Who or what are we to believe? Specifically, I am referring to the issue of authority in the context of ultimate, absolute truth, whose existence is presupposed in this article. If you aren't sure if you believe in any kind of absolute truth, I recommend that you first look at my article entitled, "What is Your Commitment about God?"

If you accept the proposition that absolute truth must exist, then you must also accept at least the possibility that it is knowable, and that such knowledge may be vitally important. The question is, then, do we have access to an authoritative source of truth? If so, what is it?

In this world we have access to all kinds of things about which people claim are authoritative sources of truth. They may be in the form of so-called sacred writings or prophetic utterances, self-proclaimed prophets, crystal balls, etc. The possibilities seem endless.

Let me suggest some criteria for discovering an authoritative source of truth. First, the source should be consistent with itself. If any part of it contradicts any other part, then at least part of it is not true. Second, truth claims, if true, will always be verified by the evidence, and never disproven by the evidence. Ideally, the evidence should be objective and independent of the source. Our subjective experiences are not a test of truth, however real they may seem.

I am persuaded that, based on the above criteria, the most authoritative source of truth to which we have access is what we call the Bible. Not only am I persuaded that it is authoritative, but I am also persuaded that it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of the Creator of Heaven and Earth. For discussions of it's truthfulness, you may want to look at the article entitled, "How Do I Know the Bible is True?", the Web page entitled, "History, Archaeology and the Bible", and the link entitled, "Bible Difficulties", under Various Resources.

Interestingly, the Bible itself gives us some tests of propheticity--that is, it provides us with a way of identifying what is supremely authoritative in this world. Incidentally, this is the same approach that the early church eventually used to identify the books of the New Testament.

What are these tests? Basically, they consist of the following. First, is the message authentic (I John 1:1-3)? That is, does it originate from someone who had access to the information that is presented? Second, does the information contain verifiable statements (Acts 26:25-26)? Third, is the message consistent with all previously established revelation (Isa. 8:20)? Fourth, was the message independently validated by an established prophet or apostle (II Peter 3:14-16)? And fifth, was the messenger immediately and widely accepted as someone whose prophetic authority had been validated, either by a supernatural life, or by various miraculous signs before many witnesses (I Cor. 15:3-8)? If any of these criteria are definitely not met by a given source, we would do well to heed the Bible's warning against adding to it or taking away from it (Rev. 22:18-19). For a related discussion, click here. For a discussion on the supreme authority of Scripture, see "Sola Scriptura."

I conclude by saying that it is necessary that we believe what is explicitly taught in Scripture. Furthermore, it may be beneficial to believe something else that is consistent with Scripture, but not absolutely necessary. I would also submit to you that it is harmful to believe something that is inconsistent with Scripture, and that any message after the time of the apostles that is claimed to be of divine origin cannot possibly meet all the tests for propheticity.