Is there any profit in quoting the Bible to somebody who doesn’t imagine the Bible? On the floor, it appears counter-intuitive. Why would we enchantment to the Bible as authority if somebody doesn’t acknowledge that authority? For a lot of Christians, if somebody doesn’t acknowledge the Bible as being from God they may attempt to argue for God in different methods. However I’d suggest that Christians not solely can quote the Bible to unbelievers, however they need to quote the Bible to unbelievers.
An instance of a hesitancy to cite the Bible comes kind Matt Walsh, conservative blogger and religious Catholic, entitled, “When Christians Shouldn’t Quote the Bible.” In his article, he made a reasonably daring assertion:
I contend that Christians mustn’t enchantment to the Bible when arguing with unbelievers about political and cultural matters. There is no such thing as a have to quote Scripture when making an attempt to clarify, for instance, why it’s incorrect to kill infants. You don’t want to tug out Genesis to persuade somebody {that a} man in a gown isn’t a lady. It’s not essential to mine the Epistles to be able to advocate without spending a dime speech rights. And in case your interlocutor doesn’t imagine within the Bible, then this enchantment to authority shouldn’t be solely pointless however counterproductive. You have got now turned a dialog about logic, motive, or science, right into a theological debate with an individual who rejects the complete premise of your theology (emphasis added).
Walsh goes on to argue that the above needs to be an apparent level as a result of if somebody doesn’t acknowledge a specific authority, then interesting to it’s futile and won’t persuade them of something. Nonetheless, there are no less than two issues with Walsh’s thought course of.
A Defective Assumption of Human Skill
Being a Catholic, Walsh holds to a semi-pelagian view of human depravity. Primarily which means mankind is affected by Adam’s fall, however retains their potential to decide on good and search after God. This motivates Walsh (and others who maintain this view) to keep away from utilizing the Bible out of the gate as a result of they imagine if they will neutrally work together with somebody, they will persuade this particular person to observe Christ. However the issue is that people are usually not impartial.
In line with the Bible humanity is damaged and predisposed in opposition to God. Scripture says there isn’t a one who seeks God or does good (Rom 3:10-12). Moreover, those that are within the flesh are incapable of pleasing God (Rom 8:7-8). Most evangelicals rightfully emphasize the doctrine of the full depravity of man, which teaches that the need of sinful man is enslaved to sin and can NOT select the methods of God except the Spirit of God intervenes.
Walsh believes that if we jettison the Bible, we’ll discover extra mental footing with those that reject Scripture. But, if we imagine Scripture on this challenge, mental argumentation shouldn’t be a impartial taking part in discipline. Mankind shouldn’t be impartial—all males are by nature enemies of God (Rom 5:10) and so they suppress the reality of God (Rom 1:18). Thus, not utilizing the Bible shouldn’t be going to alter human depravity. Solely God can open the eyes of the blind.
A Misunderstanding of the Function of Presuppositional Final Authority
The second main downside is that Walsh appears to misconceive the position of presuppositional, final authorities. Within the dialogue of final authority (these authorities which finally decide reality and are the premise for understanding) there isn’t a motive to reject an authority, whether it is actually an authority. For instance, if I’m making an attempt to be taught to play a sport for the primary time and be taught the principles, somebody would possibly introduce me to the rule e book which the game-maker has composed. Nicely, I can reject what the game-maker says and even select to imagine that the game-maker is a made-up concoction by my good friend—however that displays my stupidity, not an issue with the best way somebody is displaying me the principles for the sport. The straightforward level is that simply because somebody doesn’t acknowledge an actual authority doesn’t make it much less authoritative.
Additional, this precept is much more necessary within the challenge of final authority. As I’ve identified earlier than, when you’re speaking about final authorities, they can’t be judged by one other authority or else they don’t seem to be final. In mild of this reality, it isn’t intellectually inferior to make the most of an argument from an final authority, even when somebody doesn’t imagine it. To again down and never use Scripture is to take away the very basis for understanding reality and morality. Thus, the Christian needs to be motivated to make use of the Bible and to clarify how the world is incoherent with out the truths contained therein.
A Concluding Observe
I’m not in opposition to utilizing arguments aside from the Bible. I achieve this typically. However, to say we should always NOT use Scripture in sure conditions is silly. Scripture alone is totally and finally authoritative as an argument. The Bible shouldn’t be merely human phrases or reasoning, it’s infallible path from the incorruptible God. When somebody must know the way to consider a problem, that’s the place we flip.
Moreover, we can’t low cost the truth that the phrases of Scripture are literally the phrases of God! They’re highly effective and may break by way of to even the toughest coronary heart. Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers, as soon as described the phrase of God like this:
“The Phrase of God is sort of a lion. You don’t need to defend a lion. All it’s a must to do is let the lion free, and the lion will defend itself.”
Let the lion free!
Picture by Ben White on Unsplash
