| Author | Message | ||
| Patti |
You are right, Cindy. Salvation is secure; not because of anything we may or may not do, but because Jesus is worthy, and He has promised us that we can rely on His salvation. John 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one." | ||
| Max |
How true it is that Christ's sheep follow him! The Good Shepherd knows that they are not the ones using his grace as a cover for lawlessness and sin. There is a name for them -- wolves in sheep's clothing. NIV Matthew 7: 15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven. Blessings! | ||
| Patti |
Funny you should use this text, Max. I just answered 2 different SDAs who use the same argument that you are using: Matthew 7:21-24 "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' This passage is inevitably used by Catholics and other law-mongers to try to discredit those whom they believe exhibit "cheap faith." They seldom get past the first verse; in fact they seldom even repeat the entire first verse. Generally, all one hears is "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.'" One doesn't have to look very far to "solve" this seeming conflict with the Gospel of salvation by grace through our faith in Jesus Christ alone. Let's start with the last verses first. The allegation is that this passage is speaking out against "antinomians" who claim that they no longer have "good works" in order to be saved. "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' " This is not talking about a people who do not produce "good works." This is talking about believers in Christ who do good works. In fact, they do some VERY good works They prophesied, they cast out demons, they performed miracles, AND THEY GAVE JESUS THE CREDIT; that is, what they did, they did in the name of Jesus Christ. Amazingly, Jesus answers them, "Get away from me, you evildoers! I never knew you." Pretty heavy stuff. Seemingly a quandary. How could Jesus tell these people who have done such amazing things in the name of Jesus Christ that He never knew them? I believe the answer lies back in verse 21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but ONLY HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven." What is the will of the Father? There are many who claim they are doing the will of the father by keeping the commandments, "loving" their neighbors, observing the sabbath, having a change in heart, etc. But we can no more "do the will of the Father" in this sense than we can conquer our own sinful nature. There is a text that directly defines the "will of the Father" as far as humanity is concerned: John 6:28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "THE WORK OF GOD IS THIS: TO BELIEVE IN THE ONE HE HAS SENT." 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For MY FATHER'S WILL IS THAT EVERYONE WHO LOOKS TO THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise him up at the last day." There is only one thing we can do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven: To believe on the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The question is not am I exhibiting exemplary Christian character in my life, but is Jesus Christ worthy; is He able to fulfil His promises to those who believe in Him and save them to the uttermost? | ||
| Max |
There is nothing the slightest bit amazing or a quandry about those who falsely do good works in Jesus Christ's name. The meaning is obvious in the text itself. They are grace-claimers whom he NEVER knew. And their game was one called simony. God is never mocked by false Christians. Blessings! | ||
| Cindy |
Yes! I want to do the "works" that God requires. I want to do the "will of My Father". How Great the news!! By BELIEVING IN JESUS' ALL-SUFFICIENT, SUBSTITUTIONARY LIFE, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION IN MY PLACE...FOR ME!... I can do all, everything that God requires for salvation now, and forever! ONLY Jesus could assert "I do exactly what My Father has commanded me", and also, "I always do what pleases Him." And as the song says, "Many things about tomorrow, I don't seem to understand; but I know who holds tomorrow and I know who holds my hand." "I don't know about tomorrow, it may bring me poverty... But the One who feeds the sparrow, is the one who stands by me." "And the path that be my portion, may be through the flame or flood... BUT HIS PRESENCE GOES BEFORE ME AND I'M COVERED WITH HIS BLOOD!!!" Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
NIV Romans 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an OBLIGATION--but it is NOT to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For IF you live according to the sinful nature, you WILL die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are LED by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his SUFFERINGS in order that we may also share in his GLORY." Blessings on your pilgrimage! | ||
| Patti |
Cindy, You are so right! It is not about what we are or do; it is about what He is and did. It is all about Him! "My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus' blood and righteousness." "Upon the cross of Jesus, mine eyes at times can see, The very dying form of One Who suffered there for me, And from my smitten heart, with tears, two wonders I confess, The wonder of redeeming love, and my unworthiness." | ||
| Max |
Any idea that true believers play any role in the initiation or maintenance of salvation is totally without scriptural support. Hear Scripture: NIV Hebrews 9:26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Blessings to all! | ||
| Max |
Therefore, as Jesus said to John, in NIV Revelation 21:6-8: 6 "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Blessings to all! | ||
| Patti |
Many folks pick out texts, here and there, that seem to indicate we must work our way to God, out of a veritable forest of texts that say we are saved by believing in His grace alone. Trusting in God means that we BELIEVE that He will keep His promises to us. He has promised to save all who believe in Jesus Christ. If we say that God will not save us unless we do [whatever] we are casting a doubt on God's word; we are saying that God is not faithful and that He will not save us as He has promised. John 6:28 Then they asked him, "What shall we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." It is not understating or being simplistic to state that this is the Gospel. And yet for every Christian who believes that this is the Gospel, there seem to be 4 who say, "Yes, believe in Christ, But..." (I call this the "Big 'But'" syndrome.) The implications to the addition of this simple qualifying conjunction are significant: 1. Christ was inaccurate in saying that to believe on Him was all the works that God requires; Do I need to describe the ramifications of this option? If Christ were inaccurate or mistaken, then all of our hopes are dashed immediately. We might as well become Moslem or Buddhist or follow the teachings of Confucious. 2. Christ was only speaking metaphorically; He really meant that we must believe and keep the commandments. This argument will not fly because the question that the disciples asked was very specific. They asked what works did God require for them to do. And Jesus answered, "Believe." 3. Since the disciples were Jewish, they were already keeping the commandments, so "all they lacked" was believing in Jesus. Later in the chapter, Jesus sets up a definite division between the Jewish faith and belief in Him. John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. The children of Israel had the physical presence of God, they had Moses, they had signs and wonders such as manna. And yet they died. Not just physically, but spiritually also. God made them wander in the wilderness until all of them had died off. (Hebrews 3) 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The religious practices of their forefathers could never bring eternal life. There is only life in partaking of the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ. 4. The work that Jesus accomplished on this earth was not sufficient to save us in and of itself; there is something we must DO Few Christians will admit to such a belief, yet it is clearly apparant in their Big But attitude. Imagine this. Imagine yourself happily married. Imagine your sweet spouse cuddling close to you and asking, "Honey, do you love me?" And your answer is, "Yes, I love you, BUT...." How confident is that going to make you feel about your spouse's feelings for you? How confident are those who say, "Yes, Christ paid the full price for my salvation, but..." You cannot have it both ways. Either the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf was fully sufficient for the salvation of mankind, or it was not. Here are some more: John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise him up at the last day." Those words mean exactly what they say. No if's, and's, or but's. You can also take these words at face value: John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned [or, judged ], but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." We are all evil when compared to the purity of Jesus Christ. Some choose to believe that man is not inherently sinful; that he is basically pretty good and with God's help can live a life acceptable to God. Those people also cannot accept the "Light of the world." They have to recreate Jesus to be just as sinful as we are. When we come to the Light, we will behold "his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Then we bemoan our sinful condition and fall upon the mercy of God for our salvation. Those who think they are doing the will of God do not want to come to the Light; they do not wish to see the perfection of Jesus Christ. By recreating Jesus in our own sinful image, and they shun the glory of the Son of God. If one is totally honest with oneself, he knows he cannot "do it." We cannot provide God with a spotless obedience that will make us acceptable to Him. Those who claim they can INEVITABLY make the law of God small enough for them to keep. They put limits and definitions on the law; they make excuses for not keeping the law. They have not truly seen the holy perfection of Jesus Christ and, therefore, do not see the depths of their own sinfulness. If we are honest in ourselves, we know that all that we do is tainted with selfishness, with pride, with lack of true concern for our fellow man. Our only hope, is a righteousness that is perfect beyond human imagining. A righteousness totally out of our hands, that we can never corrupt. This righteousness is the righteousness that comes to us by faith, by believing in that the doing and dying of Jesus Christ is sufficient for all who believe. Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The Gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone is a difficult concept to understand. We just can't seem to keep coming back to works. We keep saying, I know we have to do this or that or the other. Suppose you are married. Let's assume that you are. Do you love your wife (or husband)? Did you marry her because you loved her? Or did you marry her because she was faithful to you? Silly question? Not really. Of course you married her because you loved her. She didn't have a chance to cheat on your marriage UNTIL YOU WERE MARRIED. You married her because you love her and that love you have for each other is what will keep you two faithful to each other. Not the legalities of the marriage; the love and respect and caring that you share. You both may be tempted at times to stray, but then you will remember how much she has forgiven you in your day to day life, how she puts up with your idiosyncracies, may even find them endearing, how she comforts you when you despair, how she listens to your hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Because you love her and appreciate her you will be faithful to her. Not merely to save the legality called marriage. "He who is forgiven the most, loves the most." When we realize how very far we fall short of God's perfect design for mankind, we will realize how very much God has forgiven us. When we realize the depths of God's grace, that He could save someone even as far gone as I, then the love and appreciation we have for what He has done for us will make us want to please Him. Not that He will cut the cord of grace when we screw up. We are going to screw up constantly, but God is a God who justifies the wicked, the poor, helpless, sinful soul who believes in Jesus Christ as His complete salvation, for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ. A few more texts: John 3:34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." God has given us full salvation in Jesus Christ. Rejecting the gift is the only sin unto death. John 5:22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. John 6:37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. Salvation has been won for us by the doing and dying of Jesus Christ. There is nothing of value we can add to it. It is a complete, finished, all-sufficient, perfect, unrepeatable work that is ours by faith. Jesus worked so very hard in saving us. He gave us His all, even to the death on the cross and separation from His Father. All He asks us is to TRUST that He is indeed faithful and will keep His promises to us. Why is it so difficult to take Christ at His word that whoever believes in Him has eternal life? Why is it that we have such a hard time saying, "The Lord is my salvation," without any qualifying conjunctions? Why is it so hard to let go of any notion that we finite, puny, self-centered, helpless and hopeless creatures can contribute anything of value to the perfect work of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Creator of the universe, King of kings, and Lord of lords? "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus's blood and (His) righteousness." "All other ground (all of the fruits of our hands, including the "good works" that we perform with the help of the Holy Spirit) is sinking sand." "Lord, I believe. Help Thou mine unbelief." | ||
| Max |
No text anywhere in all Scripture seems to indicate we must work our way to God! Blessings! | ||
| Lori |
Christianity and Salvation are all too often linked with humanity morality. Don't you think?? The best way to decipher what is the requirement for salvation is to remember this: if any, "so called" requirement for salvation can be "done" by an unbeliever then it can't be a requirement for salvation. Can an unbeliever keep the Sabbath? Abstain from meats, smoking, alcohol, dairy products? Can an unbeliever speak kind words, be sweet, be considerate? Can an unbeliever keep the 10 commandments, can he obey his parents and other authority figures, can he take a stand against abortions and gun control (aren't these activist, fundamentalist "Christian issues"?) Can't an unbeliever never kill, never steal, never commit adultery? Can an unbeliever be giving, honest, loyal? Can an unbeliever give all he has to the poor, can he provide a home for the homeless, food for the hungry? Can an unbeliever attend church services on Sunday or Saturday and Wednesday and Friday, too? Can an unbeliever walk down the aisle when a "call" is made? AN UNBELIEVER CAN DO ALL THESE SO CALLED GOOD WORKS OF MORAL CHRISTIANITY---What is the only thing that an unbeliever will not/can not do? He won't believe in the Christ!!! So what saves humanity???? The FINAL TEST question is: What do you think of Jesus Christ? | ||
| Cindy |
Lori, Hi! Interesting and good post of yours above. You are right; I have known unbelievers that seem "better" than me! Yes! The only question that really matters is what do you think of JESUS? Who is He, and what does he mean to you? The acknowledgement of our sinfulness and the need for the gift of Jesus' sinlessness is a humbling position to be in! Jesus' most scathing rebukes went towards those with high morals (at least outwardly), who were resting in their own so-called morality and self-righteousness. Even now, as a believer, I can slip into that self-righteous feeling. Pride and a critical spirit of others can creep in so insiduously. Thank God for His Grace that covers all my emotions, too! I pray to have a spirit of humility and grace to my family...and to all of you here, too. May we always rest in His life alone. Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Good morning, Cindy and Lori, Agree with your messages 100%. Now a question: Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the exact representation (moral law) of God's being? Be of good cheer! | ||
| Patti |
Wow, Lori! Great post! You wrote: AN UNBELIEVER CAN DO ALL THESE SO CALLED GOOD WORKS OF MORAL CHRISTIANITY---What is the only thing that an unbeliever will not/can not do? He won't believe in the Christ!!! I was thinking of this very issue the other day when listening to Dr. Laura on the radio. She unabashedly preaches morals. And totally rejected Jesus Christ. Have you ever noticed the kinship SDAs feel with the Jews? I popped onto an SDA forum once right after Lieberman was nominated for the Democratic VP candidate, and the SDAs were ecstatic. Most of them could hardly wait to get out and vote for a sabbatarian Veep! (Which is truly amazing when they are terrified when they envision other religions, especially Christianity, having any involvement governmental issues) It did not matter that this man, by his religious affiliation, denies their proclaimed Lord and Savior; he keeps the sabbath! People (not just SDAs!) get Christianity and morality all tangled up. But Christianity is the only religion that offers salvation totally apart from works. It is not about humanity approaching God and becoming God-like; it is about God reaching down to earth and, with no human effort whatsoever, providing a way for man to be restored to His divine presence eternally. Thanks for reminding us, Lori! God bless, Grace and peace, Patti | ||
| Lori |
Hi, Max, Here's my answer! I do believe Christ is the EXACT representation of God. (But not the exact representation of moral law, he's a lot more than that!) Jesus Christ, in hypostatic union, is the exact representation of the divine attributes of God. He is the exact representation of THE DIVINE LAW, which far exceeds the laws of morality! | ||
| Patti |
Excellent answer, Lori! Very biblical. Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. | ||
| Max |
Thanks for answering so thoughtfully, Lori. I believe that Jesus is "the radiance of his [God's] glory and the [exact] representation of his reality." Hebrews 1:3 (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament = IGNT). For me this would comprise the very definition of all truly moral laws. You don't believe that there exists anywhere on the planet a truly moral law that is independent of divine law, do you? What I'm getting at is that the moral law expressed in the Old Testament is the law that: * Jesus said he did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17) * existed before the first Christmas only "in many portions" (Heb. 1:1 IGNT) or "in many bits and pieces" (Greek) or in very inexact and fragmentary form (such as, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments). It is this INEXACT AND INCOMPLETE AND INFERIOR law, then, that Jesus replaced with his own being. In other words the inexact, incomplete and inferior Old Testament law was replaced by the EXACT AND SUPERIOR AND COMPLETE person of Jesus Christ (including his incarnation, birth, life, actions, teachings, commandments, death, rest in the tomb, resurrection, ascention, sitting down at the right hand of the Father, sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and appearing in person to his disciples and to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus). Thus the moral law of Jesus Christ is EXACT AND SUPERIOR AND COMPLETE compared to the INEXACT AND INCOMPLETE AND INFERIOR moral laws already given in Old Testament times as only shadows pointing to Him. He is the same God who delivered the inexact and incomplete and inferior moral law to the Hebrew people. And as such he is therefore the Author of it. And as the Author he (alone) has the right to: * replace it with himself and * write it on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:2-3). Thus Jesus-Christ-in-Person IS all truly moral law anywhere on earth since his incarnation. Be of good cheer for Christ has overcome the world. | ||
| Allenette |
Just a thought dangling in my head gggg: The Incoherence of Original Sin and Substitutive Sacrifice By Philip Kuchar Christianity is based on the unusual idea of sacrificial punishment. The atonement has been interpreted in different ways, but the explanation stemming from some of the more vocal apologists is that of substitution. Jesus suffered Godís righteous indignation instead of sinners, substituting for those who deserve punishment. Curious concepts are employed to make sense of the central idea of substitutive sacrifice, which in turn is an explanation for the brutal fact of Jesusí violent execution. An anomaly, a grossly unfair event--from one widespread perception, at least--in the ancient past has come to necessitate peculiar explanations to make sense of it. Original sin was conceived, skeptics contend, to provide everyone with the disease for which the proselytizer claims God has the cure. And the sacrifice is said to work in terms of a "transference" of moral debt. When examined, these explanations turn out to be