Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
For you traditional deists, I know that the very thought of such a term is like scraping fingernails across a chalk board. However, I have had people ask me about the title and if it is even possible. While I have my own reservations against it, I did want to touch on it. I am going to set aside my personal opinions and biases and just deal with the two words that make up the term.
Christian: simply put, one who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.
What is not so clear is to what degree must you believe and follow. There is not a single verse in the NT that says "you must accept Jesus into your heart in order to be saved." The verses only talk about following Jesus by practicing what he taught. Likewise there is not a single verse where Jesus comes out and says "I am God." I am well aware of the verses that might hint at it, but the claim is never made. Based on these key points, one could say they were "Christian" because they believe in the teachings of Jesus and they practice what he preached.
Deist: one who rejects revealed religions and holy books. They believe in God because of observations in nature. Many, if not most, believe in free will. God does not intervene.
This is where it gets tricky to try and make the two co-exist. To be a deist means that you reject the Bible as the divine word of God. You understand that humans wrote the Bible and it was heavily influenced by the cultures of the period. It is not a literal history or science textbook. It is highly allegorical and contains a ton of metaphors within the stories. There are hundreds of translations that differ because publishing houses have copyrights and there is big money in religion.
So, the key questions are:
1. Can you believe in Jesus as a mortal man, a teacher, and as an example of a moral lifestyle, but not the divine son of God, or God incarnate?
2. Can you believe that the Bible is not the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God, and is subject to interpretation and opinion, especially when translating out of the native languages?
3. What do you do about the belief in the resurrection (I will touch on this at the end)?
4. Will you still be a Christian?
I think it is possible.
Many modern Christians concede that science has proven much that contradicts what the Bible says. But there again, "what the Bible says" is highly subjective depending on the denomination, pastor, etc. Some Christians believe in a Young Earth while others do not. Some believe that the KJV is the one true Bible, while others do not. It appears that there are far more traditional teachings that need to be stripped away first, before one can truly understand and appreciate what the Bible actually says. I can't tell you the number of times someone will be "preaching" to me and will say something that is not found anywhere in the Bible, but because they have heard it repeated all of their life, they take it for granted that it is in there. Every Christian knows John 3:16. When asked which verse states that we go to heaven upon our death as a Christian, they can't quote it, even though it is one of the single greatest beliefs of Christianity. You'd think it would rank up there with John 3:16...but it doesn't because it does not actually exist!
If one concentrates on the message that Jesus was presenting, and not so much on arguing over other talking points like whether or not there is a devil (or insert belief X here), one could say that they were a "Christian Deist." In other words:
1. I believe in God.
2. I believe in free will and because of it, God does not intervene.
3. I believe that Jesus had a positive message and I try to follow his teachings.
4. I understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
The resurrection...
Ok, so how would a "CD" deal with this particular aspect. Christianity seems to hinge on the concept of the resurrection, and it is even talked about in the New Testament. This is a tough one.
The Book of Mark is widely considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. It originally ended with 16:8, which had the women fleeing from the empty tomb. That's it. No future sightings of Jesus or anything. Many scholars believe that it was amended later in order to support the resurrection claim that the other books talk about. Why? What evidence supports this theory? The writing style changes after 16:8, which is not typical if the author is the same throughout.
There was nothing magical or mystical about the original ending of Mark. They went into the tomb, saw a young man (it does not say angel) dressed in a white robe who said "He is not here." They fled the tomb and told no one. End of story. One could say that the other gospels needed more than that in order to make their beliefs "believable," so that their new found religion could spread.
Was the resurrection a hoax? Possibly. I know to many Christians that sounds like blasphemy, but stop and think about it logically for a minute. They HAD to have a resurrection, otherwise it was all for naught. Rebellions and revolutions start with an idea. A resurrected messiah who has given us the keys to paradise, and will come again, is a HUGE revolutionary idea.
Thoughts?
Christian: simply put, one who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.
What is not so clear is to what degree must you believe and follow. There is not a single verse in the NT that says "you must accept Jesus into your heart in order to be saved." The verses only talk about following Jesus by practicing what he taught. Likewise there is not a single verse where Jesus comes out and says "I am God." I am well aware of the verses that might hint at it, but the claim is never made. Based on these key points, one could say they were "Christian" because they believe in the teachings of Jesus and they practice what he preached.
Deist: one who rejects revealed religions and holy books. They believe in God because of observations in nature. Many, if not most, believe in free will. God does not intervene.
This is where it gets tricky to try and make the two co-exist. To be a deist means that you reject the Bible as the divine word of God. You understand that humans wrote the Bible and it was heavily influenced by the cultures of the period. It is not a literal history or science textbook. It is highly allegorical and contains a ton of metaphors within the stories. There are hundreds of translations that differ because publishing houses have copyrights and there is big money in religion.
So, the key questions are:
1. Can you believe in Jesus as a mortal man, a teacher, and as an example of a moral lifestyle, but not the divine son of God, or God incarnate?
2. Can you believe that the Bible is not the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God, and is subject to interpretation and opinion, especially when translating out of the native languages?
3. What do you do about the belief in the resurrection (I will touch on this at the end)?
4. Will you still be a Christian?
I think it is possible.
Many modern Christians concede that science has proven much that contradicts what the Bible says. But there again, "what the Bible says" is highly subjective depending on the denomination, pastor, etc. Some Christians believe in a Young Earth while others do not. Some believe that the KJV is the one true Bible, while others do not. It appears that there are far more traditional teachings that need to be stripped away first, before one can truly understand and appreciate what the Bible actually says. I can't tell you the number of times someone will be "preaching" to me and will say something that is not found anywhere in the Bible, but because they have heard it repeated all of their life, they take it for granted that it is in there. Every Christian knows John 3:16. When asked which verse states that we go to heaven upon our death as a Christian, they can't quote it, even though it is one of the single greatest beliefs of Christianity. You'd think it would rank up there with John 3:16...but it doesn't because it does not actually exist!
If one concentrates on the message that Jesus was presenting, and not so much on arguing over other talking points like whether or not there is a devil (or insert belief X here), one could say that they were a "Christian Deist." In other words:
1. I believe in God.
2. I believe in free will and because of it, God does not intervene.
3. I believe that Jesus had a positive message and I try to follow his teachings.
4. I understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally.
The resurrection...
Ok, so how would a "CD" deal with this particular aspect. Christianity seems to hinge on the concept of the resurrection, and it is even talked about in the New Testament. This is a tough one.
The Book of Mark is widely considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. It originally ended with 16:8, which had the women fleeing from the empty tomb. That's it. No future sightings of Jesus or anything. Many scholars believe that it was amended later in order to support the resurrection claim that the other books talk about. Why? What evidence supports this theory? The writing style changes after 16:8, which is not typical if the author is the same throughout.
There was nothing magical or mystical about the original ending of Mark. They went into the tomb, saw a young man (it does not say angel) dressed in a white robe who said "He is not here." They fled the tomb and told no one. End of story. One could say that the other gospels needed more than that in order to make their beliefs "believable," so that their new found religion could spread.
Was the resurrection a hoax? Possibly. I know to many Christians that sounds like blasphemy, but stop and think about it logically for a minute. They HAD to have a resurrection, otherwise it was all for naught. Rebellions and revolutions start with an idea. A resurrected messiah who has given us the keys to paradise, and will come again, is a HUGE revolutionary idea.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
