Can a person be both an atheist and a Christian?

elahmine · Aug 3, 2012

Worldslaziestbusker said:
Really?

My correspondent seems to not know when to stop digging. Does anyone who identifies as a moderate Christian agree with either of their latest statements on this matter. I am particularly interested in hearing from members of the ELCA, which is the denomination in which he held a position.

Click to expand...

The ELCA is in full communion in of the Episcopal Church of which I am a part of. I cannot guarantee you'll get a response from an ELCA member. The simple answer is that it would be fraudulent. You either believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he resurrected three days after his execution, or you don't. There are many situations in life where things aren't just either this or that, but this one of them.

Izdaari Eristikon · Aug 3, 2012

I am both a TEC and ELCA member (since my church formally has both affiliations), and I agree with elahmine: "You either believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he resurrected three days after his execution, or you don't."

lismore · Aug 3, 2012

Yes, well said Elahmine

Albion · Aug 3, 2012

Worldslaziestbusker said:
Really?

My correspondent seems to not know when to stop digging. Does anyone who identifies as a moderate Christian agree with either of their latest statements on this matter. I am particularly interested in hearing from members of the ELCA, which is the denomination in which he held a position.

Click to expand...

I agree that you probably won't be getting a reply from an ELCA member, so you may have to make do with our replies.

It's true that the ELCA is the most liberal of the Lutheran bodies in the USA but it's also the case that your correspondent goes well outside the doctrinal boundaries of the ELCA.

Izdaari Eristikon · Aug 3, 2012

Albion said:
I agree that you probably won't be getting a reply from an ELCA member, so you may have to make do with our replies.

It's true that the ELCA is the most liberal of the Lutheran bodies in the USA but it's also the case that your correspondent goes well outside the doctrinal boundaries of the ELCA.

Other than me, maybe not. I am legitimately an ELCA member. I've even had an ELCA confirmation. I'll do the TEC confirmation too, but that'll have to wait 'til the bishop comes around.

Of the three major Lutheran synods in America, the ELCA is clearly the most liberal, but that's relative. LCMS is staunchly but not crazily conservative, and WELS is extremely conservative, you might even say fundamentalist.

baryogenesis · Aug 3, 2012

Izdaari said:
elahmine: "You either believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he resurrected three days after his execution, or you don't."

This seems axiomatic. But how does it answer the question posed? Are you saying that ELCA doctrine requires that a pastor personally believe those two tenets, otherwise they are fraudulent pastors? (Would they be cast out?)

The statement "Jesus was the Son of God" is fairly broad by theological standards. Does the ELCA require a belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, (cf. Colossians 2:9)? Does it require belief in the Trinity? In miracles? In Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura? (Or is that considered more conservative Lutheran?)

I am curious as my only experience with the Lutheran church is when I attended an LCMS congregation for a short time many years ago, and the pastor had some curiously "liberal" views on social issues for the time (~1985-'86). I learned a lot from that community, and made some lasting friendships/fellowships. It is often good to get out of one's routine comfort zone and hopefully glean a new perspective that can enrich and edify one's walk with Christ and study of Scripture. I came to Christ through, and have typically attended, smaller, less-structured, "non-denominational" Bible-study groups -- though they were clearly of the Reform tradition, even if I didn't know what that meant at the time the Gospel was initially presented to me. (I was born and raised Jewish.)

Izdaari Eristikon · Aug 3, 2012

baryogenesis said:
This seems axiomatic. But how does it answer the question posed? Are you saying that ELCA doctrine requires that a pastor personally believe those two tenets, otherwise they are fraudulent pastors? (Would they be cast out?)

The statement "Jesus was the Son of God" is fairly broad by theological standards. Does the ELCA require a belief in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, (cf. Colossians 2:9)? Does it require belief in the Trinity? In miracles? In Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura? (Or is that considered more conservative Lutheran?)

I am curious as my only experience with the Lutheran church is when I attended an LCMS congregation for a short time many years ago, and the pastor had some curiously "liberal" views on social issues for the time (~1985-'86). I learned a lot from that community, and made some lasting friendships/fellowships. It is often good to get out of one's routine comfort zone and hopefully glean a new perspective that can enrich and edify one's walk with Christ and study of Scripture. I came to Christ through, and have typically attended, smaller, less-structured, "non-denominational" Bible-study groups -- though they were clearly of the Reform tradition, even if I didn't know what that meant at the time the Gospel was initially presented to me. (I was born and raised Jewish.)

I am fairly new to ELCA circles, so you could probably get a much more definitive answer in the ELCA subforum of the Lutheran forum.

But my understanding is that though the ELCA does accept a good deal more doctrinal diversity than the other synods, at a minimum a pastoral candidate ought to be able to say the Nicene Creed without their fingers crossed behind their backs. I.e., a creedally orthodox liberal would be ok, but a closet atheist such as the OP was talking about would be rejected. (Of course, such a person might squeak through by lying about they really believe.)

trek4fr · Aug 4, 2012

Of course, much of this comes down to what we think a Christian is, a term which even Jesus himself never used.

We're having a debate about this very subject on another forum that I occasionally participate on and what the outspoken "Christian atheists" there have a problem with is the way that many Christians portray God - as being in control, as an interventionist/meddler in human affairs, as someone who judges people not by their actions, but by their ability to say the "right words." I think their observations are somewhat on the mark (I don't believe in a string-pulling, meddling, saved-by-syllable God either).

On the other hand, these "Christian atheists" find much wisdom and compassion in the teachings of Jesus and want to incorporate his teachings in their lives. I find this ironic compared to the large segment of Christianity that is more about belief than about practice. So I admire that these CAs want to, at least, obey what Jesus said.

But, and this is just my opinion, Jesus' main teaching and ministry is about loving God, loving others, and working for God's kingdom on earth. If this is the case, if Jesus was "all about God and God's kingdom", how does the atheist deal with this? How can the atheist love God if, as they tend to assert, God doesn't exist? Can one truly separate the teachings of Jesus from his beliefs/relationship with God? If so, how? By what criteria? Is whatever is left just Jesus' humanitarian teachings? Isn't Christianity more than that? Can they get Christ without getting God in the package?

Albion · Aug 4, 2012

IMO, what you are saying is similar to what I have always said in this situation. You can't select out the parts of Jesus' teachings that appeal to you and still claim to be a follower of Jesus. Since Jesus the Christ was a theist--and taught the necessity of relying upon his Father in heaven--as well as a teacher of ethics, it logically follows that anyone who claims to be a "Christian" has to take the whole package. If not he's untrue to the one he says he emulates.

trek4fr · Aug 4, 2012

Albion, I certainly agree with you that Jesus was a theist (and probably even a supernatural theist). So, yes, in this sense I'm not sure how an atheist would get around Jesus' teachings about his (and our) Father.

But I think we do select out the parts of Jesus' teachings which appeal to us. Just being honest. For instance, how many Christians sell all they have and give that money to the poor? How many Christians leave their families in order to follow him? How many Christians actually hate their fathers and mothers (one of his teachings)? How many Christians never judge anyone? How many Christians always turn the other cheek? How many Christians actually love their enemies instead of supporting the war?

The truth of the matter is that we are all "cherry-pickers." We pick out the parts of the Bible and even out of Jesus' teachings that we think best line up with our theology and lifestyle. And I understand the necessity to do so. But I still believe that Jesus' highest teaching is to love God and to love others. THAT is my main cherry. And I don't see how Christianity can be Christianity without it.

Albion · Aug 4, 2012

trek4fr said:
Albion, I certainly agree with you that Jesus was a theist (and probably even a supernatural theist). So, yes, in this sense I'm not sure how an atheist would get around Jesus' teachings about his (and our) Father.

But I think we do select out the parts of Jesus' teachings which appeal to us. Just being honest. For instance, how many Christians sell all they have and give that money to the poor? How many Christians leave their families in order to follow him? How many Christians actually hate their fathers and mothers (one of his teachings)? How many Christians never judge anyone? How many Christians always turn the other cheek? How many Christians actually love their enemies instead of supporting the war?

But those teachings can be variously interpreted and are all applications of a single point of ethics. I do not think that, on the basic issue of theism vs love, this can be done convincingly. On the other hand, I don't know the people you've been discussing this with. Do they have a reply to our point? Do they, for instance, say that all of Jesus' statements about God, heaven, etc. are metaphors for something Earthly?

trek4fr · Aug 4, 2012

Albion said:
Do they have a reply to our point? Do they, for instance, say that all of Jesus' statements about God, heaven, etc. are metaphors for something Earthly?

They say that if God is love, then love is also God and, in that sense, they believe in God. They believe in love. So they think that "God" is Jesus' theistic language for love.

I'm not convinced.

In the gospels, Jesus portrays God in very "personal" terms, as a person. "Father" is his favorite word for God. Of course, he also used the term "spirit" which means "breath", and he often described God with metaphors and similes. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Jesus taught and experienced God as a person, not just as an emotion or an idea.

What they are mainly opposed to is the notion that God is a being in the sky who plays dice with the universe and who plays favorites with people. I'm opposed to that notion of God also. They also can't reconcile the notions of an all-powerful deity who allows or even sanctions the kind of evil and suffering that we have here on earth. I struggle with that notion also. But I'm not convinced that one can excise all of Jesus' teachings about God and God's kingdom and still insist that one is a Christian. I don't think Christianity consists of believing in 1001 doctrines or six impossible things before breakfast, but I see no way to follow Jesus without considering Jesus' relationship to/with God and how Jesus' teachings reflect that.

