OK, we are continuing through a series that I'm calling Remedial Christianity. And it was pointed out to me last week at the door that even though it's remedial, it certainly isn't simple. And it's really not meant to be that it's not. I'm really not putting together here, I wasn't really trying to put together, you know, a series for. People who aren't willing to think. Okay, or people who aren't willing to study, or people who want to be spoon-fed, or dummied down, or think something, it's not easy stuff. And that's why, after the sermon, after the church service for Sunday school, I'm here to discuss what I'm talking about in a Sunday school hour, where you can just ask, it's just question and answer. You get a cup of coffee, come on in, and we can discuss it, and I'll clarify things. But as I was looking over the notes this morning, I noticed it's just not a typical sermon. It's very, the stuff is very difficult. And yet I think that it's very necessary because we live in a time when people aren't really thinking about why they believe what they believe, or why they know, or how they know what they know. And that's really, both religiously and philosophically, always been the starting place. What is going to be the basis of why we know what we know? What is going to be the platform that we're both standing on in order to have a thoughtful discussion? What are we agreeing on here? And we just end up talking past each other. We see this quite frankly in the conflict we have with the Middle East. We have a discussion here and a discussion there, but because the starting place in terms of knowledge, the starting place in terms of ethic, the starting place in terms of truth, is not the same starting place. So you're just going to be talking past each other. Even if you have an interpreter, you're interpreting the language, but where you, what the assumptions people are making in terms of what actually is true, if they're not the same, but how can you have any meaningful dialogue So it's very important for us in this whole series to establish why is it? How is it I know what I know? We started out, the first sermon was dedicated entirely to that. What is our starting place for truth? Then we offered the idea for Christians, the starting place is the Bible. That's our starting place for knowledge, for truth, for ethics and so on. We also mentioned that the overarching message of the Bible is that there is a God who will glorify himself through His redemptive plan to save sinners through the cross of Christ. That's the message of the Scriptures from beginning to end. When we get into eternity, we'll be worshiping the Lamb who was slain, who sits upon the throne forever and ever. That is the central theme of all of Scripture. Last week, we talked about what do you need to see? What would I need to show you? in order to prove to you that the Bible is in fact true. If I could bring in enough science. If I could bring in enough historical data. If I could get enough people to come up here and give testimony of their changed lives. If I could show you all the fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Would that be compelling? Would that convince you? My argument there was that those things may all be true. They all may be good, they all may be worthy of discussion, but my argument is that those types of arguments will accomplish nothing if a person is committed to not believe. If you're committed to unbelief, then all the information, all the science, all the testimonies, everything that I bring up to you, you will just look at and evaluate through your grid of unbelief. And even if it's just so compelling that you get boxed into a corner, you can always say, well, someday I'll figure out Why it is that's not true. There's just not enough. You can't bring somebody to faith in God through those types of evidences. Then I proceeded to give my three arguments for the truth of the Bible. And remember, I said my first two arguments are weak arguments, but my third argument will be undeniable. The first argument being that there is really no other plausible explanation for reality as we know it, other than what is found in the Scriptures, and what the Bible says about God and creation, and both material and immaterial things, and we discussed that. My second argument was that the Bible is plausible. It does give a plausible explanation. The first argument is there is no other plausible explanation. My second argument was that the Bible does give a plausible explanation. So, when I am confronted with questions about truth, deep things and profound things, I can give answers to those things. Where did everything begin? Why are things true? Why are things false? The very deep questions, the Bible gives those answers. Now, you may not accept it, but it's certainly there. And like I said, the other worldviews can't give answers. They speculate. They guess. And oftentimes, and I would say always, those systems will be found to be self-refuting. Now, my third argument is the undeniable argument. But I think I just want to make this one point. And that is, I want us to all understand that you just can't prove your starting place. I think that's so important for us to understand. We are made to think, as Christians, we