              |
|
|
Debunking
the Arguments of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists
Argument # 2: The
Bible is inerrant and contains no contradictions. Its 66 books are
harmonious and its 40+ writers agree on what they wrote.
This doctrine of Biblical
inerrancy is the central claim of Christian fundamentalist apologists.
Though extreme, it is necessary to support their extreme doctrines and
preachings, giving them unquestionable authority. Without it, their
doctrines would not have the foundation required to keep the faith going.
However, despite the Fundamentalists’ obsession regarding Biblical inerrancy,
the fact is that the books of the Bible are nowhere near as adamant about
it. In fact, most books of the Bible don’t even claim to be God’s word.
Davis D. Danizier made some excellent bottom line points about this in Putting the Bible in Perspective:
“But
the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own
"infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing. The Bible in its current
compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was
written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a
book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific
portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but
not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate
writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual
religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be
considered divine. They are just like modern writers, making commentary and
analysis, who just happened to have their works
assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They
refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before
their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament
prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever
will be added to the canon. Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the
established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim
It
is not necessary for good Christians to accept the Bible as the infallible Word
of God in order to understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of universal
compassion. After all, the early Christians themselves did not have an
"infallible Bible" to carry around with them -- it wasn't even
compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain insights and understanding from
modern writers and commentators of today, without claiming that they are divine
and infallible, we can gain insight and understanding from ancient writers, as
long as we consider their works for what they are, with critical thinking and
common sense -- not just blind faith.
We
should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many
times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and
the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has
developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their
merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything
more.”
Christians are also fond of
adding that “The word of God cannot have contradictions because God cannot
contradict himself.” Again, it’s done with the a priori belief
that it must be so since it was divinely inspired by God. Despite all
logic and reason, fundamentalists will hold steadfast to this doctrine.
The book Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks explains well why this doctrine is so appealing to
the believers and their faith: (page 26-27)
“Fundamentalists
normally do not treat the doctrine of inerrancy as simply one explanation among
others for the nature of the Bible. Rather, to them, the doctrine of
inerrancy is more like an unquestionable law than an explanatory theory.
So treated, the doctrine leads most fundamentalists to feel confident that each
Biblical verse can be easily understood and applied to life’s problems.
Fundamentalists view the Bible as the final authority on all matters of
important in their life, and many believe that it is reliable only if it is
entirely inerrant……………… It is, then, the apparent simplicity of Biblical
inerrancy that is appealing to many fundamentalists, and that simplicity is
basic to their approach not only to the Bible but also to the world around
them. To many people, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and the
fundamentalist system of thought in which it is embedded are enormously
attractive………. Systems of thought that generalize about the world, then, can
simplify, or at least seem to simplify, an otherwise chaotic world……. A system
of thought that denounces all alternative ways of thinking is often enormously
attractive, especially in times of widespread moral and religious
uncertainty. It offers an anchor in the whirlpool of cultural
change. By requiring uncritical acceptance of black-and-white
definitions, such systems of thought can appeal to millions of people, who find
ambiguity and ambivalence disturbing.”
It also describes the
drawbacks that such thinking can have on people as well:
“The
intellectual difficulties associated with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy
lie not in its adherents’ generalizations per se but rather in the
unwillingness of its adherents to abandon certain generalizations in the face
of contrary evidence. (page 28)
The
major hazards in Christian fundamentalism, and thus the major causes of the
doubts and frustration that many fundamentalists feel, are woven into the
fundamentalists’ approach to the Bible. People who hold the presumption
that all the Bible must be ‘perfect’ may sacrifice the ability to recognize
Biblical implausibilities and inconsistencies, and that is a fundamental
hazard. For when they are unable to detect a biased statement, a
fantastic story, an unjust act, an implausible feat, or a contradictory law,
they place their faith in God in a precarious position. (page 149)”
While such ways of thinking
can be emotionally comforting to the believer, there are big obvious drawbacks
as well. For one thing, it closes one’s mind drastically, making them see
the world in black and white, ignoring the real complexity and diversity of the
world. It gives the believer a mentality that puts everyone in the world
into two categories – believers and non-believers, or the light vs. the
dark. And it also stunts any intellectual growth or learning, because
anything that doesn’t fit within the belief system is rejected as unwholesome
or evil. In addition, this also leads to the inability to relate to those
who don’t share your belief system, thus alienating them from you. Here’s
an example of what this kind of thinking could lead to in the worst case
scenario: (Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks, page 28)
“Indeed,
by overgeneralizing and not questioning assumptions and definitions, entire
systems of thought can inadequately describe the world and fail to do justice
to its complexity. Perhaps the most tragic example of oversimplified
thought is Naziism, which relied on uncritical definitions of Jews and the
uncritical acceptance of the idea of the Germans’ being a chosen people.”