Albion · Aug 4, 2012

trek4fr said:
They say that if God is love, then love is also God and, in that sense, they believe in God. They believe in love. So they think that "God" is Jesus' theistic language for love.

I'm not convinced.

No, when the arguments get as silly as that one, there's no reasoning with the other person. Besides, Jesus' references to his Father are far more diverse than "God is Love." The various elements in the Lord's Prayer, for instance, cannot possibly be ascribed to using a theistic language for love.

What they are mainly opposed to is the notion that God is a being in the sky who plays dice with the universe and who plays favorites with people. I'm opposed to that notion of God also. They also can't reconcile the notions of an all-powerful deity who allows or even sanctions the kind of evil and suffering that we have here on earth. I struggle with that notion also. But I'm not convinced that one can excise all of Jesus' teachings about God and God's kingdom and still insist that one is a Christian. I don't think Christianity consists of believing in 1001 doctrines or six impossible things before breakfast, but I see no way to follow Jesus without considering Jesus' relationship to/with God and how Jesus' teachings reflect that.

I agree. And I still think their argument can't be sustained logically or scripturally. It only works--if then--in the most general of ways. The minute we actually look at what is recorded in Scipture about the matter, it fails.

Littleautieboy · Aug 9, 2012

You can be a head Chirstain, but that wont get you into heaven and your not saved if its not by faith.

If Not For Grace · Sep 18, 2012

Worldslaziestbusker said:
Thank you, branchofthevine, for your answer. Can I impose on you further to explain why the dual position is not possible?

Being a Christian means being a follower of Christ. One can not be a Christian and not believe in Christ. Its like saying you are vegan and eating milk or dairy. Going to church only makes a person an attendee, nothing more nor less.

crimsonleaf · Sep 18, 2012

It seems to me that the body of people we call The Church has three main functions: to learn about and worship God, and to evangelise. Clearly, evangelism can be undertaken by an atheist, although it would be highly hypocritical to try to convince others of something you knew not to be true. You may also learn about God, whether you believe what you learn or not. But you cannot worship someone or something you believe not to exist.

I haven't spotted that you've named your friend's denomination. Most denominations contain creedal statements, which tend to start with the words "We believe". To stand and make such declarations knowing them to be untrue is, or course, hypocritical.

However, I fully understand his position if, and only if, he was an atheist as I was. I often described myself as a Christian sympathiser, someone who didn't believe but wished I did. I was attracted to church life and highly respected the people. I even understood why they believed while not being able to join them. For his sake I hope he's as I was, as there is great hope for him, as there was for me.

TruthAlwaysTold · Oct 17, 2012

Izdaari said:
"You either believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he resurrected three days after his execution, or you don't."

Actually I'm not sure if it works like that.

Atheism is *HUGE* and has swallowed the western world by storm. The Secular Humanist movement has finally gotten into our gov't and full taken over pop culture and the internet.

It's cool to deny being any kind of 'theist'. He could just be lying to sound like he's 'enlightened' like everyone else and in with the University crowed.

However, only God knows what's in this person's head. And what God does, is reward actions rather than what you claim you believe.

If he's going to church, and his actions are righteous in the image of God, then that is what matters. Even if he's confused in his head of having an inner struggle with his faith. Actions in the image of God are what matters. God will speak with him about that and may forgive him if his actions of have been good. God wants actions - not words.

If he spits on the church and becomes a non believer who is out to destroy humanity through his actions (Secular Humanists/Atheists), then we know what will happen.

SuperLuey · Nov 3, 2012

The answer is no.

RecoveringwithChrist · Nov 5, 2012

Worldslaziestbusker said:
Hello everyone
I have a question about definitions. An acquaintance of mine does not believe in God, does not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, and does not think of the crucifixion as his path to salvation. In short, he is an atheist, like me. We are different, however, in that he attends church and refers to himself as Christian, his argument for this being that he has respect for the cultural traditions, and enjoys the sense of community derived from being part of a congregation.
Is it possible to be an atheist Christian? Can you be Christian without Christ?
Regards
WLB

Ya I'd like to just confirm what other people are saying and that is that no you can't be a christian without Christ. The word "christian" means Christ follower, how can you follow Christ if you don't believe in the ressurection? If you don't believe that he's alive you can't be His follower.
You also gotta be born again and have the Holy Spirit living inside you do be a true christian.

HalupkiMonster · Dec 9, 2012

Your friend is not a true Christian with no belief. One can be a secular Christian, just as there are secular Jews and Muslims who preserve their faith in their lives for cultural reasons.

Can a person be both an atheist and a Christian?

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Maranatha

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

Legend-but then so's Keith Richards

crimsonleaf

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Jesus is alive and so am I

HalupkiMonster

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency