Blog

There’s a very simple bit of theology that Christians don’t seem to have caught onto yet: According to the Bible, we can do whatever we want to do (1 Corinthians 6:12).

Does the Bible really tell us we’re free to sin? Yes, technically it does. We can do pretty much anything and we’re still covered by grace. In fact, where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.

However… just because we CAN do whatever we want doesn’t mean we SHOULD do whatever we want. While 1 Corinthians 6:12 does tell us that everything is permitted (or lawful), it goes on to remind us that not everything is expedient or profitable. Remember, your actions are going to have consequences, both to you and to others.

And not only do we have to consider the possible negative consequences, there’s the fact that the more we give in to harmful desires, the more we can become enslaved to harmful habits. Since the Gospel is largely about freedom, being enslaved by harmful desires is no better than being enslaved by religion.

The bottom line is, don’t let any religious leader tell you you’re not allowed to do something, but it’s also a bad idea to let any habit or desire rule your life. And always consider what the consequences of your actions might be, not only to yourself, but to others as well.

That being said, not everything that we’ve been taught to believe is sinful or harmful by our religious leaders actually is sinful or harmful. The problem is, there’s a lot of confusion, and even outright misinformation, about some of the things that we’ve been taught are wrong to do. This means we should each reevaluate our ideas of what some of the things we might personally need to avoid are, but we also need to keep in mind that some of the things which might be harmful or habit forming for me might not be the same for you, and vice versa.

However, there’s still one more factor to consider. Even if we know that an activity is completely harmless to us, some of our brothers and sisters won’t have the same understanding we do, which can lead them into harmful habits themselves if they don’t understand proper balance. Similarly, many of them don’t have very strong faith in God’s grace, and publicly practicing certain activities they consider to be sinful can cause some of them to stumble at times, so abstinence, at least publicly, might be the advisable course of action in some situations (though less often than you might think. Helping someone remain “weak” in their faith isn’t necessarily doing either of you any favours). This, of course, brings up all sorts of other questions, but those will have to wait for another post.

Disclaimer: Just because something is covered by grace or is not against God’s law doesn’t mean it isn’t against one of man’s laws. This post is not meant to encourage anyone to break any of the laws of the land where they live, as unjust as certain laws may be.

On the third day of creation, God made a mistake so extreme that the world still hasn’t fully recovered.

I know, it’s hard to believe, but after two days of creating a whole universe you’d have trouble maintaining perfection too. The physics involved in creating gravity alone would be enough to drive a mere mortal crazy, but God also had to worry about about the math behind photosynthesis and metabolism and cytokinesis, not to mention quasars and globular clusters and black holes. So with all that engineering to keep straight, it’s understandable that He’d slip up and create something He never intended to make it to earth. Perhaps it was just a little side project He’d come up with for heaven that fell into the wrong pile of blueprints, but however it happened: that innocuous looking plant ended up on earth, and we’ve had to pay the price ever since.

I’m not talking about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, though one has to wonder what God was thinking there as well. No, I’m talking about a far more heinous plant that has no business existing. I’m talking about marijuana.

This plant, when ingested, causes people to relax and mellow out, and since God likes us to remain in conflict with each other (preferably by invading people in other countries and ostracizing people who believe and act differently from ourselves in our own nations), this plant goes against everything he stands for. It also helps people with chronic illnesses fight pain and nausea, and if God didn’t want these people to suffer, He would have created a plant that helps them feel better (oh, right, I’m going to have to rethink that one).

Fortunately for God, He’s got conservative leaders to help clean up His mess. Religious and political conservative leaders, for the most part, realize that God didn’t mean for this plant to grow in God-fearing nations, so they do their best to eradicate it completely from the land. Even if it’s growing naturally out in the wilderness where God originally put it, they know He couldn’t have possibly meant to put it there on purpose, and that it has to be eliminated.

Of course it’s possible that God didn’t screw up here. Perhaps He realized that people would be tempted to use His creation and that this would help support the burgeoning prison industry in America.

Either way, we need to be ever vigilant to ensure that we avoid this ungodly plant so we can remain edgy and in constant conflict with one another, and we need to continue arresting people who do use or sell it, because we don’t have nearly enough people in prison yet. And if we do need to calm down for a little while, there are all sorts of prescription drugs that God does support which we can use to medicate ourselves.

[Postscript: I can’t believe I have to say this, but some people have failed to realize that the above was satire. No, God has never made any mistakes, which means that He fully intended for this particular plant to exist on earth, and hence anyone who tries to eliminate it from their country is the one actually claiming God made a mistake.]

If the Mosaic law was created to get people to sin more rather than less, as Romans chapter 5 tells us it was, then it seems to me that the people who want the 10 Commandments posted in or around court houses and schools are actually encouraging sin rather than discouraging it. Which isn’t the end of the world, I suppose, since where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, but it does seem contrary to the whole point of the Christian religion (not that its followers are known for their consistency).

The 10 Commandments are only 1.63% of the whole Mosaic law, by the way (and yes, the 10 Commandments are a part of the Mosaic law, as Paul made clear by referencing the 10th commandment when he wrote Romans 7:7–9 as a part of his teaching that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be placed under any parts of the law at all), and if you choose to obey one part of the law you’re then obligated to obey the whole thing, or so Galatians chapter 5 teaches.

Since those of us under grace no longer need the law, I’m quite happy to leave it behind the way I did my school teachers when I graduated. It served its purpose at one time, but to try to keep the 613 Mosaic rules now would be just as silly as following the rules of the classroom now that I’m no longer in school. I’m past the need to raise my hand when I want to speak, and I’m past the need to avoid bacon when I want to please God. Sure, some things just make sense to avoid, such as killing people or pushing people on the playground, but that’s because they’re not nice things to do (and might land you in prison), not because God is going to get you for doing so.

If you’ve read many of my posts, you know by now that one of the most consistent traits of 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 suffer in hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if never-ending torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are since 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 Christians 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 infinitely 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 believe in Universal Reconciliation, 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 Christian ideology.

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 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.

Believe it or not, I find that there is a little bit in Calvinism to agree with, particularly the fact that they believe everyone whose sins Christ died for will be saved. There are some points where we disagree, however, because Calvinists don’t understand that Christ died for everyone’s sins, so I thought I’d give a biblical alternative to what they refer to as TULIP:

1. Total Sovereignty of God: God is in control of everything that happens, at least from an absolute perspective, although we’re still accountable for our actions from a relative perspective.

2. Universal Mortality and Grace: Mortality has passed on to all humanity thanks to Adam’s sin, and because of that mortality, everyone is guaranteed to sin at some point. However, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, so every sin has already been taken care of (at least from a proleptic perspective), and all humanity has been promised an eventual experience of general salvation — meaning immortality and sinlessness — because Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, which is the Gospel/Good News that Paul taught.

3. Limited Special Salvation: While God promises an eventual general salvation to everyone because of what Christ accomplished, He elects to give a relatively small number of people a special, early experience of salvation, known figuratively as “eternal” life, meaning immortal life during the oncoming ages, as well as possibly getting to rule and reign with Christ in heaven during those ages. (Although, those who are instead saved by obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom — which is the Good News Jesus and His disciples preached during His earthly ministry — will also experience their own sort of special salvation, but that’s a form of salvation meant primarily for the Israel of God which involves getting to live in the kingdom of heaven, meaning Israel during the Millennium, and any Israelite who isn’t included in this will still enjoy the general salvation Paul taught about, although not for a long time.)

4. Inevitable Glorification: Anyone God has chosen for “eternal” life willbe justified and glorified, because the only qualification for this justification and glorification is being predestinated and called by God to believe the Good News Paul preached, which means He will give the gift of faith to believe the Good News to everyone He’s elected for “eternal” life, and once someone has faith, it means they’ve now believed (and hence have now been saved, at least proleptically).

5. Promises will be kept by God: God will save everyone by the end of the ages. This means that each and every human who was made mortal (and hence sinful) because of Adam’s sin will also be quickened (meaning made immortal/brought beyond the reach of death/given salvation from a physical, or eschatological, perspective) and made sinless because of what Christ did, although each in their own order (first the body of Christ at the Rapture, then the resurrected members of the Israel of God some time after the Second Coming, and finally everyone else at the end of the ages). So, while only believers will enjoy the special salvation, God will still save everyone eventually.

To learn more about how one experiences the various types of salvation, please read this study: Consistent Soteriology: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, evil, sin, and salvation

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?

It’s important to recognize that the definition of “heresy” isn’t “false teaching,” and that “orthodoxy” doesn’t mean “truth.” In fact, the word “heresies” in the Bible simply meant “sects” (or “divisions”), not “incorrect doctrine,” and “orthodox” only means “that which is commonly accepted” (and there’s always been plenty of commonly accepted error out there).

Remember, Galileo was technically a heretic because he taught that the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe, but he was still quite correct that it wasn’t. Meanwhile, the Institutional Church considered their view that our planet was the centre of the universe to be the orthodox one, but they were entirely incorrect. So remember that just because something is “heretical” doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, and something being “orthodox” doesn’t make it true. In fact, both Jesus and Paul were considered to be heretics by the orthodoxy of their day, so consider yourself in good company when someone calls you a heretic.

I was recently reminded of a great old (possibly apocryphal) story about the 19th-century Universalist, Hosea Ballou:

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 Scriptural 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 Scriptural 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.

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 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.

Throughout history, various heretics (not to mention infidels, apostates, and other non-believers in particular doctrines and dogmas) have been ostracized, persecuted, tortured, raped, and even killed for their particular beliefs (or lack thereof). Apparently we are often considered to be such a threat to the well being of society that if we are not eliminated (or at least harshly punished) we might actually be responsible for sending souls to everlasting perdition.

This fear, however, just goes to demonstrate the inconsistency in the theology of those who hold such a mindset. For those who believe in the idea of “free will,” the individual is a free agent and completely responsible for whatever punishment one happens to bring upon oneself. This means that, while a “heretic” might reveal methods of bringing punishment upon oneself, the heretic can take none of the actual blame for the choice to believe whatever the heresy might be. Likewise, for those who believe in predestination, there is nothing a “heretic” could do that would change God’s plan for one’s eternal destination. For a “heretic” to be at all responsible for somebody else going astray means that the heretic’s will is more powerful than the individual’s will or God’s will (depending on one’s stance on “free will” vs. predestination).

This means that, even if never-ending torment in hell were true (which I don’t believe it is), we heretics should be considered to be no threat at all, unless you believe us to be more powerful than both yourselves and God.