ARTICLE: Solving a Skeptical Problem

[STR Ambassador]

Solving a Skeptical Problem
Greg Koukl

I want to help you solve a problem that has troubled many Christians. It’s tied directly to “guarding the treasure” entrusted to you. First, think for a moment about this statement Paul made to the Thessalonians:

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1Thessolonians 2:13)

Now, here’s the problem. A couple of months ago, a woman calling the radio show expressed frustration with a friend who had dismissed the Bible as “only written by men.” Her insistence that the words were inspired by God was no help. Instead, it led to a fruitless cycle: The Bible is God’s Word. But it was just written by men. But God inspired those men. But men make mistakes. Round and round they went, going nowhere.
Maybe you’ve encountered this question, too. I have.
Here’s one way to respond: Give specific reasons the Bible is a supernatural book of divine authorship and not merely the musings of men.
For years I have taught six of these reasons in a talk called, “The Bible: Has God Spoken?” If you’ve heard the talk and are able to recall the points and explain them, you may get someone thinking. It’s a way of putting a stone in their shoe, so to speak.
But this approach is much more effective after something else has happened first. Before I tell you what that is, I have a confession to make.
Though I give this talk often, these are not really the reasons I believe the Bible is God’s Word. They are sound evidences and they have their place (I’ll explain more on that in a moment), but they are not how I came to believe in the Bible’s authority in the first place. I suspect they’re not the reasons you believe, either, even if you’ve heard the talk and thought it compelling.
I came to believe the Bible was God’s Word the same way the Thessalonians did, the same way you probably did. They encountered the truth firsthand and were moved by it. Without really being able to explain why, they knew they were hearing the words of God and not just the words of a man named Paul.
I think I understand better now what happened then. Now I know there is a powerful role the Spirit plays that is very hard for us to describe. This is not something we’re able to explain very well to others.
For one, it is personal, subjective. Two, it’s non-rational. In a sense, we were not persuaded, as such. We were wooed and won over, and that’s very different from weighing reasons and coming to conclusions.
Note, I didn’t say it was ir-rational, but non-rational. God used a different avenue to change our minds about the Bible
Even so, the reasons I give in the talk are still vital. Here’s why: The objective reasons are important to show that our subjective confidence has not been misplaced, that what we’ve believed with our hearts can be confirmed with our minds. The ancients called this, “Faith seeking understanding.”
The woman’s frustration was caused by a simple truth. When you start giving people reasons to change their minds—to believe in the Bible, for instance—their first instinct is to resist, to keep on believing what they’ve always believed. It’s human nature.
Don’t get me wrong. I think offering good reasons is a fine approach. I do it all the time. In this case, though, they’ll find reasons for the Bible more compelling if something else happens first. First they must listen.
When soldiers were sent to arrest Jesus, they returned empty handed. Why had they disobeyed orders? They had listened. “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks,” they said (John 7:46). Jesus didn’t start with reasons why they should believe His words. Instead, he let the words do the work themselves. And this they did because they were the very words God.
If you want people to believe in the Bible, the best way to succeed is not simply give them reasons. First, try to get them to listen to the Word.
If someone says the Bible was “only written by men,” ask if he has any books in his library? Were those books written by men? Sure. Even so, he still values them. Why? Because he listened first. He engaged the writers’ ideas and found them compelling.
Invite him to do the same with the Bible. Talk about the biblical view of the world. Encourage him to simply listen to Jesus for a while, then draw his own conclusions. Most people respect Jesus; they’ve just never listened closely to what He’s said. They’ve never allowed the words to have their impact.
Don’t get into a tug-o-war with skeptics about inspiration. Instead, invite them to engage the ideas first, then let God do the heavy lifting for you. The truth you are defending has a life of it’s own because the Spirit is in the words. Once your friend has listened a bit, any further reasons you give for biblical authority will have the soil they need to take root in.


Stand to Reason - Equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

[Dee Dee Warren]

Good and honest article. I wasn't persuaded that the Bible was God's Word through reasoning, though I find the reasoning sound, it was a supernatural work. It is great to see this stated so clearly here.

[Trout]

Good and honest article. I wasn't persuaded that the Bible was God's Word through reasoning, though I find the reasoning sound, it was a supernatural work. It is great to see this stated so clearly here.

