A FABRICATED LOOK-ALIKE?
The most dangerous counterfeit is the one that most nearly resembles the true. This is why religious counterfeits are so deadly and are often tolerated rather than identified and exposed. Christians in general are afraid that they will be misunderstood if they attack something that looks so much like the finest thing in religion. Since there is often only a thin line separating the best from the worst, they fear being charged with attacking the genuine if they oppose the counterfeit.
Has Satan fabricated some look-alike perversions of the most sacred doctrines in Christianity? Indeed he has, and the delicate distinctions have made even theologians and scholars very reticent to oppose them openly.
Many sincere Christians argue that the parallel views are so close together that no issue should be made over them. Others believe that the difference is largely semantic and involves only shades of meaning in the use of the words.
Is it possible that our mighty psychological adversary has actually anticipated these predictable human reactions and has skillfully created subtle deviations from the truth that will seldom be recognized and resisted? Indeed I believe he would be foolish not to exploit his six thousand years' expertise in the mind sciences. This is why the path of error lies ever so close to the path of undeniable truth. Satan has gambled that the average Christian will be reluctant to take a stand against something so close to truth, especially if that truth happens to involve the work of the cross, or the spotless life of the Son of God. Who wants to appear to be in opposition to these holy realities? It seems much safer simply to tolerate the deviant position than to risk being misunderstood in attacking the near-perfect counterfeit.
I am convinced that Satan has cleverly produced and popularized a disguised error that has led to a network of related errors. And they all circulate around the most sacred subject dear to the heart of a committed Christian—righteousness by faith, the incarnation of Jesus, and victory over sin.
There can be no doubt that this series of erroneous views are related to each other by a convincing chain of human logic and reasoning. If one point is true, then all the other points must necessarily be true also. But if one point is in error, the other points lose their credibility as well.
Original Sin
It is very likely that the chain was started by the interjection into early church theology of the doctrine of original sin. Beginning with the valid biblical position of man's inherent carnal nature, which predisposes him to sin, the idea gradually evolved that Adam's guilt was also imputed to his descendants. Augustine was responsible more than any other for propagating this view of transmitted guilt. Through Luther and the reformers it found its way into many of the Protestant churches.
Although the doctrine created a tremendous controversy in the early church, most modern Christians seem to accept the majority view today without much deep thought or question. It is easy to see there is only a marginal difference between the two views, both then and now. Adam's weakened, sinful nature was passed on to his children through the laws of heredity, making it impossible for them not to sin as long as they remained in an unconverted state. Since their sin was the result of Adam's sin, it was easy for them to slip into the error of believing that they shared his guilt.
But there is a very important difference between the inclination to sin and the guilt of sin, and it is that small degree of difference that has triggered a series of other doctrinal errors. Said the prophet, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).
INFANT BAPTISM
As a logical outgrowth of believing in original sin, the Catholic Church developed a strong doctrine of infant baptism. Only by their sacrament of sprinkling could the curse of Adam's guilt be removed from the baby. Since the child's salvation hinged upon a proper baptism, absolute priority was assigned to that ritual. If a choice had to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn baby, the mother was sacrificed. Catholic doctors and nurses were instructed in the art of baptizing a fetus in the womb if there was some question about a live birth.
The original sin doctrine also gave rise to the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. If every baby was born with guilt on its soul, then something would have to be done to preserve Jesus from that guilt—else He could not be a perfect sacrifice for sin. The Catholic solution assigned Mary a miraculous conception also, which preserved her from the effect of original sin. Thus Jesus would be born of a human mother without partaking of the supposed guilt of Adam.
As an extended consequence of their view of Jesus as altogether different from man, the Catholic Church also introduced the illegitimate system of human priesthood. If the Son of God did not dwell in man's fallen nature, then the ladder had not been let down from heaven to earth. The gulf still had not been bridged between a holy God and fallen humanity. Therefore, some further means should be provided to complete the connection.
First, it was assigned to priests on earth that are known to have sinful flesh. Then, a mediatorial role was claimed for those who had dwelled in sinful flesh but had been canonized by the church as saints in heaven. Finally, angels and the mother of Jesus were accorded intercessory status between man and God.
Already we can begin to see the chain reaction consequences of a small deviation from the true doctrine.
Click the title for the rest of the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment