Bible, Truth of the

Note: Last Updated 7/29/2024.

Note: For a refutation of the claim that all reasoning is ultimately circular (e.g. Cornelius Van Til) see: M. Dan Kemp, “The Bible, Verification, and First Principles of Reason;” In: Without Excuse: Scripture, Reason, and Presuppositional Apologetics, ed. David Haines, [Leesburg: The Davenant Press, 2020], pp. 1-31.

R. C. Sproul:

     Premise A – The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document.

     Premise B – On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

     Premise C – Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

     Premise D – Jesus Christ teaches the Bible is more than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God.

     Premise E – That the word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

     Conclusion – On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, i.e., infallible.

(R. C. Sproul, “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis;” In: God’s Inerrant Word, ed., John Warwick Montgomery, [Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1974], pp. 248-249; cf. R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2005], Ch. 3: “The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis,” pp. 72-73.)

Note: For a single volume work in defense of the above premises see: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands A Verdict, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999]; cf. Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2017]. Preview. For an introductory (layman) level treatment see: Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? [Wheaton: Crossway, 2015]. For additional resources see the appendix at the end of this post.

Timothy Keller:

I am not here trying to argue for the complete trustworthiness of the Bible, only that its portrayal of the life and teaching of Jesus is historically accurate. If it is, then we can draw conclusions about who Jesus is from the information we read there. If eventually we put our faith in Jesus, then his view of the Bible will become ours. Speaking personally, I take the whole Bible to be reliable not because I can somehow “prove” it all to be factual. I accept it because I believe in Jesus and that was his view of the Bible.

(Timothy Keller, The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, [New York: Dutton, 2008], n. 4, p. 263.)

James K. Dew Jr., Mark W. Foreman:

     Now, if Jesus is the Son of God, then what does this mean for our belief in special revelation? First, whether or not Jesus’ life reveals anything to us about God depends on whether or not he is the Son of God. So, if the resurrection shows that he is the Son of God, then the incarnation reveals something about God to us in a special way, and our belief in special revelation is a rational belief. Second, if Jesus is the Son of God, then we must pay special attention to what he believed and taught. He believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, and he taught that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in all truth, teach them things beyond what he taught them and bring his teachings to their remembrance. Although this does not yield an absolute proof that the Bible is God’s Word, it does at least demonstrate that people are rational and within their epistemic rights to believe that God has revealed himself in the Bible.

(James K. Dew Jr., Mark W. Foreman, How Do We Know? An Introduction to Epistemology, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014], p. 145. Cf. Ibid., pp. 139-145.)

Greg Gilbert:

The main reason that I believe the Bible is true is precisely because I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Now whether or not you agree with me about the resurrection, you can probably see why believing that would quickly and strongly lead me to trust the Bible. If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then the only possible, intellectually honest conclusion one can reach is that he really is who he claimed to be. If Jesus actually got up from the grave in the way the Bible says he did, then he really is the Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Wisdom of God, just like he said. And if that’s true, then it makes sense (doesn’t it?) that he probably knows what he’s talking about, and therefore, we ought to listen to him.

     Now, one thing that is beyond any reasonable doubt is that Jesus believed the Bible. When it comes to the Old Testament, the point is very straightforward; over and over in his teaching, Jesus authenticated and endorsed it as the Word of God. And as for the New Testament, even though it was written years after his days on earth, it too rests ultimately on Jesus’s own authority, and the early Christians knew it. In fact, the two main criteria they used to recognize authoritative books were (1) that those documents had to be authorized by one of Jesus’s apostles and (2) that they had to agree in every particular with Jesus’s own teaching. We’ll talk more about all that later, but the point is pretty clear. Once you decide that Jesus really did rise from the dead, the truth and authority of the Bible follow quickly, naturally, and powerfully.

(Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? [Wheaton: Crossway, 2015], pp. 14-15.)

Cf. Greg Gilbert:

     Even so, Christians’ belief that the New Testament is the Word of God also goes back to the authority of Jesus as the resurrected Messiah, just in a slightly different way. Do you remember how, in chapter 4 of this book, we said that the early Christians always talked about authoritative, canonical books being handed down to them and that the main and primary criterion they used to defend those books was that they had apostolic authority? At that point, we simply noted the reasonability of that assertion as a historical matter; of course it makes sense to have the most confidence in books that came with a stamp of approval from eyewitnesses.

     But that’s not the only—or even primary—reason that apostolicity was the early church’s main criterion for confirming the exclusive authority of those received books. The primary reason goes back, again, to the authority of Jesus. You see, in John 16, when Jesus was giving final instructions to his apostles, he promised that after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, he would send the Holy Spirit to relay to them further teaching that he wanted them to have. It’s really an extraordinary passage:

[Jesus said,] “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare

     That’s an amazing chain of authority Jesus constructs, isn’t it? Everything he has to say is from the Father (there’s that prophetic authority again), and he will give all that comes from the Father to the Holy Spirit, who will in turn declare it to the apostles. Do you see? Jesus is here telling his apostles that more teaching will come and that it will come to them in particular.

(Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? [Wheaton: Crossway, 2015], pp. 138-139.)

Cf. Greg Gilbert:

     In the end, therefore, the answer a Christian will give to the question, “Why do you trust the Bible?” is, “Because King Jesus the Resurrected endorsed the Old Testament and authorized the New.” That’s not a presupposition. It’s not an unthinking, close-your-eyes-and-jump leap of faith. It’s a considered conclusion built from a careful argument that

1. the Bible is historically reliable;

2. Jesus was resurrected from the dead; and

3. the whole of the Bible therefore rests on Jesus’s authority.

(Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? [Wheaton: Crossway, 2015], pp. 141-142.)

Herman Bavinck:

     But if Scripture’s authority with respect to itself depends on Scripture, then it is authoritative also for us and the final ground of our faith. The church can only recognize that which is; it cannot create something that is not. The charge that in this way one is guilty of circular reasoning and Scripture is proven by Scripture itself can be thrown back at Rome itself, for it proves the church by means of Scripture and Scripture by means of the church. If in response Rome should say that in the first case it uses Scripture not as the word of God but as a human witness, which is credible and trustworthy, the Protestant theologian can adopt this approach as well: inspiration is first derived from Scripture as reliable witness; with this witness Scripture is then proved to be God’s word. Much more important, however, is that in every scientific discipline, hence also in theology, first principles are certain of themselves. The truth of a fundamental principle (principium) cannot be proved; it can only be recognized. “A first principle is believed on its own account, not on account of something else. Fundamental principles cannot have a first principle, neither ought they to be sought.”

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], §. 119, p. 458.)

Tony Lane:

The argument is not circular. It starts by turning to the Gospels for evidence of Jesus’ beliefs and argues that there is overwhelming evidence that he regarded the Old Testament as the word of God. This argument does not require any prior belief about the accuracy of the Gospels and Rudolf Bultmann, who was extremely sceptical about their reliability, nonetheless regarded it as clear that Jesus held such a view. [end note 2: R. Bultmann Jesus and the Word. London: Collins, 1958, 51-53.] Thus the argument is not ‘believe the Bible because the Bible says so’ but, ‘believe the Scriptures for Christ’s sake’. The quotations from the rest of the New Testament demonstrate that the apostles did just that.

(Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christians Believe, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014], p. 25.)

John R. W. Stott:

…the first and foremost reason why Christians believe in the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is not because of what the churches teach, the writers claimed or the readers sense, but because of what Jesus Christ himself said. Since he endorsed the authority of Scripture, we are bound to conclude that his authority and Scripture’s authority either stand or fall together.

     Some may at once retort that to rely on Christ’s witness to Scripture is to employ a circular argument, which might be expressed like this: ‘How do I know that Scripture is inspired? Because of Christ, who says so. How do I know that Christ says so? Because of Scripture, which is inspired’. This, our critics point out, is to beg the question, for it is to assume the very truth we are wanting to prove. But they have mis-stated our argument. When we make our first approach to the Bible, we bring with us no assumptions about its divine inspiration. We accept it merely as a collection of historical documents, containing in particular the witness of first-century Christians to Christ. As we read their testimony, we come to believe in Christ, still without formulating any particular doctrine of Scripture. But then the Christ we have come to believe in sends us back to Scripture. He gives us a new understanding of it because he endorses its authority for us.

(John R. W. Stott, Understanding the Bible: Revised Edition, [London: Scripture Union, 1993], p. 145.)

Norman L. Geisler:

     Jesus taught emphatically that the Jewish Old Testament was the very inspired and written revelation of God. In this teaching, he neither accommodated himself to false tradition nor was limited in his knowledge of the matters of which he spoke. His teaching was with all authority in heaven and on earth. And since Christ has been verified to be the unique Son of God, whatever he teaches is the very truth of God. Hence, on the testimony and authority of Christ, it is established as true that the Old Testament, with all of its historical and miraculous events, is an inscripturated revelation of God.

     There are many other pieces of evidence that the Bible is the Word of God— for example, its supernatural predictive prophecy, its amazing unity, its superior moral quality, its worldwide publicity, and its dynamic power. It is sufficient evidence, however, that Jesus verified the Old Testament to be God’s Word. Since Jesus is confirmed to be the Son of God, his testimony that the Bible is the Word of God is more than adequate. Either a person accepts the authority of Scripture or he must impugn the integrity of the Son of God; they stand together.

(Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990], Chapter 18: The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 367-368. Cf. Ibid., 353-377.)

B. B. Warfield:

Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them inspired. And the proof of their authenticity, credibility, general trustworthiness would give us a firm basis for Christianity prior to any knowledge on our part of their inspiration, and apart indeed from the existence of inspiration. The present writer, in order to prevent all misunderstanding, desires to repeat here what he has said on every proper occasion—that he is far from contending that without inspiration there could be no Christianity. “Without any inspiration,” he added, when making this affirmation on his induction into the work of teaching the Bible[fn. *. Discourses Occasioned by the Inauguration of Benj. B. Warfield, D.D., to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature in the Western Theological Seminary, April 25, 1880. Pittsburgh, 1880. P. 46. Cf. Inspiration. By Prof. A. A. Hodge and Prof. B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1881. Pp. 7, 8 (also in The Presbyterian Review for April, 1891). Also, The Inspiration of the Scriptures. By Francis L. Patton, D.D. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869. Pp. 22, 23, 54.]—“without any inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea, and men could still have heard the truth and through it been awakened, and justified, and sanctified, and glorified. The verities of our faith would remain historically proven to us so bountiful has God been in His fostering care—even had we no Bible; and through those verities, salvation.”

(Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Real Problem of Inspiration;” In: The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Volume IV: 1893, [Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Review Association, 1893], p. 209.)

Cf. N. T. Wright:

There is nothing to be gained from an attempt to make the truth of Christianity depend on the literal truth of every word of the Bible. Such a view shifts the balance in Christianity decisively in the wrong direction. For Christians, Jesus, not the New Testament, is the central truth. But one should not, for that reason, imagine that historical issues can simply go by the board.

(N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993], p. 88.)

Note: See further: Inspiration and Inerrancy.

Historical Reliability.

Josh D. McDowell, Sean McDowell:

Were the original…testimonies about Jesus trustworthy? 

     …I can trust the apostles’ testimonies because eleven of those men died martyrs’ deaths because they stood solid for two truths: Christ’s deity and his resurrection. These men were tortured and flogged, and most finally suffered death by some of the cruelest methods then known…

…The perspective I often hear is, “Well, these men died for a lie. Many people have done that. So what does it prove?”

     Yes, many people have died for a lie, but they did so believing it was the truth. What was the case with the disciples? If the Resurrection had not happened, obviously the disciples would have known it. I can find no way that these particular men could have been deceived. Therefore they not only would have died for a lie—here’s the catch—but they would have known it was a lie. It would be hard to find a group of men anywhere in history who would die for a lie if they knew it was a lie.

(Josh D. McDowell, Sean McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, [Crownhill: Authentic, 2011], p. 90.)

C. S. Lewis:

Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority—because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.

(C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, [New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984], pp. 63-64.)

C. S. Lewis:

What cannot be trusted to recur is not material for science: that is why history is not one of the sciences. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like innumerable other questions, excludes laboratory treatment.

(C. S. Lewis, “Religion Without Dogma?” In: C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1970], p. 134.)

C. S. Lewis:

I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage—though it may no doubt contain errors—pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach.[fn. 1: Lewis means, I think, Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, translated by Williard R. Trask (Princeton, 1953).]

(C. S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism;” In: C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977], p. 155.)

Timothy Keller:

…ancient fiction was nothing like modern fiction. Modern fiction is realistic. It contains details and dialogue and reads like an eyewitness account. This genre of fiction, however, only developed within the last three hundred years. In ancient times, romances, epics, or legends were high and remote—details were spare and only included if they promoted character development or drove the plot. That is why if you are reading Beowulf or The Iliad you don’t see characters noticing the rain or falling asleep with a sigh. In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction.

(Timothy Keller, The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, [New York: Dutton, 2008], p. 106.)

Appendix (For Further Study).

     For further study of premise A (regarding historical reliability) see: F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992]; Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992]; Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2006]; cf. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016]. Preview. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006]. Preview.

     For further study of premise A (regarding the canon of Scripture) see: F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988]; Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2012]; Preview. Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013]; William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II: An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, [Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 301ff. See also: christiantruth.com and part 3 endnotes.

     For further study of premise B see: Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: Updated & Expanded, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016]; Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004]; Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, [Downers Grove InterVarsity Press, 2010]; Preview. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume Three: The Resurrection of the Son of God, [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003]. Preview.

     For further study of premise C see: Michael F. Bird, “The Divinity of Jesus;” In: How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014], pp. 45-70; J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006], Part 4: pp. 169-218; Michael F. Bird, Jesus Is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012].

     For further study of premise D see: Louis Gaussen, Theopneustia: The Bible: Its Divine Origin and Inspiration, [Cincinnati: George S. Blanchard, 1859], Chapter II, §. V, pp. 89-105; Ian Hamilton, “Jesus’s Submission to Holy Scripture;” In: The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives, ed. John MacArthur, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2016], pp. 80-90. Preview.

     For further study of premise E see: William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], “Bibliology,” pp. 61-150; A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work]; Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, [Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970].

     For additional helps see: James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology: Revised in One Volume, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986], pp. 57-66; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.8; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i to III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], pp. 81-92.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria