Pope Francis Makes Headlines Again! Is Every Religion A Way To Arrive At God?

 

Vatican News reported, “During an interreligious meeting at Singapore's Catholic Junior College, Pope Francis urged young people to work toward unity, become responsible citizens, and pass down what they have learned to future generations.” He continued, “God is God for all, and if God is God for all, then we are all sons and daughters of God.” Pope Francis also said, “All religions are paths to reach God. They are, to make a comparison, like different languages or dialects to get there. But God is God for everyone.”¹

Is every religion a way to arrive at God? Are all religions the same? Do all religions lead to heaven?

No.

In an earlier blog of mine, I explained why all religions cannot lead to God & heaven:²

“Three reasons could be posited to explain why all religions cannot lead us to God and heaven:

            1. Every major religion contradicts the other.

            2. There can be only one God.

            3. There can be only one means of salvation.

Every Major Religion Contradicts The Other

Every major religion claims exclusivity. I provided a glimpse of the exclusivity claims of the major world religions in an earlier article of mine, entitled Exclusivity Claims of Major World Religions. While discussing the exclusivity claims of Hinduism, I wrote, “Hinduism excludes other religions based on its core doctrines. Consider the doctrine of God in Hinduism. Brahman, the absolute God of Hinduism, is a mysterious being.

Although Brahman is one God, he manifests in innumerable forms, “Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God’s creation. God is one, but also many. He manifests Himself in innumerable forms and shapes.” But the God of Christianity does not manifest Himself in innumerable forms. Hence, Hinduism should exclude Christianity or Islam on the basis of the Godhead. The same holds true for doctrines such as karma and reincarnation, which absolutely contradict Christianity and other religions.”

Even Islam, Buddhism and Judaism claim exclusivity. So if every religion contradicts the other, then all religions are not teaching the truth. Only one religion would teach the truth, whereas the others do not.

Historic Christianity also claims exclusivity. Conservative Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. This belief renders every non-Christian as an eternal inhabitant of hell. But the conclusion that Jesus is the only way to heaven is predicated on the premise that Christianity is the only religion that makes valid truth claims.

Since every religion contradicts the other, all religions cannot lead man to God and heaven.

One God

God is the ‘maximally great being’ or the ‘greatest conceivable being’ or the ‘greatest being possible.’ The maximally great being should be omnipotent (infinitely powerful), omniscient (possessing unlimited knowledge), and morally perfect, to say the least. 

Such a maximally great being ought to be singular. In other words, there cannot be two maximally great beings. They cannot be maximally great if they are equal. Maximal greatness signifies that one of the two would essentially be greater than the other.

Therefore, there can only be one God.

One Salvation

Salvation is the deliverance from the power and penalty of sin. Sin is an assault on God. In other words, sin is the transgression or violation of God’s commands.

If God is one, then the sin of mankind is essentially against that God (because there are no other Gods). Hence, there can be only one means of salvation, for it is that one infinite God who offers the means of salvation to erring finite humans.

But what if God offers two or more means of salvation to the erring humans? Is this possible? It is possible as long as the means of salvation do not contradict each other.

There are two major means of salvation offered by the major world religions. While Historic Christianity offers salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ, the other major world religions teach salvation through good works.

Salvation by grace through faith is a non-negotiable tenet of Historic Christianity. Historic Christianity teaches that mankind cannot perform good works (i.e. be perfectly obedient to God) to go to heaven because man is a perpetual sinner. Hence, God graciously sent HIS Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to die on behalf of all (the sins) of mankind, thereby paying the penalty for sin, which is death. Christ then overcame death through HIS resurrection and ascension. Thereby, those who believe in Christ are saved by virtue of Christ’s one-time perfect sacrifice and their belief in HIM.

Contrarily, the other major world religions teach that mankind would have to perform good works i.e. being obedient to God, to go to heaven. For instance, Islam teaches that worship of God and obedience to his commands are the prerequisites for salvation.

Hence, salvation by grace through faith contradicts salvation through good works. Since the means of salvation in other religions and Christianity contradict each other, there could only be one way to be saved.

Conclusion

There is only one way to God. All religions cannot lead us to God. Those believing that all religions lead to God are treading dangerously. They are risking their eternity.

If you are in that boat, think this through and make sense of your life. If you pray to God to lead you to the right path, HE will. May the truth set you free.

 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-09/pope-calls-singapore-youth-unity-during-interreligous-dialogue1.html

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/01/three-reasons-why-all-religions-do-not.html

Websites last accessed on 15^th September, 2024.

Pope Francis Approves Homosexual Marriages? (Can A Catholic Disagree With Pope Francis?)

             Recently, Pope Francis called for a civil union law that legally protects same-sex marriages. Pope Francis claimed that gay couples have an inherent right to this protection because they are God’s children, ““Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it...””¹

            In this context, two antecedent events are remarkable.