In addition, here are some
examples using foolish historical quotes, of what religious fundamentalist
closed system thinking can do to people’s minds. It’s kind of scary, but
it’s real.
"The
good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make
empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have
made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man
in
the bonds of Hell."
-
"The
Roman Church has never erred, nor will it err to all eternity. No
one
may be considered a Catholic Christian who does not agree with the
Catholic
Church. No book is authoritative unless it has received the
papal
sanction..."
-
From the Dictatus of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085)
"We
should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white
is
really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides."
-St.
Ignition of Loyola, Exercitia Spiritualia
"If
the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it."
-
William Jennings
"To
assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-
Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo in 1615.
"When
the non-Christian scientist or philosopher begins to reason in the
field
of philosophy or theology, the very nature of the subject matter,
dealing
as it does with the ultimate causes of the universe, makes it
impossible
for him to reason correctly. The distortion brought about by
the
fall of man into sin completely blocks the intellectual channels of
the
non-Christian thinker and prevents him from reasoning correctly."
-
Floyd
Row,
(Now
the one above clearly shows a tenaciously circular, closed-loop system of
thinking!)
Now let’s begin and look at
the facts here.
1) No one who looks at the Bible objectively
without any bias or beliefs to defend would think that it is totally harmonious
and without errors or contradictions. The book Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks put it well
on page 86:
“Any
person who reads the whole Bible, without being told I advance that it is a
work that is supposed to be entirely true, entirely in agreement,
and nowhere contradictory, would have to conclude that it is a
collection of strands of thought that sometimes conflict. The books of
the Bible were written over more than a thousand years, and reflect the views
of various cultures and numerous writers.”
However,
that is to be expected, since the Bible is not really one book, but 66 books
written by over 40 authors. If you picked out 40 different books at a
library or bookstore, would you expect their claims and ideas to all be
harmonious and without contradictions? Of course not. And you
should expect no less from the Bible, though it may contain words of
wisdom.
2) Second, if the Bible were truly God’s word verbatim,
then why would there be stylistic differences among the different authors? (in
addition to the differences in content and ideas of course) Even
Christians will acknowledge the individualistic differences in writing styles
of the authors of the Bible. But in doing so, they face a contradiction
that they don’t even realize. While they acknowledge that the 40 plus
writers of the Bible were using THEIR own STYLE of writing in their books, they
are at the SAME TIME saying that every word in the Bible comes directly from
God! But if every word of the Bible were from God, there wouldn't be
different styles and points of view. How can God have such different
styles of writing?
Now
even if the Bible writers were “inspired” by something such as some higher
wisdom, higher consciousness, or even a part of their own spirit, they still
are INTERPRETING the "inspiration" that they're getting with their
own HUMAN MINDS, which makes them fallible still! They would be using
their own human minds to interpret their feelings and inspirations (no matter
what the source of them) in the same way that artists, sculptors, writers,
poets, etc. are doing as well. What this means is that since their own
minds are doing the interpreting of their "inspirations" we can only
view most if not all of the Bible as symbolic or allegorical rather than
literal. They become like the stories contained in Aesop's Fables and
other parable stories, which are symbolic allegorical tales with lessons and
morals to learn from.
3) Third, if the Bible was God’s word and an
accurate historical account, then it would not use literary techniques such as
the following used by fictional writers.
Use
of foreshadowing
The
Bible often uses a technique called foreshadowing, which is used by literary
fiction writers, not by writers of historical documents. Here are some
examples.
a) They say that Moses' deliverance of the
Israelites is a symbolic foreshadowing representation of Christ's deliverance
of the believer's from the world of sin.
b) They say (Jesus says it in the New Testament
too) that the story of Jonah being in the belly of the whale (or fish) for
three days is a symbolic foreshadowing of Christ's descent into hell after his
crucifixion for three days and nights before he rose again.
c) They say that Abraham's attempted sacrifice
of Isaac to God as a test of his faith is a symbolic representation of Christ's
sacrifice thousands of years later.
These
are just some of the examples of foreshadowing used in the Bible. Now, just
why would God need to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice in the New Testament with
events in the Old Testament? What practical value would that serve?
We've all been taught in English class that foreshadowing is a technique used
by writers of fiction and literature. It's not a technique used to write
historical or actual accounts though.
Furthermore,
we have no reason at all to believe that the writers of the Old Testament
originally intended to make their stories foreshadow Christ's
crucifixion. The New Testament writers seemed to just use those Old
Testament stories to suit their purpose obviously.
Literary
dialogue
The
dialogues in the Bible are all structured and in complete sentences, which is
the way people talk in dramatizations, but not the way people talk in real
life. If you read the dialogues in the Bible, you'll find that people in
it talk in complete sentences, without interruptions or phrases. Each
line spoken is in response to someone or something. Now that's obviously
how plays and dramatizations are written. People in real life don't talk
like that. In real life, people talk in phrases and get
interrupted. They use informal language, and don't have such a logical
and clear purpose behind every thing they say. Also, the dialogues and
the plots in the Bible just seem kind of wooden and contrived, it doesn't flow
like the way real dialogue is.
Contradictions and
discrepancies
4) Fourth, the Bible may contain good and bad parts,
true things and false things, etc. but it is definitely not inerrant. In
fact, the Bible is not only full of contradictions too numerous to list, but
also contains differences in theology between the Old and New Testaments, a
series of unfulfilled prophecies, prophecies in the New Testament which don’t
exist in the Old Testament, false scientific facts, deliberate manipulation by
the New Testament writers, etc. (We will go into these more later.)
The
debate regarding Bible contradictions is too vast, tedious, and beyond the
scope and purpose of this article to get into, but if you wish to research it,
there are many websites online which address it. Here are some for you to
check which list the contradictions of the Bible:
Biblical Errancy The most
comprehensive list ever compiled of Bible contradictions. Written by
Dennis McKinsey, who is considered the leading authority on Bible
contradictions and errancy.
A
List of Biblical Contradictions By Jim
Merritt
Biblical
Errancy A list by Jim Merritt
The Argument from the Bible (1996) by Theodore Drange
New
Testament Contradictions By Paul Carlson
A
list of links can be found at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.shtml
To
see how tedious debating Bible contradictions can become, see these transcripts
of public debates on the issue.
Is
The Bible The Word Of God? (Debate)
Asa
and Archer: Does the Bible contain errors?
Paul
Tobin, a former Christian turned Atheist, has put up an excellent site
debunking Christian fundamentalism similar to this one, called The Rejection of
Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity.
Here he shows some critical errors and contradictions in the Bible. The Bible
For
books in print about this subject and that counter fundamentalism, you can find
a list of them at:
A review
of the above articles will show you that the debate over Bible contradictions
is a never-ending tedious battle over semantics and translations that never
really gets anywhere, with each side seeing what it wants to see. That is
why I do not need to get into it here. They usually devolve into a
tedious debate over the correct translation of the meaning of Hebrew or Greek
verses of Bible transcripts. Without a background in Hebrew, Greek, or a
study of ancient Bible manuscripts, one cannot even engage in such
debate. But even amongst themselves, Christians will debate differences
in theology or doctrine in the same way, arguing their different
interpretations of various verses, and over correct translations of Hebrew or
Greek manuscripts.
One
way Christians attempt to resolve alleged Bible contradictions is by stating a
common guideline that you have to look at each verse in its context, meaning
that any interpretation or conclusions you draw from the verses must be
consistent with the verses in the rest of the Bible. However, the problem
is that one can easily choose their own interpretation of a verse, and
reinterpret all the other conflicting verses to agree with it, or vice
versa. For example, one dispute among Christian denominations is the issue
of whether water baptism is required for salvation. Those who believe
that water baptism is required for salvation will quote John 3:5 which
says:
“Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
They
take the word “water” literally to mean H2O water. On the other hand,
those who believe in a salvation purely by faith and not of works (they
consider the act of water baptism to be of “works”) will cite Ephesians 2: 8-9
“For
by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift
of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
The
proponents of the grace through faith salvation will claim that the “water” in
John 3:5 must be interpreted as referring to the word of God, because elsewhere
in the Bible, the term “water” has been used to refer to the word of God.
And furthermore, since the verse in Ephesians said that salvation was purely
through grace and faith, then that’s the definition of “water” that must be
used in John 3:5. In addition, the “grace through faith” believers will
cite the example of the salvation of the thief on the cross (Gospel of John),
who was given immediate salvation by Jesus while they were both crucified,
without being water baptized. However, believers in water baptism as a
requirement will claim that since the thief did not have the chance of being
baptized by water, that God made an exception in his case but that in normal
cases it is still a requirement. Another verses dealing with this same
issue is:
Mark
The
water baptism people say the word “baptized” above refers to water baptism
while the grace through faith proponents claim that it refers to the spiritual
baptism of the Holy Spirit when one becomes saved.
There
are thousands of other verses like this which are disputed within the Christian
community between believers and denominations. And it can often get a lot
more elaborate than in my example above. You see how tedious and
pointless this kind of debate over Bible interpretation gets?
Another
way Christians attempt to resolve a contradiction is by looking for any
loophole they can find to harmonize contradictory verses. In the New
Testament, for instance, we have two accounts of Judas’ death. In one
account, he kills himself by hanging himself. In another, he dies of a
fall.
"And
he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out
and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
“Now
this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong,
he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” (Acts
Christians
attempt to resolve this contradiction by claiming that Judas hung himself at
the top of a hill first, and then somehow the rope broke and he fell down a
slope. They will go to any extreme to resolve a contradiction, as you
might expect. To see more examples of how Christians attempt to resolve
Bible contradictions, and how they match with the actual facts, see: http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/annotated.html
In any
case, the fact is that there are countless of contradictions in the
Bible. Of that there can be no doubt. Even Christians themselves
admit that if you take the Bible literally, then of course there will be
contradictions in it. Therefore, they maintain that some of it is literal
and some symbolic or figurative. But of course, which verses are literal
and which are symbolic is a source of constant doctrinal debate among
Christians, and has always been. The thing they do is try to rationalize
away any contradictions or discrepancies to maintain the belief that it is
divinely inspired and harmonious. They have many ways of doing this, one
of which is to label any verse that contradicts a doctrine you hold as symbolic
and therefore not literal enough to cause a contradiction. Another is to
reinterpret the meaning of any contradictory verses which doesn’t support the
doctrines you believe in. As you might have guessed, the variety of ways
they can do this is countless and never-ending. (It is not in the scope
of this article to address every single doctrinal issue and verse being debated
in the Christian community though.)
Some
of the most significant discrepancies and theological differences in the Bible
are:
a) The Old Testament writers tell of a coming messiah
(the Jews like to use the term “Moshiach” though, see http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm)
who will establish a political national kingdom in Israel and bring it to
become the center of world government and power (Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea
3:4-5; Isaiah 11:11-12; 2:2-4; 42:1) whereas the New Testament writers claimed
that their messiah, Jesus Christ, is a messiah of a spiritual kingdom (spoken
of often in Matthew 9-13) rather than an earthly one, consisting of the body of
believers and their churches. Therefore, the central figure of the Bible,
the messiah, is portrayed as having a completely different mission in the Old
and New Testaments. And this difference is a huge one. So much for
harmony. (See the section in this article entitled Why Jesus could not
be the messiah of the Old Testament)
b) During most of the Old Testament era, followers of
God did not believe in a literal heaven and hell. You can check this out easily
by simply looking at the books of the Old Testament itself, as the concept is
not mentioned until about the book of Daniel. And that book was written
in the era when
c) The writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and
Luke clearly teach and believe in a salvation by works, while the writer of the
Gospel of John, written much later, preaches that salvation is by faith and
belief on the cross and in the atonement. For example, in Matt. 19:16-18,
Jesus is asked how one can go to heaven and have eternal life.
"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good
Master,
what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal
life? And he said
unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none
good but one, that is,
God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments. He saith
unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,
Thou shalt not
commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
bear false
witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou
shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him,
All these things
have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus
said unto him, If
thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor,
and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and
follow me."
Now
that was a simple rule to follow for going to heaven, loving your neighbor and
God, and keeping the commandments. However, it evolved into much more
later when we get into the book of John, which was written much later. In
fact, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that John is very
different from the other three Gospels, known as the Synoptic Gospels, in its
emphasis of the doctrine of Atonement, which is that one must be saved through
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Rather than just loving your neighbor and
God, the doctrine now was that you had to believe that Jesus died for
your sins in order to be saved. Our modern Evangelical Christianity is
based on the Gospel of John, and that’s why if you look at a Christian Gospel tract
or literature, you will see it always quoting verses from the Gospel of
John. For example:
John
3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.”
John
John
John
14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And
then of course, the Apostle Paul reinforced this doctrine of Atonement in his
let3ters (some theorize that Paul created the version of him in organized
Christianity).
Romans
10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
(See
the section entitled Evolution of the Salvation doctrine in the four Gospels)
And
with regard to the four Gospels describing Jesus’ ministry, there are key
contradictions and discrepancies as well. For instance:
1) Mark is regarded by Biblical Scholarship to
be the oldest of the Gospels, followed by Matthew and Luke, and finally
John. It is agreed that Matthew and Luke took Mark's narrative and
expanded on them, and using another source which scholars believe to have
existed and label the “Q Gospel”. Then John then took the first three
Gospels and added even more to them to create his comprehensive Gospel.
Now, if these Gospels are the word of God, why does God have to expand on his
own words over and over again? Why can't an all knowing omniscient God
write the perfect final draft the first time, instead of making so many rough
drafts first? Also, if the gospels are eyewitness testimony, then why is
91 percent of Mark contained in Matthew? Why would anyone need to copy
their own eyewitness testimony from someone else?
2) In John’s Gospel, Jesus talks about being
"born again" in order to enter the
3) Nothing in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke
describe of any kind of salvation by faith. And nothing in them warns
about the consequences of not believing in Jesus. The last chapter of
Mark which states: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16) has been shown to be an
interpolation since many of the earliest manuscripts of Mark don't contain that
verse in the last chapter, so Mark probably didn’t say anything about salvation
by faith as well.
4) In Mark Jesus goes around everywhere and
casts out demons. In John he never does this once.
5) Matthew says there were forty-one generations
from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. The names in their
genealogies are also completely different.
6) Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod was King
of Judea. However, Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of
Syria. Both can’t be true though. Herod died in the year 4 BC, and
Cyrenius, who in Roman history is known as Quirinius, did not become Governor
of Syria until ten years later. Therefore, Herod and Quirinius are
separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and
Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years as to the time
of Christ's birth.
7) According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus'
ministry covered about one year. But according to John, Jesus' ministry
covered about three years.
8) John tells us that the event where Jesus
drives out the money-changers from the temple occurred at the beginning of his
ministry, while Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that it occurred near the end of
his evangelization ministry.
9) There are also three types of Christs in the
Gospels. According to Mark, Christ was a man. According to Matthew
and Luke, he was a demigod, while John insists that he was God himself.
10) Matthew says that Jesus was born in
Rather than rationalizing
them away or ignoring them, perhaps the best way to understand these
contradictions and discrepancies is given in Fundamentalism:
Hazards and Heartbreaks: (page148)
“There
is a satisfactory explanation for many of the inconsistencies and
implausibilities found in the Bible; it requires acknowledging that the
Biblical authors were influenced by the beliefs prevalent in their culture and
the historical setting in which they wrote.”
The "read
the Bible in its context" counterargument
A popular
counterargument by Christians against those who point out discrepancies in the
Bible is to claim that one has to "read the Bible in its
context". They even use this argument against other
Christians when doctrinal disagreements arise. This rule states
that any interpretation drawn from any Bible passages should take into account
the verses and chapters around it, and in the rest of the Bible too.
What this
Christian solution falsely and naively assumes is that everyone who honestly
reads the whole Bible in its context will come to the same conclusions.
Anyone who isn't deluded or deprived of common sense knows that this is
the most unrealistic expectation they can have. It also assumes that
there exists a single true and exact interpretation of the Bible.
They couldn't be
more wrong. Even if one exercises perfect logic in reading the
Bible, one can still come up with differing interpretations on many issues
and passages. Especially when the verses, chapters, and books of the
Bible contradict or don't make sense when taken hyperliterally, one still has
to make judgment calls on which verses to emphasize, and which to
reinterpret to fit a particular conclusion. As mentioned earlier in the water
baptism issue, one can easily choose
their own interpretation of a verse, and reinterpret all the other conflicting
verses to agree with it, or vice versa.
Sometimes, they
try to claim that the Holy Spirit in the true believer will correctly interpret
the Bible for him/her. The obvious problem with that is that lots of
"true believers" do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible,
even within the same denomination. And of course, they can easily claim
that the other "true believers" who disagree with them are either not
true believers or not being guided properly by the Holy Spirit. But that
is just getting insane.
As one reader of
mine commented on this issue:
"Wu,
I agree with you completely, as do 4.5 Million Orthodox believers.
First, consider how 10,000 different "literal" interpretations of the
same Bible (a minimalist one, since these groups do not accept various books
included in the traditional Scriptures) can be! There cannot
logically be more than one out of the myriad of disagreeing interpretations
which is correct--and there doesn't have to be even one! Each group
claims that it has got the right set of (literal) interpretations--however
non-literal much of what they interpret is and of course ignoring that the
Bible was finally assembled and canonized by the Orthodox Church--and not until
in the latter fourth century.
Second, if you reject the interpretations set forth by the disciples of the
authors of the Gospels and Epistles and their successors in the first two
centuries of Christianity, and if you permit everyone to interpret the
Scriptures according to one's individual whims (Luther's "sola
scriptura" and the "universal priesthood of believers") instead
of being guided by the holy patristic tradition, it follows that "Scripture
alone" is for all practical purposes a consummately empty
slogan--there being no objective way to select the fittest interpretation from
the different individualistic opinions on each point. This leads to moral
reletavism and a sense that "God will sort it all out in the end."
The Holy Apostle Paul said, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15. One must understand and experience the patristic
tradition of the Church to experience the fullness of Christ. The
epistles alone will never do it.
Modern Fundamentalist lack control--like the holy
tradition--which, having tried out every possible answer to every mooted point,
sifts them and selects (to hang on) the only one that does no harm to the
entire system of belief inherited from the Apostles and their
disciples. These traditions, given by word and by
epistle, have stood the test of two millenniums. The Orthodox
believe that the Church was guided by the all-holy Spirit (John
John"
Previous
Page Back to
Table of Contents Next
Page
