THE LOGIC OF FAITH

Volume I The Scales of Reason

Domenic Marbaniang

The Logic of Faith: The Scales of Reason

Domenic Marbaniang, 2013

ISBN: 978-1-304-03532-5

Cover painting: St. Paul Preaching in Athens by Raphael (1515 AD), Wikipedia.org

Marbaniang.com

INTRODUCTION
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. -Stuart Chase

Proof, evidence, and witness are important terms in the Bible. The Bible never encourages blind faith. God provides both rational and empirical proofs to confirm His word. He calls man to reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18), because conversion without conviction is duplicity and faith without reason is folly. A great portion of prophetic literature and the teachings of the New Testament are filled with rational arguments (and by arguments here is meant reasoning, not strife) that went along the witness and persuasion of truth. Many times object lessons, analogies, and parables helped to illustrate the logic of the discussion. In addition, in the historical experience of Gods people, God also confirmed His words by His works of miracles and wonders, empirical proofs for faith. The miracles were not the ends; they were auxiliary to the witness of the word. Rational evidence is not devoid of the framework of faith. It might be scriptural reasoning where one uses the acceptability of scriptures as grounds for using texts to prove a doctrinal point. Or, it might be extra-biblical reasoning where one uses other acceptable and truthful (not false) premises to rationally make a point. Now, reasoning makes use of familiar and acceptable categories; therefore, apologetics to a theist would differ

from apologetics to an atheist. Thus, Paul used the advantage of the Athenian belief in divinity to preach about what they regarded as The Unknown God. He didnt need to address atheism when he argued that the God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands nor is served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things (Acts 17:24-26). Further, he also found a support for his reasoning in a familiar quote by a prophet of their own faith. Of course, he never quoted the Old Testament here as he would do among the Jews, because the Old Testament didnt hold an authoritative evidential status in the Greek mind; though, when he witnessed among the Jews, he did make ample use of the Old Testament. In this present volume, our focus will be on rational evidences, especially with reference to categories generally used in philosophy. Our goal will be to rationally address few of the philosophical challenges to the Christian faith and demonstrate the wisdom of the Biblical revelation. We will use philosophical arguments and when necessary Biblical reasons for the clarification of doctrinal points.

CAN FAITH BE LOGICAL?

There are a few folks who believe that faith cannot be logical; in other words, it can neither be rationally expressed nor justified. Some of these try to propose the method of transcending logic in order to experience the truth of faith. However, such approaches leave disastrous results. 1. If faith cannot be rationally justified, then faithclaims cannot be investigated. This is so because every claim can be expressed in propositional statements; and every statement is either true or false and, thus, subject to the law of noncontradiction for the sake of understandability. A statement cannot be true and false at the same time; if it is so, it is being ambiguous and open to many interpretations, and consequentially is either neutral or meaningless. Contradictory interpretations themselves can be expressed in statements and these statements must clarify what they mean to say in order to be verified as true or false. An ambiguous faith-claim is a claim about nothing. Therefore, faith-claims must be rationally verifiable. 2. Propositional faith and personal faith are not separable. If I say I have faith in Jesus, I mean to also say that I believe in what I know about Him

and so believe in Him. That faith is not vacuous of the knowledge of the claims regarding Jesus. Thus, we declare/confess with our mouth the faith-claim that Jesus is Lord and believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead in order to be saved (Rom.10:9). There are some who talk of impersonal or supra-personal, suprarational intuition; such talk is also a faith-claim that can be stated in a sentence whose meaningfulness can be ascertained rationally. Sometimes, a faith-statement might be analogical only; sometimes, it may use certain words with a meaning that is not known to others who have not had such a religious experience. However, we at least can be assured of this fact that any claim whatsoever must not contradict itself, or else it will be nonsensical. Thus, we can safely talk about rational faith. 3. If faith is illogical, then logic itself becomes unreliable. This was a paradox that Blaise Pascal, the father of modern computer, suggested. If we say that we believe in the laws of logic, we also imply that logic is based on faith; which in turn also implies that faith cannot contradict reason which is actually based upon it. Reason without faith is unusable and faith without reason is blind.

4. The Bible teaches us that divine wisdom is open to reason (James 3:18, RSV). It is not afraid of reasoning and persuasion. The absolute claims of the Bible are open to both rational and empirical investigation. Jesus always gave both rational (his logical answers to questions) and empirical (works that He did) evidence to His claims. The Bible talks about His giving many infallible proofs of His resurrection to His disciples. Biblical faith is logical.

In this book we investigate the rational evidences for faith. We might not so much go into the traditional arguments; but, only focus on what would be more contemporarily relevant evidences.

HOW COULD FAITH IN GOD ALONE BE RATIONAL?

There are some who think that belief in God is not rational. However, what they actually are doing is using some empirical argument to cross out the possibility of divine existence. For instance, they say If God exists, He should be visible; we dont see Him, therefore He doesnt exist. That is an empirical (experience-based) argument; and an empirical argument has no business making claims against the rationality of a belief. Someone else could rightly retort, Why, I dont see your brain; so, you must be a brainless creature! Or Why then do scientists believe in an electron when theyve never seen one? Someone else argued, If God created the world, then who created God? Therefore, God doesnt exist. That is not an argument at all because there is no necessary connection between the question and the conclusion. Another makes a hypothesis that if God can be eternal then the universe can also be eternal; but, that claim must be sufficiently established to the extent that the possibility of Gods existence is zero; until then, nothing of absolute nature is established by such an argument. Probabilities still have room for anything to be possible; and one cannot stake faith on probabilities that too against God! Rationality involves necessary implications which

empirical arguments cannot entail. Empirical arguments are something that we hope to deal with in the next volume of this book; but, here well concentrate on how faith in God alone can be rational. 1. Logical certainty demands the absolute necessity of divine existence. If God did not exist, then logic lacks an absolute foundation. Then, either logic itself is the absolute self-existent reality or else is the delusionary effect of the haphazard interplay of chance and matter. If it is a delusionary effect, then all talk, including the question of divine existence, is a delusion; but, how can delusion discern itself as delusion? That is self-contradictory. The other option is that logic must be eternal and self-existent. That raises logic to the dignity of the divine. But, we cant turn an attribute into a concrete entity. Logic is an attribute, not an entity. We can talk of something as being logical, but we cannot talk of logic as a thing. It is a quality that is discerned and used by the mind. Thus, it cant be selfexistent. The only way logic can be absolute is if there is an absolute, personal, and intelligent being that eternally discerns and uses logic. This being is God. 2. The sense of morality itself is based on the innate knowledge of the divine. Somebody argued that moral knowledge is taught by society and so

cannot be true. Of course, not everything bearing the label of morality must be moral. Most of them might only be man-made customs and traditions. However, one cannot come up with an argument that all mathematics is wrong because students learn it at school! We are talking here about the very sense of right and wrong, the idea of absolute morality. It is that logical sense that is able to evaluate whether a particular rule claimed as being moral is truly moral or not; whether a certain law is truly lawful or not. If morality is not absolute then, all moral talk is a moral mistake. Okay, I used the term moral mistake, because it would be immoral to prescribe or argue for a moral rule that is not moral intrinsically. But, evidently, the moral sense cannot be bypassed. It is always there. It praises some, it haunts others. The above argument of rational logic (1) can be applied to moral logic as well. Moral logic is either based on the eternal and moral nature of God, or it is delusionary. It cannot be delusionary for reasons we have observed earlier; therefore, moral logic is based on the eternal and moral nature of God. 3. The sense of infinity in the heart of man points to the necessary existence of an eternally selfconscious and self-determined being; in other

words, an eternal, infinite Person. Philosophers have long been puzzled by the sense of infinity within the hearts of man. Space doesnt permit to mention the array of reflections that the history of philosophy has bequeathed to us. One Greek philosopher asked his students, If I stand on the edge of the Universe and flung a spear outwards, where will it go? The students, certainly, might have been dumbfounded because if its the edge, what could be beyond that but, the mind isnt able to conceive of an edge of the Universe, does it? The Bible records for us in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God has put eternity in the hearts of men, so that they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. The sense of infinity is not merely about what is beyond the edge of the Universe, or what was before the beginning of time; it is that which incites the sense of awe and inspiration, the sense of poetic abstraction and tranquility, the ability to soar beyond the fringes of temporal limits and revel in things of eternal significance; it is that sense which can make one look at the starry sky above and mutter in rhythmic beauty, Twinkle, twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are! Its the birthplace of wonder and metaphysical ponderings. It is that which forces us to ask who we are in this

cage of temporal existence and draws us in search of the Eternal God, the Source and Creator of this infinite void within that He alone can fill.

ISNT EVERYTHING DIVINE?

Ah, God is in everything and everything is God, a quite pluralistically inclined man once said to me. God is everywhere doesnt imply that everything is God, I responded. He is in everything, so everything is God. So, you mean He is in this furniture so this furniture is God? Yes. He is in this wall, so this wall is God? Yes. Is He also in the shit? So, you would worship it? No! Why? He cant be in that thing! Why? Its unclean!

But, you said that since He is in everything, everything is God. But, not this way! Evidently, pantheism is a belief-system that cannot be fully bought in with all its implications. Its irrationality becomes quite evident when we begin to evaluate it logically. Linguistic rationality rejects pantheistic requisites. Pantheism suffers from ultimate semantic confusion. It confuses the identity of entities and thereby the terminology of language. The results are comical. A devotee once went to a Guru and desired the knowledge of God. The Guru told him everything, that everything was God, that he was God, and that every leaf and petal of the flower resonated with the life of God. The devotee was elated by this secret knowledge and left with sublime feelings towards his home. On the way, he encountered an elephant with a rider on top of it coming towards him. The rider shouted, Move out of the way or youll be crushed! But, the man reasoned, I am God and this elephant is also God. How can God crush God? So, he ignored the warnings of the rider and stood right in the middle of the way. Eventually, the elephant came near him, wrapped him in its trunk and threw him away. Road clear. The hurt devotee ran back to the Guru and cried in his anguish, You said

that everything is God, then how come God (the elephant) hurt God (me)? The Guru was not impressed. He calmly explained, Because you didnt obey God (the rider). Ludicrous as the tale may appear, it brings out one significant problem with the pantheistic worldview. If all is God, then God becomes the synonym for everything? Imagine a language with just one necessary noun, God, because everything in the world can be identified as God! Imagine a statement like this, I am going to God to buy some Gods for my God. Actually, the speaker wanted to say, I am going to the pharmacy to buy some medicines for my wife. If pantheism is denied anywhere, it is certainly denied in the practical use of language.

ARENT THERE MANY, SOMETIMES EVEN CONTRADICTORY, WAYS TO GOD?

The fact of the many is readily understood; however, the facts about the contradictory are not usually understood; especially, because many folks have only a surface idea of the various varying belief-systems. However, it is expected that we at least admit that two contradictory ways, for instance one that says that blowing airplanes and killing infidels is the will of God and the other that says that being a good Samaritan for hurting ones is the will of God, cannot be both equally right at the same time. Thats why they are contradictory. Contradictory doesnt just mean going in two different directions; contradictory simply means that one is the negative of the other, one negates the other; consequentially, only one of them can be the positive one. Now, contradictory viewpoints might exist between sects sharing the same religious label. The Law of Non-contradiction holds everywhere. We can quote here two examples of obvious contradictions between the various belief systems: 1. The God of pantheism is everything; the God of polytheism is anyone; the God of atheism is no one, and the God of monotheism is only one. Consequentially, pantheism should lead to

everything; polytheism should lead to anyone; atheism should lead to no one; and monotheism should lead to the only one. 2. Sin in pantheism, and also in dualism, is complementary to cosmic balance; sin in polytheism is enmity against some deity (one cant please every god/goddess at the same time anyway); and sin in monotheism is violation of Gods command. Consequentially, sin in pantheism is necessary; sin in polytheism is relative; and sin in monotheism is penal.

