Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: The Antithesis & Self-Attesting Nature of Scripture(Part 12)

This message is a continuation of the previous tape mindset. So in reading the Areopagus address, especially in the light of what Paul teaches in Romans chapter one and in other of his epistles, I was quite consistent in all of his teaching. And what he consistently teaches is that we must approach things on the presumed authority of God, do an internal critique of our opponent because he rejects creation and providence and show that he's culpable. He can't really get away from the truth, but in his perversion of it, he's become stupid and ignorant. The only hope for him then is not to reason a little bit better, come a little bit further and come to Jesus. His only hope is to have a change of mind, a change of outlook, to repent. I change gears now I can finish presenting biblical guidance for apologetics. I've not only argued for the Bible, showing us how to defend the Bible, and then I've laid out a number of main themes and now illustrated them. Hopefully. I hope that I persuaded you from Acts 17 that Paul took that approach. I want to go back now and leave you with two major themes before we are done today, because I think they are so crucial to apologetics and so often given short shrift in our day. And so I want to speak a little bit more about the themes of the antithesis and the self attesting nature of Scripture. The antithesis and the self attesting nature of Scripture. You might do this little experiment when you read other works in apologetics, look up those concepts or the language doesn't have to be the same, but try to find those concepts in modern works on apologetics, where it's crucial in your approach that you see that there's antithesis and, and that you see that from our side of the antithesis, God's word is self attesting. I just don't think you'll find it very much. And so for the sake of my students, you have heard this already. I'm going to approach it a little bit differently. But this is for the sake of reinforcement. I want it to be ringing in your ears as we tomorrow turn to philosophical considerations about defending the faith. First, the antithesis. The antithesis, quote, unquote, taken as a slogan. The antithesis is a major biblical theme. That is to say, we can find the antithesis, we see it in Acts 17. But I want to make the point now by way of reinforcement, that the antithesis flows from beginning to end in the Bible. Indeed, the very biblical narrative begins Genesis 3:15. I will put enmity, I will Put enmity between Satan, you and the woman, in between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, you will bruise his heel. A correct view of man, his historical setting, a correct view of his problem, and God's resultant relationship to man is tied up with a biblical presentation of man's fall and God's response to it. Genesis 3:15, where we find the first proclamation of the good news for man's salvation, tells us that man's problem, in the way in which God is going to work to accomplish the salvation of man because of that problem, presupposes the enmity between two seeds. In Genesis we see that man had a guilty conscience, and that guilty conscience created alienation between him and his wife, as well as a desire to flee from the presence of God. We see as well that God's curse was pronounced against the serpent because he dared to beguile man into repudiating the self attesting authority of God's word. This all ties together. It's not obsession that leads me to keep saying that it's right there, right? What did Satan do? Satan challenged the word of God. It wasn't right for Eve to look for evidence about the word of God. She was supposed to take it on God's own word. And those facts point to the spiritual antithesis inherent in the present human situation. But that antithesis is explicitly declared in Genesis 3:15, where God says he'll put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, I.e. between the children of God united to their Savior the Messiah and the children of the devil. It's worth noting that the emphasis falls upon the word enmity as the first word in the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15. If you want to translate it literally, it says enmity will I put. And God himself is said to constitute, establish and deliberately impose this enmity between men. It isn't just somehow there because we failed to get up on the right side of the bed and exercise enough cheerfulness and goodwill. God says, I will put it there. Which means it's going to stay. This doesn't come about by default. It's the judgment of God imposed by God, deliberately imposed and established by God. The opposition and antithesis between followers of God and followers of Satan is not simply predicted and it's not simply commanded. It's sovereignly inflicted as a judicial curse from God. And so the distinction between and the antipathy between the two seeds must be and indeed will be maintained. Only in that light do we properly understood can we properly understand, pardon me, the hope of Messiah crushing the tempter. If you disregard the antithesis, if