It is with great pleasure that I now begin the discussion with Mr. Farrell Till, but also with deep regret that such a discussion is necessary with him, a former member of the church, a former preacher, and a former missionary. I have no ill will toward him, but rather have as my greatest desire that in this discussion something may be said that will urge him toward a renewal of the faith he once had. He is before us now as an apostate from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1) and as a denier of the Lord who bought him (2 Pet. 2:1). In Biblical terms, Mr. Till has become one of Satan's deceitful workers (2 Cor. 11:13-15) and is known by many in the church to be quite "evangelistic" in promoting his agnosticism. And, we wonder why? Given the atheistic or agnostic position, we wonder why it should bother these that some men have faith, or claim faith, or claim to live by faith in God? Should not the agnostic position be, "I really don't know, so live and let live"? I cannot hold that position, believing in God and in the Bible, but Mr. Till and Mrs. Madalyn O'Hair can, and we again wonder why they do not, since "it doesn't matter anyway"?

We do not envy Mr. Till's task in this debate. He states he is not an atheist, but an agnostic holding the view that in the God-atheistic controversy the evidence "tilts substantially in favor of atheism" (Till to Jackson, 8-5-89, p. 3). Mr. Till did not want to discuss the existence of God, stating that his being an agnostic means that "he doesn't know who is right in the controversy" (Till to Jackson, 8-15-89, p. 4). Those points from Mr. Till are critical, placing him in the position of stating, "I do not know if god exists, but if he does, he would not have said thus-and-so, or would not have said this-or-that the way he did!" And that is a ridiculous position for him to hold! Not having any assurance as to whether God exists or not, he is now able to tell us how God would not have said this, or how God should have said that? He might not understand why God said what he did, and he might not understand the how of it being put as it was, and such might occasion study on his part, but he does not thereby disprove the Bible being a product of Almighty God by admitting his own lack of understanding!

The Proposition Defined:

I will now state the proposition and define it: Resolved: Bible, in original manuscripts, was verbally inspired by Jehovah God, and is therefore inerrant." (1) By "the Bible" I mean the 66 books making up the Old and New Testaments in the volume commonly known as the Holy Bible. (2) By "original manuscripts" I mean those products from pens of writers of God, moved by God's Spirit in the production (2 Pet. 1:21). (3) By "verbally inspired" I mean that the message was sent out, breathed-out, from God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and that the Spirit chose the words used (1 Cor. 2:13). (4) By "Jehovah God" I mean the Deity set forth in the Bible, the one true and living God. (5) By "therefore inerrant" I mean that with the foregoing being true, and the Bible being a product from God, the message is then free from error.

Mr. Till and I, being aware of the need to present our flow of material, have agreed not to overdo the questions, so I will pose only one for him. His being an agnostic, and presumably seeing no more evidence against God's existence than for it (though he thinks it tilts toward His non-existence [sic]), I ask him: "If God does exist, and has a will for man, how do you think God reveals that will?" Please tell us that, Mr. Till.

Arguments Advanced:

I will now set forth some points of argument wherein my faith rests in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant will of God. I do not, and would not, state that any one point is the sum whereupon the Bible is proven to be that which I claim. Indeed, this is the reason several points are to be developed.

1. The existence of God, and his communication to man. Obviously, Mr. Till and I stand on different foundations. I can base statements of belief on the fact of God's existence, accepted by me, while Mr. Till cannot, since his position is only that God "might, or might not exist." I believe that God does exist, and agree with David in Psalm 19:1ff as to evidence in nature. Believing also that God does exist, it is expected that He would have a will or word for man, and would take steps to make man aware of that word. The Bible affects to be that communication from God to man. David, also in Psalm 19, moves from the nature evidence to the matter of God's revelation of himself and His will in His word (vv. 7-11). In that faith, I turn to the Bible believing, in both Old and New Testaments, that when God's writers say, "Thus saith the Lord," they are telling the truth. The best that Mr. Till can offer is that "God might, or might not exist, and thus these might, or might not be speaking for God."

2. The nature of God, and then his word. The God pictured in the Bible is a God above the lie (Titus 1:2), whose Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). He is God, and not man (Hosea 11:9), and His words are truth (John 17:17), and that truth characterizes each point and His words in the altogether (Psalm 19:9) and from the beginning (Psalm 119:160). The God thus revealed is perfect, and we would expect, then, His Word to be a participant in His perfection, so that man would know he is obeying the God of truth, and following the words of truth. God, who cannot lie, cannot lie in a verbal declaration nor in a written one. The very nature of God demands that His Word be an inerrant communication.

3. The document known as the Bible, and its antiquity. It is clear that the Old Testament books were intertwined with the people of Judaism, and any such products made use of the ancient clay tablets, leather and papyrus, (Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament, pp. 120-122). These, from the most ancient, have a history going back 14 to 15 centuries, B.C. Abundant testimony within the Bible itself, and external to it, indicates that the books of the Old Testament are not of recent origin. Judaism possessed the documents, and formulated the canon, from antiquity.

   The books of the New Testament have even greater verification, being nearer to our day. More than 4,000 manuscripts and portions exist (Robertson, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 102), with the most complete, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus on display before men. The New Testament books, and their antiquity, find verification not only in believers who cite them, but also in the Greek and Roman writers not sympathetic to the Christian cause, but who refer to the books in their own writings. These points are mentioned in order that we can know that the Old Testament books go back to Old Testament times, and that the New Testament books indeed go back to the first century.

4. The Bible, and its consistency of theme.From the record of creation, and the fall of man in Genesis 3, there is a pointing to a Savior and the realizing of a plan of salvation for man, and it is steadfast throughout the Old Testament and until we find its fulfillment in the New. That involves nations and men, over a long period of time, across lines of culture, custom, and language, and yet that redemptive theme is maintained. We would expect the perfect God to accomplish this, but most certainly man could not devise a plan and accomplish it through centuries!

5. The Bible, and its fulfillment of prophecy. Again, because of the centuries involved, fulfillment of prophecy in so many instances removes this matter from the realm of guesswork and human invention. Details on the Christ and his physical hurt, from Genesis 3:15; the promise of seed of Abraham and its fulfillment, physically in Isaac and spiritually in Christ (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:5; and Gal. 3:29); multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all. It would be impossible to stand and manipulate men across centuries of time!

6. The Bible, and its scientific foreknowledge.There is, from antiquity, the revelation of seed of woman (Gen. 3:15), when modern science didn't know it until fairly recent times; there is the rotundity of the earth (Isa. 40:22), spoken of long before men were able to prove it so; there is the earth, unsupported in space (Job 26:7), declared to be so when most men believed otherwise and long, long before any orbiting man showed it to be so. These are but a touching of the hem of the garment as to those things found in the Bible, and concerning which science has only in recent times been able to verify. This adds to the evidence of the Bible being of God, and inspired. Added to this is the fact that in 140 years of constant research in the lands of the Bible, archaeologists have yet to find a single fact in contradiction to what the Bible has said. There has been constant verification!

Biblical Inerrancy:

The points just made cause one to believe that the Bible is just what it claims to be: inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and true to God's work and nature, inerrant. The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), will survive heaven and earth's passing (Matt. 24:35), and will meet man in eternity (John 12:48). Against this, we have found that unbelievers' attacks on the Bible center on their not allowing the Bible to speak from antiquity and in the culture of its peoples; on their faulting the Bible for not using 20th-century expression; on their desire to place God "in the dock," with man as His judge in moral matters; and on their refusal to even consider that two seemingly divergent points can harmonize. We wonder, will Mr. Till do the same? We await such passages as he will use and ask that he make arguments regarding them, not just give a listing of them. We answer when he argues. Since he will not argue that God does not exist, he must show that, in any given instance, God would not or could not have said or done as the Bible records!

Go to Till's First Rebuttal.

 

---