I really don’t understand why Evangelicals claim to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is certainly not true. A literal interpretation would mean that they would have to believe that:

  • Baptism is essential for salvation
  • Babies can, and should be baptized
  • Salvation can be lost
  • The bread and the wine at Communion actually become the Body and Blood of the Lord
  • Peter was ordained by Jesus himself as the earthly head of the Church
  • That there is one, and only one, Church ordained of God
  • Groups that splinter from the Church are outside of God’s will
  • That Purgatory is real

The only way that you can NOT believe in these doctrines/dogmas is to take the literal truth of Scripture and explain it away somehow. This is often done by taking verses out of context. It is done by saying that Jesus did not mean what he said. Instead he was only speaking symbolically or figuratively. It is also done by rewriting history, saying that the early Church believed as they do currently.

The truth is, the Evangelical position did not exist until Martin Luther and after. Even then, Luther himself still accepted most of these as truth.

Addendum: 5/1/2008 – I just wanted to point out that in writing this post, I did not mean to sound like Catholicism teaches a literal interpretation of Scripture. I was only commenting on those who say that they do, yet do not.

Advertisements