 that if anyone proclaims a different Jesus than the one presented in Scripture, they offer a false Christ. The Jesus of Dr. Greg Boyd is based upon mythology and the neo-orthodox "theology" of Karl Barth.

Speaking of Karl Barth, Boyd takes after his mentor in many ways. Both distrust the self-revelation of the self-existing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through His self-attesting Bible. Both do not believe in history as presented in the Scripture. Both accept the presuppositions of evolution and the evolutionary presuppositions of historical-criticism. Both believe the Bible must be rescued from itself through redefining Biblical theology according to an existential worldview. Both assume "glory to man in the highest," that is, Man is the measure of all things. Boyd and Barth's only real difference is that Boyd thinks his "Cruciform Inspiration" is better than Barth's "Christocentric" theology. 

Boyd cannot see that every one of his critiques starting on page 74 of Barth can be applied to his theology. 

What Boyd never answers is by what standard does he determine what constitutes "errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material?" My question does not have to do just with the Bible. It has to do with how Boyd determines these things overall. The standard(s) that he uses has to be error-free, logically consistent, 100% accurate, and objective to determine what is or isn't morally offensive? 

Here is Boyd's Achilles heel. In fact, this is the Achilles heel of anyone who denies the absolute authority of inerrant (in the original autographs) and infallible (defined as "cannot make a mistake") Bible. The Bible self-attests to its reliability, integrity, trustworthiness, inspiration, and infallibility. In short, there is no other standard than the Bible itself. 

To presume anything less is to destroy the foundation of science, reason, and morality. It is to set Man as the ultimate standard rather than the self-existing Trinitarian God who revealed everything we need to know about Him and what He requires of us in the Bible.

Boyd implies those who presuppose the Bible as the only authority are committing "Bibliolatry." (see his Glossary on page 174) I ask Boyd and anyone who adheres to this book's theology, How can you say you honor the King but teach that His Word is filled with errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, and morally offensive material? 

Those of us who presuppose the Bible as the only infallible standard do not worship the Book, but we certainly do take seriously "Every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

I could accuse Dr. Greg Boyd of Boydolatry, that is, believing that Boyd, or any other human being for that matter, can stand in judgment of God and His word and make Man's reason the ultimate standard to judge the Bible. 

It's your choice. Do you believe in the fallible theology of Dr. Greg Boyd or the infallible (defined as "cannot err") Bible?

In short, this book is a piece of rubbish. Don't waste your money, instead buy anything from Dr. Greg Bahnsen or Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Both these men will affirm your confidence in the necessity of starting with Sola Scriptura.

The Cure to the Original Lie

We are living in a time when the Bible is under attack. What is sad is that this attack isn't only from those outside the Church. The onslaught is also from those inside the Church. For example, one popular pastor wrote a book recently claiming that the Bible has "a multitude of errors, contradictions, and historical inaccuracies, as well as morally offensive material." It's difficult to imagine a Christian, let alone a pastor, would write such nonsense.

There is only one test for Truth in all the world, and that is the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3:16+17, God proclaims He inspired all Scripture and that the Bible is,

Profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Bible is the only self-attesting Book in the world that claims to be the self-revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible does not need any outside authority to verify its authenticity or its authority. If anyone uses another standard to authenticate the Bible, that standard has more authority than the Bible. There is only one Authorative Standard, and that is the Bible itself. It has no errors, contradictions, and historical inaccuracies, nor morally offensive material. Anyone who judges God's Book is claiming to be greater than God.

You can trust the Bible as being the very words of God. It is error-free in the original documents, and God has preserved the Bible's integrity throughout time and transmission. Any mistakes in later copies are so inconsequential that we can be confident that all God wanted to communicate to us is reliable and authentic. Besides, these mistakes are easily detectable, given that the Bible has more reliable copies than any other ancient writing.

As for contradictions, it is far easier to claim there are any than providing any credible evidence to prove it. People who argue such things already assume some, and they see them whether they exist or not. We know beforehand there aren't any, so it is a waste of time to look for them.

People who claim the Bible is historically inaccurate assume they have perfect knowledge of history. How can they possibly know that any proof outside the Bible is more reliable than the Bible itself? They would have to be God to know such things.

I write all these things to you just in case the Original Lie tempts you. What was that lie? It is found in Genesis 3:1 when Satan said to Eve,

Did God really say…?

All deception comes down to this one lie. Satan and his minions continue to use it to this very day. Anyone who propagates the Original Lie is in league with the devil whether they realize it or not.

There is no other standard known to man than the written words of God contained in Scripture. This does not mean we shut off our minds when we read the Bible. Because God chose to communicate through the medium of written words, this means that we must engage all our mental faculties and all tools necessary to get at what God meant when He had His words written. This means, at times, Biblical interpretation takes work. Most of the time, the Bible is clear as a bell as to what God intends to communicate. There are only a few instances in Scripture when it takes a little more work to understand.

Why is the Bible necessary to keep us from deception and disobedience? It is because we live in a fallen world, and we are fallen. This means that sometimes it is difficult to know what is true and what is false. If we look to anything else other than the Bible, we cannot know whether what we think, believe, feel, or experience is true or not.

We see this principle all the time in the world. The north star does not change. If it is cloudy out, we can take out a compass and use the north pole's magnetism to point us in the right direction. Machines continually need to be calibrated for accuracy. The measure that we use is the standard. We have universal means to measure distance, weight, time, energy, and a whole host of other things. We even have standards in abstract subjects such as science and logic. But even these are possible only because the Christian Triune God has communicated about Himself through the Bible.

Not only that, the Bible communicates that the self-existing Triune God makes all measurement possible because He is the Ultimate Standard. The Bible is true because God is the Truth. Logic is only possible because God is the God of reason. Science is possible because God holds the universe together and orders all things. We know what is right and wrong because God revealed His character through His Law. I could go on, but I think I made my point.

We can avoid being deceived and deceiving ourselves by calibrating what we believe, think, feel, and experience according to the Bible. We can know who God is and what He is like by reading His words. We can understand what we can and cannot do by studying His Law. We can know if something we are doing is sinful by comparing it to what He revealed about Himself in the Scriptures. In short, God has given us everything we need to know Him, what He is like, what He requires of us, and how He wants us to live by studying and obeying everything we read in His authoritative word.

Those who believe the Bible is a flawed book deceive themselves. They bought the Original Lie, 'Did God really say…?" If the Bible has "a multitude of errors, contradictions, and historical inaccuracies, as well as morally offensive material," we get to pick and choose what we like and what we don't enjoy, much like a person filling his plate while passing through a salad bar. You don't like something, move on. How can we know whether what we are reading is a lie, an error, a mistake, a contradiction, an inaccuracy, etc.? When this happens, Man becomes the measure of all things and not God.

Why am I taking so much time writing about the Bible? Because I know what it is like to deceive myself. I thought I could defy God's word and not be judged. And I suffered the consequences, not only me but other people who know and love me. I do not intend to make the same mistake twice. I hope you won't as well.

Because of that, I read and study the Bible daily. I read every word as if God is speaking directly to me because He is. From its pages I learn about the Trinity, Father God, Jesus Christ His only Son, the promised Holy Spirit, the nature of the Church, and so much more.

Do I take the Bible literally? I do, especially when the literary context demands that the words be taken literally. God speaks through a myriad of literary techniques such as metaphor, similes, stories, parables, prophecy, and so on. When I come across different types of literature, I let the Bible speak for itself, and I look for clues in the text that signal not only what God is speaking but also how He is speaking. I use the Bible to study the Bible. I always study in context and use Scripture to interpret Scripture. I also use history and original languages to help me understand the Bible. But never are these tools used to judge the Bible. They are always tools to help me know what God is communicating in the Bible.

And most importantly, if I ever come across anything in the Bible that is contrary to what I think, believe, feel, or experience, I know I have to change and not the Bible. Any time anyone changes the Bible to conform to their lifestyle, their sin, or their preconceived beliefs or experiences, they are deceived. They have fallen prey to the Original Lie, "Did God really say…? God's Spirit will never do anything or speak anything subjectively contrary to the authority of Scripture.

We know that we are saved because the Bible tells us that "all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." To believe anything less than what God has revealed in the Bible is to accept the Original Lie.

The King’s Book

Once upon a time, there was a wise king of a great kingdom. He was revered by all. Whenever anyone talked about the king, they did so with honor and respect. Whenever he passed by, people would humbly bow and acknowledge his authority.

The ancient law of the land stated that anything the king said while sitting on his throne was to be carefully written down. The sole task of the scribes was writing down everything the king said. It wasn't a difficult job, though, because the king was careful in everything he said while sitting on his throne, and he was not a man of many words. When the king finished speaking all that he wished to say, he ordered the scribes to bind the pages into what was called the King's Book.

Everyone in the land had a copy of the King's Book. It contained everything the king wished the people to know and to do. You would think that people would take it seriously, especially since they honored the king. But such was not the case.

While the king was highly esteemed, the King's Book was not. Some said the Book was filled with errors. Others laughed at the stories, poems, and parables contained in the Book. The scholars of the land questioned its authenticity.

Teachers throughout the land refused to teach the King's Book to children. It was used in the Universities, though, but not in the way you would expect. The professors made fun of the King's Book in each and every class until every university student learned to do the same. The professors were careful to fail any student who believed the words contained in the King's Book. Even the artists and writers joined in the derision through their art, plays, and books.

Some took the King's Book seriously, however. They believed a person can't be honored, let alone a king, while at the same time laughing at what he said. They were called dumb, stupid, and dull-witted because they not only believed what was written in the King's Book, but they sought to obey what was written in its pages.

As you can imagine, they suffered a lot in this kingdom. They were accused of worshipping the King's Book and were renounced by the pastors as heretics. Some were beaten. Others were thrown into prison. Not a few lost their lives, not because they dishonored the king, but because they would not disgrace the King's Book.

Contained in the King's Book was a prophecy that the king would punish everyone who did not honor him and his Book. Of course, hardly anyone took this prophesy seriously since few took anything the king said to heart. After what seemed like an eternity, the day came when the king carried out his prophecy.

At first, no one believed when the soldiers came and ordered them to stand before the king to be judged according to his Book. As they gathered, the king stood to speak. He read his own words written so many years ago. Some people laughed as the king read. Others mocked, booed, and jeered. Still, others cried out in anger as they tried to drown out the king's voice as he read from his Book.

The noise was so loud that the people could not hear anything that the king was saying. If they listened, they would have heard the king read that he would pardon all who both honored him and his Book. He told them that it is impossible to honor him without honoring his words. Sadly, no one listened. They refused to believe that honoring the king had anything to do with dishonoring his written word. Finally, the time came to pass judgment. All who refused to listen were cast out of the kingdom and exiled forever.

Next, the king released from prison all who had honored him and his word. They were given a place of honor in his kingdom. All the lands, houses, goods, and possessions of those in exile were given to them.

The last prophecy in the King's Book was the promise that all who were killed would be brought back to life and given special places of authority. However, no one was surprised that this happened because they had already read about it in the King's Book.

And they lived happily ever after.

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

Bias, Presuppositions, and Intellectual Honesty

The Unbiased Illusion

I was listening to someone recently who claimed he wasn't biased. He believed he was objective and not influenced by anything but logic, reason, and science. He said this in the context of why he supported his particular candidate for president. He couldn't understand how people could be so stupid as to vote for the other candidate. 

Sound familiar?

