Q&A - Can We Trust in the Bible?

And now we're going to ask the question,

can I trust in the Bible? Uh there are

people out there that would say, "Hey,

the Bible's got a lot of good stuff in

it, but can we really can we really

trust it as the authoritative word of

God?" And what their objections will

likely do is fall into one of three

categories. And so I would encourage

you, I know this is a bit heady for a

sermon uh series. And so I would

encourage you uh the reason I put your

notes in the bulletin is to help you

kind of follow along. So you do have an

outline for this one. It's in your

bulletin. And you may want to put some

notes down beside all the points, but

they're they're categories that their

objections are going to fall into are

one of three things. Science, culture,

and history. So, science, culture, and

history. And we got to ask ourselves,

are these objections enough to make us

uh dismiss the Bible? So, let's start

with science. Uh science has hey,

fall down. So, people would say science

has disproved the Bible. And they

usually cite one of two issues as their

reasoning behind that statement. Uh and

number one, it comes up all the time is

the problem of miracles. They say the

Bible is full of miracles. Therefore, I

can't trust the Bible because science

has disproved the existence of miracles.

Uh well, the Christians have a response

to this. Actually, we have a multiple

responses to this. And the first one is

science cannot disprove miracles because

it's just not built to do that. Uh

science the two pillars of science are

replication and natural causes. And so

when you look at replication, science

says that things have to be able to be

repeated in order to be um

scientifically proven. But miracles by

their very nature are not repeatable.

Um, so imagine a bunch of scientists,

they're studying lightning strikes and

they're measuring the distance and and

how long between the thunder and the

lightning. And they can even recreate a

lightning strike in a laboratory. But

imagine they're out in the field and a

lightning strikes it lightning strikes a

tree in front of them, specific tree at

a specific moment in a specific time.

And imagine one of the scientists is

like, "Unless lightning strikes that

tree again in that specific way, then

lightning never struck the tree." That

that that would not make any sense,

right? It would be an illogical

statement for them to make because some

events are real even if they're not

repeatable. All right? So, some events

are real even if they're not repeatable.

And then the scientists would say, well,

you know, the basis of our sciences is

natural causes. So, science assumes

there's a natural cause for everything.

And so when they're confronted with

something like a divine healing that

just doesn't make sense, the natural

response to that is, well, we just

haven't figured out the natural

conclusion or the natural reasoning

behind why that that thing occurred. So

science studies normal natural patterns

in nature, but miracles are rare

interruptions in those patterns.

Miracles are where the God of creation

steps in and does something

supernatural,

something out of order. And so science

is just not equipped to to measure

something like that. We would also say

as Christians that science cannot

disprove the existence of God. That was

what last week's entire sermon was

about. So if you haven't heard that, um

you need to go back and listen to that

one. But the bottom line is that it is

impossible to disprove the existence of

God. And actually the the most logical

conclusion based on the evidence that we

have before us is that God exists. Other

things require leaps of faith that are

far more absurd than anything that we

would uh state as a Christian. Um we

would also say rejecting miracles just

isn't science. So when someone says

science proves that miracles are

impossible, we have to say to that

person, well that's an assumption.

That's actually a statement of faith.

That's not a scientific statement.

That's an assumption. So imagine there's

this dude. He's out at the beach. He's

got his metal detector out and he's

going back and forth and he's looking

for, you know, coins and things like

that. So Larry McFersonson, for an

example, um out there at the Outer Banks

just looking for all that buried

treasure, doesn't find anything. And so

he just turns toward the beach and says,

"There's nothing valuable on this

beach." Well, guess what? He's wrong.

Because earlier that day, uh someone

dropped a base set Charizard Pokemon

card on the beach in the sand. And so

there was something valuable there, but

his metal detector just wasn't equipped

to find the thing that was valuable. So

he's making a broad statement, a broad

assumption about the value of the beach,

but it's really based on the tools that

were at his disposal. So science is

incredible. I love it. I'm a full sci-fi

is my favorite genre. I love science

because science it helps people get

healed. It it makes our world a better

place. it it reveals more and more about

God as we study science. So, I'm not

anti-science. I'm just saying using

science to rule out miracles is like

using a metal detector to try to find a

Pokemon card on a beach. It's just not

equivalent. So, we have that problem

with with science that people like to

bring up, especially with things like

miracles. And then other people would

bring up the problem between creation

and evolution. The problem between

creation and evolution. and they would

say, "Well, science disproves a literal

interpretation of Genesis chapter 1."

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

So, let's approach it this way. The the

Bible has lots of different genres of

writing in it. It has poetry. It has

songs. It has narrative. It has

prophecy. It has metaphor. There's all

these different types of of of ways that

God communicates with us. And so if we

come to the Psalms and we read a psalm

that says the mountains skip like rams,

we don't really think the mountains are

going to pop up and start skipping

around like rams, do we? No, we know

that that is intended to be poetry. And

so the real question is what is the

intent of the author? What what is the

author trying to communicate with us? So

my son, when he was a little guy, he put

peanut butter in my Xbox and I said,

"I'm gonna hurt that little dude."

Right? So, should we call the police at

that point? You know, it's it's what

what is the intent of the Am I really

going to hurt my son? Of course not.

That's me. It's it's hyperbole. I'm just

angry in the moment. That's my story.

I'm sticking to it. Um, but Genesis

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

chapter 1 is incredibly unique because

it uses poetry and narrative to to talk

to us about creation. But the main point

of Genesis chapter 1 is not how God

Genesis 1 · chapter mention

created. So, you can be a young earth

person and you can be an old earth

person. It doesn't really matter. Or you

can be both like me. So, you can believe

the earth is like 68 billion years old

or you can believe the earth is 6,000

years old. Or you can believe both

because I like to keep things simple.

So, here's how I see it. I see that Adam

was created grown, not as a baby, but as

a grown man. I see the animals were

created as not not little, you know,

little guys, but like grown animals,

right? They had age on them. So why

could God not have created the earth

with age on it as well? So that's not

really the point though because the

point of Genesis 1 is not to teach us

how God created not not the scientific

facts about the creation. It's to teach

us that God created that God created. So

to me when you look at at the uh burden

of proof it really lies in the court of

the scientific community because the

burden of proof is on them because the

most logical uh explanation for

everything around us lies in the the

Christian worldview. So there's a real

big problem with naturalistic evolution.

And so I'm not talking about

intraspecies evolution. That's the

evolution that's based on adaptations

where you see like variations in birds.

not talking about that. We're talking

about interspecies evolution where

people would say, "Well, humans evolved

from our ape ancestors." There's a big

problem with that. There's actually four

huge problems with that. The first of

which is the origin of life problem

because evolution can explain how life

changes, but it cannot explain how life

began. So, the first DNA, the first

living cell required enormous

complexity. Uh DNA for example, it

required DNA which is the information

system of a cell and it also required

proteins. They're they're like the

little machines that do what the DNA

tells them to do. So DNA gives

instructions and proteins carry out the

instructions. So here's the problem. DNA

cannot function without proteins, but

proteins don't know what to do without

the DNA. You see what I'm saying? It's

like the chicken and the egg kind of

conversation. Both systems had to exist

together at the exact same time for life

to begin. So, so therefore you have

these cells that can contain complex

information and coordinated machinery

that just could not come from random

mutations. So the question in science's

court is where did it come from? Where

did that first cell actually originate?

And then of course there's the problem

with the finetuning of the universe. We

talked about this briefly as well, but

before evolution could even begin to do

its work, life had to exist. And life

only exists under extremely precise

conditions like gravity and stuff. If

you change the dial just a little bit in

any of thousands of categories, then

life on this planet would cease to exist

exist. And so the question is, how were

those those settings so fine-tuned so

precisely for life to exist? And then

you have the origin of consciousness

problem. Like why are we so different

than all of the other things in

creation, the animals and the plants?

Well, naturalistic evolution cannot

explain things like self-awareness or

moral reasoning or abstract thought or

the human desire to understand more of

the universe and search for this higher

meaning. See, we're completely different

than everything else on earth. So, where

did this higher functioning come from?

Why are we so different? And then

there's this other problem that they

have to answer which is evolution may

explain how social systems developed but

it cannot explain why we feel moral

obligations. We call this the moral

obligation problem. Again I touched on

this last week but we don't just say

things like I dislike justice injustice.

We say injustice is wrong. We make

definitive statements about moral um

problems. And so, so why do we have this

universal sense of morality? See,

evolution can explain

like how life changes over time, but it

just can't explain how life began or

where information in our DNA came from

or why the universe is so fine-tuned for

life or even why we have uh

consciousness and moral responsibility

as humans. So, it's very reasonable. And

again, we're not trying to prove things

with 100% certainty. We're just saying

what's the most reasonable conclusion

based on the evidence that we've been

given. And the most reasonable

conclusion is that God created the

universe and that God created us and

that he placed his image in us. And that

explains all of those things. It

explains where life began and and the

purpose of life and why bad things

happen to good people. And everything is

just explained from a literal

interpretation of the Genesis 1 account

that God made. not how he made, but that

God made the existence of life. There's

also the the cultural objection, and

maybe you hear more of this on like

social media than the scientific stuff.

Um, I like to geek out over the science

stuff, but um, you know, there's there's

this whole other argument out there that

says like the Bible is morally outdated.

People get offended by all sorts of

things that are contained within the

Bible, uh, marriage and family and

sexuality and gender and tithing and

evangelism and all those things. They're

hot button issues for a lot of people.

So, I would just say that if that's you,

it's okay to be offended by things that

are in the Bible. But what I don't want

you to do is jump to the conclusion that

the Bible is untrustworthy simply

because you're offended because you may

be you may be misreading the text.

Because there are people out there that

will say the Bible supports polygamy.

Well, Robert Alter had a answer for

people that say that. He says, ' If you

read the book of Genesis and you see

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and you read

the stories of how they did have

multiple children by multiple women, you

see, get this, how absolutely miserable

they are with all the fighting and

jealousy and lying and anger and

deception. See, the Bible just tells you

what happened. It's not endorsing a

lifestyle like that. In fact, it's the

opposite of an endorsement. It's like,

look, if you do this, your life is going

to be miserable just like theirs was.

So, you may be offended by things that

that uh you're just misreading or

misunderstanding. You may be offended by

beliefs and not the Bible because

there's a difference. There are a lot of

opinions about the Bible that are based

on church traditions and not actually

things that are in the Bible. For

example, dancing, drinking, and

gambling. It's been a part of the

Baptist uh conversation for, you know,

hundreds of years now. And in fact, I

was looking through the Bible or the uh

the um what do you call them? The uh the

notes from the different business

meetings that happened here in this

church years and years ago and uh people

were actually excommunicated from the

church for for dancing for dancing or

playing cards, you know, like so this

was a hot button topic back then, but

it's not really something that's

represented in the scriptures. So

sometimes you're offended by things that

aren't actually in the Bible. Um, and

just the bottom line fact, the Bible

should offend you. It should offend you.

It should challenge you. It's the word

of God. He is perfect and we are not. If

this Bible did not challenge you in some

level, then I would say the Bible is

suspect because it would probably just

be another man-made written book that's

designed to elicit a certain feeling

from you. But the fact that it

challenges you and shapes you and molds

you, it feels like it's living and

active. This is what makes the Bible so

unique and also in my opinion so

trustworthy.

So the question to the church is, you

know, I know I'm preaching to the choir

for the most part, but um how do we

handle this when people are offended by

things in the Bible that maybe um should

be offensive to them? Well, number one,

we got to lead with compassion, not

condemnation. I I truly believe this and

I know there's some in this room that

would probably disagree with that, but I

believe that we need to lead with

compassion, not condemnation. So, when

people are struggling with some of the

more challenging commands in the Bible,

I think we need to remember the posture

of Jesus, specifically the posture of

Jesus in Luke chapter 10 when he told

Luke 10 · chapter mention

the parable of the good Samaritan. In

that story, you have a a wounded Jewish

man on the side of the road that's been

passed by by all these people. He's been

mugged and robbed and left for dead. And

there's this good Samaritan as Jesus

teaches that comes beside him and helps

him which is strange because the

Samaritans from the wrong group. He he's

the outsider. The Jews and Samaritans,

it was Hatfields and McCoys, man. They

just they they hated each other. And for

Jesus to make the Samaritan the good guy

in the story was very offensive to

people. But the point of the story was

to elicit this this idea of who your

neighbor is because that's the question

Jesus was asked. Who is my neighbor? Who

who should I love? And Jesus says,"Well,

you should love everybody because look

at this good Samaritan." He He doesn't

lecture the man because the man

disagrees with him. He doesn't

interrogate the man because the man

disagrees with him. He simply moves

toward this man with compassion and he

binds up his wounds and he he he lifts

him up and he cares for him at his own

expense. And so Jesus is showing us in

that moment that love for our neighbor

is not based on an agreement between the

two of you on everything. Uh so when

people are offended by parts of the

Bible, whether it's forgiveness or

sexuality or justice or or anything

else, the church should not begin with

hostility or condemnation, the church

should begin with compat, excuse me,

compassion. Because the church is not

called to win the arguments first. The

church is called to love their neighbors

first. And as you love your neighbor,

that gives you the ability and the right

to share the truth and love and to tell

people what they need to hear, even if

it is offensive to them. But we got to

start with compassion. Then of course

you have the the historical objection.

Uh people just say, "Well, the Bible's a

bunch of legends. Uh it's just a bunch

of stories. It's nothing nothing real.

It's just there to teach you moral

lessons." Well, historically speaking,

the Bible was treated very differently.

The books of the New Testament

specifically were treated in a certain

way. They were accepted as the word of

God because they met three criteria. The

first of which is apostolic authority.

The the books of the Bible were written

by people that were eyewitnesses to

Jesus or people that interviewed

eyewitnesses to Jesus. The these

scriptures were accepted into the early

church at a very very very early on like

in the first century church. They they

were circulated among the churches and

they were said to be the exact words of

God before they were ever even canonized

into the library of scripture like we

have it today in our Bible. And then

there's this thing called consistency.

You read the Bible from from cover to

cover and it's so consistent even though

it was written by multiple authors on

multiple continents and multiple

languages over thousands of years.

Everything in the Bible is consistent.

It never contradicts itself, which shows

that it's designed by a supernatural

author. And you might say, well, what

about the Old Testament? Okay, I get the

New Testament, the disciples, Jesus. All

right, got it. But Old Testament, I

mean, Jonah swallowed by a big big fish.

I mean, come on. That's that's got to be

just a story that couldn't have really

happened. How could the man survive

three days in the belly of a fish? Well,

when Jesus taught this scripture in

Matthew 12:40,

Matthew 12:40

he said, "For as Jonah was in the belly

of the huge fish for three days and

three nights, so the son of man will be

in the heart of the earth for three days

and three nights." Jesus taught this as

literal fact, not metaphor. Okay? So if

Jesus, the teacher of scripture, taught

the Bible in such a way, then we need to

receive it in the exact same way. So

here's the conclusion. Here's where all

that evidence leads us. The objections

against the Bible from science, from

culture, and from history are not

enough, not enough to dismiss the Bible

as truth, as something that we should

build our lives upon. So my parents love

puzzles. Uh, if you follow my mom on

Facebook, you know that like 60% of her

Facebook content is puzzle related. All

right? You don't have to scroll far to

see her and my dad working on a puzzle,

which makes birthday gifts pretty easy

for me. I just find a cool puzzle, I

send it to them, but it's been getting a

little more complicated lately because I

used to send them a 500 piece puzzle and

it would take them a couple months to

finish. Now they're done in an afternoon

on the 500 piece puzzle. Okay. So now I

got to look for these like thousand 2500

piece puzzles to keep them busy, you

know? Um, so I send them the puzzles and

they do the puzzles and I I absolutely

hate puzzles. Hate puzzles. I don't like

them. I don't understand them. I don't

know why anybody would want to do

puzzles. Like to me, it's just thousands

of pieces scattered all over the place.

And some of the pieces show sky, I

think. And some of the pieces show water

and some show palm trees, I guess. I

don't know. And then like I try to put

them in and it looks like it'll fit and

it doesn't fit. So I try to stamp it in

and that doesn't work. And then I just

get frustrated and I throw the piece

down. I'm done. I love Legos. Okay,

Legos are wonderful because they have

this step-by-step guide that comes with

the Legos that tells you exactly where

the pieces go and what it should look

like when you're done. All right, so

Legos good, puzzle's bad. However, I

know that that's not my problem. Uh,

it's not it's not a problem with the

puzzles to say. It is my problem because

I'm the type of person that needs

immediate gratification. I don't have

the time to be working on some thousand

piece puzzle just hoping that the puzzle

pieces come together and form a picture

one day. I don't have the patience for

it. But my parents do and they love it.

They take the time to craft the puzzle.

Slow and steady. They work and they work

and it begins to make sense and you can

see where the sky goes and you can see

where the trees go and you can see where

all the pieces connect.

They take the time and they get to see

the big picture. And and that's often

what happens when people approach the

the Bible. They take it one piece at a

time and they look at this one piece and

they say, "Well, well, miracles don't

make sense." And then they just throw

the whole thing away. Or they take a

piece and they say, "Well, Genesis

doesn't make sense." And they just throw

the whole thing away. Or they pick up a

piece and they're like, "Oh, this one

offends me." And they throw it down. and

they don't take the time to put the

pieces together to to to read the Bible

and to study the Bible and to learn from

the Bible and to to learn from good

teachers of the Bible. They don't do the

investigation. They just kind of give up

and they never get to see the the big

picture. But the people that take the

time to do the work to understand how it

all fits together, they get to see this

big picture. They get to see this

remarkable picture that's drawn for them

that is a story of creation. A a story

of failing and redemption, a story of

human brokenness that turns into hope.

And at the very center of that story, we

have this man named Jesus, a savior who

was sent by God as God in the flesh to

the world to rescue us. And when Jesus

enters the picture, all this other stuff

starts to make perfect sense. Which is

why the most important question we can

ask today is is not is the Bible

trustworthy, but rather who is Jesus?

That's what we should be asking. Who is

Jesus? Because if Jesus is not who he

claimed to be, then the Bible ultimately

doesn't matter. But if Jesus is the son

of God, then we better pay special

attention to the word of God because

Jesus quoted the scriptures. Jesus

trusted the scriptures. Jesus entire

life was built around the scriptures. So

if Jesus really is the son of God and if

Jesus really valued the Bible that much,

then this isn't just some ancient

collection of writings. This is God

revealing himself to us and it deserves

the utmost attention that we can give

it. And that's why I'm ending this

series next week with an apologetic

study answering the question, is Jesus

really the son of God? All right, so

let's close for today in prayer.