Can you reject Biblical Literalism and still be a true Christian?

[Drew]

I'm just curious what you guys think about this. Can a person still have a vibrant, real relationship with God without buying 100% into the traditional interpretations of Scripture?

I appreciate your feedback...

Of course. In fact, "hardcore" Biblical literalism is so clearly flawed and mistaken that I (and others) are frankly stunned that this concept still flourishes.

Let me be clear what I am talking about: I am talking about those who would deny the use of any literary device whatsoever - metaphor, parable, whatever.

So, for example, the kind of person whose view I am critiquing here would insist that when Isaiah says that the mountains will sing and the trees clap their hands, that these things are to be taken literally.

Or those who would insist that the Luke 16 account of the wise man and Lazarus is a literal story in all its details. It cannot be a literal story in all its details, not least because it refers to the rich man having a "tongue", and Paul tells us that it is only at Jesus' return that people are given resurrection bodies.

I could go on. With all due respect to those who yearn for "simplicity", we need to accept that the Bible is full of literary devices that are not to be taken literally. This should not be a surprise - despite our inclination to be condescending to them, the writers of Scripture were not unacquainted with the power of metaphor, and other literary devices, to convey truth.

 

[glorydaz]

And I'd advise you not to presume to think that someone does not have fellowship with Christ simply because he reads not only the Bible but the writings of men who themselves have studied the Bible and have some good insights. What you're saying is as silly as saying "Don't go to church; just stay home and read your Bible and let the Holy Spirit be your church" (never mind that the Bible makes it clear that Christianity is a communal faith and that God created the Church for His glory).

I wasn't presuming anything about you by saying Just Wondering should avoid reading anything but the Bible until his faith had been restored. Reading anything but the Word, at the point of a teetering faith, can often further confuse a person even more. I'm sorry if you took what I said personally. I saw someone who needed to get back in touch with God...simple as that.

 

[glorydaz]

And Jesus refers to Noah by name.

I didn't say the flood never happened...I said it wasn't an essential to believe it happened.

 

[glorydaz]

I could go on. With all due respect to those who yearn for "simplicity", we need to accept that the Bible is full of literary devices that are not to be taken literally. This should not be a surprise - despite our inclination to be condescending to them, the writers of Scripture were not unacquainted with the power of metaphor, and other literary devices, to convey truth.

Amen. And I might add...if this were merely a thread discussing whether the Bible should be taken literally or not, it would be one thing. What I saw was a man in danger of losing his faith, and why would we demand more of that man than the Lord does. Even a child with no understanding of the Bible, can find Christ in it.

 

[Drew]

Even a child with no understanding of the Bible, can find Christ in it.

I agree. While I believe the Biblical narrative is complex, and some important truths require real hard thinking, the basic content of the gospel is indeed accessible to all.

 

[handy]

Just Wondering,

I too, hope that you truly do have an open mind here and are open to considering all options...even the option that if one has to believe in a wholly literal Bible to be saved, you will. That you'd rather believe what the world says is silly fable, than give up your faith in God.

Having said that, I have a suggestion to make.

If you're not familiar with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man found in Luke 16, take the time to read it. This is a bible story that has a lot of people guessing. Some think it's literal, that there really and truly lived a man named Lazarus who was poor and the rich man with five brothers. Others think it is a parable. Some believe it describes a literal hell. Others think that it is wholly metaphorical.

I've my own thoughts on the story itself, but what I find to be most significant in the story, and it's significant whether or not the story is literal or metaphorical, is that in it Abraham tells the rich man, who is suffering in hell and wants to warn his brothers of what their fate will be if they don't change, that the brothers have Moses and the Prophets (ie the Old Testament) and they can read them. The rich man says, "No (that the Scriptures aren't enough) but if someone raises from the dead and warns them, they can be saved." To which Abraham replies, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." End of story.

To me, the most significant part of this story is that last part...if anyone won't be persuaded by 'Moses and the Prophets' ie...the Scriptures...then nothing is going to save them.

Why? Why would that be?

Well, I believe it is because, no matter how often we speak of salvation as if it is something that we can achieve, or that we can win others to yadda, yadda,...the salvation of individuals is and always has been the work of the Holy Spirit. This is true whether or not one believes in free will or predestination...it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates unbelievers into new life.

It is also the Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of the Bible.

If one rejects the Scriptures, one rejects the work of the Holy Spirit. Rejection of the Holy Spirit is not a healthy thing if one is seeking salvation.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to write down everything He deemed necessary for us to find salvation. However, we are not saved by believing the Bible per se...we are saved when we believe in the work of Jesus Christ and repent and seek His forgiveness, and the Holy Spirit works regeneration of our dead spirit into life. THAT is how we are saved.

Now, reading the Bible can bring us to this, but....

Some folks come into salvation without ever reading the Bible even once and...

others read the Bible all their lives and never come into salvation.

So the Bible, while important, isn't what saves. It is the Holy Spirit working through the Scriptures that can bring us to salvation.

My advice to you, JustWondering is this: Continue to seek after salvation, via faith in Jesus Christ. Continue to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to renew you and recreate you into a new person. Read the Bible in whatever way it makes sense to you...either as metaphorical stories that have wisdom within them, or literal history...but either way that the meaning of what you read is truth...and while reading pray that the Holy Spirit would guide you to what is truth about the Scriptures. Be open to what is truth about the Scriptures, even if it means that you wind up believing what seems like fairy tales, for no other reason than that the Holy Spirit impresses upon you that it is true.

If you do this...not reject the Bible, but look at it as a work of the Holy Spirit towards truth and that the Spirit can bring you to truth as well...I think that your faith will continue to grow and that you will find salvation.

 

[glorydaz]

My advice to you, JustWondering is this: Continue to seek after salvation, via faith in Jesus Christ. Continue to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to renew you and recreate you into a new person. Read the Bible in whatever way it makes sense to you...either as metaphorical stories that have wisdom within them, or literal history...but either way that the meaning of what you read is truth...and while reading pray that the Holy Spirit would guide you to what is truth about the Scriptures. Be open to what is truth about the Scriptures, even if it means that you wind up believing what seems like fairy tales, for no other reason than that the Holy Spirit impresses upon you that it is true.

If you do this...not reject the Bible, but look at it as a work of the Holy Spirit towards truth and that the Spirit can bring you to truth as well...I think that your faith will continue to grow and that you will find salvation.

Excellent advice, handy. I would add, if you come across something that doesn't seem to make sense, put it up on a shelf and wait until the Lord leads you to pick it up again. He's done that many a time in my reading of the Word.

 

[Former Christian]

JustWondering

Discrepancies in the Bible, and it’s true there are many more than acknowledged by those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, are generally localized and limited to one writing or another. Contradictions between writings are easy to spot and generally affect no major teaching of the Bible as a whole.

As has often been brought out, the Bible is probably the best attested ancient writing that we have, due to the number of copies currently available, and due to the reverent care taken by those making the copies. To believe that what the Bible says in its major portions does not convey what is intended, we must also believe that other ancient writings that are not as well attested must be even less accurate. And if that’s the case, all ancient writings should be taken with a grain of salt. That perhaps they’re just useful to those whose hobby or living it is to study them and speculate on them.

Interpretation of the Bible is a greater problem than any discrepancies found therein. The practice of Biblical interpretation, not the discrepancies, is the basis for Christian denominationalism. If the Bible can’t be understood any better than the Bible interpreters understand it, then maybe it doesn’t need to be understood at all.

The Bible always attempts to convey a literal message, no matter how it is conveyed. The message may use a metaphorical idea or an example to allude to a truth. But the truth will literally be there. Even the parables used by Jesus can be easily understood by those who understand his basic message, even when they’re not explained by Jesus himself. It is the literal truth found in the Bible that we must adhere to. Otherwise we’re adhering to only God knows what because we certainly won’t know for certain.

I continue to maintain that the Bible has a message of its own. That the only way the Bible can be understood properly is through listening to the one who gave it. If you believe its source is just the writers themselves, then you should understand what they said themselves. Not some interpretation that has nothing to do with what they said. If you believe God is the source of the Bible, then you already know who you must turn to in order to understand it. And we should strive against our own tendency to interpret what God reveals to us is what the Bible says.

I’m a former Christian. That means only that I no longer identify myself as a member of the man-made religion Christianity, or the term Christian associated with it. I continue to believe that the Bible comes from a Divine source, in both the Old and New Testaments. And I continue to believe that the source that the Bible reveals exists. I’m a converted Atheist that continues to be a Theist. I just don’t consider myself a Christian or a part of Christianity any more. Nor do I consider myself a part of what is modern Judaism. I refer to myself simply as one who is in Christ.

No NT writer referred to himself as a Christian. They were originally called disciples in the Gospels and Acts. But when the writers themselves wrote, they didn’t call themselves disciples. The terms Christian and disciple refer to a natural way of following. The term Christian is like being a follower of Aristotle or the Buddha. The term disciple simply means one who is being taught by another. Like being a disciple of a particular philosopher or religious teacher. The NT writers used terminology to refer to themselves that had a more transcendent meaning than either Christian or disciple. They used terminology like being in Christ, and related their connection to the supernatural by this kind of terminology.

They made it clear that to be in Christ meant that one was no longer to consider themselves just a Jew or a Gentile. The word translated Gentile means simply a member of a nation. To be in Christ is to no longer consider oneself simply as male and female. This is very common in the natural as seen most clearly by the controversy between straight and gay. Christians aren’t the only straight people who look with suspicion at homosexuality. It’s also seen in the controversy instigated by the Women’s Lib movement. It’s seen in the emphasis put on sex and sexual differences by those who sell anything in modern cultures influenced by some American values, especially seen in America itself.

Our unity isn’t to be in these natural things. Our unity is now in Christ through the Spirit of God. And Paul says we should strive to keep the unity of the Spirit rather than unity in other things as it is in Christianity and non-Christianity alike.

We all live according to experience. And we will consider the experience to be natural or supernatural. If you’ve had no experience of the supernatural, then you must ask yourself one simple question. What experience am I basing my belief in God upon? Is it on an interpretation of the Bible? Is it on what others have said? Is it on something within that reveals there is something supernatural? You must consider that an interpretation is just out of the mind. It’s imaginary. What other people say is contradictory. Much more than how contradictory you may consider the Bible.

You must consider what other people will say if you claim to base what you believe on your own experience of the supernatural. It will be called relativistic having to do with yourself alone. And in that they will be right. You’ll notice that in the Bible God deals with individuals. Community in the Bible is only in reference to a group of people who have had the same kind of experience. Israel’s experience included the parting of the Red Sea and the glory of God associated with the Tabernacle. The experience of the ekklesia in the NT is in relation to being in Christ. It isn’t the same experience as Christianity, wherein their common experience is in a rudimentary understanding that there is a God and Jesus Christ is his Son, and beyond the rudimentary understanding of God in denominational interpretations of what that means. And they even have unity in a common name.....Christian.

I believe in understanding the Bible literally, according to what the Biblical writers actually intended. Not according to the practice of Biblical interpretation that can give what they wrote any meaning. But I’m not a Christian. And some Christians would say I wasn’t a Christian even if I claimed to be, for the simple reason I don’t agree with their Bible interpretations. They would say, “How can two walk togethe unless they be agreed?†And with that I’m in full agreement. So I’m a

Former Christian

 

[stovebolts]

If we find it hard to believe that the flood took place, we should also disagree with the bible...by adding: Christ never died on the cross - for how can One die on a cross and come back to life after some days?
--
The bible is the word of God! There was a flood.

First off, being a Christian means living your life in action and thought in a Christ Like manner to everyone you encounter. Many of us struggle with this simple instruction, so when it comes to the idea of the flood etc, it can appear that being a "Christian" is an either or proposition.

That we struggle with these things is not a lack of our biblical understanding, but I think it's because we don't have access to the proper data.

Answers in Genesis has been a big help to me in this area and brings up points that I would have never thought of myself. We can look at the same data that Evolutionists have, affirm that data, yet interpret in a manner that actually compliments the Biblical story of the flood.

For example, most make the case that the flood was caused by the rain, when in actuality it wasn't just rain, but it was also the waters from the deep. Believe it or not, yes, there is water under the ocean and AIG has a fantastic model that shows their scientific theory.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm very much with FC on this one:

I believe in understanding the Bible literally, according to what the Biblical writers actually intended.

I even found a theologian (gasp!) who agreed with the 2 of us. Who? William Tyndale, no less:

Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.

And there's another, Hooker:

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worst”

 

[JustWondering]

JustWondering, you were involved in a lengthy Q&A thread addressing this, and I can only hope you are being straight forward; that you truly do have an open mind for scripture.

Mike, why are you always suspicious of my posts? I mean no harm, and everything I've typed here is honest.

 

[JustWondering]

And Jesus refers to Noah by name.

And Jesus also told many parables. What if his reference to Noah was a reference to a parable about the flood rather than a literal person?

 

[glorydaz]

And Jesus also told many parables. What if his reference to Noah was a reference to a parable about the flood rather than a literal person?

What does it matter?

Do you think man has no history whatsoever? Someone recorded who was born to who and who died, etc.
One thing about the Bible is no one would take all the time to record all those begats just to entertain us, or to make a best seller. Copies are still being found today after thousands of years. We see Noah's name was recorded including his parents from way back.

You can go to the National Archives and see the same things about the founders of our country. You don't have to believe those either, but it doesn't mean they weren't true and recorded by someone.

There are millions of books on the market and the Bible is read and believed by more people than any of them...or all of them put together. Whether you are one of those who are touched by the truth found therein or not is really up to you. We are each allowed by God to accept or reject it, and each of us will live with the consequences of that choice.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm very much with FC on this one:


I even found a theologian (gasp!) who agreed with the 2 of us. Who? William Tyndale, no less:

Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.

And there's another, Hooker:

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worstâ€

Well, does God own the cattle on only a thousand hills, or does 1000 stand for a LOT?

 

[jasoncran]

And Jesus also told many parables. What if his reference to Noah was a reference to a parable about the flood rather than a literal person?

no peter also likens his final judgment of earth to the flood.if the flood is a literaly device then the very actions of christ is one as well.

 

[Pard]

And there's another, Hooker:

“I hold it for a most infallible rule in the exposition of Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the literal is commonly the worstâ€

Good 'ole Hooker! He founded Connecticut dontchya know!

Anyways down to the painful part of why I posted.

I've done some reading both in scripture and in the words of man and I must say I'm wholly convinced that my original post was wrong. I'm not actually sure what brought me to make that initial post as if some of you will recall not to long ago another member and I got into a bit of trouble because he refused to take the Bible literally and I was vehemently against this notion of the Bible as a bunch of "stories".

So consider my initial post recanted.

Though I will say that there are some (admittedly wonky) ideas that are still technically "literal" but in comparision to where I stand are rather liberal in thought (such as that one about how the Earth is really old but like that age happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2... which is weird because the only thing that happens there is a period! )

 

[Mike]

Mike, why are you always suspicious of my posts? I mean no harm, and everything I've typed here is honest.

I said more in my post than, "I hope you're being honest.". If that's all you got out of my response, I think you may be doing some selective reading. I believe there were some very good responses for you to consider in this thread and in the other one. But as I said, no one is going to say anything to resolve your doubts. It's going to be something you work out in your heart between you and the Lord.

 

[JustWondering]

I said more in my post than, "I hope you're being honest.". If that's all you got out of my response, I think you may be doing some selective reading. I believe there were some very good responses for you to consider in this thread and in the other one. But as I said, no one is going to say anything to resolve your doubts. It's going to be something you work out in your heart between you and the Lord.

I know you said more. I'm just joking around. I did read your whole post, and I appreciate it. There have been a lot of good posts on this thread, and I do appreciate all of them. I'm actually meeting with one of the pastors from my church later this week. It'll be the first time I've discussed my issues with anyone outside of my wife and a couple close friends, so I'm hoping it goes well and maybe helps me get back on the right path.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

What does it matter?

Do you think man has no history whatsoever? Someone recorded who was born to who and who died, etc.
One thing about the Bible is no one would take all the time to record all those begats just to entertain us, or to make a best seller. Copies are still being found today after thousands of years. We see Noah's name was recorded including his parents from way back.

You can go to the National Archives and see the same things about the founders of our country. You don't have to believe those either, but it doesn't mean they weren't true and recorded by someone.

There are millions of books on the market and the Bible is read and believed by more people than any of them...or all of them put together. Whether you are one of those who are touched by the truth found therein or not is really up to you. We are each allowed by God to accept or reject it, and each of us will live with the consequences of that choice.

Amen Glory...

 

[Asyncritus]

Well, does God own the cattle on only a thousand hills, or does 1000 stand for a LOT?

Um...yes.

I find it very difficult to understand or be sympathetic towards a lot of the arguments presented here.

The Bible is intended for the ordinary man/woman. 'Not many wise men after the flesh...' says Paul.

The ordinary man/woman deals mostly in common sense.

And common sense tells us when to be literal and when not to be - even in everyday speech and dealings. So we immediately know that if someone says 'it's raining cats and dogs' it doesn't mean that you can pick up a free pedigree Dalmatian by stepping outside.

Why are there such silly questions about scripture?

It's as plain as the nose on your face when it's talking in figures and when it's talking literally. Not too much brain power is required.

In fact, it TELLS YOU when to be literal or non-literal very often. Take up this parable against the king of Babylon; He spake unto thenm in parables; Hear O mountains and give ear O earth - don't need too much brain power to see that there's figurativeness in there, does it?

The rule expressed by Tyndale and Hooker above is perfectly valid, and the proper procedure when reading scripture is to FIRST assume literalism, and when that doesn't hold water, THEN get into the non-literal and symbolic.

But for pity's sake, a bit of common sense goes a very long way and would stop half of this nonsensical argument. Try it sometime.