JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

79
There is no denial that there are some problems that as yet do not yield a ready
explanation. This should not unnerve us as we recognize that many times in the past problems
resolved themselves when more data became available. The logical position is that where there
are apparent conflicts, we must humbly hold the problem in abeyance rather than quickly
accuse Scripture of contradiction or defensively conjure up simplistic answers. The honest
position is to admit our present inability to explain and await the possibility of new data. The
presence of problems does not logically prevent us from accepting the Bible as the Word of God.
As E. J. Carnell reasoned:
"There is a close parallel between science and Christianity which surprisingly few
seem to notice. As Christianity assumes that all in the Bible is supernatural, so
the scientist assumes that all in nature is rational and orderly. Both are hypotheses--
based, not on all of the evidence, but on the evidence 'for the most part.' Science
devoutly holds to the hypotheses that all of nature is mechanical, though as a
matter of fact the mysterious electron keeps jumping around as expressed by the
Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. And how does science justify its hypothesis
that all of nature is mechanical, when it admits on other grounds that many areas
of nature do not seem to conform to this pattern? The answer is that since regularity
is observed in nature 'for the most part,' the smoothest hypothesis is to assume
that it is the same throughout the whole."12
Liberals and Barthians (neoorthodoxy) have often criticized conservatives for using
"proof-texting" as a vehicle to substantiate their conclusions. Their point is that this is an
illegitimate and unscholarly methodology whereby conservatives cite proof texts to ensure that
the answers will lead to conservative rather than liberal conclusions.
It is certainly true that conservatives are sometimes guilty of this just as liberals are guilty
at times of their misuse or abuse of footnotes in scholarly works. Proof texts and footnotes must
be used properly. They must not be used out of context nor in part when the whole might change
the meaning. They must accurately convey what is intended by the original author.
Some of these so-called "errors" are created by Westerners who do not understand the
Eastern mindset and thus press for detailed accuracy that is foreign to the biblical manuscript. It
must be admitted, however, that there is no absolute proof in these matters. We cannot
demonstrate inspiration by demonstrating infallibility in an absolute sense. Even though the
accusation of unreliability can be easily met, historical, literary or scientific demonstration does
not have the absolute character which would qualify it as a basis of belief.
The liberal position is the argumentation from purpose. They contend that since Scripture
is meant to teach us about God, not about biology, geology or botany, it is only factual or
accurate in communicating about religious matters. Ancient forms, possibly myths, are said to be
used to convey truth or to effect existential encounter. Thus it does not make sense to insist on
the historical factuality of what belongs to form.