 |
| |
| |
|
Contrary to this crystal clear prophecy of Jesus, the Church professes the misleading doctrine that whoever believes in Jesus as a SAVIOUR, can be saved. And to justify this belief it has substituted the doctrine of ATONEMENT. Let us examine carefully how far this doctrine of atonement is correct in the light of the acts and teachings of Jesus quoted in the Bible itself.
Before going into a discussion of the point at issue, it is necessary that we should understand the theory of Atonement. The theory of atonement is the outcome of the Christian presumption of the existence of ORIGINAL SIN.
As per the Christian view point, a man however righteous, cannot be free from sin, because, he is begotten of Adam, who sinned, and whose sin is being transmitted hereditorily to the generations that follow. Thus there is no escape from sin and for a sinful man there is no salvation to attain, except by means of ATONEMENT by a sinless man. And therefore, God being merciful and just as well, sent His son (Jesus) into the world, in human form to atone for their sins who believe in him as the son of God and saviour of mankind and to redeem them from sin by suffering in Hell as recompensation. So Jesus, appeared at the appointed time to carry out the act of atonement, was put on the cross and crucified. The body remained in the sepulchre for three days and three nights while the spirit suffered in Hell in atonement for the people who believe in him. And on the third day, the soul returned to the grave and entered the body. Thus the Resurrection took place. Forty days later, he ascended to Heaven bodily. This is the essence of the atonement theorry of Christians, Viz., ATONEMENT – RESURRECTION – and ASCENSION, on which the Church is basically founded.
POINTS FROM THEORY OF ATONEMENT
On a careful examination of the atonement theory, the following points come into light and need be examined closely.
1. Every man whosoever had come out of the progeny of Adam (means every human being) is not free from sin, because he inherits the sin of Adam. Therefore everyone is a born sinner.
2. A sinner cannot attain salvation unless atonement is made on his behalf.
3. A sinner cannot offer atonement for a sinner: therefore one that offers atonement must be free from sin (original sin).
4. Atonement should be offered with a free will and should not be enforced as otherwise it counter-acts the purpose for which it is intended to be made.
5. Body should be crucified – and soul should suffer in Hell.
Now let us see how far the above points are consistent with the theory of atonement of Jesus. In the theory of atonement the first point to be taken into consideration is about the original sin. Church makes people believe that all men are sinners, inheriting the sin of their forefather, Adam. Thus the hereditory sin is being transmitted in succession to all generations. Therefore everyone is born in sin.
But on studying the Bible carefully we can draw quite a contradictory inference to that of the above.
“AND IN PROCESS OF TIME IT CAME TO PASS THAT CAIN BROUGHT OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE LORD. AND ABEL, HE ALSO BROUGHT OF THE FIRSTLINGS OF HIS FLOCK AND OF THE FAT THEREOF. AND THE LORD HAD RESPECT UNTO ABEL AND TO HIS OFFERING: BUT UNTO CAIN AND TO HIS OFFERING HE HAD NOT RESPECT. AND CAIN WAS VERY WROTH, AND HIS COUNTENANCE FELL. AND THE LORD SAID UNTO CAIN, WHY ART THOU WROTH? AND WHY IS THE COUNTENANCE FALLEN? IF THOU DOEST WELL, SHALT THOU NOT BE ACCEPTED? AND IF THOU DOEST NOT WELL, SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR.” (GENESIS 4:3-7)
Take note of the verse (4:7 of Genesis).
“IF THOU DOEST WELL, SHALT THOU NOT BE ACCEPTED? AND IF THOU DOEST NOT WELL SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR”.
Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam who were begotten after the event of his committing sin. If the sin of their father had been inherited by them, the thanks offerings of both the sons would have been rejected by God. But the offering of Abel was accepted and that of Cain rejected. Further God remarked that if Cain too had done well, his offering too would have been accepted meaning Cain too would have been promised the reward. In the above passage we understand that Abel having done well, obtained the nearness and the favour and forgiveness of God and Cain had lost the opportunity as a result of his own deeds, millions of years before the time of Jesus. One was accepted and the other rejected only as a result of their deeds, but the question of either the original sin or the atonement did not arise. This passage not only rules out the false belief that man inherits the original sin, but also disproves the theory of Atonement.
Further, note the two clauses in the verse, “if thou doest well” and “if thou doest not well” to mean that God has given man FREE WILL and FREEDOM OF CHOICE and put him at liberty either to do good or evil according as he deems fit and proper. Virtue and vice cannot be inherited, but only they can be externally credited to the perpetrators. “Whosoever doest well, will be rewarded in Heaven and whosoever doest not well will be rejected (punished in Hell”. But nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that man is born in sin and that therefore atonement on his behalf is an absolute necessity to attain salvation. As a matter of fact, how many prophets have not come and preached and invited people to come into a life of righteousness with its eternal reward in Heaven; and warned people against the evil which leads them to eternal damnation? They all taught about the mercy of God and about the acceptance of the repentance of a sinner. But there is no record any where of any prophet having said anything about atonement. If people fail to get eternal reward for the simple reason of noncompliance of the terms necessary for atonement for the supposed original sin, in spite of following the preaching of the prophets, then where is the need of for God sending prophets into the world? If the supposed “Original Sin” of man stands as an obstacle against his entrance into the bills of God in spite of following the prophets, then are not all the prophets liable to be regarded as liars and false? And can God who did not send Jesus in the very beginning of the world for the purpose of atonement for the presumed original sin of man be not regarded as unreliable? And if the theory of atonement were true, God, as a matter of fact, ought to have and should have indeed, sent Jesus in the very beginning of the world, to atone and preach and establish the atonement theory through him and through all successive prophets of Jesus. Therefore, if this theory were to be correct, all prophets and their followers prior to Jesus could in no way attain salvation, but gone to Hell, for want to atonement for their original sin. But contrary to this theory the NEW TESTAMENT itself teaches that all the prophets and their followers would attain salvation.
