Why Is Biblical Inerrancy Not An Essential Doctrine Of Historic Christianity?

            Historic Christianity is predicated on many essential doctrines. Essential doctrines are those doctrines that affect one’s salvation. Unbelief in any one or more of the essential doctrines will result in a loss of salvation.

            Christ’s bodily resurrection is one such essential doctrine. Christians believe that Christ’s resurrection was a bodily resurrection. Those who do not believe in this doctrine cannot be Christians.

            Similarly, should Christians believe that the Bible has no errors (biblical inerrancy)? If a Christian does not believe in unlimited inerrancy of the Bible, would he/she lose salvation?

            Some Christians believe that the Bible has no errors in its redemptive teaching. They believe in the Triunity of God, the Lordship of Christ, and all the other essential doctrines. They also believe that the Bible is infallible i.e. trustworthy. But they do not subscribe to the notion that the Bible has no errors in all that it affirms. Would such Christians lose their salvation because they do not believe in the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible?

            I do not think so.

            If a person believes that the Bible is not trustworthy in its entirety, then he/she would lose salvation. This situation is entirely different from that of a Christian who believes that the Bible is absolutely trustworthy, but is not absolutely inerrant.

            Why would a Christian, who does not believe in the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible, not lose salvation?

1. Belief in Essential Doctrines

            Christians who do not believe in the unlimited inerrancy of the Bible will not lose salvation if they believe the essential doctrines.

            The Nicene Creed contains the essential doctrines of Historic Christianity:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy universal and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

            Very minimally, belief in the doctrines stated in the Nicene Creed is sufficient for one’s salvation. 

2. Logical Conundrum in Unlimited Inerrancy

            In order to arrive at the conclusion that the Bible cannot err, unlimited inerrantists believe in the following reasoning:

            Premise 1: God cannot err.

            Premise 2: The Bible is God’s Word.

            Conclusion 3: Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

            This reasoning is not bulletproof.

            Premise 1 is correct. But Premise 2 could be questioned.

            The term God’s Word can offer two meanings. It could either be the spoken word of God or the written word of God.

            In the case of the Bible, although it is God’s word, it is not God’s spoken word. Rather it is the written word of God.

            If the Bible is a voice recording of God’s spoken word, then one plausibly cannot argue against the veracity of the conclusion presented above.

            But human agency/authorship was involved in the creation of the Bible. The Bible was not dictated to human authors. The human authors were inspired by God.

            The presence of fallible human authors and scribes, who were involved in the transmission of the Bible, presents a window of opportunity for errors to creep in. Hence errors cannot be ruled out in the Bible.

            It is not necessary to dig deep into how errors could creep into the Bible. It is sufficient to recollect the results of the textual criticism of the Bible.

            Textual critics have affirmed that the New Testament is 99.5% accurate. It is a well-known fact that the New Testament contains 0.5% errors. It is also a fact that these errors do not affect any significant doctrine taught in the Bible.¹

            So, at the very least, the Bible contains some errors. Hence, the conclusion that the Bible cannot err because it is the word of God, can be disputed.

3. Essential or Not?

            Finally, why is the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity?

            As already discussed, the person who believes in the limited inerrancy (i.e. that the Bible is in inerrant in only the redemptive matters) has the dual option to believe in the essential doctrines of Historic Christianity and reject unlimited inerrancy of the Bible. Rejecting unlimited inerrancy need not affect one’s belief in the essential doctrines of Historic Christianity.

            Christianity’s truthfulness does not depend on an inerrant Bible. As elaborated in my previous blog, the truthfulness of Christianity is independent of the Bible.² Therefore, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy cannot be considered as an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#ANCHOR19

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/08/does-bible-contain-errors-or-not-how.html

Websites last accessed on 24^th August 2019.

Original Sin: True or False?

What Is Original Sin?

          

            All of us are sinners. We all have a corrupted nature that motivates us to sin. Our sinfulness or sinful nature precludes our allegiance to the various religious worldviews. In other words, a Christian subscribing to Historic Christianity would believe that all of us, irrespective of our religious worldviews, are sinners because we have a sinful nature.

            If all of us are sinners, there may be a common factor that leads us all to sin. This common factor is often referred to as the Original Sin. Original sin is the dimension of sin with which we begin life or the effect the sin of Adam has upon us as a precondition of our lives.¹

Biblical Basis For Original Sin

        

            Romans chapter 5:12-19 is a key passage that offers us the answer:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

            So this is how we could understand original sin:²

            1. The Bible maintains that because of Adam’s sin all persons receive a corrupted nature and are guilty in God’s sight as well.

            2. We were involved, although not personally, and are responsible for the sin.

            3. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part to sin. Until we sin, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt.

            4. Thus there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. The Bible also says that children are not under God’s condemnation for this sin, at least not until attaining an age of responsibility in moral and spiritual matters. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will be with God forever in heaven.

Is Original Sin An Essential Doctrine Of Historic Christianity?

            Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, asserts that the original sin is not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity, “…the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed to all men is far from universally held among Christians and so is not essential to Christianity. The doctrine is also weakly attested biblically, so that personally I remain quite open-minded about it. In short, you don’t have to accept this doctrine in order to become a Christian…”³

            Apparently, not all Christian denominations subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, “…in all the Eastern Orthodox confessions, such as Greek, Russian, and Syrian Orthodox churches, original sin is taken to be merely a sort of corruption introduced into the human race by Adam for which we are not culpable. Many Protestants, of course, will also deny the imputation of Adam’s sin….biblically faithful believers may adopt any of a variety of views on the question of original sin.”⁴

            These words of Dr. James Tour – one of the world’s most influential scientists – alludes to the presence of essential and not-so-essential doctrines, “As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah), my confession in him as Savior and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead…”⁵

            Is the doctrine of original sin essential to the sustenance of Historic Christianity? I do not think so.

            I believe in the doctrine of the original sin. But I also understand that this doctrine is not as crucial (for salvation) as that of believing in the birth, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            So those who do not believe in the doctrine of original sin would still go to heaven because they believe and love the Lord Jesus Christ. These Christian brothers and sisters will go to heaven as long as they do not deny any essential doctrines e.g. the birth, death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. In fact, there are a few doctrines that one need not believe in order to be a Christian.

Why Is Original Sin Not Essential To Christianity?

            A simple answer to this question is because my belief in the doctrine of original sin does not affect my salvation. In other words, I would be saved, even if I do not believe in original sin because my salvation is predicated on my belief in the Triune God and the Lord Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross of Calvary.

            It’s acceptable that Christians do not believe in the doctrine of original sin. But it’s not acceptable if Christians do not believe in sin.

            Sin is an assault on God. We sin when we disobey God. Since God exists, sin also exists because human beings, having been created with freewill, have the ability to obey and disobey God. Therefore, Christians cannot claim that there is no sin.

            However, we could agree to disagree about the other aspects of sin, such as its origin etc. The first instance of sin was in the heavenly realms when Satan and his angelic cohorts rebelled against God. Then sin infiltrated into the human realm when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. This is a common understanding of the origin of sin.

            However, if some Christians have a different understanding of sin’s origin, then there is always enough room to accommodate/endure such theological differences because these differences do not undermine Historic Christianity. Furthermore, disagreements on fringe doctrines cannot promote or relegate anyone or any group as theologically superior or inferior, respectively.

            So as long as a Christian believes that we are capable of sinning and that the consequence of our sin is alienation from God (wages of sin is death), he/she is doing well in his/her Christian faith. This is the bare essential, within the context of sin and salvation, to be a Christian.

Conclusion: Is Original Sin True Or False?

            We can always agree to disagree on doctrines that are not central to Historic Christianity. Those who disagree about the doctrine of original sin or any other fringe doctrines cannot be relegated to any superior or inferior status whatsoever.

            I believe in the doctrine of original sin, but at the same time, I am aware that there are many sincere Christians who do not believe or disagree with the doctrine of original sin.

            That’s okay.

Endnotes:

¹Christian Theology, Second Ed., Millard J. Erickson, p648.

²Ibid, p655-656.

³https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/original-sin/

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Websites last accessed on 31^st July 2018. 

Christmas! For which Jesus Christ?

We are in midst of a Christmas evolution. This evolution is to disconnect Christ from Christmas. Some societies have replaced “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.”

The secular world is not the only threat to Christmas. There is a threat to the Christian faith from within Christianity. This threat will not impact those firmly entrenched, but it will adversely influence those growing in the Christian faith - our children - the future of Christianity. If we remain unaware of this threat, we will not act to prevent but will place our future into a greater turmoil.

These threats are largely variants or replicas of heresies that have been in existence. Postmodernism is not a recent threat, but as Ravi Zacharias said in one of his sermons, postmodernism is found as early as in Genesis 3:1, “…did God actually say…?” As a logical outflow of this thought, a postmodern Christian thinker claims it is unnecessary to believe in the Bible as the sole and final authority for all matters of man’s spiritual life.

As affirmed, the non-Christians are not the only entity that dispute Historic Christianity. Christian seminaries are actively buying into postmodern thought and selling it to their students – our pastors and elders. Many Christian seminaries are scurrying to discard God from Christianity - the Bible is relegated to the status of a mere book, the miracles are said to be mythical and nonsensical, and a Cosmic Christ archetype that indulges in ‘deep ecumenism’ to embrace all religions and the likes is actively taught.