Gerbil and I were talking about this very thing the other day, we thought we were the only 2 with such a testimony.

[whizler]

Invite him to do the same with the Bible. Talk about the biblical view of the world. Encourage him to simply listen to Jesus for a while, then draw his own conclusions. Most people respect Jesus; they’ve just never listened closely to what He’s said. They’ve never allowed the words to have their impact.

Jesus did not introduce very much new in terms of ethics. Why not teach Diogenes (c412-323 BCE), who said, "How shall I defend myself against an enemy? By being good and kind towards him"? If you want to "engage the ideas," at least acknowledge that Jesus borrowed from those before him.

To be fair, you should also admit that some of Jesus's teachings seem rather perplexing. Jesus was big on love and forgiveness, but somehow we'll face eternal suffering if we don't follow him, and him alone. Talk about a stick! And of course, never, ever, ever blasphemy the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; see also Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10).

Finally, this eternal Son of God, this Alpha and Omega, this way, the truth and the life who loves everyone who ever lived somehow never saw it necessary to speak against slavery.

Don’t get into a tug-o-war with skeptics about inspiration.

Good advice. The skeptic need only to point out some biblical absurdities to throw cold water on "inspiration."

[Amazing Rando]

Good and honest article. I wasn't persuaded that the Bible was God's Word through reasoning, though I find the reasoning sound, it was a supernatural work. It is great to see this stated so clearly here.

I'd have to disagree with you over the proper identification of God's Word.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I'd have to disagree with you over the proper identification of God's Word.

And I would have to say you were picking a nit because in context of the article I was responding to my meaning was clear. But feel free. I wasn't trying to start a debate or be as precise as possible, I was just expressing my experience. It apparently was helpful and encouraging to Trout and that is enough for me.

[Amazing Rando]

And I would have to say you were picking a nit because in context of the article I was responding to my meaning was clear. But feel free. I wasn't trying to start a debate or be as precise as possible, I was just expressing my experience. It apparently was helpful and encouraging to Trout and that is enough for me.

Didn't mean to denigrate any encouragement you or anyone had received, merely as Jezz pointed out so well in a thread a little while ago, Jesus is God's Word, and while the distinction may seem to you like hair-splitting at first glance, it has tremendous theological implications.

[Dee Dee Warren]

But Rando you know I am fully aware of that, and that in the context of my statement here it is apparent what I meant. I just don't think jumping on a theological imprecision in a context where my meaning was clear isn't necessary.

[Amazing Rando]

But Rando you know I am fully aware of that, and that in the context of my statement here it is apparent what I meant. I just don't think jumping on a theological imprecision in a context where my meaning was clear isn't necessary.

Check.

[Soundsurfr]

Good and honest article. I wasn't persuaded that the Bible was God's Word through reasoning, though I find the reasoning sound, it was a supernatural work. It is great to see this stated so clearly here.

I'd have to disagree with you over the proper identification of God's Word.

And I would have to say you were picking a nit because in context of the article I was responding to my meaning was clear. But feel free. I wasn't trying to start a debate or be as precise as possible, I was just expressing my experience. It apparently was helpful and encouraging to Trout and that is enough for me.

Didn't mean to denigrate any encouragement you or anyone had received, merely as Jezz pointed out so well in a thread a little while ago, Jesus is God's Word, and while the distinction may seem to you like hair-splitting at first glance, it has tremendous theological implications.

But Rando you know I am fully aware of that, and that in the context of my statement here it is apparent what I meant. I just don't think jumping on a theological imprecision in a context where my meaning was clear isn't necessary.

So much for solving the skeptical problem.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sound, do you care to demonstrate at all how the quoted comments have a thing to do with your comment? Did you not realize that Rando and I were talking about something completely different? Or did you just thought that it was cute to quote us and then act like what we were talking about had a thing to do with solving the sceptical problem?

[Soundsurfr]

Sound, do you care to demonstrate at all how the quoted comments have a thing to do with your comment? Did you not realize that Rando and I were talking about something completely different?

Doesn't matter. From a skeptics point of view, you two are poster children for the notion that no two Christians can hold a conversation about the bible without getting into a disagreement.

Or did you just thought that it was cute to quote us and then act like what we were talking about had a thing to do with solving the sceptical problem?

That too. Do you not realize that the way you two present yourselves in this thread has everything to do with "the skeptical problem"?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter that you abused two person's quotes? As one of the persons, I disagree.

From a skeptics point of view, you two are poster children for the notion that no two Christians can hold a conversation about the bible without getting into a disagreement.

And what makes you think that has a thing to do with anything. In fact are you claiming we disagreed about the Bible?

That too. Do you not realize that the way you two present yourselves in this thread has everything to do with "the skeptical problem"?

You mean how we calmly discussed our differences and parted on good and respectful terms? Yes I agree. Rando and I discussed our issues, and didn't get into a bitter fight over them.

Do you not realize that what you have done here, from a Christian's point of view, is be a poster child for how a sceptic will misuse anything to their benefit to deny God and bust into a conversation in a trollish manner? I don't appreciate my posts being used so that you can be cute. Rando is too nice to object.

[Soundsurfr]

It doesn't matter that you abused two person's quotes? As one of the persons, I disagree.

Oh please. I did not abuse anyone or anything. You want to learn what abuse is? Go to Tektonics.org.

And what makes you think that has a thing to do with anything.

I explained what it has to do with.

In fact are you claiming we disagreed about the Bible?

Nope.

You mean how we calmly discussed our differences and parted on good and respectful terms? Yes I agree. Rando and I discussed our issues, and didn't get into a bitter fight over them.

Congratulations. That really IS an accomplishment, given what we usually see when folks around here disagree about religious stuff.

Do you not realize that what you have done here, from a Christian's point of view, is be a poster child for how a sceptic will misuse anything to their benefit to deny God and bust into a conversation in a trollish manner?

Immaterial. Your belief in imaginary Gods is not a "problem" I am attempting to solve. I'm just holding up a mirror to show you what it looks like from a skeptical POV, when two Christians, in thread about how to convert skeptics, begin jousting (however respectfully) about concepts that have "tremendous theologial implications". If you choose not to use that information to your benefit in the quest to solve the skeptical problem in the future, no sweat off my back.

I don't appreciate my posts being used so that you can be cute.

Dang. Whose posts am I going to use to be cute now?

[Amazing Rando]

Doesn't matter. From a skeptics point of view, you two are poster children for the notion that no two Christians can hold a conversation about the bible without getting into a disagreement.



That too. Do you not realize that the way you two present yourselves in this thread has everything to do with "the skeptical problem"?

If disagreement is your "skeptical problem" then I'm afraid you haven't looked hard enough at human life. Find me two people, who concur with each other entirely over every matter- c'mon, I dare ya! It's a matter of simple human experience that two people, with different life experiences and different ways of interacting with others will not always be in agreement with one another. Heck, even the New Testament itself reflects the fact that the members of the early Jesus movement had their theological disagreements, even their spirited debates, yet still, they remained united in love and mutual respect within the same beloved community of faith.

But if you want to look at anything here in this thread, look at the way in which we handled our disagreement. It was, in my opinion, congenial, respectful, and mutually seeking to understand one another. I would hope that rather than taking the sophomoric route of pointing at the fact that we had a misunderstanding and jumping up and down with girlish glee, confident that you had just disproved the entire Christian worldview, you'd be mature enough to recognize the spirit of our dissention. Contrary to the notions of many outside the faith, Christian unity does not mean uniformity. I have disagreed with DDW over many issues, and most likely, I always will because she and I came to faith in the same Lord under different circumstances, have learned from different teachers, and have found different ways to live out the Lord's call in our own lives based on our respective gifts. This does not mean we wish to burn each other.

On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for her work with this site, for her strength as a person, and even though I don't always understand how she chooses to articulate it, the depth and authenticity of her faith. That is why we handled our disagreement the way we did, and why I, now that I understand where she was coming from, dropped my objection. Much to our great shame, we Christians do not always handle disagreements and misunderstandings as we did here, and that is an area of our failing. But as long as we are willing and ready to show each other the same love that our savior has for us, such "disagreements" that you seem to delight in so much, are inconsequential to us.