you dilute it, if you try to dispel it, the meaning of the gospel of salvation is lost because you thereby consign all men indiscriminately to the perdition of Satan. Or by neglecting the discriminating love of God, which Paul says in Colossians 1:13, delivered us out of the power of darkness, transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son. You see how the antithesis is presupposed by the gospel. We're delivered from the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's Son. And so the entire biblical message of redemption and the historical establishment of God's kingdom presuppose the antithesis between God's people and the culture of unbelief. And that's why throughout history, Satan has tempted God's people to compromise the antithesis. We see him tempt them in Genesis 5:2 to compromise the antithesis by intermingling in ungodly marriages. It's not as though you have two seeds, two cultures set apart, but rather, Satan tempts God's people to intermarriage. Or as in Joshua 23 and Judges chapter one, Satan tempts God's people toward an unwarranted tolerance toward his enemies. Or in Judges 21:25, Satan tempts every man to do what is right in his own eyes, Satan tempts God's people to commit spiritual adultery with other gods. Psalm 106, Hosea, chapter 2, Ezekiel, chapter 16. He tempts them to trust in some other power than God. Kings 18 and Chronicles 16, Isaiah, the 30th chapter, on and on it goes. Or finally, by repudiating the Messiah, as did the world, John 1:10, 11 and later after the resurrection, by tempting Christians to bow the knee both to Christ and to Caesar, contrary to what Jesus says we're allowed to do. In fact, the Bible says that Satan even dared to tempt Jesus to achieve God's ends by compromising the antithesis. Matthew 4:8, 10. Remember how Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world and said, all of them will belong to you, Jesus, if you'll just bow your knee to me. So if we would live up to Paul's assessment, the Christians are not ignorant of Satan's devices. 2nd Corinthians 2:11. Then we must be sure not to ignore the persistent device used by Satan of toning down and disregarding the antithesis that God judicially inflicted imposed between his people and the world. In the Fourth chapter of Genesis, we read that Cain murdered his brother Abel. Why? Because God had respect unto Abel's offering instead of Cain's. The antagonism between those who please God and those who do not was already at work in human history. God said, I will set an antithesis here, a hostility, an enmity. And the enmity is immediately seen within the first human family. There's murder. And John tells us specifically in 1 John 3:12, that this event illustrates the enmity that arises between the two seeds. He says, Cain was of the evil one. He was the seed of the serpent, and so he slew his brother because his works were evil and his brother's righteous. Look at subsequent portions of Genesis. The antithesis continues to be pressed in the literature of the Bible as the descendants of Cain and their accompanying culture are now distinguished from those of Seth in chapter four of Genesis. And then the family of Noah is set apart from the rest of mankind for preservation through the flood in Genesis 5. Nine, the seed of Shem is set apart from the seed of his brothers in Genesis 10. But the ungodly attempt to unify all mankind against all these progressive distinguishings of the people of God from the world. The ungodly in Genesis 11 want to undo the antithesis and thwart God's judicial curse by uniting mankind at the tower of Babel. Abraham and his seed are specifically chosen out of all the other families of the earth. In Genesis 12:15, the line of Isaac is chosen over that of ishmael. In Genesis 16 to 18, the line of Jacob chosen over that of esau. In Genesis 25. See, God is doing the work of distinguishing through history, setting apart the true seed from the world. The world wants to bring everybody together and have a commonness which is illicit in the eyes of God. Consider the Old Testament Exodus through Joshua. Eventually the children of Israel are called out of the land of Egypt. We read that in the book of Exodus. And they're called to displace the Canaanite tribes and be established as a holy people unto God. Accompanying these biblical stories, repeatedly we read of the hostility that that exists between God's children and the world. We see that hostility in Ishmael persecuting Isaac with mockery in Genesis 21:9. Paul refers to that in Galatians 4, verse 29. We see it in Pharaoh's harsh and murderous oppression of the Jewish slaves in the first chapter of Exodus. We see it in Israel's military campaigns against Canaan's abominable places of worship. In Deuteronomy 7, Deuteronomy 12. Let's jump ahead in our quick survey to the Psalms and the prophetic literature. The theme of antithesis runs through the biblical drama like a subtle unifying thread. We can hear it in the imprecatory Psalms against God's enemies. We can hear it in the prophetic denunciation of the nations, especially against the ruthless empires of Assyria and Babylon, which took God's people into captivity. Let's