The internet is not all bad. For one thing, it provides an effective platform for proposing ideas that can be publicly accessed, critiqued and debated on a broad scale. Of course there are plenty of trolls who chime in with frivolous comments meant only to provoke, but we have learned by now to ignore them.
One collection of articles by averages Joes and Janes is Medium. It's generally a positive repository for anyone to submit an article on almost any interest or topic. Recently, this author decided to take a stab at a response to an article by Jeff Hilles who is interested in promoting what he calls a biblical Christian worldview. Here he attempts to distill that which he is certain about concerning the definition of what a "biblical Christian" is.
Mr. Hilles stands in a long line of authors who have taken on this task, some more effective than others. Since his views seem to reflect a majority among a large segment of American Christendom, it suggests the need for a response with some gentle critique. The goal? Investigating some of the central claims of a rank-and-file evangelical to see if it can withstand a bit of scrutiny. Not all Christians or evangelicals would agree with Mr. Hilles on every point, but his article does seem a fair representation of a generally held position among folks belonging to this tradition.
Quotations from his article, Essential, Core, and Non-Core Theology are in italics, with added emphasis in bold. Obviously, reading his article in advance of this one would help. Here's where the article is published on his website: Biblical Christian Worldview.
Here we go!
"It would be remarkably easy to boil the 750k words that God wrote (i.e. the Bible), as an instruction manual to mankind; down to a single word. The word would be, salvation. From that single theological concept comes not only a relationship with the Trinity on earth, but an assurance of that relationship continuing in Heaven."
"Webster defines salvation as a 'deliverance from the power and effects of sin.' Though theologically correct, salvation is a great deal more than that."
Wonderful! I can look up the word "salvation" in the dictionary, which you so nicely have done for your readers. Next, I need to look up the meanings for "deliverance," "power," "effects," and "sin."
Starting with "deliverance," I'm directed to the definition for "deliver." There are a lot of senses of the word on Dictionary.com. Which one are we using now? Surrender? Give forth? Liberate? Release? Is it a bit of all these related concepts? Any of them look good to me. Now, from what am I being liberated? Is there a word I need to explore in the original languages?
I'm starting to see why there's some backpedaling in the second quote: "salvation is a great deal more than that." Right. So the idea is that when one gets salvation, there's a package deal that includes a relationship with the Trinity that continues after death in Heaven.
To be saved, then, must I first comprehend a specific definition of the word "sin?" Since you use the dictionary for your biblical terminology lexicon, we'll use Webster as well. "Sin" can be an offense against religious or moral law, or an action that is highly reprehensible, or a serious shortcoming.
If this definition of sin is used, how long will it take for me to understand the particular set of moral or religious laws I've broken? Maybe I don't need to understand all of it, so this sounds like a good start: regardless of whether or not I come to grips with my serious shortcomings and reprehensible behaviors, and once I figure out what laws I've violated I can get salvation and my badness will eventually disappear. And I get a relationship with a Trinity.
But wait there's more!
After we've distilled the Bible into one word, there's another thing to know?
We need to know how to acquire salvation, and we can turn to the Bible for that.
"Ephesians 2:8–9 — For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
"Grace: It begins with an understanding that we are saved only through the grace of God and not anything that we can earn. The thief dying on the cross next to Jesus was told by Christ 'today you will be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43), documenting the fact that we cannot earn our way to Heaven. It is a gift from God."
"Faith: Salvation is not something that can be proved, it is something that has to be felt. The Bible is full of answered prophesy [sic]* and there is ample archeological evidence documenting much of its geographical and cultural references. Miracles are often hard to refute and the Big Bang theory, offered in 1922 as the establishment of our universe, is still only accepted by 65% of adults (details here)."
So we can use the thief on the cross as an archetype. Terrific! I don't have to actually do anything, just express a desire as I'm dying. That answers my other question above about how much understanding I need in order to get this salvation the Bible talks about- apparently almost nothing. The thief understood two things: that Jesus was unjustly condemned and that he was some sort of king who might ignore the thief's crimes in a future kingdom.
Got it. Salvation is unearned, like interest from an investment. It just appears without any work whatsoever. I simply need to "invest" my belief in the right place. But I'm confused by the second part.
Second, Salvation requires faith. This is "something that has to be felt." Emotionally? Viscerally? How do I get this feeling? Do we need to dive into "answered prophecy" and archeological evidence that provide a factual or historical basis for my "feeling?" You're right, it's starting to look like a "great deal more than that."
Do you really think that miracles aren't really that hard to refute? I suspect that many of Jesus's miracles were disbelieved by onlookers. I think labeling something a miracle also depends on one's prior epistemological commitments, and we best be cautious about making generalized statements about them. Are miracle stories in non-Christian religions also hard to refute?
And the statistic about the Big Bang theory doesn't support your point. The article referenced (Chapter 4: Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus) only asked what people perceive about a scientific consensus. In other words, the question was "do you think scientists agree on the Big Bang theory?" The result only tells us what people imagine to be true of all scientists, and how would anyone answer with any level of accuracy? The results were that 52 percent think that scientists are divided on it, and 42 percent think that all scientists agree on the Big Bang.
