This is some dense academic logic, but the main point here is to ponder if it is really true when someone says that they are going to “weigh evidence” for something from a completely “neutral” point of view. In his discussion about how some scholars view the origins of the group of books we call the New Testament canon, Michael Kruger points out that if someone claims to be analyzing the roots of Christianity from a purely neutral, historical or scientific point of view, they are actually making a false claim, since there is no such thing as “neutral” knowledge. See what you think…

The reason there is no religiously neutral approach to historical study is that there is no religiously neutral approach to anything.

Roy Clouser demonstrates that the Bible’s own epistemological position is that “there is no knowledge or truth that is neutral with respect to God.” He appeals to a number of scriptural passages that show that how individuals think about God affects their ability to have knowledge.

In Luke 11:52 Jesus says that when you take away the law of God, you “have taken away the key to knowledge.” And there is no reason to think only religious knowledge is intended. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 1:5 Paul reminds his readers that “in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge.” Other texts such as Colossians 2:3 affirm the same principle: “[In Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” And Psalm 36:9 declares, “In [God’s] light do we see light,” showing that knowledge of God is the key to acquiring other kinds of knowledge. Clouser concludes, “The cumulative effect of these texts is to teach that no sort of knowledge is religiously neutral.”

The lack of neutrality among scholars raises questions about the effectiveness of purportedly neutral historical arguments to authenticate the [New Testament] canon. Even though many scholars (myself included) find the historical evidence for the apostolicity of the New Testament books to be quite persuasive, it is clear that many other scholars do not. Arguments that Christians find compelling often prove entirely unconvincing to the skeptic. Indeed, much of modern critical scholarship has rejected the apostolicity of many of the New Testament books and is quite confident that they are pseudonymous forgeries (more on this below). This has led Evans (and others) to observe rightly that such evidentialist-style arguments, ironically, have a substantial degree of subjectivity involved in them. Despite the claim that these types of arguments are more objective, and therefore presumably more acceptable, that has not proved to be the case.

Their effectiveness is always dependent upon the worldview of the one evaluating the evidence.

From Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger, Pages 78-79