Dan Barker’s Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (FANG)

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

Barker has put forward an argument against the existence of God that he calls the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (which he identifies with the acronym FANG).  I’ve heard other people use this argument but they always give credit to Barker.  I’ve also seen Christian apologists respond to the argument who claim to be responding to “Barker’s” argument.  I've heard similar types of arguments but I’m going to say this particular argument is originally his.

Instead of just saying what his argument is, I’ll cite his own words (source):

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Barker’s argument reminds me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?”  The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and could be described as an Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

His argument is a tangle of logical fallacies that I’m going to have to sort out.  There’s a straw man, mixed with equivocation, tied up with a non sequitur.  I’ll break them all down here.

Let’s start with the straw man.  Barker said, “The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.”  First, if we had to define God, I doubt any Christian would start with, “a personal being who knows everything.”  Certainly, God is omniscient but that is an attribute of God - not necessarily a defining characteristic.  Also, the term “personal being” is somewhat vague.  I mean humans are personal beings, too, but obviously God is not like a human being.  Furthermore, there is much debate about whether or not humans have free will but I’ll talk about that more in a minute.  

You can already see how Barker is setting up his straw man.  He’s telling us how Christians define God and what we think about free will.  Tsk, tsk.  Since when does an atheist get to say what Christians think of God?  This is also where Barker also starts to equivocate, by changing the definition of God.

Barker continues equivocating by changing the definition of “free will.”  The Cambridge Dictionary defines free will as: the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence.  That certainly applies to God.  He is free to act any way He decides and no one or no thing can affect what He purposes.  But according to Barker, “In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.”  Since when does free will hinge upon not knowing the outcome?  If I jump off a bridge, I’m pretty sure what the outcome would be.  I would still have the choice to jump or not.

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will; Indeed, many have asked that question for centuries. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breathe, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. 

Sometimes life seems like a game of chess that we’re playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

This applies to the theological realm as well.  If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded and I can do nothing by my own will.  This debate has raged between Calvinists and Arminians and is outside the scope of this post. Regardless, Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  This is where Barker’s argument becomes totally non sequitur.  

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome.  Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist.  What?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exist?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

Consider this passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 46:9-11, Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: God brings to pass those things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic.  He has and has always had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exist. //RKBentley shakes his head//  

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.. (Psalm 22:16-18)

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

Once a thing that God has proclaimed comes to pass, it reveals the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.  Knowing the future isn’t an argument that God cannot exist!  Good grief!!  If anything, it proves He exists!

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did!

Why theistic evolution is “sleeping with the enemy.”

Ray Comfort posted a video on his YouTube channel, Living Waters, about 12 years ago titled, Evolution vs. God: Watch Darwin Get Destroyed.  As I write this, the video has garnered more than 4 million views.  It’s about 38 minutes long which is longer than a lot of people like to watch but I recommend it to anyone who wants to invest the time.  For the sake of this post, though, I will just sum up what the video is about and everyone can watch it later at his leisure.

Comfort is on a college campus interviewing older and younger people (presumably professors and students) about their views on atheism, theism, and evolution.  Comfort challenges them on what they believe, what evidence have they considered, and asks them to consider arguments for God.  

After listening to Ray, several of the younger people softened their views about atheism and considered his points about God.  The older people, though, were thoroughly entrenched in their godless dogma and closed-minded to any of his arguments.  All things considered, I applaud Comfort’s efforts in the video and pray that the students later went on to accept Christ.

Progressive “Christian,” Tyler Franke, hosted a website called, God of Evolution where he attempted to use Scripture to support typical leftist causes like homosexuality.  Many of his posts discussed evolution.  In a since deleted article titled, “THE TOP 10 SIGNS THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AT ALL”, (the original title was in all caps, sorry), he tried to explain why creationists were wrong about evolution and how they were misreading the Bible.  Here is what he had to say about Ray Comfort’s video:

Another one that you may have heard from our friend, Banana Ray. In his film “EvG” (which is subtitled, “Shaking the Foundations of Faith”), he underscores this supposed parallel by asking his victims — oh, I mean, “interview subjects” — ridiculous questions like “Are you a strong believer in evolution?” and “When did you first start believing in evolution?” His point, as he goes on to explain, is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing.

Franke seems to be making a straw man of Comfort in the video.  To me, it sounds like Franke is accusing Comfort of saying something to the students like, “See, you have blind faith in evolution - so just have blind faith in God instead.”  That’s not what Comfort is doing but you’ll have to watch the video for yourself because that’s not really the point I mean to discuss.  It’s what Franke said next that really had me alarmed.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a big supporter of critical thought — and of an engaged populace that rationally considers the information it receives before accepting it. But there are far worse people one could open one’s mind to than those who are sharing their expertise within the fields they have risen to the top of — especially when their conclusions are based on mountains of hard evidence that are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose to ignore it.