His Facebook page is filled with memes that make fun of the other side. He has articles that definitively prove that his stance on whatever was correct. What was interesting was all the views he expressed were precisely in line with his party affiliation. He dismissed any challenges calling his view into question.

What bothered me was that he was completely unaware of his own biases. I do not find this person to be unique. Most people I encounter these days are heavily influenced by information that is anything but objective. Nowadays, "Fake news" is defined as whatever the opposition is reporting. 

Aids to Bias

This is a serious problem with the advancement of algorithms that track and feed us according to our online behavior. Documentaries such as Social Dilemma reveal the dark side of social media that provides people only the information they want to see.

The truth is everyone has a bias. We all have things that we presuppose to be true. A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset. Everyone lives by faith, even the most ardent scientist. How can this be? The scientist believes many things before he or she even starts an experiment. Would you like some examples?

“A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset.”

The Illusion of Objective Science

Science is based upon observation. By observation, I mean things that can be experienced by the senses, especially sight, though smell, taste, sound, and touch can and do play a significant role. Let's take sight, for example.

What exactly are you "seeing" when you see an object? Light hits the retina. The retina converts the information into electrical impulses that are sent along the optical nerve. The occipital lobe then converts the signals. The brain then takes this data and interprets it according to how the brain is hardwired and shaped through experience.  Once the information is "seen," the person has to analyze the information further to make sense of it.

Newborn babies or blind people who recently received their sight have to grow in their understanding of the sense data they are "seeing." In my example, we've come a long way from light hitting the retina to a person understanding the data. I haven't even touched on what exactly is light, and whether it is absorbed, reflected, or generated by objects in and of themselves. 

As you can see, something as familiar as "seeing" is based upon a multitude of presuppositions. How do we know we are "seeing" the object as it exists after the information has gone through processes in nature and our brain? This is just one assumption the scientist has to have to do science.

I could go on about the uniformity of nature and how the philosopher David Hume called the very foundations of science into question. On what basis do we know that events in the past will consistently perform the same way in the future? Hume says we don't know. Science has to assume that they do; otherwise, how can we do science? In other words, the scientist has to accept a set of presuppositions to do science. So even the scientist lives by faith. And if this is true of the revered scientist, how much more for the rest of us mortals.

I started this post talking about a person who believed he was objective in all his views. If something as precise as science has presuppositions, think about how many assumptions someone must have to hold a particular political viewpoint. Indeed, everyone truly lives by faith. Will a person be honest about their presuppositions or be intellectually dishonest by denying he has any?

There is only one way out of this labyrinth. It is to be intentional and honest about your presupposition. One of the most critical tasks we have as human beings is to dis-cover our presuppositional bias. What do you hold to be true? What do you take for granted to assert that any of your views are correct? Have you ever examined your presuppositional assumptions? 

How To Discover Your Presuppositions

The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias boils down the most critical questions to origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. How you answer these questions will help you identify your bias, presuppositions, and what you take for granted in your thinking.

Origins deal with the question of from where do we come? Some say matter always existed. Others say that God created us. Did we evolve over millions of years? Or were we created by God as talked about in the book of Genesis? What about the Big Bang? How you answer the question of origins will help determine the presuppositions you hold to make sense out of life. As you answer this question, you can discover why you think the way you do.

The next question that will help you identify your presuppositional foundation is the question of meaning. What is the meaning of life? Is it to get rich, help others, serve God, win, and propagate children? Perhaps you do not believe there is any ultimate meaning in life. That in itself is a presupposition by which you interpret reality, assuming there is any such thing as "reality." Perhaps "life is but a dream" as suggested in the childhood song, Row Row Row Your Boat.

Another question that will help you identify your assumptions of life is the question of morality. What is right, and what is wrong? What standard do you use to determine either one? That standard is your presupposition. Some use the Bible; others use intuition; still, others say that "might makes right." There are many ways to answer this question. How you determine what is moral and immoral will help you understand yourself better. 

The last question that Ravi Zacharias identifies is the question of destiny. This question completes the loop. Where did we come from is the question of origins. What is the meaning of life is the question of truth. What is right and wrong is the question of morality. Destiny answers the question of where we are headed. Do you think we are continually in the evolutionary process of getting better? Do you believe there are heaven and hell? Do you think we are, as the song says, "Dust in the Wind," that we are headed anywhere, that we are molecules falling through space with no final destination? 

These questions not only help you identify your presuppositional basis, but they also help predict how you will think on a multitude of issues. Those who assume God's existence, that we are created in the image of God, and that life begins with conception will be against abortion. Others who believe that human happiness is the ultimate meaning of life may think that a woman's right to choose is more important than giving up a career to raise a child. Many presuppositional factors will weigh in on how you answer abortion or any other problem for that matter.

Being Honest

The point of this post is to call people to intellectual honesty concerning their presuppositions. It is dishonest to say that you have no bias, that all your views are based on science, that you are correct in everything, or that you see everything clearly and everyone else is just wrong. I implore you to have the intellectual decency to admit that you have a bias just like everyone else. I challenge you to take time to think through what your presuppositional foundation is. 

There are benefits to this intellectual honesty. You will be able to evaluate news sources better. It's not enough to have someone else tell you something is "Fake news." Imagine not only being able to spot where a news story is factually wrong, but also to understand the news source's bias. For example, a liberal feminist will report the news differently from a fundamentalist Christian or a conservative Trump supporter. Why?

Intentional Presuppositional Honesty

I have intentionally chosen my presuppositional basis. What is it? I hold that the Bible is the only authoritative standard to answer origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Biblical authors claim their message to be from God around 1,900 times. The Bible declares "God said" or "Thus saith the Lord" over 4,000 times. The Bible is the only self-attesting book in existence. There is no way around its claim to be the word of God. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or course it is. But it is intellectually honest reasoning. God Himself attests that the Bible is His word. 

An intellectually honest person will admit that all other theories or philosophies beg the question as well. For science, truth is only that which you can empirically verify. Of course, that statement itself cannot be empirically verified, thereby showing that science's very foundation is self-begging and self-defeating. To believe that government or popular vote determines truth is untenable, especially considering that governments and populations have committed horrible atrocities in the past. How would we even know that an event is an atrocity unless we had a standard outside of ourselves to determine that it is atrocious or not? This kind of reasoning is circular as well. “We know something is an atrocity because we know it is wrong.”

It is impossible to account for logic, reason, or science apart from God as He revealed Himself in the Bible. Without Him, you cannot prove anything. Otherwise, we are left in a meaningless universe devoid of meaning. We are "Dust in the Wind," and dust cannot account for anything, not even itself. 

The Bible reveals that God is the only self-existing Being who exists in Unity and Complexity. He reveals Himself as the Author of life (origins), the Definer of the meaning of life (meaning), the Law Giver (morality), and the Giver of eternal life (destiny). These questions cannot be adequately answered apart from Scripture.

Apart from Scripture, there is no way we can know our origins. If we are naked apes that evolved from stardust, there is no way to account for meaning. Molecules in motion have no sense. When morality is not rooted in God's character, it is subject to the whims of humanity, and those whims turn out bloody, as history repeatedly shows. The Bible tells us where we are headed, either to heaven or to hell.

Paul says in Colossians 2:8 that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ. In Him is where intellectual honesty starts and where it ends. I choose Him as my presupposition foundation. How about you?

How To Make Black Lives Matter

Thesis:

Making black lives matter can only happen when our definition and understanding of justice begins with the submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and obedience to His word as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Introduction

Black lives matter has become a significant movement in the United States. You cannot drive far without seeing a BLM sign posted in the front yard of America's lawn. I've seen them in the most affluent, to some of the poorest neighborhoods in Connecticut. The people who post them are of all colors, creeds, and socio-economic statuses. People are horrified at the blatant acts of violence against the black community and want to do their part.

Since I don't have a front yard, I thought I would do my part by showing how to truly make black lives matter. I will argue that BLM's underlying principles only have meaning if understood from a Biblical worldview. Concepts such as human dignity, justice, and societal change are meaningless unless you start from the revelation God gave about Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. I contend that the Black Lives Matter movement, while well-intentioned, cannot sustain their cause unless and until they work toward change by beginning with the conversion of individuals and nations to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of Human Worth

Created in God's Imagine

There is only one Book that proclaims the truth about humanity. In Genesis 1:26+27 Bible boldly states:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26&27

The Bible does not say some human beings are better than others. It doesn't say one gender or ethnicity has less value than another. All human beings are created in God's image, starting with the original humans, Adam and Eve. Being made in God's image includes people with greater or lesser amounts of melanin in their skin. 

Because of this claim, all human beings have infinite value. We have worth because God created us in His image. No one has the authority to claim intrinsic superiority over another human being. To start from any other religious, theological, philosophical, or theoretical basis, other than the Scripture creates racism, classism, sexism, and every other negative "ism" there is. Take the God of the Bible out of the equation, and you have humans competing against humans. In other words, "survival of the fittest." 

The Folly of Evolution

Contrary to popular opinion, Evolution is not based upon science. At best, it is a theory and not a very coherent one at that. Science is based upon observable events that can be repeated for verification. While we can observe selective breeding, we do not see amebas transitioning into higher and more complex life forms. Simple single-celled amebas do not gain complexity and information through natural selection. The very thought of it is not only unscientific; it is illogical. Yet, so many believe in Evolution, and it is taught in public schools as if it is science.

If Evolution is true, what basis does anyone have to say one life matters over another? If all humanity is, are sophisticated animals, what does it matter if the stronger kills the weaker? Instead of repudiating this, people should be celebrating the advancement of Evolution in motion. The very thought is ludicrous.

The only viable alternative to faith in Evolution is the truth, as revealed by God in the Bible. Acts 17:26 says we all are of "one blood." We are one blood because God created our original parents, Adam and Eve. Human beings are made in the image of God regardless of the color of their skin, their socio-economic circumstance, where they live, or how they live.

The Cross and Human Value

Even more significant than the creation of humanity in God's image is the revelation of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals that the second Person of the Trinity became a Man to provide a way to be made right with God. God the Father sent His only-begotten Son to be crucified on the cross as a substitute atonement for sin. 

Nothing gives humanity more meaning and dignity than God becoming a human being and willingly laying down His life for sinners. Jesus Christ didn't die for sophisticated animals. He died for fallen human beings made in the image of God. The Bible says 

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

The invitation is given to all humanity, regardless of skin color. Jesus told His disciples to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) The "whole creation" refers to all humanity from the indigenous tribes in South America to the super-rich of Silicon Valley. 

Why do black lives matter? They matter because black people are children of Adam and Eve just as much as blond and blue-eyed people are. They count because Jesus Christ died for the sins of all who believe and trust in Him. They matter because God is our Creator, and in Him, all human beings are worthy of dignity.

How We Know That Justice is Just

Let's move to the concept of justice. Justice only has meaning because of who God is in and of Himself. No higher authority or standard determines what is just or unjust other than the self-existing Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without this, human beings have no objective standard to determine whether an action is just or unjust. Without God's revelation, Man is the ultimate authority, and the survival of the fittest holds sway. The stronger determines what is just in the same way a lion prevails over the weaker. No one faults an animal feeding upon the more vulnerable. No hungry animal is tried for murder because it is bigger, stronger, or faster than its prey.

Self-Law, God's Law, and the Meaning of Justice

How do we know that justice is good? Good is good because God is good. He defines what is right by His very nature. Anything that does not conform to His heart is evil. Eve's first temptation in the garden was to determine good and evil for herself rather than by who God is and the Law He gave. (Genesis 3) The word "autonomous" literally means self law (auto = self and nomous = law). As soon as human beings become autonomous, that is a law unto themselves, there is no ultimate standard for goodness, justice, or truth.

In short, without Biblical revelation, justice has no meaning. It has no ultimate standard when individuals, organizations, and governments reject God and His Law. Murder is wrong because it goes against God's revealed Law. On this basis alone, those who do wrong should be punished, and it is by this standard alone lawbreakers are found guilty. 

The Bible reveals that injustice, racism, and murder is wrong. (injustice - Proverbs 17:15, racism - Romans 10:12, murder - Exodus 20:13) Each is wrong because they go against the character of God. 

Outrage Against Injustice Testifies to Biblical Truth

If people don't know the Bible or if they reject the special revelation given in Scripture, their outrage towards injustice testifies that the Law of God is written in the very fabric of creation:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

The fact that people who are not believers are outraged at injustice is proof that Christianity is true. The most evident proof that injustice is wrong is given in God's special Biblical revelation. Yet, even without special revelation, human beings have a sense of justice by observing creation and by the testimony of their hearts. 

How We Make Black Lives Matter

How do we make black lives matter? The answer is not through protests, nor by defunding the police. It is not by replacing one humanistic law with another man-based law. Racism will not change because the majority posts signs in their front lawn. Nor will it come through education or revolution. All these things may help, but they do not solve the root of the problem.

The problem is in the fallen human heart. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest or work toward reforming the police or try to influence legislation or let people know where we stand or try to educate or even revolt against an unjust and corrupt government. 

They do not go far enough. It is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. None deal with the root of the problem. God shows us the hard truth concerning humanity and the human heart:

As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together, they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

Or 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

What is the answer? Again, the Bible reveals the solution. God calls for each individual to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The human heart is changed as it is "crucified with Christ." (Galatians 2:20) Romans 6 tells us that when we are in Christ, we cannot continue to live in sin. When we are in Christ, we have the power to walk in the newness of life. The Bible promises that we will be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the ability to not only live according to God's standards of holiness, but change society to be empowered to live according to God's Law. (2 Corinthians 5)

The Role of the Government in Making Black Lives Matter

The government's primary job is to enforce God's Law by punishing evildoers and commending those who do right. (Romans 13:1-5) As we submit to Christ, we have the objective standard by which our government can enact and enforce Law. This Law is not based upon human opinion, majority rule, the survival of the fittest, or any other social standard. The Law is based upon the revealed character of God both in Biblical revelation and general revelation. When this happens, the government will appropriately punish systemic injustice, prejudice, or racism and pass laws to curb these behaviors. A godly government will justly punish all lawbreakers not submitted to the one and only Living God.

The Steps to Make Black Lives Matter

• First, the leadership of Black Matter needs to submit to the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:10-11)

• Second, the leadership needs to renounce any associations with the godless philosophies of Evolution, Marxism, and Atheism. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

• Third, BLM needs to focus on the conversion of individuals and nations to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14-17) 

• Fourth, BLM needs to root concepts of injustice, racism, and truth in the character of God as revealed in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

• Fifth, BLM needs to work to establish God's Law as the foundation of our legal system (Romans 3:31)

Who Am I To Speak

Some may criticize me for speaking about Black Lives Matter as a white man. What right do I have to say anything? I think the answer to this lies in that most of the BLM signs are posted on the lawns middle-class white people in suburban America. While my take is different from most white Americans, I believe that if those in the BLM movement welcome their forms of expression, I too have the same right.

I believe I have a duty to speak, considering the racist education I received in my public school "education." I have written elsewhere that the Evolutionary indoctrination that is perpetrated in public schools is inherently racist. It is time for Christians, and all seeking justice for that matter, to speak out against racism as it is taught in public schools.

Finally, I cannot sit idly by as false solutions are given to a severe problem. The teachings of Evolutionary Marxism begets revolution. I believe our country is in the midst of the most significant cultural revolution in our nation's history. This revolution's unifying factor is the rejection of Biblical Christianity and the foundation of God's Law in our justice system. Humanistic law prevails, and as such, we are caught in the Evolutionary trap that change can and will come only through revolution. Here we are back to the survival of the fittest. It is a false answer that will result in a bloody end. 

The answer to all humanity's problems is found in the simple phrase in the Lord's prayer,

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

It is only in Christ that Black Lives Matter. The sooner we learn this, the sooner justice will come!

Even so, Come Lord Jesus!

Para Carlos

Mi amigo Carlos Unda me hizo una pregunta:

"Una pregunta y es seria. Porque la Biblia fue escrita hace cientos de años en un lugar que ni conosco en una lengua que ni entiendo y porque necesito que otros seres humanos me la traduzcan, me la expliquen y me la interpreten, seria mas fácil para dios mandarnos la biblia ya traducida y en forma directa sin intermediarios? Bueno eso es lo que yo pienso con todo respeto."

Es una pregunta justa y excelente. Gracias por preguntarme. Todavía estoy aprendiendo español, así que perdone mis errores gramaticales.

De hecho la Biblia fue escrita hace miles de años y muchos lugares no conocemos. Es muy difícil entender las linguas de la Biblia original pero no es imposible. Podemos comunicar en español porque me tomé el tiempo para aprenderlo. He aprendido y estudiado Hebreo y Griego para entender la Biblia mejor. Pero hay muchas herramientas disponible para estudiar la Biblia con ti mismo. Puedes comprobar las traducciones por ti mismo para ver si son precisas o no si quieres. También puedes comparar muchas traducciones en español para tener una idea del significado original Ambos es trabajo pero es posible pero vale la pena.

Pero en mi opinion no es necesario tener otros para te la interpreten. Aquí está la principal diferencia entre los protestantes y los católicos. Hay un dicho para los protestantes, Solo Scriptura. En otras palabras no necesitamos la Papa o la tradición de la iglesia para leer, entender o interpretar la Biblia. Otros pueden ayudarnos pero tenemos la derecha conocer la Biblia sin intermediarios.

Además, en muchas denominaciones protestantes la gente puede cuestionar a sus pastores y destituirlos de sus cargos si el pastor enseña doctrinas que no son bíblicas y que son obviamente un error. Es muy parecido con el gobierno civil. Tenemos el derecho de remover a los tiranos de sus cargos e incluso derrocar al gobierno si es necesario.

No sé exactamente por qué Dios escribió la biblia de la manera en que lo hizo pero tengo ideas de mi mismo. En esencia la Biblia es una historia de amor. En última instancia es un relato de cómo Dios hizo un camino para salvar a la humanidad perdida convirtiéndose él mismo en un ser humano en Jesucristo y tomando nuestro pecado sobre sí mismo para que podamos convertirnos en los hijos e hijas de Dios. Es una historia de un Hombre inocente siendo castigado en lugar de personas culpables.

Tel vez la pregunta real es no sería más fácil para Dios revelarse directamente a todos las personas todo el tiempo? Por qué usar un libro?

En mi opinión, eso nos quitaría la capacidad y el derecho a elegir. ¿Quién quiere ser forzado a creer en Dios? Hay suficiente evidencia de Dios, pero también está oculta. Se necesita fe. Dios se revelará a cualquiera que lo busque, pero se mostrará en formas que aún tienen fe. ¿Sé que Dios existe al 100% y que la Biblia es verdadera? Lo sé porque si el Dios Trino de la Biblia no existe, nada tiene sentido. Quitar el Dios como se reveló en la Biblia y no hay base para la ciencia, la razón o la moral.

Con respeto, esa es mi respuesta.