Apologetics Made Simple

Equipping the Next Generation of Believers

3. Q + A: The Axiom of Revelation and the Biblical Canon

by Leave a Comment

Corey asks:

How do you know we know which books are supposed to be in the biblical canon based on the axiom of revelation?

Jason Answers:

Thank you for your question, Corey. For those who are reading who may not be familiar with what you are asking about, they can check out this short article that I wrote on Hubpages. They can also obtain information at The Gordon Clark Foundation and the Trinity Foundation websites.

The 66 Books of the Bible are Self-Evidently the Word of God

What I am about to say is not to be taken as Gordon Clark’s position, for I am not sure if he would agree with me on what I am about to explain. The axiom of revelation is, ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’ In this axiom, the Bible is defined as the propositional revelation of the 66 books of what is often referred to as the Protestant Canon. 1 The 66 books of the Bible are identified by definition rather than than by deductive inference; thus, the 66 books of the Bible is a presupposition of the axiom of Revelation.

A presupposition is a belief that is true by definition (or you could say, self-evidently true) given the truth of an axiom. If the Bible is defined as the 66 books of the Protestant Canon in the axiom of revelation, then the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God. Thus, the 66 books of the Bible being the Word of God is considered a self-evident truth within the confines of the axiom of revelation, for denying the 66 books as the Word of God when the Bible is defined in the axiom as the 66 books of the Protestant Canon would lead to a self-contradictory axiom.

Choosing Axioms

People may then be concerned and ask, “Aren’t you just picking this axiom and your definition of the Bible?” I stand guilty as charged on both counts. Everyone has to start somewhere in their thinking; this starting point is called an axiom (or sometimes it is called a first principle). If we do not start somewhere, we cannot begin. If we cannot begin, then we cannot validly draw conclusions, for conclusions, by definition, have preceding premises. When we enter this world, we soon see that it is a puzzle to be solved. Some may choose to try to solve it and others may choose to live a life without regard for truth. Though axioms are chosen, clearly, some axioms are better than others. Axioms should be weighed by how well they solve the puzzle of this world. If we adopt an axiom, what questions can we satisfactorily answer? I start with the axiom of revelation for two reasons. First, it is because I believe the Bible is God’s Word. God has made me into a new creature, and thus, I am filled with Yeshua’s righteousness and his identity (Colossians 3, Galatians 2), and I cannot bear to think anything other than what God thinks. Second, starting with the Bible appears to me to be the best way to satisfactorily answer the questions of this world. Other things I have tried in my philosophical journey have failed to establish the law of contradiction and the conclusion that knowledge is possible.

Yeshua is Our Shepard and We Will Hear His Voice

Yeshua himself has said that we will know him when he speaks (John 10:14, 10:27). Yeshua, God in the flesh, has promised that we, as his sheep, will know him. Thus, we, as his sheep, can discern his revelation to us without fail, and if anyone comes to us with a different Gospel than what Yeshua has given us, we can test it for its veracity (John 4:1). Many people think that God cannot speak to us anymore, but God speaks just as clearly today as he has ever done before. It is not the method of communication that establishes clarity, rather, it is the Word given by God that establishes clarity. The Bible teaches that God’s words are sufficient for our understanding (2 Timothy 3:16-17), for if it were not, how could the Bible be profitable for correction?

Conclusion

Thus, using the axiom of revelation, we see His Word through the wisdom and power of the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) and the Messiah who lives in us. Because of this, it is easy for us to discern what constitutes as God’s Word and what doesn’t. And to say we cannot discern God’s Word amounts to a rejection of what God clearly tells us in His Word, and if we are so inclined to reject God’s own claims, we have no reason to believe anything he has said. Thus, in order to avoid skepticism, we must accept all of what God tells us and we should not fall into a state where we try to discern the spiritual in the natural, for the natural and unregenerate man cannot understand the things of God because these things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). Just the same, a believer, who is justified by faith, will be limited in his ability to discern spiritual matters because he is not allowing the Spirit of God to fill him and make him into a new creature that only seeks the things of God (Romans 6:1-23; Galatians 4:8-20). In the Bible, God has given us everything we need to know that pertains to life and Godliness. We also see that we can logically support our contention that the 66 books of the Protestant Canon is God’s Word if we start with the axiom of revelation.

 

Footnotes:

1. There is not a rule in logic that allows for us to validly infer a proposition from a non-propositional source. Defining the Bible in the axiom of revelation in this way gives us a way to avoid the charge that we have to start with our senses in order to know what the Bible says. This is one of several reasons why I define the Bible in this way.

My Book on Apologetics:

Notes:

    2. Q + A: Is Penal Substitutionary Atonement Biblical?

    by Leave a Comment

    David Writes,

    Dear Editor, 

    How exactly would you explain the doctrine of the atonement. I’ve been trying (for some time now) to comprehend it. This is after all the whole point of the Christian faith. I find the so-called “penal substitution theory” to be replete with problems. (For those unfamiliar with different theories of the atonement, the penal theory basically says God had to punish us for sin, but punished Jesus instead. This somehow let’s believers off the hook, and we’re good to go. The whole things gets even weirder when we realize Jesus is God.) However this view seems to be the most consistent with scripture. What would you suggest?

    Jason’s Answer:

    You are right to question penal substitution. It is a concept that is not consistent with scripture. 

    God’s standard of justice demands that any grievance against his Law must be atoned for.  This was the point of the sacrificial system in the Old Testament. It was a reminder to the Israelites that blood would have to be shed in order to appease God’s wrath on those who have transgressed his Law. We, as sinners, were never let “off the hook” because the blood of the Messiah, the blameless one, is on the hands of everyone who has transgressed God’s Law. 

    What you are struggling with is the result of a common occurrence in theological discourse. Oftentimes, people introduce extra-biblical concepts or terms that cause confusion. Yeshua was not punished for our sins, and he could not be punished because he did nothing wrong. Instead, he gave himself as an offering for our sins. This sin offering parallels what the Israelites did prior to the temple’s destruction.  

    When Abraham was found to be righteous (Genesis 15:6), it resulted in the establishment of a covenant that would result in the Nation of Israel. Just the same, Yeshua was found to be righteous (though, unlike Abraham, Yeshua was righteous by his following the Law whereas Abraham’s faith in the Messiah was the reason he was found righteous), and this resulted in the fulfillment of the promise made to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 and the promise that was reaffirmed to Abraham (Genesis 12:7, Galatians 3:16), and it resulted in the Gospel being spread not only to Israel, but to the Gentile nations. Through Yeshua, the believing Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree of Israel (See Romans 11). 

    As for Yeshua being God, you are correct. Yeshua is a manifestation of God in the flesh. Let’s be clear, however. I am not advocating that God transformed into Yeshua and came down to earth. While Yeshua was on earth, God was still on the throne in Heaven. God came to earth as Yeshua because that is how he decided to satisfy his Law. Since God is the lawgiver, he is the one who determines how the wrath that comes from that Law shall be appeased. We are not in a position where we can rightfully say God should have appeased his Law in a different way.

     

    My book on apologetics:

    1. Would a loving God Create People to Suffer?

    by Leave a Comment

     

    Truth Seeker writes,

    “You say that God creates people to suffer. Would a loving God, not even an all loving God, just a loving God do this. He creates the little girl in North Korea, who grows up in poverty and is homeless her entire life, then she will be tortured for eternity. This is not a loving God. He could show his Greatness without creating people to tortured for eternity.”

    Jason’s Response:

    Thanks for writing, Truth Seeker. I noticed that you failed to define the term, ‘loving.’ Fortunately, it is of no consequence because when we are asking about a position, we need to respect the definition of the terms that are used to describe that position. Because of this, I will use the Bible’s definition of ‘love’ when answering this question.

    Clearly, the Bible describes God as a loving God (John 3:16-18), but God is also a just God (Psalm 25:8) who takes no pleasure in the death of anyone (Ezekiel 18:32). It is important to note that there are various definitions of ‘love’ in the Bible. Since John 3:16 references God’s love for the world, we will use this verse as an example. The Greek word for ‘love’ in this verse is ‘ἀγαπάω.’ This particular word, which is used many times to describe God’s love, is a term where its usage makes clear that love is only directed at those who believe in God (Even so, believers may suffer despite God’s love for them (1 Peter 4:12-19). This shows that ‘love’ and a lack of suffering of a person on earth are not connected to each other in the Bible.  Because of this, your question is clearly wrong headed. You are assuming that a loving God would not allow pain and suffering, but the Bible clearly presents love in a different light than the way you are presenting it. It is likely that your definition of ‘love’ is different from the one the Bible uses, and is therefore, attacking a misrepresentation of Christianity rather than Christianity itself.

    Furthermore, when the Bible says that God is loving, it does not mean that God loves everyone. Romans 9:6-13 reads, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Keep in mind that the word Greek word for ‘love’ that is used in this passage is the same word that is used in John 3:16.

    In the Bible, God’s love is not something that is emotional. Love in relation to God is defined as choosing to have mercy on a person. Not every person gets chosen. It’s possible that the suffering North Korean girl in your example could get chosen and although she may suffer for a time, may go on to paradise. Or perhaps, she will suffer on earth and go to Hell. While that may sound hideous to some, as it will be shown later in this answer, we are in no position to challenge God on his decisions.

    Though God allows people (both believers and unbelievers) to suffer for a time on earth, God does not take pleasure in suffering, and, like evil, he endures it with patience so that his will, which will achieve the greater good for those who believe in Christ, will be carried out (Romans 9:22, Romans 8:28).

    Indeed, God has answered this charge himself in Exodus 33:19, “And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” As the Apostle Paul points out in Romans 9:19:21, “19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”

    If God is the one who gave us life in the first place, how can we be in a position to find fault in him for taking it away from us? There is no one who is higher in authority than God (Hebrews 6:13). For a creation that owes everything it has to God to complain to God about such a thing shows a remarkable level of vanity on the part of that creation. God cannot steal from us what is already his (Psalm 24:1).

    In conclusion, whether or not a person is loved by God has no bearing on how much suffering that person will bear in his time on earth, and we have no right to challenge God on how he achieves his will, for his ways are above our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).