Dr. William Lane Craig recently posted a short clip responding to the question, “should apologists assume the inspiration of Scripture?” (Link provided at the bottom).
When doing apologetics, Craig states that we should not assume the inspiration of Scripture -- that is, that the Bible is God's Word, and hence, everything it says is true.
I would imagine some folks who take God’s Word seriously will be turned off by his remarks, so I wanted to respond to those potential critiques. Apologetics is the discipline of defending one’s view. Christian apologetics, therefore, is the defense of the Christian worldview. At first glance it might seem odd that Craig is telling Christian apologists to leave aside their theological convictions pertaining to the doctrine of Scripture in order to defend Christianity. Is he telling them to leave aside their faith and play the role of the skeptic? Are they to assume some content of Scripture is false?
This is certainly not what Craig means to say. Rather, what he wants to avoid is the fallacy of arguing in a circle. Someone argues in a circle when they set out to prove what they already assume to be true. If the Christian apologist attempts to show Christianity to be true by presupposing that the Bible is God’s Word, he has committed this fallacy. Appealing to divine revelation under these circumstances will not advance the Christian case, for the skeptic would not accept this piece of evidence.
So does that mean skeptics dictate our use of Scripture? Of course not. It just so happens that the purpose of apologetics is persuasion. And fallacious arguments tend to have the opposite effect.
Apologists are not asked to ‘give up’ their belief in the inspiration of Scripture, rather the point Craig is making is that apologists should not utilize the doctrine of Scripture within their apologetic arguments. If they do, skeptics will easily see through this fallacy and present additional challenges. In this way, Craig’s advice actually elevates the case for Christianity!
However, one could imagine scenarios where the recipient desires the perspective of a Christian who assumes the inspiration of Scripture. For instance, perhaps a skeptic ignorant of biblical truth would like to better understand the whole Christian message. So it seems reasonable to believe that assuming inspiration would be beneficial under strict situations.
Craig adds in his response that we ought to hold to biblical inspiration in doing other theology disciplines, like systematic theology. So one should not take his comments as a denouncing of biblical inspiration. For those who are agitated or confused by Craig’s statement, rest assured that the intent is to strengthen the arguments in favor of Christianity.
Comments