Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist?

[Saint Steven]

Well, I suppose that depends...

I seem to recall A.W. Tozer writing in his book titled The Knowledge of the Holy, something to the effect that, idolatry is as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (or a "wrong" definition of God) If anyone can find that quote, please post it. Thanks.

But is there complete consensus among believers about that definition? There seems to be a range of views even among Christians, in our attempts to describe the indescribable.

Who is "the God of the Bible"? (or how do we define God?)

I suppose the creeds give us some level of consensus on this.
But are we left with questions as to the whole picture?

Do the various denominations fill in the gaps in the creedal definition?
And if denominations disagree in this regard, what does that mean?
Are others then accused of NOT believing in "the God of the Bible"?
(due to a disagreement in the definition)

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, I suppose that depends...

I seem to recall A.W. Tozer writing in his book titled The Knowledge of the Holy, something to the effect that, idolatry is as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (or a "wrong" definition of God) If anyone can find that quote, please post it. Thanks.

But is there complete consensus among believers about that definition? There seems to be a range of views even among Christians, in our attempts to describe the indescribable.

Who is "the God of the Bible"? (or how do we define God?)

I suppose the creeds give us some level of consensus on this.
But are we left with questions as to the whole picture?

Do the various denominations fill in the gaps in the creedal definition?
And if denominations disagree in this regard, what does that mean?
Are others then accused of NOT believing in "the God of the Bible"?
(due to a disagreement in the definition)

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

It does not. The God of the Bible is not found in any words written anywhere.
That's what scripture says.

2 Corinthians 3:3
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

That definition is very American Fundamentalist and maybe even Evangelical too.

 

[Saint Steven]

That definition is very American Fundamentalist and maybe even Evangelical too.

Yes, that's the sector I would suspect most likely to bring such an accusation. If your definition of God doesn't match theirs, you must be an atheist. (worst case)

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Well, I suppose that depends...

I seem to recall A.W. Tozer writing in his book titled The Knowledge of the Holy, something to the effect that, idolatry is as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (or a "wrong" definition of God) If anyone can find that quote, please post it. Thanks.

But is there complete consensus among believers about that definition? There seems to be a range of views even among Christians, in our attempts to describe the indescribable.

Who is "the God of the Bible"? (or how do we define God?)

I suppose the creeds give us some level of consensus on this.
But are we left with questions as to the whole picture?

Do the various denominations fill in the gaps in the creedal definition?
And if denominations disagree in this regard, what does that mean?
Are others then accused of NOT believing in "the God of the Bible"?
(due to a disagreement in the definition)

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

The thing is, there is no other God other than the God of the bible. So yes to both. One is either an athiest or idolater, there are no other choices. From the beginning God revealed Himself and continued to do so through the ages. He was and is always in the heart of humans because we are made in His image. He took the place of the " unknown God" when so many were present.
Blessings.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Not believing in the one true God, the "God of the Bible" as some put it so as not to cause confusion when talking about multiple gods, makes you an idolator 100% of the time.

However, it does not make one an atheist unless that person does not believe in a god at all.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Not believing in the one true God, the "God of the Bible" as some put it so as not to cause confusion when talking about multiple gods, makes you an idolator 100% of the time.

However, it does not make one an atheist unless that person does not believe in a god at all.

athiest OR idolater.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, I suppose that depends...

I seem to recall A.W. Tozer writing in his book titled The Knowledge of the Holy, something to the effect that, idolatry is as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (or a "wrong" definition of God) If anyone can find that quote, please post it. Thanks.

But is there complete consensus among believers about that definition? There seems to be a range of views even among Christians, in our attempts to describe the indescribable.

Who is "the God of the Bible"? (or how do we define God?)

I suppose the creeds give us some level of consensus on this.
But are we left with questions as to the whole picture?

Do the various denominations fill in the gaps in the creedal definition?
And if denominations disagree in this regard, what does that mean?
Are others then accused of NOT believing in "the God of the Bible"?
(due to a disagreement in the definition)

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

I met a bunch of Animists in my time in Africa. They believed in many gods, and none of them the God of the Bible. So no, not believing in the God of the Bible doesn't make you an atheist. Just like believers in Thor or Zeus or Osram or Ra or whatever would not be atheists.

Consider that of the many charges against the early Christians there were the charges of cannibalism (eating the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist) and of atheism (denying the whole pantheon of gods in favor of only one). No wonder Christianity was persecuted. A bunch of monstrous atheists any sane polytheist would avoid like the plague.

Also Mormons don't quite believe in the God of the Bible. They have a strtangely different god. But nobody would call them atheists. We could find many more examples.

As to creeds, they are given to us by the Church. Although pretty good, they are not the 'whole picture' as they are intended to answer particular issues and do not even address all issues that may come up in the future. The Nicene creed for example provides a lot of true content but was particularly intended to answer Arius.

Bible is good, but people can't agree on what the Bible means. So making (their interpretation of what) the Bible (means) the touchstone is asking for a train wreck. Creeds help a lot, but are only semi-complete. You need Tradition (of which creeds are only a part) and a living Magisterium faithful to Tradition and Scripture to even have a chance at the whole story. Even then it can look a lot like the making of sausage. And if we knew how sausage was made we would think long and hard before eating it.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

athiest OR idolater.

An atheist is an idolator in that they worship themselves/creation/what they can actually see. That is what they believe in.

 

[Saint Steven]

The thing is, there is no other God other than the God of the bible. So yes to both. One is either an athiest or idolater, there are no other choices. From the beginning God revealed Himself and continued to do so through the ages. He was and is always in the heart of humans because we are made in His image. He took the place of the " unknown God" when so many were present.
Blessings.

I agree in general. But what happens when definitions of who the God of the Bible is differ? Who's right and who is wrong? Especially when we are trying to describe the indescribable.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not believing in the one true God, the "God of the Bible" as some put it so as not to cause confusion when talking about multiple gods, makes you an idolator 100% of the time.

However, it does not make one an atheist unless that person does not believe in a god at all.

Surprisingly, I am discovering that some atheists do believe in "God". But not "the God of the Bible" that they were presented with. This opens a Pandora's box of spirituality, of course. And leads them away from Christianity, not toward it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I agree in general. But what happens when definitions of who the God of the Bible is differ? Who's right and who is wrong? Especially when we are trying to describe the indescribable.

There is only one truth. If that truth is distorted then it is no longer the truth. Man made narratives dont count as truth.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

I mean, one could argue, like Tozer did apparently, that since no other gods but the one true God actually exists, that the belief in any other gods, by default makes an unbeliever an atheist. However, due to the fact that the very definition of atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or other gods" and having nothing to do with the fact that God is real, that wouldn't quite be entirely accurate.

 

[Saint Steven]

Also Mormons don't quite believe in the God of the Bible. They have a strtangely different god. But nobody would call them atheists. We could find many more examples.

That's a great example of what I am asking about here. Clearly a difference in definition of who the God of the Bible is, but not leading to atheism.

Just to be clear, I am not endorsing LDS. (Mormonism)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I suppose that depends...

I seem to recall A.W. Tozer writing in his book titled The Knowledge of the Holy, something to the effect that, idolatry is as simple as a misunderstanding of who God is. (or a "wrong" definition of God) If anyone can find that quote, please post it. Thanks.

But is there complete consensus among believers about that definition? There seems to be a range of views even among Christians, in our attempts to describe the indescribable.

Who is "the God of the Bible"? (or how do we define God?)

I suppose the creeds give us some level of consensus on this.
But are we left with questions as to the whole picture?

Do the various denominations fill in the gaps in the creedal definition?
And if denominations disagree in this regard, what does that mean?
Are others then accused of NOT believing in "the God of the Bible"?
(due to a disagreement in the definition)

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

no

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Surprisingly, I am discovering that some atheists do believe in "God". But not "the God of the Bible" that they were presented with. This opens a Pandora's box of spirituality, of course. And leads them away from Christianity, not toward it.

If they believe in a "higher power" or another actual diety then they are not atheists but agnostic at best, going by the definition of atheism at least. Some may believe in things like new age mysticism and things like that but the fact that they usually don't believe in a god period means they're still atheist.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Does not believing in "the God of the Bible" make you an atheist? (or idolater)

Deist is a popular option.

Deism - Wikipedia

 

[Saint Steven]

Bible is good, but people can't agree on what the Bible means. So making (their interpretation of what) the Bible (means) the touchstone is asking for a train wreck. Creeds help a lot, but are only semi-complete. You need Tradition (of which creeds are only a part) and a living Magisterium faithful to Tradition and Scripture to even have a chance at the whole story. Even then it can look a lot like the making of sausage. And if we knew how sausage was made we would think long and hard before eating it.

Thanks for your thought-proving post. (the whole thing)

The paragraph quoted above is a great example of how different groups will address this question. Obviously the Baptists would disagree with this. No consensus across the board.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is only one truth. If that truth is distorted then it is no longer the truth. Man made narratives dont count as truth.

But do all Christian denominations agree on the whole definition of "the God of the Bible"? Who decides what the truth is? See the last paragraph in post #8 above. That is one view of "the truth".

Saint Steven said: ↑
I agree in general. But what happens when definitions of who the God of the Bible is differ? Who's right and who is wrong? Especially when we are trying to describe the indescribable.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

.