Take the worldview test: Are you one of the 9%?

Focus on the Family Magazine (thread written by me from facts in Focus article) | July 04 | Barna group

[Mr. Silverback]

In a recent survey, the Barna Group composed eight questions that defined the basic requirements of a biblical worldview. In other words, those who believed in all eight concepts have what Barna defines as a worldview that is based on the Bible, and those that differed don't. They found that only 4% of Americans and only 9% of self-described "Born-again Christians" answered "Yes" to all of them. How about you?

1. Do you believe absolute moral truths exist?

2. Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?

3. Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?

4. Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does he still rule it today?

5. Is salvation a gift from God that can't be earned?

6. Is Satan real?

7. Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?

8. Is the Bible accurate in all its teachings?

[Integrityrocks]

Thanks for explaining your position on #2. I can see where you came up with your comment. However, Catholics believe first and foremost in the Bible being the inspired word of God. No room for error there. Remember it was the Catholic Church that collectively compiled the bible as you know it. Kimg James simply took it upon himself to remove a few books. But, as you point out. We also use other sources, ie., early church fathers writings, to enhance our understanding of biblical writings. No Catholic in good standing believes there are any untruths in the Bible.

[Bonaparte]

"If all of our sins are absolved and forgiven then why do good?"

If you accept Jesus Christ in your heart as your Lord and Personal Savior, you will actively want to obey God. Being human, you will still stumble (a lot) because of your fallen nature. But you will confess it, repent of it in your heart, ask forgiveness and continue your walk with Jesus, not to receive salvation but because you know you are saved.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'd suspect that most people got tripped up on [#8].

Agreed. Too many people are either literalists or they're using cafeteria theology, few are on the middle ground where they realize that it's truthfully recorded and all its teachings are true, but not everything in it is literally true. Plus, a great many read the Bible and look at every verse through their own cultural lens, not that of the people who wrote it.

[DuncanWaring]

How is #2 different from #8?

[ijcr]

I fear you may have a egrigious case of the Freeper Flying Twisted Squint...where the words are read yet some how they are misunderstood.

Question 2 states "Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?"
however you have chosen to answer "Is the Bible the absolute truth?"

[Integrityrocks]

#2 is asking if there is an absolute truth; #8 asks if you answer yes to #2 do you believe it to be found only in the bible?

[Mr. Silverback]

No, you can have an accurate Old Testament worldview, but not a biblical one. When the New Testament says there is one mediator between God and man and his name is Jesus Christ, where do you go with that as a Jew?

[Bonaparte]

"But, as you point out. We also use other sources, ie., early church fathers writings, to enhance our understanding of biblical writings."

As a Protestant, I turn for edification to the church fathers all the time, just as I turn to protestant teachers. What Christian could not profit from studying Augustine and Aquinas?

[Integrityrocks]

Bingo. Glad to hear it. God did not stop providing man with edifying reading material and example after the apostles died. The point with the Bible is that, if there was never another word put in print after the Bible, the Bible would provide enough knowledge, guidance and inspiration for salvation.

[Integrityrocks]

Bonaparte.. I'm guessing you are of French descent. Me too. I'm actually related to one of those illegitimate kids of his. Smile

[jla]

Thank you

[fqued]

There is a glaring flaw with this questionaire. One can say and believe the Bible is inerrant and yet know little of what the Bible teaches. This questionaire is largely of that nature.

Obviously part of a Biblical world view may be that the Bible is accurate, but that is by no means a large portion of having a Biblical WorldView.

Now, believing that there is absolute truth would be part of a Biblical World View.
So would belief in a Creator God who cares about His creation.
However, question #2 is rather strangely stated. The Bible does not contain all truth, nor all Truth. And, furthermore, the Bible does not "define" truth. The Bible does however contain truth and Truth, and directs us toward the Author of Truth, but strictly speaking #2 is incorrect.
#8 is stated a bit strangely also.

I would think that FR could come up with a series of questions that more clearly defined what a Biblical World View was, than this interesting but inadequate attempt.

[Mr. Silverback]

If all of our sins are absolved and forgiven then why do good?

See Romans 5 and 6 for a more detailed expanation, but basically, since one has been saved out of sin, living in sin should be alien to us. True, we still sin, but out of love for Christ we avoid sin.

[Dec31,1999]

Well, I definitely think the nation is better off when most people answer yes to all of the questions. Does that count?

[patriotUSA]

Yes on all for me as well. However, concerning God bless America, read Romans 1.

[Dr. Frank fan]

...I would be interested in knowing why you gave the answers you gave.

First I should say that I mis-counted. Two "Nos" (not three), six "sures" (not five).

You're probably more interested in my "Nos". They are my answers to questions #2 and #8.

#2: I don't agree with the idea of "absolute truth" being "defined by" the Bible for various reasons, some of which other posters have already stated (Bible written/translated/passed down by men, etc.) I accept the notion that the Bible contains inaccuracies, later interpolations, and chronicles based on actual events (the Flood, Goliath) which have been converted at least partially into myth. Not less important is the fact that there are some truths not contained in the Bible. Einstein's general relativity for example. So I have a hard time labeling it "absolute truth". Note, this does not really diminish the Bible in my eyes. I just have a problem with the impossible standard set by the question.

#8: Similar problem. "accurate in all its teachings?" First of all I could cite a bunch of things in Leviticus about how to slaughter sheep etc, that I don't really accept as being "accurate" in any important way. Someone will probably tell me I should ignore that part because of Peter's dream, Jesus's New Covenant, etc., and only look at the New Testament, which is fine, except then (a) why does the quiz say "the Bible" and not "the New Testament"? and (b) if I'm supposed to think of some parts of the Bible as over-riding other parts, then that whole "absolute truth"/"accurate in all its teachings" thing just can't be true in any meaningful sense. And even in the New Testament I reckon I could find some "teachings" which I don't find "accurate". I don't agree with Paul that (to paraphrase) it's 'better not to be with women at all but if you must then be married'. I just have some problems with Paul's overall attitude in that regard as think it's swell to be married, in fact better to be married than not ;-)

As for why my answers to the others are basically "Sure" rather than "Yes"... it has to do with the fact that most of those questions have very little intrinsic meaning unless I accept the definitions of the words the questions contain. But if I do that then the questions become tautological.

Example: Question #7, does a Christian have a "responsibility" to share his faith? Well duh. What's a "Christian"? Someone who believes a certain number of things. One of them being a responsibility to proselytize, as spoken of by Jesus. The question is basically circular, like asking "does an airline pilot fly planes".

Another example: Did Jesus live a sinless life? Well of course. What's the definition of "sin", how can I even understand that word? My more devout friends tell me that at its most basic level it has to do with: "separation from God". Surely this does not apply to Jesus, almost by definition, since (according to the definition of "Jesus" laid out in the Bible) he was God, in some sense.

Other questions get a "Sure.." answer from me basically because I understand them only on a somewhat metaphorical level. "Is Satan real?" for example, I'll say "Sure" and not "Yes". This is because I may not necessarily believe there's a Big Red Guy with a pitchfork sitting in a cave somewhere who goes by the name of "Satan", or anything at all like that, but I think what people are actually talking about when they refer to Satan and ascribe events to "him", is a very real phenomenon that works in some peoples' lives and (what the heck) why not have it go by the name of "Satan".

(Thanks for indulging my more long-winded explanations, was this what you were looking for, or way too much? ;-) best,

[gitmo]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

[LiteKeeper]

Yes to all - no question

[Mr. Silverback]

About #7...If a person does answer yes to all eight questions, how could they not have such a responsibility after reading this:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

[mcg1969]

The Bible, though inspired by God, was written, translated, re-translated and nit-picked over by MEN. You only have to look at the contradictory versions of the Bible readily available in any Christian book store today. Any errors (and I know there are errors, any reasoning child of God has to be honest enough to admit that) are the result of those men, not of God.

No flames, however, let me offer this. First of all, the "translated and re-translated" line is a favorite line for atheists and agnostics---and it's also not all that valid, particularly when it comes to the New Testament. In fact, modern translations are more accurate, not less, than (say) the Geneva Bible or the King James version, because we have access to far older source material than they did then.

Furthermore, an analysis of extant papyrii and early texts give us a good indication on the "pace" of any deterioration in the accuracy of Scripture---or to put it more positively, the ability of the generations to preserve the integrity of Scripture over time. Such analysis reveals that discrepancies that we do find are relatively inconsequential in the doctrinal sense. In other words, they in no way alter the most significant doctrinal underpinnings of Christianity, including of course the resurrection of Christ, his necessity and excusivity for salvation, and so forth. So it would not be particularly valid to use the "translation" argument, for example, to deny that Paul condemned sexual immorality (among other sins of course) in 1 Corinthians. Not that I am you acccusing you of that of course.

Having said those things there do remain certain uncertainties even in our best modern translations of the New Testament, and even more so in the Old Testament. And I would agree with you that we are limited in our trust of the physical text that we hold in our hands. Nevertheless I think it has been amply demonstrated that what we read in Scripture today reflects quite well what was intended in its original writing, whether we find that difficult to swallow or not, and that we can still trust the words of Paul to Timothy when he affirmed the usefulness of Scripture for our life.