Greetings to Mr. Baumler and Mr. Bivens who have responded to my critique of the Nov. 1999 article in Forward magazine and corresponded with me on such a crucial matter as Christian apologetics. Because of my interest in logic as far as evidences for one's faith, I believe it important to write an article regarding Christian evidences or proofs in such a way as to avoid ambiguity and fallacies of any sort to uplift the whole church of Christ and raise it to the standard worthy of great thinkers past.
Let me sum up what Baumler and Bivens have said to me. Baumler stated the article in Forward was not definitive, but only the beginning of a series; it was not meant to be scholarly and had to come under a specified word length. Bivens made several points as well, stating I had misunderstood the audience and perhaps wanted a treatise with "biographical" (bibliographical?) notes. He also attempted to clarify my confusion regarding what I saw as a fallacy in a comment written by Bivens and Schuetze about the Bible's persistence through time. Lastly, he assured me of the intellectual competency of the staff at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
First, there is nothing in my writing that would suggest I asked for a scholarly treatise with bibliographical notes. I merely suggested a "mention" of several scholarly books to show the prospective reader there exist such books which the reader might buy or rent. I feel it is important for readers to have knowledge of these books for the articles in Forward can only touch briefly on the totality of supposed Biblical contradictions. While it is true there are limitations to an article's length, we should put our best foot forward (pun unintended) by immediately telling the reader that, yes, the statement by the pastor that the Bible has survived skeptics' attacks was not made in vain.
Since the article seemed to suggest we are to cope with Biblical contradictions the same way the parents did, we should expect real pastors to mimic the actions of the pastor in the story and we should expect the fictional pastor to be some sort of prototype for our pastors. I would expect such a pastor to lead me on to scholarly books I could learn from (which was done for me when I began doubting my faith years ago) and so I would expect this fictional pastor to do so. The lack of names in both this article and its sequel suggests the scholars who have studied contradictions are wholly inaccessible or perhaps almost nonexistent. This can be doubly lethal, scholarly speaking, if a Christian is showing this article to an agnostic friend; the friend might want to know more about who has studied these contradictions and might find a lack of names a possible sign there are no scholars who have studied these contradictions.
My last comments concern my belief there is a fallacy in Biven and Schuetze's writing the following paragraph:
We need not fear that the Bible will fail tests put to it. It's easy to level charges; it's another matter to prove them. Many have tried to prove the Bible wrong but have failed. As promised, God's Word has stood the test of time.
I think I should explain fully why I see a fallacy here, a fallacy Bivens missed when responding to me. It concerns the layout of the article which begins with Jim and Joan going to their pastor to discuss Biblical contradictions their son found. The pastor laid down some guidelines which included the summation that many have tried to prove the Bible wrong, but the Bible has stood the test of time. Then the pastor tells them the Holy Spirit creates and maintains a confidence in the entire Bible aside from human reasoning. In other words, they need not worry because if they cannot answer every question on Biblical contradictions, the Holy Spirit still gives us confidence in the Bible. We cannot answer all contradictions, of course, because of our human limitations, but the point of exploring contradictions in the Bible is to find out if the Bible is trustworthy for us to take its word there is actually a Holy Spirit that guides us or a Jesus that saves. By proceeding the way the fictional pastor does, he begs the question by assuming what we are trying to prove - namely that the Bible is trustworthy and has no or few lethal contradictions for us to doubt its truthfulness. I think if I were to have written the article, I would have mentioned several authors and their books and left much of the remaining article out as to not beg the question.
Since we cannot assume the Bible is true until we examine the contradictions in question, and the article tells us the Bible is true and has stood the test of time, then it is plain the lone argument remaining for the Bible's reliability is that it has stood the test of time. Thus, the article commits the fallacy I described in my previous writing - assuming something is true because it has stood the test of time. My hunch is bolstered by the fact the article cites 1 Peter and 2 Peter for backing when stating the Bible has stood the test of time. Since the Bible has stood the test of time, it is assumed, then these passages are to be trusted as authorities on the issue. It is fallacious to use a passage from a book under question for some kind of evidence the book is true and it is fallacious to assume the book is true because it has stood the test of time. Bivens is true in his statements which I discussed earlier (the Bible is true because nobody has proved it wrong) but unfortunately this does not come our clearly in the article. This begging of the question is why I criticized the authors so severely. Many laymen reading this article in church might not spot this fallacy, but I have, and I think we should strive for higher logical standards in our writings for the congregations.
I hope this better explains why I wrote what I wrote. I will be happy to answer any additional questions.
Jeffrey Stueber