Monday, November 19, 2012

Is The Bible Hearsay?


The testimony of the Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith. Many have argued, however, that the testimony the Bible gives is hearsay. As such, they argue that it would not even be admissible in court and is insufficient as testimonial evidence for anything it affirms. One of the best examples of this argument is found in the writing of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine who was one of the first to publish it widely for a popular audience. Paine is most famous for his pamphlets Common Sense and Rights of Man, but he also penned a theological treatise (arguing for Deism) called The Age of Reason where along with various other attacks on the Bible, he offers the hearsay argument against the Christian faith.

Paine writes, “But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.” (Paine, The Age of Reason, Section 1)

This argument goes right to the heart of the obligation of humankind to accept the Word of God and so it deserves an answer. A common Christian response is to offer an analysis of types of evidence and testimony, usually pointing out that in any case not all hearsay is inadmissible in court. Often, this is followed by evidence that the text of scripture is historically reliable and so forth. These responses may have their place but in this case, the response must address something more fundamental. Technically speaking the criticism is a straw man argument because although it might work on a popular level it does not properly address the Christian doctrine of how revelation through the Word of God functions.

The thrust of the argument is that we believe that God revealed certain information to prophets or apostles who then told others, either in person or through their writing. That, however, is not the Christian doctrine. Some modern theologians have argued that the Bible is the record of God’s revelation but the traditional Protestant view is not that the Bible is a record of revelation but that the Bible is revelation. This is a small distinction but it makes a massive difference.

Hearsay describes an indirect communication as when a person receives information that is at least one level removed from the source. The Christian view of revelation, however, is that the Bible is direct communication from God to those who read or hear it. We do not consider the Bible to be an indirect communication. We do not understand its accuracy to be dependent upon the veracity of Moses, Paul, or John. It is in every sense the Word of God and people are therefore under obligation to believe it. The Bible itself makes this claim in various places, perhaps most clearly in Paul’s 2nd letter to Timothy. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16 ESV) He is claiming unequivocally that God is the author of the Bible. The claims are not the claims of the apostles and prophets; they are the very claims of God. The transmission of the Bible is therefore a miraculous process whereby God reveals through rather than merely to His chosen messengers.

The written Word of God is therefore similar to the incarnate Word of God in that it is both human and divine. The scriptures are the thoughts of God expressed through human language and literature. The Bible is not merely a witness to revelation, nor does it only become revelation in encounter, or depend on the responses of men for its validity or its standing as revelation. The inspiration of its writing is not in the sense that God dictated each word but rather that the Holy Spirit influenced the mind of the human author such that he selected out of his own experience and vocabulary exactly those words that conveyed God’s message precisely. These human words are therefore properly God’s words though communicated through the particular style and vocabulary of the various human authors.

The message is not mediated to us through the prophets or apostles in the sense that it is a message they received and then give to us. Rather, the message is mediated directly to us through the work of God the Holy Spirit as His word is read or preached. As a result, anyone who has read the Bible, heard a scripture reading, or heard a faithful exposition of the Bible from a teacher or preachers has heard the very voice of God and is therefore under obligation to submit to it. If, as Paine argues, revelation is limited to the first communication then based upon a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Bible any who have heard the message have received direct testimony from God. They will therefore be responsible for their acceptance or rejection of it. 

8 comments:

  1. My first thought, Paine's argument against the revelation of God is what happens when you have Reason apart from faith. Even if he had correctly understood the doctrine he might have found some other way to attack it. It is faith revealed in Scripture which brings this important teaching to the mind, the natural man by reason cannot accept the revelation of God. Thanks Pastor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is faith revealed in scripture anything other than unfounded emotion. It is a decision to WANT to believe something based on nothing but hearsay evidence.

      Delete
    2. How is faith revealed in scripture anything other than unfounded emotion?

      Simple, if the claims are true then it would not be unfounded.

      Delete
  2. Paine is correct. He admits that a god COULD be speaking to a Biblical prophet. But we have only that prophet's word for it that it is happening. He may be telling the truth, he may be deluded, or he may be lying. There is no Christian who believes that everyone who claims to be speaking for a god actually IS speaking for a god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate you reply August but the main point of my article is connected to the Christian definition of revelation as it relates the Scripture particularly. The traditional doctrine is not that God revealed something to a prophet who then tells others. Rather, it is that the enscripturation process itself is such that the Bible is the revelation of propositions from the mind of God to those who hear or read it. Paine's argument, therefore, does not directly address the doctrinal position as typically articulated.

      Delete
  3. I think you are presuming that the Bible is infallible, are you not? So that, by definition, no statement in it is open to debate? That the prophets were really just infallible secretaries? But isn't that circular reasoning? The Bible is the word of a god because it says so? Or because someone declared that it is?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for following up August.

    Yes, I am assuming the infallibility of the Bible. It does not, however, follow that this means no statement is open to debate. There must a coherence and consistency to the assertions in order for them to function as a body of truth. One may very well identify that an interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, logical contradiction would necessarily invalidate any claim of infallibility.

    I did not claim that the prophets were secretaries. It was, after all, the prophets themselves using their own vocabularies and experiences that produces the revelation in Scripture. The traditional view, however, is that this is cooperated with and inspired through the intervention of God in such a way as for those words to be communication from God as well as from the prophet.

    This is not any more circular than any other epidemiological system. Every system proceeds from the assumption of an unproven or un-provable axiom. Many, for example, assume the reliability of sense experience to determine their estimation of any particular truth assertion. They presume to know for sure that it is sunny outside because they see the sunshine. This logical chain, however, begs the question every bit as much as my assertion. This would be a problem if the claim was not falsifiable. The Bible, however, does present a criteria of falsification, that of logical contradiction.

    I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God simply because it says so. Several other writings make the same claim. Neither does its standing depend upon the declaration of any person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry, spell check changed epistemological to epidemiological.

      Delete