Do I need to remind Franke that everyone in the video who professed to believe in evolution also claimed to be an atheist?  Isn’t it weird that Franke seems to defend the evolutionists, claiming they are the experts whose conclusions are based on mountains of evidence?  At the same time, he holds contempt for Ray Comfort, calling him, “Banana Ray.”  Franke goes so far as to portray Comfort as a predator and even describes the people to whom he witnesses as “victims.”  

The first person who appears in the video is P.Z. Myers; Is he the kind of person Franke believes these students should open their minds to?  Myers is an outspoken, militant atheist. And when I say outspoke, I mean he goes out of his way to attack Christianity.  Consider this quote:

FAITH. No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It’s the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism: it’s one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong.

Myers zealously preaches atheism and attacks Christianity – young earth creationists in particular. You see, the young people in the video have been sold a bill of goods. They have been taught that atheism is the default position of intellectuals. The students were quick to admit their atheism. Some seemed very smug, even proud of it. So I'm going to have to disagree with Franke’s comment above and say, no, there is nothing worse than rejecting the truth of Jesus. Romans 1 talks about people who reject the truth of God and willingly believe a lie. Romans 1:22 says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

I remember myself at their age. I thought I knew everything. These students were so smug and boldly touted their atheism as though they were enlightened. When challenged by Ray Comfort on what they believed, they began to soften their position and rethink what they had been taught. If any of them came to Christ as a result, Francke should be glad! Instead, he ridicules Comfort and defends rabid theophobes. This is why I cannot tolerate the false gospel of theistic evolution. I see far too many evolutionists who claim to be Christians, condemning brothers in Christ while praising unbelievers like Myers. Incredible!

Matthew 7:15-16, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Numbers 31: But all the women children keep alive for yourselves

Critics of the Bible sometimes try to attack the Bible by claiming it condones things that are morally objectionable.  I’ve always thought it was a strange tactic because atheism lacks the foundation to make any moral claim at all.  To say something is wrong means it ought not to be that way.  Christians believe God created the universe the way it ought to be and any time we disobey God’s will, it’s wrong.  However, without any god, who is to say how things ought to be?  Certainly, the universe doesn’t care what happens.  Apart from any transcendent Law Giver, the atheist can only say what he thinks people ought to do.  Without God, what is right or wrong changes on the subjective whim of opinion.  For an atheist to claim anything is wrong makes about as much sense as me saying people who like orange Starbursts are evil!  After all, my opinion would be just as valid as anyone else’s.

Alex O’Connor (also known as the Cosmic Skeptic) is one such atheist who claims the Bible condones things that are objectively wrong.  In a debate he had with Christian biologist, Jonathan McLatchie, (found on YouTube here) O’Connor made the following argument:

What about Numbers 31?...  I’ll just quote it.  Moses instructs the following to… they’re attacking the Midianites - essentially committing a genocide against the Medianites - and Moses instructs his combatants.  “Now kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” [Numbers 31:17-18 NIV]. Now, I’m not entirely sure what a bunch of aggressive males would want with a bunch of virgin girls.  I’ll leave that up to the imagination of the audience.  But to me this seems not just slavery in terms of, like, a voluntary service contract.  This seems like a grotesque form of sexual slavery being advocated here.  Even in the course of war, I don’t think that’s acceptable.

McLatchie struggled to try to answer and after some hemming and hawing, finally admitted, “I confess I do struggle with this text so I don’t… uh… I don’t know the answer to that question.”  

I’m sure it’s sometimes difficult, in the pressure of a debate and being faced with a question you’d never really considered, to articulate a response.  I don’t fault McLatchie for not being able to answer.  However, the Bible says we should always be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15); that’s not just answers to the easy questions but to the difficult ones as well.  So, with the benefit of having time to think, time to review the passages, and time to write and edit a response, I’m going to attempt to answer O’Connor here.  

I admit that, according to modern societal norms, events like the ones described in Numbers are very foreign to our Western ideals.  I don’t want to pretend I understand completely what was in the minds of the people who lived during those times.  I can say that God is good, He is just, and He is perfect in every way.  He has given us the Bible for our benefit so I can only trust that a correct understanding of the passages can be found within the pages of Scripture itself.  That is what I’m going to try to do here.  I pray that God will guide my thoughts.  Amen.

First we need to consider the history of Israel’s interactions with the Midianites.  In Numbers 25, we see that, when the fledgling nation of Israel was dwelling in the land of Shittim, the people of Israel were being seduced by the women of Moab.  They were sacrificing to other gods, eating the meat offered to these false gods, and bowing down to their idols.  The Lord became angry with the children of Israel and sent a plague among the people.  

Moses commanded the judges to kill all of the Israelites who worshipped Baalpeor.  The people began to repent and verse 6 describes how people were weeping before the door of the Tabernacle.  But even in their repentance, one of the children of Israel unashamedly brought a Midianite woman, the daughter of a Midian chief, past the front of the Temple in the view of Moses and all the people.  At that point, Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron the priest, followed the man and woman to his tent where he ran them both through with a spear.  Because of Phinehas’ actions, God’s wrath was turned away from the people and He relented from the plague He had sent on them.

The Bible says the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).  I’ve written about this before (here).  All have sinned and so all die (Romans 5:12).  Some die old and some die young.  Some die violently and some die peacefully.  God alone is the Author of life and it is His right to decide when we must die.  Because of their idolatry, 24,000 Israelites had died from the plague.  But God’s wrath was not against Israel alone.  He also would judge the nation of Midia:

Numbers 25:16-18, And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them: For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.

Having now read the back story, let us look to Numbers 31 and the verses in question.  After the battle, when Midia had been defeated, the Jewish army returned with their spoils of war - including the women and children that had been captured.  Moses was angry and went out to confront the captains of the host:

Numbers 31:15-18, And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So we can see that God’s judgment on Midia wasn’t arbitrary.  The Midianites received the just recompense for their role in leading the people of Israel away from God into the worship of idols.  The men and boys who warred against Israel were killed.  The women who seduced the men of Israel were killed.  However, the young women - those who had not been with any man - were spared!  It was an act of mercy God had shown to the innocent girls who had not participated in the wicked acts of the older women.

O’Connor’s implication that God was allowing these young women to be kept as some type of “səx sl@ves” is unfounded.  I’ve talked before (here) about the use of the term “slavery” in the Bible and how being a slave in those times was essentially a type of job in most instances.  When the Bible talks about “slaves,” it is primarily talking about 2 groups of people: prisoners of war and the chronically poor. It is the first group that we are discussing here.  

War was a grim reality at the time of the Old Testament and conquered kingdoms meant defeated populations that needed to be dealt with. If you defeat an enemy, you can't simply pack up and go home or else you'll be fighting the same enemy again sometime later. Therefore, the Law gave instructions in dealing with enemy prisoners.  These were allowances God made for a fallen world and did not necessarily represent God’s perfect will - similar to how Jesus described the Laws surrounding divorce in Matthew 19:8.

Slavery in the Bible is nothing like the slavery we think of in the Antebellum South.  In the Bible, God commanded His people to treat their slaves/servants fairly and justly.  No where in the Bible are female servants allowed to be “səx sl@ves.”  Exodus 7 talks about how women maidservants must be treated as a wife if married to the master or treated like a daughter if married to the master’s son.

In spite of O’Connor’s innuendo, the young Midianite girls were not going to be abused.  They were going to be taken care of, treated fairly, and would probably go on to live productive lives.  I suspect that many of them would even come to love the Jewish families they served, to marry Jewish men, to learn about the God of Abraham, and to become believers themselves. What O'Connor attempts to portray as "unacceptable" and immoral, is actually a picture of God's wrath, judgment, and mercy.

The Bible is true because it says it’s true!! Right?

A poster in an atheist, Fakebook group recently made the following statement:

Ever heard this? “The Bible is true because it’s the Word of God… and we know it’s the Word of God because the Bible says so.”

That’s Circular Reasoning — a logical loop that never leaves the starting point.

Example:

> “All Scripture is God-breathed…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

This verse is often used to “prove” the Bible’s divine origin… by quoting the Bible itself. It’s like a used car salesman saying, “Trust me, this car is perfect — just look, it’s written right here on the bumper sticker.”

Real evidence doesn’t need to refer back to itself to be convincing — it can be tested, examined, and confirmed from outside sources. If your proof is just “because I said so,” it’s not proof — it’s just repetition.

In other words, this atheist is trying to say, “Christians claim the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true!”  This is a criticism I’ve seen leveled toward Christians many times.  It’s more of a straw man than a legit criticism, though, because I don’t know any Christian who really says this.  The reality is the exact opposite.  The Bible says it’s true because it IS true!

Let me explain; my name is Bentley.  Really.  That’s my name.  If someone asked me my name, I wouldn’t say my name isn’t Bentley.  I wouldn’t say my name is John Smith.  I wouldn’t say Bentley could be my name.  I would say my name is Bentley!  I’m affirming something that is true.  If I’m being honest, and Bentley is really my name, then you would expect me to confirm that it is.  In that same way, the Bible confirms itself to be true because it is true.  Get it?

Now, if I tried to claim the Bible was true but the Bible itself said that truth cannot be known, then we would have a problem.  If truth cannot be known then anything the Bible says can be suspect.  How would I even know if the statement, “truth cannot be known,” is a true statement?  The existence of absolute truth seems to be an ontological necessity.  To even say, “Nothing can be known absolutely,” is itself an absolute statement.  To claim that truth is relative or that it’s subjective or that truth cannot be known are all self-defeating statements. Here's some irony for you: All arguments against absolute truth only serve to make obvious the reality of absolute truth!

