I was speaking with a friend and we agreed that there a few things we have seen other Christians affirm that are troubling. We also concluded that Christians don't think very much about the logical conclusion of their position on these matters.
"What about those who have never heard the gospel message?"
The first troubling doctrine is the answer to this question. Recently on these very forums, someone answered this question by saying "They are saved". So their doctrine is that if a person has never heard of Jesus, they must be saved, because God would never judge someone for something they had no control over.
But this misses the mark in several places, and also opens up a big can of worms. Firstly, it assumes that the people in question (those who never hear the gospel) are innocent or sinless. So what if they have never heard the gospel? Does that make them innocent of the sins they commit? No it doesn't. They are still sinners who have broken God's laws.
Secondly, it makes God obligated to give the grace of the gospel message. It puts God into an obligatory position whereby he must send he gospel message if He is to punish sin, lest he be unjust. But this is a baseless idea. God is never obligated to be merciful. Him sending the gospel message is an action of mercy on His part. If mercy is obligatory, then it is no longer mercy. Mercy by definition is something that is not owed. Justice is always owed, but mercy cannot be. In making sending the gospel to people obligatory, it is saying that people are owed the gospel message. And that is simply not true.
Thirdly, proponents of this doctrine have not thought about their stance very much. If they truly believed it, they would cease all funding to missionaries. They would stop, and be against, evangelism. If never hearing the gospel gives you a free pass into heaven, then you are doing people a real disservice by sending the gospel to their ears. They would be better off never hearing about the name of Jesus. In sending missionaries to them, you are condemning them. It makes you wonder why the Apostles bothered to spread the gospel message, since in doing so they were condemning everyone within earshot of the gospel. Had those poor people never heard of Jesus, they would be saved. This is the can of worms I mentioned above that gets opened by such a doctrine.
Age of Accountability
This next one bothers me just as much, but like the first, I understand that it comes from good intentions and compassion for people. If you don't know, the Age of Accountability is the doctrine that until a certain age (nobody knows the exact age of when a given person passes the threshhold) humans are seen as sinless, and therefore, similar to the above people who never hear the gospel, they are given a free pass into heaven.
For starters, this doctrine clashes with the doctrine of the fall and how we are all born as sinners because of our representative, Adam. In wanting humans to be saved, (a noble intention), you throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended) on very important Christian doctrines. The doctrine of our inherent sinfulness and our fallenness is extremely important to the Christian message, and goes very close to the heart of the gospel message itself. The gospel is about how God saves sinners. Thus, the concept of sin is just as important in the gospel message as is the concept of grace. You can't have grace without sin, and sin necessitates grace. Our guilt before God's law, and God's grace in being merciful are two sides of the same coin. Watering down one will weaken the other. The two concepts hold hands and cannot be broken, or else you are left with an incomplete gospel, or worse, a false gospel. Thus, in my opinion, teaching that humans are born as sinful is as important to the gospel message as that God saves sinners.
Let me be clear, while I do believe all humans are born as sinful, that does not mean I believe all babies/toddlers/infants/young children who die are going straight to hell. Like I said, the gospel is two sided. Just as all humans (no matter the age) are sinful and guilty before God, the other side of the gospel "coin" is that God is merciful to sinners. I believe God has mercy on these people, and at least some, if not all of them, are actually saved and forgiven. God is sovereign over his own mercy and grace, salvation belongs to the Lord, and thus God can save anyone He wants, regardless of age.
I feel like the age of accountability is a needless doctrine. It is an necessary theodicy that tries to get people saved because of the emotions involved in thinking of little babies being guilty (and punished) for sin. In other words, it is an emotionally driven, not Bible-driven, doctrine. But as I hopefully showed above, it is not necessary, because you can still have a Biblical view of man's sinfulness (even at birth) but still believe God is merciful to sinners, and thus, still believe even babies who die are saved. You can believe that babies and young children are saved, without an "age of accountability" that waters down the doctrine sin and fallenness.
Finally, as with the first questionable doctrine, it seems people do not think very far about their own position. If all babies or young children who die are considered innocent and thus get a free pass to heaven, why aren't all people who believe this doctrine pro-choice/pro-abortion? Isn't abortion the best possible thing to happen to someone? After all, it guarantees they go straight to heaven for all eternity. Sure they might miss out on 80 years of life on earth, but who cares? that is a drop in the bucket compared to all eternity in heaven. I mean, if you believed this doctrine, why would you even risk having children? You are risking the chance that that person will grow up and accidentally surpass the "age of accountability" and end up lost and headed to hell for all eternity.
