The New Testament writings as we have them today are trustworthy in their historical reports. Evaluated against other ancient writings, those found in the New Testament prove to be far superior in this regard. In fact, it could be reasonably declared that if the trustworthiness of the New Testament documents is in question, then every literary work from antiquity must also be questioned, even doubted. The integrity and historicity of the New Testament can be demonstrated in several ways.

            First, the copies of the original New Testament writings that we possess today are themselves extremely accurate to the originals. Because of the sheer volume of manuscript copies in possession today, the text of the New Testament can be reconstructed with 99.9% accuracy. There are nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament alone. No other ancient writing can compete with this vast number of manuscript copies. In comparison, the Iliad, which ranks second to the New Testament in this category has only about 650 manuscript copies and can be reconstructed with 95% accuracy. The variants that exist in the modern text of the New Testament are virtually all negligible, having to do with grammar or spelling, and not a single doctrine of the New Testament is effected by them.

            The fidelity of our modern copies of the New Testament is also supported through its heavy use by the early Church Fathers. It has been estimated that even if no manuscripts of the New Testament existed today, all but eleven verses could be reconstructed simply by referencing quotes from the New Testament made by these Church Fathers.

            It is not just the number of copies that is so impressive but the time gap between the originals and the first extant copies of them. Once again, there is simply no comparison from any other ancient writing. Our earliest copies of the New Testament date from twenty-five to 150 years from the originals. For reference, the earliest extant copies of the Iliad are about 500 years from the original.

            Next, the historicity of the New Testament is established by the quality of its authors. Many of those who wrote were eye-witnesses to the events that they describe and/or exposit. For example, Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Jude all witnessed parts of the life of Christ, hearing his own words, watching the miracles happen before their eyes, and experiencing much of his ministry with him. The other writers, Luke, Mark, the writer of Hebrews, and Paul were close companions with those who were eye-witnesses to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ. Also, all of the writers of Scripture lived at the same time as Christ and wrote within a generation after his ascension, with the exception of John who may have written in the late 80s or early 90s of the first century. The weight of this last fact should not be underestimated; because the records of the events concerning Christ and the church were being written and published shortly after the events occurred, if there was false information included in them, then there would have been many individuals living at the time who could have recognized such errors or embellishments and "blew the whistle," as it were, on these writings and their corresponding authors.

            In addition to this, the writings themselves are clearly honest reports of actual events and lack any signs of embellishment or mythologizing. The writers were painfully truthful, recording events and words as they happened even if the information was embarrassing to them. For example, the gospels contain many instances of overt ignorance, unbelief, and mistakes on the part of the disciples. They also contain very hard sayings of Jesus. The writers never try to harmonize discrepancies found between their gospels. They also include information that would never have been included in any contrivance made by first century Jews, such as the discovery of the empty tomb by women.

            Perhaps the greatest testament to the veracity and integrity of the authors of the New Testament is the fact that all of them suffered and were martyred because of their unrelenting confession of the things that they claimed to have witnessed and recorded, with the possible exception of John. Though men may die for something they believe to be true, it is simply unreasonable to suggest that these men died for something they knew was false; men will die clinging to what they know to be true, but never to what they know to be fantasy.

            Third, there is general support from archeology for the trustworthiness of the New Testament. Today, after years of digging within the former boundaries of the Roman Empire, we can have more confidence in the historicity of the New Testament than at any previous time. This is because many discoveries unearthed have confirmed in varying degrees of detail many events and incidental details provided in the New Testament writings. Luke's gospel, for example, contains many official titles that were unique to specific regions, cities, or provinces in the Roman Empire, many of which have been confirmed through archeological finds. Archeology supports John as the author of the gospel that bears his name for we now know that whoever wrote this gospel had intimate knowledge of the geography of Palestine at the time of Christ, and the gospel of John could not, therefore, be a later writing composed by someone who lived in a time far separated than that in which the events occurred.

Many more such confirmations could be given but it should suffice to say that there has never been an archeological find which has brought into question the historicity of the New Testament. All the evidence that we have today indicates that the authors were careful recorders of what they had witnessed and gathered from primary sources. Of course, if the writers of the New Testament can be trusted in their accuracy when reporting minor details, then there is no reason they should not be trusted when they report matters of greater import.

Finally, it is important to note that much of the information provided in the New Testament is confirmed by secular historians living within a generation or two of the events recorded therein. For instance, the historicity of Jesus and even some aspects of his ministry recorded for us in the gospels have been verified by secular figures such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius. Just from the information provided by these men we can learn that Jesus did miracles, taught the people, was executed by crucifixion, was proclaimed to be alive later, and was worshipped as God among other facts. From secular sources of the time we can also learn much about the early church and spread of Christianity that corresponds to the information found in the New Testament.

