Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University, Wellington. Vol. 24, No. 3. 1961

More on Deist

More on Deist

Dear Sir,—I would like to touch on one aspect "Deist" brought up. He has drawn our attention to the authority of the Bible; he compares the Bible with other religious books, and with Shakespeare. He seems to be of the opinion that Christians base most of their confidence in the authority of scripture from the fact of its age, the nature of the traditions it has initiated, and its recognised literary value. But do they? There is no "proof" of its authority.

The Bible is a record of events which took place in history, events which have not been disproved and which archaeology is constantly reiterating. As such there is value tn it even to the non-religious. But to the Christian it is more than this. It is a book of human experience. It's not possible to think of the Bible's inspiration in mechanical terms, but In terms of the experiences of men and women—men and women with all the doubts and objections that we face now, but who have proved (not with slide-rule and compasses, but in the grit and grind of hard living) that God not only is, but that He can be trusted. If Shakespeare and Milton equal the literary output of the Bible, so what? Christians value the Bible not for its literary merit but for its religious truths. Perhaps "Deist" is not prepared to accept the testimony of one person who speaks of a certain religious experience. But when countless numbers of men and women from so many walks of life and at different periods of time each in their own style tell of the same religious experience, there must be some preparedness on our part to hear their testimony, and when this experience is reiterated in one's own life, the validity of it is assured.

When we compare the books of other religions such as the Koran, we see a notable difference. These writings are not the record of God's reach down to man but of man's endeavour to find God, hence the mysticism and confusion which prevails in many of these writings. "Deist" and I will differ here because if he's a true "Deist" he won't accept the idea of a self-revealing God, but let him look at the lives of those who claim to have this revelation. See how their experiences, though different, tell the same story. It's not enough to say they were all prejudiced by superstition. The apostle Peter for instance was educated. They have proved to themselves and to many others, that this God, whom "Deist" tacitly admits exists, has, and will reveal himself to man.

Yours faithfully,

B. T. Doig.

(Abridged).