            First, in the past, Pope Francis did not approve of a civil union law for gay couples. He characterized the civil union law for gay couples, if implemented, as an anthropological regression, “In the 2013 book “On Heaven and Earth,” Pope Francis did not reject the possibility of civil unions outright, but did say that laws “assimilating” homosexual relationships to marriage are “an anthropological regression,” and he expressed concern that if same-sex couples “are given adoption rights, there could be affected children. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.”²

            Second, the official Catholic teaching opposes the practice of homosexuality and the implementation of a civil law for gay couples, “In 2003, under the leadership of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and at the direction of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith taught that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions…” “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity…” “Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase,” the document said.”³ [Emphasis Mine].

            This then is the problem.

            Advocating for a civil union law to protect gay marriages is synonymous with endorsing the homosexual practice. Furthermore, this may sway young Catholics towards accepting and practicing homosexuality.

            The theological stumbling block is this: God, through the Bible, deemed homosexuality as a sin. But Pope Francis seems to have declassified homosexuality as an acceptable practice before God.

            Only God has the authority to classify a practice as a sin. So if a practice ought to be declassified from sin to an acceptable practice, then it is God who should exercise HIS authority to execute the declassification. 

            Essentially, Pope Francis has played God again.

            The temptation to play God could be a consequence of ‘Papal Infallibility.’

            Anything that the Pope says or does would have consequences to the Catholic community. In this context, would the radical shift in Pope Francis’ perception of gay marriages influence the Catholic Church to change its stance on gay marriages? Alternatively, should the Pope’s opinion change or detrimentally influence the doctrinal stand of a catholic?

            In order to arrive at an answer to these questions, we need to understand the concept of ‘Papal Infallibility.’ In other words, did the pope assume infallibility while making such comments?

            To understand Papal Infallibility, we need to understand a few technical terms:

            1. The Magisterium is the authority to teach, in the name of Christ, the truths of Christian faith and life…⁴

            2. The Extraordinary Magisterium “is exercised when a doctrine pertaining to Faith and morals is proclaimed as definitive and infallible:

                      1. by the pope alone or

                      2. by the pope and an Ecumenical Council with him.

            The pope makes infallible pronouncements when he speaks “ex cáthedra” (Latin:    from the throne), i.e. with the full weight of his office.”⁵

            3. The Ordinary Magisterium “is exercised when the pope or the bishops in communion with him propose, without pronouncing in a definitive manner, a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of Faith and morals.” ⁶

            Ed Feser, one of the best contemporary writers in Philosophy, explains Papal Infallibility well. This, interestingly, is in response to a question if the pope, in theory, could reverse the Church’s teaching about homosexuality.

            Feser puts forth the following points in his blog entitled “Papal fallibility (Updated)” [Emphasis Mine]:⁷

A. “Some people think that Catholic teaching is that a pope is infallible not only when making ex cathedra declarations, but in everything he does and says.  That is also simply not the case.  Catholic doctrine allows that popes can make grave mistakes, even mistakes that touch on doctrinal matters in certain ways.”

B. “Some think that a Catholic is obliged to accept the teaching of a pope only when that teaching is put forward by him as infallible.  That too is not the case… Others think that a Catholic is obliged to agree more or less with every view or decision of a pope regarding matters of theology, philosophy, politics, etc. even when it is not put forward as infallible.  And that too is not the case.” 

C. There are “several conditions for the exercise of this extraordinary Magisterium.  First, the pope must appeal to his supreme teaching authority as the successor of Peter, as opposed to speaking merely as a private theologian, or making off-the-cuff remarks, or the like.  An exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium would, accordingly, typically involve some formal and solemn declaration.  Second, he must be addressing some matter of doctrine concerning faith or morals…Third, he must be “defining” some doctrine in the sense of putting it forward as official teaching that is binding on the entire Church.  The extraordinary Magisterium doesn’t pertain to teaching that concerns merely local or contingent circumstances.”

D. The pope cannot contradict the Scripture.

E. Papal infallibility, then, is not some magical power by which a pope can transform any old thing he wishes into a truth that all are bound to accept.  It is an extension of the infallibility of the preexisting body of doctrine that it is his job to safeguard, and thus must always be exercised in continuity with that body of doctrine.  Naturally, then, the pope would not be speaking infallibly if he taught something that either had no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or previous magisterial teaching, or contradicted those sources of doctrine.  If it had no such basis, it could be mistaken, and if it contradicted those sources of doctrine, it would be mistaken.

F. Popes could err. In his blog, Feser mentions instances of errant popes, some in an extremely serious way. Feser writes, “if popes can err gravely even on matters touching on doctrine and the governance of the Church, it goes without saying that they can err gravely with respect to matters of politics, science, economics, and the like.”

G. Why do popes err? Feser predicates papal error upon free will, “The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely.  Why?  In part because popes, like all of us, have free will.  But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.”

