For Christians: Thoughts on sin, salvation, and getting it wrong

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

(FYI: Atheist/agnostics are free to respond too, of course, but the questions at the end of this thread are probably much more relevant to Christians.)

I’ve been doing a lot of personal theology study lately, so here are some of my thoughts and findings:

People (especially educated theologians) often have unique approaches to interpreting the Scripture.  It can be argued, as people do (often self-righteously) that if The Bible is the inspired word of God (or the literal written word of God), that it is not a Christian’s task to try to put the teachings of The Bible together as if it were a puzzle, but to let The Bible guide a person’s understanding on its own.  In other words, instead of trying to search for the true messages of The Bible as a scientist would conduct an experiment, never being fully certain about one’s conclusions and trying not to draw their own conclusions that suit their personal opinions, it is often insisted that Christians should blindly follow the text and take it at face value without questioning the merits, consequences, and intent of the various rules Christians are expected to follow.

Take, for example, the supposed forbiddance of homosexuality – or better yet, the virgin birth.  The point of this thread is not to delve into these particular issues, by any means, but these are issues that are simply not universally agreed on by scholars.  This, of course, makes The Bible even more of a mystery, and this should warrant Christians to take a critical, in-depth look at the text so that we each may find our own understanding which not only better informs us, but draws us closer to the faith.  People, of course, do this all the time, and that is self-evident given the hundreds of denominations which each preach their own take on the scripture - even if those interpretations are remarkably similar.

Furthermore, nowhere in The Bible does it say (nor would it, because The Bible was written long after the events which would have taken place) that only those who accurately interpret the text will go to Heaven, nor does it say that those who mistake its stories and teachings will face eternal damnation.  Instead, it is those who mislead others and knowingly rebel against its teachings that pay the price for it (2 Peter 2:1-3).

This had led me to believe that it’s not so much about the sins that people commit, but rather the motives behind the sins.  If a person knows full-well that what they are doing is without proper moral justification (such as the murder of an innocent person), they would be openly rebelling against the teachings and, from my understanding, face punishment.  Jesus demonstrated the exceptions to certain sins with His parable of an ox or a son stuck in a well (Luke 14:5).  The Sabbath was created for the benefit of Christians and not of God, but nevertheless it is expected of practicing Christians to abide by it by refraining from doing any work.  (Not that many of us do!)

Now as I have mentioned in a previous paragraph, The Bible speaks against false prophets (teachers) and condemns idolatry, but these rules are obviously not followed by those who are not Christians, many of whom are not simply because they were brought up in a faith or culture that does not endorse Christianity.  Thus, if there is, indeed, a price to pay for not being a Christian, the guilt would logically be more collective than individual, even though Christians specifically place emphasis on individual salvation and not collective.  On the other hand, Jesus said that people will know who His disciples are by how much love they show (John 13:35).

Lastly, even if those who reject Him are condemned (John 3:18), that does not necessarily mean they are punished eternally, because condemnation can take many forms.  One could argue that eternal damnation is one of those forms, but consider it this way: eternal damnation teaches nothing of value to people if they have no chance to repent and demonstrate that the punishment has meaning to it, which is why I’ve begun to understand “hell” as a self-defeating concept for Christians, even though I used to be a firm believer of it not so long ago.

There’s a good mix of liberal, moderate, and conservative Christians here, so I’d appreciate it if the other Christians here could answer these two questions:

1. Do you believe that God Himself is a “Christian” and only serves Christians that have the correct interpretation of The Bible?

2. Does God punish people for being wrong (either not following Christ or not following the intended teachings of Christ) but have pure hearts?

As someone who believes in a God that believes in giving chances to people until they get it right, I’d say no.

Relevant image:

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No to the first question and it depends on what you mean by 'not following the intended teachings of Christ' for the second. If you're getting at what I think you are, then no. I also think the language of punishment is at times less than helpful, in general. I think Eastern Orthodox hamartiology might hold some appeal for you, as it does for me. There exists a tradition in Orthodoxy of viewing sin through a medicalized/therapeutic rather than legalized/penal lens.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

No to the first question and it depends on what you mean by 'not following the intended teachings of Christ' for the second. If you're getting at what I think you are, then no.

I probably should have been more broad and said "the intended teachings of Christianity's religious law and the message of the parables."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's how I've come to understand it now.  Reading the text with more conservative lens has become less helpful to me, personally, because it turns Christianity into a litmus test, and it takes quite an attitude to construe it as such.

[DC Al Fine]

1) I'm not sure what you mean by "serves Christians."

2) I'd argue that there is no such thing as a human with a pure heart, Christian or non-Christian alike. "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;" Romans 3:10

God's grace in my view is a gift, so the absence of it is not a punishment.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

1) I'm not sure what you mean by "serves Christians."

As in, sees Christians in a better light without regard to their morals and gives His blessing to only them.  In other words, God welcomes a bad Christian, but condemns or punishes a good Hindu.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excessive hyperbole on my part.  I know that no one is perfect, but there are obviously people who would be seen as having better morals than others.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No to the first question and it depends on what you mean by 'not following the intended teachings of Christ' for the second. If you're getting at what I think you are, then no.

I probably should have been more broad and said "the intended teachings of Christianity's religious law and the message of the parables."

In that case yes and no; yes in that the intended teachings of Christianity's religious law and the message of the parables are supposed to be universal, but no in that one certainly doesn't need to intellectually assent to Christian doctrine to get this right (although one of course can't without God's help, in some fashion).

[TJ in Oregon]

1. I wouldn't call God a Christian because that infers one is a follower of Christ when Christ is God. I also believe God will help plenty of people who have misguided interpretations of the Bible. Knowledge and learning are not the point of Christianity and I don't think God puts such above all other things.

2. It is possible for someone to commit an act of intrinsic evil without it being sinful if that person does not understand at least on some level that the act is wrong. Basically I believe in vincible ignorance, which means that it is sinful for a person to commit an act that is wrong if they know it's wrong or it's their fault they didn't know it's wrong. Thus rationalization of a wrong act does not mitigate its sinfulness. So what determines whether or not it's someone's fault they didn't know a act is wrong? God of course. We can't know that because we can't see inside someone's heart.

[dead0man]

Current agnostic raised So.Baptist checking in.

1.no

2.no, but it depends on what you mean by punish.  The way I understood the bible, Jesus said nobody is getting into heaven except through Him, so no matter how overall "good" somebody is, they ain't getting through them pearly gates without excepting Jesus into their heart.

[afleitch]

Along the same vein, former Roman Catholic turned heathen.

1. I don’t believe in a god, but if there is a god, or any being that is so transcendent and powerful we cannot use any other word but god to describe it, any human claims to understand that god and its intent is futile. Any claims that this god cares only about the one intelligent bi-pedal race on this planet above all other living things is egotistical. Any claims that this god only cares about our species out of the potential intelligent life amongst several billion extra-solar planets is both egotistical and unrealistic. As humans we serve ourselves, but because we are only human and no human is technically higher or lower than the rest it’s helpful to co-opt a deity so that we can continue to serve ourselves under the pretence that it’s the will of this higher being.

2. Obviously not. The idea that a god would actually care about punishing anyone is far fetched. Punishment is a human construct; it’s something that we do to others of our species (and to some animals outside our species). The idea that a deity would have any need to replicate human understandings of ‘reward’ or ‘punishment’ and apply it to us after our death is also egotistical. By projecting these power structures onto a deity, powerful people are able to exercise power; influencing others and using the threat of godly punishment as a means to stop people doing things that may actually be beneficial to them but not beneficial to the person who exerts power.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2. Obviously not. The idea that a god would actually care about punishing anyone is far fetched. Punishment is a human construct; it’s something that we do to others of our species (and to some animals outside our species). The idea that a deity would have any need to replicate human understandings of ‘reward’ or ‘punishment’ and apply it to us after our death is also egotistical. By projecting these power structures onto a deity, powerful people are able to exercise power; influencing others and using the threat of godly punishment as a means to stop people doing things that may actually be beneficial to them but not beneficial to the person who exerts power.

It's not quite so far fetched. Pretty much every social animal has some method of establishing a hierarchy.  Granted, no other animal we've encountered has analogues to our criminal laws or economic systems.  Hence if God is a social being, that God would seek to establish a set of rules that place God at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of those God interacts with is very near fetched.  What is somewhat middle fetched are the ideas that God is a social being and that God has chosen us to be his pets.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

The way I understood the bible, Jesus said nobody is getting into heaven except through Him, so no matter how overall "good" somebody is, they ain't getting through them pearly gates without excepting Jesus into their heart.

Do you believe this is a blanket condemnation of all practicing non-Christians who cannot repent in death?  In other words, no second chances?

[dead0man]

Yeah, that's how I learned it.  If you had a chance to "hear the Word" and you don't, you're sh**t out'a luck.  Exceptions made for the dumb and the uninformed.

[afleitch]

Yeah, that's how I learned it.  If you had a chance to "hear the Word" and you don't, you're sh**t out'a luck.  Exceptions made for the dumb and the uninformed.

Oh and for the 'unborn babies'; at least since the late 70's. Have to put them somewhere so that peoples consciences can be settled. I also remember being told that if Hitler 'found god' just before he blasted his brains out, he's more likely to be in heaven than Anne Frank.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Yeah, that's how I learned it.  If you had a chance to "hear the Word" and you don't, you're sh**t out'a luck.  Exceptions made for the dumb and the uninformed.

Oh and for the 'unborn babies'; at least since the late 70's. Have to put them somewhere so that peoples consciences can be settled. I also remember being told that if Hitler 'found god Jesus' just before he blasted his brains out, he's more likely to be in heaven than Anne Frank.

I've heard that before, too.  I don't believe it's my task to judge, but that rationale never sat well with me, even when I went through a brief conservative stage in my theology four or five years ago.  Call it self-righteous or whatever, but I never thought 'sola fide' was a sound or meaningful teaching.

Also, I amended your post to what I think you were trying to say.  Anne Frank did believe in God.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

1. I wouldn't call God a Christian because that infers one is a follower of Christ when Christ is God. I also believe God will help plenty of people who have misguided interpretations of the Bible. Knowledge and learning are not the point of Christianity and I don't think God puts such above all other things.

2. It is possible for someone to commit an act of intrinsic evil without it being sinful if that person does not understand at least on some level that the act is wrong. Basically I believe in vincible ignorance, which means that it is sinful for a person to commit an act that is wrong if they know it's wrong or it's their fault they didn't know it's wrong.

How can a person be blamed for simply not knowing something?

[John Dibble]

1. I wouldn't call God a Christian because that infers one is a follower of Christ when Christ is God. I also believe God will help plenty of people who have misguided interpretations of the Bible. Knowledge and learning are not the point of Christianity and I don't think God puts such above all other things.

2. It is possible for someone to commit an act of intrinsic evil without it being sinful if that person does not understand at least on some level that the act is wrong. Basically I believe in vincible ignorance, which means that it is sinful for a person to commit an act that is wrong if they know it's wrong or it's their fault they didn't know it's wrong.

How can a person be blamed for simply not knowing something?

From the wiki article linked, I think it's roughly saying that willful ignorance of something being wrong is a sin. Like if a ton of evidence that something is wrong is in front of you and you ignore that and continue to convince yourself that it isn't so you can continue to do it, that would be considered wrong. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

1. I wouldn't call God a Christian because that infers one is a follower of Christ when Christ is God. I also believe God will help plenty of people who have misguided interpretations of the Bible. Knowledge and learning are not the point of Christianity and I don't think God puts such above all other things.

2. It is possible for someone to commit an act of intrinsic evil without it being sinful if that person does not understand at least on some level that the act is wrong. Basically I believe in vincible ignorance, which means that it is sinful for a person to commit an act that is wrong if they know it's wrong or it's their fault they didn't know it's wrong.

How can a person be blamed for simply not knowing something?

From the wiki article linked, I think it's roughly saying that willful ignorance of something being wrong is a sin. Like if a ton of evidence that something is wrong is in front of you and you ignore that and continue to convince yourself that it isn't so you can continue to do it, that would be considered wrong. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.

That's more or less my reading of it too.

[useful idiot]

There’s a good mix of liberal, moderate, and conservative Christians here, so I’d appreciate it if the other Christians here could answer these two questions:

1. Do you believe that God Himself is a “Christian” and only serves Christians that have the correct interpretation of The Bible?

2. Does God punish people for being wrong (either not following Christ or not following the intended teachings of Christ) but have pure hearts?

As someone who believes in a God that believes in giving chances to people until they get it right, I’d say no.

I don't know what you mean by God being a Christian. If Christians are by definition followers of Christ, then it doesn't seem logical. Saying that He "serves" people is also tricky. He serves people, just as He loves people, in a particular way. In Matthew 20 Jesus says he came to serve, not to be served, and to give His life as a "ransom for many." Jesus serves us in His atonement, which I think, Calvinists notwithstanding, is clearly universal in scope, but only effective for those who accept it, and through His Spirit. John 3:16, properly translated, really should read "For God loved the world in this way." His love is expressed to us in a certain way: through his mercy and salvation from sin. This doesn't necessarily follow to temporal blessings or an easy life or affirmation of our own wills and desires. Therefore, what we as sinful people think being "loved" or "served" entails is not necessarily the way God loves or serves us.

If this is the way that God loves us, by saving us from our sins in a present and future sense (Matt. 1), obviously rejecting Him impedes or even nullifies the effectiveness of that love, since rejection is in and of itself the ultimate sin. God doesn't judge us, per say, as that judgement was taken care of on the cross, but does allow us to bring judgement upon ourselves. I think, going back to John 3, we see this:

18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

Paul is making a similar point in Romans 1 when he writes of God giving unbelievers over to their own ways. The great irony presented here is that unbelievers could interpret God removing His hand from them as an endorsement of their activities and disposition, but the opposite is the case: His removal of Himself is only allowing them to bring judgement on themselves by continuing to reject Him. Conversely, Christians are told to expect trials and persecution, which throws the basic way people think about their relationship to God (If I'm good I'll be blessed, if I'm bad my life will suck) on its head. God allows bad things to happen to people, both Christian and non-Christian, orthodox or heretical. Ultimately, if you are a follower of Christ, then those things will work together for your own good (Romans 8:28, James 1:2-4), but if you're not, then they are a call to repentance (Luke 13:1-5), which if ignored, results in your bringing further condemnation on yourself. If you do choose to repent, well then "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

I only labor this point to show that the way we talk about punishment, condemnation, judgement etc etc., needs to be shed of our common misconceptions of what these things are. Humans condemn, judge, and punish themselves by refusing to be in relationship with the only thing that brings true happiness. When they reject Christ, they are rejecting love, life and truth itself. One of the most obnoxious things I hear people say when they are trying to justify whatever sin they may be indulging in is "well God would want me to be happy," or "God wouldn't punish me for that." What you're doing by continuing to sin is rejecting true happiness in favor of an illusion, and you're punishing yourself.

