Debates Within The Church
A little over a month ago I wrote about the importance of internal debates to the apologist. To sum it up in one sentence: Internal debates are necessary for the apologist to engage in, so that when they present a case for the truth of Christianity, they are not defending something false that could be used as a defeater for their conclusion of Christianity's truth.As an apologist, I not only defend the truth of the Christian worldview, but I also defend specific views within the Christian worldview. In many of my interactions, it often comes out that I defend the truth of a view that is not very popular. Sometimes I take a stand against a doctrine that has been held traditionally but, I contend, is false. I receive much resistance and am forced to defend the doctrine scripturally, philosophically, and scientifically (not that I mind that at all). Many Christians are involved in these debates (whether apologists or not). I've written on several occasions about the danger of being emotionally committed to a doctrine that is shown to be false, but today I'd like to look at a more sincere and valid concern that people have when a traditional view is challenged.
A Sincere Concern
Anytime that I offer a view that does not fall in line with what someone has traditionally been taught, I like to provide both a positive argument and a negative argument. Since I am debating within the Church and mainly am debating with those who hold the scripture as inerrant, I like to stick with scriptural evidence first (philosophical and scientific come only if the person recognizes those are valid sources of truth). I will provide scriptural support for my view. I also provide scriptural support for why the opposing view is false. However, when I present these, I often get accused of "reinterpreting" scripture. The implication of that accusation is found in 2 Peter 3:(15) Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (16) He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (17) Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.Verse 16 states that people will come along and twist (reinterpret) the scriptures to make it mean what they want it to mean. Such is done to the detriment of the person. But Peter doesn't stop there; he warns his readers that they need to keep an eye out for these people so that they are not negatively affected.
Because of this, Christians who have been taught that scripture teaches one particular thing are incredibly sensitive to the presence of challenges. Those challenges may very well be twisting scripture and may lead to the twisting of other scripture and ultimately the denial of core doctrines of Christianity, which will lead the person into heresy. Because of the gravity behind such a concern, I do not take such challenges lightly, but that is not to say that I get offended over it. I recognize the validity behind the concern, then explain that my interpretation is coming from a position of biblical inerrancy. I explain that this doctrine requires that our interpretations of any two scriptures may not contradict one another. If they do, one of the interpretations (if not both) is wrong.
Taking It Too Far
However, many Christians take this concern much further than is wise. They believe that any challenge, to any doctrine that they hold, necessarily leads in this direction (heresy), so they resist changing their doctrine regardless of what evidence (even scriptural) is presented. If we are to take this further position, then tradition can never be challenged. Scripture cannot be used to correct tradition- past, present, or future. They elevate tradition (their tradition, mind you) to a level of authority over scripture.The problem, especially for Protestants, is that Martin Luther challenged the church's tradition based on scripture. The Reformation took place due to the recognition that scripture is authoritative over tradition. The Protestant church exists due to changing tradition based on a reinterpretation of scripture. Now, if Protestants believe that the Reformation was a legitimate event, then they grant that tradition can be wrong and their interpretation of scripture must be reinterpreted. Thus Peter was not saying that all challenges to a view is a twist of scripture, he's saying that his readers need to make sure that they understand what Paul taught (interpret scripture) properly. Which means that there will be people who are interpreting incorrectly and need to be challenged and corrected. That is what I am doing when I challenge tradition.