I don't know how many times I've heard the statement, "the Bible is as clear as crystal", but I've heard it innumerable times. In fact, I've said the same thing myself on a great many occasions during my eighteen years as an Evangelical Christian. Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired and sufficient "Word of God", will defend this book with whatever means are available to them; even lies are fair game.
Is the Bible that clear? Is it so clear that even child, as we are so often told by Inerrantists1, could understand its so-called "salvific message?" Well, that must be some brilliant child, because the so-called clarity of the "gospel of Jesus Christ" has caused Christians to deluge formerly blank page with untold gallons of ink, just arguing about it for centuries. So much for clarity and so much for the unity of the church!
If the Bible is so clear, why are there so many divisions in Christendom? One would think that unity of doctrine would be the order of the day, if the Bible were that clear. Why are there so many denominations contradicting each other on such teachings as the gospel, election and predestination, the Eucharist, baptism, eternal torment, and...? Well, I think that by now you get the point.
I don't think there is one major teaching of the Bible, or minor one for that matter, over which Christians haven't split. Baptists alone account for over 3,000 denominations worldwide. They come in a wide assortments of flavours, from Southern Baptists, to Regular Baptists (they must eat a lot of fiber), to "Standing-On-Street-Corners-Yelling" Baptists.
If this book is so clear, then why all the divisions? If it is inspired of God, then why does it cause such rivalries in Christendom? The Roman Catholic church, which claims to be the sole arbiter of what the Bible "really" teaches, can't even keep its own theologians from going astray of its touted infallibility. In fact, there are so many different and varied opinions concerning the Bible, that one would be hard pressed to catalog them all. The task would prove gargantuan.
If this book is really inspired by an omnipotent omniscient deity, then why didn't the Biblegod make it plain? One would think that if this message is so crucial to humanity, and this god wishes all men to be saved (1Tim 2:3-6), then the message should be clear, unambiguous and simple enough that even the uneducated should be able to understand it readily; at least enough to be "saved". But is this the case? The answer is a resounding "NO!"
When asked why there are so many different, and contradictory interpretations of the Bible, many Christians will respond: "But that doesn't mean the book isn't clear, it only means that many people, including some so-called Christians, just don't understand the simple message of Scriptures." Another one is: "The problem is that a lot of Christians just don't study prayerfully, or thoughtfully enough." My personal favorite? "Well, that simply means that those people are not 'true' Christians." Ever heard of The "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
We are told by Fundamentalists, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith (Eph 2:8-10), and that works are not the way to "get saved". Paul, they say, has made it abundantly clear that one cannot add works to salvation. However, Jesus himself said to a certain young ruler that in order to "enter life", the young man had to obey all the commandments.
Matt. 19: 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 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 . 18 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 not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 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. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. (Emphasis mine)
This text in Matthew's gospel is basically in accord with those of Mark (10:17) and Luke (18:18), in that Jesus is asserting that "life" may be entered into by obeying the commandments.
Why is it then that some Christians claim that works are not necessary for salvation? The reason is partly because of Pauline sotereology2, which favours a no-works salvation. Various epistles state:
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works , lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Emphasis mine)
Paul, it is believed by Fundamentalists, is "The apostle of the heart set free." This is actually part of the title of a book by F. F. Bruce, in which he tries to show that Paul's gospel was about salvation by grace alone, though faith, and that Paul did not contradict other NT writers who seemed to be saying something altogether different. There are some very elaborate gymneutics (hermeneutical3 gymnastics) used in order to counter the Sceptic's arguments that the Bible teaches two different gospels: that of Paul's and that of Jesus.
If Paul's gospel is the same as Jesus', then why doesn't he say the same thing? Jesus taught that one had to obey the commandments to enter life. The expression "to enter life" is the equivalent of Paul's use of the word salvation, and yet Paul, who claimed to have received his gospel from none other than Jesus (Gal 1:11,12), teaches the opposite of what Jesus taught. It is obvious from the passage in Matt. 19:16ff, that Jesus wants the young ruler to obey the Mosaic Law in order to enter life, or be saved. This is also what Jesus taught in Matt. 5:17,18.
Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Emphasis mine)
This is pretty specific, isn't it? Heaven and earth will not pass until "the law and the prophets" be fulfilled, and not one jot or one title will pass, or be removed, until that time.
This means that all the Mosaic law and the prophets must be obeyed by the Christian until heaven and earth pass away. If his righteousness, that is, if his law keeping, doesn't EXCEED that of the Pharisees, then he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Sounds to me like not many Christians will make it to heaven.
James, who is thought to have been the brother of Jesus, tells us in his epistle that salvation by faith alone is wrong. Faith is dead without works, he states. His epistle, often considered to be a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 4-5), is full of admonitions to Christians about works, and how they are necessary to salvation.
James 2:8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
It would certainly seem James is saying that works are necessary. In fact, in v. 10 he speaks of keeping the whole law, and that breaking one commandment means breaking all of them. Further he writes:
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Would not the average reader conclude that works are necessary for salvation when reading this text? The Roman Catholic church and its myriad sheep certainly think so. Moreover, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and many other like groups, think along these lines as well. The only group of any significance that disagrees are Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. The next passage is even more to the point:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Emphasis mine)
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals would counter by saying that James is not teaching the necessity of works for salvation, but that if one has saving faith, then one cannot be without good works. James is not contradicting Paul or John, they would say, he is saying the same thing but in a different way. In other words, James is NOT teaching that works are necessary to be saved, but that BECAUSE you are saved you will do good works.
