“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” – Jesus in John 3:12
The three steps to belief:
1) As Jesus says, if we cannot believe what the Bible says about earthly things, then we can’t believe what it says about heavenly things either.
2) We can believe what the Bible says about a great many earthly things, such as history and observable science. (Although not everything the Bible mentions has been proven yet, this ought to one day be achieved. Hey – evolution was accepted as ‘fact’ even without the necessary transitional fossils.)
3) Therefore, we can believe what the Bible says about heavenly things as well, such as God, salvation, heaven, hell, spirits, demons and magic.
SUMMARY: Since the Bible has proven trustworthy in facts that we can prove today such as history (e.g. the Cyrus cylinder verifying the Book of Ezra) and observable science (e.g. the value of pi to two decimal places), it is highly likely to be trustworthy in the other facts that we can’t prove – such as whether God exists and offers us love and forgiveness.
————————————————
PS. If you’re itching to comment with alleged inaccuracies and scientific fallacies in the Bible, just be warned that I am well experienced in refuting such arguments. I suggest you browse the Net for the debunks to such accusations before trying them out here.
————————————————
PPS. A list of my posts on Biblical trustworthyness…
The Bible is textually and historically accurate:
Science does not contradict the Bible’s claims, but rather strengthens them:
-
Purplemath – The “Jewish” or “Bible” Value of “pi” (external link)
The Bible’s claims are logically sound:
Coincidences so incredibly improbable that they can’t be coincidental – but rather directed by an omniscient, omnipotent God:
The physical universe and biochemistry are so complex and fine tuned that they must have been the work of an ultra-intelligent creator:
Tags: Bible accuracy, Bible archaeology, Bible history, Bible says pi = 3, Bible says pi = 3.14, Christian apologetics, Cyrus Cylinder
October 7, 09 at 3:01 pm
hello can you please email me at grantrhooper at yahoo dot com
i cant find any resources on metaphysics. i was just shocked to find out that my friend who is in seminary does not believe in sola scriptora and instead says calvin and arminous were both wrong because they didnt know certain universals and had the wrong presuppositions. he says we need metaphysics. this is shocking as he always seemed like a bible defending good christian. but ive always known something was off. can you tell me about this and why it is wrong? i already know its wrong in my gut
October 7, 09 at 5:58 pm
I’m not sure what you and your friend mean by ‘metaphysics’. Wikipedia’s definition defines metaphysics as anything standard science doesn’t address. It seem to indicate that theology is considered metaphysics (since it deals with the supernatural). If that’s the case, I don’t see any clash with Christian belief.
As for sola scriptora, my stand is that if someone who calls himself a Christian doesn’t believe that the Bible is sufficient as God’s word, then I have to ask: What other sources does he then suggest? I have an idea of what, which I delve into later.
I’d also need to know exactly what parts of the theology of Calvin and Arminius he disagrees with. I’m guessing it’s on predestination.
Seeing as he opposes sola scriptora, Calvin and Arminius, I’m guessing he may be leaning towards Roman Catholicism – all three are aligned with Protestant thought. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the traditions of their church as part of authority alongside Scripture (see here), while Protestants reject the elevation of traditions to that status.
If that is the case, then I assume your friend does not actually think he is being un-Christian in his views. Rather, he likely thinks that Roman Catholic theology is closer to the truth than Protestant theology.
So why do I support sola scriptora over the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church? The crux of the argument would be human fallibility. The Bible is clear that only Jesus Christ was prefect and thus infallible – all others are born under the influence of sin. If there were any normal human who did not sin, then Jesus would not have to die for him or her!
Thus, any human ideas and reasonings are vulnerable to being wrong – including any traditions.
However, the Roman Catholic Church maintains that the Popes are capable of infallibility when declaring a teaching. This therefore means that the traditions of their church, based on the leadership of the Popes, is infallibly correct.
A critic would point out such occurrences as Indulgences and the Inquisition as evidence that such traditions are very much manmade and fallible.
In any case, keep in mind that there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics in the world, many or most of whom would also disagree with my views on sola scriptora, tradition and infallibility.
I can research further into this matter if you wish. If you want to keep trying it for yourself, I advise you to find out what your friend means by ‘metaphysics’; understand what he disagrees with about sola scriptora, Calvin and Arminius; and focus less on metaphysics and more on what earlier theologians have debated about Scripture vs Tradition.