Christian Theology is All Over the Map. Part 2. How Can One Gain Eternal Life? The Synoptic Road to Salvation vs. The Roman Road to Salvation

Many conservative Christians stress the necessity of holding specific beliefs rather than doing and acting certain ways toward others (perhaps because many Christians are taught that holding the right beliefs about God and Jesus and what Jesus accomplished on the cross is what assures them that God will forgive them regardless of their actions, so actions are of lesser consequence than right belief). Some passages in the New Testament appear to present the same view that belief trumps actions when it comes to salvation:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Mark 16:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16

“…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:9-10

Romans 10 contains passages that some Christians have even nicknamed, “The Roman Road to Salvation.”

But looked at another way, one canʼt help but note that Mark 16:16 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark but is part of what textual critics agree is a later added ending. While John 3:16 (from the famous “ye must be born again” dialogue) is a similarly dubious saying attributed to the historical Jesus. To see the case against its historical authenticity click here. As for Paul, he admits he never met the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the one depicted in the synoptic Gospels. Even Paulʼs interpretation of the meaning of Jesusʼs bloody death butts head with that found in Luke-Acts (See Part 1 of this series).

Give such questions, shouldnʼt one look deeper at how Jesus answered the question, “How Can I Inherit Eternal Life?” as seen in the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke)? In the synoptics Jesusʼs main teaching and concern was “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.” That was “the Gospel.” And in the synoptics you canʼt fail to notice that Jesus does little to try and get people to agree with specific beliefs “about” himself in order to gain eternal life. Jesus is depicted in the synoptics as advocating an approach to gaining eternal life that did not require outward showy religious displays or numerous rules, nor did he place major value on temple worship and blood sacrifices, instead he laid great stress on oneʼs relationships with others, as in his “Sermon on the Mount” Matt. chapters 5-7.

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 7:12

Several times in the synoptics Jesus tells people to ‘love God’ and concentrate on storing up ‘heavenly treasures’ by ‘loving others,’ and to ‘follow Jesus’ in that respect:

“Good teacher,” one person asked [Jesus], “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the manʼs face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Mark 10

Or there is the version in Matthew:

“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, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall 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

There is also a Lukan version:

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 18

There is this additional teaching about how to gain eternal life that is also found in the synoptics:

“‘The most important one [commandment],’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’ ‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”
Mark 12

“A lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he [Jesus] said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’”
Luke 10:25-28

Such teachings emphasize “doing” in relation to “how to gain eternal life.” This is not to say that Paul in Romans, nor the author of the Gospel of John, lack similar sayings, for they wrote:

“[God] will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life….”
Romans 2:6,7

“And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
John 5

But, unlike the synoptics, Paul and the author of the fourth Gospel also have interpretations of who Jesus was that they tie up with their salvation messages:

“He who believes not [that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world] is damned already.”
John 3

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe… whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood…”
Romans 1:18; 3:22,25

But is blood sacrifice necessary for salvation? Jesus in the synoptics did not seem to think so when he instructed people to pray like this for forgiveness:

“Father… forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Matt. 6:12

“Father… forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.” Luke 11:4

Jesus in the synoptics taught that people who forgave the debts/sins of others would be forgiven by God without need of a blood sacrifice.

To sum matters up once again, as previously noted, Jesus is depicted as saying in Matthew:

“in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12

If that sums up the Law and the Prophets, what need is there for much more to be said?

Or consider the parable of The Good Samaritan found in Luke, that ends, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10

Go and do. Doing is the main thing. Along with Godʼs direct and ample forgiveness regardless of oneʼs specific beliefs ‘about’ Jesus. In fact according to the Gospel of Luke one of the two thieves on the cross next to Jesus called Jesus ‘a man,’ but Jesus still promised him paradise.

Christian Theology is All Over the Map. Part 1. Must Christians believe that Jesus's bloody death had atoning power?

What did the author of Luke-Acts believe about the doctrine known as ‘the atonement?’ “There is at present no satisfactory consensus reached regarding the presentation of the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts. Many models have been proposed, but none seem to deal adequately with all that is going on in Luke-Acts.” See, the diversity of opinion in The Atonement in Lucan Theology in Recent Discussion Some argue that the Lucan Jesus is presented as an innocent martyr, righteous, or lowly man, or that Jesusʼs death was simply a means toward resurrection.

“Many scholars see no atoning significance in the Gospel of Lukeʼs presentation of the death of Jesus and no connection with the forgiveness of sins. There are three passion predictions (9:22; 9:44; 18:31-3), but nothing corresponding to the ‘ransom’ saying in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28, and no ‘cry of dereliction’ from the cross in Luke 23. Even the citations from Isaiah 53 in Luke 22:37 and Acts 8:32-3 are said to demonstrate that Luke is interested ‘not in the atoning death of Jesus but in the fulfillment of scripture in the obedient passion (silence), death (humiliation), and resurrection (taking up from the earth) of the Servant.’” per David Peterson, Atonement in the Synoptic Gospels, who cites Conzelmann, H., The Theology of St. Luke, (trans. G. Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 200-1; and, Sylva, D. D. (ed.), Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990) which records a variety of ways in which the death of Jesus in Luke-Acts has been understood; and, Sylva, Reimaging, 146. In ‘Atonement Theology in Luke-Acts: Some Methodological Reflections,’ in P. J. Williams, A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, D. Instone-Brewer (ed.), The New Testament in its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans), 56-71.

Consider the Gospel of Luke where the author mentions that John the Baptist gave his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of sins because of Godʼs tender mercy (Luke 1:76-78), adding that the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:2-4); and the Gospel of Luke ends the same way, by stating that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Jesusʼs] name to all nations” (Luke 24:46-48), but nothing about the atoning power of Jesusʼs blood sacrifice. Same with the prayer Jesus taught others to pray per Matthew and Luke, the ‘Our Father,’ that mentions God granting forgiveness to those who forgive others, i.e., without God requiring a blood sacrifice before forgiving sins.)

Scholars point out that the author of Luke-Acts neglected to reproduce crucial verses found in Mark//Matthew that describe Jesusʼ death as a ‘ransom.’ Luke reproduces much of Mark in his gospel, including material from immediately before and immediately after the passage below, but omits this particular passage:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28

Also, Luke 22:19-20 says “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” But some manuscripts only have “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body.’” that is, they lack the bit about a “new covenant in my blood poured out for you.”

Bart Ehrman in “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” makes a compelling case for why the shorter reading is the original. And this is the only passage in Luke that suggests Jesusʼ shed blood had magical atoning power.

Similar to the case found in the Gospel of Luke only a single passage in Acts suggests Jesusʼ shed blood has atoning power:

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

That is the only verse in Acts that suggests that Jesusʼ shed blood has atoning power, and much like the verse in Luke, there is a good case to be made that these words were not part of the original.

Without Luke 22:19b-20 and Acts 20:28 there is no concept of blood atonement in Luke-Acts. When Jesus died, according to Luke, it wasnʼt in place of sinners or on their behalf, instead, one need only repent and be baptized in most cases, to accept Godʼs direct mercy.

So if one need only repent and be baptized what is the cross about according to Luke-Acts?

Letʼs have a look at the preaching of Peter and Paul in Acts.

Peter preaches the following in Acts 2, Jesus was a man sent by God. We know he was sent by God because of the miracles. According to Godʼs plan he was killed. God raised him to life. God made him Lord and Messiah. God gave him the Holy Spirit, which he now pours out on his followers. In order to get the Spirit you need to repent and be baptized in Jesusʼs name. Peterʼs message is that forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism and then you get the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 3, Peter preaches that forgiveness comes through repentance and baptism isnʼt mentioned.

In Acts 4, Peterʼs message to the Sanhedrin is that salvation is found in Jesus, but this appears linked to his exalted current status, not to his death.

In Acts 5, Peterʼs words suggest that God exalted Jesus the role of savior after his resurrection, so it was neither the death or resurrection that has saving power, but rather Jesusʼs current exalted status.

In Acts 7 Stephenʼs preaching does not include a ‘gospel’ message, but it is clear that it is the power of the risen Jesus that matters.

In Acts 8, the topic is how you get the Holy Spirit. Again, this seems to be the objective of preaching in Acts.

In Acts 10, Peter preaches to Cornelius, informing him that what God did to Jesus after his ascension is what matters, and believing in the risen Jesus is the way to receive the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 13 Paul preaches the same message, namely that Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed, vindicated by God, raised, and then made Son of God and Savior.

In Acts 17 Paul basically repeats his message in Acts 13.

