So far in the series, "What Makes Christianity?", I have laid out the initial premise. Christianity is a religion (by English definition), but it is a unique religion. The primary belief that makes Christianity stand out from all other religions is in the phrase "saved by grace through faith in Christ." It is that premise from which I'm working. In the first entry, then, I explained how the doctrine of Inerrancy of Scripture is essential to Christianity. It is the basis from which we work. I listed that one first not because it's most important, but because I plan to lean on it for the rest of this discussion. So, what else is essential and why?
Most people like to think that humans are basically good. Oh, sure, you'll get a bad one from time to time, but deep down, people really want to be moral, nice, to get along. Anyone who says otherwise is just a negative thinker, a pessimist, a cynic. Assuming this as a valid description of the Nature of Man, we can pretty much eliminate Christianity as a viable religion. Christianity makes the stunning claim that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). There is none among us who is exempt (Rom 3:10-12). Despite the notion that all people are basically good, the Bible claims that all people are, at their core, basically sinful. The problem here is that God, Himself perfect, requires perfection as a prerequisite to having a relationship with Him. Now, if all have sinned, Christianity would say that all are in trouble. The just result of this sin condition, according the Christianity, is ... death (Rom 6:23). (Perhaps "in trouble" is a large understatement.) So humans at their core stand in opposition to God. From God's perspective -- referencing only His justice -- He is obliged to execute all humans. And since their crime is against the Supreme God, their execution must be supreme -- eternal death. No exceptions. No hope.
That is the basic Christian doctrine about the condition of Man. We are sinners, every one of us. We have earned damnation and have no means in ourselves of earning anything better than damnation.
So what if we mitigate that? What if we say, "Oh, that's too extreme"? What if we move Man's condition from "rotten to the core" to something ... not quite so bad? How is it essential? Well, first off, having established that the Bible is true, we would be violating that first point. But moving from there, if it is not true that all humans are sinful -- that "all have sinned" -- we find ourselves in contradiction to our basic premise: "saved by grace through faith in Christ." It has been argued from Pelagius through Charles Finney all the way up to today that "this whole 'Mankind is basically sinful' thing is not right. It is possible for humans to be good enough (by various means, depending on the arguer) to get to heaven. This whole 'saved by Christ' thing isn't necessary. Oh, maybe it's good, but it's not necessary." And we've just managed to turn Christianity into ... every other religion. Be "good enough" and you will be fine. You don't really need to be "saved". You simply need to be "good enough". Now, we can debate what "good enough" means, but unless it is "perfection", this approach eliminates Christianity at its core.
In order for people to need salvation, they have to be in peril. The Bible argues that all have sinned, that Man is basically sinful and stands in peril of eternal damnation. It is the first point, in fact, of the Gospel, the Good News. The Gospel tells us that "You're in danger of Hell" followed by the solution to that problem. Eliminate that problem and you eliminate the Gospel and Christianity. So the basic doctrine of Man's Sin Condition is an essential doctrine, not open to negotiation. It is an essential doctrine of Christianity.
4 comments:
Stan, you always sound so very logical that I always hesitate to throw in my potentially very stupid-sounding two cents! But... taking that risk, here goes, anyway. Some "age old" stuff here!
One of these days would you please address the issue of "eternal damnation"? You probably already have, but I don't see it listed in your "Topics" column. A lot of people can't seem to really believe that, as you wrote, they "stand in peril of eternal damnation" because it hardly seems logical or fair to them that, for sins/wrongful acts committed within only an approximate 74 year earthly life, a person should have to suffer for all eternity.
What kind of a just sentence is that, they wonder? Couldn't people maybe only suffer terribly for a few months, years, or even a few decades if they were truly wicked people on Earth, then do something else (maybe even something more productive) for the rest of eternity? Or couldn't they just be punished for a while for rebelling against God then be completely extinquished? As we understand it, eternity is forever, and forever is an incomprehensibly long time!
I have read about what some people think happens to those who don't believe after they die, but am curious about what you believe.
None of us asked to be born, but one day some of us (but not even all of us humans) find ourselves old enough and sentient enough to hear of being born as rotten, sinful creatures in need of something called salvation by the blood of someone named Jesus Christ. And without it we will supposedly spend all of the time after we die here on Earth burning in some morbid place named Hell. And, for some reason, we never actually burn up in Hell but are enrobed in asbestos or something and just tortured endlessly. This does not compute.
But it's supposed to be "okay" with us that it doesn't sound reasonable because God's ways and thoughts are so much higher than ours and we are like clay pots made by a giant potter and are therefore incapable of grasping the whole picture that the potter has. So we should just accept it as truth and go with it, hoping that maybe someday some or more of it will make perfect sense to us. How dare we stupid clay pot heads ever question it, some say.
You wrote, "We have earned damnation and have no means in ourselves of earning anything better than damnation."
I'd like to see some discussion of what you and some of your readers believe happens to all those who don't make it through the narrow gate that leads to eternal life.
Always happy to have genuine questions and concerns from genuine people.
I thought I had addressed the subject before, but in a quick search of my own work, it appears I've never touched on the topic of Hell. I'll have to do that. Thanks for the suggestion.
Well, there are a number of problems with your assertion that Hell is necessary..., most notably that Jesus never said this!
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to show why.
If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Well, Rick, I'll have to disagree, but in an easy way (at least at first). I was not asserting that Hell was an essential doctrine. I was asserting that Man's Sinful Condition was an essential doctrine. So I don't and haven't listed "hell" as "necessary".
Now, I am going to have to suggest that you go back to the start of the series. The first thing I listed as "essential" was a Bible we can count on. If your Bible contains ... what was your phrase ... "adulterations", then you don't have anything on which to stand. I'll claim "Jesus said it" and you'll claim "No He didn't" and I'll claim "But it's in there" and you'll claim "They're imported beliefs" and we're stuck because you're perfectly free now to dispute anything you want in the Bible as "imported beliefs" or "It says that, but it certainly doesn't mean it" and there is no solid ground for doctrine, truth, or discussion.
By the way, the Luke 9 approach isn't much of a reasonable argument. All Jesus protested was the disciples' attitude at the time. His purpose on earth was not judgment at the time. The Bible, on the other hand, is full of warnings of judgment. If Jesus was opposed to judgment, He was opposed to God (who claimed "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (Isa 45:6-7).) God has no problem causing suffering.
Post a Comment