I'd also take issue with your hypothetical person who "got it wrong but has a pure heart." If there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that our hearts, no matter who we are, are far from pure. Jeremiah 17:9? "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick"? Paul's long string of OT quotations in Romans 3:10-18, which is too long to quote here, destroys the notion that we are in any way good apart from Christ. If Christ is purity in its ultimate form, and we reject that, in what sense are we pure? If our sanctification is a process of becoming more Christlike, and we refuse to enter that process, are we not turning our backs on the very concept of purity?

To bring it back around to your first question, I run in some pretty theologically conservative circles (certainly more conservative than myself), and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks they interpret everything in the Bible correctly. My congregation has members that are Dispensationalist and Amillennial, Complementarian and Egalitarian, Calvinist and Arminian, hold a variety of positions on creation, are hardly in lockstep on ecclesiology, subscribe to different atonement theories, and some even who disagree on questions of heaven and hell. Mind you, this is a thoroughly conservative Southern Baptist church, more conservative than the evangelical average, and these are pretty major hermeneutical differences.

I've written too much and don't have the space or time to flesh out a full doctrine of salvation here, so I think I'll let Paul do the speaking: "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." When asked by the Philippian jailer what the requirement is for salvation, what does Paul say? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." He didn't say "believe the Bible is inerrant, in the pre-trib Rapture, and in consubstantiation." However, I find it disturbing that so many want to throw away Biblical fidelity by seemingly asking the question "What can I not believe and still be saved?." How much can I get away with not accepting? Can I throw away the parts I don't like and still get my get-out-of-hell-free card? I think if you're looking at it this way then you're missing the point big time, and need to examine yourself and intentions.

I buy into much of the argument, as presented in some of Wesley and by Lewis, for post-mortem opportunities. I'm sympathetic to the idea that whose who haven't heard are judged on the basis of their response to what light they did have, but I'm more amenable to their being able to simply respond on the other side of this life, because I think it fits the NT thematically and theologically better. I'm open to ideas on this issue. However these things in no way negate the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ at some point.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I don't know what you mean by God being a Christian. If Christians are by definition followers of Christ, then it doesn't seem logical. Saying that He "serves" people is also tricky. He serves people, just as He loves people, in a particular way.

Yes, this is what I meant by God "serving" people.  God serves them by loving and blessing them.  The OP implies the idea of God not serving someone by giving up on them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Love is often given to people without the expectation of love in return.  I don't know if rejections of God's love nullify the effectiveness of that love (or, well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "effectiveness of that love"), but the central questions are, what are the consequences of that rejection, and if a person is condemned, what does the condemnation entail?  You say that the way we conceive things such as punishment, condemnation, etc. needs to be rejected, but I'm curious about how the consequences of not being a Christian will be revealed to us at the end of life.  The correct answer to that, unfortunately, is not easy to find in a book written by man.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I explained in a previous post, I did not mean "pure" in a literal sense.  Obviously, no person is "pure," but there are people who intend to do good for people even if their actions are in error, and there are those who intend to do harm and those intentions are reflected clearly by their actions.

To better understand what I'm getting at, consider this: Imagine a Hindu person.  Occasionally, he does things which go in contrary to Christian teachings (things which all or most people are guilty of - not heinous actions, such as murder or rape), but he is universally liked for the things he's done for people.  He feeds and shelters the poor, he's hospitable, he's forgiving, he does not lie, et cetera.  At the end of his life, he's done more for his fellow man than the average Christian has.  But the rub is that he is not a Christian.  So the essential question is, is it theologically and morally sound to suggest that he is "condemned" (whatever that means) for being on a different spiritual path?  And if he does not accept Jesus as his lord and savior in life, will God give him the chance to do so when the truth is revealed?

Before I go any further, I should mention that while I obviously don't object referring to the scripture for the answer, I sometimes take an agnostic position on these specific moral questions as someone who does not believe The Bible was written directly by God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I must say, you are very lucky to know such a group of people who don't place full certainty in their understanding of The Bible.  There are Christian denominations, both liberal and conservative-leaning, that work together on unifying goals, but hardline conservative churches, from my own experience, are more likely to profess that their interpretation is the correct one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please, please, please don't make the mistake of believing that was my intention.

Roger Wolsey wrote in his book Kissing Fish that the point of life is not to get one's self Heaven or constantly worry about one's own salvation.  In fact, the point of life is to get others to Heaven by showing them the path.

I agree that Christians who simply pick the easy laws to follow and reject the difficult ones don't have the right priorities, but there are many serious Christians that have good reason to question what laws of The Bible are also those of God's.  Doing otherwise reduces Christianity to a litmus test, and Christians that take on that attitude, in my opinion, are just as wrong as the pickers and choosers because they, too, miss the point of Christ's teachings.

Maybe it's that my theology is too far out of mainstream Christianity (heck, it's probably why they'll never ordain me as a minister!), but I don't think the underlying message of Jesus is that we shouldn't eat fish on Fridays or that baptism at a certain age is necessary to be spiritually well - I think the underlying message, and the most important message of all, is to be loving.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thought-provoking post, useful idiot.  Thank you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, that's how I learned it.  If you had a chance to "hear the Word" and you don't, you're sh**t out'a luck.  Exceptions made for the dumb and the uninformed.

Oh and for the 'unborn babies'; at least since the late 70's. Have to put them somewhere so that peoples consciences can be settled. I also remember being told that if Hitler 'found god' just before he blasted his brains out, he's more likely to be in heaven than Anne Frank.

If Hitler had found god, he wouldn't have blasted his brains out, so there's no need to worry about that.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

[1. I don't think God is any more of a Christian than He is a Muslim, Jew Hindu, etc..  However, His hope is that everyone will accept His Son as their personal Savior.  Since clearly not everyone will, I feel that He wants as many people as possible to accept it. 
2. The Bible is pretty clear on this subject.  We are saved by faith, not works.  And no matter how good we may be in our own judgment, we can never be good enough on our own in God's judgment.  Think about it: we all have our moral weaknesses and downfalls.  We may be good people overall but we are not good enough to save ourselves.  It reminds me of verse from one of my favorite hymns,  "Jesus Paid It All":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So even if you are good in your own estimation, it's nothing if you don't have faith in Jesus.
As for babies and young children, the Bible always uses them as an example of salvation.  Remember how Jesus talked about accepting the Kingdom of Heaven like a child.  The Bible suggests that there is an age of accountability that before which children will be saved.  When King David's first son with Bathsheba died, he says somethinf to the effect of, "he will not come to me, but someday I will go to him."  Now granted, this was written for and by the ancient Hebrews, who didn't believe in any sort of afterlife, but I think this suggests salvation as well.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1. Do you believe that God Himself is a “Christian” and only serves Christians that have the correct interpretation of The Bible?

I believe that God is the God of Christianity - which is to say that Christ is God, "by him all things were created."  And the same time, by being Lord of all creation he therefore relates to all of creation and not only to Christians.  Christ does not limit himself to those who have a particular interpretation of Scripture.  At the same time, it's important for us to question whether our interpretation of Scripture is allowing us to rightly serve God.

2. Does God punish people for being wrong (either not following Christ or not following the intended teachings of Christ) but have pure hearts?

I don't find the punishment concept intelligible when it comes to theology, honestly. Judgement makes more sense to me, in the sense that there is a standard of right and wrong that is outside ourselves. As others have said, none has a pure heart.  And sometimes the worst evils come from people who are as sincere as anyone in their belief that they are doing what is right - and this comes from Christians as often as anyone. 

One of the more difficult and interesting questions is - if someone who is not a Christian is more compassionate and seeking after truth than someone who is - what is the nature of Christian transformation or sanctification?  The experience of many is that Christ is the only thing that can even begin to transform us in the radical way we require.  And yet at many times the Christian example has been anything but worthy of emulation by those outside.