IsChristianity Probably True Of

Cerl<iinlyT fuel
what do you think would be the
results of a one question examination
given to every evangelical professing
Christian in the world? The one
question examination is - "Is
Christianity probably true or certainly
true?" Would we not be shocked and
grieved if the results were not a 100%
the Bibleis the Wordof God simply because
it claims to be the very Word of God.
jesus, I really need some real tangible
proof autside of what the Bible says about
you in order for me to put my total trust
in yau . Would we not seriously
question whether this person was a
genuine Christian?
We think it is absurd for a person
who says he loves the Lord Jesus with
score favoring the r ~
certainty of
apologists who would genetaUy be
classified ~ Evidentialists, and three
quOtes are ftom men Who have
espoused Refonned Theology. Josh
McDowell wrote in his book, Evidence
That Demands A Verdict, "Be careful,
I did not prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt thatJesus was the Son of God. What
I did was investigate the evidence and
weigh the pros and cons. The results
showed that Christ must
be who He.claimed to be,
and 1 had to make a
deCision, which I did . . "
Edwar\l J. Carnell
wrote in his book, An
Introduction To
ChristianApologetics,
"First, let us establish
surely the fact that proof
the Christian faith,
as proof for any world
viewworih talking abaut,
cannot rise above
rational probability ...
Cordial trust in jesus
Christ is always
!!lo'untied in reasonable
Christian faith?
When you asked
God to forgive you
of your' sins,
pleading for the
mercy of God, did
you probably think
that God exists or
did you cenainly
believe in a
forgiving God? Did
you probably or
certainly think that
Jesus Christ came
into this world to
atoneforman'ssin?
When you repen-
ted of your sins and
=========;;.! evidences." John War-
turned in faith and accepted Jesus
Christ as your Lord and Saviour, did
you probably or certainly believe that
salvation was only in Jesus Christ?
When every genuine Christian
looks to the innennost recesses of his
hean, he has believed with confidence
that the God of the Bible is the true and
living God whom he has sinned against,
needing forgiveness of sins. The
Christian believes with confidence that
Jesus Christ is indeed the way, the
truth, and the life, and that no man
comes to the Father except through
Jesus Christ. Would we not think it
was a strange anomaly, even a sinful
thought, for a Christian to say, "Well,
jesus, I am not sure whether or not yau
are the Son of God come into this world to
save sinners, but I hope so. I am not even
sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that
all his hean to think this way. If this is
the case, then why do many defenders
of the Christian Faith present
Christianity as a mere probabiJjty
statement? One of the major
perspectives in evangelical apologetics
is that of Evidentialism. The primary
emphases in this apologetic school is
that the Christianapologist is to presern
to the unbeliever all the evidences for
the truthfulness of Christianity, hoping
to show the unbeliever that it is rational
to believe in Christ, and that it is
foolish to remain in unbeliefin light of
all the evidence faVOring Christianity.
Amazingly, those advocates of this
perspective presern the overwhelming
evidences of Christianity's truthfulness
not as a certainty but only as probably
true.
The following quotes are from three
14 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t September, 1993
wick Morngomery wrote in his book,
The Shape Of The Past, " The
resurrection provides a basis in historical
probability for trying the Christian faith.
Granted, the basis is only on,e of
probability, not of certainty, but
probability is the sole ground on which
finite human beings can make any
decisions. Only deductive logic and pure
mathematics provide apodictic certainty,
and they do so because they stem form self
evident formal axioms (e.g the tautology,
if A then A) involving no matter offact.
The moment we enter the realm of fact,
we must depend on probability; this may
be unfortunate, but it is unavoidable. "
The evidernialists, in their zeal to
persuade the unbeliever to embrace
Christ, do not press the claims ofChrist
as a cenairny of fact, demanding the
unbeliever to repent and believe
because the Bible as God's Word says
$0; they encourage the unbeliever to
objectively look at the evidence (which
is only highly probable) and decide for
himself if the evidence is sufficient to
declare Jesus the Son of God.