Clearly, there can be no reasonable doubt regarding the New Testament writings themselves or the events recorded in them. In light of the above considerations, one can deny the historicity and trustworthiness of these writings, but only on presupposed philosophical or ideological grounds, but certainly not because of a lack of historical evidence.

Written by Anthony Alberino 

            I can date some very early acts of uncleanness. Lying, filthy talking, and foolish jesting I was much addicted to even when very young. Sometimes I used to curse, if not swear. Stealing from my mother I thought no theft at all, and used to make no scruple of taking money out of her pocket before she was up.²

            Whitefield's mother did all she could to keep the family afloat. She remarried when George was ten, but it quickly ended in divorce. Shortly after that, George left for school at St. Mary de Crypt. There he quickly discovered his love for theater. He rose to the top with ease and progressed rapidly in his studies. He became so consumed with winning the lead role in plays he would skip class just to memorize the lines. Even at such a young age George was noted for his unbelievable oratory skills. Whenever there was an important speech to be given, George would be the one to deliver it. He would stay up late at night reading plays and perfecting each line. He was even known to go and listen to local preachers sermons, only to go home and mimic every part for his sisters. Even then, the words of the ministers stirred in his heart. Little did he know that these natural talents would be the very things God would use to deliver the gospel to tens of thousands of people.

            George entered Pembroke College in November of 1732 where he worked and studied. He was a very diligent worker, but studies and a job proved too much for him. Sometime in 1735 George met Charles Wesley?one of the leaders of the Methodists?where the two immediately became lifelong friends. Charles lent George some books, but one in particular had a very life changing effect on Whitefield: The Life of God in the Soul of Man by Henry Scougal. After reading this book, George's life would never be the same.³ He did not know it yet, but he was one of God's key players in the upcoming Evangelical revival. In Bruce L. Shelly's Church History In Plain Language, the author implies that Whitefield was nothing short of a catalyst.

            The members of the little society were ardent but restless souls. They found fresh enthusiasm when a townsman or new student joined them, such as the bright and brash undergraduate from Pembroke College, George Whitefield.³ Not only was this new recruit a catalyst, but he became the primary face for the movement and the subsequent Great Awakening.

            George Whitefield was a celebrity in his time and has been considered by many to be the founder of the Evangelical movement. Blending elements of Methodism and Reformation theology, Whitefield was truly a pioneer. He preached with a staunchly Calvinist flavor, and yet he appealed to his listener with the grace of God, something few other preachers were doing. Whitefield aligned himself with the Church of England's Article on predestination, which was in disagreement with John and Charles Wesley's belief in Arminianism. George formed and served as president over the first Methodist conference, but he quickly resigned from this position. It was believed that he wanted to focus on his evangelistic efforts and not the beaurocracy and monotony of organized religion.⁵ George loved the freedom and autonomy of being a traveling preacher, and wherever he would go, there numerous occasions arose to spread the gospel. His popularity grew so quickly, he had little time to spend in any one place. This led George to refer to himself as the "Gospel Rover"?never again being bound to any parish, town or even continent.⁶

            George Whitefield soon discovered it difficult to get invited to preach in established churches. He found the pulpits that were promised to be available for him to be closed. This development forced him to innovate and be creative about where he would preach. This innovation led him to the mining district of Kingswood, where there were no established churches. He preached to coal miners who had rarely heard the gospel message. Luckily George recorded his initial reaction to his preaching in which he wrote:

            I went upon a mount, and spake to as many people as came unto me. They were upwards of two hundred.    Blessed be to God, I have now broken the ice; I believe I never was more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields.⁷

            In George's record, we see that he came to realize that the boundaries that once confined him, were now completely gone, and a whole new arena opened for him. The more George preached in the open air, the more resistance he received from the organized churches. Nevertheless, he continued to preach on streets, in fields, and any unconventional place the Lord led him. Whitefield's robust style and dramatic reenactments often drew record crowds. It has been said that the crowd sizes George drew were so unbelievable. Benjamin Franklin even calculated it possible for twenty thousand people to hear Whitefield preach?all without any voice enhancement. "Now I know," wrote George, "that the Lord calls me to the fields, for no house or street is large enough to contain the people who come to hear the Word."⁸

             George Whitefield had a unique friendship with the Wesley Brothers. History shows that they did not always see eye to eye theologically, but that was not enough to keep them apart. They had a kindred spirit and they often complimented one another in many areas. Ironically, George's fiery and dramatic sermons often left his listeners silent and in awe, where John's stoic messages evoked emotional frenzy.⁹ In Albert Belden's book George Whitefield?The Awakener, he made this very profound statement about their relationship:

            There are few instances in history of personal influence so perfectly mutual, so profound and far-reaching in their effects on the world at large as the shuttle-like impacts of these three men on one another. They form a triangle of constantly interchanging forces. John captures Charles, Charles lays hold of Whitefield, Whitefield bursts into flame, and in turn, pioneers John and Charles into the greatest religious achievement of the century, and John, through a long and laborious life, carries on and consolidates the pioneer's work. If ever three men were brought together by God for His purpose it was these three.¹⁰

            Jonathan Edwards, a Puritan preacher, was another close friend to George Whitefield. Having invited George to preach in his church, Edwards was moved to tears listening to Whitefield's sermon. The climate in Northampton had been prepared by Edwards earlier, but the people found something fresh in George's message. They had been scorched by Jonathan's preaching on judgment and sin, and were ready to hear Whitefield preach about forgiveness and grace. Being moved to tears himself, Whitefield appealed to privileges of the saints and the kindness of God, exactly the kind of message people in Northampton needed to hear. Jonathan Edwards remarked:

            There was scarcely a single person in the town of Northampton, either old or young, that was left unconcerned about the things of the eternal world. Those who were wont to be the vainest and loosest, were now generally subject to great awakenings. The town seemed to be full of the presence of God. It never was so full of love, nor so full of joy; and yet, so full of distress, as it was then. There were remarkable tokens of God's presence in almost every house. Our public services were beautiful.¹¹

 This seemed to be the reaction in most cities where Whitefield preached. He truly was a catalyst for revival and he made a great spiritual impact wherever he went.

Controversies and Blind Spots

            George Whitefield surely had some blind spots as all great men do. His social vision was underdeveloped to say the least. He was personally compassionate, often caring for physical needs as well as spiritual, but socially he was very conservative, and his attitude toward  slavery showed his superficial understanding of cultural issues. He loved the slaves and took pains to spread the gospel to them, yet, Whitefield encouraged the trustees of Georgia to introduce slavery to the struggling colony to foster economic development.

            George was also quite full of himself till later in his life. He would put out press releases that angered many and called into question his humility. Some of George's confidential writings landed in the hands of English church officials, closing the door to him for many preaching opportunities. Some believe that he did this on purpose to ruffle the feathers of established religion. Toward the end of his life, Whitefield gained a much more accurate self appraisal. Another area that Whitefield struggled in was finances. He was always borrowing money or rallying for support to fund his orphanage in Bethesda and other missionary ventures.¹²

 Conclusion

            George Whitefield was surely one the most influential and controversial figures of his day. There are many great lessons that can be learned from a man who was fearless in his obedience to God. He took Evangelical Christianity to new heights and created new opportunities for the preachers and revivalists to come. He literally paved the way for modern evangelistic techniques, some of which we are still seeing employed today. He had no television, radio, or internet to help him, yet his words found their way into almost every home in Great Britain and New England. Never before has there been such a powerful orator, and perhaps never will there be.

Written by Ken Wilson

            Much of Athanasius' career would be dedicated to defending the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the council of Nicaea, against the heretical ideas of the Sabellians on the one end, and the Arians on the other, and this was no easy task. During his forty-six year ministry as bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius was exiled five times. Because of "changing political fortunes due to the involvement of the Emperor in the affairs of the church,"[4] he spent a total of seventeen years in exile. Through it all the Alexandrian churches stayed loyal to him and welcomed him back as bishop after each exile.[5] Ironically, the banishments inadvertently helped his cause. By order of the emperor, Athanasius was forced to travel all around the empire, bringing him into contact with many church leaders. This allowed the bishop to use his unmatched theological prowess to gain support and make many allies, especially in the West.

            Athanasius' life was a tumultuous one, his fortunes continuously vacillating with the succession of each new emperor. The final seven years of his life were spent as bishop in his home church at Alexandria in relative peace. When he died, the Arian leaning emperor, Valens, was in command of the affairs of the church. Shortly after the death of Athanasius, Valens died and was succeeded by Theodosius who

was a strong supporter of the orthodox, trinitarian faith championed by Athanasius and his Cappadocian friends. It was Theodosius who called the second ecumenical council at Constantinople where the Nicene Creed was strengthened and finally adopted as the binding universal creed for all Christians.. Athanasius did not live to see the fruit of his life's work.[6]

Theological Contributions and Controversies

            Though the Nicene Creed was a statement of the orthodox position regarding the Trinity, it was written nebulously enough for the Sabellians to interpret it according to their own modalistic theology. This gave cause for the Arians, who had decidedly lost at the Council of Nicaea, to call for the abandonment of the creed. The Arians turned their guns chiefly upon one word found in the creed that was used to describe the relationship between the nature of the Father and the Son, homoousios, which literally means "consubstantial." The term signified that the Father and the Son were of the same substance or essence. The Sabellians pointed to the use of homoousios found in the creed as support for their position, claiming that by using this particular word the council had declared the Father and the Son to be identical to one another in nature and personhood. This, of course, was not the intent of the bishops gathered at Nicaea, even so, the Arians managed to convince the successor to Constantine, Constantius, that homoousios should be dropped from the creed and replaced with homoiousios, which means "of similar substance," a word clearly favoring Arian theology.[7]

            Enter Athanasius. The stubborn bishop of Alexandria refused to give in to the emperors pleas for the modification of wording in the creed. Athanasius vehemently condemned the change as heresy and its supporters as antichrists.[8] And so it was that much of his life would be dedicated to the rejection of a mere diphthong from inclusion in the Nicene Creed.[9] But the solitary letter that separates homoousios from homoiousios carried a weight far beyond its size, as Bruce Shelley notes,

The importance of a message cannot be weighed by the size of the punctuation or the number of letters used. Although only an iota (in English the letter "i") divided the parties after Nicaea, the issues involved represented two sharply different interpretations of the Christian faith. At stake was the full deity of Jesus Christ and the essence of the doctrine of the Trinity.[10]     

Roger Olson recognizes the importance of this "iota":

The difference between homoousios and homoiousios is the difference between the divine and the creaturely. One says that the Son is God. The other says that the Son is like God. If a being is God, then saying he is like God is entirely wrong. If a being is only like God, then declaring him to be God would be heresy if not blasphemy. Athanasius saw this and resisted the seductive compromise.[11]

            For Athanasius, the defense of the Nicene Creed was nothing less than a defense of the gospel itself. According to Athanasius and his supporters, the Son of God had to be God and not just a creature like God if he was to save us, for only God could unite us with himself.[12] There could be no compromise on this issue; for Jesus Christ to have reconciled us with the Father he had to be both fully God and fully man.

            One of Athanasius' greatest achievements was his organizing a council at Alexandria in 362. The synod reaffirmed the use of homoousios in the Nicene Creed and rejected the semi-Arian homoiousios and Sabellian heresies. In addition to this, Athanasius, with the help of his friends the Cappadocian fathers (Basil and two Gregorys), proposed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three distinct but not separate hypostases of the one God. Reflecting on this formulation, Olson notes,

The purpose of putting forth this new idea was to contradict Sebellian modalsim by making clear that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though one substance (homoousios), are not the same identical person or subsistence. They are three distinct persons (hypostases) and not merely three masks or manifestations or aspects of the one personal God, as Sebellianism averred.[13]

The doctrinal formulation developed by Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers was accepted by the synod and eventually by the church universal and remains the orthodox theology of the Trinity today.

Though it was not an official ecumenical council, lacking as it did support from the emperor and the presence of many leading bishops of the church, the synod of Alexandria did pave the way for the second ecumenical council of the church, the Council of Constantinople. This second ecumenical council would gather only after the death of Athanasius and largely because of his labors. At Constantinople the Nicene Creed was affirmed as the official doctrine of the Trinity for the church universal.

Like many of the church fathers, Athanasius left behind a mixed legacy. This is largely because of some aberrant doctrines that he apparently espoused. As with Origen and Irenaeus before him, Athanasius held to the traditional idea of salvation as deification. According to this view, salvation consisted of unification between God and man which took place in the incarnation. In his own words, "For He was made man that we might be made God."[14]

Athanasius also seems to have proposed what would later be declared a heretical Christology. He taught that because Jesus Christ remained immutable and impassible during the incarnation, he only experienced creaturely things through the human body that he took on. This view was nearly identical to the later theory developed by a contemporary theologian named Apollinarius. Apollinarius' Christology was declared heretical at Constantinople in 381.[15]

Major Works

            Athanasius was a prolific writer. Though the majority of his writing consisted in smaller tracts, pamphlets, and letters, he did manage to author several treatises. The most important of these were On the Incarnation of the Word, and Four Discourses Against the Arians. Less important than these was his work Against the Heathen.[16]

            Of his many writings, the one that may have had the most practical impact on the life and attitude of the church was actually a biography. The Life of Anthony chronicled the lifestyle and miracles that surrounded the famous Egyptian hermit. Athanasius had spent several years in exile among the desert hermits and gained great respect for them. His writings on Anthony helped to popularize the monastic movement in the fourth century. One of the most famous church figures impacted by his work was Augustine of Hippo, whose own conversion was partly encouraged by reading Athanasius' biography of Anthony.

