The Bible and Faith
This is a response to Alan on a discussion started by Rob at www.straightshot.blogspot.com
Alan you wrote "It's really a question of how do I get started and how can I place my trust in the Biblical documents...." Let me outline one way of starting. I think the place to get started is not with the Bible at all but rather with the historical event of Jesus. Was Jesus literally/historically raised from the dead? With that as starting point the whole conversation about the Bible changes. You're not asking 'is the Bible true?' but rather is one of its claims true. Then you would investigate the various books of the New Testament first, since they deal primarily with Jesus. Initially, I would keep these books separate from one another. They weren't written together and if your dealing with them apart from faith then it makes more sense to take them one at a time. The church decided they belong together, and I trust that decision. But since you're not asking the question 'is the Bible true?' you are now free to ask 'is Luke true," "is John true" etc. Do the Gospels according to John, Luke, Mark and Matthew provide evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and are they trustworthy?
Jesus came before the New Testament. The message about Jesus came after Him, but before the New Testament. The church was established by those messengers of Jesus before the New Testament was written. That's partly why I think it's important to answer the question about Jesus, before you dive into the question about the Bible. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then Jesus' claims about Himself have been vindicated by God. Jesus claimed that He was the fulfillment of the law and He often quoted the Old Testament in refrence to Himself and what He was up to in the world. That's why we read the Old Testament at all. And whenever we read it, we ought to be looking for Jesus.
Now this is a long way around at getting at your question regarding Adam and Eve and original sin and the need for salvation at all. But I think the starting point is so significant to where we end up in the discussion. Let me know if this different way of approachiing the question changes anything for you.
You also write "Pretend I am a Hittite, you don't have any other Biblical writings available, and you are coming to me to explain to me what sin is and why I'm condemned to an eternity in Hell..." I suppose in that situation I would explain sin as being separated from God. None of us know God like we know each other, talking and hearing and walking with each other. Sin is the situation of separation, we're born into it. The story of Adam and Eve is an explanation of how all this started, but it's a universal explanation not a particular one. Humans want and have wanted since the beginning to decide for themselves what's right and wrong. This is a fundamental rejection of God's rule in our lives. God gave us over to this decision and we are born to parents caught up in the results of the decision every human makes. Even the Hittite :). But God loved us so much, and wanted to bring us back to Himself that He became human in Jesus and lived a human life that submitted completely to God deciding what's right and wrong. "If possible take this cup from me, but not my will but yours be done" prayed Jesus. Jesus then becomes our way back to God, when we're united to Jesus in Baptism(Rom 6). As far as being condemned to an eternity in Hell, I would never frame the question of salvation that way. I don't think salvation is primarily about not going to Hell. I think it is primarily about a return to a relationship with God made possible by God through Jesus. I don't know much about Hell and it is not fear of Hell that motivates me to encourage people towards Christianity.
You also say something I used to say pretty frequently "If one part (of the Bible) is in quesiton, it throws everything in question and we don't have much to talk about;..." I don't think that's true. I don't think that Biblical innerrancy is necessary for the truth of Christianity. Actually, I think that it gets in the way of Christianity by making the Bible the central focus of faith rather than the ressurrected Christ. The Bible is a witness to Jesus and everything in it should be judged accordingly. The problem comes when in order for Jesus to be true the Bible has to be. That's backwards. Jesus is true in and of Himself. The Bible is true in so far as it gives witness to Jesus. The Bible gets its truth from Jesus, not the other way around.
Anway, I'll stop now. My goal is to urge you to reframe the questions and have you start from Jesus rather than from scripture. What do you think?
Alan you wrote "It's really a question of how do I get started and how can I place my trust in the Biblical documents...." Let me outline one way of starting. I think the place to get started is not with the Bible at all but rather with the historical event of Jesus. Was Jesus literally/historically raised from the dead? With that as starting point the whole conversation about the Bible changes. You're not asking 'is the Bible true?' but rather is one of its claims true. Then you would investigate the various books of the New Testament first, since they deal primarily with Jesus. Initially, I would keep these books separate from one another. They weren't written together and if your dealing with them apart from faith then it makes more sense to take them one at a time. The church decided they belong together, and I trust that decision. But since you're not asking the question 'is the Bible true?' you are now free to ask 'is Luke true," "is John true" etc. Do the Gospels according to John, Luke, Mark and Matthew provide evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and are they trustworthy?
Jesus came before the New Testament. The message about Jesus came after Him, but before the New Testament. The church was established by those messengers of Jesus before the New Testament was written. That's partly why I think it's important to answer the question about Jesus, before you dive into the question about the Bible. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then Jesus' claims about Himself have been vindicated by God. Jesus claimed that He was the fulfillment of the law and He often quoted the Old Testament in refrence to Himself and what He was up to in the world. That's why we read the Old Testament at all. And whenever we read it, we ought to be looking for Jesus.
Now this is a long way around at getting at your question regarding Adam and Eve and original sin and the need for salvation at all. But I think the starting point is so significant to where we end up in the discussion. Let me know if this different way of approachiing the question changes anything for you.
You also write "Pretend I am a Hittite, you don't have any other Biblical writings available, and you are coming to me to explain to me what sin is and why I'm condemned to an eternity in Hell..." I suppose in that situation I would explain sin as being separated from God. None of us know God like we know each other, talking and hearing and walking with each other. Sin is the situation of separation, we're born into it. The story of Adam and Eve is an explanation of how all this started, but it's a universal explanation not a particular one. Humans want and have wanted since the beginning to decide for themselves what's right and wrong. This is a fundamental rejection of God's rule in our lives. God gave us over to this decision and we are born to parents caught up in the results of the decision every human makes. Even the Hittite :). But God loved us so much, and wanted to bring us back to Himself that He became human in Jesus and lived a human life that submitted completely to God deciding what's right and wrong. "If possible take this cup from me, but not my will but yours be done" prayed Jesus. Jesus then becomes our way back to God, when we're united to Jesus in Baptism(Rom 6). As far as being condemned to an eternity in Hell, I would never frame the question of salvation that way. I don't think salvation is primarily about not going to Hell. I think it is primarily about a return to a relationship with God made possible by God through Jesus. I don't know much about Hell and it is not fear of Hell that motivates me to encourage people towards Christianity.
You also say something I used to say pretty frequently "If one part (of the Bible) is in quesiton, it throws everything in question and we don't have much to talk about;..." I don't think that's true. I don't think that Biblical innerrancy is necessary for the truth of Christianity. Actually, I think that it gets in the way of Christianity by making the Bible the central focus of faith rather than the ressurrected Christ. The Bible is a witness to Jesus and everything in it should be judged accordingly. The problem comes when in order for Jesus to be true the Bible has to be. That's backwards. Jesus is true in and of Himself. The Bible is true in so far as it gives witness to Jesus. The Bible gets its truth from Jesus, not the other way around.
Anway, I'll stop now. My goal is to urge you to reframe the questions and have you start from Jesus rather than from scripture. What do you think?
posted by Travis at 6:32 PM
4 Comments:
Travis,
Our apologies to Rob for moving to a different location! For now I'll respond to you, I'll get back to Vince later, as in not today, no personal favoritism should be inferred :)
I'm desperately trying not to write a deconversion testimony in my responses, but sometimes I have to explain part of it in order to respond. Also, I'm absolutely not trying to argue or challenge anyone's faith in these discussions. I am, and I hate to say this because I know the kind of responses (to help me) it could elicit, honestly still trying to come to grips with my entire life of Christianity and my new life without it. The mental struggle is ongoing, I don't desire for anyone to loose their faith as I have, I'm not trying to cause you or anyone to come out of Christianity, I sometimes wish I could unbelieve my unbelief! I'm only trying to have a discussion to help myself think through things and be challenged to explore different aspects of faith; it's selfish, I know. There is no bitterness towards my past life of faith, I would say most of my personal values remained intact, even though I am certainly more willing to accept other moral choices now, I'm content with the value system I held as a Christian, I now consider it a matter of practicality rather than a spiritual compulsion.
It's an interesting approach you suggest, particularly interesting, because what you suggest is a near perfect description of how I originally converted to Christianity. It was through the documentary evidence, along with my family background in attending church, that I was led to understand the message of the scripture; that I was sinful and needed to accept God's sacrifice as payment for my sin nature. It had been "proved" to me Christianity was true, I had no doubts at all, not for a long, long time.
If Jesus was shown to be a historical figure and his resurrection beyond reproach, then I was set. It was possible to trust his words, if he spoke of events in the Old Testament as historical, then they were history, if he spoke of something as a parable, then it was a parable, I had no problems. Maybe I'm making a caricature of it, but I think this is basically what you are describing. It was how I felt, anyway.
As you may tell, I no longer accept the whole of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, for a variety of reasons, some of which have been hinted at. The full discussion isn't completely relevant to this discussion, but, I will admit the gospels and New Testament were the most difficult for me to comes to term with finally. To me, they are the most accurate of the scriptures, but certainly not without reproach in my mind. Because of the psychological investment I had in the New Testament, it was most difficult to let myself challenge them and honestly accept criticism, but, I had to because I now held the whole need for a messiah in question; remember, I'm still not convinced of sin, I know the Christian/theological definition, but I don't necessarily accept that it is true. I agree I'm selfish and want to do seemingly evil things, but my sense is these are evolutionary characteristics, to bring this full circle, not due to a spiritual sin nature.
In the next day or two when I have time to think through and do some follow on reading regarding what Vince wrote, I will present a thought experiment, of my own(!), that illustrates why I think it is reasonable to believe we live in an amoral universe.
Let me thank you for your time, with you working as a Pastor, I know your time can be limited. After I have a chance to write back to Vince, I promise to lurk for a while until Rob has something good and controversial for us again.
