Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Can and Would God Speak to Us? A Dialogue on Divine Speaking
R. Douglas Geivett
Preamble
I have sometimes thought about writing in dialogue form. Done well, fictional dialogues on naturally gripping topics can be engaging without loss of rigor. This chapter is a modest attempt to emulate Plato, who composed the earliest successful dialogues on topics of philosophical interest. Every serious reader, Christian or not, should be familiar with Plato's dialogues, Augustine's dialogical essay On the Teacher, George Berkeley's Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, and David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Topics in philosophy of religion and in Christian apologetics are especially amenable to dialogical treatment since the issues often are the focus of energetic conversation about the things that matter most. For this chapter I was assigned the topic "Can God Speak to Us? Would God Speak to Us?" Eventually it occurred to me what should have been obvious from the beginning — these are questions that arise very naturally for people thinking about the nature and authority of Scripture. Why not exhibit the kind of dialectic that might take place between two thoughtful people investigating these questions, one who is prepared to argue that God can and would speak to us and one who needs to be convinced? With this experiment I've discovered that writing a dialogue for these purposes is an agreeable way to reflect the dialectic of shared inquiry while drawing attention to the virtues of a particular point of view.
Chad and Danielle are my inventions. Perhaps not so coincidentally, "Chad" looks like a possible nickname for old king Nebuchadnezzar, and "Danielle" is a female counterpart to Daniel, the Israelite prophet who addressed Nebuchadnezzar on behalf of Yahweh, the God of Israel. So Chad may be seen as a loose representation of the Babylonian king's initial suspicion about Daniel's claim that God was speaking to him. The king eventually acquiesced to this fact, with renewal and unexpected flourishing following his submission to God's word. Danielle, then, is a symbol of the effort made by the prophet Daniel to convince the king that God could, would, and indeed had, spoken to him. At best, however, Chad and Danielle are modernizations of interactions between the ancient king and prophet in a very loose sense. (The name "Daniel" means "God is my Judge," a possible allusion to the vindication Daniel would enjoy when his prophetic word to Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled.)
In the dialogue that follows, Danielle makes a plausible argument both that God could and that God would produce a revelation that speaks to the needs of humanity with divine wisdom and compassion. Chad, though given to suspicion, is moved by Danielle's argument. As it happens, the proof is in the pudding. Nebuchadnezzar was himself addressed by God in a way that the Babylonian king could not ultimately resist.
Part 1: Can God Speak to Us?
Chad: What's that you have in your hands, there? I can see that it's a book. But what kind of book is it?
Danielle: This? It's a Bible.
Chad: And what's a "Bible"?
Danielle: The Bible is a book, a very special book.
Chad: You just said, "The Bible is a book." Do you mean there's only one Bible? If the Bible is such a special book, and you have the only Bible there is, then you must be pretty special yourself.
Danielle: It is a special privilege, but I'm not the only one who has the Bible. There are many copies of the Bible and even many English translations from the original Hebrew and Greek. All or portions of the Bible have been translated into all of the major languages. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it until now.
Chad: You keep talking about "the Bible." If there are so many Bibles, why do you do that, as if there's only one book that is the Bible?
Danielle: That's a fair question. And there's an irony in the answer. The Bible is actually a collection of sixty-six books.
Chad: So first you speak as if the Bible is a book and that there is only one. Now you're telling me not only that there are many Bibles but that the Bible itself is many books.
Danielle: Exactly!
Chad: Isn't that peculiar?
Danielle: Not really. Our English word "Bible" comes from the Greek word biblia, a plural noun that means "books." These books were composed over a period of several centuries. In due course, they came to be collected into a single unit as one book. This process began even before all of the books of the Bible had been written. So the Bible "grew," as it were, during the course of composition.
Chad: I can see how various writings can be collated into a single volume, like an anthology. But you seem to be saying that the Bible is not an anthology. What do you mean when you say that the Bible is a "unit"?
Danielle: Good question.
Chad: Is there a good answer?
Danielle: That's the thing about good questions. The best questions often have the most important answers. To answer your question, the Bible has a unity that no anthology has. For example, a typical anthology is made up of works by different authors. The Bible isn't like that. It's completely unlike any other book.
Chad: If the Bible was composed over several centuries, then there must have been many different authors for individual books of the Bible.
Danielle: Yes, and no. Depending on how you sort out the human authorship of individual books, there were several dozen authors and compilers of individual books. But each worked under the direction of a single great Author.
Chad: Do you mean one of the goddess muses who were said to have inspired great literature, developments in science, and works of art? This is news to me.
Danielle: I'm not referring to any sort of a muse. The muses were supposed to be finite goddesses. The Bible was inspired by the one and only true God. This is why the Bible is also called "the Word of God." Because God guided the human authors in their writing of individual books of the Bible. As one author wrote, "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." God is the ultimate source of the whole Bible and is, in that respect, the unique Author. This explains what is so special about the Bible. This book has unique authority as the Word of God himself.
Chad: Why call the Bible "the Word of God"? This makes it sound like God speaks to us. What kind of god does such a thing? Is that even possible? Can this God you speak of actually speak to us? And even if your God could speak, why would God bother to speak to us?
Danielle: You're asking two questions: "Can God speak to us?" and "Would God speak to us?"
Chad: Correct. It seems we've come to a really fundamental issue. Some other time we might discuss your claim that the Bible is inspired in this special way by God — or the "Holy Spirit," whatever that means — while also being written by numerous human authors. I have a number of other questions about the Bible. But I'd like to start with these two.
Danielle: I agree that these two questions are basic. So let's limit this conversation to them. Let's begin with your first question.
Chad: "Can God speak to us?"
Danielle: Right.
Chad: Shouldn't we begin with your concept of God?
Danielle: Yes, that makes sense.
Chad: You said there is one true God, who is the ultimate author of the Bible, the guarantor of the unique authority of the Bible.
Danielle: That's a nice concise way of paraphrasing my claim.
Chad: So we need to understand what you mean by this "one true God." Who or what is God?
Danielle: God is a bodiless person. He is the fundamental, self-subsistent, the eternal, perfectly free and loving, all-wise and omnipotent Creator of the universe, which continues to exist by God's sustaining power and is the arena of meticulous providence and of special divine action or miracles. This thesis about God is called "theism."
Chad: And you're a theist.
Danielle: I am.
Chad: I can see why theism is important to your view of the Bible. But why believe that your God exists?
Danielle: Since we've decided to focus on our two fundamental questions — whether God could and whether God would speak to us — maybe we should assume that the theist's concept of God is coherent and that this God actually exists. While I believe these assumptions are grounded in good evidence, we agreed to restrict our discussion to these fundamental questions. We may find, eventually, that our answers to these fundamental questions have a bearing on questions about the coherence of theism and the existence of God.
Chad: That's an interesting suggestion. I look forward to that discussion. But I agree, let's stay on topic. How is it possible that God speaks to us?
Danielle: Are there any good reasons to think that it is not possible for God to speak to us?
Chad: I can think of several reasons.
Danielle: Our time is limited, so let's consider what you think are the strongest.
Chad: Okay. First, "speaking" is a human act that requires a physical body, and in particular the use of a larynx. But God, according to you, is not physical and doesn't have a larynx.
Danielle: Is that your strongest argument?
Chad: Maybe not. Let's see how you respond.
Danielle: Let me ask you a question. Why must speaking require a physical body and a special apparatus for vocalizing? Isn't there a difference between vocalizing and speaking?
Chad: I see no difference.
Danielle: How do you define "vocalizing"?
Chad: Let's see. Vocalizing consists in voicing, using the voice to communicate a message.
Danielle: Is every use of the voice an instance of vocalizing?
Chad: I think so.
Danielle: But is every use of the voice a matter of communicating a message? What about humming?
Chad: I guess humming is a form of vocalizing. And I wouldn't say that it communicates a message. At least, there are times when it doesn't.
Danielle: So here we seem to have an instance of using the voice without communicating a message. Is that consistent with your original claim about vocalizing and speaking?
Chad: I think it might be. But I can see that I should revise my claim that speaking and vocalizing are the same thing. Do you mind?
Danielle: Not at all.
Chad: All speaking involves vocalization, even if some vocalizing is not speaking. This is compatible with my original claim. Speaking requires a body that is equipped with faculties and organs for vocalization and meaningful communication. There is no speaking without vocalization. No vocalization without the use of a physical apparatus. But God, you said, is a bodiless person.
Danielle: There is a logic to that progression. Let's see if it holds up to scrutiny. Why must speaking require vocalization?
Chad: Because in every familiar case of speaking there is vocalization.
Danielle: I see two problems with that. First, you just identified a correlation between speaking and vocalization, not a dependence relation. But more important, your claim begs the question. You assume that all familiar cases of speaking involve vocalization. Even if those instances of speech that are most familiar do correlate with or depend on vocalization, this does not establish that all speech involves vocalization. But that is precisely the question. You say that all speech involves vocalization. But why think that? You seem to be avoiding this question.
Chad: But my claim is based on a good induction. If all familiar speech involves vocalization, that makes it likely that in all other cases speech involves vocalization.
Danielle: That may be a reasonable induction.
Chad: Thank you.
Danielle: But only for the restricted class of speakers you're referring to.
Chad: What do you mean by that?