The question that looms large over us is this: Can we, as serious Christians, reasonably and confidently respond to these truthless threats with the timeless truths found in the Scripture? Every Christian ought to be a theologian (cf. Ephesians 4:13). Every Christian ought to provide reasons for his hope in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). Every Christian ought to destroy arguments against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Christianity is not a part-time, once-a-week activity that takes place in the precincts of the church and that once-a-week cell group activity. Attending church and bible study fellowships are indeed beneficial. But Christianity cannot be limited to these two once-a-week activities. Similarly, Christians cannot think that our mainline activity is only to provide for ourselves and our families. It is a sin to neglect our family. But it’s a greater sin to discard God or relegate HIM to mediocrity or obscurity.

A reasonable goal for a Christian is to spend two hours a day praying, reading, and studying the Bible and commentaries that interpret the Bible. Christians practicing tithing will affirm that spending two hours a day at the feet of the Lord falls short of the one-tenth mark!

An average believer of other active proselytizing (evangelizing) faiths such as Islam, Church of Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses know our Bible more than an average Christian. How proficient are we in clarifying the apparent contradictions in the Bible that our non-christian friend throws at us? We may not readily be able to clarify every doubt our unbelieving friend seeks from us. But in this internet era, we should know the online resources that offer clarity to these apparent contradictions (e.g. www.carm.org or www.gotquestions.org). Or we have to educate ourselves through our investments in resources (books, podcasts, smartphone apps etc.) that offer clarity. Our investments indicate our heart’s disposition. 

Are we theologians? Can we confidently provide a reason for our hope in Christ? Can we reasonably dialogue with those who preach against the tenets of Historic Christianity (the tenets are in my blog: http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/10/do-all-people-go-to-heaven-reasoning.html)? If we aren’t, then we better be.

Importantly, every Christian ought to:

(1) Identify the errors in the opposing worldview.

(2) Provide clarity to every honest question asked, especially by our young people.

As a result of more and more seminaries teaching liberal theology, ¹ heresies under the guise of rationality and progressivity attack and will inundate us. Those who believe and broadcast the tenets of Historic Christianity are branded as fundamentalists, arrogant, exclusivists etc. These developments should not deter us.

Some heresies are direct (e.g. Bible is not to be believed as a sole authority for man’s life and spirituality). This is similar to the devil casting his evil dogmas directly into our face. Other heresies are subtle and cunning. This is the devil disguising as the angel of the light (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). These heresies are meant to confuse people. Often the young and naïve (immature) minds are the victims of these deceiving heresies. ‘Young and naïve’ need not be limited to young people, but even the old can be ‘young and naïve’ in their minds. 

Some insist that a true Christian ought to reject all doctrines, for they claim all doctrines to be man-made. This is a very deceptive thought, which is only meant to confuse and corrode a young and naïve believer. Let me elaborate.

Which Christ is celebrated during Christmas? Is it the Christ of the Bible? Wait! Are there other Jesus Christs? Yes, consider the Christ of Islam. While the Islamic tradition affirms the virgin birth and the second coming of Christ, it denies Christ’s divinity (Surah 5: 17, 75), crucifixion (Surah 4:157-158), and ascribes Christ to be inferior to Prophet Muhammad. Very minimally, Muslims believe that Christ was not crucified but Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

So we observe two different versions of Christ – Islamic and Christian. The Christ of the Historic Christianity was crucified and resurrected but the Christ of Islam was not crucified. The truth is Christ was either crucified or not crucified. A claim that Christ was both crucified and not crucified cannot be true. Crucifixion, therefore, is an essential doctrine that separates the Christ of Islam from Christ of Christianity.

Doctrine is a belief that is taught. Crucifixion is a doctrine associated with Christ. There are several essential and fringe (peripheral) doctrines. Essential doctrines are essential to salvation (salvific), hence cannot be compromised (Christ’s deity, crucifixion, bodily resurrection etc.). Fringe doctrines (baptism, speaking in tongues, Premillennialism, Postmillennialism etc.) are not salvific, which we can agree to disagree on.  

For instance, denial of Christ’s virgin birth is to deny Christ’s sinlessness and HIS divinity, and will also invoke a cascade of other negations. Similarly denying Christ’s crucifixion would deny HIS resurrection, HIS victory over death etc. Therefore, the Christ who saves man from his sins is the Christ who is the second person of the blessed trinity, born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified and bodily resurrected.

It is abundantly clear that a Christian has to believe in the doctrines of virgin birth, Christ’s divinity, HIS crucifixion and resurrection. Negating one of these is to present another Christ. The Christ of the Bible is not the Christ who was not crucified (proposed by Islam) nor is Christ the spirit brother of Lucifer (proposed by Mormons). In other words, doctrines are essential to faith.

Rejection of a doctrine could lead to a belief in a contradicting doctrine or simply a belief in nothing. Both are equally dangerous, for both reject or suppress truth. 

Doctrines as a concept cannot be rejected as well. A deceptive statement is that “All doctrines are man-made and hence should be rejected,” but this:

(1) …is a doctrine made by man.

(2) …is the doctrine of a person who believes that there should not be a doctrine.

Therefore, the person who says that all man-made doctrines are to be rejected is trying to reject all doctrines by affirming the concept of a doctrine - a self-defeating proposition.

There are true and false doctrines found in all walks of life. According to Historic Christianity, the doctrine of virgin birth of Christ is the truth; all other contradicting doctrines are false. A Muslim believes in the doctrine of monotheism, and according to Islam all contradicting doctrines are false. A postmodern thinker believes in the doctrine that there is no objective truth. In fact he projects his doctrine as the objective truth (!!), and he believes that all contradicting doctrines are false. A liberal Christian believes in the doctrine that the Bible is not the final authority for man, so he believes that all contradicting doctrines are false.

Doctrines that promote truth are beneficial to man. The early church developed the Nicene Creed to fight the Arian heresy that relegated Christ to be a created being.

We are celebrating the birth of Christ of the Bible, who is God incarnate, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was crucified and bodily resurrected, who is now at the Father’s right hand interceding for you and me, and will come again to judge the world. Until HE comes again, HE will generously offer all spiritual blessings that include wisdom and courage to all who seek HIM to defend the truth and fight the evil.

May the light of Christ shine into all hearts so to make them captive to HIM and HIM alone. Amen.   

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.gotquestions.org/liberal-Christian-theology.html

Dangers and Consequences of Christian Universalism (Part 1)

Some Christians vociferously state that all people (irrespective of spirituality and/or morality) are heaven-bound. A few of the many reasons as propositions for their beliefs are:

(1) Christ’s atoning death is for the salvation of all mankind.

(2) The historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible is incorrect (E.g. ‘Hell’ lacks context). There is no literal (physical) hell.

 (3) One cannot comprehend truth (resorting to uncertainty). God can do anything.

(4) God will annihilate the unbelievers after their death (Annihilationism).

Christian Universalists need not believe in all the reasons presented above. They could believe in one or a few.

Necessity of Christ but Unnecessity of Belief in Christ:

Some Christians state that Christ and HIS finished work on the cross is necessary but belief in Christ is NOT necessary for salvation. This could be considered a scandal on God’s nature for at least a couple of reasons:

(A) Why should God sacrifice HIMSELF on the cross when people will be saved irrespective of their belief in God (Jesus Christ)? God could have merely uttered one salvific word to achieve universal salvation. Thus all people would be saved without the miraculous and gory drama of Christ’s saga.

(B) Is God so callous that HE sent HIS Son to ruthlessly die on the cross for something that’s virtually insignificant?

One could present more such thoughts. Positing Universalism should not scandalize God’s nature. God’s attributes cannot oppose each other - a perfect being cannot be good and evil at the same time.

If Christ is necessary for salvation, then belief in Christ is absolutely necessary. The statement, “Christ is necessary but belief in Christ is unnecessary,” is not a plausible statement. Please observe the following sequence of thoughts as an analogy:

(1)   Food is necessary for existence.

(2) Although food is necessary, belief in food is also necessary for a person to eat the food.

(3) If there is food and if the person believes in the food, he will eat.

(4) If there is food, but the person refuses to believe in it, he will not eat.

(5) Therefore, a person ought to have the food, and also believe in it to eat.

Factors that motivate unbelief in food could be the lack of: desire, taste, hygiene, contamination (poison) etc. If I do not believe in the food presented to me, I will not eat it, for it may not be tasty or it could be poisoned.

Although Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice is factual, one should place his faith in Christ so to have Christ live in him (cf. Galatians 2: 20; Colossians 1: 23, 27). If Christ is necessary, then belief in Christ is also necessary to appropriate Christ’s finished work of salvation into our lives.  

Necessity of faith in Christ can be presented through the coalescence of God’s attributes. Because God is holy, HE cannot tolerate sin, but punishes it with hell. This agrees with HIS attribute of holiness and justice. But God is also loving, merciful and compassionate, so HE gave HIS Son, our Lord Jesus, to die for mankind’s sins. Therefore, man should believe in Christ for Christ to live in him. A man, who does not believe in Christ, rejects Christ and HIS atoning sacrifice. An unbelieving man implies that Christ’s atoning sacrifice isn’t necessary for his salvation (cf. Luke 24: 26).

So we can reasonably conclude that belief in Christ is a virtual necessity for salvation, for unless Christ lives in a man through man’s belief in HIM, he cannot be saved.