incoherent, a fact which casts doubt on the truth of Christianityís central concept, that Jesusí death was a sacrifice. Original Sin Original sin means that the human species is innately depraved, a global consequence of which is the punishment of physical death for everyone. We are "guilty" of original sin just by being born human. This involves a curious misuse of "guilty," because someone can be guilty only of choosing to commit a particular criminal act. No one chooses to be born a human, with an allegedly corrupt, incorrigible "nature." Therefore original sin cannot be something weíre "guilty" of and "deserve" punishment for. We deserve punishment only for the crimes we choose to commit. Otherwise, "guilty" and "deserving (of punishment)" are weasel words, empty constructions for accommodating contrary evidence, such as the ordinary practice of treating anything destructive yet not chosen by a moral agent subject to judgment as an unpleasant feature of nature, or an "Act of God." Moral evils are those committed by a morally responsible agent for which she might be punished. Natural evils (diseases, earth quakes, floods) are brought about by randomness, accident, indifferent forces of nature, or perhaps an angry deity, but not by ordinary human decision. Human "nature" has evolved over thousands of years, and whatever inborn potential to commit misdeeds we might have would seem based on the fittest characteristics our ancestors could evolve to survive in an unforgiving, hostile environment. Christianity can be summarized as the worship of a saviour-God who washes away our worries and deadly sins in the blood he shed on our behalf. But itís clear that some peopleís particular sins far outnumber those of other people. The genius of Paul was in conceiving universal sin, giving everyone without exception a necessary reason to pay special attention to Jesusí death. Yet if we can deserve punishment only for our actual sins, "original sin" is a misnomer. No one deserves punishment for existing in a certain state or for having a tendency to sin, only for the actual immoral choices we make. It may or may not be true that we have an inborn tendency to lie, steal, rape and kill. This may be a fact about human nature. However, this tendency can be called only an original inclination to sin, not a sin in itself. We are not responsible for having this tendency, especially given evolutionary theory as to when and how this tendency probably first developed, long ago before we could be called human. Even if the sins of past generations helped shape our social environment and biological impulses which compel us to sin, again no single person or group of persons is responsible for creating this environment. And even if we negatively impact the environment with our particular sins, each of us is already born into such an environment, complete with the genetic makeup of human "nature." Yet "guilt" applies to someone for the misdeeds she carries out, not for the material cause of these misdeeds, such as a depraved will present from birth and an imperfect, preoccupied nature. So long as we can be guilty only of our crimes, the destructive choices that we personally make, "original sin" is a verbal trick used to justify the Christian concepts of the universal need for salvation and the legitimacy of Jesusí substitutive death. One of the most obscene consequences of the doctrine of original sin is its explanation of the death of infants, as offered, for example, in regard to the story of the Amalekite slaughter (1 Sam.15). Because of "original sin" infants not only deserve to die, but indeed God would be justified in killing them violently like any criminal guilty of a capital offense. Commitment to much of the New Testament and especially Paulís writings leads to the belief that fundamentally the human species is worthless, depraved, incompetent, infinitely guilty and deserving of ultimate condemnation. And more, that even an apparently innocent infant is likewise "guilty" and "selfish," deserving of punishment. But not just any punishment: violent execution, the death penalty for those who are too young to make any real choices at all let alone rational ones for which they could be held accountable. Imagine building a tiny electric chair and knitting a baby-sized black mask to go over the infantís barely developed face as she cries and cries for her mother, absolutely ignorant of what is happening to her and why; she is carried to the chair, strapped in, and electrocuted. Capital punishment for an infant carried out at Godís discretion, because of "original sin," a word game that confuses having an innate tendency to sin and a sin itself. The idea of original sin can be modified to avoid these problems. Instead of considering human nature as something "sinful" and deserving of punishment (such as physical death), our depravity together with its "punishment" could instead be analyzed in terms of an amoral necessary relationship between cause and effect. Human nature becomes naturally not morally evil. God is perfect, and we are imperfect which God canít tolerate. Therefore we must be separated from God, the result of which is death for us, because life comes only from harmony with God. No universal "sin" or "guilt," just a disastrous consequence of being human. The problem with this interpretation of original sin is that it shifts responsibility for death on to God, who must have assigned physical death as a side effect of the human form. This in turn detracts from the need of salvation through Jesusí sacrificial punishment. If we were created imperfect and therefore to be apart from God, there would be no sense in punishing us for either our corrupt nature or the particular sins we commit as a direct result of this nature. Once original sin is naturalized the "punishment" must be as well, whether this be physical death for universal sin, hell for the sins we commit as so many expressions of our inner depravity, or indeed the gospelís centerpiece, Jesusí sacrificial crucifixion. All of these would lose their force as meritorious features of a system of justice, were original sin attributed to Godís Design or Predestination of our species (as in Calvinism, for example) rather than to human responsibility. Substitutive Sacrifice As a result of original sin we cannot pay for our crimes and survive the process, which is to say that we deserve hell for our corruption and disobedience. Fortunately, Jesus ëbore the sins of the whole world on the cross.í A sinless person was allowed to undergo the (spiritual) death penalty that we deserve for our sins. This despite the fact that a moral debt, unlike an abstract monetary one, canít be transferred. There are two conceivable parts of a monetary debt: the money owed, and the moral obligation the debtor might feel that would turn to guilt were the debtor incapable of paying the money and to suffer a conscientious reaction. In a sense, a debtor who finds herself incapable of returning the money owes both money and guilt, a kind of psychological recognition of fault. Were a debtor to find herself broke, and to fail to produce both the money and the consequent guilt the creditor would feel doubly cheated: first for the lack of the proper monetary payment, and second for the lack of the proper emotional response to the debtorís fault. A debtor might try to substitute for the money owed a recognition of fault with overflowing guilt. Imagine a wealthy and selfless replacement debtor (RD) who offers to pay what a destitute debtor owes. The RD could conceivably offer to supply both the money and the guilt. The creditor would have no trouble accepting the money, as long as the money were legally obtained. Money, after all, is abstract: the value attached to a hundred dollar bill has nothing to do with any qualitative superiority of the bill over a mere one dollar bill. The value of money is fixed in abstraction. But would the creditor accept the RDís display of guilt on behalf of the poor debtor? The moral value of guilt, unlike the value of money, is fixed by the context in which the guilt is expressed. Imagine a hero who after saving twenty children from a burning building responds to her own heroism with a heart-aching display of guilt. Since guilt would be a misplaced emotion under these circumstances, the guilt would have no moral value. On the contrary this "guilt" would be evidence of a disturbed mind. The moral value of guilt, like any emotion, depends on the circumstances under which itís displayed. The primary condition of the moral value of guilt is that the person who displays it must be the same person who owes it. To test this, imagine the RD producing a fine torrent of guilt, complete with tearful eyes and a shame-faced apology, all on behalf of the real debtor, the one who entered into a contract to return a sum of money, who shook hands with the creditor, taking on a personal as well as a legal responsibility. What value could the creditor place on this display of guilt, even if it appeared genuine and heartfelt, so long as it issued, as it were, from the wrong heart? The reason the RDís guilt would be morally worthless is that guilt is the recognition of oneís own wrongdoing. A thousand other people could be well aware of the debtorís fault, but only the debtorís own sorrowful self-acknowledgement would be properly called "guilt." The notion of stand-in guilt is incoherent. Such guilt could at best be a simulation, at worst a fraud, a bogus, superficial display. Likewise the value of punishment, again unlike monetary value, depends fundamentally on the identity of the punishmentís recipient. A replacement convict might offer to undergo the criminalís punishment, and might succeed in producing genuine suffering. But this suffering would have no moral value, because the fundamental point of punishment is to pay back to the criminal what she is owed. This is the element of retaliation at the heart of all punishment, even of the sort that may serve other functions, such as rehabilitation, vindication of the law or the appeasement of a watchful deity. Retaliation is central to many Christian theories of the atonement. Instead of repaying sinners the harm we have caused with our disobedience, a substitute is produced who offers to accept our ësin debt,í ëbear our guilt,í and fulfil our responsibility with his own life. Jesusí death was Godís payback for our sin, and thatís why the atonement took the form of a violent execution: the misery our sin causes is returned to the sin bearer. Even granting that Jesus was innocent, produced genuine suffering, and died, there is still the problem of the uselessness of his whole endeavour. What is the moral value of a replacement punishment, inflicted not on the