Theology without the bible? ....

[Not_Now.Soon]

On another forum site there's a Christian who holds a lot of respect for theology and writes articles for that site's responses. But he shows more and more on every article and comment that he doesn't count the bible as the foundation of a Christian's faith.

I bring up this topic because my responses to this person have been blunt and harsh. A growing attitude I don't want to keep growing and have it become habitual adversarial like to those I don't agree with or don't understand. Therefore I ask for anyone willing to discuss what it means to be a commited Christian without the bible.

Here are some points I've gleaned from this person that might explain or strength his views that the bible is not literal or a foundation for a Christian.
-------------------------------
•He does not believe in miracles. To him God works in natural ways and that is enough. This position is part of his approach to coming to nonchristians and seem sane while bringing a theology to them. But it also means he doesn't think Jesus was reserected physically only spiritually. (Among other miracles recorded that are ignored or "not taken literally.")

•He holds the church as the interpretator of the bible instead of encouraging individual study of the bible. In that way individuals aren't prone to develop wrong interpretations and cherry pick verses to support their already formed views. In his view it's better to study theology, from the rich history, traditions and thinkers of the church; while privite study of the bible is dangerous to Christians.

•He holds the view that the bible is not trustworthy but has been mistranslated and edited throughout history. That the bible is not God's word, but that it is man's writtings not God's. One point he made I've heard here on cf.net. That the bible is not the word of God. However unlike the point made here that we should seek to hear God for ourselves and to pray and listen, this individual takes the view that the bible is not God's word as a point to trust church theologians and study church theologies.
--------------------------------
I don't know if you guys have met anyone like this, or hold some of the same views yourself. If you have and have some insight to Christians that disregard the bible, then I ask for your help. So that Christianity is not being divided and divisive among our brothers and sisters, instead of loving and welcoming to fellow Christians.

(In the defense of the person I'm referring to, he has a lot of well written articles with a lot of thoughtful theological understanding, along with the intent to deepen a Christian's faith, or to reach nonbelievers that don't believe in anything Christian).

 

[KevinK]

I don't know if you guys have met anyone like this, or hold some of the same views yourself.

Well, as it happens everyone here does. I'm guessing I'm not quite as radical as your acquaintance, but probably fall on the spectrum between him and a strict "fundamentalist" view.

I try to keep a low profile on most of my more unusual perspectives, not wanting to erode the general conservative foundations of the forum, and stand ready to bail completely should my mere presence become subversive.

What kind of help do you need?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

What kind of help do you need?

I have watched myself in conversations with this person and how much they are pulling away from being kind and loving while in the face of correcting something that is in error that the other person refuses to see as wrong.

Then later as if that mindset has taken root and planted it's own seeds in my heart, I've watched myself do the same thing to others in other situations. Ready to pounce on an opportunity instead of handeling the situation better with more patience and gentleness.

The help I seek is to either

1) understand the position (or simular positions) so that I can be more patient with them when I see it again. Expecially regarding Christians that don't think the bible is a foundation for them, or is reliable for them.

And/or
2) To hear how others have handeled a simular situations and to not have rooted impulse to argue and fight growing inside.

 

[KevinK]

Not sure if I can help. First of all, I would never say the Bible isn't the foundation of Christianity. But I'm not personally convinced it is the 100% distortion-free word of God. I can't help but think man has tampered with it a bit. Just a bit. As with most things, finding the truth takes some work.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Not sure if I can help. First of all, I would never say the Bible isn't the foundation of Christianity. But I'm not personally convinced it is the 100% distortion-free word of God. I can't help but think man has tampered with it a bit. Just a bit. As with most things, finding the truth takes some work.

That's a rationelle I keep hearing that the bible isn't distortion free and has been tampered with or edited to suit the person editing it. However I hear this rationelle stated as if it is a fact, without examples to confirm it. Another rationelle I hear is that some bible stories aren't meant to be truthful as in accurate events, but to convay a message and embark some deeper truth (while fudging the details greatly or minimally).

Those rationelles are simular and overlap. As well as are a struggle within the Christian body of believers to sort through or rebuke. However I think I've seen the extreem when I see two self identified Christians debating over Jesus's reserection. One arguing that the bible is to be depended on as a literal writting as much as anything else a person reads is literal and has a face value approach V.S. A person dismissing bible verses of Jesus eating with the disciples to be an exergration and the reserection to not be a physical resurrection.

The rationelle that there are distortions and tampering a in the bible is one struggle. But how do you respond when someone says they are Christian, and teaches nonchristians that Jesus never rose from the dead?

 

[KevinK]

But how do you respond when someone says they are Christian, and teaches nonchristians that Jesus never rose from the dead?

