Skip to main content

"I Believe The Bible" Isn't Good Enough

No, this is not another Sola Scriptura post, although frankly, I never tire of writing those. Sorry. No, this is about what the Bible is. If you start from the beginning, it becomes obvious very quickly that something interesting is going on. If we understand the context of the people who wrote this, we can see that the driving purpose of the creation story and of the whole Pentateuch in general, is a liturgical polemic against the other gods of the ancient near East. We need not even take a position as to whether it was written by God, and that he demands our allegiance as a result. That could be a separate question. But someone human wrote these books in a particular time in a particular place for a particular reason. It behooves us to understand that in all its complexity as best we can, especially if we believe it is breathed out by God. That may seem counterintuitive, but if we think about it, it makes sense in this way: if God ultimately composed these stories, then the human elements of their construction are but modes or tools of His communication, and therefore, take on a much greater significance in themselves, since they become an inextricable part of the theological purpose.
It is altogether fashionable for atheists of a certain stripe to portray Christians and others as deluded fools, who believe this story "just because". Not only is this incorrect and naïve, but it reveals a sort of rigid thinking which is the counterpart to various fundamentalisms of a Christian sort.
I think the best reason to believe the Bible is true is because it is the product of a community that has been formed and sustained by the divine initiative. As I reflect upon it, it seems an altogether Catholic way of thinking about it, and that is all to the good, because I'm Catholic. Indeed, we would be hard-pressed to find a more majestic story in all of literature, and that in itself should cause even the most hardened cynic to wonder if in fact it might be true. The conscious self-awareness of the children of Abraham who composed this story and remain its main subject is evidence, albeit circumstantial, of divine purpose and preservation.
The people who recorded this story had no conception of "reasonable atheism." In fact, they would have seen this as a contradiction. Therefore, why should we accost Moses and company, to "prove" a theism they would have assumed? It seems a fool's errand to try to use the Scriptures in this manner. In fact, the Bible simply says, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would seem better suited for those discussions, and I admit, I am not equipped to reproduce their thinking. But it seems to me that a certain flavor of atheism which regards theism as indefensible, and beneath the dignity of human intellectuals, is simply arrogance in other garb.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...