How Do You Know the Bible Is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God?

Every apostle, but one went to their death because they believed and taught about Jesus' resurrection.......and John died in exile, still writing about.

Jesus' body disappeared under the most watchful eyes waiting for opportunity to dispell the resurrection; the Jews, who would love to deny it; the Roman guards, who faced execution for failure of their duty...............

Cheers,

Jim

 

Brother Jim, that is a better answer than the Spirit bears witness with mine. It goes to the heart of the matter. The Apostles saw the resurrected Jesus and there was no denying to them that it happened. And the very first Gospel message preached by them was "he is risen!" They believed it so much they were willing to lay down their lives for it.

 

One reason why I believe the Bible is inspired is because in it I discern a rich, complex, surprising account of a single grand plan to redeem the world.

In other words, I would say that the very content of the "story" we see in the Bible is so surprising, yet ultimately comprehensible that it is not a huge leap to see a "divine hand" in it.

Let me try to illustrate with a point that has arisen out of going at it hammer and tong with Dr. W re Romans.

We have in the Bible the long story of God's covenant history with Israel. Lots of bad things happened to Israel, and at the time of Jesus' arrival, the Jews are still manifestly in "exile" even though they are back in their own land. Understandably, the believing Jew is expecting God to act to fulfill His covenant promise of return from exile.

In short, the 1st century Jew finds himself in a story in search of a promised, satisfactory ending.

How does Paul analyze things in light of the events of the cross. I suggest that Paul draws the following conclusions:

1. The promised return from exile for the Jews is actually fulfilled in what happens to Jesus: Jesus is rescued from the ultimate exile - the exile of death - that is the "real" exile to which the exile of the Jews points;

2. The covenantal responsibilities that Israel was supposed to fulfill have, strangely, been fulfilled by Jesus. Israel was to be a light to the nations, the means by which humanity is rescued. Yet it is Jesus who fulfills this role.

3. Does this mean that God's covenant plan to use Israel has been "discarded"? No. It means that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel - He is Israel "wrapped up into one person". In short, and considering item 1 as well, the destiny of Israel has devolved onto Jesus - what Israel was supposed to do, Jesus does, and what Irsael was promised, Jesus has received.

4. Paul then re-interprets the entire history of Israel in light of the events of the cross. And, strangely, he concludes that the "election" of Israel is a terrible election indeed (despite the prevailing Jewish belief that "election" is a good thing) - she is elected to be the place where the sin of the world is concentrated and built up so that it can then be defeated in the flesh of Jesus acting as Israel's representative.

This may all seem like an excursion from the topic. And this picture is very skeletal indeed. However, my overall point it this: The way the story of Israel takes a shocking, unforeseeable, yet ultimately "it had to be this way" kind of a turn is evidence to me that a "divine" agent is behind the way things have evolved.

 

First the Bible claims to be the word of God and claims not only to be inspired by God but the final authority in what it speaks about (2 Tim. 3:16; Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 1:19-21).

Sure there are other books that make this claim. Howevever, we must start with this claim or we have no reason to demonstrate whether it is or isn't.

1. Prophetic accuracy - no other book comes even close
a. Prophecies concerning Christ that cannot be manipulated
b. 300 prophecies concerning Christ and mathmatically probabilities.
c. Etc., etc.

2. Anticipates modern Scientific discoveries by miscropes and telescopes and satelites
a. Water cycle
b. Life in the blood
c. Sea Currents
d. DNA - "after its own kind"
e. Number of stars in comparison with claims of contemporary scientists
f. Wind Circuits
g. etc.,etc.

3. Archeological accuracy
a. When secular archeologists said "no hittites"
b. When secular arecheologists said "no king Sargon"
c. When secular archeologists said "no writing" in time of Moses
c. discovery of oil in Mideast from Noah account

4. Transformation of unbelievers
a. Saul into Paul
b. Infidel Sir William Ramsay into Christian Sir William Ramsay
c. etc.

5. The Testimony of Christ in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures

 

Jesus taught that wheat seed must fall to the ground and die before it can sprout. That might have been good science 2000 years ago . . . .

 

That rediculous argument has already been exposed.

 

Jim my Brother, this to me is the key reason we can put our trust in the Bible as the inspired inerrant word of God; The resurrection.

 

Jim, I too agree that this is the key. Taking the gospels and other early accounts of the apostolic proclamation (such as Acts) in the first instance as reliable accounts (which can be demonstrated) of history, and without initially begging the question of inerrancy or divine inspiration, one can see the centrality of the resurrection.

(1) The evidences for the resurrection---the empty tomb, the appearances to the Apostles and their changed lives (even willing to die for what they claimed to have witnessed), the conversion of James and Paul--validates the claims and authority of Christ.

(2) Christ testified to the authority of the (Old Testament) Scriptures and after His resurrection opened these Scriptures up to his apostles, interpreting them and explaining how they pointed to Him.

(3) Christ commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel and promised His Spirit would guide them into all truth and that He'd build His Church on them and their testimony.

(4) The Apostles beginning on Pentecost proclaimed this gospel message of the crucified and risen Savior who had fulfilled the prophets/Scriptures and they founded Church(es) where the new believers were taught the Apostles' doctrine.

(5) Some Apostles penned writings which were regarded by the Churches to whom they were wrote as authoritative and even as Scripture.

(6) The Church recognized which writings conformed to the Apostolic Tradition (ie the Preaching/Teaching/Worship handed down by the Apostles to the Church) and that were thus authentically Apostolic, and over time came to a consensus about which writings were canonical--Old and New Testaments. (*The consensus on some NT writings came fairly early--eg four Gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles, 1 John and 1 Peter; the consensus for the rest of the NT came towards the end of the 4th century--eg. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). In doing so the Church rejected those writings which claimed Apostolic authorship but which were alien to and contradicted the Apostolic Tradition.

(7) The Canonical Scriptures, Old and New, were thus recognized as being 'God-breathed' by the Church as a whole, just as the Apostle Paul had earlier taught the OLD testament Scriptures to be such in his pastoral letter to Timothy.

 

Good stuff there Thomas!:wavey:

 

I don't think so! How would a saint prior to the first coming of Christ answer this question? The Word of God was the inspired Word of God before Christ was ever born, before there was an empty tomb. The absolute evidence that the Word of God is inspired by God is the continuing accompanient of God's Spirit with the Word as He continues to speak through it, empowering it and fulfilling it and it is because of that, science, archeology and fulfilled prophecy, transformed lives confirm it as God's Word.

God's Word does not need the confirmation of churches to be God's Word. God's Word does not rely upon any human being or institution to be God's Word. It is living and powerful because God accompanies His Word and continues to speak through His Word. God simply calls upon man to put His Word to the test and see if God does not confirm His Word by His power.

 

Dr. Walter,

I'm sorry but I'm still learning so bare with me. How do transformed lives verify that the Bible is inspired, can't Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses say the same of their perverted texts?

I believe what Thomas was saying is that it is the Second person of the trinity who established the canon through the church which He is the head thereof.

 

Original manuscripts or translation?

If translation, which one or ones?

No one has an original manuscript. Even if we did, it would still be an article of faith.

 

Okay, then---show me the list (or lists) from pre-Christian saints which give a table of contents so to speak for the (Old Testament) 'Canon' without question begging anachronisms. In other words, show me a list that pre-dates Christ's birth and provide a source please.

But that begs the question of how to identify the contents of God's inspired word. Historically certain writings were ultimately agreed by the consensus of the church to be authentic (and thus inspired) only after initial dispute which lasted a couple of centuries in places--ie Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation of John, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter. This doesn't mean, of course, that they became inspired only in the 4th century, but that the consensus to their canonical status wasn't reached until then. The fact remains that they were disputed in many places, while certain other works (Barnabas, Hermes, 1 Clement, Didache, etc) that had a measure of local canonicity for a while were ultimately deemed to lie outside the canon by the Church at large.

You see, it's not easy from a subjective point of view to exactly idenify inspired writings. That's why Christians had a certain degree of disagreement to the boundaries of the NT Canon (described above) and the OT Canon--the earliest fathers like Clement, Polycarp, and 'Barnabas' (followed by Irenaeus and Tertullian) quoted the Deuterocanonical books (ie 'Apocrypha') as they did with other Scripture; it wasn't until the time of Melito of Sardis that certain eastern Christians began to express hesitation about these works. This is why it took some time for the Church to recognized which books were actually inspired (NOT that they somehow 'inspired' them in so recognizing them)

Given this level of disagreement, one can't just arrogantly sit back in the 21st century and say: "Well, then so-and-so must not have had the Spirit or else he would have known the exact same books (that happen to be in my Bible) to be inspired!". The fact is one even wouldn't be able to make such a smug claim without someone else who lived before collected a specific set of books, recognized them to be and declared them canonical, and handed them down to the rest of us.

Likewise, the Mormon is able to look at the books handed to him (from Joseph Smith through his LDS 'church') and confidently affirm (by the 'burning in his bosom') that those are the words of God--obviously all of us would disagree. That's why the question of history is important--which works and which Church actually goes back to Christ and the Apostles. If we make the claim that everything went wrong after the apostles died, then anyone can make up whatever imaginary history he wants to support whatever cult or heterodox version of 'Christianity' he wants which thus frees him to accept whatever books (whether it's the Koran or the Book of Mormon, or the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, or Mary) he happens to be holding in his hand.

 

Yes, they can and do (see my post above)--good points! :thumbs:

That is indeed a succinct way of summing up my points above--well done! :applause:

The great thing about it is one can objectively demonstrate this historically, and then one can also have the subjective (and real) witness of the Spirit as we read His Word.

 

If we care to read the question again, we will learn its subjectiveness, hence, I remain convinced by the resurrection of Jesus.....the question: How Do You Know the Bible Is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I understood the question to be how do we know the Word of God is inspired, not how do we ascertain which books comprise the Bible! What has a "list" to do with verifying if "a" book is inspired or not???? However, are you denying that the Jews had an Old Testament canon or list of inspired books that they separated from uninspired books?

While men were arguing what books to include or exclude, that did not make any book inspired or uninspired. The decisions of men did not determine the inspiration of any book in the Bible. It only determined what they believed were inspired or uninspired. However, the question before us is how can we know the Bible is inspired? That answer is not determined by men but by God. The rejection of Revelation by SOME did not make it uninspired and the acceptance by SOME did not make it inspired.

Rome recognizes the Old Testament apocrypha as inspired but that does not make it so. Other parts of Christendom do not recognize the Old Testament apocrypha as inspired but that does deny it to be so. Recognition and inspiration are not one and the same.

The inspired word of God remains inspired regardless of men, church counsels and personal opinions, recognition or lack of recognition. It is inspired because God still speaks through it, empowers it and the consequences are apparent:

1. Lives are changed
2. It's predictions are fulfilled
3. It's statements are verified as truth regardless of what area it addresses (science, archeology, theology).
4. Our spirit bears witness with His Spirit - confirmation by God's people.
5. All scriptures are given through the gift of prophecy verified by the tests of a prophet

Those books that are to be rejected as inspired fail at least one of these five characteristics. Inspired books pass all five characteristics

 

The primary purpose of the scriptures is to provide the revealed will of God for His people. Those who are His people have had their lives transformed by the Word of God in keeping with what God's Word teaches (2 Cor. 5:12; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; 2 Thes. 2:13-14).

However, transformation by the power of the Word of God (1 Cor. 1:17-18; Rom. 1:17) as defined by God's Word is but one essential characteristic of the inspiration of God's Word. There are at least four more essential characteristics of inspiration that must be included:

1. fufilled prophecy
2. Truth/accuracy in everything addressed (science, archeology, theology, etc)
3. Provided through prophets and verified according to tests of a prophet
4. Confirmation by God's people - His Spirit bears witness with our spirit

 

You're looking for some mechanical method to discern inspiration, and you will fail. And that is the failure of the Mormon test. There is no mechanical method to know that the Scriptures are inspired. There is all kinds of mechanical evidence of the accuracy and reliability of the manuscripts, but any mechanical tests of canonicity will fail at some point, because there will be an exception in the Bible to any one that you devise.

Gleason Archer said it succinctly:

The only true test of canonicity which remains is the testimony of God the Holy Spirit to the authority of His own Word. This testimony found a response of recoginition, faith, and submission in the hearts of God's people who walked in covenant fellowship Him. (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Moody Press, Chicago.)​

​

Archer went on to say that the only condition that would allow an adequate mechanical test would be if canonicity were a quality imparted by human decision.

But if, on the other hand, a sovereign God has taken the initiative in revelation and in the production of an inspired record of that revelation through human agents, it must simply be a matter of recognition of the quality already inherent by divine act in the books so inspired.
​

I might suggest that the reason you reject that test of canonicity is not because of a weakness in it, but because it takes the power of recognition completely out of your hands.

Consider a more important question:

How do you know you're a child of God? I can point to all kinds of clues, even in the Scriptures, which will be inadequate assurances of salvation. There is only one true test, and that is the witness of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God, Rom. 8:16.