Doxazo Theos

Can You Still Be A Christian and Reject the Bible?

As the title suggests, I want to briefly explore the idea of whether or not one can still be a Christian and at the same time reject the Bible. I would answer that question in the positive. But to go any further, I’ll have to unpack what I mean by “reject.”

Reject the Bible as what? Obviously, if one rejects the Bible’s central assumptions as true, such as the existence of God or the deity of Christ, one cannot be a Christian in the Orthodox sense. So I do not think it possible to remain Christian while simultaneously denying such things (despite what the Jesus Seminar, Crossan in particular, will have you believe). I mean to ask whether it is still possible to be a Christian and hold that the Bible isn’t a reliable set of documents or is in some way historically unreliable or untrustworthy.

The question of whether the Bible is historically reliable has been a subject of much research and debate. Here I use the term “historically reliable” to refer to a document which by historical reason can be shown to host information of events that most probably happened at some point in that past. But how much does it really even matter if the Bible is historically reliable on these grounds? It seems to me not much at all, for the central truths of Christianity aren’t contingent on the reliability of scripture. This is why I think one can still be a Christian and reject the Bible as historically reliable—for even if the information in the New Testament, for instance, isn’t or can’t be shown historically reliable, it doesn’t follow that the information therein is not true.

Of course I believe the Bible is and can be shown historically reliable in this sense, but the point is this: the Bible itself is not what warrants Christian belief—rather, the source which warrants Christian belief is the Holy Spirit, who conveys the necessary truths of Christian belief to the subject (the existence of God, the gospel message, the inspiration or even the reliability of the Bible). That’s why I’m not impressed by people like Ken Ham, the die-hard King James users, or anyone else who seemingly condition Christian belief on the basis of one’s particular views on the Bible, who aren’t so much worried about concept as they are construct. That’s also why I find arguing against the reliability of scripture as evidence against Christianity to be moot.

How many times have you heard someone cast skepticism on the Bible as reason not be a Christian? This, if nothing else, would be one way to show how that excuse rings hollow.

________________________________________________________

* After some dialogue, I now realize this post may read more controversial than what was initially intended. While I stand by the represented position, some clarification might be helpful. Such can be found in the comments here.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 6th, 2006 at 11:23 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

14 Responses to “Can You Still Be A Christian and Reject the Bible?”

Emily Says:
August 6th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
One question Chad:

WERE YOU THERE??
Alyssa Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Explain what you mean by “historically reliable.” It may make your argument a little better (not that it’s good). I have some articles that I can dig up that discuss how Scripture fits in with history. I’ll try to let you have those in the future!
Chad Says:
August 8th, 2006 at 12:22 am
I can’t think of a much better way of defining it than how I already did in the post, “Here I use the term “historically reliable” to refer to a document which by historical reason can be shown to host information of events that most probably happened at some point in that past.” For examples of how this plays in, read the comments under this post over at churchvoives.com.
BK Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Chad,

Nice new site. A few things:

1. Your link to your clarification doesn’t work, so it isn’t very clarifying at the moment.

2. If you are saying that you don’t have to believe in Biblical Inerrancy then that’s certainly true. While I personally believe in Biblical Inerrancy, I know a large number of Christians who don’t. While I personally think it makes it more difficult to discern and accept God’s will (because you can simply claim that parts of the Bible you don’t like aren’t historical), I certainly acknowledge that faith in inerrancy is not required to be a Christian.

3. The problem with what you have written thus far (absent the clarification) is that is appears to say that you can reject everything in the Bible without hurting your faith. Of course, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the central historical event of Christianity, and there is nothing in what you have written so far that suggests that you cannot be a Christian while still rejecting that historical event. Now, perhaps you can disbelieve the accounts of the resurrection as recorded in M,M,L and J and still believe that a resurrection happened, but I don’t see on what basis you would come to such a conclusion. Until I can read your clarification, I am very confused about what you mean.
Chad Says:
August 12th, 2006 at 9:45 am
There, I fixed the link. Click on over and check out comment 7 in particular. But if perhaps I am leaving something out or wording something wrong, I be glad to be corrected.
faith Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I think if the person accepts the deity Christ, he/she become a Christian. And part of it is the truth about the scripture - that the bible is historically reliable and inerrant.
sarah Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Read 2Timothy 3:16. Read it really slow because I think you’re missing something that you should get out of that Scripture. What a pitiful god you serve…he can’t even get his own words historically correct! My God, maker of heaven and earth the I AM and Jesus Christ His son and the Holy Spirit, is quite capable of getting historical facts correct and is quite capable of protecting His truth from heretics who would like to distort it and place doubt in the minds of His children. We don’t need to worry about people using their misconception about the accuracy of the Bible as the reason they are not a Christian…this is NOT the reason they are not a Christian. The ONLY reason they are not a Christian is because God has not called them (yet or never will), given them a new heart and then given them the faith to receive His truth. A good Bible study on Ephesians (paying special attention to chapter 2) would help you to understand this. We are all dead in trespasses and sin and cannot not come to the Father without Him drawing us to Himself first.
Chad Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 3:32 am
Read 2Timothy 3:16. Read it really slow because I think you’re missing something that you should get out of that Scripture.