go back and consider what the Mosaic law said about the antithesis. God taught his people through Moses, Leviticus 11:44, 5, that they were to be a holy people. What does holy mean? Set apart, right? Set apart from pagan unbelief and pagan practices. And in First Peter 1, verses 15 and 16, Peter takes that as the basis for saying, we are to be sanctified in all manner of living. We're not supposed to compromise with the world. The prophets called for God's people to come out from among them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing. Doesn't Paul quote that for us in 2 Corinthians 6? The antithesis is to be pursued religiously, morally. We're to be cleansed from all defilement of flesh and spirit. And so we have to take the antithesis seriously. Look at the New Testament. Further evidence of the antithesis is there, and we what it teaches us about the church in the world. Jesus emphasized and called for a clear observation of that antithesis when he said, he who was not with me is against me, and no man can serve two masters. Matthew 6:24, Matthew 12:30. And Jesus identified the enemy of the kingdom. Matthew 13:39. Why is it interesting? He says the enemy because God set enmity between the seeds. And so he said, the enemy of the kingdom is Satan. In first Peter 5, 8, Peter calls Satan the believer's adversary. Paul utilized military imagery to rouse us to withstand the principalities and powers and spiritual, Spiritual host of wickedness in Ephesians 6:1017. And so there is, according to the New Testament, clearly a hostile encounter taking place in this world. And a graphic illustration of this hostility and this warfare, this enmity and antithesis between the seed of the serpent and the seed which belongs to God, is found in the account of. Of Elymas the sorcerer, whom Paul denounced as what? A son of the devil, the seed of Satan, because he opposed enmity, hostility, opposed the apostles by trying to turn aside Sergius Paulus from the faith, and by always perverting the right ways of the Lord. We read of that in Acts 13. I think we have to call to mind Genesis 3:15 once again when Jesus calls those who oppose the kingdom of God the sons of the evil one, and when Paul identifies them as the enemies of Christ's cross Enmity. Enemies. They're the enemies of the cross because they mind her fleet things in contrast to the Christian's heavenly citizenship in Philippians 3:18, 20. And the apostle John reinforces the necessity of this antithesis by issuing a command to believers in First John 2:15 love not the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. And James drives home the antithesis pungently by declaring, whoever would be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. And we can sum up our all too brief survey of the biblical theme of antithesis. We began in the opening chapters of Genesis, where God judicially inflicts enmity, and we've pursued that throughout the what does the Bible tell us will be the end of the story? A day of judgment where sheep and goats will be separated and some will go into the kingdom of God eternally and some into the lake of fire eternally. The antithesis will never go away. It will always be there. Now, what's the significance of this for apologetics? Maybe you haven't really strung all this together and seen it as such a pervasive underlying theme in everything the Bible teaches. But then you say, how does that affect apologetics? Well, I hope that it's evident to you that this is relevant to our defending of the faith when you remember that the antipathy, which is the pervasive a pervasive theme of Scripture applies just as much to the mental life of men and their conduct as it does to their other affairs and their outward external behavior. The enmity between Satan's seed and God's seed, which is spoken of in Genesis 3:15, is intellectual as well as social, familial, economic, military, political, or what have you. And this is a crucial verse for apologetics. Then Romans 8:7 the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be the mind of the flesh. Paul there is describing the word person you're talking to when you do apologetics. He's talking about somebody who's in the flesh. He's unregenerate, and he's talking about the mind of that person. And what does he say about the mind of the unregenerate man? It's enmity against God. God imposed the antithesis. God judicially inflicted the enmity and there it is for apologists to see the mind of the flesh, this enmity against God. It can't be subject to the law of God. And so the mentality of those who are unregenerate cannot be subject to the truth of God's word. There is then no peace between the mindset of the unbeliever and the mind of God. They're at enmity with one another. Am I belaboring the authority? If there is no peace between these two mindsets, why would we adopt the mindset of the unbeliever in order to lead him to the mindset of belief? Why would we adopt the outlook of that which is in opposition to Christianity in order to try to come to Christianity? Here's my explanation for why so many Christians have compromised on this point. It's not my opinion. It's. I don't think that