Game Plan For: How Do You Know The Bible Is God’s Word?
The following is a “five questions” game plan for responding and getting things on track!
Get these five questions put to memory in your own words so that it becomes an immediate reflex that triggers when anyone asks/challenges whether or not the Bible is the Word of God. Not only will you be armed with an organized and instant reply; the pressure will come off of you for a while as you put the ball back in the questioner’s court a handful of times before you come through with your official response.
(1) “I appreciate your question and so that I could better address you, would it be OK to ask you a few questions to kind of gauge where you are at on this and I can find a good place to dive in?”
(2) “Do you believe it is possible or impossible for God to exist?”
(3) “Do you believe it is possible or impossible for God to communicate through man?”
(4) “Do you believe it is possible or impossible that the Bible is the result of God communicating through man?”
(5) “Finally, what kind of sincere research have you done on the Bible…More specifically what did you discover?”
Noteworthy explanation of the five questions
The first question gets the questioner prepared to open up some of their potential assumptions.
The next three questions will help to steer things and narrow the scope of possible escape routes that the questioner might flee to later. Also, just imagine if they respond with “impossible” to any of the three. You can reply, “Wow, that is quite a hard stance to hold that it would be ‘impossible.’ Can you please demonstrate why it would be impossible?” I have rarely ever had anyone reply with “impossible” and the times that it has happened they immediately retract and reverse their answer after they are asked to demonstrate such a hard stance.
The final question (99/100 times) will politely expose the questioner’s cards of ignorance. So what? Well, tactically speaking you have disarmed them pretty early on. It really takes the impact out of some of their anticipated retorts such as: “Well we all know the Bible has been changed throughout time!” You can reply something like: “Wait a minute…A moment ago you admitted you haven’t done much research on the Bible. So I need to ask this now, have you really done your homework on how the Bible was transmitted or are you just repeating something you have heard?”
Bottom line is, anyone that has ever done any genuine research on the transmission of the Bible would not make such a claim because it is quite false. But hey, if they want to stick to their guns with no ammo let em’ and you can go into probe mode. Ask them questions requesting specific examples. I will tell you now, they are just going to reveal more ignorance and unfortunately a lot of times wind up resorting to some childish behavior like spewing some lame straw-man remarks such as, “The Bible is a bronze aged myth!” “The Bible is a book of fairy-tales and magic!” Blah, blah, blah…Right?
So what we need to do in order to keep the conversation from digressing to this is check our motives! Are we being kind, calm, and sincere? Don’t I really care about this person, their soul? Can they see it in my eyes? Can they hear it in my voice? If so, you should be in a pretty could position to bring things back on track. It never hurts to ask the person if you could just pause the conversation for a moment to let them know, “Hey, I care about you, I really don’t want to argue with you…That is not my desire. I really wanna listen to what you have to say and I hope you feel the same way. Can we please pick things up again?”
At some point you are going to want to present why you believe the Bible is the Word of God. There are plenty of approaches you could take in presenting your case, here are a couple of relevant posts: Proof the Bible is the Word of God & How do you KNOW the Bible is God’s Word?
The above is simply a game plan approach I have developed and refined over time to disarm the questioner and set things up for a positive case as to why I believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you don’t take the time to “disarm and set up” but, instead immediately jump into some explanation of things… you are going to find yourself getting interrupted, open to smoke diversions and attack. So before you get started, clear the air, disarm the questioner and prepare the way for God’s Word and the Gospel!
Get a Signed Copy of My Book “SEAL of God”
SEAL of God (My Book!)
One of only 13 from a class of 173 to make it straight through to graduation, Chad served his country on SEAL Teams One and Seven for five years, completing tours of duty in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq.
Part memoir, part evangelism piece, SEAL of God follows Chad’s journey through the grueling Naval Ops training and onto the streets of Iraq, where he witnessed the horrors of war up close. Along the way, Chad shares his own radical conversion story and talks about how he draws on his own experiences as a SEAL to help others better understand the depths of Christ’s sacrifice and love.
Get an autographed copy of “SEAL of God” at $4.99 off retail clicking here—-> SPECIAL DEAL!
Makes a great gift and witnessing tool.