Alan
Travis (and alan),
I have a strong skeptic streak in me. I grew up in a Mormon family in Utah. In Junior High I asked several doubt-questions that frustrated my religious teachers. Mormonism is an enormous step backwards into paganism. The Mormon god is a flesh and blood super human more akin to Jupiter than Yahweh. I further angered my LDS seminary teachers with essays about the philandering of Joseph Smith and the megalomania of Brigham Young. Additionally, the extreme right politics and unscientific outlook of LDS adherents did not help my Mormon faith.
Even through all the caustic attacks, I remained an unaligned monotheist. I needed God to be over all. Out of ignorance, I did toss out the Bible and Christianity when I tossed out the Book of Mormon and Mormonism. I thought they were similar.
I went of to College to study Physics. Half way through my undergraduate studies, I ran into a fellow that introduced the Bible as a book of history. My skepticism had to be satisfied. I examined archeologist's opinion, particularly William Allbright. He was scholarly and impartial. He suggested that there was plenty of evidence to indicate that the events described in the Biblical narratives are historical in the broad sense and there is no current evidence against them. He also said that there are interpretations of archeological finds that go against the Biblical narratives but they are not necessary conclusions. This is still the case.
I am still a skeptic. I require honesty in my reading of the Bible. This upsets several in my Church (I teach a Bible study.) Honest reading of the Bible requires that one recognizes several things. The Bible is not 'history' as an academic would define history. It is history with a point of view ... perhaps 'religious propaganda' might fit. However, the propaganda is primarily self-incrimination rather than self-aggrandizement. Also, Hebrew writing is filled with hyperbole. Example of hyperbole is
Gen. 7:19 ... paraphrase ... the flood waters rose and covered the mountains everywhere. The flood waters rose some more and covered some more mountains.
Etc Etc.
I realized that the Bible was an important history of the Jews. However, I did and still do see the Bible as an imperfect document. Having discrepancies don't bother me. Some are satisfyingly understandable.
Matthew reports that there were two demon-possessed men of the tombs in Chapter 8, while Mark and Luke report one
man. Luke is a careful interviewer and Mark is relaying Peter's sermons. They probably have the correct account while Matthew joined Jesus' followers after the event (Matt 9). He probably heard other disciples talk about "Legion" and thought of several men not a single man.
Discrepancies like this don't bother me. In fact, demon possession does not bother me. I have worked with schizophrenics who exhibit 'demonic' possession ... even claim to be possessed. I am fine with chemical treatments of schizophrenics and uneasy with exorcism. After reading 'City of God' by Augustine I realized that devils were considered to be literally 'beings of the air'. In other words, animals made of air. Could bacteria be defined as demons? It is a thought to consider, but existence of demons and angels is an open question for me that does not matter. They might be an anachronism. They might be real. Who cares? More important to me is: Jesus-God walked the earth and brought peace to his path. Legion was exorcised and peace was restored to a suffering human.
Old Testament 'problems' are not problems. Job and Jonah both sound like prose and not historical narratives. However, both Job and Jonah are mentioned elsewhere in the historical narratives, so they are probably real people that had experiences that lead to the fictional religious lessons of faith we find in the Old Testament.
The conclusion to this reply is: the Bible is well worth study for understanding Jewish culture and history even if one is not a Christian.
There are other-worldly parts to the Bible that struck me to my very core of being that moved me toward the Christian faith. That should be another reply though.
I thought (and have always thought) that Josh McDowell's ETDAV was a dishonest exaggeration of evidence. As a scientist I dislike the idea of collecting all arguments whether good or bad to support a position. An honest examination would discount many superfluous evidences presented in ETDAV. I have the same dislike of creation science 'evidences'.
The best 'evidence' book I have read for the historicity of the Christian faith is Stephen Evan's "The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith". It 'proves' the reasonableness of the Christian faith and no more. He specifically offers the book to his peer academics with secular viewpoints.
My faith would be dropped if perhaps Jesus body is undeniably found. But my faith rests on the brilliance of the Jewish Yahweh God and the beauty of the Jesus in the Gospel. It satisfies my heart with respect to my sin and my perception of evil in the world. These things are beyond proof. I can only report the value of my pursuing God (Jesus) in my relationships (wife, kids, etc.) as existential evidence.
Vince
Travis,
To respond more directly to your concluding comments:
I find two real intersections of God and humanity that are MORE central to Biblical interpretation than the Bible itself. One is interaction of Yahweh, Moses, and the people of Israel. The second is the interaction of Jesus (God), the disciples, and the people of Isreal.
These are the real revelations of God's mind reported by the Old and New Testaments. The first can best be understood through the second. So I agree with your statement that Jesus is the center of study. The Bible is not The Word or The Truth, Jesus claimed these titles. This is central to theology of Karl Barth and John Yoder. Martin Luther did a good thing to return to sola scriptura, but Evangelicals have become people of the book rather than people of God.
Travis, your ability to apologize (in the true sense of the word) makes me jealous.
You are amazing.
Post a Comment
<< Home