Interpretive Conundrums:

When Christian Universalists affirm the relevance of the Bible, yet reject the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible, they create numerous conundrums in the Bible. Many biblical doctrines will be questioned for their validity and significance, of which some are:

Sin: Certain flavors of Christian Universalism dilute the doctrine of sin to a mere flaw. They do not categorize sin as an assault on God. The wages of sin being death is also appropriately diluted. Sins are characterized as mere character flaws i.e. hatred, filthy language, sickness, lust, pride. Flawed hermeneutics of the Bible contribute to this problem. If this were to be true, man does not have any overarching reason to detest sin. This then would promote rampant immorality.

Faith in Christ: How would the various verses proclaiming faith in Christ, as a means to salvation, interpreted by the Christian Universalist (E.g. John 3: 16 et al.)?

Some Christian Universalists interpret that ‘faith’ will be imputed (ascribed). But imputation of faith negates man’s freewill. If God imputes faith, can it also be argued that God imputes sin into man? In other words, when man sins, does he sin because God imputes sin into him? A God who imputes sin into man, is not a good God, and so ceases to be God. If there is no God, salvation is meaningless and so is universal salvation.

If belief in Christ is imputed upon man, then Christ’s death and resurrection was unnecessary. God could have simply imputed belief in people without the incarnate Christ in the picture.

Fruit of Spirit: If God wills all be saved, there is no need for the believer to produce fruit of the Spirit. So a believer who does not produce the fruit of the Spirit will be saved. This implies that a believer need not remain in Christ (John 15). Consequently, a believer can remain outside of Christ (disbelieve in Christ or remain disobedient to Christ) and still be saved. So not only is the fruit of the Spirit rendered meaningless, but also faith and abiding in Christ.

God’s Sovereignty: Christian Universalists proclaim that God is sovereign, so HE will save all.

This implies that God can do anything. If God can do anything, would the Christian Universalist subscribe to the notion that God can create another God or God can commit adultery or God can lie? If not, how would he negate these abnormal possibilities of God’s sovereignty that contradict HIS attributes?

Repentance: Man need not repent, but God will gift repentance to man. This is preached by some Christian Universalists. Imputation of repentance eliminates freewill of man. If man is not free, he is God’s puppet. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret the verses that teach freewill of the believer (Joshua 24: 15; Proverbs 16: 9; John 7: 17; Revelation 3: 20 et al.)? Additionally there are verses that term the believer as a child of God, friend of God, and disciple of God. These verses imply man to be anything but a puppet of God, so how would the Christian Universalist interpret these verses?

Negation of Hell: Some posit the reality of heaven and negate the reality of hell. They negate the reality of hell citing a lack of context. A cursory glance at a couple of passages describing everlasting punishment (hell), reveals judgment as context (Matthew 25: 46, context is in verses 31-33, and 2 Thessalonians 1: 9, context is in verse 5). Since everlasting punishment is stated within a context, hell is a reality.

Holiness: Christian Universalists also claim overtly or covertly that a believer need not be holy, for he will be saved even if he is not holy. If a believer need not be holy, he can be immoral, so is the Bible advocating immorality in a believer? Negating holiness in a believer also negates the holiness of God, within the context of Christlikeness. Is Christian Universalism positing a God who is not holy? A God who is not holy is not God.

Loving and Worshiping God: A believer need not worship or love God for he will be saved even if he remains obstinate in not loving and worshipping God. The Christian Universalist then needs to explain the many verses in the Bible that demand love and worship of the living God.

Obedience to God: God’s commands need not be obeyed, since the believer would be saved nevertheless. How then would the Christian Universalist interpret all the verses that mandate obedience to God’s commands?

Given the factors presented above, affirmation of the Bible is virtually immaterial when essential doctrines of the Bible are diluted and the attributes of God negated.

Translation of the Bible: Some Christian Universalists assert the corruption of the biblical translation. If the Christian Universalist claims that the translation of the Bible is corrupt, then he should discard the entire Bible. If some parts of the Bible are corrupt, wouldn’t it entail that the entire Bible may be corrupt? If the transmission of Bible is deficient in certain parts, doesn’t this also imply that God is intentionally misleading HIS people by not being sovereign over the transmission of HIS Word? 

I will stop at this juncture to maintain a self imposed 1500 (approx) word limitation of a single blog post. I will conclude my thoughts on Universalism in my next blog, where I will touch upon other relevant themes. Amen. 

The god Who Admits All People to Heaven is…

The tenets of Historic Christianity are stated, the nature of truth examined, and adequate reasons to reason out our faith in Christ have been offered in my previous blog. Let us now examine the god who welcomes anyone and everyone into heaven. For the purpose of differentiating the god of the Universalists from the living Triune God, I have termed the god of the Universalists as ‘unigod.’ I have posited few threads of argument from within morality (distinction between right and wrong or good and evil) to question the existence of unigod. But let me begin with worship, which is man’s response to God’s worthiness.