IS THE TRINITY A NECESSARY DOCTRINE?

The Doctrine Stated
God is One is essence but three in persons. Each of the persons within the Godhead is deity. The oneness of God and the threeness of God are not contradictions. The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is eternal. Each of the persons of the Godhead is of the same essence and is not inferior or superior to the others in the Godhead.

The Importance of the Doctrine

1. Ground of Morality The Doctrine of Trinity provides the rational-eternal basis for moral categories If God was not a Trinity, then categories such as love, joy, and goodness couldnt be absolute. 2. Ground of Relationality The Doctrine of Trinity provides the relational basis for interpersonal relationships. Therefore, Christ could pray regarding His disciples, that they may be one, as We are one (John 17:11). 3. Ground of Knowability

The Doctrine of Trinity provides the rational-empirical basis for epistemic categories if God was not a Trinity, then knowledge as a subject-object relationship, as analytic-synthetic distinction, and Truth as such couldnt find an original ground. 4. Ground of Plurality The Doctrine of Trinity provides the metaphysical ground for a pluralist reality, and unity in diversity of the universe.

The Rational Anticipation Principle and the Doctrine of Trinity

The third criterion of Revelation in Indian philosophy is Rational Anticipation; the first two being the principle of not-this-worldly (alaukika) and the principle of noncontradiction (abadhita; i.e. revelation must not contradict known facts). The question is whether the doctrine of Trinity meets the principle of Rational Anticipation? Well quickly look at two arguments to check out the same. 1. The Argument from the Possibility of Knowledge a. If God exists, He must be an intelligent being (or else, intelligence is an accident and truth is impossible- but, to say truth is impossible is to contradict self; therefore, truth exists and has its eternal ground in God).

b. Intelligence involves Knowledge and Knowledge involves a Subject-Object distinction. c. Eternal intelligence must involve eternally a SubjectObject distinction. d. This distinction must be internal and eternal (since, nothing can be infinite and eternal outside the Godhead God is by nature infinite, and there cannot be more than one infinite). e. Complete distinction requires at least three persons (I, You, He/She/They). f. Therefore, possibility of knowledge rationally anticipates the Three Persons in a Subject-Object relationship. 2. The Argument from Morality a. If God exists, He must be a moral being (or else, morality is a temporal category and ultimately and eternally meaningless). b. Morality involves community (Without community, morality is meaningless; for where there is only one person there is no moral obligation to anyone because there is no other person). c. A community involves persons who are morally responsible to each other. d. Responsibility involves a witness (which in turn requires the community to be composed of at least three persons, necessarily speaking: beyond that is notnecessary). e. Therefore, the existence of morality rationally anticipates the Three Persons in an eternal Community relationship.

ISNT EVOLUTIONISM MORE LOGICAL THAN CREATIONISM?

Evolutionism concerns the problem of the origin and nature of living reality. Evolutionism, in science, refers to the theory that the many complex organisms now existent descended or evolved from relatively fewer and simpler organisms. The hypothetical nature of evolutionism, despite accruement of evidences in support, yet inability to verify in prediction or through experimentation, has led some to label it as being not a scientific theory but a philosophical one. Creationism, the orthodox view, asserts the doctrine that God created the whole world in six days. There are other forms of creationism; however, discussion here will spotlight on just the orthodox biblical view in contradiction to the popular scientific view. A few of the empirical arguments against evolutionism quote the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the problem of missing links, issues related to the dating methods, and certain evidences for a young earth. Such arguments make use of scientific information to investigate the claims of evolutionists. In this book, however, we only deal with the rational examination of evolutionism and creationism.