            Thanks to Ed Feser, it’s quite obvious that Pope Francis did not exercise extraordinary magisterium when he spoke about the civil law for gay marriages. Moreover, since the Bible is extremely explicit about homosexuality being a sin, Pope Francis cannot, and is not authorized to, contradict the Bible to declassify homosexuality from being a sin to an acceptable practice. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that popes have erred and can err. So Pope Francis has indeed erred.

            So we infer that Pope Francis’ opinion about civil laws for gay couples cannot influence or change the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

            Therefore, a Catholic need not consider Pope Francis’ statement to be infallible. But can legitimately disagree with the pope and continue to do what the Bible says i.e. do not practice or endorse homosexuality because it is a sin (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/05/29/the-magisterium-defined/

⁵CCC 891;  http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁶CCC 892; http://www.catholic-catechism.com/?searchtext=magisterium

⁷http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html

Websites last accessed on 1^st November 2020. 

Pope Francis Accuses Satan Of Uncovering Bishops’ Sin

            Any well-meaning Christian would claim that the Christian testimony to the secular world – that a Christian loves the Lord Jesus and seeks to glorify the triune God in and through every aspect of his/her life – is of supreme significance. The Christian testimony stands on a doctrinal foundation of confession and repentance. That foundation is the serious endeavor of every genuine Christian to remain faithful to the triune God, in public and private, and confess every sin to God and to the person (whom they have offended), thereby seeking forgiveness, so to glorify God always.

            But when Christian leaders, through their public utterance, jeopardize the foundation of the Christian testimony, clarity should be provided to the secular world. That clarity should expose the aberration committed by the Christian leader, and provide a biblically correct essence of the foundation on which a Christian testimony stands.

            Pope Francis, on Tuesday the 11^th September 2018, said that Satan is seeking to uncover the sins of the Bishops, so the Bishops should pray against Satan, ““In these times, it seems like the 'Great Accuser' has been unchained and is attacking bishops. True, we are all sinners, we bishops. He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people. The 'Great Accuser', as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, 'roams the earth looking for someone to accuse'. A bishop’s strength against the 'Great Accuser' is prayer, that of Jesus and his own, and the humility of being chosen and remaining close to the people of God, without seeking an aristocratic life that removes this unction. Let us pray, today, for our bishops: for me, for those who are here, and for all the bishops throughout the world.””¹

            Here is a dissection of Pope Francis’ words. The Pope’s words have been italicized to provide a contrast between his words and my analysis:

             “In these times, it seems like the 'Great Accuser' has been unchained and is attacking bishops.” Pope refers to Satan as the ‘Great Accuser.’ But guess who has the power to unchain Satan? It’s God and only God has the power to unchain Satan. If God did unchain Satan, HE would have a definite purpose behind unchaining him.

            “True, we are all sinners, we bishops.” Pope is absolutely right. Without any exception, every man is a sinner (1 John 1:8).

            “He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible in order to scandalize the people.” This is where the Pope is going haywire. Satan is trying to uncover the sins (of the Bishops) to scandalize the erring Bishops.

            The Catholic Church is plagued with sex abuse and cover-up scandals. If God unchained Satan to uncover the sins of the Bishops, then God is probably trying to expose the scandals, so as to enable the sinner to repent and be cleansed of this sin.

             “The 'Great Accuser', as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, 'roams the earth looking for someone to accuse'.” In the book of Job, Satan accused Job, who is righteous (1:8). The ‘Great Accuser,’ in the context of Job, accuses God’s people who are righteous.

            But the context in Pope’s instance is diametrically opposite. Not all, but some bishops of the Catholic church are guilty of sex abuse – the Pope refers to this fact by designating every bishop a sinner. So Satan, in this context, is accusing the guilty, not the righteous. Common sense dictates that the guilty should be exposed.

            “A bishop’s strength against the 'Great Accuser' is prayer…” This is where the Pope once again seems to be going haywire.

            The Pope does not seem to allude to the fact that bishops should pray to cease from sinning because he has already mentioned that his bishops are under satanic attack. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion could be that the Pope is imploring his Bishops, who are in Satan’s radar, to pray against this satanic attack.

            In other words, the Pope seems to advise his bishops to pray against Satan so that their sins are not uncovered. Does this mean that the Pope is encouraging his bishops to sin? One does not hope so. One hopes that the Pope could have worded his statement better.

            The secular world has caught on to the Pope’s faux pas. An article in the Washington Examiner obliterates the Pope:²

I’m starting to think Pope Francis isn’t the man for the job.

It’s almost like he’s trying to make the clergy sexual abuse scandal worse…

On Tuesday, for example, the Holy Father’s Sept. 11 homily included a moment wherein he appeared to bemoan that the Church's institutionalized horror of abuse and enabling has been exposed to the public.

What in the world?

Is Francis suggesting he’d prefer for the sin to remain hidden? Is he’s suggesting that those who are exposing the cancer of clergy sexual abuse are also agents of the devil? Is he suggesting that we should let the issue go because it could hurt the Church?

Who knows!

I’m not entirely sure what Francis is on about here, but I can assure you that the real tragedy of clergy sexual abuse isn’t that the people have been scandalized by sin. The tragedy isn’t that sin has been uncovered. (Remember: The truth will set you free.) The tragedy is that children had their innocence stolen. The tragedy is that men who were trusted to lead the faithful preyed on children and that Church leaders often covered it up and/or enabled it.

Also, Francis’s Job analogy doesn’t work, especially in the context of the crisis currently facing the Catholic Church. Job did not do anything wrong (that’s sort of the point). He certainly wasn’t guilty of sexually abusing children or enabling abusers.

Ordinarily, I’d be only annoyed that the pope once again opted for fuzzy and ambiguous language pertaining to a current issue. But the sex abuse scandal is as serious as any the Catholic Church has faced, and I don’t think Francis sees it that way.

He is handling this like it’s some minor public relations flub and not the sort of thing that leads to a crisis of faith. It’s maddening.

First, Francis said he would “not say a single word” on allegations he empowered known sexual abusers. Then his spin doctors at the Vatican announced this week that they are still preparing the “ necessary clarifications” to the allegations. (It has been 17 days since Francis was first accused of being complicit in the abuse.)

Now, Francis, who must know that the faithful are hanging on to his every word, is seemingly bemoaning that the public knows about the grave evil that the Church has allowed to grow in darkness. The faithful are out here begging the Holy Father to take control and lead, and he’s over there — what? — passive-aggressively subtweeting his critics during Mass? Bold.

If Francis won’t take the matter seriously, he should make way for someone who will.

            An article in The Daily Wire interprets Pope’s words to mean that the real victims of this sex abuse scandal plaguing the Catholic Church are the Bishops and not anyone else, “…it appears the Pope suggested that people consider the real victims of the sexual abuse scandals currently roiling the Church: the bishops.”³

            Finally, to conclude, the doctrinal foundation on which the Christian testimony stands is that of confession and repentance. Christians endeavor to remain faithful to the triune God, in public and private, and confess every sin to God and to the person (whom they have offended), thereby seeking forgiveness, so to glorify God always. This holds true for you, me, the bishops, and the Pope, as well.

            We pray that God would empower us to cease from sinning. We pray that God would enable us to be humble, so to seek forgiveness from HIM and every person we have offended, thereby restoring our relationship. We also pray that Christian leaders would not be ambiguous in their public utterance, and not sow seeds of heresy and discord.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope-francis/mass-casa-santa-marta/2018-09/pope-francis-mass-great-accuser-bishops-scandal.html

²https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pope-francis-talks-poorly-about-satan-and-the-people-exposing-clergy-sexual-abuse

³https://www.dailywire.com/news/35730/pope-shocks-homily-attacks-great-accuser-satan-emily-zanotti

Websites last accessed on 12^th September 2018.

No Hell, Pope?

            Pope Francis has a penchant to be embroiled in controversies.

            In an interview published on March 28, 2018, Pope told his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari that there is no hell. He also claimed that the condemned souls just disappear, “In another interview with his longtime atheist friend, Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis claims that Hell does not exist and that condemned souls just "disappear." This is a denial of the 2,000-year-old teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of Hell and the eternal existence of the soul.

            The interview between Scalfari and the Pope was published March 28, 2018 in La Repubblica. The relevant section on Hell was translated by the highly respected web log, Rorate Caeli.”¹

            This, apparently, is the transcript of Pope Francis’ interview with Scalfari, “Scalfari says to the Pope, "Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?"

            Pope Francis says, “They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."”²

            Quite immediately, on March 29, 2018, the Vatican debunked this report, “In a statement released on Mar. 29, after Scalfari's report garnered worldwide attention, the Vatican said:

            "The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however giving him any interviews. What is reported by the author in today’s article [in La Repubblica] is the result of his reconstruction, in which the textual words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father."”³

            Whether the Pope believes in hell or not is not the matter at hand. Hell, if it exists, would not cease to exist just because Pope Francis does not believe in it.

            But hell should exist because God is a just and a loving God. Consider my thoughts from a previous blog entitled, ‘Hell In The Presence Of A Loving God:’⁴

We believe a loving God would not send HIS children, even under the pretext of unbelief, to eternal torment. How would a loving parent gift his child with prolonged suffering? Would the parent not do all within his means to prevent this horrendous occurrence? This is our painful dilemma. In other words, we question the credibility of God’s love with respect to hell.

True love respects and educates, but never enslaves. A parent who truly loves his child will educate him of good and evil. A parent will do “everything” within his power and will to stop the child from pursuing evil, but that “everything” excludes enslaving his child. If a child is bent on pursuing the path of evil, the parent will choose preventive actions, but will never imprison the child into solitary confinement. The circumstantially handicapped parent may opt to allow the child to have his way; this is the respect the parent shows to the disobedient child’s cognizant volition. A defeated and emotionally fatigued parent will allow the child to continue in willful disobedience. Nevertheless, the parents’ love for the child will never diminish even if the child willfully rebels to disobey.

