Christian Theology and the Bible

Christian
Theology and the Bible

Nadir
Aqueel Ansari

Sources
of Christian Theology

Bible
is the basic source for Christian Theology. This is a position to which the
Christian opinion has now crystallized. This does not however mean that other
sources like a) Tradition, b) Reason and c) Religious Experience have had a
minor role in the formation of Christian dogma, which together with d) the Bible
constitute the sum total of theological sources.

However,
for the time being, let us confine ourselves to the Bible; other sources would
be examined separately. Now if we turn to the Bible we must examine its
authenticity first. This is important because the Christian world takes the
Bible as the Word of God and believes in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Muslim
position on authenticity of the Bible

Let
me explain the Muslim position first on the meaning and significance of the
scripture. Muslims understand that Bible was a collection of books revealed to
prophets and messengers of God. These books were however subjected to human
interpolations in history. Interpolation include insertion, deletion and
corruption of biblical texts. The textual corruption was so extensive and
massive, that Bible no more remained a reliable and authentic source of
knowledge regarding the original teachings of those prophets and messengers.
This is not to deny that Bible does not contain any truth. This is far from
true. Rather, the Muslims would believe that a lot of the original content is
still available in biblical pages. Yet, the corruption in the text has left the
biblical literature unworthy of theological reconstruction.

Significance
of Reliable Sources of religious knowledge

Religion
is an extremely important issue. Correct religious knowledge is the cornerstone
of religious belief and action. One cannot be careless and negligent in
religious matters. Religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam teach that
correct faith and action leads to eternal bliss and a way of life based on
erroneous belief and action leads to eternal punishment. Religion, thus, is not
restricted to our names and identities in this world. It governs our destinies.
It is therefore imperative to be extremely cautious in this matter. We should
base our faith on a definitely reliable source. Bible does not qualify for that.

This
is no more a sensational position - at least not after the appearance of the
Holy Qur'an. Muslims, from the very beginning, believed that the Bible was not
capable of giving us the correct picture of what God demands of men. Europe
however learnt this later when the academic works of Muslim scholars became
available to them. The Muslim scholars in Spain openly challenged the
authenticity of Bible and the marked impact of Muslim position on the Western
world can be observed in history soon after. Now, even among Christians, a large
number of scholars agree that Bible is not a reliable document.

Nature
and extent of Biblical Corruption

Bible
is replete with errors and inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are not
confined to words, letters and punctuation. We know that a number of biblical
books are disputed between the Protestants and Catholics. There are books that
are believed by Catholics to be inspired whereas the Protestants do not agree.
This scale of difference cannot be ignored by saying that there is a difference
in readings and pronunciations. Authors of most of the books in Bible are
enshrouded in mist. Some of these books were written centuries after the
Prophets to whom they are attributed. In other cases the same incident is
presented in two or more divergent versions which are irreconcilable. A number
of books of the Bible were apparently lost in the mill of history and just could
not reach us.

Has
biblical corruption affected doctrinal content of the Bible?

Sometimes
I hear people say that even if the biblical literature has been corrupted, it
still provides a valuable basis for salvation. They argue that there has been
textual corruption in the Bible, but somehow the corruption has not affected the
real significance of its message. To such a naïve suggestion I can only wonder.
How can a document still be reliable, when it has been shown to be false and
incorrect on hundreds of occasions? This would mean that no historical document
can be termed as unreliable because it may, after all, contain an element of
truth also! Such elements of truth are there in the Bible too. Nobody thinks
that the original books of the Prophets were exterminated and were rewritten
afresh, without leaving an iota of truth in their contents. Massive biblical
corruption is a fact and this does not exclude the possibility of truth in it.
Rather, it contains a lot of divine guidance and historical truth. Yet, the
extent of corruption makes it only a secondary source of truth, which we cannot
believe outright, unless it is corroborated by other sources.

Biblical
corruption is not confined to minor and peripheral issues, it has indeed
affected the basic doctrines of Christianity also. It is incorrect to say that
the corruption of biblical text left the bible unaffected, insofar as its
doctrinal content is concerned.

Christian
theology and Bible

Now
we come to the doctrines of Christianity based on this unreliable document.
Obviously, no theology, worthy of ensuring human salvation, can be built on a
text that was mercilessly, callously and, on many occasions, intentionally
tampered with. Such an attempt, to construct a coherent and reliable theology on
biblical foundation, is bound to remain unfruitful and meaningless. It is likely
to precipitate mind boggling mysteries rather than sound rational doctrines.
This is exactly what we expect to find in Christian dogma.

Although
there is a sharp disagreement among the Christians as to what is the bare
minimum in terms of the doctrines that one must up hold, if he is to be
considered a Christian, yet I would attempt to discuss the most commonly
professed Christian beliefs.

How
should a scripture support its central themes?

Before
attempting to discuss Christian doctrines with reference to Bible, we have to
first decide as to in what forms should the fundamental doctrines be found in a
scripture. For example, the fundamental beliefs in Islam are Belief in one God,
Belief in Messengers of God, and Belief in the Day of Judgment. Now if one takes
up a copy of the Holy Qur'an, he will find them mentioned on almost every page
or on every other page. There has never been any debate whether Qur'an
preaches Monotheism or not - whether it reminds us of the day of judgment or
not! An ordinary Muslim conveniently proclaims his beliefs using only the words
of the Holy Qur'an. The Muslim beliefs are explicitly and categorically
stated, more than once, in their Scripture. So, like any other faith, the
Christian doctrines should be perfectly rooted in the scripture and should rise
from the scripture naturally even to a neutral reader.
It should not require the hairsplitting efforts of thousands of brilliant
scholars working for two thousand years to show that at best a few allusions to
their beliefs are indeed found in Bible! But unfortunately, exactly this picture
emerges when we study the Bible and the history of development of Christian
theology. Most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity are not found in the
Bible as they are professed by the Christians.

Secondly,
if at all allusions to these doctrines are traced in the Bible, we must see
whether they are in red letters or not; whether such fundamental doctrines are
presented as central themes or found only in foot notes to the book or in
distant digressions from the main theme. Unfortunately, the fundamental
Christian doctrines are not found as central themes in the Bible. Therefore when
Christian scholars tried to articulate their beliefs, they did not select
passages from the Bible, they tried to do that through Creeds and Councils, and
even that happened centuries after Christ. These articulations were not based on
the Bible, they were based on extra-biblical terminology and phrases coined by
their scholars.

Now
we turn to the most important Christian doctrines.

Original
Sin

The
doctrine of Original Sin, the way it is professed by the Christian
community, is nowhere stated in the Bible. You may be surprised, but the fact is
that the phrase 'Original Sin' is as alien to Bible as Pentium-III is alien
to Shakespeare. On the other hand, Bible contains verses that refute the concept
of original sin. For example see Ezekiel 18, which asserts:

The
soul who sins is the one who will die. . .
But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father
commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things. . . He will not
die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for
his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what
was wrong among his people.

Yet
you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the
son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my
decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The
son will not share the guilt of the father, nor the father, nor will the
father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will
be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against
him. (Ezekiel 18:4-20)

Holy
Trinity

In
case of trinity, the Bible does not contain any statement saying:

'God
the father is God. Jesus Christ the son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And
that they are three persons of God but put together, these three persons are
not three Gods but only One.'

On
the other hand, monotheism, as professed by the Jews and Muslims, occurs in the
Bible on numerous occasions.

He
asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?'

'The
most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord
our God, the Lord is one.' (Mark 12:28-29)

Christ
as Unique Son of God

The
Christians hold that Jesus is the unique son of God. No doubt Jesus is termed in
the Bible as Son of Adam and as Son of God also. But the Christian
scholars have been reading more than what this expression actually says. All
righteous people are sons of God according to the Bible. In Psalms 2:7 God tells
David: You are my son; today I have begotten you. Do our Christian
friends build the same theological system around David also? No, because they
know what the word means. It only signifies divine love and blessings on the
righteous. And indeed Jesus Christ was a righteous person. That is all this
expression means.

Crucifixion,
Resurrection and Atonement

On
Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the NT is quite expressive. These
events have been graphically described in the Gospels. However, it is a tampered
document that holds this substance. And, the testimony of each Gospel differs
with the other on a number of details.

That
redemption and salvation through Christ is the basic contention and other
doctrines tend to support this.

But
it may be understood clearly, that to a Christian, it is not crucifixion or
resurrection or divinity of Christ that matters in its own right. These
doctrines are preludes to the doctrine of Atonement. To the Christians,
Jesus Christ was crucified as the Son of God, and made to suffer, and
resurrected, so that he may Redeem us and Atone for our sin - the sin
that had afflicted Adam and had deprived us of the ability to be good.

Patristic
Fathers like Saint Augustine were sensitive on other doctrines in the face of
mounting dissenting views, because they thought that it would make Redemption
impossible. For instance while condemning Arianism, Athanasius argued
that if Jesus was not fully God, Redemption would become impossible because a
creature cannot redeem other creatures. In his book 'Against the Arians'
his argument runs either like this:

1. No
   creature can redeem another creature.
   
   

2. According
   to Arian, Jesus Christ is a creature
   
   

3. Therefore,
   according to Arius, Jesus Christ cannot redeem humanity.

Or
like this:

1. Only
   God can redeem
   
   

2. Jesus
   Christ redeems
   
   

3. Therefore
   Jesus Christ is God
   
   

This
brings out the centrality of the doctrine of Redemption and Atonement in
Christian theology. That the problem of redemption figures in the earliest
stages of Christianity during the Apostolic Age is shown by the debates held
between Paul and other Apostles. In Pauline letters, the main thrust remains on
Redemption. It is important to understand why the problems of Salvation and
Redemption engaged the Apostles in such an involving manner.
There are two obvious reasons for Redemption to have occupied such an
important place in Semitic history:

1. The
   OT did not approve of Atonement (Ezekiel Ch.18) and thus
   promised Salvation on following the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments)
   and the Law of Moses. But the Jews had mischievously played with the Divine
   wish by two methods. One that they romanticized the idea of a group of
   people being 'selected by God' - a title reserved apparently for
   Israelites only - which was later added to the scripture by the Jews during
   the historical development of OT. Secondly, in the matter of Law, the Jews
   had adopted a literal view, and while following the words, often ignored the
   purpose and spirit of Law. To both of these, Jesus Christ revolted strongly,
   and criticized the tendency of the Jews to revere the Law and ignore its
   spirit. To Christ, Law was not being practiced in its true spirit among the
   Jews. Any one can understand from NT that Jesus Christ emphasized correct
   belief, correct intention and correct action towards this end. For the
   Apostles, the problem was simple - to believe in what Jesus had preached.
   Obviously, the central theme of Jesus was redemption through correct belief
   and action. So the Apostles could not be oblivious to the centrality of
   Redemption.
   
   

2. Ordinary
   Redemption is a simple idea, hinging on correct belief and action. It is so
   simple that almost all societies have believed in it and throughout the ages
   it remained a simple concept to comprehend. In Christianity, it turned into
   a brain-teasing theorem because of the way it was employed to bring in a
   number of other Neo-Platonic concepts. Paul interpreted the Gospel, to
   gradually show that redemption could not be attained through Law alone. He
   must have made use of the scathing criticism of Jesus Christ on the Jewish
   attitude and the way Law was abused by them. By destroying the sanctity and
   even the need of Law, Paul invited the immediate question: In the absence of
   Law, how are we supposed to achieve salvation? To this question Paul replied
   that through living in Jesus we can achieve salvation, because Christ
   suffered for us and with his death on the cross died the original sin, and
   we were liberated from sin. But this liberation can only be bought by
   subscribing to the Trinity, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. As we
   can see in this mode of argument, the Original Sin, Trinity, Incarnation,
   Crucifixion, Resurrection and Atonement are all brought in, to replace the
   vacuum created by the elimination of Law. So, redemption remains a theme
   central to Pauline views, although he shifts the basis of redemption from
   Law (correct action and belief) to a parallel basis - his philosophy of
   Atonement.
   
   

This
means that the Pauline argument, to which the Church subscribes, progresses from
Salvation to the Divinity of Christ. It is the Pauline wish to provide
scriptural basis to this view that makes him plead Trinity, Divinity and
Atonement. These do not naturally grow out of the NT.

So
the crucifixion and resurrection only matter so far as they take us to
Atonement. Otherwise the concept of God being crucified and tortured on the
cross would be too radical to bear. If that is the case, we have to look for the
doctrine for Atonement in Bible- and I assure you, it would be like searching
for a needle in the hay stalk. You will never find it.

Whence
Christian Theology?

In
the end, I would like to address an obvious query. If the Bible was devoid of
support for the fundamental doctrines, why did their theology develop on these
lines.

History
tells us that, unfortunately, Jesus Christ had not yet gathered sufficient
following before he was removed from the world by God's grace. With few
followers, the Good News had not been compiled, recorded and circulated. Even
before such an attempt could be made, Saint Paul joins the apostles and comes up
with a Neo-Platonic interpretation of the message of Jesus Christ and pleads
freedom from the Law. (The ideas of Pantheism had remained prevalent in
Alexandria due to the influence of the Jew mystic Philo which were later to be
articulated and perfected as a philosophical system by Ammonias Saccas and
Plotinus.) Paul is strongly opposed by the Apostles in the beginning, but Saint
Barnabas facilitates his entry into the Apostolic group. Even then, after a
short time, we see that Paul is opposed by Barnabas and also by Peter. Peter and
Barnabas vanish from the Acts of Apostles after the fifteenth chapter and are
heard no more. It appears that the abilities of Paul to win a large following
among the Gentiles paves the way for the smooth acceptance of his views in Asia
Minor and around the Mediterranean coast. Very soon, the truth taught by Jesus
is lost in the vociferous proclamations of Pauline theology. With the passage of
time the New Testament which largely consists of Pauline letters is made the
basis of theology developed by the early Christians of the first and second
centuries. Pauline letters actually reinterpreted the message of Jesus Christ to
make it appear what it is today. Even today, possibly the most convincing and
explicit evidence for Christian doctrine would be found in Pauline letters and
epistles, and not in the red lettered verses of the Gospels.

© Copyright February 2000. All Rights
Reserved with the Author