Replies

You state that those who take the Old Testament literally are hypocrites because they reject the parts they deem inconvenient and accept those that "fit." Your understanding of the Biblical interpretation position of most evangelical Christians is flawed.

The evangelical position of Biblical inerrancy is rather different than a wooden literality. This concept was outlined by Calvinist theologian John Gerstner in his book, Biblical Inerrancy:

"There is a God.

Men were made in his image, rational creatures.
As such, they are designed to make their choices on the basis of evidence.
The evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible is as follows:
1. Men have appeared in history with powers which only God could have given them (miracles).
2. Miracles are God’s seal to mark men unmistakably as his messengers.
3. God’s message is indubitably true.
4. God’s message includes the Inspiration of the Bible.
5. Therefore, the Inspiration of the Bible is indubitably true."

The mainstream evangelical view of Biblical authority also recognizes the existence of progressive revelation, that is, passages in the New Testament may be used to clarify passages in the Old Testament. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy," a 1978 document approved by conservative Protestant scholars from different traditions, states that position: "We affirm that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it." That same statement also indicates that propositions in the Bible must be taken within the context of the time and place of the original authors. "We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

The fact that some so-called fundamentalists or cultists may engage in bad Biblical exegesis on issues like racial segregation, alcohol consumption, and polygamy does not mean that the mainstream of evangelical theologians hold to contradictory positions or reject "embarrassing" parts of the Bible. To say otherwise would be like claiming that the ridiculous statements of Abe Foxman regarding The Passion of the Christ are representative of American Jews in general.

The positions of evangelical scholars regarding Biblical interpretation, from Luther and Calvin in the 16th Century to John Gerstner, Gordon Clark, and Dwight Pentecost in the 20th Century, are clear and have been stated numerous times. The burden is on the opponents of evangelical Christianity to demonstrate if and where they are in error. The correction cannot be accomplished through a parody of their position and the use of discredited statements from 19th Century "higher criticism" of the Bible.