The father of the prodigal son not only heeds to the property share request of the son, but he goes a step further by not preventing his son from departing to a distant country with his share of wealth (Luke 15:12-13). The son willfully disobeys the loving father, and departs. The loving father expectantly longs for his son’s return and when he does return, the father rushes to welcome the son even before he repents. This is father’s love. A parent’s love will never cease and always hope for the best, but at the same time, a parent’s love will respect the child’s conscious decision.

Was it not C.S Lewis who opined that there are two groups of people in this world of which one group would acknowledge and believe in Christ, bend their knees to HIM and say ‘Your will be done,’ and God would have this group living with HIM unto eternity (in heaven). To the other group who refuse to acknowledge and believe in Christ and bend their knees to God, HE will say ‘your will be done’ and grant them their wish to be away from HIM (in hell). God keeps those who desire to be with HIM, but respects and allows those who reject HIM to be away from HIM. This is true love – a love that provides all, but refuses to enslave. (Please remember the Bible’s proclamation that God has given mankind enough evidence to believe in HIM.)

Let’s travel back to the creation account in Genesis. God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it (Genesis 2:9, 16-17). Even though it was a command, Adam and Eve were given the freedom to accept or reject God’s command. Thus God exhibited true love, and HE desires mankind to love HIM. True love can only exist in the conscious reality of freedom. Freedom to accept or reject the lover is intrinsic in true love. Therefore, God’s love for mankind warrants the presence of heaven and hell.

God’s justice can also be questioned with respect to hell. How can a just God eternally punish HIS children for the sin of unbelief committed during the specific period of time of their existence in this world? Isn’t the eternal punishment disproportionate to the sin committed in time? This is another painful predicament we struggle with.

Human life was designed to be with God unto eternity through mutual love. Sin separated man and God. God, in HIS foreknowledge, designed a way out of this predicament through the one time sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. HE has also done everything for mankind to believe in HIM, so mankind will be without excuse against God. When man refuses to believe in Christ and thereby rejects God, God simply allows man to be away from HIM unto eternity. In other words, the creational intent is an eternal fellowship with God or an eternal banishment from God. Mankind makes the choice, and God honors that choice. This is Justice. Therefore, God’s justice warrants heaven and hell.

            We could consider this theme from another perspective as well. Consider my thoughts from a previous blog entitled, ‘Why The Hell:’⁵

Instead of asking “why should there be a hell?” we could ask “what would happen if there is no hell?”

So if there is no hell, there would be…

No Punishment & No Justice

Hell is the perfect punishment for evil. Since evil exists, punishment should prevail. If there is no hell, there will be no perfect punishment for evil…

Sovereignty of Evil

Evil people prosper in this time and age (cf. Psalm 73: 3). If evil people prosper, the weak and innocent would suffer deeply…When evil rules, evil would be the superior moral. If there is no consequence for evil deeds i.e. if there is no hell, good cannot be the superior moral (good need not be stronger than evil). If evil rules over good, evil would be the sole standard for life. Hence evil will pulverize the good.   

Amoral World

…If evil is sovereign, this world would be amoral (evil would be the only superlative moral). Wouldn’t morality cease when the right-wrong moral distinction is erased?  

…Predicated on the fact that life is more valuable than materials, it might be of less significance to the victim and the society if a thief who robbed a pen was not convicted of his crime. But it is of a great significance if a murderer of a child remains unpunished for his crime.

The thief who habitually steals pens could progressively deteriorate into robbing millions. During this progressive deterioration, the thief could also become a killer. Thus the possibilities for the lesser evil to transform into greater evil are endless…If evil rules, violence would be rampant and peace would cease, for the world we live in would be amoral.

God’s Non-Existence

A world without hell could only be postulated under the condition that God does not exist i.e. an atheistic paradigm. It is very reasonable for evil to prosper and justice and peace to be non-existent in the atheistic worldview.

The atheistic paradigm would not (or cannot) offer any reasonable or logical answers to the problem of evil. Such is the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

Ask an atheist to explain the presence of evil. More often than not, they would quote Richard Dawkins in his work “River Out of Eden” and say “there is no such thing as evil.”…So an atheist who denies God’s existence will deny evil and will deny hell. He has no other option. So if there is no hell, there is no god.

Conclusion

If there is no hell, then:

1. Evil would be unpunished.

2. Evil would be sovereign (rule over good).

3. World would be amoral.

4. There should be no God (for hell is only plausible if God exists).

But this is the existential reality…We are not living in a world where evil is sovereign. We are living in a world where God is sovereign. Although Satan is the temporary ruler of this world, the sovereign God is in total control.

We know that God is in total control since our world is not amoral. There are punishments for evils. Evil does not rule over good. 

Good still rules over evil. This is precisely why a good number of people enjoy a rather peaceful existence. The presence of God entails peace.