Danielle: By "familiar cases of speaking" you're referring only to the class of human speakers. But our question is not whether humans can speak to each other, but whether God can speak to us.
Chad: So just because human speech always involves vocalization, which requires a physical body, it doesn't follow that God, who has no body, must vocalize in order to speak to us?
Danielle: Do you disagree?
Chad: I suppose you're right. But it still might be the case that even in nonhuman cases speech requires vocalization.
Danielle: That's pretty thin evidence for denying that God can speak to us. In fact, it isn't evidence at all. To say that something is a possibility is not to provide a reasonable basis for believing it. But the more important point is how we are to understand speech. After all, our question is whether God can speak to us. So what does "speaking" mean?
Chad: To speak is to utter something using words.
Danielle: Isn't "uttering" a form of vocalization?
Chad: I suppose it is.
Danielle: So we're back to where we left off. Our question is whether we can make sense of speaking without literally uttering words.
Chad: Now you've made the mistake I made!
Danielle: How so?
Chad: You're answering in terms of possibilities, and you just said that possibilities don't provide reasons to believe something.
Danielle: I did, yes. So?
Chad: So you're trying to get away with suggesting the possible as a substitute for making a positive claim.
Danielle: That's because I can get away with it.
Chad: Isn't that special pleading?
Danielle: Not at all. Remember, our question was whether God can speak to us. That's a question about what is possible. I haven't been arguing that God has in fact spoken to us. Actually, I haven't done much of the arguing at all. You've carried out most of the argument ... not that that's a bad thing.
Chad: I'm just answering your questions.
Danielle: Precisely.
Chad: I suggest that there are reasons for thinking that God cannot speak to us.
Danielle: Yes, that's your claim. Your claim is that there are good reasons to think that it is not possible for God to speak to us. But so far you haven't given any reasons that you find convincing.
Chad: Well, I was about to when you interrupted me.
Danielle: I apologize. Please continue.
Chad: Where were we?
Danielle: You were trying to explain why God cannot speak to us.
Chad: Yes, yes, I know. But where was I before we were sidetracked? Oh, yes, can we make sense of speaking without uttering words?
Danielle: That was my question. And your answer is?
Chad: Don't you have the burden of proof? You're the theist who believes the Bible is God's "Word."
Danielle: That I am. What do you want me to prove? That we can make sense of speaking without uttering words?
Chad: Absolutely. It would be nice for you to be in the hot seat for awhile.
Danielle: Let's think this through. Can words be spoken without uttering them?
Chad: I seem to be doing all the thinking here. All you do is ask questions.
Danielle: But asking questions that lead to insight requires thinking. Right?
Chad: I guess so. But I wish I was the one asking the questions.
Danielle: But you are! You've asked two very basic questions: "Can God speak to us?" and "Would God speak to us?" Chad: I forget. Did you come up with those questions, or did I? Never mind. Words certainly can be produced without uttering them. This happens when we write something down.
Danielle: Does this count as speaking?
Chad: Here we go again. No, it doesn't, not literally.
Danielle: Not literally? Is there some other nonliteral sense in which written words can be regarded as speaking?
Chad: You're trying to make a point, aren't you?
Danielle: Let me ask you this. Suppose I write down some sentences and you read them aloud to someone else. Does your act count as speaking?
Chad: Sure. Suppose it does.
Danielle: Would you be speaking on my behalf?
Chad: I'd say so.
Danielle: You would be my surrogate, my deputy. I deputize you to speak and say only those words I've written down for you to speak. Would you say that if you speak my words at my request to an audience I've selected for you, then I'm speaking through you?
Chad: Yes, that's a natural way to speak. No pun intended.
Danielle: Good ... that would be a sadly anemic pun. Now, if I'm speaking through you, am I not speaking?
Chad: Yes, but not directly.
Danielle: Must all speaking be "direct"?
Chad: I suppose not.
Danielle: So in the circumstances we're considering, I am speaking, albeit through you.
Chad: Yes.
Danielle: Why is that?
Chad: Because they're your words.
Danielle: And what did I call the Bible that you found so puzzling?
Chad: The Word of God. ... Huh, I see where you're going with this.
Danielle: So the Bible could be the Word of God, even if God does not speak his words "directly," as you say?
Chad: But then it becomes a question of whether God could "write down" the words for someone else to utter.
Danielle: You're getting the hang of this.
Chad: Getting the hang of what?
Danielle: You're asking questions that could lead to further insight about our original question.
Chad: And that's a compliment?
Danielle: See! You've done it again. Yes, that's a compliment. Now then, could God write words down for another to utter them?
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "In Defense of the Bible"
by .
Copyright © 2013 Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder.
Excerpted by permission of B&H Publishing Group.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