This is lame at best, and betrays a poor understanding of what James is saying: One must believe, to be sure, but one must also do works in order to be saved, which agrees with the gospels in which Jesus teaches that the law MUST BE OBEYED in order to "enter life". This is in direct contradiction to Paul's gospel, which states unequivocally that salvation is to the exclusion of works (Rom 3:20,28; 4:5; Gal. 2:16). Is it any wonder there are so many splits in Christendom? Even the "inspired" writers couldn't agree with themselves, some of them even contradicting the very teachings of their own Lord and Saviour.
Paul even goes so far as to anathematize Jesus when he states in Galatians 1:8,9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” And yet Jesus, in Matthew 19, for example, insists on the opposite, i.e., that salvation (life) is attained by obeying the commandments; in other words: by works of the law, which Paul condemned as heretical.
Conclusion
It is evident, from what is written in the Bible itself, that this collection of books most certainly isn't a work of harmony inspired and kept from error by some omniscient omnipotent deity. It is the product of men who contradicted each other, even on the so-called fundamentals. If the Bible is so clear, then there would be no such divisions among Christians, at least concerning these fundamental doctrines. The message would be understood by all, even those who refused to believe in the message. The plain fact is that it simply isn't that way, not by a long shot, unless you’re committed to believing the myth of divine inspiration and inerrancy.
Why would an omniscient/omnipotent god inspire a work so convoluted, so contradictory, when his aim is to instruct the ignorant, the unsaved which he, YHWH, reportedly wants saved? The Bibles, to say the least, a jumble of contradictions which causes the opposite of what it's supposed to achieve. Instead of fostering unity of mind and teaching (Eph. 4:2-14), it divides. Is it any wonder that Sceptics have such an easy time demonstrating the contradictory nature of the Bible?
There are other questions I could ask concerning these so-called "clear as crystal" scriptures, but I'll let someone else, James Buckner, ask them in my stead. Buckner posted a series of what he called "Tough Questions for the Christian Church", on the Secular Web. Here now are just a few of the questions that specifically concern the scope of this essay.
From the section titled:
Biblical Ambiguities and Omissions
1al Ambiguities and Omissions
1. Why is the Bible unclear about how to be saved? Is there anything more important that the Bible could communicate? Why is it ambiguous and contradictory on this subject?
2. Why does Jesus teach salvation by works in the synoptic gospels, but John portrays him teaching salvation by faith?
3. Why does John not teach in his gospel that it is necessary to repent of our sins, since he states that his gospel was written specifically for the purpose of showing people how to be saved (John 20:31)?
4. Why is the nature and practice of the two sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper - left ambiguous in the Bible, and a cause of discord among churches?
5. Why is the book of Revelation incomprehensible if it is really "not sealed" (Rev 22:10)? Why are the prophecies in the book of Daniel actually easier to understand, if they *are* sealed (Daniel 12:9)?
6. Why doesn't the Bible provide unambiguous answers for major divisive doctrines like efficacy of baptism, paedobaptism, mode of adult baptism, soteriology, Christology, trinitarianism, satanology, angelology, nature of the afterlife, eschatology, fundamentals of the faith, the standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law, the standing of Gentile believers in relation to the Law?
From the section titled:
Misinterpretation of Scripture by New Testament Figures
1. Why did the writers of the New Testament feel free to misquote and misinterpret the Old Testament and conflate verses?
2. Why did the gospel writers use the Septuagint, an inferior translation of the Old Testament? Did the Holy Spirit fail to inspire them with the more accurate Hebrew text, the one accepted today?
3. Why did Matthew and Peter take Old Testament passages out of context to make them into prophecies, when they were never indicated to be prophetic by the Old Testament author (Acts 1:20 versus Psalm 69:25, for example)?
4. Why did Mark misreference an Old Testament prophet (Mark 1:2)? How can we rely on Mark to explain Old Testament prophecies to us if he is even mistaken about the source?
5. Why does Jude quote the non-canonical Book of Enoch as prophecy (Jude 14-15)? Did the Holy Spirit fail to inspire Jude with the fact that the Book of Enoch would not be accepted into the canon?
6. Why does Matthew quote a non-existent Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 2:23)? Was he using non-canonical writings, too?
as he using non-canonical writings, too?
as he using non-canonical writings, too?
7. Why does Matthew attribute a quote about the potter's field to Jeremiah, when Jeremiah has no such passage, and the closest one in the Old Testament is Zechariah (Matt 27:9-10; Zechariah 11:12)?
8. Why doesn't Paul ever quote Jesus from the gospel accounts, or show that he knew anything at all about Jesus' teachings and life as portrayed in the gospels?
9. Why is no single hermeneutic adequate for interpretation of scripture? Why were the New Testament authors so free and loose in their hermeneutics? How could it be that the meanings of some words and phrases have been lost? How could it be that some cultural references have been lost? How can it be that many books and passages admit of multiple interpretations? Doesn't God want us to understand his Word enough to protect the knowledge of its referents and use unambiguous diction and phraseology?
There are enough questions here to incite some thinking, though I don't hold out much hope for the Inerrantist. He has an ax to grind and will find any argument he can to justify his beliefs. I'm appealing to that person who has doubts and who has been asking himself some, or all, of these questions. To him I say: There are "ungetoverable" problems in the Bible, which one can either choose to ignore, explain away or admit them and move on.
_______________________________________
1 Inerrantist: person who believes the Bible is not only the word of God, but that it is the infallible word of God. They believe that God inspired the original documents so that they contain no errors, either historically, scientifically or historically.
2 Soteriology: the study of salvation and how one gets saved from the wrath of God.
3 Hermeneutics: the theory of the interpretations of texts, especially concerning the Bible and other ancient literature should be understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment