Scripture's Claims About Itself

Recently I started listening to Handout Apologetics, a short series by the late Dr. John Gerstner about, well, apologetics. In this series, much like he did throughout his life, Gerstner advocates for the classical method of apologetics, which involves attempting to prove God's existence as opposed to merely positing it. This involves proving the reliability and inspiration of Scripture, arguing for how there cannot possibly not be a God, proving that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. In Gerstner's own words, "You don't have an excuse not to believe" (which is quite Pauline; see Rom. 1:20).

If you've been keeping up with the blog this month, you probably realize that I agree with Dr. Gerstner. I need to finish his teaching series before I can really argue for myself, but based on the fact that God is the God of truth, and all truth is God's truth, I see no reason why any truth wouldn't point to God.

However, there is one argument that Gerstner makes that I'm personally unsure of. I don't remember the exact quotations, but he argues that, just because the Bible says it is the Word of God, it does not prove that it is. He argues for this by pointing out that other holy books make the same claim. He says that the only thing the Bible's claim proves is the fact that it claims to be the Word of God.

Now, from a purely logical standpoint, I agree completely. Something making a claim for itself doesn't actually prove anything; it just claims it. I could say I'm a dog; that doesn't make it true.

I guess my question is this: if the Bible really is the genuine Word of God, shouldn't that claim be good enough? The Bible says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17 ESV). It also says that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). God said to Isaiah: "My word...shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (ch. 55:11). All these verses add up to this fact: God's Word will always accomplish exactly what he plans for it to accomplish in the hearts of everyone who hears it, whether it means it saves them or hardens them. So it seems to me that, at least for the purposes of evangelism, pointing to the claims of the Bible should be good enough, or at least where we start.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue for the validity and inspiration of Scripture; I've benefited greatly from the testimonies of those who have studied the historical and scientific evidence and thought about it from a logical, philosophical standpoint. But I see no reason why, if the Bible is the true Word of God, its claims to be so should not be enough on their own. I think that, to the one who sees no reason why this should be valid proof, we can present evidence and argue for it. But I would think that, at least to some of God's elect who haven't yet been saved, this would be enough. They would hear their shepherd's voice and follow him (John 10:27). God's call will always accomplish exactly what it sets out to do, historical evidence or otherwise.