The Universal Assumption And The "Sincerity" Loophole

"[B]ecause by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight..." (Rom. 3:20)

*****

[Author's Note: Our outward beliefs, and actions, follow from our inward assumptions, the most important of which usually remain unexamined by most individuals during their lives. We may deliberate every day over our life choices, but the spectrum of choices we consider is determined (and restricted) by the underlying premises about life on this earth that we have accepted over time. One of those premises is that, deep down, we are "good." Until that premise is shattered, we will never repent of what we are. Instead, we will maintain a veneer of "sincerity" in respect of our intellectual objections to the Gospel. It is that "suppression of the truth about ourselves" (Rom. 1:18), that basic dishonesty, which we enlist our reasoning faculties to support, that will preclude us from receiving Christ and therefore condemn us at the Final Judgment. (Jn. 3:19-21)]

*****

The Universal Assumption

There is an unstated assumption, a common presupposition underlying the theology of most individuals, irrespective of background or religious affiliation, and no matter where they live. We’ll call it the Universal Assumption. It goes something like this:

“If there is a God and to the extent there is a final judgment or accounting for our life on this earth, we can be sure that “good” people everywhere (of whom I am reasonably confident I am one) will be accepted and perhaps even rewarded.”

We’ll cut to the chase: The Universal Assumption is both false and deadly.

In fact, the worst possible thing that can ever happen to an individual human being is that he be judged on the basis of his outward conduct.

The Universal Assumptionis not isolated to non-Christians. To the contrary, it is endemic to church-goers everywhere. In fact, it is the fundamental precept of any number of mainline churches. It is so prevalent that any competing assumption risks being dismissed out of hand or ridiculed into retreat by the average clergyman or Sunday Service attendee, just as Christ Himself was run out of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Post 9/11, the Universal Assumption has been called into serious question, although most people are reluctant to admit it. We are all quite shocked to realize that there are people on this earth who believe that they are, in fact, “good” people by virtue of their willingness to fly commercial airliners into high-rise buildings, or blow themselves up in public in order to simultaneously murder themselves and as many others as possible.

We are confronted with the rather disturbing possibility that our concept of “good” may not be universally shared, and, even more disturbing, might not be shared by God Himself, if the god represented by the subject individuals just happens to be the real God, God forbid.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. The concept of good held by the “good” people in western societies has itself dramatically evolved over the past few years. It used to be that perversion was a sin; now, calling perversion a sin is in itself a sin. Who knows what the prevailing definition of “good” will encompass tomorrow.

This should be enough to cause all of us to reconsider the Universal Assumption, and take a new look, a very hard look, at our claim to “goodness” and what we assumed about our coming face-to-face with God.

Our examination in the essays of this website is premised on the belief that in His rejection of the Universal Assumption, Jesus Christ was competent on the matter - that He actually knew intimately the Creator of the Universe, and He could therefore speak authoritatively on the subject of God and the Final Judgment.

*****

The "Sincerity" Loophole

Related to the Universal Assumption, when it comes to the things of God, and our being called to account by Him at a Final Judgment, many of us who may acknowledge the possibility of such a confrontation seem to be counting on some type of "Sincerity" loophole or waiver.

We might anticipate (assuming we are given the chance to speak) articulating the "Sincerity" loophole then as follows: "God, I admit that I was wrong about you, my sin, and Christ, but I sincerely had intellectual issues with what I thought was Christianity and, moreover, I sincerely believed [whatever it was I believed in]."

The "Sincerity" loophole is relied on by nominal Christians as well as non-Christians, but it performs the same function in both. It is intended to operate as an excuse for the failure to deeply repent of living a life that enthroned oneself and rejected God as King, with all of the ugly ramifications of that choice for ourselves, our loved ones, and the rest of mankind.

From what I can tell in the Scripture, there is no "Sincerity" loophole. Our problem is moral, not intellectual. The real function of intellectual "sincerity" in this context is to operate as cover for the unwillingness of the deep heart to address the moral issue.

In sum, we decide in our deep hearts what we really want to do, and then we enlist the faculties of our mind to work overtime to justify it.

That practiced process of self-justification we call "human reason", and we glorify it for its apparent ability to deliver up objective truth. In fact, what it delivers up is evil now couched as righteousness.

The practice of reasoning away God's existence reults from an intentional decision to "suppress the truth" - an intention common to all mankind since the dawn of history. (Rom. 1:18-32)

This practice of first reasoning over God's commands - to see whether we like them or not - began in the Garden of Eden and it has been a defining trait of humankind since then (See "The Final Judgment and The Meaning of Evil"). See Genesis 3:6.

It effectually makes us God instead of Him. It confirms our status as rebels.

One does not reason with his King whether to believe and obey. A King sees that as disloyalty - as evidence of serious trouble in the heart of His subject.

Christ rejected the practice when He encountered Satan in the wilderness. He confined His responses to the Word of God and it alone. (Mt. 4:1-11)

Man rarely starts out to do evil. We first reason, through more or less effort depending on our particular situation, that our spouse is unsatisfactory. We then commit adultery.

If lust has been so dominant as to precede the self-justification effort, it is only a matter of sufficient backfill before we can soon "logically" convince ourselves to feel righteous about it.

In short, no one should count on their ability, reasoning from themselves , to ascertain or determine righteousness, or evaluate their own goodness.

They will inevitably end up at the Great White Throne Judgment, with their names not written in The Book Of Life (Rev. 20:11).

*****

The Israelites in the Wilderness, after their miraculous escape from Egypt, saw God manifested every single day as a pillar of cloud and every single night as a pillar of fire. Yet the Book of Numbers and the Book of Hebrews make it clear that they never made it to the Promised Land and all perished in the Wilderness for one reason - Unbelief!

Their problem, therefore, was not intellectual - in believing whether God existed. Their problem was moral - deep down they wanted to be the god of their own lives. They really didn't want God as their King.

Sure, we all have intellectual questions that we want answered, but one who is honest with himself understands that his innate sinfulness and God's just wrath, with death and judgment looming, is the immediately pressing problem.

What the Gospel of Jesus Christ says to us is that, despite man's perfidy, God, in His mercy, has made an amnesty offer and provided an escape plan for mankind through the substututionary death, and the resurrection Life, of His Son.

There is only one problem. Most of mankind detests the amnesty offer and escape plan!

Why? Because it offends our pride. Frankly, we have decided, after much thought, that we don't need the Son of God's "sacrifice". Upon objective reflection, we believe that our track record is just fine, thank you very much.

In our case, God could have saved Himself the trouble, we tell ourselves.

Now, as for the "sinners", well that is perhaps a different story...

...

These questions are examined fully in The Final Judgment, The Gospel Q&A, and other essays inside.