That doesn’t mean that we should not be prepared to answer for the reason for our faith, but the most powerful witness isn’t a discussion of historicity, innerrancy, etc., but what Jesus has done in your life, what He’s doing now, and what you will be.

There’s no way to argue against what Jesus has done in any given person’s life. There’s no skeptic that can say with any authority “no, Christ didn’t change you from the sinner that you were.” They can make the claim, but there’s no way they can prove it.

Apologetics aren’t wrong. Discussing deep things of the faith is fine. But when it comes to the Gospel and people getting saved, it’s faith in Christ.

As I said before– if you come to the Bible expecting to find problems, there’ll be things there for you to find, but there’s nothing there without a reasonable explanation.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin and emptiness in a person’s spirit. Many people if not most, are not at the intellectual level where apologetics would serve the purpose that itwould in some. Additionally, someone like Stephen Hawkings might need some apologetics yet after being convinced he still must place his faith in Christ the same way an 11 year old girl would do.

An intellectual ascent can be a problem as well.

The Gospel without defense? Just tell them the story and hope they believe it without asking you any tough questions? That may have worked in a time period where people thought people with epilepsy were demon possessed, but you’d have a hard time pulling that one off today.

The exceptions, of course, are people who grew up under religion. Switching from belief in one particular unseen deity to anther is relatively easy compared to being raised as an atheist or agnostic and suddenly accepting the existence of a deity on nothing more than the word of a passionate believer.

What should we do with that?

I’m not trying to be contentious … I’m just wondering.

Same old way I got saved – the gospel.

When the antibiotic worked in my blood and the virol bacteria was eradicated I knew a little about the medicine but was ignorant of its chemical composition.

But I’m sure you didn’t assume it was magic, did you? I believe the faith you had in an antibiotic is much different than the faith one places in an unseen deity.

I know much more than enough about the earthly particulars of the Scriptures and their desired performance in my life to be confident that any “loose ends” concerning their formulation are unremarkable and consistent with the integrity of their Author.

Indeed, but we’re not talking about you. We’re talking about others. How can we convince someone concerning Christianity without being able to defend, to their satisfaction, our beliefs?

But to the regenerated mind those questions either are resolved by faith or are relegated as non-essentials that will one day be revealed. When the antibiotic worked in my blood and the virol bacteria was eradicated I knew a little about the medicine but was ignorant of its chemical composition.

Therefore the success of its designed purpose in my life was paramount and subjectively satisfactory. I assumed, by faith, that the particulars about which I was ignorant were consistant with the essence of its performance. Its performance was as advertised and that rendered the scientific minutia about the methodology of its physiological interaction as congrous with its success, albeit beyond my ability to completely understand.

I know much more than enough about the earthly particulars of the Scriptures and their desired performance in my life to be confident that any “loose ends” concerning their formulation are unremarkable and consistent with the integrity of their Author.

Succinctly, God has spoken. Selah.

Once you’ve determined that they aren’t written by the Apostles but by some other group of people at some other time then the whole inspiration question falls apart

Ahh, interesting point. But is it not true that God could use whatever means He wanted to in order to deliver his words to us … apostolic or not?

So, in my mind, we’re kinda at the mercy of the first and second century believers when it comes to the NT

Indeed. But if that’s the case, then it’s pretty hard to defend the ideas of inerrancy and inspiration, no?

Like I said, I don’t see the circular reasoning because the Bible tends to internally verify other portions.

Well, if you remove the argument that the NT is inspired because it says it’s inspired, then there is no circular reasoning. Since you have distanced yourself from that argument (as most clear thinking people would) then you’re absolutely right … you’ve removed the circular argument. However, I’m afraid that you and I are in the minority, as most Christians would answer 2 Timothy 3:16 as their defense of NT inspiration, including the vast majority of Pastors.

BTW, I find your input very refreshing here on this blog. Your perspective adds another layer to the discussion that was missing before.

1. You cannot defend Scripture’s inerrancy or inspiration until you have established a justification for belief in God
2. You therefore cannot use Scripture as a means to establish a justification for belief in God.

Does that sound about right?

We then can have faith in His ability to communicate and faith in our finite understanding about the methodology.

But back on your topic. The question is hard one to answer because of its nature. When we say that something is inspired or “God-breathed” we don’t mean that God gave dictation, but that He actually guided the content of what an author wrote using the individual person. So, Amos could write like a farmer, Isaiah like a priest, David a poet, etc.

So, if you sat down and tried to figure out what books, out of possibly hundreds that lie around you, are the Word of God– what would you do?

This process is a human process, in that we have to develop some tests, and God has to bless in that He reveals it to us. And so, we have tests like “did the apostles/Jesus state something was in or out” but that doesn’t work for the New Testament, except that some of the Apostles address the other’s works. And even then, I’m sure there were more epistles than the ones we have.

So, in my mind, we’re kinda at the mercy of the first and second century believers when it comes to the NT– they would have either seen Jesus or had been a follower of someone who had– and therefore they could vouch for the content of a document and its consistency with the rest of Scripture.

Like I said, I don’t see the circular reasoning because the Bible tends to internally verify other portions.