Previous civilizations often understood history as cyclical, unstable, and prone to sudden reversal. Empires rose and fell. Religious systems fragmented. Political orders disintegrated. Periods of stability often concealed exhaustion beneath the surface. Historical permanence was generally viewed with caution rather than with certainty. — https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-speed-of-historical-reversals
Religious systems fragmented. If mankind is able to make it through another two thousand years without destroying himself and his world, what will history say about Christianity? Will Christianity even exist in the form we know it today? I find that doubtful.
What I am writing here is controversial and many will immediately, emotionally, and instinctively recoil because I am seriously questioning the religious system which I was born into and have always been a part of. Well, that was then, this is now, and I cannot close my eyes to what is unfolding in front of me just because my parents taught any one certain doctrine or because it goes against the grain of accepted belief.
"With what shall I come before the Lord,
And bow myself before the High God?
Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
"He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?"
Micah 6:6-8
Tension. Decision time. One way or another. Either we try to buy our way out of jail or we simply follow the example set before us.
“However, truth will out in the long run,…” — from the next-to-last paragraph in Douglas Reed’s book, The Controversy of Zion, Chapter two.
I got through about three-quarters of Reed’s book, then put it down for some reason without finishing it, but am going to pick it up again and complete it. However, since I have forgotten most of what was previously read, I will have to start at the beginning, taking better notes this time. No doubt the second reading will reinforce the “heretical” thoughts which are roiling around in my mind, beginning with this one.
If, as Reed contends, the Judaic religion stems from the Levitical priesthood and the practice of blood sacrifice as compensation for sins and, since Christianity is based on that religion, doesn’t this make the belief that Jesus Christ, as the ultimate blood sacrifice, little more than an extension of the ancient Hebrew religion? Does this fact make it suspect and are we allowed to argue whether it is true or not? It is, after all, a belief which cannot be proven nor disproven.1 If God “desires mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings…”, then wouldn’t this negate the idea that sinful man still needs to go through a more-sanitized, more-spiritualized, more modern and genteel ritual in order to be “saved”? Why do I need to bow down to a bloody, religiously-formed doctrine as “payment” for my sins to a God Who also proclaimed through the Scriptures,
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” — 1 John 4:7-82
It’s pretty hard to get past that statement that everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Well, isn’t it?
I admit to my God, to myself, and to one and all that I am flawed. I am not perfect. I have my failings. Yet, I recognize that my imperfections can be worked out and overcome IF I rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to enable me AND I follow the path shown by Jesus the Christ who surrendered His own will to that of the Father. Is it an absolute necessity that my sins be washed away in a torrent of warm, oxygen-rich blood for me to gain a ticket to heaven? Hasn’t this Levitical/Judahite/Pharisaical religion of law been superseded by a better way? Can I move beyond that and acknowledge that the true way to total communion with God, Who is love, is to love my neighbor as I love myself? Love my neighbor and my enemy at least as much as I love myself. (Galatians 5:14)
Heretical? You bet. There are many, some close to me, who would tell me emphatically that, if I do not abandon these thoughts and hew to the “party” line, then I am on my way to Hell without any chance of forgiveness. However, in that, all they can do is parrot the idea that a blood sacrifice MUST be presented on my behalf and that I MUST accept it as truth.
Who is right? As Reed mentioned, the truth will out in the long run. All I can do is pursue it wherever it leads. Or, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes 12:12, on the asking of questions, there is no end. Since we do not have all the answers, but are encouraged to know God, Who is omniscient and does have the answers, I sincerely doubt that God will destroy me for asking questions. Instead, I expect that He will be more than willing to help me overcome my ignorance.
“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.” — Jesus Christ, quoted in John 8:32
I began thinking about this some six or eight months ago. In my whole lifetime, even in my early years, I have never been comfortable with the religious doctrine that God requires the blood of an innocent (whether person or animal) be spilled as a vicarious payment for the condition I was born into without a choice. After 67 years of searching and learning, I am just about ready to drop it entirely. However, I am still working this over, trying to make sense of it reasonably. Where will it take me? I do not know and, in this, I am taking the tack that God will lead me to the truth on the path ahead, in spite of the murkiness and darkness. My faith in His goodness is not at question nor wavering, but is actually stronger than ever, and I have no doubt that He will guide me through to the end because His main attribute, from which everything else originates, is love. Pure, uncompromising love which I am slowly coming to grips with and it is that understanding which is setting me free. And, unlike the devil, I am learning gratitude, real and honest gratitude, that I have been kept relatively safe for long enough to learn what that love means.
“My best feelings, gratitude, for example, are formally forbidden solely because of my social position.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Am I to be condemned? Well, according to some people who may have never had an original thought in their life, absolutely! However, I am quite glad that my future and eternity rests, not on a religious acceptance of what MIGHT be a flawed doctrine, but entirely on the judgment and mercy of the real Supreme Court, to which I will eventually be haled in front of and ordered to present my case.
I am at peace.
- In this respect, all religions, including Christianity, are like science which is never completely settled, but is always questioning and pushing beyond the traditionally accepted boundaries. We saw this in the Era of Covid where the “science of true belief” was propagated and extolled over the reality of truth. In discussing the issue with one of my erstwhile friends who constantly pitched the “fact” that 97% of all scientists were in agreement, I made the comment that, “Correlation does not equal causation. Neither does consensus.” Just because everyone believes something does not make it true. See Galileo and the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, for example. Athanasius contra mundum, for another. And this–https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2021/06/21/the-science-of-true-belief/ ↩︎
- This brings up the question that has never been adequately answered, in my opinion. What about all those people who have been born and died, and are destined to Hell because they never heard about the sacrifice that Jesus made for them and have never been given the opportunity to accept it as payment for their sins? More on this later. ↩︎
Poor Roger's Almanac 
Roger, perhaps consider what is meant by “salvation.” Is it a judicial verdict, or is it a healing of our corrupt nature into incorruption? (As I think you know, I find truth in both, but find the latter much more complete.) I think this helps me see what happened at the cross (and resurrection) in a more appropriate light.
From the conclusion of my post today: “Cyril had an idea of what the Incarnation meant for us, and I find His idea quite sound. Christ came to make the corrupt incorrupt; He came to conquer death. In order for this to be possible, certain things had to be true about Christ. And we can find these truths in Scripture when interpreted through this lens.”
Bionic, I read this post and then went back and reread Part 1. I can’t see where any of this takes away from the central point of my post.
I do not know where this is going to take me, but I have to believe that I am becoming a better person, someone more like God, and in the end, it will be good. From your own words, “Christ came to make the corrupt incorrupt…” In my case, Christ is making corruption incorruptible. We see through a glass darkly, but the fact that we cannot see clearly does not detract from the fact that we can still see and that our vision can and should become more clear as we advance in the knowledge of the Truth.
From your post: “I have never been comfortable with the religious doctrine that God requires the blood of an innocent (whether person or animal) be spilled as a vicarious payment for the condition I was born into without a choice.”
I have heard exactly this thought from many in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, so I believe while you may be out of bounds with Western thought (judicial), you may be well within bounds of Eastern Christian thought (hospital).
This is why the matter hinges on just what is meant by the term “salvation.”
Maybe I am misunderstanding the precise point of your struggle, but I read it as not accepting that the entire story of salvation is tied to a guilt for which someone must pay the price – be sacrificed, in other words. This is the western view: salvation means we are now declared “not guilty” as Jesus Christ took the punishment for our sins.
The Eastern view of what is meant by salvation is different, at least in emphasis. It is a hospital, for our healing – Jesus died in the corruptible body and rose with one incorruptible. This is what occurred on the cross. Sure, this includes the forgiveness of sin (an outcome of being corrupted), but it includes so much more.
So, maybe I missed the point of your struggle, but my initial comment stems from how I read the cited quote.
Bionic,
I do appreciate your response. It is helpful.
Yes, I am leaning more and more toward the Eastern side of the debate, the conflict, if you will.
If I was conceived at astronomical odds (300, 000, 000 sperm to one particular ovum, at any given time) as a result of the union of my father and mother, then I had absolutely no say in my being created nor born into a world of sin. Does this make me worthy of Hell forever? And, is the only way out a confession that I must be plunged into a river of blood at the foot of the crucifixion cross of Jesus Christ? I have to admit that I am having my doubts about that and, because God is Who He is, I don’t doubt that He will condemn me because of my questions.
So much for Western thought. I prefer the Eastern approach, a hospital scenario, as you say. I admit to my flaws and failings and recognize that I am in need of healing, therefore, God, being Who He is, will give me what I need to attain to that goal.
Thank you for your help. Your insights are greatly appreciated.