CEV
22nd October 2004, 12:43 AM
I'd like for you all to read it and make any suggestions before I send it. Also be critical of the Sola Scriptura parts; I am kind of tired right now and am unsure if I was accurate. I also used some parts from others' posts here on CF; I hope no one minds.
Dear Pastor,
I have been sitting in your church for some time and have been listening to your messages on Sundays. I know that you are a man who loves the Lord and is eager to lead others to Him, and I respect that deeply. However, I do have a few questions to ask you about certain doctrinal issues that you stand very firmly upon.
Before I continue further, I want you to please respect my privacy and not use this email in any sermon illustrations; I know you like to use those, and often they are quite funny and enjoyable. But if you used this email, I would only be humiliated. For now, I wish to keep my identity hidden, due to the possibly controversial content of this message.
Now, there are three things I wish to discuss in this email. I know that you believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, and that it has no contradictions or errors in it. In fact, a few weeks ago you said that even if one word was untrue, or if there was one contradiction, you would discard the Bible altogether. From this and other statements you have made, I gather that you are what is called a “Biblical literalist.” Are you familiar with that term, and with “liberal theology” as well?
I would like to point out to you that no translation of the Bible today is completely without error, not even the King James. The original Scriptures, however, were perfect and without error. I don’t know whether or not you believe there can be copying errors, but I’d like to show you an error in copying:
II Kings 8:
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
II Chronicles 22:
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
There are also similar errors in copying in the King James Version when ages are mentioned. I don’t know if you knew about these or not.
If you did know about these, I feel that you should warn the congregation about them. When I first spotted the age discrepancy above I was caught off-guard and was a little upset that they were there. Such things as these can lead to a crisis of the faith.
So, back to Biblical literalism. I have been researching the many different denominations of the Christian faith, and have discovered that not all Christians are Biblical literalists, as I used to think. These non-literalists have a different view of the Bible. They think that not all the Bible was dictated to them by God, but that prophecy was. For the non-prophetic parts, they believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired to write what they wrote, but that inspiration does not mean the same thing as dictation. They reject the belief in Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is one way to read the Bible and interpret it; I believe it is a part of the doctrine taught in this church. But it was not invented till recently in history. Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell, is the belief that “if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Truth.” Sola Scriptura also includes Biblical literalism, and that inspiration means dictation.
The trouble I have with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes literalism, and I have some problems with literalism. But I shall wait until the next email to address that topic. One question, however: what would you say to someone who suggested that Genesis was never intended to be taken as a literal story of how God created, but rather that it was an allegory?
This is all I have for now. I look forward to your reply. I know you are busy, and I appreciate your time in reading my email. Thank you.
Dear Pastor,
I have been sitting in your church for some time and have been listening to your messages on Sundays. I know that you are a man who loves the Lord and is eager to lead others to Him, and I respect that deeply. However, I do have a few questions to ask you about certain doctrinal issues that you stand very firmly upon.
Before I continue further, I want you to please respect my privacy and not use this email in any sermon illustrations; I know you like to use those, and often they are quite funny and enjoyable. But if you used this email, I would only be humiliated. For now, I wish to keep my identity hidden, due to the possibly controversial content of this message.
Now, there are three things I wish to discuss in this email. I know that you believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, and that it has no contradictions or errors in it. In fact, a few weeks ago you said that even if one word was untrue, or if there was one contradiction, you would discard the Bible altogether. From this and other statements you have made, I gather that you are what is called a “Biblical literalist.” Are you familiar with that term, and with “liberal theology” as well?
I would like to point out to you that no translation of the Bible today is completely without error, not even the King James. The original Scriptures, however, were perfect and without error. I don’t know whether or not you believe there can be copying errors, but I’d like to show you an error in copying:
II Kings 8:
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
II Chronicles 22:
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
There are also similar errors in copying in the King James Version when ages are mentioned. I don’t know if you knew about these or not.
If you did know about these, I feel that you should warn the congregation about them. When I first spotted the age discrepancy above I was caught off-guard and was a little upset that they were there. Such things as these can lead to a crisis of the faith.
So, back to Biblical literalism. I have been researching the many different denominations of the Christian faith, and have discovered that not all Christians are Biblical literalists, as I used to think. These non-literalists have a different view of the Bible. They think that not all the Bible was dictated to them by God, but that prophecy was. For the non-prophetic parts, they believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired to write what they wrote, but that inspiration does not mean the same thing as dictation. They reject the belief in Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is one way to read the Bible and interpret it; I believe it is a part of the doctrine taught in this church. But it was not invented till recently in history. Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell, is the belief that “if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Truth.” Sola Scriptura also includes Biblical literalism, and that inspiration means dictation.
The trouble I have with Sola Scriptura is that it assumes literalism, and I have some problems with literalism. But I shall wait until the next email to address that topic. One question, however: what would you say to someone who suggested that Genesis was never intended to be taken as a literal story of how God created, but rather that it was an allegory?
This is all I have for now. I look forward to your reply. I know you are busy, and I appreciate your time in reading my email. Thank you.