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