God should be worshipped for HE alone is worthy of our worship (adoration, thanksgiving, prayers etc.). God deserves this response from all people.

From the perspective of Historic Christianity, since God so loved the world, HE gave HIS only Son, so that those who believe in the Son of God will receive eternal life (John 3: 16). Salvation of mankind (those who believe in Christ) is an outcome of God’s love for man. Since salvation is God first act (through HIS love to redeem man from his sin), the believer loves God, and worships HIM always. The living God reveals HIS worth to HIS people by HIS blessed presence, and offers hope that HE, through HIS second coming, will fulfill all HIS promises (e.g. eliminate evil forever). Thus man worships this Almighty, loving, gracious and a compassionate God.

In contrast how does unigod reveal his worthiness to his people? All that he supposedly does is to save all men (universal salvation). If this is his only or primary revelatory act of worthiness, then this god (unigod) has placed himself in a quicksand situation. If one can negate the unworthiness of unigod by confuting universal salvation or expose unigod’s attributes to be unworthy of God, then by entailment, unigod need not be existent and hence worshipped.

The following arguments present the unworthiness of unigod so to eliminate him from the figment of any imagination.

Argument from Attributes of God:

Man, to love and worship God, should be aware of HIS attributes or nature. Minimally, love and justice can be posited as great communicable attributes. Attributes that are perfect in God but also found in humans to a degree are ‘Communicable Attributes.’

A god who loves all, even those who hate and abuse him, seems to be a loving God. But a careful examination of this love reveals cruelty. Please observe this situation, “I don’t want to be with god, but he forces me to be with him, and I have to spend the entire eternity with him” – this certainly is a depressingly bitter hope. Holding people against their will is slavery; none accept, agree, or admire slavery. This is dictatorship in its glory. But this is precisely what unigod does to people. Love in unigod is actually cruelty.

Minimally, justice is a disposition to do that which is morally right. Presence of ‘right’ requires a ‘wrong;’ this is analogous to rust requiring a metal. Since evil is rampant in the world, a common man expects the authorities to punish evil. But unigod, as an apparent ultimate authority, does not punish evil, for he allows even a horrendously evil person to enter into heaven.

At our workplace, we are extremely saddened and frustrated when we are victims of injustice. An authority who fails to provide justice is unjust or evil. By allowing a horrendously evil person to inherit the greatest good (heaven), the unigod reveals his unjust and evil attributes.

Since God cannot be evil and unjust, we reasonably claim that there is no unigod, and that universalism is nothing but a grand illusion.

Argument from Abuse:

If you are unaware of Dawkins’ intense abuse (an act of evil) of the living God, please read the endnote.¹ Proponents of Historic Christianity believe that Prof. Richard Dawkins, the bulldog of Atheism, will not go to heaven, if he doesn’t repent of his sins and accept Christ the Lord as his Savior. The God of Historic Christianity is a holy God and in HIM is no sin, so sin cannot coexist with God.

Please brace yourself for an unmitigated indecent assault on unigod. The unigod is an evil, corrupt, depraved, putrid, brainless blockhead; he is a nonsensical dummy, foolish idiot, insanely ignoramus dolt, a nincompoop, and a senseless monkey. Anyone can mock and thoroughly disrespect unigod.² Despite these abuses on unigod, Universalists will claim that unigod will still save me.

A god who accepts and agrees with abuse of any intensity is a god without perfection and holiness. Even man’s intrinsic dignity and self-worth prevents him from agreeing and accepting to abuses of any form or size. So a god who is awfully comfortable with abuses to the extent of supporting and welcoming evil is an evil god that resides only in the fantasies of certain minds.

Argument from Consistent Discipleship:

The Universalists claim that all people will be saved despite their good or horrendous nature. By the same token, would the Universalists accept abuse? They technically should accept, for if their god allows this upon himself, the Universalists, as the disciples of unigod, should unconditionally allow this upon themselves. Failure of the Universalists to accept horrendous abuses upon themselves or their families and friends will intuitively expose their opposition to their own god.

Historic Christianity asserts Christlikeness in the believers of Christ (Romans 8: 29 et al.). This is not a mere fact from the realm of the spiritual, but from the realm of the physical as well. Christians are called to bear fruit and much fruit (John 15).

The contentment and joy of a parent is directly proportional to the physical and behavioral resemblance of their child. For example, if a child resembles the goodness of the parent, the parent will be greatly joyful and contented.

But in the case of Universalism, there is no resemblance of unigod in the lives of its disciples. The children of the alleged unigod exist in reality, and the child is to resemble the parent, but the resemblance of the children of the unigod is much unlike the unigod. So we can reasonably posit that since unigod exists only in the imagination of the Universalists, they are unable to imitate their god.

Argument from Existence of God:

The ironclad moral argument for the existence of God states:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the analytic philosopher of religion, defines objective moral values as, “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.”

We can extend the moral argument for God to:

4. The unigod saves all people, even the horrendously evil.

5. So there are no objective moral values in unigod.

6. Because objective moral values and duties exist, unigod does not exist.

In conclusion, Universalism is purely mystical and the alleged god who admits all people into heaven is imaginary, and resides only in the minds of the universalists. I simply cannot comprehend a god who saves all people. Please enlighten me if you disagree with me.

I will continue on this subject but from the perspective of Christian Universalism (Christians subscribing to Universalism) in my next blog. Amen.

Endnote & References:

¹ Dawkins’ view of God in his book ‘God Delusion:’ “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

² This indecent attack on unigod is perfectly reasonable, since unigod is existent only in the dreams and imagination of universalists.

Do All People Go to Heaven? (Reasoning the Truth of Historic Christianity)

In February 2013, I composed my preliminary thoughts on ‘Universalism’ under the title “Do All People Go to Heaven?” The title remains the same, since I intend to dwell further on Universalism. For the sake of continuity, please observe the synopsis of my previous blog:

1. Universalism is a belief that all people will go to heaven (inherit God’s salvation), irrespective of who, what, why and how they are.

2. All religions are fundamentally different; they contradict each other (E.g. Atheism negates God, and the God of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are fundamentally different). If religions are poles apart, how can all people go to heaven?

3. Hell is not a literal presence for a Universalist. The Universalist will allegorize passages from the Bible that describes hell.

4. Universalism does not explain evil & justice on earth. Universalism advocates an immoral world. Man can do what he desires (even horrendous evil) and still be saved.

5. The god of the Universalist is evil (not offended by sins and cannot stop evil) and unjust (cannot provide justice to people). So we infer that the god Universalist’s posit is imperfect; in the likeness of an imperfect man. This god need not be worshipped or glorified.

In order to expose the errors innate in Universalism, we ought to establish the foundations of Historic Christianity to reveal its intricate composition and to state the basic contradiction between Universalism and the Historic Christianity. Then we need to understand the nature of truth, and subsequently be convinced to reason out our belief.

Historic Christianity

It is important to know the details of Historic Christianity in order to identify the errors of contradictory truth claims. Please observe the intricate interdependence of the essentials of Historic Christianity:

1. Truth: There is absolute and objective truth.

2. The reliability of the Bible: The Bible is inspired (by God), inerrant (no errors), and infallible (trustworthy). It is the only and the final authority for faith and life. The Bible is absolutely truthful.¹

3. Existence of God: The Bible reveals a holy God.²

4. God’s Trinity: There is one God, in the persons of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

5. Miracles of God: God is supernatural and active, so HE will act. HIS supernatural acts are miracles.³

6. Incarnation: The Savior of the world, the Lord Jesus was fully God and fully man.⁴

7. Total Depravity of Mankind: The Bible reveals the total depravity (sinfulness) of mankind.

8. Condemnation of God upon Sinful Man: The holiness of God entails God’s condemnation (wrath) upon sinners.

9. Virgin Birth: Christ was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Thus, Christ is 100% God, and does not inherit mankind’s sin.

10. Sinlessness of Christ: Christ lived a sinless life on earth. Only a sinless God can save mankind of all their sins – past, present and future.

11. Grace: The gracious God saves mankind from their sins. Salvation is a free gift, since salvation is not gained by man’s work.  

12. Faith in Christ: Man should necessarily believe in Christ for the appropriation of Christ’s one-time, perfect sacrifice for his salvation.

13. Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ: Christ died and rose again. Resurrection was mandatory for overcoming evil and death.

14. Christ’s Bodily Ascension: Christ’s resurrection was a bodily resurrection and HE bodily ascended to heaven. Our resurrection will also be a bodily resurrection (glorious body).

15. Christ’s Intercession: Christ lives to intercede for all those who believe in HIM.

16. Second coming of Christ: Christ will come again in glory to judge mankind, to eliminate evil forever, and to usher a life of eternal coexistence with God in the new heaven and earth.  

These are the essentials of Historic Christianity. Unbelief /denial of any one essential will nullify the others through a chain reaction (E.g. If one denies absolute truth, then Bible is not absolutely true, so miracles are denied and along with it Christ’s virgin birth, resurrection, and salvation will also be denied.)  Denial of any one of the essentials of Historic Christianity is to deny Historic Christianity. Thus it is a reasonable implication that those who deny one (or more) essential doctrine(s) of Historic Christianity are cults or liberals or postmodern Christians.

We observe that salvation according to Historic Christianity is by grace through faith. Only those who believe in Christ will be saved (Christian Particularism). Those who do not believe in Christ will not be saved. Since Universalism declares salvation of all mankind, it totally contradicts Historic Christianity. The question that demands verdict is whether Universalism and Historic Christianity, proclaiming contradictory truth claims, are true within the same context of salvation.  

Exclusivity of Truth:

Can contradictory statements within the same context be true? This leads us to examine the nature of truth. Please think through with me:

1. Truth is pure. Truth should not contain errors / lies.

2. Opposite of truth is an error / lie.

3. Opposite of an error / lie need not be truth, but it could be another error / lie.

4. An error / lie could contain strands of truth, but strands of truth will not transform the lie to truth.

If you agree to the flow of thoughts mentioned above, then the entailments are:

1. Truth excludes errors / lies.

2. Truth is absolute, singular and exclusive (also consistent). Hence, the opposite of truth is essentially a lie, it cannot be another truth.

3. Simply speaking, 1+1=2, there cannot be another answer to this equation.

If we have two truth claims, one should ascertain if there are contradictions between the two truth claims. Contradictory truth claims will not be true at the same time and in the same context.⁵

If two people are looking at the sky from the same room and at the same time, and if one says that the sun is brightly shining and the other says that there is no sun in the sky, only one of them can be right. In this context, the truth is that the sun is either visible or invisible; the sun cannot be both visible and invisible at the same time.

Moreover, if someone says, ‘there is no truth,’ then his statement is also not true - it’s nonsensical. Someone else could say that ‘truth’ is only a matter of opinion, and does not possess an absolute meaning. In this case, that very statement is also a matter of opinion and does not possess an absolute meaning, so it’s nonsensical as well.

So we can confidently affirm that truth is absolute, singular, exclusive, and objective.

The nature of truth teaches us that truth excludes contradictions. Since Historic Christianity and Universalism contradict each other, both these contradicting worldviews cannot be true at the same time and within the same context (e.g. Salvation). It’s either Historic Christianity or Universalism, not both.

If we believe that Historic Christianity is true, we ought to give reasons for our faith and hope. But why?

Reasons to Offer Reasons For Our Faith:

Just as Apostle Paul reasoned out with the Jews and the Gentiles in Athens and Corinth (Acts 17: 22 – 18: 4), we are to reason out with those of contradictory views. A few reasons to reason out our faith are:

Perspective of Discipleship: We are mandated to disciple others (Matthew 28: 19). Discipling includes answering / clarifying honest questions. Those who disciple others ought to practice their religion seriously. Serious practitioners of religion should have a basic knowledge of other worldviews. Lack of interest in contrasting worldviews, such as Universalism, is valid if discipleship is an insignificant part of our life. But if we are a disciple of the Lord Jesus and practice our religion seriously (seriously committed to it), we should explain the reason for our serious practice and commitment. Reasoning is innate in discipleship.

Perspective of Biblical Mandate: If we cannot explain the reason for our hope, then we are blind in our faith and practice. If ‘unexamined life is not worth living,’⁶ then ‘unexamined faith is not worth believing.’⁷ The unexamined faith cannot distinguish good from evil, and cannot provide reason for the hope we have in the Triune God and the Bible. Every Christian is mandated to demolish arguments and lofty opinions against God, and provide the reason for his belief in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 10: 4-6; Hebrews 5: 14; 1 Peter 3: 15). This is the biblical mandate. Failure to provide a reason implies shallow faith and an anticipation to disbelieve Christ when confused and confronted with situations or arguments apparently more powerful than our faith. Moreover, failure to offer reason for our hope in Christ is a disobedience to God and HIS commands.

Perspective of Evangelization: We exist to help our family and neighbors. When we know the truth, we should speak of the truth to our neighbor. We live in the digital era; there are many who evangelize their worldview through digital and other mediums. Transmission of our faith mandates us to offer reasons / evidences for our faith. Failure to offer evidences reduces our belief to a lie. Those who believe in lies are liars. If we are not liars, we ought to substantiate the truth of our belief.

These are adequate reasons to reason out our faith. Let us reason together, says the Lord (Isaiah 1: 18, NASB). Thus we ought to reason the truth of Historic Christianity.

Having established the foundations, I will, in my next blog, provide adequate reasons for Historic Christianity from other perspectives, so to debunk Universalism. Amen.

References:

¹ Every apparent contradiction in the Bible can be reasonably explained. The Bible is the only ancient historic document that possesses a plethora of objective reasonings and evidences for its reliability.

² The existence of God can be independently explained by philosophy and science.

³ Philosopher David Hume’s argument against miracles can be reasonably debunked.

⁴ Thus, Christ’s sacrifice was a perfect sacrifice – both from the divine and human standpoint. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, the Son of God, and the second person of the blessed Trinity. HE saves mankind from sins.

⁵ Law of Non-Contradiction

⁶ Socrates

⁷ Edwin Navarro