Conclusion

            In his own day Athanasius was both loved and hated. Some saw him as a defender of orthodoxy, while others viewed him as a stubborn theologian from Alexandria who refused to put the unity of the church before trifling theological minutiae. For Athanasius, the details surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity were not mere trifles but truths that pertained to the salvation of men's souls, and he was willing to be exiled for them. Today he is revered by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians as a saint. Among Protestants he is remembered as a defender of the apostolic faith. In truth, all Christians have Athanasius to thank, for without him the Christology of the Jehovah's Witness might well be orthodox.

            The Bible is considered to be the divinely inspired written word of God, without error in all that it teaches, by millions of believers all over the world. The fact that many Christians believe this as a matter of faith is undisputed. But whether or not this statement can be justified is certainly up for debate. Though the average believer may be completely ignorant of them, there are certain preconditions that are necessary for this statement to be true. If these preconditions can be established, then the Christian can not only hold his confidence in the Bible as the Word of God by faith, but he can support the claim through reason as well.

Metaphysical Precondition

            The first precondition that must be established in order to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God is a metaphysical one. Metaphysics, simply defined, is the study of being. Metaphysics is a field of philosophical inquiry centering on the questions, "What exists?" and "What does it mean to exist?" Obviously, the first precondition for a divinely inspired Bible must be the existence of a divine being. If God has no being, if he does not exist, then the Bible cannot be his written Word.

            Over the centuries many have endeavored to offer arguments for the existence of a theistic God. Most of these arguments are particular expressions of four general arguments: the cosmological argument, or the argument from cause; the teleological argument, or the argument from design; the axiological argument, or the argument from morality; and the ontological argument, or the argument from being. The last of these, the ontological argument, is no longer widely used. Both the teleological and moral arguments are popular today and provide valid evidences for God's existence. But it is the cosmological family of arguments that may be most persuasive.

            One particular expression of the cosmological argument is called the kalam cosmological argument. The kalam, also called the horizontal cosmological argument, is used to prove the existence of God by demonstrating that the universe cannot be eternal and therefore must have had a beginning. According to the principle of causality, whatever begins to exist needs a cause. The universe began to exist, and therefore the universe needs a cause. But this cause must itself be uncaused or else it too would need a cause ad infinitum. This uncaused cause Christians call God.

            The soundness of this argument is dependent upon demonstrations for the impossibility of an eternal universe. There are basically two lines of reasoning for this. The first comes from the branch of mathematics that deals with infinites, set theory. Mathematicians have used set theory to prove the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things. They do this by demonstrating the absurdities that would result from an actual infinite. One common example of this is a library that contains an infinite number of red and black books. If one were to check out all the red books, then he would be removing from the library an infinite number of red books, and yet an infinite number of black books would still remain. The amount of books in the library would not change even though an infinite number of books were checked out. This and other examples demonstrate the absurdity of an actual infinite number of things. Now if the universe is eternal, then it would contain a beginningless series of events in time. But a beginningless series of events in time amounts to an actually infinite number of events, which is absurd.

            The second line of reasoning used in the kalam cosmological argument denies the possibility of an eternal universe by demonstrating the impossibility of forming an actually infinite collection of things by adding one member after another. Basically, what is being claimed here is that the series of events in time that make up the history of the cosmos present a potential, rather than an actual, infinite. According to the argument, the past was formed by one event following another in a growing, forward directing collection. Obviously, this series of events did not just pop into existence all at once. But a collection created in this way can never be actually infinite no matter how much time is allowed because an actual infinite can never be traversed. In simpler terms, if the universe contains an infinite number of moments in the past we could never reach the present moment. It would quite literally take forever to arrive at the present moment. But the present moment has arrived. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite. Thus, the universe cannot possibly be eternal and must have had a beginning. As was noted earlier, what begins to exist needs a cause. The universe is not eternal, and it could not have created itself; self creation is impossible, for a thing would have to exist before it existed. The only remaining explanation is that the universe was created, or caused, by an uncaused, personal being. This we call God. The first precondition has been established: God exists.

Epistemological Precondition

            The second precondition necessary to affirm the Bible as the Word of God is the epistemological precondition. Epistemology is the study or theory of knowledge. It is primarily concerned with the question of truth, asking, "What is truth?" The question of truth must be answered before any truth claims can be made about the Bible, including the claim that it is true or without error.

            To many, the nature of truth is simply a given, even intuitive; truth is what is real. Aristotle defined truth simply: "To say of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, is false; while to say of what is, that it is, and what is not, that it is not, is true." This particular view of truth is called the correspondence theory. It is important for the Bible believing Christian to maintain that truth is that which corresponds to reality because even when it comes to the meaning of truth there is opposition.

            The coherence theory of truth is one such opposing position. According to this theory a statement is true if it coheres to, or is consistent with, other statements in a given system. This means that statements are only partially true or false depending on how consistent they are with the larger framework of which they are a part. It is only the system as a whole that can be entirely true or entirely false. There are major problems with this position. First, it is important to note that coherence is a necessary condition for truth, but it is not a sufficient condition. If a statement is coherent it may or may not be true, but if it is incoherent, then it is definitely false. In other words, coherence is at best only a negative test for truth. Another problem is that the theory depends on systems that may have nothing to do with reality. There are systems that exist in abstract mathematics that provide a framework for a coherence test for truth, but are certainly not applicable to reality. The same can be said for certain religions such as Pantheism, which maintains internal coherence with actual impossibility. The final blow to the coherence theory comes from the fact that it is possible to have two coherent systems that contradict one another. If coherence is a test for truth, then we are left with the absurd notion that two contradictory systems can both be true.

            Another competing definition for truth comes from the pragmatic theory. Simply put, truth in this theory is that which works or has practical consequences. Truth for the pragmatist is that which is expedient. This definition is rife with difficulties. For instance, who determines what it means to work? Who defines practicality? Further, how does one know if something works beneficially before it has run its course and the results can be properly measured? Also, things may work but be false. Lies may often be expedient but can never be true. Useful beliefs may be false beliefs. The pragmatic theory of truth can only tell us what is practical, but has nothing to say about what is true or false.

            After examining two alternative theories of truth it is not hard to establish the correspondence theory with confidence. For even the opposing views must depend on it to make their case. Proponents of the coherence and pragmatic theories claim that their positions correspond to the way things are; they correspond to reality. Therefore, the correspondence theory is undeniably true. In fact, it is necessary, for without this understanding of truth lies would be impossible; there could be no such thing as truth or falsity. Apart from the correspondence theory of truth, all factual communication would be virtually impossible.

            Before leaving the discussion of epistemology, we must address one final question: "Is truth absolute?" Recently, many have denied the existence of absolute truth. There is in vogue today a modern movement that considers truth to be relative. What is true, we are told, is relative to the individual, culture, time, and place. Something that is true for one person or society can be false for another. The implications of relativism for Christianity should be obvious: if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then the Bible cannot be absolutely true.

            Fortunately, the philosophy of relativism collapses under its own weight. Relativism is fundamentally self-defeating. To say that there is no such thing as absolute truth is to make an absolute statement. One could ask, "Are you absolutely sure that there is no such thing as absolute truth?" Absolute truth must be employed to deny its own existence. If the statement, "All truth is relative," is to be taken seriously, then it must be true for everybody and not just for the person making the statement. Again, it could be asked, "Is that truth relative only for you or for everybody?" In addition to this, if relativism were true, then contradictions would be possible, for there would exist no conceivable way to adjudicate between contrary truth claims. Two people could each make a statement that is contradictory to the other's statement, yet both would be true. In the final analysis, there are no such things as relative truths. For even truths that appear to be relative, such as the truth that Susan likes bubble gum, are in fact absolute. Although Susan's fancy for bubble gum is relative to her own tastes, the fact that Susan likes bubble gum is true for everybody, and not just for Susan. The second precondition has been established: all truth corresponds to reality and is absolute.

Linguistical Precondition

            We now turn to linguistics to establish our final precondition for the statement that the Bible is the very Word of God. Here our attention is on language or communication about God, or God-talk. Christians have long believed that God is infinite, that he is unlimited in his being and attributes, but this poses a serious dilemma for believers; namely, how can we use finite language to talk about an infinite God? And if we cannot speak about God, then the Bible cannot contain words about God. Three answers have been given in response to the God-talk problem.

            The first answer to problem does not really solve the dilemma at all, but agrees with it by stating that God-talk is equivocal. Norman Geisler describes this position: "All those who insist God-talk is equivocal claim that an infinite God always transcends the ability of finite language to express Him. God-talk is not descriptive of the way God is. Some of these thinkers say God-talk informs us of what God does. Others insist it can only reveal what God is not. And still others claim God-talk is only about the way God desires us to live, or merely to think about Him (Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy)."

            As we have seen, clearly the notion that language cannot apply to God is devastating to the claim that the Bible is God's Word to men about himself. But is this position tenable? Central to the equivocal position is the idea that God and his creation are totally different, and therefore have nothing in common. Such a claim is both unbiblical and unreasonable. It is unbiblical for obvious reasons: the Bible declares that man has been made in the image or similitude of God. From a rational perspective one must wonder "how God can give perfections He does not have to give," or "how can He produce what He does not possess" (Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy)? Something can never come from nothing. The cause can never give the effect what it does not have.  If God created man, then there must be some common ground between them, though the differences may be vast. Therefore, the answer to the dilemma of God-talk cannot be that language about God is equivocal.

            The next solution to the problem of God-talk is situated on the opposite pole of the previous one: God-talk is univocal. Whereas equivocal religious language maintains an unbridgeable gulf between human expressions and God, univocal religious language considers human expression to have a one-to-one correspondence with God. In other words, terms like goodness carry an identical meaning regardless of whether they are applied to God or man. There are many problems with a univocal understanding of religious language. One of the most blatant has to do with this position's failure to account for the fact that God is infinite and creatures are finite. Geisler notes that this was one of the major objections offered by Thomas Aquinas: "No finite characteristic can be applied univocally to an infinite being. Univocal God-talk would mean that either God is finite or our concepts are infinite, which are both impossible. And finite concepts cannot have one-to-one correspondence to an infinite God (Geisler, Introduction to Philosophy). God is like his creatures but not identical to them; therefore univocal language about God is invalid.

            Though both of the previous positions are incorrect, they each do offer some light towards an answer to the dilemma of God-talk. Those who espouse equivocal religious language note accurately that God transcends his creation, and therefore all talk about him fails to do justice to the way he really is. On the other hand, those proponents of univocal religious language remind us that unless concepts are univocally defined, total agnosticism about God will ensue.

            A third option emerges from these considerations: analogical God-talk. Supporters of analogous religious language, like Thomas Aquinas, note that God is not totally the same nor is he totally different to his creation, but he is similar. Therefore, there is a similarity of meaning in a particular term as it is applied to God and man. Terms must be defined univocally, that is, they must be understood to mean the same thing; but they cannot be applied to God univocally, that is, in the same way that they are applied to man. Though terms must be univocally defined, they must be analogously applied to God. Before we can apply any term, such as love, to God, we must strip it of its finitude. What love is by its very nature can be applied to God, but our understanding of love in its finite form cannot be applied to God (Geisler, Intro to Philosophy). Humans know love in a finite way but God knows love in an infinite way. It is this final solution to the problem of God-talk that does justice to both reason and Scripture. Humans must be in some way similar to God, for we are his creations and he could not give what he does not possess. But humans cannot be entirely like our creator because the effect cannot be as great as the cause. Also, the Bible teaches that man is made in the image of God, but that God transcends his creation; he is on a different level of being. Following from this, it can be said that it is possible for us to have an apprehensive knowledge of God, but we can never have a comprehensive knowledge of God; he is infinite and we will always be finite. The final precondition is now established: God-talk is possible, and though our knowledge of God is certainly not complete, it is nonetheless accurate.

Conclusion

            The claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is a bold claim. Before one can rationally believe it, one must build a foundation for it by establishing certain preconditions that are necessary for the statement to be true. This we have done. Three pillars support the assertion that God has given us his Word in Scripture: the metaphysical pillar substantiates God's existence; the epistemological pillar reinforces the objectivity of truth and its correspondence to reality; and the linguistical pillar justifies the use of language in God-talk. We can believe that the Bible is God's written Word because a God exists to speak, truth can be known, and human language is adequate to express information about God.

Anthony Alberino

Is truth absolute? Recently, many have denied the existence of absolute truth. There is in vogue today a modern movement that considers truth to be relative. What is true, we are told, is relative to the individual, culture, time, and place. Something that is true for one person or society can be false for another. It is not at all uncommon today, in the Western world, to hear people say things like, "Your truth is true for you, and my truth is true for me," or "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." The prevalent culture of our day is attempting to redefine truth as preference. According to this ideology truth is something to be subjectively determined by the individual. It is the individual who determines his favorite color, flavor of ice cream, and version of truth. The implications of relativism for Christianity should be obvious: if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then the Bible cannot be absolutely true.

            Fortunately, the philosophy of relativism collapses under its own weight. Relativism is fundamentally self-defeating. To say that there is no such thing as absolute truth is to make an absolute statement. One could ask, "Are you absolutely sure that there is no such thing as absolute truth?" Absolute truth must be employed to deny its own existence. If the statement, "All truth is relative," is to be taken seriously, then it must be true for everybody and not just for the person making the statement. Again, it could be asked, "Is that truth relative only for you or for everybody?" Do you see the fundamental error in this philosophy? If the preceding statements are true, then they are false, and if they are false, then they are false. There is absolutely no way for the statement, "All truth is relative" to be true. Therefore it must be false. Stay with this point until you get it. In addition to this, if relativism were true, then contradictions would be possible, for there would exist no conceivable way to adjudicate between contrary truth claims. Two people could each make a statement that is contradictory to the other's statement, yet both would be true. John could declare that the moon is made of cheese, and Tim could reply by denying John's claim, declaring that the moon is not made of cheese. Yet if relativism is true, then both could be right about the moon at the same time. This is clearly impossible; the moon cannot be made of cheese and not made of cheese at the same time and in the same sense. In the final analysis, there are really no such things as relative truths. For even truths that appear to be relative, such as the truth that Susan likes bubble gum, are in fact absolute. Although Susan's fancy for bubble gum is relative to her own tastes, the fact that Susan likes bubble gum is true for everybody, and not just for Susan. Truth can never be relative but must always be absolute.

            There are very few relativists who apply their philosophy of truth consistently. In fact, it seems the only time this way of thinking is utilized is when considering the big questions that relate to purpose, meaning, and God. Nobody rejects the doctor's diagnosis as being true only for the doctor, but not for the patient. Even the staunchest relativists require the absolute truth from their bankers, accountants, and brokers. If we demand absolute truth in matters relating to everyday life, why shouldn't we demand absolute truth in the more important matters relating to God and the meaning of life? We cannot have it both ways; either all truth is relative, including that statement, or all truth is absolute. As Christians, and rational human beings, we should always demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the absolute truth.

Anthony Alberino

            The real problem in the problem of evil is how to reconcile belief in theism with the existence of evil in the universe. If God is truly omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral, then why is there any evil at all? If he is aware of it, able to eliminate it, and willing, then it is assumed that he should destroy evil, or better yet, create a world without it. Therefore, it is claimed, the reality of evil cannot be squared with belief in a theistic God. Evil makes theism incoherent.

            But is there really a problem with evil? I don't think there is, not at least for God. The problem is, in reality, a manufactured one: it only exists when we try to make God dance to our human constructs of morality. But God is not moral. Morality implies oughtness, and oughtness can never be demanded from a truly sovereign God. By what standard is God to be measured? Certainly not the human standard; and because there exists no standard outside of God, we must confess, with the Scripture, that God's very nature is the standard of morality. God is good and therefore does good according to his own nature. Now I am not saying that our basic notions of goodness are wrong, but they are certainly imperfect, as all humans are. And furthermore, what is morally binding for humanity is not necessarily so with God.

            So the evil in the world decreed by God, though not created or sustained by him (because evil is not a thing in itself but a privation of the good), must be good. Not that the evil itself is good, for it is evil and rightly hated, but it is good that God has decreed it, else it would not be so. Yes, God can decree evil that results in good. But is this not utilitarianism? Maybe so, but once again, we are not justified in forcing our standards of right and wrong, fair and unfair, and just and unjust upon God. It is wrong for us to justify the means by the end, but it is certainly not wrong for God to do so. For God himself is the only one who can clearly see the good end, and he alone has the power to actually bring it about. It is always wrong for us to will evil, but it is not wrong for God, according to his good nature, to will that evil exist for some good purpose.

            I am absolutely convinced that this is precisely what the apostle Paul was referring to in Romans chapter nine. Paul anticipates the question and raises the issue of fairness concerning God's sovereign election. His answer: the creature has no right to question the actions of the Creator; imperfect man, with his imperfect judgments, has no right to question the actions of a perfect God. If God desires to make vessels of rebellion to demonstrate his power and wrath, then that is his sovereign prerogative. Likewise, if he wills evil for a greater good, then who can object? God is transcendent; he exists as a different order of being. We should expect that his relationship to evil is not univocal with ours.

            The atheist who raises the problem of evil must play by the theist's rules, the rules of Scripture. The Bible does not describe a God who conforms to good, nor a God who capriciously determines it, but a God who is goodness himself. Game over. Admittedly, this takes the eyes of faith to see. We must trust that the Bible is right when it describes God as goodness, and love, and righteousness. Evil does not pose a problem for God's existence. Rather, the problem lies in the Christian's understanding of how God relates to evil. Of course, this is not a real problem, but simply a problem of the understanding.

Anthony Alberino