ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that it is a necessary condition of properly accepting the Bible to be the Word of God that one’s main reasons for doing so arise out of the Scriptures themselves.
This view is distinguished from externalism, the view that evidence that makes no reference to the Scriptures is logically necessary for the Bible’s being accepted as the Word of God, and from a certain type of fideism, the type that says that the rationality of believing that the Bible is the Word of God can be shown from the inadequacy of arguments aiming to show that it is irrational.
The view defended states that in order rationally to believe that the Bible is the Word of God one has to know, as the Spirit’s internal testimony enlightens one’s mind, that the claims of the Scriptures bear the weight of experience.
The chapter responds to a large number of objections. The first objection is that the view is irrationalistic; in response it is argued that the position defended conforms to a coherentist pattern of justification. The second objection is that the view is logically circular; it is responded that what is being argued is that the assertions of the Bible that form part of our evidence are not assertions that the Bible is the Word of God. The third objection asks how one knows that one has not been the victim of a gigantic mistake or systematic self-deception; in response, it is granted that these things are possible, but it is denied that we have reason to suppose that they are actually true. The fourth objection complains that no place has been left for the external evidence of the truth and trustworthiness of the Scriptures; in response, it is denied that just because something is part of the total evidence for some proposition it should be part of my evidence for it. The fifth objection is that the view is formally similar to the truth claims of other religions and ideologies; in response, it is conceded that there is no line of argument that will prove to all that Christianity is true. The sixth objection considered is that the view is saying that under certain circumstances the Bible becomes the Word of God; it is responded that the discussion has not been concerned with what makes something the revelation of God but, rather, with what evidence there is to conclude that it is the Word of God. The seventh and final objection is that the view put forward is different from that used by the apostles; it is admitted that there are differences, but it is argued that they are the differences we might expect, arising out of different epistemic positions.
In conclusion it is emphasized that, while an account has been given of how someone might be rational in taking the Scriptures to be the word of God, it has not been maintained that for someone properly to appreciate the Scriptures as the Word of God that person must endorse the account given.
