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

[JustWondering]

As I've mentioned in some of my earlier posts, I have been going through a long phase in which I've been plagued with some serious doubts. So serious, in fact, that I've been on the verge of calling myself an atheist.

However, I was a hard-core believer for almost 20 years, and I know that God felt very real and close to me during that time. Recently, for the first time in a while, I've felt a stirring inside me that feels like maybe it's God working in me. I desperately do not want to lose my faith entirely, so I have been trying to figure out how to reconcile my intellectual doubts with the ability to still have a faith that makes sense to me.

That brings me to my question... Can you reject Biblical literalism and still be considered a believer? Part of my issue has been what I see as internal inconsistencies in the Bible, and I no longer view it as being inerrant. Likewise, I don't think I will ever be able to truly believe that every story recounted in the Bible actually happened (particularly the Old Testament stories).

Can you believe that the overall theme of the Bible is inspired by God, without believing that every word was directly inspired? Can you accept some of the OT stories as being fables for the purpose of providing moral guidance from God, without believing that all the characters were actual historical figures that lived here on Earth?

Taking it a step further, can you believe that Adam and Eve never literally existed as human beings, yet still believe in the fallen state of man, and the need for Christ to be a bridge between humans and God? To me, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that the theory of evolution is true, but does that necessarily mean that we weren't created by God?

Anyone can look at the world today and see it is obvious that mankind is deeply flawed, regardless of what you believe about our origins. Can you believe mankind still needs a Savior, even if there was never a singular event like "The Fall" depicted in Genesis?

Anyway, I know these ideas would put me on the far "liberal" end of the Christian spectrum, but I feel like allowing myself these types of interpretations is the only way I can reconcile the intellectual doubts I have with the faith my heart wants to have.

Before, when I was on the verge of atheism, I think I had an "all or none" approach to the Bible. Having been from a fundamentalist (Southern Baptist) background, I felt like if I had doubts about the 100% inerrancy of the Bible, then I had to throw my entire faith out (like the proverbial baby with the bathwater).

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...

 

[Classik]

we have all suffered similar challenges in the course of this race. I am not surprised. I had once deliberately missed our Prayer metting for over 5 consecutive years. I missed all the weeks, months - and those 5 years - never attending once. Our bible study is quite different. During that period I had missed bible study for about 3 years. What was I doing? Nothing!!! And our church is 2 minutes drive from home.

However, I was a hard-core believer for almost 20 years, and I know that God felt very real and close to me during that time.

And even as you read this post He still overwhelms you. You only need to re-absorb Him. It seems like you have been distracted along the way.

Recently, for the first time in a while, I've felt a stirring inside me that feels like maybe it's God working in me. I desperately do not want to lose my faith entirely, so I have been trying to figure out how to reconcile my intellectual doubts with the ability to still have a faith that makes sense to me.

I desperately do not want to lose my faith entirely

Neither is there gaining your faith halfway. I still understand your plight. But remember what Jesus says about one being lukewarm in Revelation 3:16

That brings me to my question... Can you reject Biblical literalism and still be considered a believer? Part of my issue has been what I see as internal inconsistencies in the Bible, and I no longer view it as being inerrant. Likewise, I don't think I will ever be able to truly believe that every story recounted in the Bible actually happened (particularly the Old Testament stories).

We really can't chose what to take or leave: you neither add nor subtract from the bible.
We have the Holy Spirit of God in us, don't we? And He is always there to help you. If you begin digging deep into the bible to find errors - you would end up finding errors not made by the bible or His (God) inspiration but errors made by your own misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the bible. The bible is the Word of God.

Can you believe that the overall theme of the Bible is inspired by God, without believing that every word was directly inspired? Can you accept some of the OT stories as being fables for the purpose of providing moral guidance from God, without believing that all the characters were actual historical figures that lived here on Earth?

As I have said above - it sure is.

Taking it a step further, can you believe that Adam and Eve never literally existed as human beings, yet still believe in the fallen state of man, and the need for Christ to be a bridge between humans and God? To me, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that the theory of evolution is true, but does that necessarily mean that we weren't created by God?

That is impossible. Both don't agree at all.

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?

If the traditional interpretation isn't okay for you how about that which the Holy Spirit teaches?

 

[for_his_glory]

Can a person still have a vibrant, real relationship with God without buying 100% into the traditional interpretations of Scripture?

There is one of your problems right there where you said a traditional interpretation. Interpretations has caused many young Christians as well as older ones to see the Bible as contradicting itself and have chosen to walk away from faith. The Bible is very literal as well as being very Spiritual within it's teachings. I know God uses others to teach us by having His Spirit speak through them, but it is up to us to test those spirits that speak to see if they are speaking truth or error as there are many false teachers and prophets out there.

My best advice to you would be to ask the Holy Spirit to reveal true knowledge to you as you are studying then you will know for a surety of what you are hearing is interpretations of a carnal mind or teachings from a Spiritual mind of Christ. I have a class I wrote on my website called Deception in Religion I would hope you read as this might help clarify those things you are questioning. One can not pick and choose what to believe as you have to believe all things of God and what he is teaching us in his word.

 

[Pard]

Yeah you can be. I'd say that the more liberal Bible views are what Jesus referred to when He said that you only need to have faith the size of a mustard seed.

Let's keep with that plant theme shall we? It seems your faith has been "pruned" by the secular world. So you have to start at almost nothing but just let your faith thrive in Christ and you'll be good to go. Even if you never come to realize the literal nature of the Bible that's OK.

The problem is when you get into this "loop" where you slowly take such a liberal Biblical view and allow it to influence how deep your love and faith for Jesus is allowed to grow.

 

[Hitch]

If you cant believe Adam existed as recorded or that the story of Noah, repeated in the NT, is true I have serious doubts that you can believe in the resurrection.

To put it another way;

If Moses' account of the Flood is a fable why should we accept Luke's account of the resurrection as factual?

 

[Eventide]

God's testimony versus man's testimony..

Tough question.. and I don't know.. although this is what I see..

Peter tells us that we are 'born again' by the incorruptible word of God which LIVES and abides for ever.. it's the good seed from the Sower which produces an increase.. in measure we're told..

The word of God is living and powerful and effectual.. His words are Spirit and they are life.. we need the sincere milk of the word to grow and also the meat of it, which imo is limitless in its power to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ.. because it's God's testimony concerning His Son..

I think that John says it best.. if we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is (infinitely) greater.. and the entire ancient texts of the OT all testify of Him.. in story after story, theme after theme.. for in the volume of the book it is written of Me..

I've had the privilege of experiencing life without Christ (before being saved) and learning about things like evolution ect.. and then being saved and in Christ through the power of the gospel of God concerning His Son..

IMO it's literally as God says it is.. like NIGHT and DAY.. the testimony of men isn't even worthy of being placed next to the incorruptible word of God which does indeed live and abide for ever.

 

[JustWondering]

Thanks for the replies. Good food for thought...

 

[Chan]

If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall.

If there was no fall, we were not born "dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1 ESV).

If we were not born "dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1 ESV), there is no need for salvation and Christ died in vain.

If Christ died in vain, there is no need to put our trust in Him because there was no Adam and Eve, no fall, and no need for salvation, and, therefore, none of what the Bible says about these things is true.

If what the Bible says about these things is not true, it is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God.

If the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God, it is the equivalent of Aesop's Fables.

The Bible contains different kinds of language such as narrative (e.g. the story of Adam and Eve, the epistles; these are literal), poetry (e.g. the Psalms), prophetic language (e.g. the visions reported by various prophets), and parables and proverbs (stories and sayings meant to teach a moral lesson or other truth).

I agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html.

I recommend reading Ken Ham's book Why Won't They Listen? (you can download it for free here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wwtl)

 

[JustWondering]

If what the Bible says about these things is not true, it is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God.

Yes, this statement is exactly what was tripping me up and causing me to move away from faith altogether. And it's what I'm trying to reconcile within myself. I have a hard time believing that every story of the Old Testament is true because there seems to be a complete lack of evidence supporting some of them.

The Flood seems unlikely for numerous reasons, logically, logistically, and scientifically. How did every living thing fit on one ark with the dimensions described? How did arctic creatures survive? How was food stored? How did carnivores like lions not eat the other animals? How did water cover the highest mountain peaks in such a short period of time? Where did all that water go afterward? How did plants survive? After the flood subsided, what plants did the herbivores eat? Why is there no geological evidence that this flood ever happened? If most scholars believe the Flood happened around 2400 BC, then that means all living creatures today are descended from one pair on the ark roughly 4400 years ago. Scientists can map genetic progression well enough to prove that living things today do not come from common ancestors that recently. Anyway, the Flood is just one example of a story that makes no sense outside the sphere of religious indoctrination. If you heard that story in any other context, you would immediately dismiss it as a myth.

At any rate, thank you for the link to "Why Won't They Listen". I have already downloaded it and plan to read it with an open mind.

 

[Chan]

Yes, this statement is exactly what was tripping me up and causing me to move away from faith altogether. And it's what I'm trying to reconcile within myself. I have a hard time believing that every story of the Old Testament is true because there seems to be a complete lack of evidence supporting some of them.

You will find many of your answers here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

The Flood seems unlikely for numerous reasons, logically, logistically, and scientifically. How did every living thing fit on one ark with the dimensions described? How did arctic creatures survive? How was food stored? How did carnivores like lions not eat the other animals? How did water cover the highest mountain peaks in such a short period of time? Where did all that water go afterward? How did plants survive? After the flood subsided, what plants did the herbivores eat? Why is there no geological evidence that this flood ever happened? If most scholars believe the Flood happened around 2400 BC, then that means all living creatures today are descended from one pair on the ark roughly 4400 years ago. Scientists can map genetic progression well enough to prove that living things today do not come from common ancestors that recently. Anyway, the Flood is just one example of a story that makes no sense outside the sphere of religious indoctrination. If you heard that story in any other context, you would immediately dismiss it as a myth.

You are assuming that science's version of things is fact and you are appealing to science as an authority (a logical fallacy). There was a time when science said that humans evolved from apes and that the universe got started with a sudden explosion, but now they say humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor and that it wasn't a sudden explosion but an expansion. There was a time (when I was young) that scientists were warning about the coming ice age and now all the talk is about global warming. Are you sure you want to put your trust in fallible humans instead of an infallible God? Explore the Answers in Genesis website.

At any rate, thank you for the link to "Why Won't They Listen". I have already downloaded it and plan to read it with an open mind.

You're welcome.

Again, if any piece of the Bible is not true (keeping in mind that ancient writers didn't have the same standards of exactitude that Western writers today have; so, sometimes you'll find numbers that are approximate; you can't judge ancient writers by modern standards), then it is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God and there is no basis on which to believe that Christ died on the cross for sinners or that we need to put our trust in Him. But if the Bible is true (and it is), then we have no excuse for rejecting it.

Worth reading: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html and http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible3.html.

 

[glorydaz]

If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall.

If there was no fall, we were not born "dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1 ESV).

If we were not born "dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1 ESV), there is no need for salvation and Christ died in vain.

If Christ died in vain, there is no need to put our trust in Him because there was no Adam and Eve, no fall, and no need for salvation, and, therefore, none of what the Bible says about these things is true.

If what the Bible says about these things is not true, it is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God.

If the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God, it is the equivalent of Aesop's Fables.

The Bible contains different kinds of language such as narrative (e.g. the story of Adam and Eve, the epistles; these are literal), poetry (e.g. the Psalms), prophetic language (e.g. the visions reported by various prophets), and parables and proverbs (stories and sayings meant to teach a moral lesson or other truth).

I agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html.

I recommend reading Ken Ham's book Why Won't They Listen? (you can download it for free here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wwtl)

Oops...right here is why you see such problems coming about to begin with.

So much of what you've decided is taught in the Word, I consider error. I've read your posts.

Chan, you're claiming your doctrine is the way to salvation.
We all know better than that, for it's the Gospel of Faith that leads to salvation.


Just Wondering, I'd advise you not to read any books but the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit be your guide back to fellowship with Christ. It is not necessary to understand everything in the Word. I see misunderstandings every day right here on this forum. Just put your trust in the Lord, and He will open your heart to what He knows you need to hear.

 

[glorydaz]

Yeah you can be. I'd say that the more liberal Bible views are what Jesus referred to when He said that you only need to have faith the size of a mustard seed.

Let's keep with that plant theme shall we? It seems your faith has been "pruned" by the secular world. So you have to start at almost nothing but just let your faith thrive in Christ and you'll be good to go. Even if you never come to realize the literal nature of the Bible that's OK.

The problem is when you get into this "loop" where you slowly take such a liberal Biblical view and allow it to influence how deep your love and faith for Jesus is allowed to grow.

Amen.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, this statement is exactly what was tripping me up and causing me to move away from faith altogether. And it's what I'm trying to reconcile within myself. I have a hard time believing that every story of the Old Testament is true because there seems to be a complete lack of evidence supporting some of them.

The Flood seems unlikely for numerous reasons, logically, logistically, and scientifically. How did every living thing fit on one ark with the dimensions described? How did arctic creatures survive? How was food stored? How did carnivores like lions not eat the other animals? How did water cover the highest mountain peaks in such a short period of time? Where did all that water go afterward? How did plants survive? After the flood subsided, what plants did the herbivores eat? Why is there no geological evidence that this flood ever happened? If most scholars believe the Flood happened around 2400 BC, then that means all living creatures today are descended from one pair on the ark roughly 4400 years ago. Scientists can map genetic progression well enough to prove that living things today do not come from common ancestors that recently. Anyway, the Flood is just one example of a story that makes no sense outside the sphere of religious indoctrination. If you heard that story in any other context, you would immediately dismiss it as a myth.

At any rate, thank you for the link to "Why Won't They Listen". I have already downloaded it and plan to read it with an open mind.

Believing in the flood is not an essential for salvation.

There are very few essentials, and you should stick with those.
Confess Jesus as Lord and allow Him to lead you into greater understanding.

May the Lord bless and keep you.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Oops...right here is why you see such problems coming about to begin with.

So much of what you've decided is taught in the Word, I consider error. I've read your posts.

Chan, you're claiming your doctrine is the way to salvation.
We all know better than that, for it's the Gospel of Faith that leads to salvation.


Just Wondering, I'd advise you not to read any books but the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit be your guide back to fellowship with Christ. It is not necessary to understand everything in the Word. I see misunderstandings every day right here on this forum. Just put your trust in the Lord, and He will open your heart to what He knows you need to hear.

Excellent advise and should be taken seriously...

 

[Jam]

That brings me to my question... Can you reject Biblical literalism and still be considered a believer?

I don't like the word literalism at all, as we were obviously not intended to read every phrase of the Bible literally: some books or chapters were not meant to be literal. We should read what is meant literally literally, and what is meant metaphorically metaphorically.

I personally do not consider Liberal Christianity to be an internally consistent belief system: Liberals have no objective way to "measure" the truth of the Bible in that they have no way of determining which books/chapters/verses to actually believe and which not to. Why should they assume that the Exodus never happened but then believe that Jesus existed?

Most Liberal Christianity simply consists of cherry picking the nice bits from the Bible and ignoring the rest. This is illogical.

Can you believe that the overall theme of the Bible is inspired by God, without believing that every word was directly inspired? Can you accept some of the OT stories as being fables for the purpose of providing moral guidance from God, without believing that all the characters were actual historical figures that lived here on Earth?

Again, yes... but you have no way of knowing which are fables and which are not. You cannot just choose yourself. Most of the books that you would probably consider fables were also not intended to be fables!

Taking it a step further, can you believe that Adam and Eve never literally existed as human beings, yet still believe in the fallen state of man, and the need for Christ to be a bridge between humans and God?

The belief would be consistent, but you would have to have some reason to believe that it were true. Without the Fall, in what sense are human beings "fallen"?

To me, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that the theory of evolution is true, but does that necessarily mean that we weren't created by God?

If true, it would mean that we weren't created by God as described in Genesis. Regardless, I think you neglect to address the fact that science indirectly assumes that no God exists, and so it should not really be a surprise when it comes back with conclusions that do not show God to exist.

No explanation of observational evidence will ever use God, simply because the concept of our God will always be unnecessary to explain things. This means that such explanations will never be considered to be demonstrated by the scientific method.

For example, if we observe a particle leaving Geneva in the direction of Italy, and then observe the same particle arriving at Italy from the direction of Geneva, we assume that the particle travelled from Geneva to Italy. In fact, it is entirely consistent with the evidence that God made the particle disappear immediately after observation at Geneva, took the particle back to 2500BC, made it orbit the moon twelve times before returning to the "present" day a few milliseconds later and placing the particle back into its original plane of movement before observation at exactly the correct energy.

Likewise, we observe the complexity of life in nature (and many other factors of which I probably do not know all!), and we conclude that the best fit to the data is the Theory of Evolution. It would still be entirely consistent with the evidence for God to have designed everything, but we go with evolution because it makes the fewest new assumptions.

So what I'm saying is that, although the scientific method and its heuristics come out with one theory, many other theories (including theistic ones) are often still entirely consistent with the evidence, and so it is simply wrong to say "science has disproved religion" and make other such statements.

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?

The short answer is yes, I suppose, but your beliefs will be logically inconsistent and you will struggle to explain to anyone how you rationally came to conclude them.

 

[Classik]

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.

 

[Mike]

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. This is the problem with being too rigid in what you believe to be literally true in the Word. I do believe some of Genesis is meant to be metaphorical, but I do believe in the Creation story. I've seen very well thought out arguments that Noah's Ark was such an allegory, but I for now have resolved that it's true in a literal sense.

The problem with being too rigid is the reliance of each story on your faith. If we place too much importance on each one, we can become despondent if we see evidence which casts doubt on them. When our faith is a brick wall with no ability to absorb a new view, the wall will come down when a single brick is destroyed.

There isn't much in His Word which, if proven false, would cause me to lose faith. I have my personal testimony which I know to be true, and I have his overall Word which has been supported by historical and archeological evidence. If this is an honest search for the Truth in His Word, you won't find anything anyone can say to pacify you. In the end, it will come down to the Holy Spirit Helping you to work through this in your heart.

I believe it's fine for most Christians to read what science motivated by secular ambitions has to say, but your studies should be weighted in His Word. You seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the objections to the Word. Have you ever read anything written at the time of Christ or the early Church which disputed the story of the Resurrection, calling it a false rumor? Goodness knows there would have been a lot of motivation by the opposition to write and pass on such documentation. As far as I know, we have nothing disputing the events of Christ from anyone who witnessed things first-hand.

 

[Chan]

Oops...right here is why you see such problems coming about to begin with.

So much of what you've decided is taught in the Word, I consider error. I've read your posts.

Chan, you're claiming your doctrine is the way to salvation.

I made no such claim. The Bible is clear that with man salvation is impossible (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) and that salvation is God's doing - by grace through faith (Ephesians 2).

We all know better than that, for it's the Gospel of Faith that leads to salvation.

Even faith is the gift of God. You can't have Jesus saying about salvation that "with man this is impossible" and then turn around (as you're implying here) that there is something man can do on his own to save himself (exercise some sort of "faith" that he comes up with all by himself, never mind that he was born dead in trespasses and sins; dead people can't will themselves to life). Salvation is entirely God's doing and it is only through obedience to the gospel that we receive salvation (something we are entirely incapable of on our own, because we were all born dead; as Paul said, there is none who does good, none who seeks after God).

Just Wondering, I'd advise you not to read any books but the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit be your guide back to fellowship with Christ. It is not necessary to understand everything in the Word. I see misunderstandings every day right here on this forum. Just put your trust in the Lord, and He will open your heart to what He knows you need to hear.

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).

 

[Hitch]

Believing in the flood is not an essential for salvation.

There are very few essentials, and you should stick with those.
Confess Jesus as Lord and allow Him to lead you into greater understanding.

May the Lord bless and keep you.

And Jesus refers to Noah by name.

 

[Chan]

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. This is the problem with being too rigid in what you believe to be literally true in the Word. I do believe some of Genesis is meant to be metaphorical, but I do believe in the Creation story. I've seen very well thought out arguments that Noah's Ark was such an allegory, but I for now have resolved that it's true in a literal sense.

The problem with being too rigid is the reliance of each story on your faith. If we place too much importance on each one, we can become despondent if we see evidence which casts doubt on them. When our faith is a brick wall with no ability to absorb a new view, the wall will come down when a single brick is destroyed.

There isn't much in His Word which, if proven false, would cause me to lose faith. I have my personal testimony which I know to be true, and I have his overall Word which has been supported by historical and archeological evidence. If this is an honest search for the Truth in His Word, you won't find anything anyone can say to pacify you. In the end, it will come down to the Holy Spirit Helping you to work through this in your heart.

I believe it's fine for most Christians to read what science motivated by secular ambitions has to say, but your studies should be weighted in His Word. You seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the objections to the Word. Have you ever read anything written at the time of Christ or the early Church which disputed the story of the Resurrection, calling it a false rumor? Goodness knows there would have been a lot of motivation by the opposition to write and pass on such documentation. As far as I know, we have nothing disputing the events of Christ from anyone who witnessed things first-hand.

If any part of the Bible is false, then it is not the inspired and inerrant written revelation of God. This notion of allegorical interpretation of scripture came from the theological school at Alexandria, which was heavily influenced by Gnosticism.

There are different kinds of language in the Bible and they can't all be read the same way. However, the narrative parts (e.g. the history books, including all of Genesis) and the epistles are to be taken literally exactly because they are narratives. You're not going to read the prophetic visions (e.g. Ezekiel's wheel, John's beast) the way that you read historical narratives and epistles. Nor are you going to read the poetry of the Psalms or read the parables of Jesus the way you're going to read, for example, Luke's account of Paul's missionary journeys.