1. If the human brain is the product of blind evolution, then truth is accidental and therefore not absolute; intelligence is capricious and therefore unreliable; reason is mechanical and therefore non-objective. If that is so then the very claims that evolutionism makes would be untrue, relative, unreliable, and non-objective. In other words, evolutionism would have selfjudged itself as false. This is self-defeating. 2. Further, if the category of truth is produced by the interplay of deterministic physical and impersonal forces, then truth would be determined and consequentially not free. If truth is not free of deterministic influence, then it lacks objectivity, abstraction, and permanence, being subject to the flux and change inherent to the Universe. In that case, the sense of truthfulness would be selfdelusionary. But, how can one make claims to truth if truth itself is devalued? One cannot sit on a branch that he cuts off from the trunk of the tree.

The Anthropic Principle and Epistemic Issues

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the Anthropic Principle as the cosmological principle that

theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence. In its weak form the principle affirms that a universe in which living observers cannot exist is inherently unobservable. Strong forms take this line of reasoning further, seeking to explain features of the universe as being so because they are necessary for human existence.

Following are the chief epistemic issues associated with this Principle. 1. If the Anthropic Principle is applied to evolutionary theory, then the result is selfcontradiction: the laws are deterministic, while evolutionism is founded on chance, probability, and randomness. In addition, the mind that is the end result of the deterministic process is also part of the deterministic whole; therefore, truth is not transcendent; as a result, the observer cannot exist: but, this is not the case (or at least should not be) if the anthropic principle is posited at all and we claim to be the intelligent observers of the universe. In brief, if the anthropic principle is applied to evolutionary theory, then science would become impossible due to the immanent determinism involved which is self-defeat.

2. On the other hand, if the observer is magnified above the perception of objects (as in Advaitism), then the universe or pluriverse as objective reality ceases to really exist: in which case, again, science is ultimately invalidated. (Refer also to discussions on the Heisenberg Principle: the observer determines the phenomenon observed) 3. However, even if one opts for nihilism and the doctrine of emptiness of both the observer and the objective universe (as in Madhyamaka), then again science as an objective discipline is invalidated. 4. The Anthropic Principle involves a conflict of idealism and materialism. The question involved is What is the world ultimately composed of and how do we know it? Unless that is solved, the debate is unresolved. 5. The idealistic theory would suggest that the world is composed of ideas observed by the mind; therefore, the anthropic principle is ultimately subjective. Even the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant posits a mind that possesses the categories and rules by which the world is understood. As such then, the anthropic principle would merely be a principle imposed on reality by the mind.

6. The materialistic theory, however, would land us in problem no. 1 discussed earlier.

Christian Theological Viewpoint

1. The universe is intelligently designed with a purpose by God, the Intelligent Designer. 2. The earth is unique habitat of physical life and man is the only creature who has freewill and the ability to know truth and choose his actions in accordance to reason. 3. Therefore, Truth is transcendent and human actions are moral (not deterministic, but bearing eternal consequences).

IF GOD KNEW THAT MAN WOULD SIN, WHY CREATE MAN?

1. The alternative positions to Christianity must be considered, first of all. a. Atheism. According to it, God doesnt exist; therefore, the problem of why He created the world also doesnt exist. However, the atheist must admit that ultimately why the universe exists also is a meaningless question. Thus, lacking any eternal and absolute ground of existence, morality and justice are illusory concepts. In fact, the above question presupposes morality; for the question implies that God, by creating the world despite foreknowing its misery, appears to be evil rather than good. However, if an absolute such as morality doesnt exist, then it would be meaningless to either convict or justify God. Thus, the question itself would be meaningless. In that sense, the atheist would have to rid himself absolutely of any moral obligation at all. b. Pantheism. According to it, all is God and God is all; therefore, evil is a part of the nature of God. Consequently, there is no

ultimate line of division between good and evil. c. Polytheism. According to it, a motley of deities exist; therefore, since the deities are imperfect and not omniscient, imperfection is expected in their enterprise. 2. The question commits the error of applying space-time (material) categories to the infinite God. First of all, the word foreknowledge is conceived in terms of someone knowing something beforehand, that is, in the past. However, God cannot be considered to be conditioned by past, present, and future; if that was so, it will lead to temporalizing God. The eternality of God belongs to His nature of being infinite. God is not a time-entity. Therefore, since the question is wrong, an answer cannot be expected. For if the value of the question is zero, the value of its answer will be zero as well.