are made to think that we must take a blind leap of faith into some religious system at the expense of the more reasonable worldviews. such as science or history or sociology, etc. See, that's the way today's Christian is made to feel. And there's a reason for that. It's because that's the way modern Christianity is presented. It's presented in a very sentimental, emotional, anti-intellectual and anti-rational way. And so science has won the day. But what I want to point out, and I think is very important for us to recognize, is that science can't prove their starting place either. Nor can the rationalist or the philosopher. You can't prove your starting place. Why? Because whatever you would use to prove it, what? Becomes your new starting place. You understand that? And I'll get into that, this idea of circular reasoning in just a minute. And I know this is kind of more of an academic message than it is, you know, sentimental or even, you know, I don't know if it sounds very religious to you because what we're doing here is establishing why should we believe in religion in the first place? What I would like to see in our society is, you know, there was a time, you know, back during the Reformation where the smartest people, the most talented people, the most artistic people were all associated with the church. If you wanted to find out the answers to the toughest questions, Whether they were scientific or philosophical or religious, you went to the church. The greatest musicians were associated with the church. Now, quite frankly, in our society, the church is viewed as some type of infantile group of people who have just kind of succumbed to some sentimental need they have for a crutch. And all the intellectual people are in the universities. The university has taken a place in terms of that source of truth. But we need to know as Christians that you cannot establish a starting place. All starting places are based upon faith. They all are. Whether you're a scientist, whether you're a rationalist, or whether you're a Christian. Now, just keep that in mind, and during the question and answer time afterwards, you know, you can ask me about that. I think that's really important, especially for you youngsters who are going to be going to college, and you're going to have some young professor there, you know, some 30-year-old professor there who's got all these malleable 18-year-old minds, and he's going to convince you that you're silly to believe in God. Now, you've got to recognize that he's going to be standing on what appears to be a very solid ground. But you don't have to be at being 18, it might be tough for you, but you don't have to press him too far to recognize that he's not standing on solid ground at all, but his starting place is faith also. It's just a matter of pressing that, and we'll get to that in just a second. What I'm doing here in my argument number three, which is, if you're in the notes, argument number three is where I'm going to start here. For me, it's page seven. I don't know where it is for you. What's that? Page four. Before we do that, we've kind of caught up here. Let's let's have a word of prayer. Father God, we do pray that you would open our minds and hearts to understand great, lofty, beautiful and eternal things. May we, Father, be able to grasp the source of ethics. May we know, Father, that in you are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. So open, Father, our hearts. Open our ears and our eyes to see that which is great and true and glorious. That in them, Father, that we might be found ourselves by Christ our Savior. Amen. So I'm going into my third argument here utilizing a source called the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was written about 350 years ago, which I think is one of the probably the most sound statements about what the Bible actually teaches. So, I'm relying upon, you know, I'm relying upon the wisdom of others to give you, and I've kind of got my own slant to it here, an argument for why we should believe the Bible. Because chapter 1 of these 33 chapters is really about the Bible. You know, it's interesting. They start with the Bible. They don't start with God. God is chapter 2. I remember being mildly chastised by a man one time. He said, you know, in the old days we believed in the Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Spirit. Now you guys are into the Holy Bible. And I thought that was an interesting statement. I mean, he felt like, you know, the reverence that I, at least when he was talking to me, had for the Bible was taking precedent over the reverence I had for God. You see the implications of that statement? I don't think he said it in a mean way. But the answer to that particular statement is no. But what I know about the Holy God, Holy Father, Holy Son, Holy Spirit, the things that I absolutely know are found in the Holy Bible. I don't get to make them up. There's a place, there's a source for that knowledge. And we call that source the Holy Scriptures. Now, in Chapter 1, Paragraph 1, they wrote this. And I read this last week, but I'll read it again. Our natural understanding of the works of creation and providence. so clearly show God's goodness, wisdom, and power that human beings have no excuse. However, these means alone cannot provide that knowledge of God and of His will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore, it pleased the Lord at different times and in various ways to reveal Himself and to declare that this revelation contains His will for His church. Afterwards, it pleased God to put this entire revelation into writing so that the truth might be better preserved and transmitted and that the church, confronted with the corruption of the flesh and the evil purposes of Satan and the world, might be more securely established and comforted. Since God no longer reveals himself to his people in those earlier ways, Holy Scripture is absolutely essential. See, I'm not going to get up here and tell you what God told me last night in a dream. I'm going to get up here and seek to exegete what the Scriptures say. in terms of revealing to you what the Bible says about God, His world, and His people. This idea of general revelation. There is enough... God is known enough without the Bible for all of us to be without excuse. Just walking outside and taking a look at it all, that reveals enough about The fact that there is a God for men to be held without excuse. But it doesn't tell me anything about the redemptive work of Christ. Remember I said the overarching theme that there is a God who will glorify himself through the cross of Christ? General revelation doesn't tell me anything about that. God had to raise up prophets and apostles and special speakers who gave miraculous abilities to do miraculous things. And they delivered that message of redemption. The redemption that is found in Christ. And it was passed on by word of mouth for years. But then as we read in the confession here, as we see in the Bible, that God at a time committed this to writing. Because of what? Because of the corruption of the flesh. Because God knew the way people are. We have a hard enough time staying on track with all having Bibles in front of us, right? Can you imagine if it was just, okay, what did God say to you all last night? Because He said something different to me. What kind of pandemonium would that be? God has given us a secure standing place. It's called the Holy Bible. Now, having put forth the essential nature of the Holy Scriptures, how would these brilliant teachers justify their assertion that the Scriptures are the Word of God? It's enough to say, you know, it's fine, it's all well and good to say there is a God. We know enough about him through creation to be without excuse. But he has revealed himself through this book. He's committed it to writing. Now, why should I believe that? What is your justification for that statement? They go on in Chapter, Paragraph 4 of Chapter 1. The Bible speaks authoritatively and so deserves to be believed and obeyed. By the way, that's that's one sentence, you see. Now, again, I don't mean to I'm not bringing, by the way, the confession to the level of the scriptures. OK, this can I'm quoting the confession because I'm giving the sermon and I happen to agree with it. It's my opinion. All right. But we'll see if it makes sense. The Bible speaks authoritatively and so deserves to be believed and obeyed. Why? Why does it deserve to be believed? Because it speaks with authority. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any man or church, but completely on God, its author, who is himself truth. The Bible, therefore, is to be accepted as true because it is the word of God. You notice why? Now you can see why I put the title circularity there, right? This sounds very circular. The Bible is to be accepted because it is the word of God. We know that it is the word of God because it says it is. Perhaps circularity was not something from which the divines of Westminster sought to hide. In some form, it seems that circularity is practiced by everybody. Robert Press, in his explanation of Thomas Aquinas on scripture, states something that I've already mentioned earlier in this in these sermons. All sciences argue from principles and do not try to prove their principles. This it is also with theology, whose principles are the articles of faith. In philosophy, the lower sciences cannot dispute or prove the principles of a higher science. Sacred Scripture offers the highest science. I know that might be tough. I have it written down for you so you can read it again. The idea is that in sciences, they argue from principles that they don't try to prove. They just assume them to be true. What I'm going to get here is that ultimately, when we argue for ultimate truths, everybody's going to argue circularly. Now, you know, circular reasoning, it can be thought of as a logical fallacy, right? Well, that's circular reasoning. That kind of ends the argument. Well, you know, your conclusion is contained in your premise. It's a circular thought. But what I'm going to argue is, and when I say I'm going to argue it, I've run this by my logic professor, and he agreed. So I'm not just, you know, making stuff up. is that everybody argues in a circular fashion when we talk about ultimate and eternal things. The empiricist, now an empiricist is like a scientist, right? You only believe what you observe. Assuming his position to be soundest, right? Remember, you 18-year-olds, you're sitting there, you go to your first science class in college, your professor's up there. He believes his position is the soundest. Uses empiricism to argue the truth of his position. The rationalist or person who argues based upon philosophy or thought does the same. If someone believes their worldview to be true and the soundest explanation of reality, it is only reasonable for them to make the arguments for their worldview using the principles of their worldview. Are you following me on this? If I'm a scientist and I believe that the soundest way to determine truth is by observation. If I believe that ultimate truth is through observation, how am I going to argue for that? I'm going to use what I believe to be the soundest method of argumentation, which is what? Observation. So, my conclusion of my argument is contained in the premise of my argument. The same thing with the rationalist. Why would I abandon what I believe to be the soundest way of thinking to make the argument? If I believe that it's the soundest method, then I'm going to hold to that method and that's the method I'm going to use in my discussion. It reminds me of this Zen Buddhist I was talking to one day about Zen cones, you know, they don't believe in Aristotelian logic. And he was arguing with me about how come my worldview wasn't sound and his worldview was. And yet he was using, you know, Aristotelian logic in his discussion with me. You see, they don't believe in logic. You know, they believe in one-hand clapping and all that stuff. But in his conversation with me, he was certainly using the logical process that he thought I would find compelling. Why would he do that? Why doesn't he just use his Zen Cone logic? Why? Because he knew it wouldn't work. Because we all depend upon certain ground rules in our discussion. And what you think is the soundest ground rule in terms of a discussion is what you're going to use in your discussion. Why would you abandon it? Why would you take on a lesser form of argumentation? You understand? Hopefully you get that. Press also states, the philosopher will, for instance, work out proofs for the existence of God, but only with the presupposition that he already believes in God. He does not make himself temporarily an atheist. Now that's going to launch us into this idea of neutrality. Because that's the goal with a lot of modern Christians. This is all remedial Christianity. Because this is so popular today and it's very unsound and that's the idea that we as Christians need to find some kind of neutral ground with the unbeliever. That's not a healthy, proper starting place. I'm going to pursue that here just for a second. If the Christians view the atheists As wrong and foolish, why would they adopt the atheistic worldview as a starting place for their argumentation? Herein lies the modern myth of neutrality. G.I. Williamson says it this way. Sometimes Protestants have unwittingly done this too. It has often happened in the dealing of Christians with unbelievers. The unbeliever claims that he sees nothing in the Bible to demand belief that it is the Word of God. And the believer has all too often, in effect, granted that the unbeliever has had some justification for his position. The believer may even imagine that he can find a neutral starting point at which he and the unbeliever are in agreement. You know what that's like. You've all felt that way, right? When you're talking with your unbeliever, you want to find a place that you both agree on and start the conversation. Then it is thought a series of arguments can be erected on the neutral starting point, which in the end might possibly prove that the Bible is the Word of God, or perhaps equally as well that it is not. See, we find this commonplace, then we start arguing. And my goal is now I'm going to argue you into believing the Bible. Of course, I better be pretty good, because if you win the argument, the Bible is not the Word of God, right? Thus, human reason or archaeology or history, etc. may be made the starting point and unconsciously the starting point becomes the higher authority before which judgment bar God must pass muster. This, in effect, makes some authority higher than the authority of God. And this cannot be done. Dr. Bonson equates that position, the idea of seeking this neutral position. He equates it with immorality. He wrote this. No such compromise is even possible. No man is able to serve two lords. Wow. How's that? If you start this conversation by granting that the other person might be right and finding this neutral, what you're doing is you are abandoning your lord and you're going after some other. You're actually acknowledging the authority of another lord. It should come as no surprise that in a world where all things have been created by Christ and are carried along by the word of his power and where all knowledge is therefore deposited in him who is the truth and who must be Lord over all thinking neutrality is nothing short of immorality. Whosoever whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world make himself makes himself an enemy of God. You see, according to Bonson and others, the approach to approach the defense of the scriptures as if they are not the primary authority on earth is dishonest. I've been in this conversation with a very, very well-known professor at the seminary I went to. If I mentioned his name, you'd all know who he was. And I asked him one time in a lecture format, If it is possible, not hypothetically possible, which is even another problem, but is it possible that God doesn't exist? This is a Christian professor at a Christian seminary. He said, yeah, it is possible that God doesn't exist. And we went from there. You see, he was willing to grant that as a possibility. What Bonson is saying, that's immoral. To grant that possibility is to deny your highest premise in life. It's ultimately to deny your faith. I can hypothesize, I might say something like, let's say for a moment there is no God. But for me to actually grant that there may not be a God when I actually believe the Bible is true would be dishonest to my highest belief. How quickly we let go of our highest belief. Because we think it's going to serve some kind of utilitarian purpose in the discussion. You don't do that. Don't allow yourself to get caught in that. you know the illustration that i've heard one time was that you know if your authority is a gun you know if you're if you're robbing the store your authority of the gun and the person says i don't acknowledge the authority of that gun you don't say well let's find some neutral starting point you how about the uh... you know the salami sticks here on the counter you've not knowledge you know you should have you don't give up the authority that you recognize to be the highest authority Moving on from there, it is not uncommon for Christians to argue that the church somehow established, this is something I think we all need to deal with, the idea that the church made the Bible. It's not uncommon for Christians to argue that the church somehow established rather than recognized the authenticity or canonicity of scripture. Don't we have to believe, and this is the way I was taught, don't we have to believe that the church accurately put the canon together? In which case, the church has authority over the Bible. This is a common claim of Roman Catholicism, right? You're going to lose your argument with a Roman Catholic if you have this view. If you have the view that the church got together and said, OK, let's take a look at what books we think belong in the Bible, and we'll do it by an internal examination of these books. Well, let's take a look at Timothy. That looks pretty good. What do you guys think? OK, we'll put that one in there. This is what we're taught in Protestant seminaries. Let me tell you, if you hold to that view, you're going to lose the authority of Rome. Because what happens there is the church now has authority over the Bible, right? Because the church is the one deciding what the Bible is. A. A. Hodge points out the all-important canonical position in Christendom. He writes this, This proposition is designed to deny the Romish heresy that the Inspired Church is the ultimate source of all divine knowledge. And that the written scripture and ecclesiastical tradition alike depend upon the authoritative seal of the church for their credibility. Thus, they make the scriptures a product of the spirit through the church. While, in fact, the church is a product of the spirit through the instrumentality of the word. The real question is, did the canon grow out of the church? When I say the canon, I mean the 66 books. Did the canon grow out of the church? Or did the church grow out of the canon? And did they establish those 66 books or did they merely recognize those 66 books? See the difference there? Say there was a big explosion right now and all the Bibles got blown up into their separate 66 books with a bunch of other books around too. The Apocrypha and, you know, the Gospel according to Thomas. And you and I were given the task of putting the Bible back together again. What would we do? How would we go about that? Would we open up Romans with, you know, Keith and I open up Romans and go, Hey Keith, do you think this belongs in the Bible? And you might go, I don't know, it's kind of confusing. And I might go, you're right. It is confusing. That doesn't belong. God's not a caught of confusion. Let's throw that. We wouldn't do that. We would we would put together those books that we knew to be established from the very beginning. We don't we wouldn't do an internal examination of the text. We would put together those books that were put together by the authority of the apostles and have been the Bible from the very beginning. The hubris of thinking that we could do otherwise. Evaluating the Word of God? That would put us in authority over the Scriptures themselves. Neither science, nor philosophy, nor the Church can take precedent over the authority of the Word of God. The Bible will not be a defendant at the mercy of these fallible witnesses. As Paul wrote, let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written. And I continued there because we have to notice that Paul equates his statement in terms of let God be true, but every man a liar with that which is written. R.C. Spohl, quoting Calvin, writes this, nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction that the power of judging scriptures is