Commentary Answer

In response to my question here. You can find the sermon transcript and the audio here. The quote I will be examining is below. It is his thesis statement of his sermon, so it's not like I am ripping him out of context. His entire sermon is centered around this quote:

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin.” - Voddie Baucham

When I first encountered this quote, my spider senses went off. I like Voddie. I remember hearing his series on Marriage and it wasn't half bad. I don't listen to him regularly, but he's playing for the right team. When reading over his sermon, I found myself agreeing with a lot of things in it. It is fantastic that we have eyewitnesses upon eyewitnesses, and supernatural prophecy adding to the internal consistency of the Bible. I think it definitely encourages Christians to hear that sort of stuff.

Let me say that a couple years ago, I would have agreed with this quote. It sounds really good, but hopefully my closer examination will point out some of its flaws. I have two issues which are large enough for me to say that I would disagree with this quote now. The first is the authority of Scripture. The second is the conversion of man. The two issues are intertwined, so I'll try my best to keep them separate.

When we talk about the authority of Scripture, we are talking about where we get our understanding of God from. Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone) was one of the reforming calls in the 16th century as the Protestants pulled out of the Roman Catholic church. So when we come to the doctrine of the Scripture and its authority. It's important. We have to be zealous in our defense of Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16 says that "All Scripture is God-breathed" that is that it comes from the very mouth of God. 2 Pet 1:20,21 says that "It was written by men moved by the Holy Spirit". These are the two main verses when talking about the doctrine of Scripture. It says the same thing...the Bible is from God. That is its authority.

What Voddie has stated here is that he "chooses to believe the Bible because it is a collection of historically reliable documents". This has moved the authority from the Bible itself to historical accuracy. This is called an evidential approach to Christianity, popularized by people like Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig. Again, for Christians it is great to hear that the Bible is historically accurate and relevant. But, in terms of our evangelism... it does a great disservice. We don't become Christians by thinking... "hey Christianity is historically accurate, so it's gotta be the way." Let me explain.

Eph 2:8,9 says that faith is a gift from God. Our very response to the gospel call is not even supplied by ourselves. It is from God! 1 cor 2:10-12 talks about the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man without the Holy Spirit cannot discern the things of God. We need the help of the Holy Spirit. So to say that we "choose to believe in the Bible" is inaccurate. For believers must be born again before they will believe in God (John 3). By that time, although they may not agree with or be obedient to everything that the Bible says, they'll know that it is true.

So what does this mean? As Christians, we presuppose the Bible is true. We don't need to prove anything. We have faith in the Bible's truthfulness, because God has said it is truthful. At this point, you may argue. Hey! Isn't this a circular argument?

The Bible is true, because God says so. God says that He is true and the Bible is true within the Bible.

Yeah, it does sound kind of circular, doesn't it? But, all statements of authority are like that.

"Reason is my ultimate authority, because it seems reasonable for me to say so."
"Logic is my ultimate authority, because it seems like a logical approach."
"I know of no ultimate authority, because nothing seems to fit as an ultimate authority."

If it is the ultimate authority...how can it appeal to something else to prove that it is so? That would just make the other thing the ultimate authority. Side note: So a useful thing to do with non-Christians (especially with evangelism) is to challenge their presuppositions. We know that the Bible is true, and it has an explanation for logic, emotion, human frailty, good, evil, etc. which fits the reality of the world. Can they explain such things without stealing things from our worldview? (ie. Can you prove that rape is wrong without going to the Bible?)

The fact that the Bible is historically accurate is a bonus for the Christian believer. It adds more weight and volume to his belief, but the belief in the Bible has already been grounded on the presupposition that it is true. Even if someone knew nothing about the historical background of the Bible, he could grow solely off the Scriptures. You cannot say the same thing about using historical information.

You can't use an evidential approach, because it doesn't go in line with what Scripture says about conversion. With the evidential approach, there is the presupposition that if a man is presented with enough information, he'll choose Jesus. This is wrong. All of us are sinful and unable to do good without God's help (Rom 8:6-8). God regenerates us and then we believe. (John 3; Ez 36:26,27)

Now, I am not suggesting that evidence supporting the Bible's reliability is unimportant. Nor am I saying that this information doesn't have its place in evangelism. Rather, that this type of stuff is supplementary. It is only helpful for Christians, because non-Christians haven't received the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Non-Christians need to hear the gospel message, for that is what will save them (Rom 10:17).

Helpful resources:
Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology"
Joe Boot's "Why I Still Believe"