Hello Friends.
By far, the larger part of the base of the Republican Party views itself as religiously conservative, a majority holding to conservative, evangelical Christianity.
I will describe the view of inerrancy held to by these conservative, evangelical, fundamental Christians. I will ask what those who hold to the Bible as God's Word but reject the exclusivity of the conservative Christian gospel do with these passages. As an agnostic, I find it difficult to understand how one can embrace the Bible and a liberal view of Christianity at one and the same time given its repeated exclusive claims.
More below the fold:
Please bear in mind that I have already repeatedly made clear that I am agnostic. The views below are not now my views. The arguments made below are not ones I hold to. However, one should be able to restate the other side's point of view and argue from their vantage point, as an intellectual exercise.
Most conservative, evangelical Christians hold to the inerrancy of the Bible in its original manuscripts. The more able of the above group divide hermeneutics into three parts. Observation: What does the text say ? Interpretation: What does the text mean by what it says? Application: How do we apply the text today? They say that they understand the Bible in a natural manner: don't assume that language is figurative unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. If a simile or a metaphor is drawn, then understand that this is figurative language. For examples, the parables are clearly using figurative language. On the other hand, other language that does not use figurative language should not be interpreted figuratively. Our job, they argue, is to understand what the author intended to communicate by his / her writing.
We are told that we must believe that every word of the Bible was breathed out by God in that God the Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the Bible that they wrote, using their own words and personalities, the very word of God (I am paraphrasing from memory what Dr. Charles Ryrie wrote in his Ryrie Study Bible).
We are informed that the Bible does use phenomological language (how things appear) which would only be false if the object described did not so appear to the author [example Psalm 19] . We are told that four corners of the Earth is an expression of speech and thus not false. Free quotations are allowed for under this view of inerrancy.
The response we read to the objection that we don't have the original manuscripts is the following:
The New Testament is the best attested book of the ancient world. A small portion of the gospel of John, on all hands accounted the last of the gospels, was found (Ryland fragment) and dated at 125 A.D. . Based upon where it was found, the latest possible date for the Gospel of John is 90 A. D. . The other gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written earlier. 25,000 Biblical archaeological finds have been made, not one proven contradiction resulting from them, many of them confirming historical details related in the Bible. Skeptical archaeologists became very conservative and quite convinced of the Bible based upon their own digs. Anachronisms would have resulted had the authors not written at the times conservatives say. Depending upon how one counts manuscripts, 25,000 manuscripts have been found: uncials, miniscules, ... By comparing these texts, we find that there is no meaningful variation on any significant Christian doctrine among them. We find that (Geisler and Nix say) the New Testament that we have today is 98.3% textually certain and that the passages which are uncertain are not about fundamental doctrines (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Substitutionary nature of the death of Christ, the Resurrection...). The overwhelming majority of the discrepancy in our current copies revolve around the difference: Is it Jesus Christ our Lord or does the text read our Lord Jesus Christ ? Essentially, no meaningful difference exists.
They argue that the current Bible we have would be corrupt to an unknown extent if we did know hold to inerrancy. This way we are told that we may be sure that our current medicine is 98.3% pure.
They reason that if we don't believe the Bible is perfect (with above caveats), then murder and rape might not be sins. How would we know ?
They argue if the Bible is wrong on history and science, why would I believe it
on unknowable matters like eternal life ?
They also argue that skeptics do not understand what it means to prove a contradiction as opposed to showing a discrepancy (no possible way to harmonize the passages must be proven).
They argue that given when the New Testament was written (40's to 90 A.D.), these texts would have been rejected as fraudulent had the documents not been written by their purported authors and historically accurate. They ask, if not for the resurrection, then what event accounted for the birth of the Church, the change of the day of worship ? Why would the apostles die for what they themselves knew was false ? A person might die for something that they thought was true, but actually was false, but who would die and be a martyr for what they knew was not true. Based upon the Book of Acts and buttressed by the Gospels and the Epistles, Christ appeared to the apostles for a period of 40 days. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the apostles would have known it and they would have been preaching that Christ rose from the dead and been martyred for it when they knew it was false.
And so these are some of their arguments.
But what strikes me with force now is a conversation I had with my step mom when I first converted to conservative, fundamental Christianity. She said that there were multiple paths to God. I quoted John 14:6 which says: Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " I asked her what possible other meaning could one garner from that passage ?
If one retains an allegiance to the Bible and reveres it as God's Word but does not believe that only those who trust in Christ alone for salvation have eternal life and are going to Heaven, then what does one do with these passages ?
If such passages were rare and obscure, then perhaps one might overlook them or be able (without mental gymnastics) to interpret them in an inclusive way. Besides why hold to any religious belief if one acknowledges that one does not have an inerrant source for it ?
There are numerous such passages in the Bible and I will quote some of them.
The whole book of Romans argues that all people are born sinners, that Christ died a vicarious death on the Cross to pay the penalty for all the sins committed by those who receive him and that only those who trust in Christ alone for salvation have eternal life and will go to Heaven. Romans 1-2 establishes that both those who are not exposed to Biblical instruction (Romans 1) and those who are exposed to Biblical instruction (Romans 2) are condemned. Romans 3 says that all people are sinners (Rom 3:23) and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:25 speaks of the vicarious atonement of Christ. Romans 4 explains how we are justified by faith alone (alone being justified by context). ... Galatians is similar. Ephesians is similar.
John's Gospel is replete with exclusive statements.
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]
36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[l]
Several points are in order here. First, Nicodemus was religious already. Clearly, this text says his religion was insufficient for salvation and he was far more religious than most religious people today. Second, Jesus equated being born again with believing. This is evident when one follows the passage. Third, the incident in Numbers 23 describes people bit by the serpent because of their sin. Those who did not look died. Those who did look lived. Looking is represented to be believing and not looking is represented to be not believing. Next, the one who does not believe stands condemned already. This is substantiated by a fundamentalist doctrine: The person that they are not believing in is the Son of God in a unique sense (John's Gospel described Jesus this way).
How about this passage from Acts 4.
8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.[a]'[b] 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved
Salvation is found in no one else. So, it is on the basis of Christ alone. But that is not all the verse affirms. We must be saved the verse states. And there is only one name given among men by which people can be saved. This verse explicitly teaches that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.
Again, why prize the Bible when it is full of these gems if one does not hold to such things ? This is the meat of the Bible. And it's not like the Old Testament provides us with a more merciful and more inclusive view of salvation.
How about John 8.
21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."
The gospel of John portrays Jesus as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity and that Jesus frequently makes claims to be the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient God who created the Universe out of nothing. Hence, he sees Nathaniel praying when Nathaniel was alone. He was at one and the same time, fully God and fully man according to the Creed. And since these Jewish people did not accept his Divinity, they would die in their sins, this passage says.
There are numerous, numerous other texts such as these. And my question is why embrace the Bible when one realizes that the main point of the Bible in terms of its actual content is fundamentalist Christianity ? Why be Christian ? Why not investigate Buddism or be agnostic or atheistic ?
I don't ask these questions to be impolite. And I certainly don't want to harm anyone's faith. But I keep hitting an intellectual brick wall when I contemplate why people would do this ?