Even Gordon Clark, known as a
Reformed theologian, does not present
the certainty of Christianity as one's
governing presupposition or starting
point. Clark has said in his book, A
Christian View of Men
and Things, "If theism is
indeed necessary to the
intelligibility of history,
possibly Mohammedan
theism or some other form
would junction as well as or
even better than Christian
theism. There has not been
much argument so far to
rule out such a possibility.
Apparently the bestgeneral
procedu re jor one who
wishes to recommend
Christian theism is to show
that other forms of theism
ore inconsi stent mixtures. "
Francis Schaeffer was
another Reformed theologian who did
not present the certainty of Christianity
as one's ultimate starting point.
Schaeffer has said in his Wheaton
lectures, "It always seems to me a very
false thing to ask an honest man who is
wrestling as to what the Bible is, to believe
the Biblical system on the basis that the
Bible is a suffiCient authority, when NJatis
the subject under discussion .. If we are
Christians, we should realize that if I am
going to be able to communicate the gospel
to 20th century people, it must be rooted
in anareaoj truth thatis open to question ...
Scripturally, you are not invited to come
and believe and have life in His name
until you have jaced the question, "is this
true? " Truth, therejore, stands bejore
conversion. "
Finally, R.C. Sproul, an adherent
to Reformed Theology, equally does
not begin his apologetic with the self
attesting nature of Scripture as a
certainty. Sproul has said in his book,
Reason To Believe, "The case jor the
infallibility of SCripture proceeds along
both deductive and inductive lines. It
moves from the premise oj general
trustworthiness to the conclusion of
infallibility. The reasoning proceeds as
follows: PremiseA: The Bibleisabasically
reliable and trustworthy document.
Premise B: On the basis of this reliable
document we have sujficient evidence to
believe confidently thatjesus Christ is the
Son of God. Premise C: jesus Christ
being the Son of God is an infallible
authority. Premise D:jesus Christ teaches
that the Bible is more than generally
trustworthy; it is the very Word of God.
Premise E: The word, in that it comes
jrom God, is utterly trustworthy because
God is utterly trustworthy. Conclusion:
On the basis oj the infallible authority oj
jesus Christ, the church believes the Bible
to be utterly trustworthy, i.e. infallible."
Sproul insists that the above logical
argument is not guilty of circular
reasoning. Sproul has said that Van
Til's starting pOint, which is the self
attesting nature of Scripture (the Bible
is true because it claims to be true) is
circular reasoning and is invalid.
Concerning the above logical argument
given by Sproul, he has said, "Note that
this progreSSion does not involve circular
reasoning .. Rather this method follows a
linear pattern oj development. The
argument itself is not injallible as each
premise involves matters of inductive or
deductive reasoning thatis done by fallible
human beings ... That the Bible claims to
be the Word oj God is not enough to
authenticate the claim. Any book can
make such a claim. . . Why should you
trust the Bible? You should
trust the Bible because the
Bible has been proven
trustworthy. "
What is the problem
with Sproul's argumen-
tation? Sproul has said
that the strength of his
argument is that
Scripture's infallibility
moves from general
trustworthiness to
infallibility. Foralogica!
argument to be valid and
convincing, the con-
clusion to the argument
must follow rigorously
from the premises.
Sproul's argument does not. It is a
devastating and an unbiblica1statement
to say that the Bible is a "basically
reliable" document. What does
basically mean? It must mean at least
51 % reliable so that it has a majority.
Is the Bible 75% or 80% reliable? Saying
that the Bible is "basically" reliable
definitely leaves the impression that a
pOltion of it might not be reliable.
Which portion of the Bible is not
basically reliable? Is it those areas
dealing with Christ's deity or atoning
work that are not reliable? The minute
we do not emphatically claim the
absolute inerrancy of Scripture as a
certainty of fact as our ultimate starting
point, we have inadvertently opened
Pandora's box. The Bible is not
"baSically reliable"; it is absolutely
certain and reliable. The Bible gives no
evidence of its certainty outside of its
own authority as the very breath of
September, 1993 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 15
Almighty God. Even though Sproul is
committed to and a defender of the
inerrancy of Scripture, he has exposed
himself to the same pitfalls of neo-
orthodoxy and liberalism.
AsecondmajorcriticismofSproul's
argumentation is that his premises B,
C, and D can only be accepted as valid
if we accept what the Bible says about
Jesus, but the authority of the Bible is
the issue under debate. How do we
know Jesusis the Son of God,speaking
as an infallible authority and giving
His divine stamp of approval on the
authority of Scripture outside of the
Bible's own It is from the
Bible itself that we learn who Jesus is!
Sproul's conclusion that the Bible is
infallible because Jesus Christ is
infallible is a conclusion not validly
deduced from his premises. Sproul
has not empirically proved with
certainty that any of his premises are
true unless one presupposes that the
Bible is true, which is a presupposition
that Sproul refuses to accept at the
outset. So much for avoiding circular
reasoning. Sproul cannot escape it,
nor can any other apologist who is
faithful to Scripture. One cannot move
from general reliability to infallibility
(whichiscertainty )withoutintermediate
steps which are absolutely certain.
As we have said in last month's
article, many have criticized Van Til
for his presupposition as the ultimate
starting point for defending the faith -
a presupposition which proclaims the
self attesting nature of Scripture (the
Bible is the Word of God because it
claims divine authority foritself). What
do these opponents to this perspective
offer in its place? They offer to the
unbeliever highly probable evidences
for him to consider whether Jesus is
worthy of his commitment. Though
the men that have been mentioned in
this article have made some great
contributions to the field ofapologetics,
they have not been totally faithful in
proclaiming the Bible's greatest
strength -it comes to us with absolute
certainty as God's revelation.
When I came to Jesus Christ
acknowledging that I was a worthless
sinner, deserving God's wrath,
repenting of my sins, and committing
myself wholeheartedly to Christ's
Lordship, I did not come thinking that
Jesus was probably true but certainly
true. Didn't you?
Next month we s):Iallgive a detailed
account of the Scriptural texts
demonstrating that the Bible's own
testimony about itself is that it is
certainly true, not probably true.n
BOOKS 6c; We LOCKMAN
A l-l- IT:; GTA 1<Tl-I NG-
IMAGeJ<Y PORTRAveo
WITl-l CAI<:TbON5!
*' REFORMED
'* COVEiNANT'AL
*' pJ<!eT'EI<:I.;:;-r
* EAJ(.'I..Y DA-rE
.8'h'0L-C?
rh'' 77A1' ISATh'ANP
TO OKP'K T#15 BOOK!
60.PACK5P 6 00
PAG5'S/ __
THE70WEEKS
OF DANIEL
.. PlspeNSA710IVAL.ISM Tl-l5 ACJ<OGT'IC W.J.I.O.
"OLlT-CJ.lART,!'P"# LlNPCNE./ INTERPReT5 TH5
'fl.I5 C::;05pel- IN Tl-le 70 I-lOW T'O l<ecO<:tNI:Z1S
WEEK'G OF ",AN.leL. 9 AN", uNJ:'ERGTANO
I"ULLY eXPOUNJ:'el? ANP I"IGUJ;!/i OF' :;PE5Cl-l ANI'
THe ::Z,OOOYR. "GAP" TrlOUGl-lT IN Tl-le
THeORY BASIC I<LlI.ES!
I-IUMOROU5L.Y
TJ.lJ<OUGJ.lOUT.
24 B';;x 1916 C 56
3Q.2,
t)316l1C-RL
.COnomlcs

-mE 5CIENCE
MA",E i7ISLI6HTi"L.J L!
.POpL.I.4R FA..ACI55
5%,pOSEP
TH E MAI<J<'eT
MONEY
LAW
GOveRNMENT
,Axe:;, ETC., ETC.
GOOP 116 PAGe6
FCR AL-. 6 95
AGes/ __
SINGL.5 COP/5S APP FOR 5/.4' CO. 92065
AL.L. + .8COKS 20 pClST.PAIP.'
16 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon September, 1993