{"id":61901,"date":"2026-07-17T12:54:19","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T10:54:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/?p=61901"},"modified":"2026-07-17T15:54:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T13:54:36","slug":"if-you-are-a-real-christian-do-you-have-to-believe-in-the-bible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/if-you-are-a-real-christian-do-you-have-to-believe-in-the-bible\/","title":{"rendered":"Do you believe in the Bible?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″ uncode_shortcode_id=”213996″][vc_column_text text_lead=”yes” uncode_shortcode_id=”596066″]The self-understanding of some Christians is shaped by the claim to \u201cbelieve in the Bible.\u201d What does this express? What purpose does this view serve?[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”142173″]No one in the Bible believed \u201cin the Bible.\u201d The Bible simply did not exist in the time of the Bible. Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the first communities knew a Bible as we possess it today. It was simply impossible to \u201cbelieve in the Bible.\u201d No one did. People believed and trusted God (Ps 25:2; Isa 12:2; Acts 27:25).[\/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_size=”h3″ uncode_shortcode_id=”618300″]A Code Word[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”139423″]Whoever says they believe in the Bible is not appealing to the Bible but to a later tradition. One is thus declaring to others that one \u201cthinks such and such.\u201d It is a phrase that gains meaning as a marker of identity, group belonging, and as a \u201ccode word for special orthodoxy.\u201d Because this has nothing to do with the Bible, however, the expression is directly misleading. The connection to the Bible and to a \u201ccorrect\u201d faith is indeed present, but it is nowhere defined that way in the Bible itself. The connection is artificial. It is imposed on the Bible and on one’s own behavior as an interpretation and a religious practice.<\/p>\n

I understand that these terms can be important markers for a Christian identity. For many people, they define essential parts of their internalized convictions of faith. Yet they also create an illusion of something that does not exist, namely a connection to the Bible and the notion that \u201cthe Bible says exactly what we believe in our community today.\u201d I am pointing out here what is not in the Bible so that one can distinguish between tradition and Bible. Only such a distinction creates clarity about one’s own convictions of faith. So whoever thinks they are relying on the Bible but is in fact standing only within a tradition should be allowed to discover that. In doing so, I am not defining what is \u201cright or wrong,\u201d but making possible a distinction that can be helpful in determining one’s own position.<\/p>\n

\u201cReal Christians,\u201d some conclude, \u201cbelieve in the Bible.\u201d Believing in God is simply another kind of belief. To remove the discomfort of this division, people like to say that the Bible is God’s word, that it is infallible, and\u2014consequently\u2014that it can be equated with God. Here we arrive at the tradition and doctrine of the infallibility of the Scriptures. This doctrine, too, was foreign to the biblical writers. These are traditions that cloud the view of the Bible but are defended as being \u201cfaithful to Scripture.\u201d<\/p>\n

No one in the Bible was \u201cfaithful to Scripture.\u201d Once this becomes apparent, it can no longer be overlooked. Expressions such as \u201cfaithfulness to Scripture,\u201d \u201cbelieving in the Bible,\u201d or ideas about the \u201cdivinity of the Bible\u201d spring from traditions. They are code words by which one marks belonging to a particular tradition. That is not wrong in itself, as long as one keeps in mind that the flag does not cover the cargo. Words are being used outside their supposed context, or words and ideas that are foreign to that context.[\/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_size=”h3″ uncode_shortcode_id=”140652″]Biblicism[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”193346″]Whoever believes in the Bible and considers themselves faithful to Scripture stands, in terms of thought, close to the concept of \u201cbiblicism.\u201d Biblicism is a diagnosis. It is an aberration of faith in which the Bible takes the place of God. It is a substitute faith. In my observation, such a faith arises primarily in Evangelical circles.<\/p>\n

This is, incidentally, not the only derailment. Churches of the Reformation often stand in a strong theological tradition that presents itself as heavily intellectual. Faith and thought are closely aligned. This is not a holistic view but a particular formation. An overly intellectual Christianity can be just as problematic as a biblicism in which the Bible is placed above everything else.<\/p>\n

Biblicism is the typical Evangelical idea that everything can and must be proven with the Bible in hand. Of course it is true that today we have only the Bible as a source. There are good reasons to engage with the Bible. Biblicism, however, goes further and deifies the Bible. This is the problematic development. Here the Bible no longer merely takes on the role of a witness but becomes directly the dictation of God, which must somehow be divine down to the letter. Paul describes the inspiration of Scripture quite differently (2 Tim 3:16\u201317).<\/p>\n

This supposed \u201cdivinity of the Bible\u201d is a deeply ideological formation. It is a Christian ideology that is reinforced by Evangelical traditions and subcultures. It blocks a nuanced view of the Bible and of matters of faith and often results in self-righteousness and arrogance and thereby in the vilification and slander of others.[\/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_size=”h3″ uncode_shortcode_id=”663414″]The Alternative[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”188240″]Typical biblicism represents a kind of superstition. Many are familiar with it. But what might an alternative look like? That is the question here.
\nAn obstacle is often the assumption that biblicism is good, and that everyone who deviates from it is not reading the Bible correctly. In other words, any kind of nuance is frowned upon. There is only one accepted version, namely one’s own version. Typical conclusions in this context include, for example:<\/p>\n