The Christian Heretic

A New Rule

2009-05-31T10:20:00.004-04:00

A little over two years ago I issued my Everlasting Hell Challenge, which asked Protestant Christians who base their theology on the Bible alone to demonstrate convincingly that the traditionalist evangelical view on hell and damnation is a much clearer teaching in Scripture than the idea that hell is not a place of everlasting torment (the traditionalist evangelical view being the idea that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from works, and that those who don't put their faith in Jesus for this salvation will suffer forever in hell). Not surprisingly, nobody has completed the challenge. The reason for this is really quite simple though: it just can't be done.

Really, to come to the traditionalist ideas about salvation and hell requires some serious eisegesis. If you want to justify the idea that damnation is everlasting, you can't continue to believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from works and claim to remain consistent, at least not from a biblical perspective, because the only passages that hint at the duration of this judgement being forever (depending on the translation you're using as not all Bible translations do) also point to doing good works and mutilating your body as the means of avoiding this outcome.

In the end, there are only two reasons to believe in everlasting torment in hell for non-Christians. The first reason is because so many of the leaders of the Christian religion have taught it for so long and most people are too afraid or too lazy to question the teachings of these leaders and find it easier to just assume that these leaders know what they're talking about. The second reason is because you simply want it to be true that some people will suffer forever with no chance to escape and are hoping that this is what God will do.

So, in the spirit of one of television's great hosts, I am declaring a New Rule: If you want to continue teaching that non-Christians will suffer in hell for eternity you have to demonstrate your sincerity by cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye (see Mark 9:43-48). If you don't take the Bible seriously enough to take the bodily mutilation part of the damnation passages literally then there's no reason for the rest of us to take the consequences for not doing so literally. If that's too much for you, then you at least have to stop teaching that avoiding hell is based on grace rather than good works and start feeding the hungry and giving drinks to the thirsty and inviting strangers into your home and giving clothes to those who need clothing and visiting those in prison (see Matthew 25:31-46). You can't completely ignore the first half of the passages you're basing your claims on and then expect us to take the rest your theology at all seriously.

Moderate Religion is Still Religion

2009-05-10T15:40:00.002-04:00

While it's obvious to most of us that religious fundamentalism and extremism are clearly harmful, many of us tend to overlook the fact that moderate religion will destroy your soul just as easily (be it a moderate form of the Muslim religion, a moderate form of the Christian religion, or any other moderate form of religion). When it comes right down to it, religion is spiritual slavery, and the danger of "moderate religion" is that its followers don't even realize that their minds have been taken captive. What's particularly sad is, not only do most of those ensnared by religion not realize their status as prisoners, they actually fear freedom so much that they would willingly put their chains right back on if they were set free.

As the apostle Paul told the Galatians, it is for freedom that you have been set free, so don't allow anyone to bewitch you back into bondage. No matter how comforting their religious chains might appear, they are ultimately still chains and they are not meant for those of us who have been set free.

And for those of you who are still trapped by religion, the good news is that not only have the chains all already been unlocked, you can walk away from them at any time. Yes, you might be persecuted by your ex-fellow inmates as an infidel or heretic for daring to embrace true freedom, but freedom is a far better thing than slavery any day.

The Evangelical Abortion Inconsistency

2008-12-31T18:20:00.009-05:00

If you've read many of my posts, you know by now that one of the most consistent traits of traditionalist Christians is that they're not very consistent in their theological thinking. This is possibly no more obvious than in their views on the subject of abortion. Most evangelicals I know of, for instance, are extremely anti-abortion, and yet when I consider the issue I would think that they should be the most pro-abortion group of people out there.

Why?

Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called "the age of accountability." A child reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die apparently go to heaven (or so the doctrine goes) because they're too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in hell forever if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian.

Now I'd estimate that 90% or more of the human population will go to hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if everlasting torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are as they'd probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn't those traditionalists who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they're willing to risk the eternal souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? Since there is a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (depending on where and when you happen to live the odds might vary, but they're still pretty grim), wouldn't you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in everlasting hell for those past this age then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible eternal outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you're still alive and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).

If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children's soul with a fate far worse, and far longer, than simple death or injury?

No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I'm wrong. I've made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don't expect to have it happen anytime soon either.

Just for the record, since I'm a Christian Universalist I obviously don't believe that anyone ends up in hell for eternity so I am not promoting murder here, nor is this a post in favour of, or against, abortion. This post is simply to challenge yet another inconsistency in traditionalist Christian ideology.

Theology is Theory

2008-12-21T20:30:00.002-05:00

No matter what theological conclusions you might have come to over your lifetime, one of the most important factors to remember is that theology is just theory.

Whether you believe in biblical literalism and inerrancy or a more figurative method of interpreting Scripture, whether you lean towards a pre-trib/pre-mil rapture or towards an amillennial eschatology, whether you think that God is a triune set of persons or think that He is actually just one being manifesting in different forms, and even whether you are convinced that non-believers will suffer forever in hell or are sure that everyone will eventually make it to heaven, we all have to realize that any of us could be wrong about any of these subjects because in the end there's no way to know with absolute certainty that what we believe is true.

Even if an angel or a being claiming to be God appeared before you telling you that "this particular doctrine is absolutely true," you can't know that this entity is being entirely truthful, and even if said being wasn't lying, you very well might be confused about what it was that you were told actually meant.

It might sound like I'm calling for agnosticism here, and you'd be absolutely right, except that you might be confused here as well because agnosticism is not necessarily what you think it is. To be agnostic doesn't mean that one has to reject all forms of spiritual belief. Rather, to be agnostic about theological claims can simply mean that one is humble enough to admit that one can't know things for certain that can't be proven and recognizing that one might actually be wrong about their metaphysical ideas.

So embrace your faith, but have the humility of the agnostic. Proclaim your doctrinal views, but do so with the understanding that you might have it all wrong and may one day have to admit to everyone that you no longer believe as you once did. I've had to do this more than a few times in my life and it's taught me to be much more careful about just how dogmatic I am when discussing what is ultimately nothing more than theory.

Smoke and Mirrors

2008-08-21T11:50:00.005-04:00

If there's one thing I've learned in the last little while, it's that very little is actually what it seems. Often something that seems like a random detail is actually there to distract us from something bigger (or something huge will be staged to create support for something that people would otherwise protest). Of course everyone knows that this happens all the time in politics, but I believe that it happens just as much so in religion (actually the political and religious illusions often seem to distract us from the same things, just using their own unique methods).

There are various sorts of distractions in religion. One major type is "true doctrine," beliefs that aren't allowed to be questioned. Of course they are questioned, and debates occur and new denominations are formed (and heretics are persecuted in various ways). Meanwhile, in all the fighting for doctrinal purity, people miss out on what is really real and actually happening and not bothering to help change the things in the world that need changing.

Along the same lines, religious leaders (and certain scriptures) will often teach conflicting and contradictory beliefs (and often absurd stories and doctrines that logically can't be true) and insist that we must believe all of them. This creates cognitive dissonance in a religion's followers and induces compliance in them. Deep down they realize that what they have been told doesn't seem to make sense, but they trust that their leaders (or the writers of their scriptures) must know what they are talking about and decide that if these things don't make perfect sense then they must not be smart enough to think for themselves and that they'd better just continue blindly doing and believing what they've been told.

Another type of religious distraction is "morality." Religious people are led to believe that God actually cares about things like what sorts of clothing you're wearing or what you're eating or drinking or whether certain synonyms come out of your mouth or whether you've watched a certain TV show or movie or read a certain book or that you've had sex with someone without being married to them (or that you might be the same gender as they are) or viewed images of nude people or whether you're working on a particular day of the week or whether you've attended a particular religious service or participated in a particular religious practice, to name just a few of the many hundreds of examples I could give. Religious "morality" is particularly insidious because it causes those who live (or try to live) "moral" lives to think that they're actually doing a good thing while keeping them distracted from doing and avoiding what really matters.

Ultimately, religion is one of the biggest smoke and mirror games played by the powers that be (human or otherwise). It keeps people so distracted from reality that they end up thinking harmless things are evil and harmful actions are good. It asks people to persecute heretics, apostates and other infidels in the name of their religion or deity (sometimes just in small ways like marginalizing them, but all too often with more violent methods as well), and to ignore (and sometimes even look down upon) those who are hurting and need assistance. I don't believe that any deity who was actually good would ask these things of us, so this means that any religion that asks us to take these illusions seriously is a lie and should be carefully avoided.

Ye Shall Know Them by Their Fruits

2008-08-18T17:00:00.005-04:00

I have had people of various religions and denominations try to convince me that their set of doctrines are the truth and that if I don't follow their particular philosophy that I will come to a bad end (or at least not as good an end as I could). With so many different ideologies competing for my allegiance I had to find a way to determine which of them (if any) were likely to be true. Even just within the faith I grew up in, Christianity, there were too many contradictory sets of belief that I was being asked to affirm, nearly all of which could be defended from the Bible. When nearly every competing Christian claim is able be backed by the Bible it makes it very difficult to know which to accept so in the end I decided that I'd judge a doctrine or practice by its fruit.

What does this mean? It means that I look at what believing or practicing a particular theological belief or practice tends to lead to in its followers. When a religious belief causes people outside of that particular orthodoxy to be belittled, insulted, ostracized, persecuted, fired, censored, expelled from their homes and hometowns, beaten, robbed, imprisoned, tortured, raped, or even killed in the name of that religion (all things that do happen with the approval of certain religious leaders and teachings) it makes it pretty easy to determine that this particular viewpoint isn't at all positive and should be avoided. Also, if a religious group doesn't allow people inside that particular orthodoxy to think for themselves, but rather insists that they let their religious leaders determine what is true for them, I know that something is fishy and that I should probably not have much to do with that particular group. If openly questioning (or even disagreeing with) a particular doctrine will get a member of a religious group in trouble then I know that this group is probably not to be trusted. And if a particular denomination insists (or even just asks) someone to do physical harm to them self or somebody else, be it some form of bodily mutilation or even suicide, run as far away from them as possible and never look back.

When it comes down to it, there are two sets of fruit that a theological paradigm tends to lead to. The first is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control. The second is fear, selfishness, peer pressure, intolerance, hostility, anti-intellectualism, arrogance, hypocrisy, and misery. If a doctrine or practice can be demonstrated to lead to the former then it sounds like something that should be embraced. If it has been shown to lead to the latter then I would think that it should be avoided if at all possible.

Stuff

2008-07-31T14:25:00.002-04:00

As Tyler Durden put it in Fight Club (possibly the most important movie ever made), we're "chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." And, even worse, "the things you own end up owning you."

He's right. Very few, if any, of our possessions actually make us happy. On the contrary, they often make us quite miserable. They enslave us to having to maintain them and they trap us in fear of having them damaged, stolen or destroyed. Plus, we just don't need 99% of the stuff we own.

Over the years I've been cutting down more and more on stuff, and you know what? There's little that feels more freeing than getting rid of things I just don't need. I'm also buying a whole lot less. If I don't need it I try not to buy it, and does this ever save a lot of money.

Learning to live with less stuff is the first step on the road to freedom. The funny thing is, while it sounds like it would be difficult to do, at least at first, one quickly learns that it's actually one of the easiest things in the world to do and that the less you have the richer your life becomes (not to mention the richer your bank account becomes, if that's something you care about).

Slavery

2008-07-31T14:20:00.001-04:00

I am a slave, and odds are high that you are too. We are slaves to a system that has come to dominate pretty much the entire world. I call this system "transactionalism." It's a way of life in which people will only do something for you if you do something for them, and vice versa. It's a way of life where you can't have even the basic things needed to live, things like food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and health care, unless you have something to trade for them (hence the name "transactionalism"). In times past we traded other objects for the things we wanted or needed, though these days we mostly trade icons made of metal and paper (we call these icons money) that represent an imaginary point system made up by humans long since dead. All but the richest of us trade our time and energy in order to gain the objects or icons needed for these transactions, but all of us trade our souls.

This is a voluntary slavery, however, because transactionalism is completely unnecessary. I believe that we could actually eliminate all forms of commerce and trade and that humanity would not only survive, we would thrive. I would say that well over 90% of the jobs out there would be completely unnecessary if we were to eliminate transactionalism from the equation. The vast majority of jobs exist solely to make money (for owners and employees). Without money, the only work that would be left is that which truly is necessary, work such as that which provides food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and health care to the planet's population. With today's technology, less than 10% of the world's population would have to work in order to provide these necessities, and since most people would get bored without a job, these jobs would never go unfilled, even without the financial "rewards" for doing them.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans have given their souls over to transactionalism, and are taught from childhood that it is the only way. In fact every religion is really a form of transactionalism (do certain things and/or avoid certain things and your deity will reward you, or at least not punish you too much). While my dream is a transaction free world, I realize that this is unlikely to happen in my lifetime since humans aren't likely to get over this system anytime soon (if ever).

Dialogue With an Evangelical - Part 2: The Bible

2008-02-18T15:25:00.005-05:00

Everlasting torment in hell isn't the only topic I've discussed with "Bob." We've talked about all sorts of other theological and philosophical issues, one of my favorites being when we've talked about his thoughts on the Bible:

Bob: The problem with most Christians today is that they just don't follow the Bible any more. If more Christians read their Bible and actually followed it we'd see real revival in the Church.

Me: Are you telling me that you follow the Bible perfectly?

Bob: Nobody's perfect, but I do my best to practice what the Bible teaches. Not like those liberals who pick and choose and only follow the passages that make them feel good while ignoring all the passages that make them feel uncomfortable.

Me: So someone who picks and chooses which passages to follow and ignores the rest is a liberal Christian?

Bob: If you can call them a Christian at all. I sometimes have a hard time thinking of these cherry pickers as Christians, but I'm nothing if not generous so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Me: I'm glad to hear that. Particularly since your generosity might come in handy for you down the road.

Bob: What do you mean?

Me: Well, I'm just not sure that you really do follow the Bible quite as thoroughly as you might think you do.

Bob: What?! How can you say that?

Me: Because of all the Bible verses you completely ignore.

Bob: You've got to be kidding me. Like what?

Me: Well, the Bible teaches that witches should be killed, for instance. Do you kill every Wiccan you come across? It also teaches that shellfish and pigs are an abomination. Do you ever eat shrimp or pork or have pepperoni on your pizza?

Bob: But those are Old Testament teachings. According to the New Testament we're not under the law any more and don't have to follow those rules.

Me: I know some Seventh Day Adventists who would disagree with you, and Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and many Christians still base many of their doctrines on the Old Testament. But okay, let's just focus on the New Testament for now. At your church, do you allow your women to speak?

Bob: We don't have any female pastors or teachers in our church, no.

Me: That's not what I asked though. I asked if you allow your women to speak at all. For instance, after a sermon, do you allow the women to talk out in the foyer about the sermon you all just heard, or even just about life in general?

