How do we defend biblical authority in a post-truth culture?
Question 1131
We live in strange times. “Post-truth” was named the Oxford English Dictionary’s word of the year back in 2016, and things have not improved since then. It describes a culture where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. In such an environment, how do we defend the authority of Scripture? How do we proclaim that the Bible is true when the very concept of truth is under assault?
Understanding the Post-Truth Landscape
Before we can defend biblical authority, we need to understand what we are up against. Post-truth culture did not appear from nowhere. It is the fruit of philosophical seeds planted centuries ago, seeds that have now grown into a tangled forest of relativism, subjectivism, and radical scepticism.
The Enlightenment promised that human reason, freed from the shackles of religious authority, would lead us to truth. But that confidence in reason eventually turned on itself. If we can question religious truth claims, why not question all truth claims? Thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche declared that there are no facts, only interpretations. Postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault went further, arguing that all claims to truth are really exercises in power. What we call “truth” is simply the narrative imposed by those in control.
This philosophical shift has filtered down into popular culture. Today, many people operate with an unspoken assumption that truth is personal. “That may be true for you, but not for me” has become the default response to any claim that challenges individual preference. In this environment, asserting that the Bible is objectively true and authoritative sounds not just old-fashioned but oppressive.
The Self-Defeating Nature of Relativism
Our first task in defending biblical authority is to expose the internal contradictions of post-truth thinking. The claim that “there is no objective truth” is itself a claim to objective truth. If someone says “all truth is relative,” ask them: “Is that statement relatively true or absolutely true?” If it is only relatively true, then we need not accept it. If it is absolutely true, then it refutes itself.
This is not merely a debating trick. It reveals a fundamental incoherence at the heart of post-truth culture. People who deny objective truth cannot live consistently with their denial. They still expect the pilot of their aeroplane to navigate according to objective facts. They still become indignant when someone lies to them. They still believe that statements like “the Holocaust happened” and “slavery is wrong” are not merely personal opinions but binding truths.
C.S. Lewis made this point brilliantly in Mere Christianity when he observed that even those who deny objective moral standards immediately appeal to those standards when they are wronged. “It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.”
The Biblical Foundation for Truth
Having exposed the weaknesses of relativism, we must then present the biblical foundation for truth. Scripture does not treat truth as a human construction but as rooted in the character of God Himself. Jesus declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Truth is not an abstract concept but a Person.
This changes everything. In the biblical worldview, truth exists because God exists. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). His Word is truth (John 17:17). The correspondence between what God says and what is actually the case is guaranteed by His character. When Scripture speaks, God speaks, and what God speaks is necessarily true.
The Hebrew concept of truth, אֱמֶת (ʾemet), carries connotations of faithfulness, reliability, and stability. When the Psalmist declares, “The sum of your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160), he is saying that God’s Word can be depended upon completely. It will not fail. It will not mislead. It corresponds to reality because reality itself is upheld by the God who speaks.
The Evidence for Scripture’s Authority
Defending biblical authority involves both theological affirmation and evidential support. While our ultimate confidence in Scripture rests on God’s self-authenticating Word, this does not mean we have nothing to say to the sceptic. God has not left Himself without witness.
Consider the historical reliability of the biblical documents. The New Testament manuscripts are extraordinarily well-attested compared to other ancient texts. We have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, some dating to within decades of the original compositions. The early church fathers quoted the New Testament so extensively that virtually the entire text could be reconstructed from their citations alone. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, concluded that “the interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible.”
Archaeological discoveries have repeatedly confirmed biblical accounts that critics once dismissed as legendary. The Hittite civilisation, the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Pool of Siloam, the ossuary of Caiaphas, these and hundreds of other finds have vindicated the historical accuracy of Scripture. The British Museum houses numerous artefacts that corroborate biblical history, including the Taylor Prism (BM 91032), which records Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s reign, just as described in 2 Kings 18-19.
Fulfilled prophecy provides another line of evidence. The specific predictions concerning Jesus’s birth, ministry, death, and resurrection, written centuries before His coming, demonstrate a supernatural knowledge that transcends human capability. The restoration of Israel as a nation in 1948, after nearly two millennia of dispersion, fulfils prophecies that many scholars once considered metaphorical (Ezekiel 37; Amos 9:14-15).
Addressing Common Objections
In defending biblical authority, we will encounter specific objections that deserve thoughtful responses. One common challenge concerns alleged contradictions in Scripture. We address this in detail elsewhere (see Question 1136), but the short answer is that apparent contradictions typically dissolve upon careful examination of context, genre, and the flexibility of ancient historiographical conventions.
Another objection concerns the diversity of biblical interpretation. “If the Bible is so clear,” people ask, “why do Christians disagree about what it means?” This is a fair question, but it proves less than critics suppose. Disagreement about interpretation does not negate the existence of correct interpretation, any more than disagreements about historical events negate the existence of historical truth. Moreover, the core message of Scripture, humanity’s sin, God’s grace, salvation through faith in Jesus, is remarkably clear across Christian traditions.
Some will object that believing the Bible is circular reasoning: “You believe the Bible because the Bible says to believe it.” But this misunderstands how ultimate authorities function. Every system of thought must start somewhere. The secularist trusts human reason as the ultimate arbiter of truth, but what validates that trust except human reason itself? The Christian trusts God’s self-revelation, which is appropriate given that if God exists as Scripture describes Him, He alone is qualified to be the ultimate authority.
The Role of the Holy Spirit
While evidence and arguments have their place, we must acknowledge that defending biblical authority ultimately depends on the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
This does not mean that apologetics is pointless or that unbelievers are incapable of understanding our arguments. It means that intellectual assent to the truth of Scripture is insufficient apart from the Spirit’s work of regeneration. Our task is to present the truth clearly, answer objections honestly, and pray that God would open hearts and minds. We plant and water, but God gives the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6-7).
The Westminster Confession puts it well: “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” Evidence confirms what the Spirit illuminates.
Living Under Biblical Authority
Perhaps the most powerful defence of biblical authority is a life lived under that authority. When people see Christians whose lives are transformed by Scripture, whose marriages flourish, whose communities embody love and justice, whose hope sustains them through suffering, they witness the power of God’s Word in action.
Francis Schaeffer emphasised that Christianity must be not only true but also liveable. The biblical worldview answers the deepest questions of human existence: Where do we come from? Why are we here? What is wrong with the world? How can it be made right? Where are we going? No other worldview provides answers that are both intellectually coherent and existentially satisfying.
In a post-truth culture, this lived demonstration of truth becomes essential. People who have been taught to distrust propositions may still be moved by stories, by relationships, by communities that embody what they claim to believe. Our lives either commend the truth of Scripture or contradict it.
Practical Approaches for Engagement
When engaging with post-truth culture, several practical principles prove helpful. First, ask questions rather than immediately making assertions. “What do you mean by that?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?” invite dialogue rather than defensiveness. Second, find common ground where possible. Even relativists believe some things are really true and really wrong. Building from shared convictions creates a foundation for further conversation.
Third, tell the story. Post-truth culture is often more responsive to narrative than to syllogism. The biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration speaks to universal human experiences of wonder, brokenness, longing, and hope. Fourth, demonstrate intellectual humility while maintaining convictional confidence. We do not know everything, but we know the One who does.
Finally, remember that people are not merely minds to be convinced but image-bearers to be loved. Winning an argument while losing a person serves no one. Our goal is not victory but witness, not conquest but invitation.
Conclusion
Defending biblical authority in a post-truth culture requires wisdom, patience, and dependence on God. We must expose the incoherence of relativism, present the positive case for Scripture’s truthfulness, answer objections with honesty and charity, and live lives that demonstrate the transforming power of God’s Word. Most importantly, we must trust that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12). It does not need our defence so much as our faithful proclamation. God’s truth will vindicate itself. Our task is simply to bear witness to what God has said, confident that His Word will accomplish the purpose for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17
Bibliography
- Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
- Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
- Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952.
- McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2017.
- Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who Is There. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.
