Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Objective Criticism of One's Own Views First (OC Part 1)
You are wrong! Wrong! My view is the right view. So get in line. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is Inerrant! It is infallible! Those who would oppose the Evangelical Canon are opposed to God. You are followers of the Devil. Catholics are going to hell! If you are not immersed in water you are not a follower of Christ. Creationism is the only correct theory....sorry now it's Intelligent Design. Any other view that would support Evolution in any capacity means you are of the Devil. Women can't be leaders! Women can be leaders only if led by men. Women must wear head coverings. Women don't have to wear head coverings. Alcohol is of the Devil. Jesus drank alcohol but it was non-alcoholic. Dancing is of the Devil. Certain tempos of music are of the Devil. And the list goes on and on and on and on and on.
But really some of the bigger challenges that are faced deal specifically with getting so focused on what others believe and never really assessing where ones own belief system originated from. Because I come from an 18 year experience with conservative evangelicalism (mainly in the fundamental baptist circle: Fellowship Baptists) I am more experienced in commenting on those experiences vs.... let's say the Islamic Faith.
Thus, for all of us, a couple central questions need to be asked. In our own system of beliefs:
How much time is spent criticizing the views and beliefs of others vs the critiquing of ones own belief system? How much time is spent actually looking at the historical, logical, epistemological, cultural accuracy of ones own views? How many of us have actually delved into finding out why we actually believe what we believe and whether those views are justifiable?
I would like to argue that if we are seeking truth[1] (however one defines truth) that one must first examine their own beliefs before they can properly and justifiably critique the views and beliefs of others[2]. Does that not make sense? Unless we know what we believe, why we believe it and how our tradition[3] came to teach what it does, or how it even came into existence, then how can we be critical of others views and beliefs?
So again, because the author of this article can only legitimately point out issues in his own beliefs with any degree of certainty this article will do just that. Thus, this article will focus on my conservative evangelical, fundamental, conservative views that over the course of 18 years have become non-conservative evangelical, non-fundamental, and non-conservative (in theology and practice). It will discuss in no succinct order that which I have learned over time concerning dialoguing, discussion, researching, questioning, reasoning, arrogance, humility, honesty, being willing to admit when you are wrong, not gloating when you are right, separating ideas from the individual, being a jackass, being a bigger jackass and then what I perceive to be of uttermost importance, love[4].
The Evangelical Canon, Human Involvement and Logical Fallacies
When I first became a follower of Christ I had no idea what I was getting myself into. At first I thought I was just reading a book that had a ton of wisdom in it that would teach me how to live morally and ethically. And it does and did. The Evangelical Canon[5] has a rich history of compilation. It is filled with stories of people from different cultures and their painstaking journey of both failure and success in discovering more about a God by the name YHWH. But where the challenge comes in isn’t, for me, so much what the Bible teaches, even though I believe, and can prove, there are contradictions and errors and huge philosophical and logical problems[6]. The challenge is in its formation.
One of the facts about my choice to become a follower of Christ and then to become a Baptist is that the two are not necessarily the same thing. I can be a follower of Christ without holding to Baptist doctrine, dogma, tradition or culture. But I cannot be a follower of Christ if I deny the core fundamental teachings of Jesus. There in lies the problem. How do we know what Jesus actually taught when we do not have any document written by him? And why do we trust that what the Evangelical Canon has to say about Jesus is accurate, true or without error? And for that matter why do we trust the people who compiled the canon?
One common argument given by conservative evangelicals[7] as to the formation of the canon is as follows. God had the Israelites who had an oral account of Creation, Flood, Babel, etc. And eventually Moses wrote the first 5 books which were inspired inerrant scriptures for God’s chosen people. Eventually, other books were added to the Old Testament as events occurred. Kings, Prophets, Wise men all had some inspired word from God to God’s people and God spoke to these people and inspired them to write down his messages. The books were perfect when written with NO mistakes. When the translations and copies were made some errors were made but nothing that would be considered problematic. Then Jesus came. He taught his disciples and eventually they wrote the stories and instructions for God’s people according to Jesus. As they wrote, they wrote perfectly. Their final copies were perfect and without error. The only errors would be in the translation and transmission process. And those errors, according to conservative evangelicals, are small and inconsequential to ones beliefs.
The argument continues that the Bible, as we have it today, was in circulation in the early church period (100-200 AD). And eventually, it was decided at some council to affirm the reality of the conservative evangelical writings and consider them a closed canon. And throughout this process, and this is key to their argument, the Holy Spirit was guiding it all. And finally, the bible affirms that it is God breathed and without error[8].
Now arguably, not every conservative evangelical[9] believes the above statement. But the greater majority of conservative evangelicals would follow that line of reasoning[10]. There are many problems and challenges with the above defense of the canon that this article couldn’t begin to address them all. There are hundreds of books written on the topic and I would encourage whoever is reading this to study until you know the issues.
Allow me to point out some of the basic problems. First, and foremost, much of the argumentation from conservative evangelicals for the establishment of the Evangelical Canon is purely speculative and subjective. Although they base some of their conclusions from letters of early church fathers[11], it would appear they have chosen people who agree with their view vs. letting all the documents speak into helping them establish a more cohesive, logical, rational view[12].
Also, the simple fact that it is argued that we know the bible is trustworthy because, “the Holy Spirit has ensured its accurate transmission and compilation through history.” is wrought with problems.
What about humans? Are we to believe that not one single person ever had false motives when writing passages of scripture. That when they were compiling and choosing texts that they were not choosing certain books/letters based on their cultural understanding of truth, reality, and humanity? Are we to believe that no decisions were politically motivated? Are we to believe that power and position didn’t play into its formation or canonization? Why would we think that humanity was any different back then vs now? Even within the stories of the gospels in their canon we see fights between Paul and Peter, Peter and Gentiles, Paul and Barnabus, disciples fighting for rank in heaven, and even disagreements on theology between Paul and James. And simply put, “Prove it!” It cannot be proven.
Secondly, the doctrinal contradictions abound in the bible but the majority of conservative evangelicals will deny this vehemently. Even pastors, who we would think should be educated in all matters concerning the formation of the canon and the problems of the canon are ignorant of the problems. And unlike proving the holy spirit guidance, and the unfettered, pure , undefiled motives, of authors and compilers, the contradictions and errors within the EC can be proven.
Thirdly, no where does the bible claim itself to be without error, perfect, infallible and even if it did it would be a circular argument to use it as a defense of their canon. And it would be a misrepresentation of the teachings they would ‘quote’ as a defense of infallibility.
For instance, the common passage quoted is 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads as follows:
16”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
Evangelicals believe this passage defends the bible as they have it today. What they fail to do is logically walk through their problem. Here is how they see it:
Major Premise:
God is true (Romans 3:4).
Minor Premise:
God breathed out the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the Scriptures are true (John 17:17).
First off, conservative evangelicals say God says he is true (according to the bible) so he must be true! This is a circular argument.[13] Next, they say, God inspired the scriptures, which infers that he inspired the authors to write exactly what He wanted them to write and thus their writings are true. This is all begging the question and thus has rather ‘impending doom’ implications on the conservative evangelical theory of inerrancy, infallibility and the forming and finalizing of the canon. It assumes no human authorship. It assumes that somehow God would interfere with free will so that humans couldn’t and wouldn’t make a mistake or do anything for selfish gain or out of ill motive. In other words, it assumes because God may be true humans are true. The argument cuts out the human element and thus makes the argument invalid.
And, on a side note, although not explicit in this particular syllogism, there is an understanding with conservative evangelicals that every follower of Christ has to agree with their syllogism or they are not a follower of Christ[14]. I call foul! A person doesn’t have to agree with their syllogism, especially when it is a blatant fallacy. And therefore, in regards to their conclusions on canon, inerrancy and infallibility that are based on an argument of fallacy, a person should not have to agree in order to be a follower of Christ. If they were able to prove that inerrancy, the EC, and infallibility were and are commanded by God to believe then it could be agreed that in order to be a follower of Christ you must believe in those issues. I am still waiting to see the commandments or even solid logical reasoning that would support that claim. To date, there is nothing.
Next, the disciple’s of Christ didn’t have the new testament in any compiled format until after the original disciples were all dead, so which scriptures were being referred to? The majority of scholars would agree that the Greek Septuagint of the Israelites was being used. And that the Hebrews revered the Septuagint on par with the Hebrew version. And this more then anything is a nail in the coffin of the modern day Evangelical Canon. The Septuagint has 13 more books in what conservative evangelicals call the Old Testament[15]. So if Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Luke and Jesus himself (who quotes the Septuagint) etc were all reading or at least taught under the Septuagint as the inspired teachings from God why do conservative evangelicals then read a different OT?
Other problems are the lost books of the bible. There are at least 28 books in the bible that are mentioned, cited, and quoted that are not in the EC. Would this then mean that the EC is incomplete? Of course, the conservative evangelical would argue that God simply didn’t want them in the bible[16]. Sigh.
So to summarize:
The EC OT has 13 less books then the Septuagint, which was read by Christ and his disciples. The Hebrews put the Septuagint on par with the Hebrew version. There are 28 books cited in the bible as inspired[17] that are lost. Thus one could begin to formulate an argument that would conclude the EC is incomplete and therefore not perfect in its compilation. And one then could also begin to formulate an argument, or begin to reopen discussion, that would establish new possible perspectives on the canon, which books should be included or excluded, the issue of inerrancy, infallibility, the basic tenants of the faith, the purpose of the church, concepts of God, concepts of Jesus, and the list goes on.
And this is the real issue behind why, this paper argues, conservative evangelicals desperately defend inerrancy, infallibility and a closed canon. They are terrified that if they acknowledge their syllogistic fallacies they are opening themselves up to the possibility that their perspectives on ecclesiology, soteriology, theology, history etc. may be skewed or possibly wrong. And thus, perhaps the reason why conservative evangelicals are so focused on pointing out everyone else’s supposed mistakes in their belief systems. If they focus on everyone else they don’t have to see their views for what they are. Their views, concerning canon and innerancy, are weak, unsubstantiated, pharisaical, and illogical.
Starting From Arrogance, proselytizing from the Start
Because conservative evangelicals believe they have the final authoritative word of God in its perfect and complete form a high level of arrogance is observed when in dialogue. In fact, to use the word ‘dialogue’ when dealing with most conservative evangelicals is almost comical. Why? Because they believe they are right. They don’t believe that there is anything wrong with their views, their bible, or their faith. They believe they have found ultimate truth and thus anyone who doesn’t fall inline with their beliefs is going to hell. In fact, even amongst the different denominations it is quite often established, by some leaders of churches, that other people in other denominations are not actually followers of Christ. Why? Because the other denominations don’t agree with the same doctrines, whether that be on issues such as baptism, communion, canon, tongues, prophecy, women’s roles in the church and life and much more.
In fact, conservative evangelicals believe that non-followers are in fact incapable of doing anything that is truly good. They believe that non-followers always have hidden motives or are ultimately acting in a selfish manner. And they defend this from their interpretation of a number of passages within the EC like the following that state, “9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”[18]
So the biggest scam going, in my opinion, is the conservative evangelical who is trying to build relationships with people who are not followers of Christ. They are taught that they can not actually be close friends with these people (the people of the world) because they are not part of the family of God. But you can love them into the kingdom. Do nice things for them. Get to know them. They do this all for the purpose of converting them.
[1] Truth can be viewed in many different ways but for the purpose of this article truth will be viewed as that which can be proven to be factual. Also, this article will take a stance that truth is subject to reality, reality being that which is actual. For example, I exist, the earth exists, water exists, the ground exists. How these things exist is not the point of this article.
[2] By views and beliefs this article is referring to belief systems such as Evangelicalism, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islamism. It is not referring to more simple views such as is coffee good for you or not although some of the principles could most assuredly be applied.
[3] Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Evangelicalism etc.
[4] Throughout this document you will see it refer to certain views held by evangelicals as ‘their views’. For approximately 15 years I considered their views my views. I no longer do hence why I utilize the term ‘their’.
[5] The evangelical canon contains 66 books from Genesis to Revelation contrary to the Catholic Canon which has 13 extra writings/books; the Luther Canon; Vulgate; Septuagint; Russian; Armenian; Syrian; Coptic etc. of which there is a compilation of books that agree or differ from the evangelical canon.
[6] The challenge with proving contradictions is dealing with a tactic utilized by evangelicals to explain away the supposed contradiction. For instance, if the bible says, God doesn’t change in one passage and it says he changes in another passage, the evangelical will quickly argue that the conflicting statements are for one of the following reasons: 1) A poetic device of some kind is being utilized and thus cannot be taken literally such as an anthropomorphism; 2) One or both passages are being taken out of context; 3) God is beyond our understanding and thus we cannot be sure of why there appears to be a contradiction; 4) Some archaeological study is yet to uncover a manuscript or find that will better explain the text and rid the said text of its apparent contradiction. It is often a near impossibility to have a reasonable dialogue with a conservative evangelical due to defences of this nature. Understanding, of course, that at times some of the above arguments may in fact be legitimate.
[7] Not necessarily scholars. Many scholars would argue differing views BUT the mainstream movement of evangelicals (James MacDonald; John McArthur and their pastors and church congregants) would agree with what is stated and going to be stated concerning their views of the bible.
[8] The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy is probably the most concise explanation of evangelicals view on inerrancy. The Lausanne Covenant takes a less rigid stance on inerrancy but this is probably because the covenant is covering many doctrinal affirmations vs simply taking a stance on inerrancy.
[9] And this paper, when stating ‘evangelical’, is dealing mainly with fundament conservative baptists, namely the Fellowship Baptist found in Canada. But many denominations, Pentecostal, Brethren, Baptist, etc. are classified as evangelicals. Please see the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The National Association of Evangelicals statements of faith. Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Some would argue that there is a post evangelical movement of a group called the emergen church. Many of the scholars associated with the emergen church are a voice against the illogical stance of the evangelical fundamentalist but would still consider their group as evangelical.
[10] It may be argued, and this paper would agree, that there is a large disparity between scholar, church leader and congregant in terms of biblical concepts and conclusions. Scholars naturally have access to documents, conversations, debates, and education that the average pastor and congregant do not. Thus they are able to draw conclusions based on a much broader base of information. But this does not mean, therefore, that a scholar will necessarily have differing views from the pastor and congregant. It can be argued that the church is 15-20 years behind the discoveries of scholars thus the scholarly works of evangelicals may contradict those of the pastor and congregant but in time they will eventually come to the same conclusion or go completely in the opposite direction and take on a more fundamental perspective or they may just choose to remain the same.
[11] Please do research on the early church fathers and the council of Nicea which took place in 325 AD.
[12] The point being that evangelicals argue that other bibles, that would include more books, are heretical and evil. This creates a huge dilemma for them considering the catholic canon, the first official canon at the council of Nicea, had more books then the EC.
[13] This article recognized that almost any faith view is based off of circular reasoning but that does not negate that in regards to trying to establish the validity of the evangelical canon this causes huge logical problems.
[14] This argument is a whole other issue. I may discuss this later on in the paper.
[15] This term is considered highly insulting to a modern day Jew.
[16] This line of reasoning destroys all manner of dialogue. It is the God made me do it argument. God made it that the books wouldn’t be in the bible. That is how he wanted it. It’s an unreasonable line of reasoning and debate.
[17] Some scholars would argue that these cited books were not inerrant or necessarily inspired but the passages quoted became inerrant and inspired when quoted by the authors of the books included in the canon. Although a nice idea it is completely lacking of any evidence to substantiate the claim. A more logical thought would be that the books simply got lost and thus we cannot establish whether they should or should not be included. And this claim is defensible. The books are quoted. The books are not in the bible. And thus the EC may be incomplete.
[18] A popular defense when challenging them on this issue is, “Well the only good a person can do if they are not a follower of Christ would somehow be motivated by the Holy Spirit working on their hearts and thus it is still God who is rewarded with the good deed and not the human. Thus the human is still 100% sinful without the ability to good unless God intercedes in the action.”
But really some of the bigger challenges that are faced deal specifically with getting so focused on what others believe and never really assessing where ones own belief system originated from. Because I come from an 18 year experience with conservative evangelicalism (mainly in the fundamental baptist circle: Fellowship Baptists) I am more experienced in commenting on those experiences vs.... let's say the Islamic Faith.
Thus, for all of us, a couple central questions need to be asked. In our own system of beliefs:
How much time is spent criticizing the views and beliefs of others vs the critiquing of ones own belief system? How much time is spent actually looking at the historical, logical, epistemological, cultural accuracy of ones own views? How many of us have actually delved into finding out why we actually believe what we believe and whether those views are justifiable?
I would like to argue that if we are seeking truth[1] (however one defines truth) that one must first examine their own beliefs before they can properly and justifiably critique the views and beliefs of others[2]. Does that not make sense? Unless we know what we believe, why we believe it and how our tradition[3] came to teach what it does, or how it even came into existence, then how can we be critical of others views and beliefs?
So again, because the author of this article can only legitimately point out issues in his own beliefs with any degree of certainty this article will do just that. Thus, this article will focus on my conservative evangelical, fundamental, conservative views that over the course of 18 years have become non-conservative evangelical, non-fundamental, and non-conservative (in theology and practice). It will discuss in no succinct order that which I have learned over time concerning dialoguing, discussion, researching, questioning, reasoning, arrogance, humility, honesty, being willing to admit when you are wrong, not gloating when you are right, separating ideas from the individual, being a jackass, being a bigger jackass and then what I perceive to be of uttermost importance, love[4].
The Evangelical Canon, Human Involvement and Logical Fallacies
When I first became a follower of Christ I had no idea what I was getting myself into. At first I thought I was just reading a book that had a ton of wisdom in it that would teach me how to live morally and ethically. And it does and did. The Evangelical Canon[5] has a rich history of compilation. It is filled with stories of people from different cultures and their painstaking journey of both failure and success in discovering more about a God by the name YHWH. But where the challenge comes in isn’t, for me, so much what the Bible teaches, even though I believe, and can prove, there are contradictions and errors and huge philosophical and logical problems[6]. The challenge is in its formation.
One of the facts about my choice to become a follower of Christ and then to become a Baptist is that the two are not necessarily the same thing. I can be a follower of Christ without holding to Baptist doctrine, dogma, tradition or culture. But I cannot be a follower of Christ if I deny the core fundamental teachings of Jesus. There in lies the problem. How do we know what Jesus actually taught when we do not have any document written by him? And why do we trust that what the Evangelical Canon has to say about Jesus is accurate, true or without error? And for that matter why do we trust the people who compiled the canon?
One common argument given by conservative evangelicals[7] as to the formation of the canon is as follows. God had the Israelites who had an oral account of Creation, Flood, Babel, etc. And eventually Moses wrote the first 5 books which were inspired inerrant scriptures for God’s chosen people. Eventually, other books were added to the Old Testament as events occurred. Kings, Prophets, Wise men all had some inspired word from God to God’s people and God spoke to these people and inspired them to write down his messages. The books were perfect when written with NO mistakes. When the translations and copies were made some errors were made but nothing that would be considered problematic. Then Jesus came. He taught his disciples and eventually they wrote the stories and instructions for God’s people according to Jesus. As they wrote, they wrote perfectly. Their final copies were perfect and without error. The only errors would be in the translation and transmission process. And those errors, according to conservative evangelicals, are small and inconsequential to ones beliefs.
The argument continues that the Bible, as we have it today, was in circulation in the early church period (100-200 AD). And eventually, it was decided at some council to affirm the reality of the conservative evangelical writings and consider them a closed canon. And throughout this process, and this is key to their argument, the Holy Spirit was guiding it all. And finally, the bible affirms that it is God breathed and without error[8].
Now arguably, not every conservative evangelical[9] believes the above statement. But the greater majority of conservative evangelicals would follow that line of reasoning[10]. There are many problems and challenges with the above defense of the canon that this article couldn’t begin to address them all. There are hundreds of books written on the topic and I would encourage whoever is reading this to study until you know the issues.
Allow me to point out some of the basic problems. First, and foremost, much of the argumentation from conservative evangelicals for the establishment of the Evangelical Canon is purely speculative and subjective. Although they base some of their conclusions from letters of early church fathers[11], it would appear they have chosen people who agree with their view vs. letting all the documents speak into helping them establish a more cohesive, logical, rational view[12].
Also, the simple fact that it is argued that we know the bible is trustworthy because, “the Holy Spirit has ensured its accurate transmission and compilation through history.” is wrought with problems.
What about humans? Are we to believe that not one single person ever had false motives when writing passages of scripture. That when they were compiling and choosing texts that they were not choosing certain books/letters based on their cultural understanding of truth, reality, and humanity? Are we to believe that no decisions were politically motivated? Are we to believe that power and position didn’t play into its formation or canonization? Why would we think that humanity was any different back then vs now? Even within the stories of the gospels in their canon we see fights between Paul and Peter, Peter and Gentiles, Paul and Barnabus, disciples fighting for rank in heaven, and even disagreements on theology between Paul and James. And simply put, “Prove it!” It cannot be proven.
Secondly, the doctrinal contradictions abound in the bible but the majority of conservative evangelicals will deny this vehemently. Even pastors, who we would think should be educated in all matters concerning the formation of the canon and the problems of the canon are ignorant of the problems. And unlike proving the holy spirit guidance, and the unfettered, pure , undefiled motives, of authors and compilers, the contradictions and errors within the EC can be proven.
Thirdly, no where does the bible claim itself to be without error, perfect, infallible and even if it did it would be a circular argument to use it as a defense of their canon. And it would be a misrepresentation of the teachings they would ‘quote’ as a defense of infallibility.
For instance, the common passage quoted is 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads as follows:
16”All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
Evangelicals believe this passage defends the bible as they have it today. What they fail to do is logically walk through their problem. Here is how they see it:
Major Premise:
God is true (Romans 3:4).
Minor Premise:
God breathed out the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).
Conclusion:
Therefore, the Scriptures are true (John 17:17).
First off, conservative evangelicals say God says he is true (according to the bible) so he must be true! This is a circular argument.[13] Next, they say, God inspired the scriptures, which infers that he inspired the authors to write exactly what He wanted them to write and thus their writings are true. This is all begging the question and thus has rather ‘impending doom’ implications on the conservative evangelical theory of inerrancy, infallibility and the forming and finalizing of the canon. It assumes no human authorship. It assumes that somehow God would interfere with free will so that humans couldn’t and wouldn’t make a mistake or do anything for selfish gain or out of ill motive. In other words, it assumes because God may be true humans are true. The argument cuts out the human element and thus makes the argument invalid.
And, on a side note, although not explicit in this particular syllogism, there is an understanding with conservative evangelicals that every follower of Christ has to agree with their syllogism or they are not a follower of Christ[14]. I call foul! A person doesn’t have to agree with their syllogism, especially when it is a blatant fallacy. And therefore, in regards to their conclusions on canon, inerrancy and infallibility that are based on an argument of fallacy, a person should not have to agree in order to be a follower of Christ. If they were able to prove that inerrancy, the EC, and infallibility were and are commanded by God to believe then it could be agreed that in order to be a follower of Christ you must believe in those issues. I am still waiting to see the commandments or even solid logical reasoning that would support that claim. To date, there is nothing.
Next, the disciple’s of Christ didn’t have the new testament in any compiled format until after the original disciples were all dead, so which scriptures were being referred to? The majority of scholars would agree that the Greek Septuagint of the Israelites was being used. And that the Hebrews revered the Septuagint on par with the Hebrew version. And this more then anything is a nail in the coffin of the modern day Evangelical Canon. The Septuagint has 13 more books in what conservative evangelicals call the Old Testament[15]. So if Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Luke and Jesus himself (who quotes the Septuagint) etc were all reading or at least taught under the Septuagint as the inspired teachings from God why do conservative evangelicals then read a different OT?
Other problems are the lost books of the bible. There are at least 28 books in the bible that are mentioned, cited, and quoted that are not in the EC. Would this then mean that the EC is incomplete? Of course, the conservative evangelical would argue that God simply didn’t want them in the bible[16]. Sigh.
So to summarize:
The EC OT has 13 less books then the Septuagint, which was read by Christ and his disciples. The Hebrews put the Septuagint on par with the Hebrew version. There are 28 books cited in the bible as inspired[17] that are lost. Thus one could begin to formulate an argument that would conclude the EC is incomplete and therefore not perfect in its compilation. And one then could also begin to formulate an argument, or begin to reopen discussion, that would establish new possible perspectives on the canon, which books should be included or excluded, the issue of inerrancy, infallibility, the basic tenants of the faith, the purpose of the church, concepts of God, concepts of Jesus, and the list goes on.
And this is the real issue behind why, this paper argues, conservative evangelicals desperately defend inerrancy, infallibility and a closed canon. They are terrified that if they acknowledge their syllogistic fallacies they are opening themselves up to the possibility that their perspectives on ecclesiology, soteriology, theology, history etc. may be skewed or possibly wrong. And thus, perhaps the reason why conservative evangelicals are so focused on pointing out everyone else’s supposed mistakes in their belief systems. If they focus on everyone else they don’t have to see their views for what they are. Their views, concerning canon and innerancy, are weak, unsubstantiated, pharisaical, and illogical.
Starting From Arrogance, proselytizing from the Start
Because conservative evangelicals believe they have the final authoritative word of God in its perfect and complete form a high level of arrogance is observed when in dialogue. In fact, to use the word ‘dialogue’ when dealing with most conservative evangelicals is almost comical. Why? Because they believe they are right. They don’t believe that there is anything wrong with their views, their bible, or their faith. They believe they have found ultimate truth and thus anyone who doesn’t fall inline with their beliefs is going to hell. In fact, even amongst the different denominations it is quite often established, by some leaders of churches, that other people in other denominations are not actually followers of Christ. Why? Because the other denominations don’t agree with the same doctrines, whether that be on issues such as baptism, communion, canon, tongues, prophecy, women’s roles in the church and life and much more.
In fact, conservative evangelicals believe that non-followers are in fact incapable of doing anything that is truly good. They believe that non-followers always have hidden motives or are ultimately acting in a selfish manner. And they defend this from their interpretation of a number of passages within the EC like the following that state, “9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”[18]
So the biggest scam going, in my opinion, is the conservative evangelical who is trying to build relationships with people who are not followers of Christ. They are taught that they can not actually be close friends with these people (the people of the world) because they are not part of the family of God. But you can love them into the kingdom. Do nice things for them. Get to know them. They do this all for the purpose of converting them.
[1] Truth can be viewed in many different ways but for the purpose of this article truth will be viewed as that which can be proven to be factual. Also, this article will take a stance that truth is subject to reality, reality being that which is actual. For example, I exist, the earth exists, water exists, the ground exists. How these things exist is not the point of this article.
[2] By views and beliefs this article is referring to belief systems such as Evangelicalism, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islamism. It is not referring to more simple views such as is coffee good for you or not although some of the principles could most assuredly be applied.
[3] Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Evangelicalism etc.
[4] Throughout this document you will see it refer to certain views held by evangelicals as ‘their views’. For approximately 15 years I considered their views my views. I no longer do hence why I utilize the term ‘their’.
[5] The evangelical canon contains 66 books from Genesis to Revelation contrary to the Catholic Canon which has 13 extra writings/books; the Luther Canon; Vulgate; Septuagint; Russian; Armenian; Syrian; Coptic etc. of which there is a compilation of books that agree or differ from the evangelical canon.
[6] The challenge with proving contradictions is dealing with a tactic utilized by evangelicals to explain away the supposed contradiction. For instance, if the bible says, God doesn’t change in one passage and it says he changes in another passage, the evangelical will quickly argue that the conflicting statements are for one of the following reasons: 1) A poetic device of some kind is being utilized and thus cannot be taken literally such as an anthropomorphism; 2) One or both passages are being taken out of context; 3) God is beyond our understanding and thus we cannot be sure of why there appears to be a contradiction; 4) Some archaeological study is yet to uncover a manuscript or find that will better explain the text and rid the said text of its apparent contradiction. It is often a near impossibility to have a reasonable dialogue with a conservative evangelical due to defences of this nature. Understanding, of course, that at times some of the above arguments may in fact be legitimate.
[7] Not necessarily scholars. Many scholars would argue differing views BUT the mainstream movement of evangelicals (James MacDonald; John McArthur and their pastors and church congregants) would agree with what is stated and going to be stated concerning their views of the bible.
[8] The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy is probably the most concise explanation of evangelicals view on inerrancy. The Lausanne Covenant takes a less rigid stance on inerrancy but this is probably because the covenant is covering many doctrinal affirmations vs simply taking a stance on inerrancy.
[9] And this paper, when stating ‘evangelical’, is dealing mainly with fundament conservative baptists, namely the Fellowship Baptist found in Canada. But many denominations, Pentecostal, Brethren, Baptist, etc. are classified as evangelicals. Please see the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The National Association of Evangelicals statements of faith. Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. Some would argue that there is a post evangelical movement of a group called the emergen church. Many of the scholars associated with the emergen church are a voice against the illogical stance of the evangelical fundamentalist but would still consider their group as evangelical.
[10] It may be argued, and this paper would agree, that there is a large disparity between scholar, church leader and congregant in terms of biblical concepts and conclusions. Scholars naturally have access to documents, conversations, debates, and education that the average pastor and congregant do not. Thus they are able to draw conclusions based on a much broader base of information. But this does not mean, therefore, that a scholar will necessarily have differing views from the pastor and congregant. It can be argued that the church is 15-20 years behind the discoveries of scholars thus the scholarly works of evangelicals may contradict those of the pastor and congregant but in time they will eventually come to the same conclusion or go completely in the opposite direction and take on a more fundamental perspective or they may just choose to remain the same.
[11] Please do research on the early church fathers and the council of Nicea which took place in 325 AD.
[12] The point being that evangelicals argue that other bibles, that would include more books, are heretical and evil. This creates a huge dilemma for them considering the catholic canon, the first official canon at the council of Nicea, had more books then the EC.
[13] This article recognized that almost any faith view is based off of circular reasoning but that does not negate that in regards to trying to establish the validity of the evangelical canon this causes huge logical problems.
[14] This argument is a whole other issue. I may discuss this later on in the paper.
[15] This term is considered highly insulting to a modern day Jew.
[16] This line of reasoning destroys all manner of dialogue. It is the God made me do it argument. God made it that the books wouldn’t be in the bible. That is how he wanted it. It’s an unreasonable line of reasoning and debate.
[17] Some scholars would argue that these cited books were not inerrant or necessarily inspired but the passages quoted became inerrant and inspired when quoted by the authors of the books included in the canon. Although a nice idea it is completely lacking of any evidence to substantiate the claim. A more logical thought would be that the books simply got lost and thus we cannot establish whether they should or should not be included. And this claim is defensible. The books are quoted. The books are not in the bible. And thus the EC may be incomplete.
[18] A popular defense when challenging them on this issue is, “Well the only good a person can do if they are not a follower of Christ would somehow be motivated by the Holy Spirit working on their hearts and thus it is still God who is rewarded with the good deed and not the human. Thus the human is still 100% sinful without the ability to good unless God intercedes in the action.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)