christian@topaz.UUCP (04/15/87)
Drat! _expire_ got to me again. There was an article a few days ago
(I believe from our moderator, Charles Hedrick) that said the writer
saw no practical difference between the "fundamentalist" position that
the original manuscripts of Scripture were inspired, but errors have
crept in over the years, and the "liberal" position that the original
manuscripts are works which were subject to error from the beginning.
At this point, we have over 5000 ancient manuscripts and manuscript
fragments of the New Testament alone. (This is far more evidence than
exists for any other ancient work.) In addition, there are Old
Testament manuscripts, the ostraca (writings on potsherds -- paper was
far too expensive for most people in Biblical times), the apologia
(letters written to non-Christians, such as the Emperor, in defense of
Christianity), the writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers (one set
I've seen advertised is about the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica),
the writings of the early heretics, the writings of such non-Christians
as Josephus and Pliny the elder, a vast assortment of general
correspondence, and archaeological evidence of various kinds.
The existence of this wealth of information allows researchers to use
text critical methods (NOT so-called "higher criticism", which isn't!)
to determine ever more accurately the original text. What effect does
our increased knowledge have on our view of Scripture under the
"fundamentalist" and "liberal" assumptions?
From the "fundamentalist" viewpoint, Scripture is a perfect work God
has given to us. The information contained within it is sufficient for
us to live (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) lives pleasing to God.
Our knowledge of the original words of Scripture is such that we can
already have great confidence in what it says. Further, confidence
in Scripture increases as new discoveries confirm previous knowledge
or correct misunderstandings.
Not only are we able to be confident as to the validity of Scripture,
we also find ourselves bound to obey even the commands we do not like.
After all, when Scripture says, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-48),
it is a command of God.
Increasing knowledge of Scripture is much less valuable to those who
hold the "liberal" view, since removing errors introduced after the
original manuscripts were written does not tend toward an error-free
text. An implication of this viewpoint is that it is impossible to
know just where the inherent errors lie -- new manuscript discoveries
cannot disclose an error that was in the original.
Because the "liberal" assumption leaves the entirety of Scripture as
a question mark, personal preferences come strongly into play. For
example, Jesus said:
[W]hoever does not believe [in Me] stands condemned already
because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John 3:18b [NIV]
But is this perhaps an area where an error has crept in? After all,
who can believe in a God who would send people to Hell? Perhaps the
first part of verse 18, which promises no condemnation for those who
do believe, was from God, but the writer added the second part on
his own. If that is the case, then those who do not believe won't be
sentenced to eternity in Hell. Think how much more comfortable that
will be for all of us -- we can ignore the Great Commission (Matthew
28:18-20), recall our missionaries, and spend our money on ourselves.
In sum, the "fundamentalist" view of Scripture as inspired and inerrant
in the original autographs encourages continuing study of the evidence
and obedience to the commands contained in Scripture. The "liberal"
view of Scripture as inherently errant encourages people to ignore
that which they dislike.
Steve Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever