A "Leap of Faith" and "Sinful Nature"

Decades ago, members of the church could travel to various locations and find churches of Christ that were very similar, if not identical, to their home congregation. Then came the rise of liberalism; now one finds various shades of difference between sound congregations and those who bear little resemblance to New Testament churches.

In recent travels, your congenial editor and his wife visited two congregations that seemed completely sound, but in both instances there were strange doctrines taught for which no explanation can account. We do not refer to matters of opinion, although some of these could be mentioned, also, such as the way a few congregations have decided to handle the Lord's Supper and the offering.

One congregation made available plastic containers filled with the fruit of the vine. Above the fruit of the vine lay a thin piece of clear plastic, containing something-or-other (presumably, bread). Each person removed (if lucky) the plastic to retrieve the "bread" and then afterward drank the contents in the cup. The "bread" was positively ghastly in its taste (a cross between cardboard and Styrofoam), and the fruit of the vine tasted strange, also. We were thankful that the women here take the time to bake the bread that is used in the Lord's Supper.

We expected that men would arise to collect the offering, but we were wrong. After the prayer for the offering, nothing happened. It seemed rather pointless to offer thanks for something that was not given. The members had some way of giving that was not apparent. Perhaps they gave between Bible Study and worship, or maybe they walked by the collection plates afterward. It looked like the song leader pitched in a check as he went by the plates on the way up to the podium.

Is Faith a Leap?

Despite some of the druthers we would like to have seen, these things fall in the realm of expediency, and each congregation is autonomous, with a right to conduct worship as they see fit (within Biblical parameters). The morning message was edifying and useful. The evening one was also replete with Scriptures—except for one point. The preacher talked about taking "a leap of faith." We could hardly believe it, but there was a picture demonstrating the concept. We were stunned.

A "leap of faith" is a manmade doctrine rather than a Biblical one. The Internet informs us:

The phrase "leap of faith" originated in the 19th century with Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who coined the Latin phrase saltus fidei. The phrase refers to having faith in something or someone despite a lack of logic, reasoning, or evidence.

This philosophy is neither Christian nor Scriptural. Where is the passage that describes a "leap of faith"? None exists. Had he said, "We must step out on faith," that would have been different. We do need to live by faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38) and walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7), but no Bible verse says we should leap by faith. Notice again what a leap of faith is based on: "having faith in something or someone despite a lack of logic, reasoning, or evidence." For brethren to advocate a "leap of faith" must be causing Brother Warren to be turning over in his grave.

How would anyone ever debate an atheist with that kind of rationale? How would an atheist respond to, "We can't really prove that God exists, but isn't it nice to think He does?" Sure. For years people wished that John Beresford Tipton existed and would give them a million dollars, also, but such wealth was never forthcoming. Christians do not live their lives and base their eternal destiny upon a whim. The apostles and Christians martyrs of the first and succeeding centuries did not willingly give up their lives on fanciful speculation.

Anyone Can Leap

Why cannot a Muslim say, "There is no tangible evidence that Muhammad was a prophet of God, but why not take a leap of faith and be a Muslim"? "And if you die a martyr, you will received 72 virgins." Apparently, this promise appeals to many—despite the lack of evidence.

Why cannot a Buddhist call for a leap of faith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Joseph Smith? Smith claimed to have had tangible evidence, but he had to return it. Is it the case that God never provided evidence for a reasonable person to trust in Him?

God Provides Evidence

A man named Gideon was selected by God to deliver Israel from the hand of the Midianites (Judges 6:11-14). Even though he was commissioned by the Angel of the Lord to defeat the enemy, Gideon desired a supernatural sign that he would be victorious. How did God respond? Did He say, "Just take a leap of faith"? No, He gave Gideon two signs in order to bolster his confidence.

Thomas was probably the most skeptical of the faithful followers of Jesus. When his fellow apostles and three-year-long companions told Him they had seen the resurrected Jesus, he refused to believe it. Did he think they were pulling a prank on him? Was he just plain stubborn? When Jesus appeared to him, He did not rebuke him for desiring adequate proof; He invited him to inspect His wounds. By doing so, He could believe rather than remain in unbelief (John 20:24-29). Thomas was convinced from that moment on—by the evidence—not some "leap of faith."

People believe the Scriptures because they are written by reliable writers, to whom God bore witness. The fulfilled prophecies and the miracles which accompanied the loftiest teachings the world has ever heard all bear witness to the truth. A "leap of faith" requires no proof whatsoever, but a rational human being will believe the testimony of reliable witnesses. They will believe the miracles of God—even if it takes ten of them to convince someone.

