Biblical Inerrancy?

My life as a Christian became much simpler when I figured out that the “New Testament” is not the inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God. Of course, I was taught that it was. That was one of the foundational premises of, not just my belief system, but my life. I somehow fought my way out of Evangelicalism still believing this to be true. There are so many Bible passages supporting Jesus as the Savior of All that I was able to grasp the concept and just ignore all the passages that indicate otherwise.

Then I began to study the struggle for control of the early church. It never made sense to me why Paul was so proud of the fact that the other apostles had no influence over him. He brags about how he did not go up to Jerusalem to meet with them, but instead, went to Arabia. In Galatians, he emphasizes that he had very little contact with the Apostles, except a 15-day stay with Peter and a short meeting with James, the Brother of Jesus.

A few years ago, I read an excruciatingly long book by Robert Eisenman called “James the Brother of Jesus”. Eisenman confirms what the Book of Acts infers and dances around, namely that James was the central figure of the Jerusalem Church and was combining the ritual of Moses' law with the new teachings about Jesus. (It should be noted that Eisenman is of the opinion that James was more correct and that Paul, in essence, hi-jacked the early church by getting it to abandon much of the old ways.) We know that the church in Jerusalem was requiring animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, and circumcision. So it is safe to say that James (who was not one of the twelve disciples) and the other disciples such as Peter and John, just never understood the finished work of Jesus. And why would we assume that they would? They rarely understood anything Jesus was doing when he was on earth.

There was a debate going on about law and grace. It was a very heated debate. Acts tells us a little bit about Paul’s run-ins with those who required some law to be mixed with grace. It is clear to me that Paul’s much debated “thorn in the flesh” consisted of those sent to buffet him about circumcision and keeping parts of the law. In Paul’s writings, he refers to “flesh” as our desire to please God through our works. Why would he change the context of “flesh” in that sentence?

So Paul and the original apostles were having a decades-long debate about what Jesus' death and resurrection meant for Jews and for mankind. They wrote letters arguing their points, letters that contradict each other’s views. The books of Galatians and James were clearly written in opposition to each other, like editorial opinions designed to influence the opinions of readers. And these debates were sometimes less than cordial. At one point, Paul says that he wishes those requiring circumcision be completely emasculated. Ouch!

Yet Evangelical Christianity has taken books of debate and claimed they are the inerrant Word of God. They claim to believe every word of two opposing arguments as true and infallible. And they base their belief systems on them. Is it any wonder why Christian doctrine is such a mess of gobble-de-gook? This is the equivalent of taking a speech by Hillary Clinton and a speech by Ron Paul and claiming that both are right. In fact, both are so right that neither is, even a little bit, wrong. Do you see the problem?

On the cross, Jesus proclaimed that “It is finished”. I do not believe he intended for the Keystone Cops that followed him to begin another organized religion, or to keep on life-support the religion Jesus had just fulfilled. I believe Jesus reconciled mankind to God through his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. And if I am reconciled to God, why would I want to join myself to a religion that emphasizes just how unreconciled everyone is?

So I continue to read the “New Testament”. But I read it as the imperfect opinions about a perfect sacrifice.