God has temporarily allowed evil to reign. But HE has assured us that not a hair from our head will perish.

God is good. God does not tolerate evil.

If we repent of our sins, believe and remain in the Lord and Savior Christ, we will be saved. Those who do not believe in Christ remain evil, since their sins remain unforgiven because of their conscious rejection of Christ.

Such an evil person sins against an infinite God. Sins against an infinite God mandate an infinite punishment in the form of hell. Hell then is the eternal abode of all those who reject Christ.

In case you have not received Christ yet, please pray and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your God and savior. I pray that you repent of your sins and ask Christ to forgive you. The merciful and loving Lord will forgive you and you will be with God forever and ever. I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/pope-francis-there-no-hell?utm_source=sumome&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/02/hell-in-presence-of-loving-god.html

⁵http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/02/why-hell.html

Websites last accessed on 6 April 2018.

Pope Finds Fault With The Lord’s Prayer! (Does God Lead Us Into Temptation?)

            Oops! Have we been incorrectly reading and reciting the Lord’s Prayer¹ all these years? To say that 8 out of 10 Christians know and use the Lord’s Prayer may not be farfetched. But when Pope Francis asserted that the Biblical translation of the Lord’s Prayer should be corrected, it did, justly, spark debates in Christendom. Is the Lord’s Prayer incorrectly translated?

            This is the controversy, “Pope Francis’ remarks on the “wrong” translation of the Lord’s Prayer in a TV show hosted by the Italian Bishops’ Conference’s TV2000 network are part of a wider debate that has taken place in Italy for over two decades. The Pope said that the words “non ci indurre in tentazione” – “Do not lead us into temptation,” in the English version – are not correct, because, he said, God does not actively lead us into temptation.” (Emphasis Mine).²

            Pope’s criticism is predicated on the fact that God is not evil to lead people into temptation so that they sin, “The Pope’s intent seems to be to emphasize that God’s active will does not “tempt” men, that, instead, the permissive will of God allows people to be tempted because of their sinfulness…The theological context is complex, but certainly the Pope has not intended to deny the theological and scriptural sense in which God allows, or permits, temptation.” (Emphasis Mine).³

            Fair enough!

            Pope’s criticism motivates us to ask many questions. Thankfully, the three most pertinent questions have been asked and answered by Daniel Wallace, who is Christianity’s premier active textual critic. He is the Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He cites three pertinent questions, "A myriad of implications arise from the pontiff’s statement. Among them I list just three:⁴

(1) Have translations of the Bible gotten this verse wrong for 2000 years?

Jerome’s Vulgate—the version that has been the official Bible of the Catholic Church for centuries—reads here ne inducas nos in temptationem: “Do not lead us into temptation.”…In 1979, the Nova Vulgata became the official Catholic translation (after Vatican II, it follows the Greek and Hebrew more closely), yet it too says ne inducas nos. So, the pontiff is not only going against modern translations but even his own Vulgate…

It may be surprising, however, to discover that a few modern translations come close to Pope Francis’s version. The New Living Translation (2nd edition), a Protestant Bible, has “don’t let us yield to temptation.”….Nevertheless, there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that “do not lead us” or the like is how the text should be rendered…

(2) What is the nature of translation?

There are two broad theories of translation today—formal equivalence and functional equivalence. Formal equivalence means that the translation attempts to retain the wording and syntax of the original language as much as possible. Functional equivalence means that the translation gives a higher priority to the semantics of the original, bringing out the force of original text regardless of how it is worded…

All translation is interpretation

It is important to recognize, however, that all translation is interpretation. The reason is that the syntax and lexical mapping in one language never match exactly that of another language. The context determines the meaning. A so-called “word-for-word” translation is quite impossible for anything more than a short phrase or sentence. In this passage, for example, the word translated “temptation” is the same word that is elsewhere translated “testing.” Interpretation is required; translators cannot simply leave the word to allow for both meanings since “temptation” has connotations of sin while “testing” does not. However, in this passage there is good reason to see πειρασμός (peirasmos) as bearing the force of temptation, as we will see below. But the point is that an interpretation of the text is already done in even the most formal equivalent translations of this passage. In one sense, the pope’s rendering is an interpretation of an interpretation…

Ideally, a translation should give the readers of the Bible in their own language the same interpretive options that a reader of the original will have. And this means that it is important for readers of the Bible to struggle with the same, often intentional, ambiguities found in the original text…

So then, should translation be formally equivalent for functionally equivalent? Neither one is adequate. Faithful equivalence is really required—faithful to the meaning of the original…

The Lord’s Prayer and translation

The pope’s rendering certainly is on the functional-equivalent side rather than the formal-equivalent side. But does that make it illegitimate?...Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for “do not lead us into temptation” are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea. The pope wants it to mean “allow” which speaks instead of God not permitting something rather than him actively leading us. And the pontiff seems to have assumed that the Greek “lead into temptation” means “permit to fall into temptation.” Several lexical, syntactical, and interpretive shifts are seen here.

The broader context of Matthew’s Gospel may give us a clue as to why the Lord said, “Do not lead us into temptation.” Immediately after Jesus’ baptism, we are told that he “was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4.1). The Greek text indicates that the purpose of the Spirit’s leading Jesus into the wilderness was so that he would be tempted by the devil (“to be tempted” [πειρασθῆναι] is an infinitive of purpose, giving the purpose of the Spirit’s leading). Mark words this even more starkly: “Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness” (Mark 1.13).

Evidently, there is a sense in which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the evil one, by the Holy Spirit himself, to be tempted. But the Greek here makes an interesting point about who is responsible for what. Two passive verbs are used in Matt 4.1— ἀνήχθη (“he was led”) and πειρασθῆναι (“to be tempted”). The agents are listed with identical prepositions: ὑπό. This is the preposition used especially for ultimate agent. It is rare to see ὑπό followed by πνεύματος (“Spirit”) in the NT (only five passages). Doing so here, Matthew shows that the Spirit is not subordinate to the devil but is the agent ultimately responsible for leading Jesus into the wilderness, while the devil is the ultimate agent of the temptation. The Spirit is not responsible for that. The Spirit did not tempt Jesus, but he did lead him to be tempted. The balance is intentional: leading into temptation is not the same as tempting. God the Holy Spirit led Jesus into temptation, but he did not tempt him. Wrestling with the implications of this requires more than a little reflection.

Although Satan’s purpose was to destroy Jesus before he ever went to the cross, God’s purpose in using Satan was painted on a broader canvas. God tests; Satan tempts. The Son of God went through similar testing as the children of Israel in the wilderness. They were there for forty years; he was there for forty days. Where they failed he succeeded.

Further, the temptation that the Lord faced was the ultimate temptation—the offer of the entire world on a platter. Jesus can ask the disciples to pray that the Father would not lead them into temptation and that God would deliver them from the evil one precisely because Jesus himself faced the ultimate temptation by the evil one. Whereas the Spirit led Jesus to be tempted, Jesus asks the Father not to lead his disciples into temptation; whereas Jesus was delivered over to Satan for tempting (testing from the Father’s perspective), Jesus prays that his followers will be delivered from the evil one. It is precisely because of Jesus’ substitutionary death and life that this prayer can be recited today by Christians with the full assurance that God will answer us.

Pope Francis’s translation, however, subverts all this: “do not let us fall into temptation.” The original text speaks clearly of God leading, not permitting. To tamper with the wording misses the connection with the Lord’s temptation.

(3) What does the original text really mean and do we have the right to change it in translation?

The pope makes a good point that our heavenly Father does not tempt us. And yet, he argues that point from a theological construct derived elsewhere in the Bible (see James 1.13). “Do not lead us into temptation” does not mean that God tempts us; the petition is for God’s protection from the evil one, as the rest of Matt 6.13 says.

Further, the notion that we can change the wording to fit the meaning that we find somewhere else might actually be doing a disservice to the biblical authors’ intentions. The Bible is full of paradoxes, figurative language, jolting imagery. To simplify and pacify such language cuts off the legs of its literary and even spiritual power.

At bottom, what the pontiff is doing is interpretation—but interpretation that removes the tension and paradox from the text, is not true to the force of the original, and buries the connection to Jesus’ temptation. Better to leave the text alone and allow God’s people to experience the joy of discovery of the meaning of Holy Writ."  

Endnotes:

¹The Lord’s Prayer is found in the gospels according to Matthew (6:9-13) and Luke (11:2-4).

²https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/analysis-what-is-the-context-of-pope-francis-words-on-the-lords-prayer-78607

³Ibid.

⁴https://danielbwallace.com/2017/12/12/pope-francis-the-lords-prayer-and-bible-translation/ (Emphases in the quoted text are mine.)

Could Christians Worship In Temples & Mosques? (Pope Francis Worshiped in a Mosque)

            Whether Christians could worship in mosques and temples is not a moot point, because Pope Francis has provided a panoramic backdrop through his worship at an Istanbul Mosque. Since we are wired to follow our leaders, we could think that worshipping in mosques and temples is acceptable to the God of the Bible.

            Christians’ worship in mosque or temples is predicated on our visit to these sacred places. So we should primarily clarify if Christians could visit a sacred place of another faith.

            Quite a few Christians believe that it’s a sin to visit a temple or a mosque. This thought cannot be blatantly dismissed.

            Let’s examine a couple of reasons cited by Christians to discourage visits to the sacred places of other faiths:

            A. Demonic – I was once invited to a Mormon tabernacle to defend historic Christianity with the local Mormon leadership. Friendly Christians cited the demonic presence in the Mormon tabernacle to actively discourage me from visiting the Mormon sanctuary. 

            B. Sacralization of the Impious – Removal of shoes (or wearing a headscarf / hijab) in a sacred place is cited as an act of reverence. Visitors are mandated to remove their shoes and / or wear headscarf in the sacred place of other faiths. Contextually, removal of shoes or wearing a headscarf by a Christian is considered a bad testimony, since the act affirms the sacredness of the place. In other words, the act reveres an unholy place.

            However, there are Christians who visit sacred places of other faiths. I visited a mosque when I accompanied an evangelist of a distinguished Christian ministry.

            Apostle Paul could have visited the idols at Athens (cf. Acts 17: 16, 23). He was taken to Areopagus (the hill of Greek god of war, Ares) from where he delivered his famous ‘The Areopagus Address’ (Acts 17: 22-31).

            Likewise, renowned Christian minister D. L Moody preached at the Mormon tabernacle in 1871 and 1899. In recent times, Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias preached the gospel at the Mormon tabernacle. Assemblies of God leader George O. Wood and Southern Baptist leaders Richard Land and Albert Mohler have also spoken at Utah before the LDS community.

            So Pope’s visit to an Istanbul mosque, per se, seems not an aberration.

            If the demonic is a valid reason to not visit a sacred place, then consider an open air evangelistic meeting. Would there not be demons in a large terrain where Christian evangelistic meetings are held? Don’t we attend such meetings?

            If we argue that demons in the terrain of an evangelistic meeting are cast out by prayer, then why not a visit to a sacred place be accompanied by a prayer that cleanses the place of demons or at least offers us protection?

            Moreover, demons could be at places we tend to visit (e.g. restaurants, super markets etc.). But that does not deter us from visiting those places or even sharing the reason for our hope in Christ to our non-christian friends in those places.

            Similarly, removal of shoes or wearing a headscarf need not necessarily subscribe to ‘sacralization of the impious.’ These are merely adherence to the rules of the authorities.

            In many parts of the world, Christian children study in schools and colleges belonging to non-christians. These Christian children may be required to participate in the assembly where prayers and rituals belonging to that particular religion are practiced.

            Participation of the Christian children in the assembly merely indicates adherence to the rules of the institution. It certainly does not indicate a conscious acceptance of the prayer or the ritual. Christian children remain Christians due to their non-affirming presence during such prayer and rituals.

            If a mere visit to these places does not hurt a Christian, then, in the same manner, a visit to a sacred place need not necessarily and adversely affect a Christian.

            However, if in doubt, Christians need not visit the sacred places of the other religions, although such a visit need not necessarily harm the Christian.

            Our focal point, however, is Pope’s worship in the Istanbul mosque. The Vatican termed Pope’s worship as a ‘moment of silent adoration.’¹ So we ask:

            1. Which God did Pope Francis adore in the mosque?

            2. Was it necessary for the Pope to adore God while in a mosque? 

            Let us presuppose that the phrase ‘silent adoration’ referred to Pope’s adoration of God. If the context is an indicator (Pope’s presence in the mosque) and if the Pope does not offer clarity as to which God he adored from the mosque, we could assume that he prayed to Allah.

            An act of worship from inside the mosque is normatively directed to the native deity or could be assumed to have been directed at the native deity. In this case, the native deity of a mosque is Allah.

            Historic Christianity believes in the one living God. In fact, there can be only one God or only one absolutely perfect being or one maximally great being.

            The Bible categorically rejects the presence of other gods (Isaiah 45: 5a; Exodus 20: 3) and mandates worship of the only living God. Hence, Pope’s ‘moment of silent adoration’ in the mosque is unnecessary and uncalled for, for it is a sin against God, and has the potential to mislead naïve Christians.

            Some may argue that Pope prayed to the God of the Bible from the mosque. Why would Pope Francis desire to pray to the God of the Bible from the mosque?

            However, this issue was settled through Al Jazeera’s report that Pope Francis took part in a Muslim prayer as a mark of respect to Islam.² So it’s quite evident that Pope did not pray to the God of the Bible from the mosque.

            To conclude, we could show our utmost respect and love to our non-christian brethren in more ways than one. But we need not participate in their religious practices or worship from their sacred precincts (cf. Acts 15: 29; 1 Corinthians 10: 18-22, 28).

            Pope's prayer in the mosque could lead weak Christians to do the same and be destroyed (cf. Deuteronomy 6: 14, 8: 19, 11: 16; 1 Corinthians 8: 11). The Pope then is responsible for the destruction of the weak Christians for he has sinned against Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 8: 9-13). 

            The Bible says that in whatever we do we are to glorify God. This essentially refers to abstinence from participating in the religious practices of the non-christians (1 Corinthians 10: 21-23).

            The Pope may have justified himself if he had merely visited the mosque without participating in the Islamic prayer. However, his participation in the Islamic prayer provides us an opportunity to address this significant aspect, so that naïve Christians do not get ambushed into destruction. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-prayer-at-blue-mosque-exactly-the-same-as-benedict-xvi-21959/

² http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/pope-francis-prays-istanbul-blue-mosque-20141129122643736106.html