Is The Bible Our Highest Authority?

Рет қаралды 1,314

Күн бұрын

Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity. In particular, such objections can be found among Christian presuppositional apologists. They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence a greater weight of authority than Scripture. In this video, I hope to show that the traditional apologist can answer this type of argument in a two-fold fashion. Once we firmly grasp what it means to say that Scripture is one’s highest authority, it will become clear that this belief is not in conflict with presenting evidence for the truth of Scripture. In short, traditional, evidence-based, apologetics is harmonious with the affirmation that Scripture is the Christian’s highest authority.
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
03:19 - Two Different Types of Authority
05:04 - Scripture as an Epistemic Authority
07:39 - The Need for Reasons to Believe Putative Authorities
09:44 - Scripture as a Highest Epistemic Authority
11:06 - Evidence is Not an Type of Authority
12:40 - The Underlying Concern
14:56 - Can Evidence be Greater than God?
16:25 - Conclusion
Sources:
• How To Answer The Fool...
“The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) - Michael J. Kruger
The Logic of Religion - J. M. Bocheński
Epistemic Authority - Linda Zagzebski
Evidentialism - Earl Conee and Richard Feldman
Debating Christian Religious Epistemology - John M. DePoe and Tyler Dalton McNabb (eds.)
/ 256645877418981
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

Пікірлер: 42

@adenjones1802 6 ай бұрын

This video is fantastic. We needs to fight against those hypocrite presupositionalist who use break Gods word. They need to read Job 13:7

@truthovertea 7 ай бұрын

Yet again man, fantastic content David!!! The info is so good I feel guilty for not taking notes, will watch again to do so!

@roscaris6541 7 ай бұрын

Great video. These speakers who disparage evidence seem to me either insecure themselves in their beliefs, and trying to reconcile a bit of cognitive dissonance by saying in effect, "I may not be able to produce evidence for my view, but evidence sucks anyway so that doesnt matter". Perhaps also they seek to indirectly elevate their own authority, as intepreters and scholars of the Bible, by promoting unquestioning adherence to the Bible without evidence. More innocently though they may just be christians frustrated that evidence leaves many non believers unconverted and unconvinced, with arguments often quickly devolving into a ping pong match of endless back and forths where any piece of data used to support God is quickly thrown under the bus in a world of partisan hyper scepticism.

@RangerRyke 7 ай бұрын

We have to take one another at each other’s word regarding what we do and don’t believe. Otherwise there’s no point in having a conversation. Yes the Bible says there’s no such thing as a nonresistant nonbeliever but an Atheist could just as easily assert that that there’s no such thing as a nonresistant believer and where would that leave us? We’d just be two closed minded people telling the other person that we know them better than they know themselves. Also if scripture is above reproach and above the evidence then Muslims are perfectly justified in not believing the evidence that proves their book to be unreliable.

@thimychan202 7 ай бұрын

That was such an awesome take.

@theepitomeministry 7 ай бұрын

This channel is a gold mine. Love your content.

@unidosenfe 7 ай бұрын

I agree completely. I would like to be able to discuss this video on my channel. Take some parts because I have said that the principle of sola Scriptura, not "solo Scriptura," can be justified by appealing to evidence outside of Scripture because the evidence itself points to a reality that they recognize as superior to themselves in epistemic matters.

@truthmatters7573 7 ай бұрын

A thought experiment that shows how the notion that Scripture is our primary source of knowledge cannot be true. If a muslim had the same epistemology that said that the Quran is their highest authority, defined as primary source of knowledge, then they would be equally justified to reject any and all evidentiary considerations as inappropriate attempts at subordinating the highest authority to a lesser authority. This does 2 things: (1) trap the muslim in his false beliefs, because with evidence itself now being illegal there is no possible form of persuasion that could change his mind. (2) make it impossible for the muslim to convince anyone else to take the Quran as their highest authority, because to do so he would have to use evidence, but using evidence would be illegal as that would subordinate the highest authority. Now if you think that is an unhelpful way for someone you disagree with to think, then the same should apply to your own thinking.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco 7 ай бұрын

Another great video!