So I'm still wondering about how faith works in the process. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "felt." Is it something I sense in response to evidence like prophecy and certain interpretations of archaeological finds? Do I need justification before I believe something in order to call it faith? Or is faith supposed to be a volitional leap with little or no evidence to support it?
"Both from John and Acts it is clear, we must “believe in the Lord Jesus”. But, what does that actually mean?
"Webster defines Lord as — “a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due.”
"So, to be saved, to have salvation, we need to be obedient to the teachings of Jesus… all His teachings. Further, we need to accept that He has a right to rule our lives. This, “lordship” over us is, of course the stumbling block, for most of mankind…"
Now I'm getting more confused. After assuring us that we need only understand "grace," and "faith," now there's another term- "believe." I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The qualifications are piling up. And this seems to contradict what was said earlier about the thief on the cross, who didn't have time to be obedient to "all the teachings of Jesus." How do we know if the thief was authentic in his request to be remembered in Jesus's kingdom? How much did he actually know about it? Was he just trying to make Jesus feel better? Knowing human nature (especially the reprehensible aspects) could we not also interpret the thief's request as flattery? He's a thief with nothing to lose.
It appears to me from your descriptions that the crucified thief fails your stated requirements for salvation and yet Jesus tells him that they will meet in paradise. Maybe Jesus made an exception just this one time. Does he make other exceptions?
Essential Doctrine has one item. On this one point, I think you are claiming that all saved believers throughout time and distance must agree. Otherwise, they are out. To put it another way, there will be no one in heaven who has not expressed full agreement with your definition of salvation.
You say: "Therefore, the 'essential' doctrine of a Biblical Christian worldview would entail an understanding of what it takes to be saved." Again- the crucified thief? Did he manage any of these eight doctrines? I'm starting to think Jesus might have been wrong about paradise for the poor fellow. I'm also still befuddled by the way grace, faith and belief go together.
Moving on to what you categorize as Core Doctrines.
You list some "central tenants [sic] (I think you mean "tenets"). There are eight of them: Salvation, Trinity, God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Resurrection, Bible, and Evangelism, each accompanied by a brief definition. Would it be correct to assume that full agreement with all of your statements is the only way to divide "biblical Christians" from heretics or non-Christians? Is there another lesser species of Christian that is still saved if they can manage 5 out of eight? Can we use these eight items as a litmus test for being "saved?" Or is a "biblical Christian worldview" a separate category with little overlap with salvation?
I'm also interested in what you omit, such as a section on humankind (anthropology) and the church. I guess we can claim a biblical Christian worldview and believe whatever we want when it comes to the nature of human beings in relation to our spiritual condition, etc. What about babies or adults with intellectual difficulties? Nor does a BCW require agreement with anything in particular about the church. Perhaps we can eschew church membership altogether. It's a non-essential.
The last item, evangelism, was a surprise. If I want to adopt a biblical Christian worldview, I need to "spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to all who will listen." No exceptions? What about saved people who can't talk, or don't speak the proper language of the people they find around them? What about isolated people who agree with the other seven, but don't have any means to communicate with other people? What about the examples in Mark's gospel in which Jesus commands people to keep the good news of their miracle healing a secret?
Evangelism isn't like the other items. It's an activity or response, not a tenet. Otherwise I could simply believe that evangelism is necessary, but not mandatory to actually do on my own.
Moving on to more questions…
"For the Biblical Christian, these eight points of theology are non-negotiable and fully supportable in Scripture.
Further, if one believes that [sic- "in?"] the supernatural (God and Satan) desire to influence the natural (mankind), why would one want to invest time in studying commentaries, authors, podcasters, preachers, and teachers that support positions that proport [sic] to deconstruct these fundamental principles?"
I can think of one very good reason: precisely because there might be supernatural influences that could skew or deceive us. What clear and objective standard is there for determining truth? You're going to say "The Bible," but I've got questions about that in a minute. A quick survey of the concepts of human epistemology makes a good case that objectivity and justified beliefs are a lot harder to come by than we think.
The invention of the scientific method has enabled mankind to unlock some startling observations about reality, proven empirically true over and over again. I don't have to take someone's word for it, I can access data about many observations by many people who are trying to disprove the hypothesis I'm interested in. Could we not use some of those (God-given?) intellectual skills as a way of exploring the data we use for faith? That idea would recommend that scholars and regular folks at least gather as much data as possible to render their own hypotheses as true, false or inconclusive.
That doesn't mean trying to use "science" to prove spiritual truths. It just means that it seems wise to gather interpretations of the world (and the Bible) from more than one viewpoint. Partly because there might be evil beings out there trying to deceive us.
Are your claims about essential and core doctrines falsifiable? If not it means:
There is no place for debate
I have no way to determine whether or not any claims are true or false, except for the specific English Bible you use as your single source. Could I use a different translation that differs from yours? An older manuscript that differs from later ones? Original language versions?
I should expect each of the eight to be perfectly supportable in the Bible, and therefore universally understood to be the truth. But we don't see that in the real world. If it's so obvious, why so much disagreement among very intelligent Christians?
The stakes of this game are incredibly high according to your paradigm. Get it wrong and suffer torment in hell forever. Gathering data widely seems only natural in light of the potential consequences of our agreements and argues for consuming media that deconstructs "these fundamental principles."
If a person does assent to these eight articles of essential doctrine and subsequently learns about reasonable interpretations that lead to different conclusions, what then? Will God overlook their lapse of belief in the right things? Do they lose their salvation? Is there room for adjustment in any of these eight points?
That any use of a data-driven strategy to learn about truth is evil or useless. Only the data interpreted by one contemporary tradition and one person's articulation of that set of facts is valid. How can I know that yours is the one?
Also, from where have you obtained "these fundamental principles?" How are you so confident that they are factual and non-negotiable? If these eight principles are what separates saved from condemned, I can't help but think we would do well to ask questions about their source, especially the history of how they can to be adopted by the majority.
I think I'm safe in assuming that your hermeneutic regarding the Bible didn't merely occur to you out of the blue. Like all human beings, you most likely acquired your notions of reality along the way, having had teachers and traditions to form your thinking. If so, could it be worth interrogating your teachers and traditions, comparing them to other teachers and traditions to see if they hold water.
Your approach the Bible is certainly not new. Every generation has said something like you; that my methodology and conclusions are true to the exclusion of all others.
"One can pluck verses out of the Bible and spend a lifetime defending tongues, infant baptism, purgatory, predestination vs. free will, end times, annihilationism, creationism, gay marriages, abortion, women preachers, carpet color, and so much more."
If that's the case, are you aware that you are doing the same when you proof text your opinions on essential and core doctrines? You cite at least seven different verses with no context or additional data that might clarify or change an out-of-context reading of those verses. How is your methodology different? It sure looks to me as if you are also "plucking verses out of the Bible."
_____________________
OK- Last set of questions. A big piece of our Christian tradition consists of the influence of ancient saints on how we think about these principles. From Papias to Irenaeus to Athanasius to Augustine, much of what underpins our modern understanding of being a Christian derives from how they saw things. One example is the doctrine of original sin, as imagined by the early church patriarchs. In the fourth century, Augustine made some headway in bringing it into common belief, but wide acceptance of the concept of original sin and its cure only emerged in Protestantism in the 16th century. To this day, we don't agree on it; see the variance of opinion on infant baptism.
Many decisions about truth and error were made hundreds of years ago. Some "essential doctrines" have been changed completely as councils and epistles by church notables came and went. The most cursory of glances at church history shows that none of your eight essentials were fully agreed upon until centuries after Christ. An easy example is the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. How many thousands (millions?)of people who thought they were "saved" were actually disqualified from heaven because they happen to be born in a ancient diocese where the church was confidently Binitarian?
Appeals to scripture make things even less clear. Strong arguments both for and against Christ's eternal preexistence as deity can both be found in John's gospel. Cultural studies on first century concepts of deification of human beings can also add data to our ideas about it, and no, you won't find an antagonistic position toward orthodoxy in these scholars. They are simply trying to add information for the benefit of all who want to explore the topic.
The "truth" about Jesus Christ is still not settled, and for centuries there were churches, priests and bishops that we assume to be Christian that denied the deity of the Holy Spirit (see “Pneumatomachi” or “spirit-fighters”). Even Gregory of Nyssa wouldn't fully commit to attributing deity to the Spirit.
One can evaluate each one of your Core Doctrines and find recognized Christian communities that either now or in the past have held quite different commitments than yours. Church history can tell us quite a bit about how ideas like substitutionary atonement came about (spoiler alert: it wasn't always the dominant view). Are these ancient saints now in hell now because they mixed in different atonement theories like Christus Victor, the Ransom theory, or the Moral Influence theory?
All of us have had our theology formed and informed either by choice or happenstance. I think it's much healthier if we allow truth to stand up for itself and not try to protect it by discouraging folks from exploring viewpoints that are different from what they previously knew. Truth doesn't need our protection. And if God rewards the person who asks, seeks and knocks, believing differently shouldn't affect their eternal destiny at all.
____________________
This article was posted in an earlier form in the response section on the BCW Medium page. Mr. Hilles was very gracious with his response, quoted here:
"I am sorry... but I stopped reading about halfway through. You might want to publish your thoughts for a broader exposure of your questions and insights. If you wish to have a conversation on any one issue, I suggest you ask one question and I would be happy to respond. Otherwise, respectfully, I don't have the time to parse over 2800 words and a myriad of questions... as you might expect."
Fair enough.
*"Prophecy" is a noun describing the product of a prophet, i.e., the prophet's utterance or prediction, as in "The prophecy came true."
"Prophesy" is the verb form describing the action of the prophet: "The prophet has agreed to prophesy tomorrow."
"Prophesize" is another verb that uses the suffix -ize to convert the noun into a verb with the sense of becoming, making, processing, or otherwise changing the state of something. Adding -ize to prophecy is similar to altering worlds like sterile- sterilize, or idol-idolize, or motor-motorize. In a sentence: "The soothsayer will prophesize about the fate of the village if you give him five dollars."
Comments