in the church and that on her nod, its certainty depends. When the church receives it and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic, which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. And again, I got some long quotes here. I won't go over that again, but you can take that home and read that. So I think it's worth looking at. Now, the value of evidence. What we'll see in paragraph five of the Westminster Confession, that they did not discount entirely the value of the church or other lesser resources. They weren't really dealing with evidence as the way we are today. And I'm equating the church and its authority and its power with the evidences that we see kind of out there today buying. See, the problem in the, you know, at the end of the beginning of the Reformation was that the church took authority over the Bible. The church took authority over God. It was the church that had all the authority. So a lot of what the divines of the Westminster were writing was we're attacking that idea that anything can have authority over the scriptures. Nothing has authority over that. It's the word of God. Today, Even though I think in Rome it still happens, but what we're threatened with is the authority of the scientific disciplines And what have you they take authority you know you you see a show on You know on the cover of Time magazine or on Dateline or something you know new evidence showing that the Bible is true Everybody tunes in and they're like wow it is true. I mean it's that kind of mentality that we all it's kind of invaded our soul and We need to militate against that. It just demonstrates the flimsy reasoning that we have as Christians in our society. But they did not entirely discount the power of the church or evidences or what have you. There's a proper yet subordinate place for these evidences. In paragraph five, it is written, we may be influenced by the testimony of the church to value the Bible highly and reverently. And scripture itself shows in so many ways that it's God's word. For example, in its spiritual subject matter, in the effectiveness of its teaching, the majesty of its style, the agreement of all its parts, its unified aim from beginning to end to give all glory to God, the full revelation it makes of the only way of man's salvation, its many other incomparable outstanding features, and its complete perfection. However, we are completely persuaded and assured of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible only by the inward working of the Holy Spirit who testifies by and with the Word in our hearts. It doesn't become true when the Holy Spirit testifies to you that it's true. It's already true. It's just become true to you. You see, it's already true. You've just now come to realize it's true, just in case there's some confusion. If you're any new Orthodox people here, it's for all. R.C. Sproul writes about the value Calvin saw with evidence, again, evidence as Calvin enumerates the indicia or evidence the scriptures have. for the divine origin and authority. He speaks of the dignity of the matter, the heavenliness of its doctrine, the contents of its parts, the majesty of its style, the antiquity of its teaching, the sincerity of its narrative, its miracles, predictive prophecies fulfilled, its use through the ages, and its witness by the blood of martyrs. He sees this evidence not as being weak and tentative, but objectively strong and compelling. You see, it doesn't seem that Calvin or the divines of Westminster would have eliminated the value of external evidence altogether. To the extent that any evidence is credibly evaluated, it will testify to the truth of God's holy word. The scriptures will no doubt stand up under any legitimate scrutiny or evaluative gaze fixed upon it. You don't have to run away from science. You just need good science. We don't have to run away from the astronomers. We just need good astronomers. They'll figure it out. If they're applying sound principles, they'll come to recognize that the Bible is in fact true in its assertions. The historical testimony of the church and other lesser resources is quite impressive. The spiritual subject matter contained in the Bible, along with the effectiveness of its teaching, is also worthy of our respect. the majesty of its style, the agreement of all its parts, its unified aim from beginning to end to give glory to God, leaves the scriptures unsurpassed as an historical document and reaches the zenith of any literary or historical analysis. For 66 books written by 40 different authors over a 1,500 year period to have such harmony is practically beyond human explanation. My friends, if you're impressed by that, if you're impressed by the effect that a book has had on the lives of people. If you're impressed by the literary style of the book, its perfection, if you're impressed by the way that science has demonstrated that its truths have, in fact, been true time after time after time, if that kind of stuff impresses you, then be impressed. It is impressive. And yet we recognize. That The ability for that to overcome our unbelief is powerless. If archaeology, anthropology or astronomy were properly pursued and their conclusions properly evaluated, there is little doubt that