“THERE SHALL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH, WHEN YE SHALL SEE ABRAHAM, AND ISAAC, AND JACOB, AND ALL THE PROPHETS, IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND YOU YOURSELVES THRUST OUT” (Luke 13:28)
Further in support of our view point that man is born free of sin, and that by his deeds only he would become either righteous or sinful, read what Jesus says:
“I CAME NOT TO CALL THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT SINNERS TO REPENTANCE.” (Luke 5:32)
The above verse clearly says that Jesus came only for the sinners, to make them repent for their sins, and thus make them turn to righteousness. If at all there is inheritance of the original sin, Jesus could not have discriminated the sinners from the righteous. According to the theory both the sinners and the righteous were not free from the original sin; therefore their original sin could not be condoned without the atonement of Jesus. In such a case Jesus would have invited both the sinners and the righteous as well and offered his atonement on behalf of both. But Jesus clearly says that he came only for sinners. Then did he not mean that man is free from the presumed original sin and that whosoever commits sin on his own shall become a sinner, and that everyone not by virtue of his being the offspring of Adam a sinner? The same view is further reiterated in the following verses.
“AT THE SAME TIME CAME THE DISCIPLES UNTO JESUS SAYING, WHO IS THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? AND JESUS CALLED A LITTLE CHILD UNTO HIM, AND SET HIM IN THE MIDST OF THEM, AND SAID, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, EXCEPT WE BE CONVERTED AND BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN YE SHAL NOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. WHOSOEVER THEREFORE, SHALL HUMBLE HIMSELF AS THIS LITTLE CHILD, THE SAME IS GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”
(Matthew 18:1-4)
In the above verses Jesus clearly points out two important and distinct qualities of the children, those are (1) they are free from sin and (2) they are humble. That is why Jesus told his disciples that whoever wished to earn an entry into the Heavenly Kingdom, should convert himself into a state of childhood. That means he should become as pure and free from sin as a child. Then only he would be qualified for the entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus states further, that one who desires to become greatest in the Kingdom of God, should humble oneself as a child. That means one should become as humble, meek and innocent as a child which quality exalts him to the superlative degree of bliss in the kingdom of heaven. In the light of these verses we can understand that children are free from sin, even from the original sin tagged to them. If there is any influence of original sin over children as is believed by the Church under the theory of original sin, Jesus would not have asked his disciples to become like children. Thus man is born sinless.
Further, contrary to the doctrine of original sin, God Almighty who is very merciful and just says in the Bible that one is not responsible for the sins of others. Neither the father is responsible for his son’s sin nor the son for his father’s. One is responsible for one’s own deeds.
“THE SOUL THAT SINNETH, IT SHALL DIE. THE SON SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER, NEITHER SHALL THE FATHER BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL BE UPON HIM, AND THE WICKEDNESS OF THE WICKED SHALL BE UPON HIM.” (Ezekiel 18:20)
If this be the case with the immediate succeeding son of the present generation, how un-responsible it is to say that all the sons of this generation and those of the past millions of generations before Christ, shall be called upon to account for the original sin of Adam-I.
REPENTANCE ENOUGH FOR SALVATION
Further God not only holds one responsible for one’s own sins and transgressions but also assures that all the iniquities, sins, transgressions etc., however great, will immediately be pardoned and shall not be accounted for against, provided one turns to Him in repentance.
“BUT IF THE WICKED WILL TURN FROM ALL HIS SINS THAT HE HATH COMMITTED, AND KEEP ALL MY STATUES, AND DO THAT WHICH IS LAWFUL AND RIGHT, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE, HE SHALL NOT DIE. ALL HIS TRANSGRESSIONS THAT HE HATH COMMITTED, THEY SHALL NOT BE MENTIONED UNTO HIM: IN HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT HE HATH DONE HE SHALL LIVE. HAVE I ANY PLEASURE AT ALL THAT THE WICKED SHOULD DIE? SAITH THE LORD GOD: AND NOT THAT HE SHOULD RETURN FROM HIS WAYS, AND LIVE?” (Ezekiel 18:21-23).
Thus the merciful God is ready to pardon sinners of the inequities committed by them willfully or out of ignorance. On the contrary to this promise, the Church preaches that unless one keeps faith in atonement one’s original sin (inherited sin) will not be pardoned.
On the whole, in the light of the above arguments it is evident that man in the first instance does not come into existence with the original sin of Adam inherited. Man comes with a clean sheet which he fills with virtues and vices depending on the deeds he does on the earth. If his virtues out-number his vices he shall attain the Kingdom of Heaven and vice versa. Thus the first and the second points of the atonement theory are baseless and proved to be false. So far we have proved that the inheritance of the original sin is baseless. Even if we take it for granted that man inherits the original sin, let us consider how far the atonement theory advocated by the Church is useful to the Christian belief.