The preaching of the apostles in Acts repeats the same basic message, Jesus was a good man, wrongly killed. He was vindicated by God and raised from the dead. He became the Son of God and Savior. He can forgive the sins of the repentant and send the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, scholars have noted that a blood atonement is not the major focus of preaching in Acts. It might not be the focus at all in fact if two questionable passages that mention the ‘blood’ are later additions, as textual scholars suspect they are.

The gospel message in Luke-Acts is this: repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit.

To add to the above case, note that Luke 19:19ff (NASB), talks about ‘salvation’ coming to Zaccheus after he repents and returns ill gotten gains. This understanding of salvation precedes Jesusʼ death on the cross, and as in every other case mentioned differs from the traditional Christian view that “without shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sins.” It also differs from the story of the rich young man in which Jesus told him to give away all of his possessions that he might have treasure in heaven and how difficult it was for a rich man to enter heaven, since Zaccheus only gives away half of what he owns, not all, and still, ‘salvation’ is his. Hereʼs the story in Luke 19:

He [Jesus] entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. 3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. [The Greek is ambiguous as to whether or not Zaccheus or Jesus was ‘small in stature,’ though the former is probably meant, though if the latter is meant, it would be the only time in the New Testament where some description of the physical Jesus is presented. Though like I said, it is probably just talking about Zaccheus.] 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. 7 When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” 8 Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” 9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Nor does the passage demonstrate that everyone is “lost,” nor do these other Gospel passages:

“And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.“ Mark 2:17

“But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9.12-13

“And Jesus answered them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’” Luke 5:31-32

In fact Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke does not say everyoneʼs heart is evil and wicked above all things, but rather states:

“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.” Matthew 12:35

“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” Luke 6:45

Jesus also says to “love God with all your heart” which seems impossible if the heart can will only evil choices and is desperately wicked in everyone at all times.

Moreover, the Bible is a big book and you can find passages that put forth the notion that God does not require blood atonement sacrifices because sometimes grain sacrifices are fine, but even more to the point are passages where God directly forgives people who repent. Such passages state outright that repentance and doing good takes the utmost precedence above all types of sacrifices, so at best atonement sacrifices are secondary in Godʼs eyes:

“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

“Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah! “The multitude of your sacrifices—what are they to me?” says the Lord. ‘I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!’” Isaiah 1:10-15

“Hear, you earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. What do I care about incense from Sheba or sweet calamus from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me.” Jeremiah 6:19-21

Or, to quote Jesus himself…

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 7:12

Thatʼs it. Sounds pretty straightforward, not like the the merry-go-round of questions Christian theologians continue to debate, involving questions like, “Do I have enough faith, love, devotion, correct beliefs, etc.” How much and how fervently and exactly what must I believe in order to be saved? How many doubts and questions can I continue to harbor and remain “saved?” etc. Also see Part 2 of this series.

Does “Atonement” Make Sense?

Donʼt Christians ever wonder why killing Godʼs son (whom they believe to have been “God the Son,” the second person of the “Trinity”) was not the greatest sin humans could ever commit? Humans killed God?! Isnʼt that the greatest sin anyone could possibly dream of ever committing? How could the humans who committed such a deed ever be forgiven except maybe by killing another divine savior to “atone” for killing the first one? And so on and so forth? At some point the cycle of “atonement” has to be broken by direct forgiveness. At some point direct forgiveness, not based on a bloody sacrifice, has to intervene to break the endless loop. Maybe thatʼs why Jesus himself did not believe that Godʼs forgiveness depended on a bloody sacrifice, but instead taught everyone to pray “in this way…Our Father…Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Simple. Direct forgiveness.

Has any theologian ever been able to demonstrate how “atonement” works, how physical pain unto death of an animal or person makes up for that time I talked back to my mother, or desired my neighborʼs wife or car? Sounds exactly like sympathetic magic. Or as comedian Doug Stanhope says, “‘Jesus died for your sins.’ How does one affect the other? I hit myself in the foot with a shovel for your mortgage. I donʼt get it.”

Or as my friend Tony Atkinson once asked, “How do ‘sins’ become something substantial in and of themselves? There are memories of being hurt, but ‘sins’ as substantial entities one can collect together and then place inside a body or soul? How do ‘sins’ become collected and where do they exist apart from being past acts? Are ‘sins’ the ‘bad’ memories of God? Do such memories ‘soil’ Godʼs mind? And he has to dispose of them? Is killing his own son a form of forgetfulness, a means of dissolving such memories? None of this makes sense.”

And is the Bible right about the life being “in the blood?” No, the life is in the brain and nervous system. We think nothing of blood transfusions, but cutting out part of oneʼs brain and replacing it with someone elseʼs is another more serious matter.

Also, Christianity comes along and suddenly all those bleeding animal sacrifices were for naught, because none of that animal blood did a thing, not if Christianity is true.

Also the scapegoat, the goat upon which the peopleʼs sins were placed, was NOT BLED, it “took the sins of the people” out into the desert. As for the Passover lamb in the Exodus story it did not die for anyoneʼs sins! It was so that the angel of death already saw death on the door posts of the Hebrews and didnʼt go in and kill their first born children. It was passing over those homes, but had nothing to do with any of the Jewish firstborn children inside those homes being sinners.

Though I admire Jesus for deploring the temptations of wealth, organized religion and its powerful sway, as well as hypocrisy, I no longer find the doctrines of either “original sin,” or “imputed righteousness” believable. I donʼt think the cosmos is the way it is simply because one human couple failed a test, nor do I believe that a man being executed 2000 years ago “paid the price” for the “worldʼs sins,” and we ought to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” for the forgiveness of sins, not even metaphorically. Sounds rather paganish, echoing vampirism or cannibalism, a theology taken right out of the ancient superstitious caldrons of blood sacrifice and appeasement. Sympathetic magic.

That being said, I saw the film, The Passion, and was moved when Jesusʼ mother ran toward him when he was being forced to carry the cross. As she struggled to reach out to her son who had just fallen carrying the cross she recalled the time Jesus fell as a child and she rushed to help him. My eyes teared up at that scene in the film. But the rest of the film was a blood orgy that did not move me any more than seeing any other human being unjustly tortured and murdered. I didnʼt feel ‘forgiven’ after watching the film, nor closer to God.

Though when I was young and raised Catholic I felt such a connection, and even cried after reading the Gospel stories of Jesusʼ death “for me, for me, for me.” (Ah, the self interest angle of Christianity, so prominent even in its hymns. Jesus loves me… This I know. Died for me. Me. Me. Me.) The Christian schema doesnʼt make sense to me anymore, neither intellectually nor emotionally. But direct forgiveness and people showing compassion to other people does.

---

Whenever I forgive someone Iʼm relatively straightforward and direct about it. But for God it takes a bloody miracle.

---

After the missionary explained the Bibleʼs superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them replied, “Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll.”

---

Christianity is merely paganism with a more successful advertising campaign.

---

Christianity teaches that Jesus had to die, or God couldnʼt forgive sins, not a single sin, not unless Jesus died first.

So why isnʼt Judas a “Saint?”

---

Conversation, A.D. 33

A: Have you heard the latest?

B: No, whatʼs happened?

A: The world has been redeemed!

B: You donʼt say!

A: Yes, the Dear Lord took on human form and had himself executed in Jerusalem; and with that the world has been redeemed and the devil hoodwinked.

B: Gosh, thatʼs simply lovely.

Arthur Shopenhauer

---

We relate to the suffering of a wide range of species not just human suffering. It was even discovered that deer react to the sound of a crying baby of almost any mammal species, not just the cry of a baby deer. But how does such empathy in nature provide evidence for the truth of any one religion in particular? It doesnʼt. Which reminds me of a poem…

Chipmunk Crucifixion

No chipmunk had to be crucified

on a tiny cross of twigs

To save all the other chippies,

Had to have nails pounded

through his little paws,

Had to take upon himself

all the sins of all the chippies

that ever were or would be

and die in agony

So that after they died

all the chippies

could live again forever,

But only if they believed

in all the sayings and doings

of the chipmunk crucified

on the tiny cross of twigs.

Antler, Last Words

---

Letʼs not forget that Jesus (after a few hours of pain) rose from the dead and ascended to a throne in heaven. So in essence, nobody really “killed” Jesus; it was more like a fraternity hazing, or an early version of the TV show, “Fear Factor,” where you endure all kinds of [fill in blank with favorite expletive] to win a valuable prize.

SOURCE: T-Shirt Hell Newsletter, 2/25/04

---

In the beginning God was perfect and whole, needing nothing.

Then he said, “I need an itch to scratch, Iʼll create humans. Of course I see that most of them will suffer, first on earth (where they shall be born into a world of pain, ignorance, swept up by hormonal waves of emotion, and experience uncertainty, dread, miscommunication), with eternal woes to follow for those who didnʼt ride the right waves of holy emotion by falling head over heels in love with Jesus of Nazareth and/or the writings of his disciples, nor interpret what was written with theological correctness.”

“Also, be it known that I cannot forgive anyone anything, not until Blood Is Shed. I know I had Jesus teach people that I would forgive those who forgave others—but I only truly forgive after BLOOD is shed. And a millennia of shedding animalʼs blood will be just for show, but ineffective. No genuine atonement will be achieved until Jesus of Nazareth bleeds to death. And even the blood of Jesus was shed in vain for the vast majority of doomed humanity who are going to wind up in hell anyway.”

---

For those who defend the idea of eternal wrath being meted out to people after mere decades spent in a “fallen,” confusing, painful and frustrating cosmos, one with fear, prejudice, cultural biases, mental blindness, ignorance, and demons running free (thank God for leaving Satan and his demons on earth), then I guess thereʼs not much in the way of reasonable conceptions of justice anyone can say to such a person. Because they believe it is perfectly just for God to arrange things such that people get born in a frying pan, only to be tossed into the fire, without reprieve, forever.

I say to such people, you can have your jealous God of wrath, who kills millions in the Bible while Satan kills a handful (and Satan even has to beg Godʼs permission to do so, so all the killings are ultimately Godʼs in the Bible).

---

Jews do not make material sacrifices on their holiest day of the year, the day of atonement. They offer a contrite heart on that holiest of days, based on teachings in the psalms and books of their prophets. The prophets in the Bible were at odds with the priests on the matter of the importance of material/animal sacrifices and the “shedding of blood.” Jesus himself taught people to pray, “Forgive us Father as we forgive others.”

Christians have differed in their understandings of what Jesusʼ death signified. Limited atonement or universal? Bloody or nonviolent (see the book listed at the end)? Theological brouhahas have continued throughout the history of Christian theology over the meaning and significance of Jesusʼ death. Some examples below:

• 1500-1600s
  The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675) (Studies in Christian History and Thought) by G. M. Thomas (2007)
• 1600-1700s
  Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640-1790: An Evaluation by Alan C. Clifford (1990)
• 1700s-1800s
  Atonement Controversy: In Welsh Theological Literature and Debate, 1707-1841 by Owen Thomas (2002)
• 1800s
  Modern Anglican Theology: Chapters On Coleridge, Hare, Maurice, Kingsley And Jowett And On The Doctrine Of Sacrifice And Atonement (1859) by James H. Rigg (2008)
• A Treatise on Atonement (1858) by Hosea Ballou. (Famed Universalist preacher from the Victorian era)
• George MacDonaldʼs Challenging Theology of the Atonement, Suffering, and Death by Miho Yamaguchi (2007) MacDonald was a famous Victorian Universalist.
• 1900-2000s
  Dostoevsky on Evil and Atonement: The Ontology of Personalism in His Major Fiction by Linda Kraeger and Joe Barnhart (1992) Dr. Barnhart is an ex-Christian. His testimony appears in Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists
• The Atonement (Problems in Theology) by Michael M. Winter (1994)
• Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement: Biblical Notes on a Controversial Topic by Gerd Lüdemann (1998) Gerd is an ex-Christian and former Lutheran theologian.
• Cross Purposes: The Violent Grammar of Christian Atonement by Anthony W. Bartlett (2001)
• Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement by Gustaf Aulen and A. G. Herbert (2003)
• Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine by Stephen Finlan (2005)
• The Promise of Peace: A Unified Theory of Atonement by Alan Spence (2006)
• The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views by Thomas R. Schreiner, James Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd (2006)
• Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation by J. Denny Weaver, Thomas N. Finger, T. Scott Daniels, and Hans Boersma (2006)
• Options on Atonement in Christian Thought by Stephen Finlan (2007)
• What About the Cross?: Exploring Models of the Atonement by Waldron Byron Scott (2007)
• The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement by Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker (2008)
• Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology: Volume 1: Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement by Michael C. Rea (2009)
• The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology by Rashdall, Hastings (2009)
• Historic Theories of Atonement by Robert Mackintosh (2009)
• The Atonement and the Modern Mind by James Denney (2009)
• The Atonement in modern religious thought : a theological symposium by Anonymous (2009)
• Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement (Spck Classics) by Gustav Aulen and A. G. Herbert (2010)
• The Nonviolent Atonement (Paperback) Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (2010) J. Denny Weaver “Sharp debates about the death of Jesus sparked by feminist and womanist theologians are the current cutting edge of discussions about Christology and atonement”
  From Publishers Weekly: Evangelical Christians sing hymns in which blood figures prominently; one in particular is called “Nothing But the Blood.” Such Christians may have to change their tune after reading J. Denny Weaverʼs The Non-Violent Atonement, which proposes that the idea of ‘satisfaction atonement’ must be jettisoned in favor of a nonviolent approach. Jesusʼ death, says Weaver, was not planned or sanctioned by God the Father; it was the inevitable result of sinful humans taking matters into their own hands. Perhaps the new hymn can be called “Everything But the Blood”?

Salvation and Damnation: A Panoply of Moral Dilemmas (Ken Nahigian)

How does one obtain “salvation” and avoid eternal hell? The Bible supplies more than one answer, yet each answer raises its own moral dilemma as we shall see after first reviewing the obligatory Bible verses below. (We will also be examining a variety of Christian responses from the “freewill defense” all the way to “Calvinism.”)

Are We Saved By Belief Alone?

“Whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

“… whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Godʼs one and only Son.” (John 3:18)

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.” (John 5:24)

Jesus answered and said to them, “The only work God requires is to believe in the one he sent.” (John 6:29)

[The jailer] “brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:30-31)

“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.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

“… by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight.” (Romans 3:20)

“We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-10)

“So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Galatians 3:24-25)

Or Are We Saved By Works Alone?

Take for instance the deed or act of forgiving others. According to the Gospel of Matthew it assures us Godʼs forgiveness for ourselves: “Forgive us our trespasses [Father God], as we forgive those who trespass against us… For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:12,14)

[Jesus said] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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 to, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:17-22)

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets… Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and DOETH them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.”(Matthew 7:12,16-24)

The “sheep and the goats” are separated on the day of final judgment and the goats get eternally punished while the sheep are granted eternal life, based on their works/actions/deeds: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:31-46

“And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “…if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 19:16-19)

An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him, “… You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’” And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.” When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven.” (Luke 18:18-22)

“God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” (Romans 2:6-7)

“…you, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done.” (Psalm 62:12)

Or Are We Saved By Belief And Works (With The Emphasis Being On Works, Since Belief Often Comes Way Too Easy, And Even Devils Believe)?

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:14-24)

Discussion Of The Above Means Of Salvation And The Moral Dilemmas They Provoke

If salvation were important you would think that the Bible would speak about it with greater clarity and consistently. But lurking behind the question that such apparently conflicting verses raise are other problems, deeper ones, for each alterative brings with it its own moral dilemma.

If faith/belief alone is sufficient, mass murderers like Oliver Cromwell, Torquemada or Hitler (all Christian believers) are in heaven, while compassionate non-Christians such as Anne Frank, Ghandi or Albert Einstein burn in hell. This hardly seems merciful or just.

On the other hand, if good deeds or works alone are sufficient, the practical distinction between ethical humanism and Christianity turns to vapor. Christian doctrine might well be true, but no more essential to salvation than chemistry or the binomial theorem. Instead of teaching about Jesus, Christian missionaries should try to convince people simply to be decent human beings, to love and care for each other. How many souls have they lost over the last two thousand years while pushing the wrong message? (Why do they still push it?)

If salvation requires both correct faith and good works, then Hitler and Torquemada may well be damned, but we still face the moral madness of basically good people burning in hell—Thomas Jefferson, Anne Frank, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, Albert Einstein, Luther Burbank or Buckminster Fuller, none of whom were orthodox Christian believers, as well as billions of others who were so unlucky as to be born into non-Christian cultures, down to the smallest, sweetest child. Forever. (And that means a lot of people, since the Bible seems to imply only a fraction of humankind will escape hell. See: Matt 7:13-14, Matt 22:14, Luke 13:23-24.)

Can such questions be resolved successfully and all such difficulties made to vanish? One attempt to do so involves linking faith with good works, as if sincere faith and moral behavior necessarily reflect each other. The argument, subtle and not unclever, goes something like this:

Correct & sincere faith inspires good works; good works indicate sincere & correct faith. A true believer naturally does good in order to honor and respect God. Any who claim to believe but who do evil are not truly committed in their hearts, or their faith is flawed. Moral midgets like Hitler and Torquemada did not really have faith, despite what they may have told themselves. Outstanding moral giants such as Spinoza, Anne Frank, Albert Einstein and Christopher Reeve did indeed have faith on a subconscious level, even if they were unaware. The same for innocent children and the righteous pagans. They were “Christian in their hearts.” They simply did not know it.

Clever as this is, it conflicts with what we see. In general, crime and immorality are not less in regions of deep religious belief, indeed are often higher. The American “Bible Belt” states, and religious nations such as Mexico or Brazil, have exceptionally high rates of violent crime, far higher than secular regions such as Japan or the Netherlands. This is a worldwide pattern. Among prison inmates in the United States, the measured incidence of atheism is about 1%, but in free society about 7% - 11%, suggesting religious skeptics are less likely to commit serious crimes. The sins and moral gaffes of evangelical leaders here are almost legendary. Even Billy Graham, supposedly the best of the lot, wrote a letter to Richard Nixon in 1969, demanding the bombing of farm dikes in North Vietnam – something that would have devastated the economy, constituted a war crime under international law, and killed over one million people.

As the great Christian writer C. S. Lewis wrote in a letter to a friend, “… we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse… no worse than an animal, something like a devil.”

In any case, it is difficult to swallow the claim that someone can be a religious believer without being aware of it.

The next popular rationalization comes in four flavors at least. The common thread is that God sets different conditions for different groups.

1. God judges the ancient Jews and pagans (those who never heard of Jesus) by good works, the rest of us by faith. Innocents (those who died before they were old enough to make a decent decision) get a free ticket into heaven.
2. God “looks into the hearts” of pagans and innocents, judging them by a general unspoken spiritual potential, an unconscious acceptance of God-seen-in-nature.
3. God gives pagans and innocents a second chance. Immediately after death He reveals himself, then they may decide to accept or reject Him.
4. Itʼs a mystery. God has a Secret Plan for the salvation of pagans and innocents. It is not our business to know.

These take the edge off the original dilemma, but open another can of worms: double standards. In #1 & #2, pagans clearly get the better deal, since to be saved they need only be good in a normal, everyday, human sense, or at least have a decent benevolent attitude, something most of us are inclined to anyway. Dying innocents get the best deal of all, an almost automatic ticket into heaven. It is enough to make you envious of crib-death babies; or wonder if abortion is really such a bad thing.

Likewise concerning #3 above; for in that case we struggle in a world of obscurity and doubt, stumbling in the dark, half-guessing, guided only by flawed human teachers and muddy texts two thousand years old with a hundred faiths shouting contrary interpretations in our ears. Meanwhile the pagan will get to meet God face-to-face before having to make his decision.

Such replies also make God into a “respecter of persons” (contrary to Acts 10:34-35), and to some extent salvation becomes a gamble, a matter of drawing the right straw, being born in the right time and place, or dying under just the right circumstances. Even worse, they subvert the motive for missionary work. Telling a pagan about Jesus erases the saving value of all his good works, or removes the “second chance” he is due for after death, putting him at immediate, profound risk of everlasting pain. So why tell?

Reply #4 is the most honest, and rather refreshing in its way. Yet Christians have mocked secularists for having no ready answer to highly technical questions about things like the evolution of bacterial flagellums. Now here we find a battleship-sized hole right in the heart of Christianity, a mystery concerning the salvation of 98% of all humanity—making Christianity a less certain worldview.

Beyond these, the arguments grow more surreal. One common stand is simply to shrug off the idea that God condemns people to hell. God condemns no one—rather, the damned damn themselves, they “choose” hell. Alas, this contradicts both the Bible and common sense. The Bible makes it clear that the torments of hell occur because God causes or ordains them in a very deliberate way. See Matt 7:13-14, Matt 13:41-42, Matt 25:41, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:47-48, Mark 16:16, Rev 20:10-15, Rev 21:8. Jesus “casts” souls into hell, commands them to “depart” into fire which was “prepared,” the smoke of the burning rises up “forever,” and so on and so on.

If you believe the Bible, damnation is a positive action of God, not something God is helpless to prevent. God is less like a fireman desperately running from house to house trying to put out fires— more like an arsonist throwing lit matches into the basements.

The next common plea is that eternal hell is unfortunate but necessary. Why? Because God is a God of justice as well as mercy. We canʼt have evil people in heaven. The reward of heaven would be meaningless without the alternative of hellʼs punishment. Assuming “salvation by works,” such a plea might make some sense. Even then it seems strained.

