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