As you can see, as with the first doctrine, this one opens up big cans of worms that never get dealt with.
"What about those who have never heard the gospel message?"
The first troubling doctrine is the answer to this question. Recently on these very forums, someone answered this question by saying "They are saved". So their doctrine is that if a person has never heard of Jesus, they must be saved, because God would never judge someone for something they had no control over.
But this misses the mark in several places, and also opens up a big can of worms. Firstly, it assumes that the people in question (those who never hear the gospel) are innocent or sinless. So what if they have never heard the gospel? Does that make them innocent of the sins they commit? No it doesn't. They are still sinners who have broken God's laws.
Secondly, it makes God obligated to give the grace of the gospel message. It puts God into an obligatory position whereby he must send he gospel message if He is to punish sin, lest he be unjust. But this is a baseless idea. God is never obligated to be merciful. Him sending the gospel message is an action of mercy on His part. If mercy is obligatory, then it is no longer mercy. Mercy by definition is something that is not owed. Justice is always owed, but mercy cannot be. In making sending the gospel to people obligatory, it is saying that people are owed the gospel message. And that is simply not true.
Thirdly, proponents of this doctrine have not thought about their stance very much. If they truly believed it, they would cease all funding to missionaries. They would stop, and be against, evangelism. If never hearing the gospel gives you a free pass into heaven, then you are doing people a real disservice by sending the gospel to their ears. They would be better off never hearing about the name of Jesus. In sending missionaries to them, you are condemning them. It makes you wonder why the Apostles bothered to spread the gospel message, since in doing so they were condemning everyone within earshot of the gospel. Had those poor people never heard of Jesus, they would be saved. This is the can of worms I mentioned above that gets opened by such a doctrine.
Age of Accountability
This next one bothers me just as much, but like the first, I understand that it comes from good intentions and compassion for people. If you don't know, the Age of Accountability is the doctrine that until a certain age (nobody knows the exact age of when a given person passes the threshhold) humans are seen as sinless, and therefore, similar to the above people who never hear the gospel, they are given a free pass into heaven.
For starters, this doctrine clashes with the doctrine of the fall and how we are all born as sinners because of our representative, Adam. In wanting humans to be saved, (a noble intention), you throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended) on very important Christian doctrines. The doctrine of our inherent sinfulness and our fallenness is extremely important to the Christian message, and goes very close to the heart of the gospel message itself. The gospel is about how God saves sinners. Thus, the concept of sin is just as important in the gospel message as is the concept of grace. You can't have grace without sin, and sin necessitates grace. Our guilt before God's law, and God's grace in being merciful are two sides of the same coin. Watering down one will weaken the other. The two concepts hold hands and cannot be broken, or else you are left with an incomplete gospel, or worse, a false gospel. Thus, in my opinion, teaching that humans are born as sinful is as important to the gospel message as that God saves sinners.
Let me be clear, while I do believe all humans are born as sinful, that does not mean I believe all babies/toddlers/infants/young children who die are going straight to hell. Like I said, the gospel is two sided. Just as all humans (no matter the age) are sinful and guilty before God, the other side of the gospel "coin" is that God is merciful to sinners. I believe God has mercy on these people, and at least some, if not all of them, are actually saved and forgiven. God is sovereign over his own mercy and grace, salvation belongs to the Lord, and thus God can save anyone He wants, regardless of age.
I feel like the age of accountability is a needless doctrine. It is an necessary theodicy that tries to get people saved because of the emotions involved in thinking of little babies being guilty (and punished) for sin. In other words, it is an emotionally driven, not Bible-driven, doctrine. But as I hopefully showed above, it is not necessary, because you can still have a Biblical view of man's sinfulness (even at birth) but still believe God is merciful to sinners, and thus, still believe even babies who die are saved. You can believe that babies and young children are saved, without an "age of accountability" that waters down the doctrine sin and fallenness.
Finally, as with the first questionable doctrine, it seems people do not think very far about their own position. If all babies or young children who die are considered innocent and thus get a free pass to heaven, why aren't all people who believe this doctrine pro-choice/pro-abortion? Isn't abortion the best possible thing to happen to someone? After all, it guarantees they go straight to heaven for all eternity. Sure they might miss out on 80 years of life on earth, but who cares? that is a drop in the bucket compared to all eternity in heaven. I mean, if you believed this doctrine, why would you even risk having children? You are risking the chance that that person will grow up and accidentally surpass the "age of accountability" and end up lost and headed to hell for all eternity.
As you can see, as with the first doctrine, this one opens up big cans of worms that never get dealt with.