Those on Pentecost believed the message of the resurrected Christ, whom the multitude had put to death. They believed because it fulfilled Scriptures and because God certified that truth that the apostles preached with accompanying miraculous sins, such as speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-4; cf. 5:14-16; 19:11-12).

Believers, in the first century, were not jumping to conclusions nor leaping; their faith was based on solid evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. What is irrational is man failing to believe in God despite the evidence! Now, that's a leap of unbelief.

SINFUL NATURE

Another congregation was likewise sound all the way through the Bible class—until the very end when the teacher talked about man's problem being his "sinful nature." Arrrgghh! The Scriptures do not teach that we have a sinful nature; this error probably comes from using the NIV, which sprinkled the phrase quite liberally in their "translation" of the New Testament.

In the class, 1 John 2:15-17 had been referenced as describing the three appeals that the devil uses to tempt us: 1) the lust of the flesh, 2) the lust of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life. The suggestion was made that these temptations work on us since we have a sinful nature.

One question that might be asked is, "How did Christ overcome these sins?" His mother Mary was a human being who, according to this claim, must have had a sinful nature. If Mary had a sinful nature and Jesus had a sinful nature, how did He successfully win a victory against these temptations? Someone might reply, "But He is the Son of God; so, He could not sin."

Jesus is a unique individual. He was 100% Divine and 100% human. How does that work out? He is eternal; yet He is finite. Jesus is the "Prince of life" (Acts 3:15); but He was put to death. He is all-powerful; yet evil men crucified Him. He cannot sin; but He is tempted to sin by an evil individual who would not waste his time on someone incapable of sin. So, as a human being, He would have a sinful nature. Do we really want to reach that conclusion?

The second question to ask is, "Where did Adam and Eve get their sinful natures?" If all human beings have a sinful nature, then God must have created Eve with one. She could not have inherited one. If she did not have a sinful nature, then why was she tempted? Do we need a sinful nature to sin, or don't we?

If human beings today sin because we have a sinful nature that responds to those three temptations in 1 John 2:15-17, then why did Eve respond to them? She must have had a sinful nature, also. But where did she get it? The unenviable conclusion is that God created Adam and Eve with a sinful nature. If we need a sinful nature to fall prey to the three temptations listed, then so did Adam and Eve. Do we really want to say that?

When God finished the creation, He pronounced it "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Would anybody want to argue that creating mankind with a sinful nature is "very good"? The fact is that God created the first couple with free will, and at the time of Genesis 1:31, they had not chosen to sin. But if God had given them a sinful nature, they would have been doomed from the start.

Later, God rejected Cain's offering, and he was upset about it. God did not tell Cain, "You were born depraved; you have a sinful nature; and there is nothing you can do about it." Instead, he told that he could do well and that he could rule over sin (Gen. 4:7). He chose the wrong course of action; he killed his innocent brother. But it was not because he possessed a sinful nature that he did so. Rather, it was that he blamed his righteous brother for his own error. He gave in to his feelings, which prompted him to sin.

Sinful Nature and Calvinism

The idea that man has a sinful nature implies Calvinistic dogma—that mankind is born depraved and is in sin from his birth. The truth is, however, that every baby enters this world the same way Adam and Eve did—innocent and without sin of any kind. As they did, we choose to sin, also. There is a period of time that exists before we know to choose the good and reject evil (Isa. 7:15).

Depraved people have no choices. They cannot think good thoughts, say good things, or do good deeds unless there is something in it for them. That is the reason, with respect to salvation, that the Holy Spirit must act upon an individual. It is God's choice who will be saved, and He makes a person fit for salvation. No one, according to Calvinism, can decide for himself if he wants to be saved. Only God can make that decision. If, therefore, he chooses a sinner to be saved, well and good, but if not, then he was predestined to hell.

The Bible begins with man having choice (Gen. 4:7); it concludes by giving to human beings the choice of salvation—"Come!" (Rev. 22:17). In between, many choices exist. Joshua exhorted Israel to choose their own future (24:14-15). Jesus invited people to come to Him for rest (Matt. 11:28-30). If Calvinism were true, then mankind could accuse and blame God for not having any choices in life—including salvation. But we do have free will—and only ourselves to blame for bad decisions.

Brethren and elders need to give heed to the Word—to truth. No one should be teaching that we have a sinful nature or that Christians take a "leap of faith."