these modern disciplines will also testify to the scriptures in such a way to be virtually undeniable. But let us be firmly convinced that compared to scripture, all other evaluative tools are dubious at best. We are, quote, completely persuaded and assured of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible only by the inward working of the Holy Spirit who testifies by and with our word in our hearts. Again, Sproul quoting Calvin, let it be therefore let it therefore be held as fixed that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in scripture. A scripture carrying its own evidence along with it deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the full testimony of the Spirit. Blindingly obvious it should be now to observe the folly of strapping the scriptures to the defendant's table while marching witnesses and evidences in and out of the courtroom. The scriptures deign not to submit to proofs and arguments. Get the picture in your head. We're basically putting the Bible at the defendant's table. And we're putting people in that witness chair to testify for it or against it. When in reality, it's the expression of the Word of God itself. Is that not the epitome of folly? I mean, I think of my kids evaluating me. You know, they're 2, 4, and 6. And my 4-year-old has got into the habit of really evaluating whether or not what I've done is proper. You know, and sometimes he's right, but for the most part he's not. You know, he just doesn't know, he just doesn't see the whole picture yet. Sometimes he has to just trust that Daddy knows what's best. And later on he will. And you know what? We're just babies when it comes to the Word of God. Those of us who know it best just barely know it. We know it enough to know that there is a God and that He has saved His people through Jesus, and we start pressing from there. We start going from there. We certainly don't allow ourselves to take precedent over it and evaluate it as if somehow we're logically or knowledgeably superior to it. One wonders how a brilliant scholar like Calvin might proceed in his defense of scripture. I'm just going to speculate here. And by the way, if you have a problem with the fact that I'm quoting the Westminster Confession and quoting Calvin and stuff, bring that up in the question and answer time, because I want to make sure that you don't kind of go, well, that's not right. Why doesn't he just quote the Bible? Well, one of the reasons why I'm not just quoting the Bible right now is because there's no place in the Bible where all 66 books are mentioned. There's no place in the Bible where it says these are the 66 books of the Bible. You see, it is our presupposition that those 66 books are in fact the Bible. And so anyways, not to get into that, but if you have a problem with that, please, please see me because I know sometimes people go, they go, wow, he's just quoting confessions and he's quoting, you know, people. But they're pretty it's a pretty good confession and they're pretty smart people. And if I were you, I'd rather listen to them than me. I mean, you know, in all honesty, because they're smarter than smarter than I. One wonders how a brilliant scholar like Calvin might proceed in his defense of scripture. Perhaps he would not deign the scriptures to submit to proofs, but require the views of his opponents to submit to proofs. Perhaps rather than guarding the castle, he would cast down the strongholds by answering the fool according to his folly. His argument might go something like, if that be so, then how do you explain? I don't wish to speculate too much here. Suffice it to say, Calvin would not subject the word of God to the scrutiny of dust, and nor should we. As he states, these evidences, however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our Heavenly Father manifests His presence in it and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Still, the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This cannot be known. to be except by faith." Press indicates that Calvin's position was nothing new. Below we read of the disposition of the church fathers. Now, these are guys in the first, second, third centuries. Over a thousand years before Calvin. And they wrote this. According to the fathers, Scripture is a priori, that is, from the former, true. Irrefragibly so. Scripture needs no verification of any kind from outside authority. It would seem that the Church Fathers also viewed the Scriptures as a priori true. Verification may be well and good. It might even be part of the discussion. We can discuss all that stuff. But it was not needed. Press quoting Luther shows this to be the position leading into the Reformation as well. Paul takes them all together, Luther says, himself, an angel from heaven, teachers upon the earth, and masters of all kinds, and subjects them to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must reign as queen. All must obey and be subject to her, not teachers, judges, or arbiters over her, but they must be simply witnesses, pupils, and confessors of it, whether it be Pope or Luther or Augustine or an angel from heaven. The statement of Luther, this is a press talking, of Luther indicates Also, that the scripture is infallibly true in its assertions, irrefragible. We need not test it with reason, experience, or any other authority. Its utterances can and ought to be accepted a priori. Now, let's not mistake here Press's comment here to suggest that the scriptures are not reasonable, but that it's unreasonable for man, whose reason is at best flawed, to subject the pinnacle of truth to his feeble scrutiny. You see, when he says it's not, you know, we can't put the scripture subject to reason, he's not saying, look, it abandoned all reason. What he's saying is recognize the limitations of your reason. I've titled this sermon, Why should we believe the Bible or something like that? I don't have my title in front of me right now. And if you expect me to come here and give you all these proofs. And all these arguments for why you should be the Bible so that you could submit it to your reason so that you can sit as divine arbiter over the Holy Scriptures, is that what you were hoping? And it's not going to happen. And hopefully you can see how unreasonable that would be for me to approach it that way. Now, the undeniable argument. We're almost done. I know I've gone long again. But I didn't want to make it a three parter, so I'm almost done. And my undeniable argument is really short. My third and undeniable argument is that the Bible is to be believed because it is true. And because to deny its truth is to deny something we know to be true. Jesus taught this, and this is what Bill read. Jesus said, He who rejects me and does not receive my words has that which judges him. The word I have spoken will judge him in the last day. Not the evidences, not his ability to do miracles, not the fact that he fulfilled prophecies, When Jesus is talking, what is He saying is sufficient to judge you on that day? What is it that's going to be up there and you're going to look at that and you're going to go, yeah, that's right. That was true. That was sufficient to judge me. What is it? His Word. What I'm saying, Jesus said, what I'm saying right now is sufficient to judge you on that last day. The Word of God has sufficient authority to act as a judge for all mankind. And it is my prayer that by the grace of God, we will all recognize the insanity of seeking to judge that which in reality judges us. Hebrews 4, verses 12 and 13, for the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit of both joints and marrow and able to judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from his sight. But all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." Now, the Word of God, is he talking about the Bible? Is he talking about Jesus? My point, you know, I don't think it makes any difference because when Jesus came and he spoke, it was his words that were able to judge. So you don't need to make that distinction. My argument for believing the Bible is true is not a matter of evidences or speculation, and it certainly isn't a matter of convincing people to make a blind leap of faith into a mythological, nonsensical fairy tale. It's more like bringing people to their senses and quit denying the obvious. That's my argument. My argument is quit denying what you know to be true. People say, well, I don't believe in the Bible. Yeah, you're just denying. You might as well say, you know, I believe it's right to steal. I think when people reject the scriptures, they are rejecting something they know to be true. Specifically, we are called to repent. For a rejection of that which we all know to be true, to argue against the truth of scripture is like arguing against the existence of air. Every time you inhale in order to make your next point, your argument becomes weaker. But those who are willing to acquiesce before the profound truths of the holy word of God will find on these pages light and life. The message is the message from heaven. A message of redemption. The message itself, the gospel is the means by which that redemption is applied. Come and thy people bless. And give thy word success. Amen. Let's pray. Father, God, we, in fact, have suppressed the truth and unrighteousness, and when we hear the words of Jesus, we turn and flee because they expose us for what we are, for he is light and we want to hide in the darkness. We pray that you would grant us hearts that would not seek to run from that which is good and right and true. We pray, Father, that you would open our eyes and our ears. And as we look at the words on the pages of the holy text, recognize them for the gems that they are. We pray, Father, that you would grant us strong faith. And we pray, Father, that as we seek to give this message to others, that there is a place where God speaks to mankind and that place is found In the word of God. Father, that we would not deign to seek to submit your holy word to proofs that we would not, as it were, cast pearls before swine and drag your holiness. Godfather, your august nature and your words of life through the muck and mire of human reason. But father, we would lift it up. And recognize that it has the power to say that it is, in fact, the means by which you bring people from death to life. And let us trust that, in fact, you will do that work. May your word be exalted and lifted up for it proclaims the living word, who is Christ and whose name we pray. Amen.