I'm guilty of a harsh judgment here. It's not my opinion that most unbeliever. Excuse me, Most believers who are teaching a contrary theory of apologetics recognize that enmity in the unbeliever. And they say, oh, it doesn't make any difference. We can be friends with the world anyway. That would be a very terrible thing to do. Maybe some people do that, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is most apologists don't see the mind of the unbeliever as an expression of enmity. And that's why they don't worry about compromising with it. I'll make common cause with you. Just tell me where you're starting from. I'll reason like you do and I'll try to prove the faith. It's because they think that there's a no man's land between God's people and the world. They think there's that neutral buffer zone between belief and unbelief and the thinking of the unbeliever. Now, the unbeliever, he's an unbeliever because in his behavior he does bad things and he doesn't repent and trust Christ. But nevertheless, in his thinking, as I said yesterday, behind his eyeballs, it's a neutral zone. But the Bible says behind the eyeballs, the mind of the unregenerated man is enmity against God. Paul similarly describes the unregenerate and unreconciled spiritual condition of unbelievers in Colossians 1, verse 21, when he says they are alienated and enemies in their mind. Isn't that great enemies enmity enemies in their mind against God. The enmity is specifically one which is worked out in the mind and thinking and reasoning of unbelievers. The unbeliever can't be subject to the law's greatest demand. What's the law's greatest demand? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Instead, the unbeliever hates wisdom and instruction. Proverbs tells us so. And although the fear of the Lord is the very starting point of knowledge, in Romans 3:18 we read, There is no fear of God before their eyes. Okay? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Can't you complete the syllogism? Therefore, knowledge is unavailable to them. They're all messed up mentally, they're all messed up philosophically and in their readings, reasoning. And so unbelievers cannot realize the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. They're all deposited in Christ. But unbelievers are intellectually at enmity with Christ. And simultaneously the Bible says they're at war with their own best interest intellectually. And so, as we've already studied this after, and I can be brief about this, Colossians 2:8 says, Take heed lest anyone rob you of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge through his philosophy, which is vain deceit after the traditions of men, after the rudimentary principles of the world, and not after Christ. Paul sets a philosophy that is after Christ in antithesis, that philosophy that's after the elementary assumptions of the world. Romans 1:18, 20. 21. Paul says that men become vain in their reasoning and their senseless hearts are darkened when they suppress the truth about God and when they try to oppose the truth faith. 1st Timothy 6:20 says they're the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. 2nd Timothy 2:25 says they're actually opposing themselves in the process of prosecuting their enmity against God and his Word. Now, as apologists, you must realize the implications of this antithesis. If you understand what I've been teaching you. Your aim is to to expose the utter futility, the utter epistemological futility of the unbeliever's reasoning. Paul's challenge was thus. You've heard it before. Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Ephesians 4:23 says that God's people are renewed in the spirit of their minds. But unbelievers walk in the vanity of their mind being darkened in their understanding. What's the next word? Alienated. Alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts. And so the defender of the faith, who is faithful to the biblical faith that he defends, will not seek to abandon, will not seek to diminish the crucial antithesis that exist between the philosophical reasoning of the regenerate mind and the self destructive reasoning of the unregenerate mind. As Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 10:5, he will cast down reasonings and every lofty thing exalted against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. The antithesis must be central and indispensable to the work of the apologist because. Because he's an ambassador for Christ in the intellectual arena. And the ambassador for Christ according to 2 Corinthians 5:20 beseeches men to be reconciled to God. What does the word reconcile, presuppose hostility when you're talking to the unbeliever and defending the faith. Therefore, don't forget this biblical theme antithesis. He's unreconciled, he's hostile. He's at enmity with God in his mind, and that's what he needs to be saved from. If he's at enmity with God in his mind, it makes no sense for me to go to him and appeal to him to use his mind in just the way he's always used it to say, yes, you've been doing so well now let me say, but you should come to my conclusion instead. All right, one more theme that I'd like to