Bob: Well, sure, once the church service is over.

Me: But in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." It doesn't say anything about whether a church service is still going or not, it just says they can't speak in the church. It even says for them to wait until they get home to ask their husband if they have any questions.

Bob: Well, it does, yeah, but we have to consider the context of that passage and interpret it accordingly.

Me: So it's okay to interpret passages of Scripture and not just take them at face value?

Bob: Of course. Not all passages are meant to be taken literally. And not all passages are intended for all people in all times. There's the historical and cultural context to take into consideration.

Me: Ah, I see. So how would you interpret that passage then?

Bob: Well, I don't know. I'm sure it didn't mean that women couldn't speak at all in the church building though. That just doesn't make sense.

Me: But I assume you have some good basis for interpreting away the literal meaning of the passage beyond the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. I don't see anything in the passage that seems to indicate that Paul only meant it for the Corinthians, or that he only meant during the service, or even that he only meant it for Christians in the first century.

Bob: I don't know. But my pastor lets the women speak in our church and I'm sure he wouldn't if that passage was meant to be taken literally.

Me: Are you saying that your pastor is incapable of being wrong?

Bob: You really like that question, don't you?

Me: As long as people fall back on the pastor excuse I'll continue to ask it.

Bob: Touché. But no, I realize he can't always be right about everything. He isn't God, after all. Still, even if he is wrong, there's no way we could tell the women in our church not to talk to each other. That wouldn't go over well at all.

Me: So, in other words, we should ignore a passage because it makes us feel uncomfortable. Doesn't that make one a liberal by your earlier definition?

Bob: I don't know. I'm confused now.

Me: And that was only one New Testament command that you don't follow. I could go on with dozens more that I'll bet you ignore, many of them given by Jesus Himself.

Bob: I'm not sure I'm ready for any more right now.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I really could have gone on with literally dozens of passages that no Christian takes at all seriously. And yet these same Christians will not hesitate to condemn other Christians for interpreting the passages they do take literally in a manner different from the way they interpret them.

And just for the record, I have no problem with women speaking in church. :)

We Are All Innocent

2008-02-10T22:00:00.003-05:00

Those who know me well know that I don't believe in free will, or at least that I think it's the biggest misnomer there is, philosophically and theologically speaking.

Every person alive is a victim of their genetics and past experiences. In other words, every choice we make is predetermined by our nurture and nature. Why do you favour your right hand when I favour my left? Something in our DNA or some factor in our personal development decided that for us. Why do you choose lobster while I choose steak? Because, again, some part of our DNA gives us different taste preferences, and another part, along with other life experiences, causes us to order the food we prefer (or to order the food we don't prefer if some other gene and/or past encounter is causing us to want to try something different at that particular moment).

This lack of belief in free will is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in grace. If you're from an evangelical background like I am, you've probably heard that the definition of grace is "unmerited favour." I prefer to think of grace as simply showing unconditional love and kindness to someone, whether they deserve it or not, and I believe that all humans deserve it. None of us asked to be put here. None of us asked for the genes that shaped us or the life events that made us who we are. Even the Bible agrees that "the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it in hope, that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (This is why I lean towards a Universalist form of Calvinism, by the way.)

In the end, whatever the causes of our suffering may be, I take comfort in the fact that, as Our Lady Peace put it, We Are All Innocent, and that maybe this means God will help help us all out in the long run. I can only hope.

Dialogue With an Evangelical - Part 1: Hell

2008-01-20T13:35:00.003-05:00

The following is a dialogue between myself and "Bob," an Evangelical Christian, about the subject of hell:

Bob: Hi, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions.

Me: Sure, why not? What's up?

Bob: If you were to die today, do you know for sure where you'd end up?

Me: Creepy question, but okay. I'd probably end up in a coffin or an urn.

Bob: What I meant was, do you think you'd end up in heaven or in hell?

Me: I'd have to say heaven.

Bob: That's good to hear. Does that mean you've accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?

Me: I have, and I also do all sorts of good works.

Bob: But don't you know that salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works?

Me: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 and 9.

Bob: Then how can you believe that you're going to heaven based on your good works?

Me: When I read about the subject in the Gospels, I notice that Jesus seemed to teach that there are a few reasons one goes to hell, as well as a few ways to avoid going there. The Bible says He taught that those who were rich and those who said that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually the work of the devil and those who didn't help the helpless and those who didn't amputate body parts that offended them were the ones who had to worry about going there. He also seemed to tell us that the way to escape this fate is to feed the hungry, to give something to drink to the thirsty, to invite strangers into your home, to give clothing to those who need it, to take care of the sick, to visit those in prison, to cut off body parts that offend you, to be poor rather than rich, and to never say that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually of the devil. Avoid those things, and Jesus tells us we'll avoid going to hell and instead we'll go to heaven, at least based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

Bob: Yes, it does seem that Jesus taught those things, at least if we take them at face value without properly interpreting them. Since the apostle Paul taught us that salvation is not by works, but is by faith, then obviously Jesus didn't mean for us to interpret those things literally.

Me: So you're saying that He meant for us to interpret those passages figuratively, then?

Bob: We'd have to, in light of what Paul said.

Me: Okay, fair enough, the passages are figurative. I assume you're going to be consistent and interpret the whole of the passages figuratively, right?

Bob: What do you mean?

Me: Well, if we're going to interpret the passages figuratively, to be consistent we'd have to say that the "everlasting punishment in hell" part is meant to be figurative as well, right?

Bob: Well, um...

Me: Because there's nothing in those passages that gives us any reason to believe that Jesus suddenly went from figurative speech to literal speech when He went from talking about how to escape from the punishment to talking about what the actual punishment itself is, right?

Bob: I don't know. Are you saying that hell isn't real?

Me: I'm just saying that, to be consistent, one can't just choose to interpret half of a Bible verse figuratively and the other half literally for no good reason. Wouldn't you agree?

Bob: Technically, yes... but Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven, so it must be real.

Me: First of all, I never said hell wasn't real. Secondly, Jesus is recorded as having spoken about everlasting torment in hell a grand total of three times, according to my concordance. That's many, many times less than He's recorded speaking about heaven. Thirdly, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about, which is being consistent in our interpretations of Scripture.

Bob: Okay, then what about Ephesians 2:8 and 9? You agreed that it says that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.

Me: I did, which means that salvation and escaping from hell must be two completely different things if we're going to remain consistent in our interpretations, at least according to the traditional methods of interpretation.

Bob: But that doesn't make any sense. Everyone knows that salvation is about escaping hell and going to heaven.

Me: Do they now? Whether that's true or not, how do you explain the fact that it would be inconsistent to interpret it that way?

Bob: I don't know. I just know that this is what I was taught. Are you saying that my pastor is wrong?

Me: Are you saying that your pastor is incapable of being wrong?

Bob: Well, no. But that's what Christians have always believed. Isn't it?

Me: Actually, no. Many Christians have had a completely different take on heaven and hell than what you've been taught, from today going all the way back to the early church.

Bob: Really? Like what?

Me: These Christians believe that the passages talking about how to avoid everlasting torment in hell are indeed meant to be taken figuratively, but they remain consistent and interpret the whole passage figuratively, not just the first half. They believe that judgement in hell is not everlasting, but is only temporary, and that eventually everyone will end up in heaven.

Bob: You're talking about Universalism. We know that can't be true since the Bible teaches that hell is eternal.

Me: Only if one is inconsistent in their interpretation of the three places Jesus spoke about "everlasting torment in hell," which we just covered.

Bob: But that would mean that everybody gets the same reward. That means that all the good works I do, and all the sin I avoid, is for nothing, because someone who lives a life full of sin is going to heaven anyway. What was the point of all my good works?

Me: Good question, you tell me. Didn't you just try to tell me that salvation isn't based on good works?

Bob: Well, yeah, I guess. But still, what's the point of living a good life if you'll just go to heaven anyway?

Me: Because living a good life is its own reward, perhaps? Certainly not so you'll go to heaven, since salvation isn't by works, right?

Bob: I suppose. But these people didn't choose Christ, so why should they get to go to heaven?

Me: When you quoted Ephesians to me earlier, you left out a vital part of the passage. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Our faith in Christ is not of ourselves, it is entirely of God. We don't choose to have faith in Christ, God chooses for us by giving us the faith.

Bob: You're talking about predestination.

Me: Sure.

Bob: Okay, but whether they choose it for themselves or are elected by God, the Bible still tells us that only those who have the faith are saved.

Me: Actually, no, it doesn't. It tells us that God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. It doesn't say "particularly those who believe," or "only those who believe," it says especially. If a teacher were to say at the end of the school year, "everybody passed this year, especially Lisa who got an A+," we'd know that while nobody else got an A+, they still passed, since "especially" doesn't mean "only." To try to say this passage doesn't teach that everyone gets saved is reading one's own doctrinal bias into the passage, particularly since there's no good, biblical reason to believe otherwise, as we've already covered.

Bob: Okay, but what about the Lake of Fire?

Me: What about it? We know that it isn't hell, since the book of Revelation tells us that hell will be emptied and then cast into the Lake of Fire itself (hell, that is, not the people in it).

Bob: But aren't people whose names aren't written in the book of life thrown in there as well?

Me: Revelation does say that, yes, but you'll notice that it doesn't say that they'll be in there forever. Neither does it say how one's name gets put in the book of life. In fact it doesn't even say that anyone's name won't be written in the book of life, just that if someone's name isn't in there they'll be cast into the Lake of Fire for an unspecified length of time. Add all that to the fact that Revelation is entirely figurative up until this point, and, just like Jesus' warnings about hell, there's no reason to assume that this passage is suddenly meant to be interpreted literally after 20 chapters of symbolism either.

Bob: Hmmm. What about the other passages that warn about hell?

Me: Which ones? We've already covered every warning in Scripture about "everlasting torment in hell." There are other warnings about everlasting destruction and things like that, but we'd have to read these passages figuratively to read them as referring to everlasting torment in hell since they don't literally say that, they say things like "destruction."

Bob: Interesting. Do you have any more information on this subject? I obviously need to do some more research on the subject.

Me: Definitely. Check out my website at www.ChristianHeretic.com where you'll find writings by all sorts of Christian Universalists over the last two centuries or so.

Bob: Thanks. Can I follow up with you if I have any more questions?

Me: Of course.

Bob: Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The preceding was a combination of discussions I've had online and offline with various different Evangelical Christians. I hope you all enjoyed it.

Theological Evolution

2007-12-21T17:25:00.001-05:00

While I've been a Christian Universalist for about seven or eight years now, there was a time when I believed very strongly that non-Christians would spend eternity in hell (and did lots of street preaching to try to prevent as many people as I could from experiencing this fate). After being introduced to the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, and after much study and soul searching, I had to admit that I was probably wrong about my belief in everlasting torment and changed my mind.

Likewise, if you were to ask me for my views on any number of other theological and philosophical issues, you'd find that my beliefs have changed in many different ways from year to year. Some people have seen this as a negative thing and criticized my theological fluidity from time to time, but, as I recently said in a post on another blog, "my opinion is that if your theological views aren’t at least slightly different from year to year then you’re not to be trusted since it shows lack of growth. There’s no way that your beliefs (I’m speaking to everyone here) are so spot-on correct that you have no need to adjust them, or even completely reject them, every so often."

What Has Always Been Believed

2007-12-09T10:10:00.001-05:00

Recently, a traditionalist Christian was trying to promote his views by saying something along the lines of how we should ignore interpretations of Scripture other than those that have always been believed by the Church.

In response, I would suggest that there's no such thing as "what has always been believed by the Church," because there have always been Christians (members of the Church, in other words) who disagreed with the doctrines that came to be considered "orthodox." Calling these people heretics because they believed something other than the theology that won the doctrinal wars doesn't make them wrong, and the fact that a belief came to be considered orthodox doesn't make it right. In fact, my theory is that the more "orthodox" a doctrine is considered to be the more likely it is to be wrong, but would you expect anything less from a heretic like me?

The Simple Life

2007-12-02T16:15:00.002-05:00

No, this isn't about Paris or Nicole, it's about the lifestyle known as "Simple Living."

"Simple Living," as Wikipedia currently puts it, "is a lifestyle in which individuals consciously choose to minimize the 'more-is-better' pursuit of wealth and consumption. Adherents choose simple living for a variety of reasons, including spirituality, health, increase in 'quality time' for family and friends, stress reduction, conservation, social justice or anti-consumerism, while others choose to live more simply for reasons of personal taste or personal economy.

"Simple living as a concept is distinguished from those living in forced poverty, as it is a voluntary lifestyle choice. Although asceticism may resemble voluntary simplicity, proponents of simple living are not all ascetics. The term "downshifting" is often used to describe the act of moving from a lifestyle of greater consumption towards a lifestyle based on voluntary simplicity."

I've actually been practicing this method of living for most of my adult life, even if sometimes only out of financial necessity, and I find that the more I do the more at peace I am, which suits me just fine considering my intense dislike of stress.

I realize that this lifestyle obviously isn't for everyone, and some of the methods I use to pursue the simple life may only work for people who fit into my particular sort of geographical location (downtown in a major city) and family status (a spouse who shares my love of peace and simplicity and my desire to remain childfree. Having two incomes helps as well, even if they aren't particularly high incomes), but I thought I'd still share some of the methods I use for those who might be curious what Simple Living looks like for a big city Christian Heretic and his wife:

- Growing up in Toronto I never needed a drivers license, thanks to the TTC (the Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto's public transportation system), so I never bothered to get one. While my wife does have one, we decided to continue going vehicle-free since there's just no need for one here in the downtown core, and the financial savings are tremendous.

- One rule I've held since I began full-time work was to make sure that any home or job I have is within a five minute walk of a subway station so I can continue not needing a vehicle.

- Another reason that living in the downtown Toronto area is great is because anything I could possibly need is either within walking distance or no more than a short subway ride away. This also helps keep us both in shape as well.

- Speaking of keeping in shape, we have miles and miles of indoor walking areas in the PATH and in the two other underground malls in the downtown area, all three of which are attached to the subway line (in fact the PATH is so extensive, totaling 27 kilometres in length and still expanding, that one can access it from any of 5 different subway stations downtown). I like to walk for miles a day in the better weather, and the PATH and these malls mean I don't have to stop when the weather gets bad.

- I've found that a great way to simplify my life is to keep my entire wardrobe completely black so that every single article of clothing I own matches every other article of clothing. This seriously helps when trying to decide what to wear since nearly everything I own could be worn in almost any sort of social situation. All I have to do is consider the temperature and whether my shirt should have a collar or not. As far as pants go, I only own a few pairs of black khakis which work in any situation.

- The Internet is probably the greatest tool for Simple Living since it helps one gather information in seconds, and also gives one access to lots of web sites on the topic itself.

- The public library can be great for entertainment and informational needs. It doesn't cost anything to check stuff out (unless you forget to return your books on time), and the Toronto Public Library system has a huge selection of books, magazines, DVDs, and other resources (including Internet access and/or wireless access points in many of their branches if you have a laptop). Plus, there are three libraries within walking distance of our apartment.

- This might seem strange to some people, but we've found that we did laundry far more often than we actually needed to in the past and have cut down. Before you freak out, think about it. If you've only worn a shirt once or twice (or even a few times) and nobody's going to know it because it doesn't smell and isn't obviously dirty, I can think of no good reason to wash every article of clothing after it's only been used once (okay, underwear and socks might be a different story, but even with them there are exceptions). Cutting down on doing laundry so often not only saves a lot of money, it's good for the environment as well (and, again, who's going to know, unless you publicly announce it on the Internet? :D ).

- I'd get lonely with no friends, but limiting the number of friends I have (and understanding the difference between a friend and an acquaintance) definitely helps keep life simpler. I love seeing my friends, but my wife and I are both introverts and neither of us need to see them every day, or even every week (some friends we only see once or twice a year, but thanks to the phone and the Internet we're able to keep in touch and up to date on each others' lives), and this gives us a lot more free time for ourselves to relax.

- Other than the Internet, cell phones are probably the greatest boon to Simple Living. Thanks to having a cell phone I don't have to stay at home if I'm waiting for that important call (whatever it may be). Of course Call Display and Voice Mail are a must, since thanks to them I can avoid answering the phone if it's someone I don't want to speak with at that moment and because I can let the call go to voice mail if I'm too busy to answer it right then. I've actually probably only had a regular landline for about 8 months out of the last 12 years or so thanks to cell phone technology, and I can't imagine a reason I'd ever own a landline again except for if I couldn't get Internet access without it (though here in Toronto we have dry-loop DSL and don't need a phone line for Internet access with many providers).

- A major way that I simplify my life is by not celebrating any holidays (I take the time off work, but that's as far as I take it), and by only celebrating the birthdays of immediate friends and family who invite me out to their own birthday celebrations. For most of my childhood my family didn't celebrate Christmas, and I'm actually very thankful for this fact since it means that now that I'm out on my own I don't miss it at all, and it sure does save a lot of money, time and headaches not having to buy Christmas gifts for people.

- An important factor for me is that I try my best to always have a job where I'm not required to do much (if any) overtime or take any work home with me. As soon as I'm finished work I don't want to have to even think about it again until it's time to hit the office the next work-day. This may mean I'll never have a prestigious job, but peace of mind is much more important to me than an important title on a business card. The one thing I know I'm not going to say on my deathbed, after all, is, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office," but I know for sure that a lot of workaholics are going to say they wish they'd spent a lot less time at their job when the end comes. Hey, I may have to work to live, but I certainly don't live to work.

- Finally, cutting down on unnecessary possessions is probably the most important part of Simple Living. I've moved a few times in the last decade or so, and I use each move as an opportunity to get rid of stuff I may have accumulated that I don't need. Any clothing I haven't worn in a year goes to good will, for instance (not counting things like my suit jacket, of course, which I only wear to weddings and job interviews but wouldn't want to have to buy a new one when I need it). Our apartment is very spartan, and I find that extremely relaxing (though I realize it may not be for everyone). I must say that I find the old expression about your possessions owning you to be so true, and the less I own the more free I feel.

There are a lot more things I could add, but that's probably a sufficient introduction to the concept for those of you who have never heard of it before. For those readers who are already practicing the lifestyle, please feel free to add some tips of your own.

Do Universalists Need Jesus?

2007-11-26T23:55:00.001-05:00

Someone I know recently said that if Universalism is true then we don't need Jesus and, since I've heard this statement too many times from too many traditionalists, I felt a need to give a short response to it here.

As a Christian Universalist, I like to respond to assertions like this one with a parable in the form of a news article:

At 6:00pm, Friday evening, firefighter Joshua Christos died in order to rescue all 300 children trapped in Kosmos Public School as it was burning to the ground. However, because he saved all 300 students, rather than just 2 or 3 of them, we are forced to declare that Joshua's death didn't actually serve any purpose even though none of the children would have been saved had he not died.

I realize that Universal Reconciliation isn't an easy doctrine to swallow, but statements like "If Universalism is true then Jesus died in vain" make me wonder whether most traditionalists are even trying when they argue against the idea.

TULIP

2007-11-20T11:25:00.001-05:00

Believe it or not, I find that there is quite a bit in Calvinism to agree with, particularly their take on free will. There are a couple points where we disagree though, what with me being a Christian Universalist and all, so I thought I'd give my Universalist take on TULIP:

1. Total Depravity/Total Grace: Every part of our lives is affected by sin, but where sin abounds grace super-abounds so every sin has already been forgiven and all of humanity has already been ontologically saved in Christ.
2. Unconditional Election: God elects to noologically save some people based upon no merit of their own.
3. Limited (noological) Salvation in this Age: Only those to whom God has revealed the truth of their ontological salvation will be noologically saved during their lifetime.
4. Irresistible Grace: Those whom God elects cannot resist (noological) salvation.
5. Perseverance of God: God will sacramentally save everyone in the end.

This post explains the references to the three different stages of salvation (ontological, noological and sacramental), just in case you're not familiar with them.

Let's See What You've Got

2007-11-17T12:15:00.001-05:00

In my experience, really thinking over the implications and ramifications of their own doctrines doesn't seem to be something most Christians do. Likewise, theological consistency doesn't appear to be a virtue among most Christians either. These observations are probably made the clearest when it comes to the topic of hell. The fact that interpreting the 10 passages generally used to defend Everlasting Torment in hell as an actual defense of the doctrine means that, in order to be exegetically consistent, one also seems to have to believe in salvation by works appears to completely fly over the heads of those trying to use those passages.

Interestingly, traditionalist Christians will exegete passage after passage in order to prove that homosexuality or premarital sex or abortion is a sin, not to mention in order to prove a multitude of completely trivial doctrines, and yet you'll have an easier time trying to kill a grizzly bear with a toothpick than you will getting a believer in Everlasting Torment to explain how those passages actually back up this particular belief. My theory is that they realize none of those passages actually even seem to imply salvation by grace through faith and not of works but are in denial about the whole thing. They can (and sometimes will) argue that it's just so obvious that there's no point in explaining their interpretations of these passages, but, as I said, they're happy to exegete passages to defend much lesser doctrines at the drop of a hat so that makes such arguments suspect in my opinion.

So, to those who insist that people will spend eternity suffering in hell if they don't put their faith in Christ before they die, and that good works won't help them, remember that extreme assertions require extreme proof, and we've yet to see even minor proof from your side. I've given my defense of Universal Reconciliation on this site and on various message boards, even from a completely biblical inerrantist position, but we're all still waiting to see what you guys have to Scripturally and consistently back up your soteriology. The ball's in your court now, let's see what you've got.

You Are Already a Heretic

2007-10-20T19:20:00.002-04:00

It doesn't matter what your theological views are, nor does it matter what denomination your church is, no matter who you are, you are considered a heretic by some other group of Christians out there. But, of course, your views and denomination are right and everybody else's is wrong so it doesn't matter what they think, does it?

If You Were a Universalist

2007-09-08T16:55:00.001-04:00

Brian, over at The Beautiful Heresy, reminded me of a great old (possibly apocryphal) story about the 19th century Universalist Hosea Ballou in a recent review of Martin Zender's newest book:

Ballou was riding the circuit in the New Hampshire hills with a Baptist minister one day, arguing theology as they traveled. At one point, the Baptist looked over and said, "Brother Ballou, if I were a Universalist and feared not the fires of hell, I could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and I'd still go to heaven."

Hosea Ballou looked over at him and said, "If you were a Universalist, the idea would never occur to you."

In addition to making a point about Christian Universalism this story also points out a common misunderstanding of salvation itself by many Christians. The Baptist in the story forgot that any Christian who believed in Eternal Security (the idea of "Once Saved, Always Saved") could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and still go to heaven. This concept isn't limited to Christian Universalists, it's relevant to any Christian who believes in salvation by grace alone.

Interestingly enough I've had almost the exact same statement about Universalism made to me by more than one traditionalist Christian in the past, Christians who I know for a fact do believe in Eternal Security. Sadly, it seems that theological consistency is not considered a virtue among most Christians.

I'm Not Here to Convert You

2007-08-29T20:35:00.001-04:00

Believe it or not, my goal is not to convert anyone to Christian Universalism (as if I could, anyway). It might seem like this is my goal but my actual reasons for discussing the topic of Universal Reconciliation on this site are a little different.

My first reason is to provide some explanations to those who truly want to understanding why I believe what I believe about the topic, as well as to correct more than a few misconceptions about what it is that Christian Universalists actually do believe.

My second reason is to point out the weaknesses of the popular opposing view, mostly because I believe that most traditionalist Christians take too many of their presuppositions for granted and need to have them challenged every now and then.

My third (and probably most important) reason is to encourage those who already believe in Universal Reconciliation and to provide them with resources to help them fulfill the same three goals if they so desire.

Now if my site happens to help someone come to believe in Universal Reconciliation then I'm thrilled, but I don't believe that it's my job to convince anyone of what to believe about anything, that's between them and God.

How to be Free From Sin...

2007-07-10T21:55:00.001-04:00

Martin Zender, a friend of mine from the US, has put out his latest book, How to be Free From Sin While Smoking a Cigarette, and I just can't recommend it enough. This is the book for people with weaknesses on what God thinks about our sin.

Here are a few excerpts from the book:

"The Pharisees of Jesus’ day tried hard to stamp sin from their lives. The result? They sinned like crazy people. What a paradox. But you’ve proven it in your own life: the more you try not to do the thing you hate, the more you think about the thing you hate, and the more you do it. God is quite aware of this principle and—if you can believe it—He invented it."

* * *

"Your church assumes that the kind of freedom we’re uncovering here—even if they did believe it—will inspire more sin. Christian leaders don’t trust grace, and they certainly don’t trust you with it. So they prop up grace with law, make themselves the administrators of it, and send you on a guilt trip every time you miss church or break one of their rules."

* * *

"Are we warring with our flesh? Then we are miserable, for this is captivity. To be constantly worrying about, wrestling against, and warring with the flesh is the worst kind of bondage. So many people assume that a vast moral struggle must accompany a Christian walk. Christianity itself has taught this. But no. This is horrible bondage. Struggling against flesh is the essence of religion and it’s why religion frustrates people and makes them crazy. It’s why religious people become incensed that the rest of the world isn’t as concerned with sin as they are. The truth is that the rest of the world trusts God more with its sin than Christians do with theirs."

Defending Everlasting Torment

2007-07-04T12:05:00.003-04:00

The fact that nobody has succeeded in completing my Everlasting Hell Challenge doesn't necessarily prove that it can't be done, but I'm not holding my breath that someone will be able to. In the meantime, however, we may as well take a look at the passages in Scripture that are used to back up the idea of Everlasting Torment (ET).

Let's start with the Old Testament as it must be chock-full of warnings about ET:

"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." - Daniel 12:1-3

What's that? This is the only passage in the entire Old Testament that hints at the idea of ET? That can't be right. There were about 2,000 more years between Creation and the Incarnation than between the Incarnation and today, that's double the amount of time. If ET is true then it seems that God didn't bother to warn even His chosen people, much less the rest of the world, about it until many thousands of years after the fall. If we're to take the concept of ET seriously, it seems that God decided the only people worth saving are those who came after the Incarnation since He didn't even bother to tell anyone how to avoid this horrible fate in this passage beyond "being wise" and having your name written in some book. Still, nothing about "non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) in this passage so I'm going to have to write it off as a good defence of ET for non-believers until someone can demonstrate a good exegesis of this passage that does defend the idea of non-believers in Christ going to hell forever.

Well, that was it for the Old Testament, but surely the New Testament must be full of passages that tell us that non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) go to hell forever. After all, it's such an important part of our Protestant theology. Let's take a look:

"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." - Matthew 12:31-32

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." - Mark 3:28-29

"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." - Luke 12:10

That's the first statement, repeated in the three Synoptic Gospels, that a traditionalist could use from the New Testament to try to back up their belief in ET. Taken at face value it seems to say that every sin will be forgiven except the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" (which is, literally, to say that a work of the Holy Spirit was actually done by the devil, something that very few people have ever done or will do). Matthew also seems to tell us that after the age to come ends this sin will be forgiven, so those few people who have committed this sin might just be in luck once the next age ends, presumably after the 1,000 year Millennial Reign concludes. Since that warning only applies to those who say that the work of the Holy Spirit was actually done by the devil most of us don't need to worry too much about it, so time to move on.

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." - Matthew 18:8-9

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'" - Mark 9:43-48

This is the second statement that Jesus made that might be interpreted as a warning about ET. However, if someone can interpret "non-believer in Christ (apart from any works)" out of not mutilating one's body they're a better exegete (or should I say eisegete?) than I am. This passage seems to tell us that those who go to hell are those who let parts of their body cause them to sin without amputating those parts, but it sure doesn't seem to tell us that non-believers go to hell forever. So I guess we'll have to move on to the many more warnings Jesus gave about ET:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."" - Matthew 25:31-46

I've read and re-read this passage and the only thing I can get out of it, at least if taken at face value, is that those who help the helpless go to heaven forever and those who don't get punished forever. Just like the passages about bodily mutilation, I just don't get how one reads "non-believer in Christ (apart from any works)" into "those who don't feed the hungry or look after the sick," particularly since I know of many believers who don't and many non-believers who do. In fact, this passage seems to imply that more non-Christians might go to heaven than Christians and more Christians might end up in hell than Atheists. But I'm sure some good theologian out there will fill me in on why I'm reading that wrong. In the meantime let's check out all the other warnings about ET that Jesus gave us:

Wait, that was Jesus' last warning about ET in the Gospels? But I thought He spoke more about everlasting punishment in hell than He did about heaven? That was only three warnings, and none of them mention non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) at all. In fact two thirds of them seem to imply that certain works must be done to avoid everlasting damnation. Okay, well, maybe we confused Jesus with the Apostle Paul, it must have been him who gave all those warnings. Let's check them out:

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed." - 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10

Finally, a passage that seems to tell us that non-believers will go to hell forever. What? The passage doesn't even mention hell? It says destruction? Well, surely I could be forgiven for reading into that word based on all the other passages that talk about non-believers going to hell forever, a little eisegesis never hurt anyone, right? Oh, that's right, none of the other passages so far actually mentioned non-believers in Christ, they all seemed to refer to those who didn't do certain works. It seems that if we want to take this passage literally we'll have to become believers in Annihilation rather than ET. But I'm sure Paul must have given us lots of other warnings that we can use to defend the position. He didn't? That can't be right. The great evangelist to the Gentiles never once spoke of everlasting torment in hell? Not even in his sermons to the Jews or the Pagans recorded in Acts? Well there must be something else in the Bible that we can use to defend the idea. Ah, here we go:

"A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."" - Revelation 14:9-11

That only tells us that those who worship a certain beast (could this be a metaphor for a particular person?) will be punished forever, not that non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) will be. Of course, one would also have to justify taking the effect (the punishment) literally when we're not taking the cause (the worshipping of a beast) literally. But since this doesn't speak of non-believers we'll have to move on.

When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. - Revelation 20:7-10

Well, this passages seems to say that Satan, the beast and the false prophet (and maybe the nations who marched with them against the city God loves depending on how you read the passage) will apparently be thrown into the lake of fire and will be tormented forever, but still nothing about non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) so let's move on to the next passage:

This can't be right, I can't find any more. But that was only 10 passages (7 if you take the fact that three of them were repeats of passages in Matthew into consideration). That was the whole foundation upon which the concept of Everlasting Torment rests? But what about all the passages that are supposed to tell us that non-believers in Christ (apart from any works) will go to hell forever, where are they? Isn't this is one of the most important teachings of the evangelical church? Well, after comparing those passages to the multitude of passages backing up the idea of Universal Reconciliation (UR) that I've referred to previously on this blog I'm going to have to go with the idea that seems to actually be backed by Scripture. If anybody wants to try to defend their beloved doctrine of ET I'd be happy to listen, but until then I'm going to have to stick with UR.

Do You Believe What Jesus Taught?

2007-07-01T19:35:00.002-04:00

When discussing or debating Universal Reconciliation with Christians who hold the traditional views of heaven and hell I will often be told that Jesus taught everlasting torment in hell for non-believers so we have to believe it. Whether or not He did (and you all know by now that I don't believe He did), I would like to suggest that this is about the only teaching of Jesus that most Christians take at all literally. Sure, Christians will claim to believe the rest of Jesus' teachings in the four Gospels, but the proof is in the practice so let's take a look at a few of Jesus' teachings and see for ourselves just how much of what He said is actually believed by His so-called followers today:

- We'll begin with Jesus' first recorded big public speech, known as "the Sermon on the Mount." Now I'll admit that He didn't technically give any commands in the "Beatitudes" section, but He does seem to imply that it is a good thing to be merciful or a peacemaker or to be okay with being insulted, persecuted and slandered rather than judging, fighting and suing those who might say things about you that you don't like. However, since He doesn't give a direct command or instruction here I'll let most Christians off on this one with a disclaimer that they shouldn't expect to be blessed if they don't fall into the categories mentioned in Matthew 5:1-12.

- Jesus continues the sermon with an interesting statement that some Christians love to quote:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-20

Many Christians love to quote this passage to try to prove that various sexual acts are still a sin. That's about as far as they're willing to take it, for the most part, though. Most aren't willing to abstain from pork, or shellfish, or cheeseburgers, and they certainly aren't about to abstain from doing anything that might resemble physical activity on Saturday (the Sabbath). Okay, Seventh-Day Adventists get a pass on this one, but they're the few that do. For the rest of you Christians out there, you're no longer allowed to quote this passage to back up your sexual hang-ups until you've committed to abstaining from pork products and committed to doing nothing but going to church on Saturdays (along with the other 600 or so rules in the Mosaic Law that you're probably ignoring). And before you bring up "moral law" vs. "ceremonial law," a) Jesus didn't differentiate in that passage, and b) the few laws I mentioned above fall under "moral law."

- Shortly thereafter Jesus continued with: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." - Matthew 5:38-42

This whole section is pretty much ignored by Christians. Fighting back seems to be a very common Christian practice, and if someone asks a Christian for all their money I wonder just how many would actually give it to him or her. Jesus did say to give to the one who asks you, not give to one when you feel generous, but I've never seen this command practised.

- Jesus also said: "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:1-4

This isn't necessarily a problem I've seen with anybody, but it's a good reminder to all of us not to go bragging about the good things we've done.

- Jesus then said: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:5-6

So much for big showy prayers at church, eh? That's a fail for pretty much all pastors, and for anyone else who gets up to pray in public as well.

- "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-21

We all know just how much many Christians love both money and possessions. This is a fail for pretty much every Christian in North America, not counting those who live below the poverty level and can't afford large savings accounts and nice possessions (unless they wish they could, then they fail both this command and the command not to envy).

- "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear." - Matthew 6:25

Fail for pretty much any Christian living in the western world who isn't a hippy.

- "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." - Matthew 7:15

Fail for mostly anyone in the more charismatic circles and anyone who believes Pat Robertson has any credibility at all.

- We now come to one command of Jesus that I'm not aware of any (sane) Christian obeying: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." - Matthew 18:8-9

This is a passage that traditionalists love to quote to try to prove to me that hell is everlasting, and yet I don't see one traditionalist plucking out their eye or cutting off their hands or feet when these parts "offend them" (whatever that means). If one can find a way to convince oneself that mutilating your body is figuratively referring to become a Christian, well, they've got a more vivid imagination than I do, that's for sure.

- "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." Matthew 18:15-17

Growing up I went to many different churches of varying denominations (something that shouldn't exist according to the Apostle Paul, but I'll let that slide since I'm focussing on Jesus' teachings for this entry), and I can't say I ever saw this practised.

- "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."" - Matthew 18:21-22

One of the hardest places to find forgiveness is in a Christian church. Enough said.

- "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:9

Do I really need to point out the divorce rate among Christians or can I let this one speak for itself?

- "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."" - Matthew 19:16-21

It seems that Jesus wants those of us with money and possessions to become like hippies. If you don't it looks like you may not get eternal life, according to this passage.

- Here's one last passage, one that traditionalists love to throw out there to try to prove that non-believers in Christ will go to hell forever. Read it carefully:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."" - Matthew 25:31-46

If we take this passage at face value it seems to clearly teach that those who don't help the helpless will be punished forever and those who do will get eternal life. Similarly to the "body mutilation" passage, traditionalists like to try to insist that "those who do the good works of helping the helpless" is a figurative code for those who believe in Jesus to save them and that "those who don't help the helpless" is a figurative code for those who don't believe in Jesus to save them. How they get this out of that passage I don't know, particularly since I know of many Christians who don't do these things and many non-Christians who do, but then they insist that while the cause of the punishment and blessing is figurative, the actual punishment and blessing are to be taken literally. Of course nobody can tell me just why we should interpret this passage with such mental gymnastics, but that's traditional Christian theology for you.

That was just a few passages, and only from the Gospel of Matthew at that. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. As most people are well aware, traditionalist Christians are happy to interpret parts of Scripture quite literally if they believe that it will back up their views, but as soon as a passage seems to contradict one of their pet doctrines they will be the first to shout "metaphor," or "out of context." Yes, many times a statement is a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally or not meant to apply to those outside of a particular group and/or time period (although many of the statements I quoted above seem to be meant to be taken quite literally, yet you won't find many Christians actually following them), but that means that the passages you are taking literally need to be carefully reconsidered as well. Don't expect the rest of us to just blindly assume that you are automatically correct about what is meant to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively without first giving us some solid reasons why.

Just Because it's "Orthodox" Doesn't Mean it's True

2007-06-16T11:45:00.001-04:00

Always remember, just because something is labelled "orthodox" doesn't mean it's true. Heresy is often just the rejection of commonly accepted error.

This is the essence of my life philosophy, along with "question everything... even this." As most people do, I began life accepting that most of the standard "orthodox" beliefs were true, be they theological, economic, social or political beliefs. Thankfully, if there's one thing that my parents taught me well (even if they didn't always like it when I practised what they preached), it was to question authority and not just assume something is "good" or true just because a person who (or writing that) might be highly respected by certain people tells me it is. So, everything else aside, I am thankful to my parents for teaching me the value of investigating and examining truth claims for myself rather than just blindly following the crowd.

The Universal Reconciliation Challenge

2007-06-08T21:05:00.001-04:00

Exactly two months ago today I presented The Everlasting Hell Challenge which, as of yet, nobody has been able to win. A poster on the message board where I first presented the challenge asked me to, using the exact same criteria as my original challenge, try to prove Universal Reconciliation. The challenge presented to me was:

Demonstrate convincingly that the idea that "everybody has been (or eventually will be) reconciled or saved by Christ" is a much clearer teaching in Scripture than the idea that "the punishment for those who die without putting their faith in Jesus Christ alone to save them (apart from any works) is everlasting." You must not contradict any other parts of Scripture or any other of your own theological positions in order to demonstrate this.

I decided to take the challenge, and the following is what I came up with:

The easy part of this challenge is, of course, to refer to my own Everlasting Hell Challenge and note that there's nothing in Scripture that teaches that anybody who dies without putting their faith in Jesus Christ alone to save them (apart from any works) will spend eternity in torment, at least nothing that anyone has pointed out in Scripture yet anyway, so unless someone comes up with something on that front this seems to leave ET (Everlasting Torment) out of the running as an option. This leaves Annihilation and UR (Universal Reconciliation) as the only other options that I can think of.

So is there anything in Scripture that might suggest Annihilation, and if so does it seem to be a stronger argument than for UR? The only passage that I'm aware of that might suggest annihilation for those who die without putting their faith in Jesus Christ alone to save them (apart from any works) is 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (King James Version). Of course when we look at that passage in a more literal translation we see it translated as, "in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength" (Young's Literal Translation), so even that passage might not support Annihilation if we go by the YLT since it seems like the destruction might only last until the end of the age (or ages) rather than forever according to that translation.

So while that seems to eliminate ET as an option, and leaves Annihilation as a possible option, we still need to consider whether Scripture suggests the idea of UR at all, and if so does it seem to point more strongly towards UR than it does towards Annihilation? To be honest I'm not even sure where to begin here, there are so many passages in Scripture that seem to indicate UR. I'll just post a few of these passages, along with my thoughts on some of them, but if you want to see a extended list (and not even necessarily an exhaustive list at that) of passages that seem to point us towards UR you can read them here: The Ultimate Redemptive Purposes of God: Scriptures Concerning the Reconciliation of All Things.

I'm going to start with a few passages from the Old Testament to show how it reveals God's attitude towards judgement:

"O give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; For His mercy endureth forever." - I Chron 16:34

"For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for a lifetime; Weeping may last for the night, but a shout of joy comes in the morning." - Ps 30:5

[This actually seems to be a theme repeated throughout Scripture. God's judgements can be severe but His mercy and grace will always be the end result.]

"And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain [Mount Zion]...and on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, even the veil which is stretched over all nations. He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces." - Is 25:6-8

[If God is going to swallow up death for all time, I would think this would include everybody who has ever died.]

"All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." - Is 53:6

[Most Christians believe that this prophetically refers to Christ. If the iniquity of us all have fallen on Him then all of us have been forgiven.]

"For the Lord will not reject forever, for if He causes grief, then He will have compassion according to His abundant lovingkindness." - Lam 3:31-32

[Enough said. :D ]

That's enough OT for now, time to move on to the NT:

"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." - Mt 18:12,14

[I really don't think it gets much clearer than the parable of the lost sheep. I don't see how one can read or hear this parable without coming to the conclusion that the Good Shepherd will find every last one of us.]

"Jesus said, "Father forgive them; they know not what they do." - Lk 23:34

[Yes, He could have just been speaking of those who crucified Him, but if someone who committed that act gets forgiveness how could any of us not be forgiven (not to mention the fact that many Christians believe that all of us are responsible for His death)?]

"The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"" - Jn 1:29

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." - Jn 12:32

[Do we believe that Christ will keep His promises?]

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous. And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more!" - Rom 5:18-20

[Granted, the Bible isn't an algebra textbook, but if we were to break this passage down formulaically (assuming that the "all" and "many" in both groups refer to the same people) it would be very difficult to come to any conclusion other than UR.]

"For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it in hope, that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." - Rom 8:19-21

"For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" - Rom 11:32,33

[These two passages tell us that God is ultimately responsible for the state the world is in, which means that He planned both sin and the fall, but for a reason. They also seem to indicate that His plan for causing us to suffer in this fallen world will ultimately be positive for everybody.]

"For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach." - Col 1:19-22

"Christ is all, and is in all." - Col 3:11

"Even though I [Paul] was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor, yet I was shown mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief." - I Tim 1:13

[As David Sprenger put it, If the prerequisite for mercy is ignorance and unbelief, then who will fail to qualify?]

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to be borne at the proper time." - 1 Tim 2:5,6

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." - 1 Tim 4:10

["Especially" doesn't mean "exclusively." Please note that it also doesn't say that God is the "potential" Saviour of all men but that He simply is the Saviour of all men, and in order to be a Saviour you have to actually do some saving, hence all men are (or will be) saved.]

"In these last days He has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." - Heb 1:2

"But now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." - Heb 9:26

[Sin isn't put away by our faith, it was put away by His sacrifice 2,000 years ago.]

"And He Himself is the propitiation our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2

[You knew I was going to bring this one up, didn't you? :D ]

While there are many more passages I could go over, I've probably taken up enough space here already (but check the page I referred to above for lots more). So while the Annihilation option has 1 potential passage to back it up (and depending on the translation and/or interpretation one uses one could argue quite convincingly that it doesn't even do that), I quoted 20 passages (out of many others that I didn't post) that seem to point us towards UR (and not just point towards, some of them seem to state the position quite clearly, at least when taken at face value). If we were simply going by quantity I'd say that UR wins hands down, but even after we've taken context and interpretation into consideration I would posit that UR still has much more going for it that Annihilation (and 100% more going for it than ET for non-believers, seeing as we couldn't find any passages to back that position up).

Now there is one more position we haven't covered, and that's the idea of ET for those who don't do certain works (including the work of not avoiding certain actions/inactions), which pretty much every passage traditionally used to argue for ET could easily be interpreted as saying. I've obviously left that position out since neither I, nor most other Protestants I know, believes that salvation is by works, and the challenge included the clause that you must not contradict "any other of your own theological positions in order to demonstrate" your conclusion. Also, depending on one's translation and/or interpretation, it can easily be argued that these passages are referring to an age of punishment rather than an eternity as well (check out Young's Literal Translation and see for yourself).

So I leave it to you. Zero passages supporting ET for non-believers, one passage possibly supporting Annihilation for non-believers, and twenty-plus passages supporting UR (ignoring the ten or so passages possibly supporting ET for those who don't do certain good works, depending on one's translation and/or interpretation). With all that in mind, I would ask why anybody would continue to believe that the Bible teaches that non-believers in Christ suffer everlasting torment in hell after death (apart from the fact that it's what you were taught by your church and many would suffer negative consequences from other Christians for changing their mind on this issue)? Equally, I would ask how anybody can not believe that Scripture clearly teaches Universal Reconciliation in Christ?