offender but on someone who has nothing to do with the crime and who is in fact guiltless? Again, the notion of substitutive punishment is incoherent because punishment, even as defined by many Christian theories of the atonement, involves repayment, which means returning to the offender what is owed her. The "re" in "repayment" and "retaliation" refers to the aiming of punishment towards the offender, the one to whom punishment is owed. Hence the concept of substitutive retaliation is incoherent. To test this conclusion, imagine you are charged with the task of locating a convicted criminal so that punishment might be inflicted on her. The criminal, however, has hid herself in a large crowd of a thousand innocent people who all happen to be perfectly willing to accept the criminalís liability and undergo her punishment. To get a better view you fly over the crowd in a helicopter. Looking down at the crowd, knowing that all but one of the people below would gladly accept the payment, and that you could swoop down and snatch any of these willing people instead of the criminal, would you not still burn the helicopterís fuel searching for that one guilty person who actually deserves the punishment? Anyone who would continue the search despite the multitude of would-be lambs of God would seem to believe that punishment is worthwhile only if itís carried out against the right person, the criminal whose misdeed should be repaid in kind. Closely related to the idea that a sin debt can be transferred is the idea that God loves sinners but hates sin, and that therefore Jesus ëboreí our sin on the cross so that sinís power over the sinner could be broken. Why the emphasis on sin? Why didnít Jesus bear sinners on the cross? After all, punishment is normally of sinners and for sin. Sin is just the cause and justification of the punishment, but sinners bear the punishment. A sin, of course, is just an event, a type of choice of a morally responsible agent. In focussing on the presence of our sins on the cross, however, the apologist seems to imply that punishment is of sin and for sinners, making sin the target of Godís wrath rather than that which alone could deserve anger and punishment, the accountable cause of sin, the sinner. The apologist has no trouble claiming that sinners themselves will be condemned on Judgment Day and will descend to hell for their punishment. Here where Godís punishment is direct without any substitutive sacrifice, the sinner is emphasized in the judgment and is the target of Godís wrath. Yet in Godís indirect judgment of sinners through Jesusí sacrificial death, the focus is on sin, a deadly power binding sinners and enslaving them to demons, which is subjected to Godís wrath on the cross. Sin is condemned on the cross whereas the sinner is condemned in hell. The reason for this curious reversal seems clear. The very notion of substitutive sacrifice presupposes love for the sinner. Otherwise, there would be no need of a sacrifice and sinners would be punished directly, as will reportedly happen on Judgment Day. A sacrificial punishment is motivated out of love and mercy for sinners, and a desire not to have them punished directly. Wrath canít be forgotten entirely, though, because there would then be no punishment at all. The wrath is simply redirected away from the sinner as a result of Godís forgiveness. But where could the wrath go? Ordinarily sinners are the ones to blame, and deserve a harsh emotional reaction and punishment since they are culpable for sin. Yet sinners themselves are forgiven, which is why they are spared direct punishment. And yet a punishment is wanted. It would be absurd to suggest that Jesus bore sinners on the cross, since this would negate the substitution and sinners might well then have been punished directly without the need of Jesusí representation. Jesus bore our sin on the cross, which becomes the target of Godís wrath even though making a crime the focus of anger is absurd. Hating sin is as absurd as blaming a fig tree for not producing figs out of season (Mark 11:13-14), or indeed as absurd as loving a fig tree for producing figs in season. And yet if Godís wrath for sinners were softened by mercy but not expunged, and a punishment were still desired, a target for the wrath would have to be found. Since sin is so closely related to the sinner irrational anger might perhaps shift towards the sin, which then becomes the object of the punishment, that which must be broken like a cruel chain, whereas the sinnerís welfare becomes the justification for the punishment: sin is punished to spare the sinner. Whereas normally a punishment is inflicted on the sinner for the sake of condemning sin, substitutive sacrifice involves punishment of the sin for the sake of rescuing the sinner. The distortion of the commonsense definition of the meaning of a moral debt, to include the possibility of such a debtís transference, is accompanied by a reversal of the commonsense understanding of the relation between sin and sinner. Both distortions are required to allow for and explain the illogic of substitutive sacrifice. | ||
| Max |
Dear Allenette, In short, Philip Kuchar is setting up a straw man that he then proceeds to demolish. I'll answer his charges in detail, if I have time. There's quite a bit to answer. Be of good cheer, for Christ has overcome the world! Max of the Cross |
