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

[Gregory Thompson]

Hello Michael. The problem with that would be that it is so subjective. We've seen through last year, all the American Church leaders who got themselves into difficulty through giving false prophecies about Covid and Trump while saying they were hearing from the Holy Spirit.

But:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

'According to the scriptures'.

God Bless

You make two good points at once.

1) The scripture has replaced the role of the Holy Spirit in the modern church.

2) That the church automatically assumes any reference to the Holy Spirit precludes use of the scriptures.

And this is a root to the problem that caused the Trump prophecies.

The main problem however, is lip service to the trinity as a doctrine. When the occult is mistaken for the Holy Spirit, only those who have matured spiritually can recognize the deception. A lot of people who relied on scripture were deceived for a great many years thinking Republican politics = Christianity.

So the problem with believing in the "God of the Bible" is that many people have subconsciously ripped a number pages out of their bible ... so it varies from place to place which paper mache god that they worship. It is an issue with continuity.

 

[lismore]

You make two good points at once.

Hello Michael! I'm not sure they're really the points I'm making. I would suggest the church goes back to biblical exegesis, a focus on the scriptures, in context, rather than a focus on anything else. Disagreements come when people exegete something else and throw in a bible verse or the name of Jesus to support their extra biblical exegesis. But the word of God brings truth, light, unity, life. God Bless

 

[SkyWriting]

"God is Triune" is not stated anywhere either. . .so?

I agree.

 

[Clare73]

You make two good points at once.

1) The scripture has replaced the role of the Holy Spirit in the modern church.

Is that not setting them one against another?

The Holy Spirit never disagrees with Scripture.

2) That the church automatically assumes any reference to the Holy Spirit precludes use of the scriptures.

And this is a root to the problem that caused the Trump prophecies.

The main problem however, is lip service to the trinity as a doctrine. When the occult is mistaken for the Holy Spirit, only those who have matured spiritually can recognize the deception. A lot of people who relied on scripture were deceived for a great many years thinking Republican politics = Christianity.

So the problem with believing in the "God of the Bible" is that many people have subconsciously ripped a number pages out of their bible ... so it varies from place to place which paper mache god that they worship. It is an issue with continuity.

 

[Jeshu]

And what of his atoning sacrifice for the remission of the sin of those who believe in his person and work, giving them right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justified)?

i know that anyone who has faith in Jesus has been forgiven, but please brothers and sisters don't stay in your sin thinking Christ dresses you with the new when that is not even true.

i know so many believers who gladly take God's grace but then don't let His love change their hearts and they stay in their sins thinking they are saved from it. Many denominations teach that you have to born again, but that means conforming to their standards, rather than being set free from your sins.

How can we be saved in our sins, while we need to be saved from our sins?

To have faith that Jesus has forgiven you your sins is very good when you eat God's grace into your heart and let His merciful love transform you into newness of life. Where we die to being sinful and come to life in His Spirit.

So yes everything the bible tells us is very true and we can find all of these truths back Alive in our hearts when Jesus has been. i know that to place our faith in God's love because of Jesus Christ is the very best thing anyone can do fighting their sin. For God's gracious love will come down from heaven and begin to kill sin dwelling in us, setting us free from it.

Peace.

1 John 1:9
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

 

[Saint Steven]

no

Wow. Not the answer I expected from you.

 

[Clare73]

Wow. Not the answer I expected from you.

Believing in the God you have created in your own image means you believe in a god, and therefore, are not atheist (no belief in any god).

 

[Saint Steven]

Interesting you say that. I was going to comment on one of your posts just this morning where you defined Jesus Christ of Nazareth earthy condition differently than I do. I guess I will address that now.
Your post indicated that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, while in the flesh, was not a deity. I disagree. He may have suspended His deity while in the flesh but He was still 100% diety and 100% human.
"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,"

Is that a reference to what I said about Jesus doing miracles in his humanity rather than his deity? Quite different than what you are claiming I wrote.

 

[Saint Steven]

I am not endorsing them either. Not even close. Not pretending they are Christian either. It's a different deity, but they believe in that deity and are thus not atheists.

Now, this is something I wonder about in terms of defining atheism. Does it mean they don't believe in ANY god, or just not "the God of the Bible", however they define it?

It seems to me that atheism is a rejection of the most common definition of God in Christianity. But they might embrace other gods, or even a different definition of the God of the Bible.

 

[Hillsage]

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

Hello bro Steven, Just checking in and had to post at least once.

Therein lies the very foundation of error IMO. Of all the major Creeds, only one even mentions that which Jesus mentions over a 100 times. That being "the kingdom of God" manifested on earth. The' unchanging person of Jesus' and the fruits of "the kingdom of God" represented on earth is the representation of the true God.

[/QUOTE]

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)[/QUOTE]

All denominational-isms are simply representative of their particular 'religious spirit'. A spirit which causes the perpetuating divisions of the ONE true body of Christ. There is a "wheel within the wheel" and there is "the church" within 'the nominal church organizations of Christianity'....IMO anyway

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hello Michael! I'm not sure they're really the points I'm making. I would suggest the church goes back to biblical exegesis, a focus on the scriptures, in context, rather than a focus on anything else. Disagreements come when people exegete something else and throw in a bible verse or the name of Jesus to support their extra biblical exegesis. But the word of God brings truth, light, unity, life. God Bless

If the faith is just about the bible, how does that make Christianity different than the Jehovah Witnesses?

 

[Jay Sea]

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)

An atheist is someone who does not believe in my G-d or G-ds as the case may be.
In Love
Jay Sea

 

[Saint Steven]

Hello bro Steven, Just checking in and had to post at least once.

Good to hear from you. Thanks for checking in. Been a long time.

Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

 

[Clare73]

Now, this is something I wonder about in terms of defining atheism. Does it mean they don't believe in ANY god, or just not "the God of the Bible", however they define it?

It seems to me that atheism is a rejection of the most common definition of God in Christianity. But they might embrace other gods, or even a different definition of the God of the Bible.

Atheism already has a definition. . .look it up.

 

[Clare73]

If the faith is just about the bible, how does that make Christianity different than the Jehovah Witnesses?

The reality of, and all that it presents in, the teaching of the Bible makes the difference.

 

[bling]

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)

Jesus came to earth partly to show us who God is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow. Not the answer I expected from you.

Lol, what were you expecting, a dissertation?

 

[Saint Steven]

Lol, what were you expecting, a dissertation?

Something along the lines of, "There's only one God of the Bible." (in reference to your definition)

 

[Saint Steven]

Therein lies the very foundation of error IMO. Of all the major Creeds, only one even mentions that which Jesus mentions over a 100 times. That being "the kingdom of God" manifested on earth. The' unchanging person of Jesus' and the fruits of "the kingdom of God" represented on earth is the representation of the true God.

So, how would this Kingdom of God aspect apply to the topic title question?

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

 

[Mark Quayle]

Something along the lines of, "There's only one God of the Bible." (in reference to your definition)

Ok, yeah. Sorry. I don't remember my mood of the moment, but I do seem to remember being in somewhat of a short frame of mind or being in a hurry.

Interestingly enough, this subject (from other perspectives or subject matter) is currently in at least one other ongoing thread, where arguments concerning God, particularly the existence of God, are being undertaken by disqualifying the notion of First Cause, invoking the many other so-called gods of other religions or of false Christianity.