By Scott Tibbs, July 15, 2008
A couple weeks ago, I again warned against a common heresy that is popular in church circles today. This destructive heresy says that there are multiple paths to Heaven, something that is in direct conflict with the very clear teachings of Scripture, specifically the following two verses:
- Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6
- Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - Acts 4:12
The negative reaction was predictable, so allow me to address some of the criticisms here.
First is the claim that I am "dangerous" and that my post advocates persecution of other faiths. This is a stock criticism that is often employed in reflex when one points out the necessarily exclusive nature of the Christian faith. This dishonest criticism ignores the plain and simply fact that I very clearly stated that no one should be persecuted for their faith and such "arguments" (lies) are the mark of those too emotionally unstable or intellectually feeble to honestly discuss a theological doctrine. The hysterical fantasy that I am "dangerous" is laughable: I am blogger pointing out what the Bible teaches. That's not dangerous, although those obsessed with silencing views they dislike often pretend such views are "dangerous" as a justification for censorship and intolerance.
Some question using the Bible in the discussion. In any discussion of theological matters, doctrine is determined by the foundational document of the faith you are studying. If I was writing about Islamic doctrine, I would be using the Koran as the primary source for my arguments. While I do not believe Islam to be true, I recognize that to understand Islamic doctrine you have to go to the foundational document of the Islamic faith. In a discussion of Christian theology, you use the Bible to determine what Christian doctrine is.
Some would argue that my argument is "hateful". That depends on how one defines "hate", of course. If someone picks up a glass containing hydrochloric acid with the intention of drinking it, is it not common sense to warn him that he is about to do serious (and potentially fatal) damage to his mouth and throat? Should we instead practice "tolerance" and not mention the danger, because there are different beliefs about the effect of hydrochloric acid on the human anatomy? Someone who recognizes the absolute truth that is God's Word is not being "hateful" when he warns of the eternal end of people who reject Jesus Christ, especially since God's Word is clear about the necessarily exclusive nature of Christian doctrine.
In today's egalitarian, politically correct, "tolerant" society, it would be much easier to take the position that there are many paths to heaven. However, as a Christian I must be faithful to what the Bible teaches. This is why, once I present my arguments and evidence from Scripture, I have repeatedly asked those who disagree to show me from the Bible where I am wrong. But those who cling to heresy do not want to honestly examine Scripture.