@endygonewild2899 7 ай бұрын

I thought you converted to Catholicism for a sec

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

Not yet 🙃

@dominikdurkovsky8318 Ай бұрын

@@faithbecauseofreason8381orthodoxy?

@thevulture5750 7 ай бұрын

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

Relevance?

@thevulture5750 7 ай бұрын

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Your video is titled "Is the Bible our highest Authority?"

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

@@thevulture5750 yup. How is your comment relevant to this?

@thevulture5750 7 ай бұрын

@@faithbecauseofreason8381That Scripture answers your question, the title of your video.

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

@thevulture5750 no, it doesn't

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco 7 ай бұрын

13:37 Just one point here. The presuppositionalist could reply that God directly illuminates his mind in order to allow him to rationally interpret and judge information gathered by the senses and evaluated through reason. This revelation or illumination is not dependent on the Bible. It is some sort of cognitive faculty for discerning. It is similar to the Divine Illumination thesis.

@thevulture5750 7 ай бұрын

The man could also simply quote Scripture. John 3:27 27John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

@jochemschaab6739 7 ай бұрын

Hot take: Presuppositionalism is lacking in philosophical debates, but on popular level it is the best way too go. If you go out on the street and talk to a non believer it is far more fruitfull to show him that his position doesn't make sense because he ultimately needs God, than to give evidence for the existence of God in a classic manner. By using a more offensive way approach, you remain in the driver's seat and you show them why they are wrong. You can lead the conversation, put the burden of proof on them and convict them of their hopeless worldview. If we want to use apologetics to reach unbelievers (which I think we have to be careful with. Apologetics should mostly be used as a tool to answer difficult questions. The gospel should be the center), don't start by defending yourself, let them defend themselves. That is also more in line with the gospel that convicts rather than persuas in my opinion. But ultimately when they start asking questions, I think there is definitely room for classic/evidential apologetics and I acknowledge that the use of Presuppositionalism will be limited, especially if you engage in philosophical debates. Yeah this take upsets people on both sides I know

@Edward-bm7vw 7 ай бұрын

Absolutely not. It is complete sophistry. Fraught with circular reasoning and flawed epistemology

@stevenbatke2475 7 ай бұрын

How do you presuppose the unbeliever “needs God”?

@Alex_Pinkney 7 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura FTW?

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

Prima Scriptura > Sola Scriptura

@aperson4057 7 ай бұрын

@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Sola Scriptura (properly understood) is seemingly Prima Scriptura. What people call Sola Scriptura today is more like Nuda Scriptura. All that being said, I identify more with Prima Scriptura.

@faithbecauseofreason8381 7 ай бұрын

@aperson4057 I agree that many formulations of SS as similar to PS.

@RaymondTT 7 ай бұрын

@@faithbecauseofreason8381Could you elaborate what differences you see? If SS is taken as "this is the only way to know something about God or theology" then I would reject it also. I guess this would be nuda scriptura rather than SS? But if PS is taken to be "scripture first, then add onto it from other authoritative areas [Usually traditions, dogmas, other books, decrees, councils, personal ideas or feelings - are among those added on top of it.] - Then I would reject PS as well. So how do we balance what we mean by SS or PS?

@truthmatters7573 7 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura properly understood means that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. That doesn't mean: - Scripture is the only source of correct doctrine. - everything you believe has to be found in Scripture. - there are no other authorities. It simply means that there is only one infallible doctrinal authority available to us today and that is Scripture. This is a contextualized statement that communicates the more general truth that only divine revelation is an infallible source of doctrine in the context of our times in which inspiration has ceased. Obviously in a time when agents acting under inspiration were still alive and proclaiming revealed truth their spoken words also had the same infallible doctrinal authority. To illustrate this with a few examples: - the Bible says Jesus will come again in the future -> we believe what it says on the Bible's authority - a catechism says that Jesus will come again in the future -> we believe what it says because it accords with the Bible - a catechism says that Jesus will not come again in the future -> we reject what it says because it does not accord with the Bible - a maths book says that the length of the hypothenuse of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides -> we do not need to consult the Bible because the Bible is not an authority on maths - historical evidence speaks to an event recorded in the Bible -> we evaluate the historical evidence and the biblical historical record (which also serves as evidence) in light of each other.