|
|
|
If B, then C?
Or
Yes B, but not necessarily just C
|
NOTE: This article is not yet finished.
It is only a rough proposition. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
King Solomon wrote some 3000 years ago that there was nothing
new under the sun. What I am introducing today is relatively new
to me, and maybe to you but it is not new.
A fear I have in writing this article is that it comes dangerously
close to heresy. Which is also not a new idea. As a matter of fact
many "new" ideas today are just reheated and refried Gnosticism
or Arianism. Can anyone say Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism?
There is one thing these cults have in common and that is there
rejection of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. Saint John
called that the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Not a good camp to belong to if you want a decent retirement plan.
Anyway, the reason I'm tiptoeing around the toolips is twofold.
1. I am an orthodox Christian, and don't want to be confused for
a heretic. 2. Nevertheless what this article discusses would be
considered grounds for a lynching by many Christians.
So what is it that I'm avoiding in order to preserve the apple
that Adam gave to me? That mankind can be saved WITHOUT calling
on the name of Jesus.
There I've said it. Now I'll spend the rest of this article backtracking
and trying to extricate myself from my 6 foot fox hole.
Now how is it that such a statement is not heresy? Why shouldn't
you stop now and cancel your subscription to my free subscription
free website?
First, let me establish the rules for this debate.
Logic provides a well worn didactic tool that has been used to
clarify the means of salvation. The tool is a simple sequential
cause and effect statement. If A equals B and B equals C then A
equals C. Stated in relation to this argument the plan of salvation
would go simply; Mankind has sinned and is subject to eternal separation
from God (A), Christ paid the price to redeem mankind from this
hell (B), whoever believes in and calls upon the name of the Lord
is saved (C) and therefore spends eternity with God in heaven and
escapes eternal damnation (D).
The validity of this sequence is a foundation of Orthodox Christian
belief and is how I myself find the assurance of my salvation. The
question I have often asked is this; is there no other way to escape
hell.
If there is not then billions of people who have never heard of
Jesus are doomed to an eternity simply because they were in the
wrong place at the wrong time. I've found it difficult to swollen
this callous fact. How can a just God sentence a women in Afghanistan
who has not heard of Christ to hell while He gives a rich white
man in the US a hundred chances to receive His Son?
Some, when faced with this and the many other disturbing ramifications
of hell that orthodox belief forces us to wrestle with, simply deny
orthodox faith. "God's a loving God. He'll make exceptions.
As a matter of fact He'll probably let all good people into heaven.
God will only send people to hell who really deserve it. So in effect
it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you live a good life."
My initial reaction when given this line was "I wished someone
had informed Jesus of this before He came to earth and "suffered
under the hand of Pontius Pilate, was crucified and buried ..."
These "new" ideas are just pluralism and relativism
revisited.
Pluralism = all roads lead to Rome. Any god is fine as long as
you're sincere.
No absolutes, relativism. "Whatever works for you..."
Constructing a bomb shelter. Three little pigs. There is a correct
answer for a reason. Wood and straw houses may feel good, but they
seem to disappear in a puff.
Jesus claimed with absolute authority that he was "the way,
the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me."
Rather you believe what He said is true is your own problem. As
a Christian I do believe him, but I must ask is this the only way?
Yes and No.
In an effort to make some sense out of the web I've woven we must
go back to our initial statement.
-
A. Mankind has sinned and is subject to eternal separation
from God
-
B. Christ paid the price to redeem mankind from this hell
-
C. Whoever believes in and calls upon the name of the Lord
is receives Christ's gift
-
D. Thereby allowing unholy sinners to be redeemed and sanctified
so they can spend eternity with God in heaven and escape eternal
damnation and separation from God.
As Christians we believe that ABD are linked absolutely. If ABD
are separated then this is unorthodox belief. By the way, ABD are
linked absolutely so untie that slip knot. Logically then, the link
I want to reexamine is the C link.
The Protestant Church has assumed and loudly proclaims that the
whole sequence ABCD is the only way. There are numerous scriptures
that supports this (Romans 10:9-10) and I believe that it is the
preferred manner of salvation (not that salvation is a focus group
discovered solution). By preferred I mean preferred by God and Christ.
That is why we (Christians) were give the great commission, equipped
with the Holy Spirit and promised that He would never leave or forsake
us.
But what about C?
I told my sixth graders when they were preparing their persuasive
essays that no one cares what they think (we do, but it caries little
weight since they have a limited life experience). So don't tell
me what you think. Find someone important that agrees with what
you think and quote them. With that in mind I give you a brief passage
from C.S. Lewis's "The Last Battle."
"But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine, but the servant
of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service that thou hast done
to Tash, I account as service done to me..."
Interesting. What CS Lewis was saying in his famous allegory is
that people could come to God even if they never called upon the
name of Aslan (Christ) as long as Aslan received (or propitiated)
their actions as done toward Him. But don't take my interpretation
as gospel truth, ask the numerous writers who have pointed to this
passage as proof that CS Lewis wasn't a Christian.
And the Jolly Green Giant wasn't a giant ... and was really red.
So this new link (which I am labeling Y - Why? because I like
it) could allow for someone to come to God and escape damnation
if Jesus receives his/her actions as done toward Him.
Ironically, the scripture that would seemingly kill this idea
in its tracks (Romans 10:9-10) actually support it. On another reading
these verses (among many others) delineate the ABCD route, but they
do NOT say the ABYD is errant.
Rather earlier in that same book Paul puts an impossible loop
hole into his argument that eventually culminated in chapter 10,
verses 9 and 10. In the second chapter Paul writes that "For
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves... their conscience accusing or excusing them."
The next verse finds my sequence spelled out very clearly. So
I submit the whole passage (Romans 3:23-26) for your persusal.
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
(A)
"Being justified freely by His grace through redemption that
is in Christ Jesus:" (B)
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in His blood, to declare his righteousness for the remissions of
sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (B & D)"
"To declare ... that He [Christ] might be just, and the justifier
of him which believeth in Jesus." (C)
What could be a legitimate deduction and the crux of my argument
is that while all that call on the name of Jesus are saved, Jesus
can also appropriate this same salvation to those who have not called
on His name. It is an option that HE has. Whether or not He will
take it, I can't say. Though His claims of being "just"
causes me to think that He will and already has.
Finally I must recall an incident that has nagged me for years.
In college a Catholic Priest came to one of my classes and shared
with us regarding Catholic beliefs. One point that got many a good
many fundamentalists heated was when he said that he believed that
God could send him to hell if HE decided to. As a Protestant the
idea is incomprehensible that God could break His word. His point
was that while God would PROBABLY not break His word, He COULD.
Not to open up another battlefront, the point to me was made clear.
God is bigger then we are, and His ways are higher than our ways.
Which brings me back to the many cults that I've witnessed to
over the years. It seems the hardest thing for many people to fathom
is that God is on one hand knowable (He's provided us a rather bulky
instruction manual) and on the other unknowable. Jehovah Witnesses
believe that if it doesn't make sense to them then it must be wrong,
because "God wouldn't want to confuse us." On the other
Muslims believe God is so great that despite all you do and read
you can never know Him. The Truth is somewhere in between. He is
knowable but it will take an eternity to fully know Him.
I see the happy median best summoned up in one word: Jesus. Utterly
knowable (He became one of us) and Unknowable (by Him the universe
is held together - talk to a physicist about what composes a quark
and it'll blow your mind).
So does my "new" idea illicit a papal bull calling for
my immediate silencing? I don't think so.
Relevance to real life: keeps us from assuming (or judging) people
to hell. Does provide some uncomfortable questions. But again I
quote Lewis "an honest man wants the truth even if it is no
earthly good, and will reject a lie even if it is provides much
good." (Or thereabouts)
******
Misc. Thoughts to be incorporated later.
Sartre "Hell is other people."
People that hate God would find an eternity in heaven that they
did not chose to be hellish and would make heaven miserable for
the rest of us. Like any good party-pooper.
Hell in my understanding will be miserable because those who are
there have willingly believed a lie (knowing it was a lie) and are
now telling themselves that lie for the rest of eternity. But such
a discussion is beyond this essay, or epistle as it has become.
Water = life
Even when not here in current form it does exist in another form.
|
|
|