That's a tough one. In fact, the toughest. It throws doubt on the most fundamental tenet and prover of the Christian faith, the Resurrection. Does any other faith have actual resurrection? Actually yes...look up Bodhidharma's lost sandal. But Jesus did it first.

Did the Resurrection not happen? There is a small town in Japan that supposedly is the site of Jesus' permanent grave. According to that legend, Jesus escaped execution and eventually settled in Japan (it was His brother who was executed in His place, and a wealthy disciple who negotiated the operation). He even took a Japanese wife and had descendents, some alive today.

I've personally heard a recording of a psychic medium who supposedly connected with Jesus, Son of God, who explained that the original scriptural sequence did not go as planned, but that in the end the legend inspired the early church so much that it was decided to just leave things as they were.

Does this necessarily undermine the entire Christian faith? Maybe Jesus was still the Son of God, and simply following Him is enough to secure salvation? Being a Christian but not believing in the Resurrection. If so, we're deep into a rewrite of this religion. Like maybe He was just a great prophet, in fact the greatest.

What do I think personally? I'm just going to stick with the original story, that Christ did die on the cross, cleansing us of sin, and proved His Deified nature by beating Death and resurrecting. It's so central to our faith that a few legends and theories are not enough to dissuade me. If the truth turns out to be different, well prove it we'll go from there.

 

[Michael74]

But how do you respond when someone says they are Christian, and teaches nonchristians that Jesus never rose from the dead?

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 1 Corinthians 15:14 NKJV

And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 1 Corinthians 15:17 NKJV

 

[Michael74]

...because I live, ye shall live also. John 14:19b KJV

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection... John 11:25a NKJV

 

[Michael74]

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9 KJV

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 1 Corinthians 15:14-17 NKJV

Yes this teaching and doctrine is from the bible. But can you confront a person who says they are Christian, but doesn't accept the bible as the final word on any view?

This person is an exaggeration of anything I'd expect from a Christian viewpoint, because they sound like they are well studied on some Christian theologies. But he does not count the bible as an authoritive source. Quoting the bible doesn't get much back from him.

 

[JohnDB]

The Bible we have today with the Modern Translations are based on the most accurate manuscripts we have except for the autographs. (Which no one has)

And if beliefs in God are not based in scripture then they are based on nothing.

Look, we have manuscripts from 100-300 AD and they have no substantial differences than other manuscripts. The differences in translations aren't significant. They mostly deal with unimportant doctrinal differences between the denominations.

But Jesus was truly crucified and was truly raised from the dead. Hundreds of millions of people have placed their lives on the line for this truth.

And where many miracles were naturally occurring events that we understand, the timing of them and location of the events was definitely miraculous.
(God created nature...He doesn't have to subvert it to perform a miracle)

Our basic definition of "good" comes from the true stories in the scriptures.

It sounds like this guy has no solid hermeneutics but wants the glory of having Godly wisdom. (Even though he really doesn't own any)
The beginning of wisdom is fear of God...and if this guy doesn't fear God first and foremost I wouldn't have anything to do with him.

 

[Michael74]

Here's what Paul did:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 New King James Version

 

[Edward]

Let's not over-complicate this. The Bible is the Word and it tells us to meditate on His word day and night...

It also says, that the word became flesh, so this tells us that (if) when we do meditate on the word day and night then we will see the Lord and He will manifest Himself to us. Not confusing. Very simple and literal.

Theology without the bible would be...like, a Joel Osteen Motivational talk or something but is an exercise in futility because no Word, and a carnal mind trying to understand? Sorry.

 

[Michael74]

Just because the guy says he doesn't believe in the Bible is not a reason to avoid quoting it.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11 KJV

 

[atpollard]

He does not believe in miracles. To him God works in natural ways and that is enough. This position is part of his approach to coming to nonchristians and seem sane while bringing a theology to them. But it also means he doesn't think Jesus was resurrected physically only spiritually. (Among other miracles recorded that are ignored or "not taken literally.")

PREFACE: I am a 5 point Calvinist (Reformed Baptist specifically) that holds to the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed, to the inerrancy of Scripture, and to the literal truth of the miracles of Christ and those recorded in the Bible.

With that said, let me offer observations in “defense” of each of the points of your “acquaintance”.

He is not alone in his rejection of the supernatural elements of the Bible. Thomas Jefferson also held the miracles as suspect superstitious additions to the central message. Which brings us to the real point ... “The FIRST thing is to keep FIRST things, FIRST.”

Is belief in the biblical miracles or that all 66 books (and only those 66 books) are God-breathed a prerequisite for salvation? Is absolute orthodoxy what Jesus requires of “His sheep”?

People are stupid (just like sheep). People do a lot of stupid things. People believe a lot of stupid things. There is very little that we can do to change people, and the one person we have the greatest control over is ourself ... yet I don’t generally choose to look hard at what I do and believe to see what among it might be “stupid”. (I’ll let you speak for yourself. You might be one of those people that are ‘completely sinless’ ... or just know it all). :wink

While I disagree with his ‘non-physical’ resurrection theory, let’s be honest enough that he has some Biblical evidence to support his position. Physical bodies do not walk through walls and doors, but Jesus resurrected body did. Physical bodies do not suddenly appear and disappear from one location or another, but Jesus’ resurrected body did. Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul after his ascension and others could not see his body.

That suggests, at a minimum, that Jesus post-resurrection Body was at least a little different from the body of the typical person. This person, incorrectly, chooses to misinterpret that difference as meaning “not physical”. It probably makes them ignorant, but does it disqualify them from belonging to Christ?

[Romans 10:9-11 NIV]
9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

That's a tough one. In fact, the toughest. It throws doubt on the most fundamental tenet and prover of the Christian faith, the Resurrection. Does any other faith have actual resurrection? Actually yes...look up Bodhidharma's lost sandal. But Jesus did it first.

Did the Resurrection not happen? There is a small town in Japan that supposedly is the site of Jesus' permanent grave. According to that legend, Jesus escaped execution and eventually settled in Japan (it was His brother who was executed in His place, and a wealthy disciple who negotiated the operation). He even took a Japanese wife and had descendents, some alive today.

I've personally heard a recording of a psychic medium who supposedly connected with Jesus, Son of God, who explained that the original scriptural sequence did not go as planned, but that in the end the legend inspired the early church so much that it was decided to just leave things as they were.

Does this necessarily undermine the entire Christian faith? Maybe Jesus was still the Son of God, and simply following Him is enough to secure salvation? Being a Christian but not believing in the Resurrection. If so, we're deep into a rewrite of this religion. Like maybe He was just a great prophet, in fact the greatest.

What do I think personally? I'm just going to stick with the original story, that Christ did die on the cross, cleansing us of sin, and proved His Deified nature by beating Death and resurrecting. It's so central to our faith that a few legends and theories are not enough to dissuade me. If the truth turns out to be different, well prove it we'll go from there.

When it comes to extra biblical knowledge. My rule of thumb is A) does it contradict what's in the bible, and B) if so how often is it written in the bible that contradicts the extra knowledge.

If the knowledge/theory/doctrine contradicts something in the bible, then that knowledge/theory/doctrine is suspect. It would need a lot of support to make it seem plausible in my opinion. On the other hand if what's being contradicted is mentioned several times in the bible then it's just plainly wrong. No amount of support can fix that. The theories of Jesus excaping the cross, contradict all four gospels and many of the letters in the New Testament. This makes the matter more then a potential mistranslation, or something added or removed throughout the history of the bible, because it's mentioned more then once in the bible it puts the bible as a whole as suspect, or the theory condricting it as suspect.

There are other theologies and theories that are outside of the biblical narrative, and with each of them I would recommend the same rule of thumb for whether those things are plausible. For instance how most of the apostles died isn't mentioned in the bible, yet there's information about them and how they died that's outside of the bible narrative. ("According to tradition" is how I've heard the information sourced). In my opinion since they don't condrict the bible narrative then that information is at least possible, even if there're no real evidance of it left besides being passed verbally down in stories and tradition.

When historians and scholars go about correcting the bible, (such as saying which verses were added or changed; or when someone has a full blown rewrite of it all like the "historical Jesus" stuff. They are all ready on shaky ground and need a lot more support outside of their educated opinions.

Anyways I thought this rule of thumb might be something for you to consider. There's a lot of theories, theology, and perspectives as a whole among Christians, so having something to help sort through it without being swept away might be helpful if you agree with it's method and logic around it.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Just because the guy says he doesn't believe in the Bible is not a reason to avoid quoting it.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11 KJV

I fully agree. Thanks for that.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The Bible we have today with the Modern Translations are based on the most accurate manuscripts we have except for the autographs. (Which no one has)

And if beliefs in God are not based in scripture then they are based on nothing.

That's been my understanding as well. Without the bible what foundation can there be? Nothing I can really count as reliable. Which makes this even harder for me. When a person teaches from the theologians they agree with, what is there to back them up? Church history and traditions? That's the foundation of this other person, and likely many other Christians as well. There are creeds and statements of faith, and traditions passed down that tell of history and doctrine within the church. I don't want to lose all of that for Christians that come to God through some of those elements. So this example of a collection of theologies that completely disregard the bible is hard in my opinion. Expecially in regards to him writting and teaching to a largely unbelieving audience.

Look, we have manuscripts from 100-300 AD and they have no substantial differences than other manuscripts. The differences in translations aren't significant. They mostly deal with unimportant doctrinal differences between the denominations.

But Jesus was truly crucified and was truly raised from the dead. Hundreds of millions of people have placed their lives on the line for this truth.