Fallacy: Red Herring
A Red Herring is an informal logical fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is introduced in order to attempt to shift attention away from the original issue at hand.
It has been said that, “A ‘Red Herring’ refers to a smelly fish which someone would drag across the path of the hounds pursuing their quarry, so that they get distracted and go off the path in pursuit of the fish.”
And so it is when someone commits a Red Herring fallacy they are either willfully or ignorantly attempting to introduce an irrelevant topic which distracts from the original issue at hand.
The Moral Argument: Addressing Red Herrings
Question:
“I know one person I talked to on the subject of the TMA said that how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people (in reference to Israel) destroy men, women, and children (citing Deuteronomy 2, particularly vs. 34). Any thing you can lend on this?”
Response:
This is a very common slight of hand the person tried to pull on you. I must point out that they are not engaging with TMA at all by erecting an objection to biblical revelation.
To make this clear in your interaction with them ask, “Can you please tell what specific premise of TMA you are attempting to address right now?”
Let us suppose that in response they try to aim their objection at premise (2). You can then point out that biblical revelation was never appealed to as support for premise (2)!
So in this particular case -with regard to TMA- such an objection introduces a straw-man and red-herring to the argument! Nobody has to read the bible to know that objective moral values exist. Let me put it this way; I knew it was objectively wrong to murder long before I read Exodus chapter 20. Make it clear that you have not appealed to biblical revelation in your argument but that premise (2) is affirmed in light of apprehending such objective moral values through moral experience!
Objectivity Apprehended In Moral Experience
As believers we are aware that this realm of objective moral values is made known to us through a God-given conscience (Rom. 2:15) but, we never had to first read Romans 2 as a sort of precondition to get that God-given conscience functioning. The awareness of objective moral values was already in full operation prior to reading the text. So it is not necessary to appeal to biblical revelation in support of premise (2) because objective moral values are already apprehended through moral experience.
Much like how we apprehend the objective reality of the physical world around us, we can also apprehend the objective reality of moral values. Most people are well aware of objective moral values with exception to morally handicapped folks like the psychotic sociopath serial killer. In the same way that some people are physically handicapped, say like the color-blind are incapable of distinguishing between the colors red and green. There are some people out there that are morally handicapped and incapable of identifying the morally objective difference between nurturing a child and torturing a child. Thus, just as a color-blind person that cannot distinguish between the colors like red and green doesn’t cause us that see color just fine to suddenly start doubting the difference we do see. So the morally handicapped person that can’t apprehend the objective difference between loving their neighbor or torturing their neighbor ought not to cause doubt in those of us that do apprehend an objective moral difference between the two.
Street Apologetics
Atheist: “how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people destroy men, women, and children in the Old Testament?”
Street Apologist: “I never appealed to biblical revelation in support of premise (2). I pointed out that I know objective moral values exist in probably the same way you know they exist. I apprehend them through moral experience.”
(At this point, it would be good to put them on the spot to agree with you.)
Street Apologist: “You do believe certain moral behaviors like rape or child molestation are objectively wrong don’t you?”
Atheist: “Of course!”
Street Apologist: “Ok then you agree with premise (2)!”
Atheist: “Uh…Right.”
Street Apologist: “Ok then you must disagree with premise (1), otherwise the conclusion: ‘God exists‘ will follow logically and inescapably.”
Atheist: “Ok, well I don’t believe the conclusion so I will disagree with premise (1).”
Street Apologist: “Alright, well if you affirm premise (2) objective moral values do exist yet deny premise (1), I would like to hear how you justify the existence of objective moral values in the absence of God’s existence?”
Let the squirming begin!
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below 
The Flourishing of Human Creatures
The Flourishing of Human Creatures
Another common objection atheists will launch at premise (1) of “The Moral Argument” is to that claim that objective moral values can some how find ground in whatever is conducive to the flourishing of human creatures. Such a view however would be guilt of “specie-ism” which is an unjustified biased toward one’s own species[1]. On atheism, human beings have no basis for objective moral values if they are a mere by-product of the same blind process that coughed up mosquitoes and leeches.
Human Flourishing? On atheism there is no God to bestow value or ultimate purpose on human beings. The universe does not care; it has no feelings and will show no favoritism toward mankind when it inevitably swallows the human race up in a finite amount of time. On atheism the end for mankind will be identical to the end for all other life forms such as pigs, amoebas and e coli.
On atheism there is no justification for objective moral values and to suggest that human beings maintain some special place in the universe is arbitrary and unintelligible.
Other Objections to Premise (1)
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
[1] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics-3rd ed. Wheaton Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008. Print.
Moral Platonism
Moral Platonism
(Common Objection to “The Moral Argument”)
What is Moral Platonism?
In the absence of God atheistic naturalists will sometimes attempt to say that objective moral values just simply exist without any foundation! This sort of view on objective moral values is often referred to as “Moral Platonism” (MP). You see, Plato once upon a time believed that “goodness” or say “forbearance” simple existed somewhere out there as part of the universe. Likewise “greed” “hatred” “loyalty” “selfishness” and so forth just exist, absent of any grounding!
A Double-edged Response to MP
Firstly, it is arbitrary. For instance to hold that “goodness” simply exists out there independent of any persons seems quite odd and indefensible. Moral values are properties of person and it does not make any sense to speak of them as impersonal abstractions. I mean, just appreciate that for a moment and think of what it would be like for “goodness” to simply exist as part of the universe in the absence of any God and before the arrival of the human species.
Secondly, this seems to be ad hoc. It appears to be quite coincidental that in the absence of God; a blind physical process would cough up just the right human creatures that would match up to these impersonal and ungrounded abstractions. It is like the platonic realm was just waiting for human beings to show up! And on a side note, why would there be any moral obligation to align oneself with such abstractions in a meaningless and purposeless universe. Does the universe really care?
Moral Platonism is unintelligible. The person that wants to put stock in MP has a lot of explaining to do if they don’t want to give up rationality in the process.
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
A Common Misunderstanding
A Case of Misunderstanding
It can be almost guaranteed that when you present The Moral Argument (TMA) to an unbeliever they will object to premise (1) in a similar fashion following:
“I don’t believe in God and I am a lot better than most Christians I know!”
“Are you trying to say that I have to believe in God in order to be a moral person?”
The Response
This sort of response is a very common misunderstanding of premise (1). Remember that the premise says:
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
It is a mistake to understand this as saying; one must have belief in God in order to live a moral life. That is not the claim. In fact, I would like to mention that I know a number of atheists I worked with in the SEAL teams. And I am certain of this when I say those guys would run into harms way in the blink of an eye for the sake of others.
With that said, it is not a belief in God that is necessary to live a moral life; it is the existence of God that is necessary for the existence of objective moral values! Again, the issue at hand is not belief in God; it is the existence of God.
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Thus, in the absence of God there is no such thing as a moral life in the objective sense that we have been discussing! With God in the paradigm, morality reduces down to subjectivity. Just an aid to survival and any deeper meaning is illusory[1].
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
[1]“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . .” -Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Biology
What Is The Moral Argument?
The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument (TMA) is a tremendously effective tool on the street. The reason TMA has so much force is because it reaches people on a more personal level. The bottom line is that the conclusions one draws from this argument will translate over to how they live their everyday life. In short, this one gets personal!
TMA comes in a handful of different variations and I have selected the most prominent arrangement for our discussion. It comes in the form of a logical syllogism, and therefore the conclusion will follow inescapably according to the rules of logic so long as one affirms premises (1) and (2) as true premises.
The Moral Argument Stated:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
Before expanding on this, I think it would be crucial to distinguish between what it means for something to be “objectively” or “subjectively” true.
By “objective” we mean: Something is to be true independent of human opinion.
By “subjective” we mean: Something is to be true dependent on human opinion.
Objective vs. Subjective Illustrated:
If I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet, it will be objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet. To make it absolutely clear, it is objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet and this truth is wholly independent of what any human might feel or think about that.
With regards to the appearance of my wallet, it is subjectively true that it is a fashionable wallet. It is dependent upon my opinion and the opinion of others whether my wallet really has that voguish elegance.
Premise (1) the claim is that if God does not exist there is no justification or accountability for objective moral values. That is to say, if God does not exist there would be no foundation outside of the shifty subjectivism that human beings impart. Put another way, there would be no objective grounding or anchoring of moral values. In the absence of God, Richard Dawkins drives the point home for us in premise (1):
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Thus, if someone wants to negate the affirmation of premise (1) the burden of proof will lay squarely on them. It will be their responsible to erect a basis for objective moral values in the absence of God.
Premise (2) objective moral values do exist. You would think that this might be a difficult premise to validate but; almost everyone –when feet are put to the fire- will affirm the existence of some objective moral values. Most of us do experience the reality of objective moral values just as we experience the reality of the physical world. For instance, certain actions like raping to fulfill sexual desires or torturing babies for pure entertainment are not actions of “pitiless indifference” equivalent to love and kindness as Richard Dawkins would have it; rather such actions are objectively wrong regardless and independent of what Dawkins or other human beings might think or have to say on the matter! There may be those that disagree with us on this point but that should not slow down those of us that do apprehend such objective moral values anymore than a color blind or deaf person ought to cause those of us that see color and hear fine to doubt we do. Such a person that does not perceive it to be objectively wrong to rape for pleasure or torture babies for entertainment would simply be morally handicapped in the same way a blind or deaf person is physically handicapped.
Conclusion (3) if a person affirms the first two premises then the logic is airtight and the conclusion will forcefully follow that God exists. God would be the transcendent foundation and anchoring of objective moral values, wholly independent of human opinion or feelings. God would be the very source of moral value as His Nature is the “The Good” and anything contrary to His Good Nature would be Evil.
Are there common objections to these premises? Certainly, and there are very good responses too! I will be dealing with these common objections on an individual basis in my next handful of posts. As the common objections are dealt with I will provide links to them below:
Common Objections to TMA
- Addressing Red Herrings (new)
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
What is a Logical Syllogism?
A logical syllogism is a type of logical argumentation that draws its conclusion from two or more premises.
What is so powerful about this form of argumentation is that the conclusion will follow from the premises logically and inescapably so long as the premises are affirmed as being true.
In order for someone to refute the conclusion they will be forced to deny one or more of the premises and present a case for their negation.
Basic example of a logical syllogism:
Premise (1) All men are mortal.
Premise (2) All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.
The conclusion is logically valid. In other words the logic is irrefutable! If some one wants to deny the conclusion -as has been stated before- they will only be able to do so by denying one or more of the premises.
Examples from Natural Theology:
Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
Premise (1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise (2) The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise (2) Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Note: It is inevitable that there will be those that deny certain premises but, what they will have to demonstrate is that the negation of those premises is more plausible than their affirmation. What constitutes a “good argument” is that the affirmation of any given premises is more plausible than their negation. This point cannot be stressed enough, the detractor is going to have to demonstrate that their denial of any given premise is more plausible that the its affirmation and if they do not succeed in doing so you will have an argument in good standing!
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
What is Atheism?
All too often on the street I run into people that are self-proclaimed Atheists but, when pressed to give a response as to why they believe that “God does not exist” they recant: “I never said I believe that ‘God does not exist’ I simply lack a belief in God’s existence.”
Is a lack of belief in God’s existence really Atheism though? Certainly not, and when pressed to give an explanation as to what they believe; more times than not they wind up giving a description of Agnosticism.
A true Atheist however is not someone that is open to the possibility of God’s existence. A real atheist is not one that merely lacks a belief in God. A genuine atheist is one that affirms there is no God.
The term Atheist comes from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos). In English this comes out as two words:
ἄ represents the “negative” or “no”
θεος represents “God”
Atheism is the negative (ἄ) contrasted form of God (θεος), which is to say that there is “no God.”
Claiming oneself to be an Atheist -in it’s truest form- comes with a burdensome task as it asserts a negative, that is to say, it affirms that God does not exist which comes with shouldering quite a burden of proof. Of course they are not up to the task and therefore they pour a different meaning into the word “Atheist” and so the word games and redefinitions begin.
They want that provocative title “Atheist” but when their feet are put to the fire on it, they describe themselves to be more Agnostic; or as the Latin form puts it Ignoramus. I guess identifying oneself as an Ignoramus just doesn’t have the same rousing ring to it.
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below