Should Apologists Assume the Inspiration of Scripture? 

That seems like it would make sense when doing apologetics in a monotheistic setting!

You have that backwards. You don't need to assume the inspiration of scripture to suggest prophesy, fulfilled prophesy is something that can be used to establish the inspiration of scripture. Without assuming the inspiration of scripture we can know for a fact that passages like Isaiah 53 were written long before Christ and yet these passages perfectly and accurately describe what Jesus would later do on the cross. There's no issue with fulfilled prophesy if scripture is inspired, but trying to explain how this is the case without suggesting scripture is inspired is impossible to do rationally.

@@LawlessNate I think that's a false dichotomy. I don't think it's either/or, but both/and. Yes, one can mount an argument from prophecy to establish the inspiration of Scripture. However, one can likewise assume (arguendo) the inspiration of Scripture to establish an argument from prophecy. To take your example of Isaiah 53, if the skeptic doesn't accept the Bible including Isaiah 53 and of course the entire New Testament as inspired or even sufficiently historically reliable (e.g. if they only accept the Masoretic textual tradition such as Codex Leningradensis which dates to ca. 1000 AD, if they believe it's been redacted by later scribes, and so forth), then they might think New Testament writers wrote the New Testament in light of attempting to shoe horn texts like Isaiah 53 to fit a Messianic interpretation. However, if for the sake of argument we assume the Bible is inspired, then we can show them that the Messianic passages like Isaiah 53 would make more sense on divine inspiration than they do on the skeptic's assumptions, by using Bayes to calculate the probabilities.

@@pattube "e.g. if they only accept the Masoretic textual tradition such as Codex Leningradensis which dates to ca. 1000 AD..." Certain texts like Isaiah 53 have been found in discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. In those passages of the Old Testament there's no room for debate on whether or not they predate Christ. There is plenty of manuscript evidence for the new testament that greatly predates 1000AD, and the crucifixion of Jesus is so numerously attested even by non-biblical sources that it's historically certain. For passages like Isaiah 53 there's just no getting around the fact that they were written before Christ and yet perfectly describe events that even atheistic historians would say with certainty occurred later. The amount of mental gymnastics that would be required of an atheist to deny that would mean they're either ignorant of the evidence or so spiritually blind that evidence, logic, and reason is completely meaningless to them anyways. The order of cart and horse doesn't matter if the atheist refuses to ride.

Presuppositionalism is always and will always be the superior approach when engaging the unbeliever, on a worldview level. It seems as though WLC is abandoning scripture to defend scripture!

@nick8945 yeah, too bad not much philosphers work on presupositonalisn

Why should we as apologists have to demonstrate to the unbeliever that scripture is the word of God? It's like saying heres the truth, but because you reject the truth, I'm going to demonstrate why should believe the truth. NEVER should anyone abandon the authority of scripture to satisfy the standard of the unbeliever.

@nick8945 I didn't say you should abandon the authority of the scripture but you should present a good case as to why the bible is the word of god instead of just a presupposing it is without having any good reasons. It's not just about what the objective truth is. It's about trying to reach that unbeliever and in their mind you're using bad reasoning. In their mind the bible isn't true And if you just say you believe it without having good reasons , Then that pushes them even further away from religion. They think they're the only rational ones. You can tell them what the Bible says all day long if you won't. But in their minds they don't believe the bible is the word of god. So in the end, yeah, you're right. The Bible is the word of God. But it did absolutely no good to help bring them to the Kingdom of God and to the truth. If you give them good reasons for why the Bible is true and Christianity is true and then they reject it then it's not because of bad logic on our part. Why would you follow a religion whose followers presuppose that it's true and then argue in a circle for his validity?

@@johnroemeeks_apologetics sure. But demonstrating the Bible is the Word of God can be done in an instant. "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking and training in righteousness" The principle that scripture is self validating should be abandoned, just to satisfy the position of the unbeliever. I've asked many many unbelievers where they get truth from without God, and their answers conclude in absurdity. If in their mind we are using bad reasoning, then their standard of reasoning needs be challenged. How do they get absolute truth in their atheistic, often naturalistic worldview? Classical apologetics is wasting time withe the unbeliever trying to get them to be convinced of the "existence of God" The unbeliever needs their worldview challenged that without God, they can't know anything at all, and challenging them on that begins with the position that scripture is the Word of God.