The Bible is true and it confirms itself to be true.  It’s not circular reasoning.  I’m not claiming the Bible is true because it says it’s true.  No one is claiming that.  I’ve tried explaining this to atheists before but they can’t put aside their own, flawed, talking points long enough to understand it.  Please, let’s put that straw man to bed and get on to the real question: How do we know the Bible is true?  If anyone sincerely seeks to know what is true, that is the question he needs to be asking. 

Answering the question, How do we know the Bible is true, is far more challenging than picking apart the straw man argument built by atheists.  I could talk about the number of extant manuscripts and the science of textual criticism; I could talk about the historical certainty of Jesus, His miracles, and His resurrection; I could talk about all the archeological finds that confirm events discussed in the Bible; I could talk about the superior wisdom of the Bible in describing the human experience; or I could talk about my life experience in seeing of the moral correctness taught in the Bible.  All of these things might seem persuasive but we need to be careful about how we conclude the Bible is true.  After all, is the Bible true because some other thing says it’s true?  If that were the case, we may be putting the authority of the other things above the authority of the Bible! The skeptic above revealed that he believed the ultimate authority resides in these other things when he said, "Real evidence doesn’t need to refer back to itself to be convincing — it can be tested, examined, and confirmed from outside sources. "

If the Bible is true, then it is true regardless of anyone else’s opinion.  How can I say, I’ve studied the Bible and found that it's true?  Who am I to give my opinion on the revelation of the Omniscient One?  Let me be clear: I am not the judge of the Bible - the Bible is the judge of me.  I will not say the Bible is true because I judge it to be true!  I am not that proud!

So how do I answer the question?  I’ve struggled to come up with a good illustration so let me tell you how I see it.  This might seem a little far fetched but hear me out.  Don’t laugh until I'm finished.

Does anyone remember the scene from The Karate Kid where Miyagi agrees to teach Daniel karate?  You can watch the scene on YouTube (here) but I’ve transcribed the relevant part:

Miyagi: “First make sacred pact.  I promise teach karate - that my part.  You promise learn.  I say, you do.  No questions.  That your part. Deal?”

Daniel: “Deal.”

As Daniel holds his hand out to shake on the agreement, Miyagi puts a sponge in his hand and tells him to wash and wax the cars.  When Daniel starts to protest, Miyagi cuts him off and reminds him of the agreement.  If Miyagi says it, then Daniel should do it without question. 

If you haven’t seen the movie, you’ve missed a treasure that helped shape the teen experience in the 80s.  That's too bad. Anyway, there was a reason Miyagi had him wax the cars (“Wax on.  Wax off.”).  And it wasn’t just waxing the cars, it was also sanding the floor, painting the fence, and painting the house.  It wasn’t until after Daniel had done all these things that Miyagi’s karate training became apparent.  

But let's back up a little, why did Daniel agree to enter into this “sacred pact” with Miyagi.  Daniel had moved to a new city where he was being bullied by a group of teens from Cobra Kai, the local karate school.  Miyagi was the maintenance man from Daniel’s apartment complex.  One night, as the rowdy teens were violently beating Daniel, Miyagi rescued him and defeated the entire gang single-handedly.  It was after this, that Miyagi agreed to teach Daniel karate and made the sacred pact.  Daniel agreed to do whatever Miyagi said - not because he was the greater authority than Miyagi but because he realized Miyagi was a greater authority than him!

So, now, let’s land this plane.  I don’t know more than the Bible.  Rather, God has given me the ability to reason (Isaiah 1:18) and I have come to realize that the Bible has more wisdom than I have.  It is this realization that has led me to lay down my own authority and submit to the authority of the Scripture.  I didn’t judge the Bible as true by my own arrogance, haughtiness, or pride.  Instead, I yield myself to its commands out of obedience, humility, and meekness.

Consider these words of Jesus:

John 14:21, He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

So you see, when we trust Jesus, He makes Himself known to us.  Jesus said, “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).  When I asked Jesus to be my Savior, I also made Him my Lord.  I don’t always understand His commands.  I don’t always know His plan.  I certainly don’t always obey Him like I should.  Yet the more I try to be obedient, the more I come to see the truth of His promises.  That is how I know the Bible is true.

Once we yield ourselves to God’s word, then the truth of them becomes more obvious.  Just as I was saying above, the truth affirms the truth.  Of course textual criticism affirms the integrity of the Bible, of course archaeology reveals the veracity of the Bible, and of course everything the Bible proscribes is morally correct.  The Bible is true and every light by which we might examine it will show that it is true.