Bible Deists

I have just finished reading Surprised by the Voice of God by Dr Jack Deere, from which I quoted in my posting God is Testing Our Availability. In this book Deere, a pastor and once a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, explains how he moved from the position that God speaks only through the Bible to an expectation that God speaks to his people today, if only they will listen to him.

The chapter which struck me most is called Confessions of a Bible Deist (chapter 17). This relates to some of the themes I explored in my series The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, and especially in Part 6: Conclusions.

For some of you I may need to explain first that a deist is someone who believes that God made the universe but since then has stood back and let it get on on its own. They are perhaps the scoffers of whom Peter prophesied that they would say: “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4, TNIV). It should be clear to all that this is not at all the Christian perspective, although some deists outwardly conform to Christianity. Deism was well known in the 18th century (many of the founding fathers of the USA were deists), and it is still common today. Freemasonry is in fact fundamentally a deistic religion, although its incompatibility with Christianity is made clear only to those who get into it deeply. Deere notes that the 18th century deists worshipped human reason, and it seems to be true today at least that deists give a higher place to human reason than to divine revelation.

Some Christians today, although not quite deists, hold to what is in practice an almost deistic position, that since the days of Jesus and the apostles God has let the world get on on its own, and will intervene again only at the end of time. Some who hold this kind of position are theological liberals. But others are what Deere calls “Bible deists”. Deere describes them as follows (pp. 251-253) (emphasis in all of these quotes is as in the original):

The Bible deists of today worship the Bible. Bible deists have great difficulty separating Christ and the Bible. Unconsciously in their minds the Bible and Christ merge into one entity. Christ cannot speak or be known apart from the Bible. …Bible deists preach and teach the Bible rather than Christ. They do not understand how it is possible to preach the Bible without preaching Christ. Their highest goal is the impartation of biblical knowledge. …

The Bible deist talks a lot about the sufficiency of Scripture. For him [PK: what about her? - but then most Bible deists don't let women teach Scripture] the sufficiency of Scripture means that the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today. … Although the Bible deist loudly proclaims the sufficiency of Scripture, in reality, he is proclaiming the sufficiency of his own interpretation of the Scripture. Bible deists aren’t alone in this error. …

So it is extremely difficult for Bible deists to concede that they themselves might be presently holding an erronoeus interpretation. They refer to their opponents’ interpretations as “taken out of context,” or as a failure to apply consistent hermeneutical principles. Or, in some cases, where they have little respect for their opponents, they chalk up their opponents’ views to just plain sloppy thinking. …

The Bible deist is so confident in the sufficiency of his interpretation that it is difficult for him to be corrected by experience.

How does Deere know about Bible deists? Because he used to be one, as he admits. (So was I, for my first few years as a Christian before I experienced the power of the Holy Spirit – but that story needs to wait for another time.) Deere notes (pp. 254-255):

I had another motive for being a Bible deist and resisting subjective revelatory experiences. I wanted to preserve the unique authority of the Bible. I was afraid that if any form of divine communication other than the Bible were allowed, we would weaken the Bible’s authority and eventually be led away from the Lord. …

My heart was filled with fear of God – not the biblical fear of God, but a fear of intimacy with him. I wanted a personal relationship with God, but I didn’t want an intimate one. …

So I decided that my primary relationship would be to a book, not to a Person. … With Bible deism, I could be in control.

Deere goes on to say (p. 257):

One of the most serious flaws in Bible deism is the confidence the Bible deist places in his abilities to interpret the Bible. He assumes that the greater his knowledge of the Bible, the more accurate his interpretations are. This follows logically from a hermeneutical axiom the Bible deist often quotes: The Bible is the key to its own interpretation. In other words, the Bible interprets the Bible the best. Wrong! It takes more than the Bible to interpret the Bible.The Author of the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In fact, he is the only reliable interpreter.

And if the Spirit’s illumination is the key to interpreting the Bible, isn’t the Bible deist’s confidence in his own interpretive abilities arrogant and foolhardy? How does one persuade God to illumine the Bible? Does God give illumination to the ones who know Hebrew and Greek the best? To the ones who read and memorize Scripture the most? What if the condition of one’s heart is more important for understanding the Bible than the abilities of one’s mind? Is it possible that the illumination of the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture might be given on a basis other than education or mental abilities?

I could quote a lot more of this, but better still you should read the book. I will summarise just one more section. Deere looks at the story of the Emmaus Road in Luke 24, and concludes (pp. 263-264):

During dinner, “their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’ ” (vv. 31-32). God supernaturally “opened” the disciples’ eyes to recognize Jesus. He wasn’t making dumb people smart. He was letting these two disciples see who the Lord Jesus really was. …Unless the Lord Jesus opens our eyes, we will never really see him. The disciples used the same word whenever they said that Jesus “opened the Scriptures to us.” Unless Jesus opens the Scriptures, we will miss much of their truth. We can read and memorize the Bible without Jesus. We can teach the Bible without him. But our hearts will never burn with passion until he becomes our teacher and enters into the interpretive process with us.

Now it seems to me that Bible deists include both those who use the fundamentalist approach to the Bible and those who use the scholarly approach. What they have in common is that they reject the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying the Bible to contemporary life. Some of them are cessationists, as defined in The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, Part 6: Conclusions, but there may be others who accept some gifts of the Holy Spirit but do not in practice accept that he speaks today to guide in the interpretation of Scripture.

It seems to me that Bible deists are missing out on a huge amount of what it means to be a Christian. For it seems that, while they may assert that the have a relationship with God, they are missing out on the real benefits of such a relationship, the intimacy in which we not only speak to God but hear him speaking to us. Well, that is the theme of a lot of the rest of Deere’s book. I am sad for what Bible deists miss out on for themselves. But they can also do real harm to others, for as Deere writes at the end of this chapter (p. 268):

When someone thinks they have mastered the Bible, or mastered it relative to others in their circle, they inevitably become corrupted through the pride of knowledge. Remember, “knowledge puffs up” (1 Cor. 8:1). … Instead of operating as the sword of the Spirit, the Bible in the hands of the Bible deist becomes the bludgeon of the bully. They use the authority gained by their superior knowledge of the Bible to bully the less knowledgeable.

To this I would add only that sometimes this supposedly superior knowledge of the Bible is in fact very superficial, of the fundamentalist kind in which verses are wrenched out of context. Even where lip service is paid to Hebrew and Greek it is clear that the interpretation is in fact dependent on a misleading English translation.

Let me finish with the following from Deere, which is more or less the end of his book (p. 358):

Somewhere along the way, though, the church has encouraged a silent divorce between the Word and the Spirit. Divorces are painful, both for the children and the parents. One parent usually gets custody of the children, and the other only gets to visit occasionally. It breaks the hearts of the parents, and the children are usually worse off because of the arrangement. Many in the church today are content to live with only one parent. They live with the Word, and the Spirit only has limited visiting rights. He just gets to see and touch the kids once in a while. Some of his kids don’t even recognize him any more. Some have become afraid of him. Others in the church live with the Spirit and only allow the Word sporadic visits. The Spirit doesn’t want to raise the kids without the Word. He can see how unruly they’re becoming, but he won’t force them to do what they must choose with their hearts.So the church has become a divided family growing up with separate parents. One set of kids is proud of their education, and the other set of kids is proud of their freedom. Both think they’re better than the other.

The parents are brokenhearted. Because unlike most divorces, they didn’t choose this divorce. Their kids did. And the Word and the Spirit have had to both honor and endure that choice.

21 thoughts on “Bible Deists

  1. This is an interesting and important post, Peter. I had not previously thought of linking deism with the kind of bibliolatry that Deere addresses. I think it is an appropriate linkage. My church and theological background is largely of the kind Deere describes. I have come to believe that much of the time we from that background believe in more in the Bible (and our own interpretations of it) than we do the God of the Bible. Thank you for this sobering post. May those who have ears to hear hear.

  2. Wow. This is really great to read. I’d love to copy and paste this entire post on my church’s message board — in the hope of beginning a discussion — but would not do so without your permission. Would it be okay to do that? (If not, I’ll post just a link, if that would be okay with you.)

    Thank you for posting this. It expresses some of the problems I have with constantly hearing the question, “Is this biblical?”. At the same time, I have difficulty articulating why I feel that this *can* be(become?) a different question from “Is this Christian?”

  3. Anonymous, thanks for asking. I will not refuse permission for you to copy the whole post if you acknowledge the source. I would prefer you to post a summary or taster and a link.

  4. Thank you! I’ll work on figuring out what, precisely, to post, later, as I wish to honor your request to not post the post (ha) in its entirety. Certainly I will acknowledge the source and include a link.

    Sorry that I cannot give my name to you, publicly.

    Thank you

  5. Peter,

    I can understand your point about “Bible diests”, and it is an interesting articulation of a potential danger in the Christian life. While I think I agree with most of the points you raise, it seems to me that in a lot of cases, “Bible deism” is most likely a reaction to “Bible denigration”.

    Yes, being sensitive to the author of the Bible is critical. I think that the Bible clearly teaches that an understanding of the Bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit is impossible. I see the roots of the deism you describe comming from people who see subjective experience, which is claimed to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit, given equal weight or more weight than the word of God. Modern day prophets, apostles, etc. claim “new revelation” that contradicts or abrogates existing scripture instead of building on their foundation of truth… and generate a body of believers that are either completely dimissive of the authority of the Bible, or that use “personal revelation” to selectively edit or ignore the truth taught by the Bible.

    Given this, I can see how some would move too far in the opposite direction, taking the Bible as the only possible way that God may speak to Christians today. I’m not trying to justify or excuse their position – as I said, I agree with most of your points in your post. I think it’s important to keep in mind how people initially arrive at a diest position, though. For some, the idea that the Holy Spirit is essential in Biblical interpretation would seem to be dangerously close or tantamount to dismissal of the Bible in it’s entirety.

  6. Thanks, Adrian. I might have wondered if you were only saying this because for once you agree with me. But then you did just write about another post, “I don’t have to agree with the conclusions of a post for me to think it’s a great one!” So presumably you do actually think I am now writing well – if only when I am mostly quoting from Jack Deere. I hope maybe sometime you will be able to say that some of my posts are great ones – although I hope even more to hear this from my Lord.

  7. Your post is thought-provoking. You define a “deist” as one who believes that God made the universe but since then has stood back and let it get on on its own. You quote Deere calling those who worship the Bible “Bible deists”. This is interesting because the Bible does not teach that God created the universe but since then let’s it take its natural course. On the contrary, I think the Bible teaches that God is always ready to intervene in the natural processes to answer prayer and work out all things for his plan and for the good of those who love Him. So if one really believes the deist position that God does not intervene in the world, he really isn’t believing what the Bible says.

    In looking to the Bible or to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for guidence, there must be a balance. On the one extreme is someone who feels that understanding the Bible is nothing more than an academic exercise and that He does not need God’s help to understand it. On the other hand, some people think that the Holy Spirit is leading them to believe things that are directly contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible. They are being led by their own human opinions, but they think they are being led by God’s Spirit. One evidence of this is the diversity of beliefs accepted by those who sincerely think God’s Spirit is leading them in their beliefs.

    I think the truth is that the God does indeed speak thru the Bible, and we should study the Bible with a mind that is willing to believe what the Bible plainly says and to let the Bible interpret the Bible (let plain scriptures interpret difficult scriptures), but at the same time recognize that most in this world are blinded and cannot understand the truth unless God opens the mind and helps us to understand. There are scriptures that indicate that only those whom God the Father draws can come to Christ, and that God allows Satan to deceive the rest of mankind at this time. There are also scriptures that show that God gives more understanding to those who are willing to believe and obey Him.

    So learning the truth from the Bible is not an impersonal, academic exercise. We need God’s help to understand the Bible, and if we want that help we better seek God on a personal level and be willing to believe and obey what God says in the Bible.

    author@ptgbook.org

  8. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » Blog Archive » Dawkins is wrong: a scientist can believe in a real God

  9. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » Blog Archive » Answering a Pyromaniac on Tongues

  10. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » Blog Archive » Taking a short break

  11. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Todd Bentley’s tattoos and baldness - and the dead are raised!

  12. Pingback: Florida Healing Outpouring - Todd Bentley and the Angel Emma « Gate Post

  13. Pingback: ABC Nightline features Todd Bentley and Florida Healing Outpouring « Gate Post

  14. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Todd Bentley follows Jesus’ example

  15. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » How can I know that God is telling me something?

  16. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Patton: not yet a Charismatic

  17. “Some Christians today, although not quite deists, hold to what is in practice an almost deistic position, that since the days of Jesus and the apostles God has let the world get on on its own, and will intervene again only at the end of time.”

    And you believe what, that Binny Hinn actually heals people?

    Christianity is based on the unjust principle of James 2:10 that whoever commits one minor sin is considered by God as having committed all other sins too. Or as it is worded in the NIV, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

    Logically most people don’t really deserve eternity in hell since their sins are so small. But when this unjust principle of James 2:10 is applied, the little white liar is suddenly considered to be guilty of murder and rape that he never committed, and all the sudden he deserves eternity in hell.

    You wouldn’t accept this from your governor. You’d sue like crazy if your State tried to throw you in jail for life just for Jay-Walking, on the premise that if you commit the most minor crime then you are guilty of all other crimes. It would be war if any human treated you that way.

    But you have rejected God and made a book into God, and therefore you accept this unjust principle and even dare call it just. And this is what every ceremonial doctrine in Christianity is based on, even the necessity of Jesus’ death for our sins. He needed to die not for the little white lie we told, but for the murder and rape we did NOT commit but are nonetheless condemned for by the Christian God on the unjust principle of James 2:10.

    When you analyze this ethically bankrupted system of Christianity for what it really is, you realize it is a fable invented by unjust men for the purpose of filthy lucre (money), and then you realize that Deism is the truth. More detail.

  18. BTW, I Deism doesn’t deny providence (Thomas Jefferon was a Deist and the Declaration of Independence includes this idea precisely because of it). It isn’t that God has no interest in the world, nor that human beings cannot feel his presence or Spirit. It is that all which he requires of us is known by creation, by the innate knowledge of morality he has placed within us, by what exists in creation (Paul himself agrees that we can know God’s hidden attributes via creation), not by any book nor God speaking to any man, for he never has. Nor if he were to speak to men would he be concerned with ceremonial things like not wearing a garment of mixed wool and linen (the OT) or proper observance of baptism and other foolishness but only in morality.

  19. No, Rey, I believe God heals people, and uses as his means of doing so imperfect human beings – even obvious sinners like the sons of Sceva. As you correctly note, there is no difference in God’s sight between big and little sins, and we have all sinned. But the good news is that Jesus died so that all of these sins, big and little, can be forgiven, for anyone who repents and believes that Jesus is Saviour and Lord. So whatever Benny Hinn’s sins, or mine, God can use us in exactly the same way.

    At least I admire your honesty for accepting that deism is a quite different system from Christianity, instead of claiming to be a Christian but in fact being a deist as so many do.

  20. Pingback: Arminians are not deists, we believe prayer works - Gentle Wisdom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>