@@nick8945 I understand the presuppositional approach, but why the Christian God, why not Allah, Brahman, or the other millions of gods? If you say we must presuppose the Bible is true without giving good reasons to support that, then the Muslim can presuppose the Quran is true without evidence and Mormons can presuppose the Book of Mormon is true without giving evidence. So by presuppositions alone, how can you show that the Bible is the only one true and there's are false?

@@johnroemeeks_apologetics because only the trinitarian God of the bible alone can provide the preconditions for intelligibility, and only Scripture can account for them. EVERY other worldview including Islam, and Hinduism are reduced to absurdity. Remember, John 14:6. Truth comes from Jesus Christ, not from Allah or any other false god.

The conclusion of Maximal Greatness is derived from what follows from the very concept of God, not necessarily from "Biblical truth". The conclusion applies to the idea of God generally, independent of creed or association with Christianity. And I'm speaking from the perspective of one who is not Christian.

@@melchior2678 You are wrong. The concept of God that Apologists are using comes from the Bible. Disagree ? How does an Apologists know that God is Maximally Great ?

@@TheMirabillis The Bible does not mention that God is Maximally Great, that is a particular Philosophical/theological strand. Most Catholics and Orthodox do not accept that reasoning. Also, Perfect being theology is not found in the Bible, it is a philosophical/theological attempt to answer what is God. I think it is a very interesting attempt, but you are completely confused, it does not come from "Biblical truth," it is completely a philosophical effort.

You assume that instead, then point to the bible and say "look the bible agrees"

A Muslim could just as easily appeal to the ontological argument as a Christan could. Someone doesn't have to simultaneously prove both that God exists and also that their conception of God is the most accurate at the same time. It's perfectly rational to make an argument that simply proves God exists, and then from there you'd have to make further, different arguments as to why God must be as described in Christianity as opposed to Islam or modern Judaism.

did you listen to the video? he didn't say we shouldn't assume the inspiration of God's word. When you reference 'the prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself' are there instances where they went to people outside of the group of believers but still expected them to assume or believe scripture to be inspired? Paul for instance in Athens argued from natural revelation didn't he?

@@stephenglasse2743 Acts 17:18 - Paul preached the resurrection of Christ to those who didn’t presuppose the veracity or inspiration of Scripture.

@@ehudsdagger5619 correct

@@stephenglasse2743 So to a bunch of pagans Paul assumed or presupposed the veracity and inspiration of God’s Word.

@@ehudsdagger5619 no he assumed the historical truth of a particular event that in all possibility hadn't been committed to writing yet. and he backed up his claims by appealing to eyewitnesses, his own experience, and by performing miracles and healings.

Because all the unbeliever wants to do at that stage is engage in mockery!

What do you mean? How can dawkins be taken seriously as a philospher?

@@kylecityy Dawkins is not a philosopher, Craig is supposed to be one. The pressure is on Craig.

@@piesho so why would richard dawkins look down upon a philospher who is an expert in his field if he doesnt even take philosophy seriously

@@kylecityy Imagine you are not a basketball player, and Adam Morrison wants to debate you on how his playing stills are outstanding and worthy of recognition. If you know at least the basics of philosophy, you know Craig's arguments are completely indefensible. "[Craig] says well the midianites had it coming because they were so sinful and then if you worry about the midianite children who had their brains beaten out of them um that's okay because they went straight to heaven and and that finished him him off as far as I was concerned for me" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RgApebXSSnM.html

@piesho i dont know if my comment is going through or not. your comparison is better in my view because adam morrison would still be considered one of the top skillful basketball players since he's of the .1 percentile to make it to the nba compared to the rest of the worlds basketball players. it would be weird for someone who didn't even make it to play college basketball to say "oh adam morrison skill is worse than me." so Dawkins looks down upon Craigs philosophy over a specific theological topic that doesnt have to do with Craigs philosophical arguments?