And where many miracles were naturally occurring events that we understand, the timing of them and location of the events was definitely miraculous.
(God created nature...He doesn't have to subvert it to perform a miracle)

Our basic definition of "good" comes from the true stories in the scriptures.

It sounds like this guy has no solid hermeneutics but wants the glory of having Godly wisdom. (Even though he really doesn't own any)
The beginning of wisdom is fear of God...and if this guy doesn't fear God first and foremost I wouldn't have anything to do with him.

I hadn't thought of this as a self glorifying thing. JohnDB you've got a point. Having nothing to do with him
I think is the scriptural answer too. I just worry because he is teaching his version of Christianity to nonchristians. Making it harder to reach them because they think there's many different kinds of Christians, some that just don't believe the bible.

This has to be one of those trust God things though isn't it. Have nothing to do with him in spite of how it is.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Let's not over-complicate this. The Bible is the Word and it tells us to meditate on His word day and night...

It also says, that the word became flesh, so this tells us that (if) when we do meditate on the word day and night then we will see the Lord and He will manifest Himself to us. Not confusing. Very simple and literal.

Theology without the bible would be...like, a Joel Osteen Motivational talk or something but is an exercise in futility because no Word, and a carnal mind trying to understand? Sorry.

I think JohnDB said what I needed to hear most, to have nothing to do with this guy. Because I don't have the patience to do anything else.

I agree with what you've said Edward. That among many many other reasons are there to reject what this person says. But what to do from there I think is the other part. Thankyou for your input. And your reminder to meditate on the bible daily. I need to do that anyways instead of letting this kind of stuff fill my head.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

PREFACE: I am a 5 point Calvinist (Reformed Baptist specifically) that holds to the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed, to the inerrancy of Scripture, and to the literal truth of the miracles of Christ and those recorded in the Bible.

With that said, let me offer observations in “defense” of each of the points of your “acquaintance”.

He is not alone in his rejection of the supernatural elements of the Bible. Thomas Jefferson also held the miracles as suspect superstitious additions to the central message. Which brings us to the real point ... “The FIRST thing is to keep FIRST things, FIRST.”

Is belief in the biblical miracles or that all 66 books (and only those 66 books) are God-breathed a prerequisite for salvation? Is absolute orthodoxy what Jesus requires of “His sheep”?

People are stupid (just like sheep). People do a lot of stupid things. People believe a lot of stupid things. There is very little that we can do to change people, and the one person we have the greatest control over is ourself ... yet I don’t generally choose to look hard at what I do and believe to see what among it might be “stupid”. (I’ll let you speak for yourself. You might be one of those people that are ‘completely sinless’ ... or just know it all). :wink

I wish the supernatural elements in life were known more by people. Not that they have to be common and everyday events. But at least once in a person's lifetime so that they know that God is real, and still active. None the less the Christians that don't believe in miracles disbelieve in so much of the bible because of that filtering out of miracles. They might be saved, or they might be lost, soon or leaving the church. What counts is faith in Jesus. Everything else outside of that is up to God's discretion.

As for believing stupid things. I'm not sinless nor a scholar, but
I do think we should still search ourselves to be sure we are right with God, as well as search for what is the truth and what isn't.

While I disagree with his ‘non-physical’ resurrection theory, let’s be honest enough that he has some Biblical evidence to support his position. Physical bodies do not walk through walls and doors, but Jesus resurrected body did. Physical bodies do not suddenly appear and disappear from one location or another, but Jesus’ resurrected body did. Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul after his ascension and others could not see his body.

That suggests, at a minimum, that Jesus post-resurrection Body was at least a little different from the body of the typical person. This person, incorrectly, chooses to misinterpret that difference as meaning “not physical”. It probably makes them ignorant, but does it disqualify them from belonging to Christ?

[Romans 10:9-11 NIV]
9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."

These were actually points that were addressed and argued by the indivual I'm talking about and the other Christian who holds that the bible is a reliable historical document.

I'm not trying to start a witch hunt to disqualify certian believers from Jesus, based on their beliefs. There are many beliefs among Christians that are conflicting, even contradicting what's in the bible. But the hope is that we are saved by God's grace through Jesus, not through correct understanding. Otherwise we would all need to be scholars like the Pharisees that study and know the bible throughout their lives inorder to be saved.

Correct understanding helps a lot though in our journey as Christians, and to strengthen us in our faith as well as help us in following God. So I think it's still very important, regardless of the salvation element.

What I had origionally hoped from this thread is for some understanding of Christians who hold a theology without the bible so that I have something to base them off of and be more patient with them. Or to hear how others have dealt with simular situations so to still be better prepared by a growing population of Christians that don't believe in the bible as anything outside of an ancient book. (Non Christians too).