I reread and reconsidered 2 Timothy 3:16, and, again, don’t see the conclusion of my article in need of change. In turn, I will ask that you reread and reconsider my article, with perhaps a look at some of my clarifications in the comments over at Churchvoices that I linked to above. In fact, you miss the point of the article entirely. To use your verse as an example, I can and do accept the theology present in that verse as inspired and authoritative, but my acceptance (and most likely yours as well) of that verse comes on grounds quite far from those of historical reasons. Again, I think we do have historical reasons for its acceptance, but those reasons aren’t what convicted me of its truth. Rather, it was the Holy Spirit. From this I must infer that one can have just as rich and warranted Christian belief as yours while at the same time being quite innocent of the belief that Bible is historically reliable (whether I accept it, reject it, or consider the matter unknowable on these terms doesn’t affect my central beliefs as a Christian).

What a pitiful god you serve…he can’t even get his own words historically correct! My God, maker of heaven and earth the I AM and Jesus Christ His son and the Holy Spirit, is quite capable of getting historical facts correct and is quite capable of protecting His truth from heretics who would like to distort it and place doubt in the minds of His children.

On the other hand, how liberating it is for me to know that I serve a God who is so masterful and wise that he has ordered his creation and fashioned my mind in such a way for me to be able to accept and consider his truths in more ways than one; namely, in so intimate a way that I can know them apart from whatever any historian (skeptical, liberal, or conservative) could tell me.

We don’t need to worry about people using their misconception about the accuracy of the Bible as the reason they are not a Christian…this is NOT the reason they are not a Christian. The ONLY reason they are not a Christian is because God has not called them (yet or never will), given them a new heart and then given them the faith to receive His truth. A good Bible study on Ephesians (paying special attention to chapter 2) would help you to understand this. We are all dead in trespasses and sin and cannot not come to the Father without Him drawing us to Himself first.

To this I wish to ask a few questions: if the only reason people become Christians is because God calls them to be such, then why do people go to hell? I thought “The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance” (2Pet 3:9) and that “He desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1Tim 2:4). But if God both wills and desires all people to be saved, why doesn’t he call all people to be Christians? If “The ONLY reason [some people] are not [Christians] is because God has not called them (yet or never will),” then what does this say about God’s love for these people? Does he not will or desire them to be saved, but does others? Wait, I thought God shows no favortism (Deut 10:17)? Further, would it not just be downright malevolent for him to create people who, without choice, were fated to perish? Does this not conflict with the previously mentioned verses, if not the entire concept of God being all-loving?

A Good Bible study will give you answers to these questions (answers which, by the way, are not relevant to whether or not the Bible is historically reliable).
sarah Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Read these verses carefully and don’t just skip over them because you might have read them a million times.

John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Romans 9:10-24 10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

God has two wills…His will of desire and His will of purpose. It is His will of desire that none should parish, but it is His will of purpose that He make some vessels of wrath that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy. It is KIND OF the same with parents’ wills. Their will of desire would be never to have to discipline their kid, but their will of purpose will be to discipline that kid when they have to. Do you really think that God’s only attribute is all-loving?….you must do more Bible reading if so. You said, “A Good Bible study will give you answers to these questions (answers which, by the way, are not relevant to whether or not the Bible is historically reliable).” You are the one that brought up this connection by stating, “How many times have you heard someone cast skepticism on the Bible as reason not be a Christian? This, if nothing else, would be one way to show how that excuse rings hollow.” and I gave you reasons why this doesn’t matter. You can’t just say that the Bible is incorrect historically but correct in every other way so I believe in it. If it has any incorrect data in it then it is an unreliable source and no one should put their trust in it. I thank God that it is correct in every way and that it is you who is the unreliable source.
Chad Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Call me crazy, but you seem awfully interested in changing my mind by having me read scripture. But according to your view, I don’t see how that’s possible. For is it not only God who can give me a “new heart and then [give me] the faith to receive His truth”? Me changing my mind by considering the scripture you cite is only possible if I have the categorical ability to do so. But your view doesn’t allow for that.

God has two wills…His will of desire and His will of purpose. It is His will of desire that none should parish, but it is His will of purpose that He make some vessels of wrath that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy. It is KIND OF the same with parents’ wills. Their will of desire would be never to have to discipline their kid, but their will of purpose will be to discipline that kid when they have to. Do you really think that God’s only attribute is all-loving?….you must do more Bible reading if so.

The difference is that parents discipline their children with the intention of seeing them change. The way you see God, on the other hand, is apparently eternally disciplining his children for reasons they cannot help but not do, for they were fated to do them…I never understood God as being one who tortures people in order to show mercy. Want to find Biblical support for that?

You said, “A Good Bible study will give you answers to these questions (answers which, by the way, are not relevant to whether or not the Bible is historically reliable).” You are the one that brought up this connection by stating, “How many times have you heard someone cast skepticism on the Bible as reason not be a Christian? This, if nothing else, would be one way to show how that excuse rings hollow.” and I gave you reasons why this doesn’t matter.

I think your reasons were severely misguided. That it doesn’t matter because “God has not called them (yet or never will)” is a notion that I find hard to reconcile with God’s character, the word, and a robust doctrine of libertarian agency. It treats people as a means to an end rather than an ends in themselves, and negates the purpose of apologetics and evangelism altogether (which is more difficulty you will run into with scripture).

You can’t just say that the Bible is incorrect historically but correct in every other way so I believe in it. If it has any incorrect data in it then it is an unreliable source and no one should put their trust in it. I thank God that it is correct in every way and that it is you who is the unreliable source.

Did you reread and reconsider my post and comments over at Churchvoices? Allow your mind to move beyond the suggestive title and consider my points carefully. My view is not that the Bible isn’t reliable in any way. Rather, our knowledge as Christians doesn’t depend on whether or not I accept the Bible as a set of historically reliable documents. Take the following proposition, that

1) the Bible is a message from God to us and in its entirety is authoritative for Christian belief and practice.

I do not think that (1) is itself a necessary belief to be held by one who considers himself a Christian. I do not think (1) is a central element of Christian belief. Something like (1) wasn’t accepted by the earliest Christians and isn’t to be found in the ecumenical creeds anywhere. This is partly because there were Christians before these books were written, and, barring divine revelation to them that the books were indeed soon to be written and would indeed be authoritative, they wouldn’t have known about them. Paul himself, for example, was certainly a Christian believer, who both accepted the deity of Christ and had knowledge of the Holy Spirit (two beliefs not drawn from the OT by a first century Jew), before he wrote his first epistles. Still, he no doubt didn’t believe that the Bible as we now have it, in Protestant or Catholic (or Orthodox) version, was divinely inspired or historically reliable. So from this I must conclude that (1), that the belief that God has inspired, say, the NT in such a way that it is communication from God to us human beings, or that the NT is historically reliable, is a belief not necessary for one to be a Christian. If you still seem to disagree, this leads me to wonder whether you believe Christians existed before the New Testament was written and canonized, a most dubious position if I ever thought of one.In fact, one of the more conservative Christian philosophers of our day (considered by many to be the 20th century’s foremost thinker in philosophy of religion and epistemology), Alvin Plantinga, makes the same point. To hopefully clarify a bit more, I’ll quote him instead of relying on my own words:

…[P]erhaps you conclude that on the basis of historical reason alone, presinding from what you know or think you know by faith, it is unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the Bible is not a special word from the Lord, or that Jesus did miracles of one sort or another. It doesn’t follow that you don’t think Jesus did rise from the dead, or that the Bible is not a special word from the Lord, or that Jesus did these miracles. For if you are a traditional Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic (or Orthodox), you very likely think there is another source of warranted belief on these topics, a source in addition to historical reason. Aquinas speaks here of the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” and Calvin of the “internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.” According to each, the source of Christian belief is not historical reason, or testimony from other people, [or the Bible itself], but this working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of those who in fact believe.

From The Experience of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, USA; 6 ed. 2005), Coedited by Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin. “Alvin Plantinga and David Kolak: Philosophy, the Bible, and God: A debate” p. 316.

Moreover, I have put my argument in a syllogism so as to clarify meaning and elimintate ambiguity. Let the proposition “the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, in its entirety, is historically reliable” be represented by belief a, all the beliefs in set x to represent those necessary for genuine Christian belief to obtain, and C to represent genuine Christian belief.

1) All beliefs in set x are necessary for C to obtain.
2) At some time t, C obtained without belief a.
3) Therefore, belief a is not in set x.
4) Therefore, belief a is not necessary for C to obtain.

*Note that ’some time t‘ doesn’t necessarily entail one specific time, but just an occasion (perhaps among many) for argument’s sake.

I am not sure where you are disagreeing. I’m pretty sure you’d take issue with premise (2), but I honestly don’t see much potency coming from any argument you can muster on behalf of there not being a time t when C obtained without a.
sarah Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Well,
I didn’t bother reading your response with all its formulas, but I can probably guess that you didn’t like any of what I wrote…I’m sorry because some of that was written by God. It is true that only the Holy Spirit can give wisdom to those who lack it and so I will bid you good-bye and leave you to Him. PS I took logic in college and found it just as boring as it must be here.
Tim Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Wow, what a freaking cop-out.
Chad Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Well then I regrettably bid you adieu, for Doxazo is a place primarily for Christians who actually use the intellect God gave them, not those who scorn it.
Heath Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Well said, Chad.

14 Responses to “Can You Still Be A Christian and Reject the Bible?”

Leave a Reply

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Microsoft

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Microsoft

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

oem iso software

"Autocad Mechanical Desktop"

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Accounting system software acer arcade oem software 279.

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Windowsxp

Autocad Sales In,

Autocad Sales In,

oem iso software

oem iso software

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Windowsxp

oem iso software

Buy cheap software Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 oem

Autocad Sales In,

Windows 7 Vs Windows Vista