I recently had an exchange with an atheist, who had previously been a Christian (I’m guessing maybe Evangelical, based on his language and approach). He was attacking Christianity by attacking the Bible and what he saw as inconsistencies, as he had previously taken it with a very literal reading. While I’m not the greatest apologist, I did a little quick research and answered his points sincerely, and I think “helped” him reconsider what he had taken for granted in terms of problems with the faith. Maybe it’ll bear fruit, maybe not, but I do think the Holy Spirit guided me in the discussion, because I’m typically not all that good at defending the Faith (it’s not that I don’t know the faith reasonably well, but I’m not a good debater).
What troubled me, in hindsight, was that it showed the weakness of “Sola Scriptura,” and a very unintended consequence on the part of our Protestant brothers and sisters when promoting this doctrine. The Bible itself was obviously never meant to be the complete reference to the faith, and was never meant to exist in a vacuum with no other consideration. However, when it is taken in isolation, along with a superficial understanding of scholarship, it becomes an easy target for those wanting to disprove or attack the faith, as these attacks occur in a space where there is little in the way of outside reinforcement or understanding. In fact, much of what I’ve seen online in terms of attacks on the faith have come from a half-baked, out of context, reading of certain parts of the Bible.
Just curious, has anyone else noticed this as a trend or problem in recent years?