reinforce. It's already been taught, so the fact that I'll probably not be able to say everything that I have in my notes is not the end of the world. Really. I'm trying to cap off this day's lectures on biblical guidance by drawing out two main lines that are not drawn out adequately enough in modern apostles apologetics, the antithesis and then secondly, the self attesting authority of Scripture. And for further reading on this, I might encourage you all to see John Frame's article Scripture Speaks for Itself, which can be found in the book edited by by John Warwick Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word. Thank you. All these titles are so close to one another. Almost forgot. Yes, God's Inerrant Word. Frame's article in there really stands out from all the others. It's quite superb. And there it's entitled Scripture Speaks for Itself. Why is the self witness of Scripture so important? Well, what do we mean by the self witness of Scripture? We're talking about what Scripture says about itself. Now, Scripture talks about a lot of things, right? It talks about King David, it talks about King Jesus, it talks about the Apostle Paul. And Scripture tells us about God's creative work and God's providential work and God's work in history. It tells us about sin and it tells us about salvation. It tells us about the end of the world, tells us a lot of things. But among the many things that Scripture talks about is itself. Scripture also reflects on itself. And it's been a crisis in the last 20, 30 years in evangelical circles as to whether the evangelical doctrine of Scripture, Scripture is to be drawn from Scripture or from our speculation and thinking about it from outside Scripture. That is, should we believe in the inerrancy of God's Word because we can go and answer anybody who challenges specifics in God's Word, or do we let Scripture first speak about itself and draw our conclusions about its character from what it says? Now, the first approach is the approach of most evidentialists. They'll say I believe in inerrancy. They'll say this, it's not true. I don't think they'll say I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because I have good evidence for all the things that are challenged. And I draw the conclusion that the Bible's inerrant because my extra biblical argumentation gives me warrant for thinking that the other approach says I may not be able to answer all your challenges. I'm not sure what to say about this or that, although I may have answers for many of them. But in the end, my view of Scripture doesn't come from my research and my analysis. My view of Scripture comes from Scripture itself. That's the self witness of Scripture. Then what the Bible says about the Bible. Bible, what Scripture says about itself. And another piece of homework for those of you who are eager. One of the earliest articles I published was on this question of whether the inerrancy of the Bible, which was a hot potato in evangelical circles back in the 70s, in particular whether that is believed on precept suppositional grounds are on empirical inductive grounds. And so the title of the article is Inductivism. Please turn the cassette over at this time. Words inductivism, inerrancy and presuppositionalism. And I don't know which order I gave him in the title. Been a long time. It's been a long day. Maybe I should just stop. Nevertheless, I have an article that pursues this in which I try to show the impossibility of demonstrating the inerrancy of Scripture on inductive grounds and that anybody who holds to the inerrancy of Scripture is really committed to a presuppositional approach. Well, that's another matter. Back to self attestation. Scripture self witness is important because without it we would really wouldn't have an argument for biblical authority. Ever thought about that? We would not any of us be allowed to say the Bible is the inspired word of God if the Bible didn't itself say that, because what man can speak for God? What if we all got together and voted and said, ah, the Bhagavad Gita, that's the word of God, would that make it the word of God? What if everybody said the Bhagavad Gita is the word of God, Would that make it the word of God? No, but what if everybody said, hey, we've studied the Bible, we've done our research, we've done this massive analysis, we've come to the conclusion this is God's Word, would that make it God's word? If the Bible does not claim to be God's word, all the extra biblical argumentation and support cannot justify that conclusion. And so the self witness of Scripture is crucial for what we think of the Bible itself. Like any other doctrine of the Christian faith, the doctrine of biblical authority must be proven by the Bible. The final and decisive consideration is the Bible. Why do we believe in predestination? Because we all worked it out philosophically and it's so easy to understand. No, most of us pretty much have been humbled by the doctrine of predestination. We believe it because it's in the Bible. And if you have trouble with it, so much the worse for your reasoning. If it's in the Bible, it must be true. And so the Bible has the final authority. The Bible is the decisive consideration for every Christian doctrine. And one of the Christian doctrines is the doctrine of biblical authority. And so you see how we're automatically now trapped in circular reasoning, aren't we? Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? That's what the unbeliever wants to know. Well, as a theologian, you know what the answer is. It's inescapable. I believe it because the Bible says so. Now the unbeliever will say that. Circuit reasoning. But consider the alternative. Let's back up a step in our thinking here. If the Bible didn't claim to be the word of God and we didn't believe that on the basis of the Bible itself, what would be the basis for believing it? All men getting together and saying, hey, that's the word of God. We already did that. All men saying, the Bhagavad Gita is the word of God doesn't make it the word of God. Only God can define the doctrine which is divine. And that means only God can define his own word. So when the unbeliever says, I won't accept your answer that the Bible speaks for itself, you know what he's really saying? Maybe he doesn't realize it in a real clear, upfront way, but what he's really saying is, I won't let there be any final authoritative word of God at all. I have precluded the possibility. How has he precluded it? Here's the horns of the dilemma. You can prove the ultimate authority of the Bible either from something outside the Bible or from the Bible itself. Those are the only choices. Now, he's already said he won't accept it on the basis of the Bible itself, because that's circular reasoning. But we also see that nothing outside the Bible can make it or any other book. That the word of God, because there's no authority that is divine in its stature outside of God himself. And so when you look at both options, don't you see, cleverly, they both reach the same conclusion? For the unbeliever, there is no authoritative word of God in history. Circular argument is unavoidable when it comes to any ultimate authority. Now, whenever a claim to authority is made, that claim to authority will be evaluated in light of evidence. There's no question about that. When God comes into history and talks to sinful men and says things though he says it on their authority, nevertheless they're going to interpret that in light of evidence. But the difference between those who submit to the ultimate authority of what God has said and those who do not is what? Whether you look at the evidence in the light of what God has said or not. So we're not saying that all we have is this empty verbal statement, I'm the final authority. God also expresses his final authority in a message, a message in the midst of history, in the midst of our lives and our experience, and will interpret that message with the evidence that goes along with it or the details of the message that go along with it. But if we interpret the details apart from God's authority and his interpretation, we will not come to the conclusion that he has final authority. If we do interpret the evidence in light of his authority, then we will arrive at the conclusion that he has final authority. So everybody reasons from evidence, but everybody's approach to the evidence is controlled by his what ultimate presupposition. So in the end you can't get away from it. The unbeliever says, why do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? I can tell him because the Bible claims to be the word of God. And that claim is fit into my life and experience and history in such a way that I know that it's true. He says, oh, how so? And I said, well, in the first place, Jesus rose from the dead and that proves he's going to be the final judge. What's the unbeliever going to say? Oh, well, I don't believe in miracles, so I don't agree with that. Does that give me any pause for my believing it? I say, well, I do believe in miracles, so I don't have your problem. I believe in God, the Creator, who providentially controls all things. So I know miracles are not a problem. Therefore the resurrection is evidence that Jesus will judge all mankind. God's proven it to me. But the unbeliever doesn't want what to approach the evidence with my presupposition. He wants to approach the evidence with his presupposition. And then he always ends up saying, well, that doesn't prove it. I say, wow, isn't that amazing? Isn't that surprising? You approach the evidence with with naturalistic presuppositions and the evidence God gave you doesn't lead to supernatural conclusions. Everybody's approach to evidence is controlled by presuppositions. And in the end, everyone's ultimate criterion, everyone's ultimate presupposition is defended in a circular fashion. If it were, it wouldn't be ultimate. And so we end up having to compare the unbelievers way of looking at things with God's way of looking at things. We recognize as long as the unbeliever will not look at things as God tells us to, given the enmity that's in his mind, he'll never come to the conclusions that God calls him to come to. He will not start with his autonomy and conclude with renouncing his autonomy. It will not be yes, but for the unbeliever. It's sad that so many