CAN GOD CREATE A STONE THAT HE CANNOT LIFT?

The so-called omnipotence paradox of the stone asks: Can God (Who is omnipotent) create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it? If so, then He cannot be omnipotent; if not, then He is not omnipotent. The comparative heavier doesnt apply to infinity; therefore, the question is contradictory and, consequently, meaningless. 1. Infinity is that which is without a beginning, a middle, and an end. Therefore, internal comparisons dont apply to it. 2. Only a greater infinite can supersede an infinite; but, a greater infinite is a meaningless category, since infinite is the maximal superlative. Consequently, it can be answered that God cannot create a stone that He cannot lift, because there is absolutely nothing that God cannot lift. Positively speaking, God is the superlative powerful one. He cannot self-contradict. Thus, the question Can God create a stone that He cannot lift imposes a logical

contradiction of terms, and so is itself absurd. A square cannot be a square and a circle at the same time.

WHY SHOULD GOD JUDGE SIN?

Sin can only be sin if it has an eternal dimension. Sin can only have an eternal dimension if there are eternal beings. Sin can be said to have an eternal dimension only if there is an eternal moral order that it violates so as to have eternal repercussions. In this sense, then, sin is the violation of an eternal moral order. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Sin exists as a disruptive factor among eternal beings. The eternal moral order is founded upon the nature of the Source (of all being): God the eternal Spirit who is Love (the excellence of moral relationality). Consequentially, the eternal order is an order of love. Truth is the consistent characteristic of this eternal order; therefore, justice is the necessary antidote to the violation of the order. Therefore, sin is essentially the distortion of love and truth with eternal repercussions. In other words, it is a violation of the eternal order (definitive) of love and truth. A violation of the eternal order is directed against the Source and Ground of the eternal order God. In this sense, then, sin is primarily always sin against God and then sin against others. Thus, sin cannot be defined in terms of temporal comfort and consent. In other words, no individual or group of people by reference to present comfort and

mutual consent can redefine what sin is and what sin is not. Sin is never merely temporal; it is cosmic. The creation of God is a system of volitional and nonvolitional beings. If creation were a machine, the order of the system would be free from disruption. The active participation of volitional beings in the cosmic system makes sin a possibility. Justice may be defined as the administration of moral order by means of rewards and punishment. Divine justice is Gods way of maintaining moral order in the world. Since, the earth is given to humans; humans can violate the way things were meant to be by exploiting nature and fellow humans as things for selfish purposes. This only invites divine wrath (punishment). Moral anarchy invites punishment.

HOW CAN JESUS BE GOD AND MAN AT THE SAME TIME?

In the Incarnation, Christ partook of human nature, so that through Him we might become partakers of the divine nature and experience the glorious liberty of the children of God (Heb.2:14; Rom.8:15-17,21,23). Paul mentions that Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Phil.2:7) and John records that He was made flesh (Jn.1:14), both using the same Greek word ginomai for made, asserting the realness of His humanity. This doesnt imply that there was any change in His divinity. That could never be; for, God is beyond change He is immutable. But, since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb.2:14-15; cf. Col.1:13). 1. The Virgin Birth of Jesus speaks of His divinity. He was not created by the union of a man and a woman; He could not be created because He is the Eternal One; He pre-exists. He incarnated as a human by being born of a woman through the power of the Holy Spirit. His divinity, thus, is eternal; his humanity, permanent.