As psychologists and criminologists know, punishment is effective only if it is swift, and if it is manifested in this life and commensurate with the crime. That is why a civilized society will guarantee a speedy and public trial (our 6th Amendment) and prohibit cruel/unusual punishment (8th Amendment). But what of infinite punishment for finite crime? What of punishments meted out in an invisible, secret place, known only by rumor—punishment occurring at the end of life or the end of all time, when all decisions are made and done, and lessons and regrets are useless? That is more like what we see in societies policed by secret, terrorist death squads. Such punishment must fail as a deterrent, and can habilitate no one. The only reason for it can be revenge. And that is unworthy of a just God.

((Ironically, the concept of “hell” has been used throughout Christian history mainly to frighten some Christians away from the “heretical” beliefs of other Christians, and thus itʼs been used mainly to try and promote uniformity of belief, which however never worked, since the “heretical” Christians simply used the same “hell-laden” language to dissuade their followers from joining the other sect in return. Some big examples include the mutual excommunication of two halves of Christendom at the time of the Catholic split with the Eastern Orthodox, and later at the time of the Protestant split with Catholicism, the latter of which was followed by The Thirty Years War. Even much later, Christian denominations in America—which sprouted up interminably in this new land—competed for souls hungrily with one denomination and their seminary blaming the rest for their “heresies.” So for centuries “hell” did not prove much of an inspiration for people to avoid doing harm to one another in society in general, but provided plenty of reasons for Christians to distrust and fear each otherʼs theological differences of opinion.)

Alternatives to the “eternal hell” view of course exist. It doesnʼt seem totally unreasonable to suppose that a truly loving and resourceful God might be able to find a way to save everyone. It might involve erasing some of the memories of wicked or recalcitrant souls, continual reeducation and repeated incarnations. Eventually, by law of averages, all souls would find salvation. It may take time, but God has infinite time, and infinite resources. So no problem.

At the very least, God could simply put unsaved souls to a peaceful rest, erase them, uncreate them or suspend their consciousness. After all, human doctors can repress consciousness, perception and sensation with the simple use of general anesthesia. Does it make sense to say humans can do something that God cannot?

Some sects and denominations do, in fact, believe in universal salvation or at least the peaceful annihilation of the unsaved. These are the Universalists and the Annihilationists. Some Evangelical Christians agree with one or the other of those two viewpoints. (*See note at end of article.)

One final, desperate argument declares the whole moral issue void. God made us, so God may do with us as He wishes, save or damn on a whim. God works under no moral strictures. Indeed, His will and His actions define morality. Whatever He does is right by definition. He is the Boss.

Itʼs a very Calvinist view. And it has a certain irony. It is like a loosing chess player sweeping all the pieces off the board. After Christians work so hard to convince us that God is loving, just and good, what a letdown to learn that loving, just and good simply mean “whatever God is.” Then saying “God is good” is as empty as saying “A = A.”

Maybe it is. In that case, God may also lie and break promises with moral impunity. It would be odd to claim that eternal torture of innocents is OK for God, but lying and promise-breaking are beyond the pale. So under the God-may-do-as-he-wishes logic, the Christian automatically looses all assurances, all guarantees—including guarantees of Biblical veracity, salvation and eternal life. Anything goes. All bets are off.

In fact, if morality for God is truly arbitrary and unrestrained, He could decide, on caprice, to send all Christians to hell and all atheists to heaven. It would be the last word in moral relativism. And the richest irony of all.

Are you sure you want to go there?

---

Endnote

* There are Annihilationists among Evangelical Christians. For instance see the book, Four Views on Hell, part of the Counterpoints Series by the Evangelical publishing house, Zondervan Press, in which four Evangelicals debate their views of hell, one of them being Annihilationism. John Stott, author of the Intervarsity Press book, Basic Christianity, and member of the Evangelical Theological Society—is also an annihilationist. There are other annihilationist members of the ETS as well.

There are also Evangelical Christians who are Universalists. There were quite a few of them a hundred years ago who wrote popular books and preached powerful pro-Universalist sermons. It was also a view not unpopular among the earliest church fathers. Even today you can read the writings of famous Christian Universalists throughout history here; not to mention a recent book in which Evangelicals debate the topic, Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, Eds., Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge.

About the Author
Ken Nahigian is a former Christian whose story, “How I Walked Away”, appears on the Secular Web.