On sin and punishment, I’m going to summarize what I think Jesus taught. I believe my views would be typical of mainline Protestants. (I’m kind of the token mainliner in this group.)
First, Jesus endorsed the 10 commandments. But he also (particularly in Mat 5) emphasized intent and how things affect others and our relationships with them. So I’d say he interpreted them non-legalistically.
If you look at Jesus’ many teachings on judgement, you’ll see that the people he showed as judged weren’t those who lied to their parents, or missed church, or committed sexual improprieties. The people judged were those who abused power, hurt others, or even were just plain useless. I would argue that it was people who weren't followers at all, not followers who sinned in the sense that Christians often use sin.
Jesus also never set up either purity or holiness as ideals. Check a concordance: he spoke of various things as holy, but not individuals and certainly not as an ideal. I think there’s a reason for this. He taught that when we did good we were just slaves doing what we’re commanded. We get no personal credit. The idea of saying that anyone is holy or pure is inconsistent with his approach.
I think you can find places where he said that no one is free of sin, but that alone isn’t quite the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West. Nor is it a fatal problem for those who depend upon God for forgiveness.
As to punishment, Jesus spoke of that. His real stories about judgement are, as I noted, those who are useless or abuse others, i.e. people who aren’t Jesus’ followers. But he also talks about varying degrees of reward and punishment. Jesus certainly taught that we’re all accountable for our actions, but I think that’s goes beyond just judging who are his followers vs who are enemies of the Kingdom. Protestants traditionally rejected purgatory, because of lots of doctrine surrounding it. But I think even though God will forgive all of his people, he’ll also look at what we did right and wrong, and hold us accountable in some way.
First, Jesus endorsed the 10 commandments. But he also (particularly in Mat 5) emphasized intent and how things affect others and our relationships with them. So I’d say he interpreted them non-legalistically.
If you look at Jesus’ many teachings on judgement, you’ll see that the people he showed as judged weren’t those who lied to their parents, or missed church, or committed sexual improprieties. The people judged were those who abused power, hurt others, or even were just plain useless. I would argue that it was people who weren't followers at all, not followers who sinned in the sense that Christians often use sin.
Jesus also never set up either purity or holiness as ideals. Check a concordance: he spoke of various things as holy, but not individuals and certainly not as an ideal. I think there’s a reason for this. He taught that when we did good we were just slaves doing what we’re commanded. We get no personal credit. The idea of saying that anyone is holy or pure is inconsistent with his approach.
I think you can find places where he said that no one is free of sin, but that alone isn’t quite the doctrine of original sin as taught in the West. Nor is it a fatal problem for those who depend upon God for forgiveness.
As to punishment, Jesus spoke of that. His real stories about judgement are, as I noted, those who are useless or abuse others, i.e. people who aren’t Jesus’ followers. But he also talks about varying degrees of reward and punishment. Jesus certainly taught that we’re all accountable for our actions, but I think that’s goes beyond just judging who are his followers vs who are enemies of the Kingdom. Protestants traditionally rejected purgatory, because of lots of doctrine surrounding it. But I think even though God will forgive all of his people, he’ll also look at what we did right and wrong, and hold us accountable in some way.
Last edited:
Upvote
0