2. No man can be God; because man by nature is a created being, but God by nature is uncreated and eternal, the Source of all life. But God can partake of human nature and still be God, because His divinity is necessary and eternal and human nature is contingent upon, and not beyond, Him. The Bible tells us that Christ partook of human nature by emptying Himself (kenosis) and making Himself of no reputation. In other words, His partaking of our human nature was not necessary, but voluntary. That is why His self-giving on the Cross is known to us as the ultimate Sacrifice.

HOW CAN ONE MAN DIE FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD?
The Scandal of Particularity questions how one Man could be God and also be the Savior of the whole world. There are two pictures in the Bible that answer this: 1. Surety. Jesus Christ is made the surety of the New Covenant by which participants in the Covenant share in the blessings of the Covenant (Hebrews 7:22). Now, a surety is someone who provides a warrant or guarantee for another. If I wish to borrow Rs.5000/- from a creditor, and he doesnt trust me, he would ask for a guarantor or surety, who answers to him and is willing to pay in case I am not able to pay the amount back. Similarly, when we were weak and without strength, and in a state when we could not repay our debts, Christ paid the penalty of our sins. 2. Priest. A Priest is a legally appointed Mediator who represents man before God; as such, Christ, appointed after the order of Melchizedek as a Priest forever, provides a better sacrifice than the blood of animals that the priests after the Aaronic order presented for centuries before Him. Their sacrifices couldnt have efficacy since they had to make atonement for their own sins first, then for the sins of the people. In addition, the blood of temporal animals cannot adequately atone for

the sins of mankind, because human sinfulness has eternal repercussions. Through the offering of His Body, the High Priest, Jesus Christ, opens up a way for us before God. We now have access to the Father. His appointment was official and His sacrifice without blemish; therefore, it was fully acceptable and satisfactory in the sight of God, and we also in Him. 3. Son of God and Heir of All Things. Since all things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (Colossians 1:16-17), He alone held the prime responsibility for the salvation of all things. They belonged to Him; so, only He had the right to redeem them. 4. Sacrifice through the Eternal Spirit. Since He is God, only He by His infinite virtue could bridge the infinite chasm that sin created between God and man. His sacrifice through the Eternal Spirit made eternal and permanent atonement for mankind (Hebrews 9:14) and a way was open to the Holy of Holies through His flesh so that all who believe in Him could receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15; 10:20). No animal or man could repay the infinite penalty of human sin; but, the Son of God by His divine and endless power, by which He also overcame death and rose to life has eternally atoned for and permanently blotted out all sins

of mankind, so that those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

IS THERE A RATIONAL WAY TO JUDGE THE RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE

Since the Bible is the written revelation of God, its rationality can be ascertained by at least three important laws of reason: the law of non-contradiction or the law of internal consistency, the law of sufficiency, and the law of coherence. 1. The Law of Non-Contradiction or Logical Consistency. According to this law, given the proper interpretation with reference to linguistic and historical context, no two statements of the Bible must contradict each other. This is necessary for truth to be consistent and singular (non-ambiguous). For instance, suppose the Bible said God created man and then said God did not create man, then, given the interpretative equivalence of the semantic form to A=not-A, the two statements violate the law of non-contradiction which demands the form to be Anot-A. But, we dont find any such contradiction in the Bible. 2. The Law of Sufficiency. According to this law, a statement or piece of writing can only be meaningful if it is sufficient to convey its message meaningfully across. In other words, it

is sufficient to fulfill its purpose. The content delivers the intent. The Bible does certainly fulfill this law of rationality of meaningfulness. Nothing can be added to or subtracted from it. 3. The Law of Coherence. According to this law, all the elements of information given to us in the Bible must fit well with each other, i.e. cohere, to form a united whole. None should fail or lack its mate in the same manner that nothing in Gods creation fails or lacks its mate (Isaiah 34:16). Gods world has ecological coherence; Gods word has theological coherence.