Christians want to say yes to autonomy, but not the conclusions of autonomy. The unbeliever will never change his point of view until he changes his ultimate authority and his presupposition or perspective. Notice that the Bible calls on us to Follow the Bible to submit to it as the ultimate authority. And it does this throughout the Scripture. We sometimes make the mistake of trying to defend biblical authority by going to a handful of verses, you know, and we say, well this proof text, this proof text, this proof text, show that they do show it. By the way. Now, second Timothy 3, 16 is glorious. All scriptures inspired of God. But it's helpful for the apologist to realize that the biblical claim to authority is not just a few scattered proof text, that that claim is found throughout the Bible. So that the self witness of the Bible, the Bible witnessing to itself is from COVID to cover, just as the antithesis is from COVID to cover. So reading the Bible should lead us to see there's no option but to submit to God. Speaking in the Scripture Whenever the Bible speaks on any doctrine, it speaks in a way that presupposes a crucial role for itself. And that crucial role is such that you may not change challenge what God says. Let God be true, though all men are liars. How about the crucial doctrine of biblical authority? Let God be true though all men are liars. Because the Scripture comes to us as a covenant message from God. And God has the position of the living Lord in this covenant arrangement. God tells us about his word, his covenantal word, that we may not question it. He tells us that our loyalty to him as the Lord transcends all other loyalties. He tells us that his word and authority is to govern all areas of life, that there's no area of immortal, no king's X or no man's land, no neutral zone from his authority. So what does the Bible say about its own authority? You cannot question it because it's the Lord who speaks that settles transcends all other loyalties. What happens if one of your beloved family members tells you to go after other gods according to the Mosaic Law, supposed to drag them to the magistrate and say this is what they're doing, they're fomenting covenant rebellion. You mean we're supposed to put the Bible above relatives? I speak as one who has suffered greatly from seeing my family divided. And those who are on the other side, it's my wife who departed being tolerant of her sin and rebellion. And although they profess to be Christians, credibility of that of course is in question in light of this, I guess. But though they profess to be Christians, their point of view is, well, she's our daughter, she's my sister, whatever. But what does God say? God directly speaks to that. Jesus says, if you will not what, hate mother or Father, son or daughter for my behalf. You're not worthy of me. That's remarkable. There's nothing else in this world that has that kind of authority, right? You cannot challenge it. It takes precedence all over all other authorities. The Bible's more important than money. The Bible's more important than family. And guess what? The Bible's more important than life itself. Paul says he's willing to be poured out in his service of the Gospel. If I lose my life, I'm doing the right thing here. And the Bible is to govern all areas of our lives. There's no place where God's word is not to be our authority. Now given that view of biblical authority and that it's presented from COVID to cover because the Bible says God's people need the word of God to be under a sovereign Lord and they need a word from God to have a promise of deliverance. Since the the entire Bible is a testimony to self authority, how can we in apologetics kind of blind ourselves to it or put it aside and say, oh well, in the theology class that's a very interesting doctrine. But in apologetics we work on a different standard. Just cannot be done. It is failure to be loyal to the Lord of the Covenant to not make your theology govern your apologetic. And that's why in the apologetic that I'm going to be teaching you in this course, I'm going to assume what the Bible says about itself that the ultimate reason for believing it, the ultimate authority that it has going for it, is that it is the word of God and claims that it's the word of God. Those who reject that circularity are really saying, I will not allow any anything to be ultimate authority besides me. In the end, it's all a matter of antithesis then between the self attesting autonomy of the unbeliever and the self attesting authority of God's word. Can you all see that? Good. Then tomorrow I'm going to come back. And now as a philosopher, try to teach you a bit of what I've learned over the years about the theory of knowledge and the way people think to show that if you understood philosophy in the best light, that too would drive you to a presuppositional approach to defending the faith. See you then. This recording is distributed by Covenant Media Foundation, a non profit educational organization. Unauthorized reproduction of this tape is strictly prohibited. A free catalog of the Foundation's tapes and articles is available by calling 1-800-55339.