A Christian Theology: A Time For Defense

One of my desires when creating this blog was to establish a forum for dialogue, concerning any topic, but predominately issues pertaining to apologetics and, as I have found myself, epistemology, which would not only add to my work, but dialogue which would cause contemplation and reflection. While my end goal is to create a history of world religions, as well as a Christian apology, I think it important to set aside my study of the history momentarily, and further develop the biblical worldview and apology which will ultimately find its way into the finished product.

Therefore, I think it only appropriate to stop and ponder that which I have already set forth. Since my last post, I have had a number of questions asked of me, many of which have prodded me to further develop many ideas which are, to some, not carefully and dutifully explained sufficiently. Thus, I will do my best to address each question and concern independently and fully. As always, I welcome the comments and questions of any who wish to give them.


The first question I will address is "Are you saying that scripture is to be taken literally? Is it inerrant?" This question was prompted by my own statement, "The most fundamental belief concerning the Bible is that it is both authoritative and divinely inspired; it is the direct words and thoughts of God written down by man, who acted as a "stenographer" on His behalf for the good of His people.”

To answer this question plainly and directly, yes, I do believe that the bible is, for the most part, to be taken literally. I believe it is to be taken literally to the extent to which the author intended for the reader to take it as such. In other words, I assume the content of the bible is to be taken literally, unless something directs or requires me to understand it otherwise. According to one author, writing for gotquestions.org, "When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent." As is true with anything one reads, if the context and intent of any passage in any text is clear and literal, then it should be taken as such; to always be of the assumption that some metaphorical and non-literal meaning exists is foolish. For example, in Exodus 20: 14 it states, "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery". Clearly, this is to be taken literally, and when placed into its full context, that is all of chapter 20, and even the totality of the book of Exodus, it becomes even more clear that the author intended for this to be taken literally. According to Gary NyStorm, "The basic rule for a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and whether or not a figure of speech was intended by the author is: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense." In other words, the literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used either plainly (denotatively) or figuratively (connotatively)." Another way of stating this is "if the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense." (Josh McDowell)

This leads me to another vital point, and that is that, at times, the bible speaks in figurative language, and thus, there are parts of the scriptures which can not, and indeed, should not be taken literally. Within the scriptures there are a number of poetic books which quite often speak in a very figurative sense; this truth is really applicable across the whole spectrum of the bible where figurative language is to be found, including the gospels. For example, in John chapter 15: 1 Jesus asserts, "I am the true vine". If one were to take this from a literal perspective, then, one would have to conclude that Jesus was, in fact, a vine, a conclusion which is both not true and, ultimately, absurd. Here we see that the author, John, and more directly, Jesus, is being metaphorical, and as such, a deeper meaning, rather than a literal meaning, is to be looked for. McDowell notes that, "Many have built a straw man out of the teaching of literal interpretation, alleging that we have to take everything in the Bible literally, e.g., "the trees of the field shall clap their hands." Indeed, one can not take all things literal, for as has been shown, some portions of the bible are intended to be taken figuratively.

In summation, the bible is to be taken literally insofar as the author intends for it to be taken literally, and while their are clear examples of figurative language within the scriptures, it is dangerous to assume that all of the bible is open to any ones interpretation. Drawing once again from Gary Nystorm, writing for biblicist.org, "To achieve an accurate interpretation of Scripture (or any literature, for that matter) the reader must recognize the writer's use of symbolism and figures of speech and how the writer uses them in context. But it is error indeed for the reader to superimpose a non literal or spiritual interpretation upon Scripture when clearly the writer himself is not presenting a symbol or figure of speech. When the text does not warrant it, it is error indeed to force a passage to conform to one's own presupposed ideas."