How bad can a Christian’s theology be?
This is a question that I have often struggled with. It can hardly be denied that Christians can have beliefs that are wrong such as false views about the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, the age of the earth, and end times (hey, someone has to be wrong). It is also true that Christians can have misunderstandings about more important doctrines such as the nature of the Trinity (ignorant modalism), the grace of God (legalism), and the will of God for your life (health-wealth Gospel). In all of these areas I concede that Christians, indeed even Evangelicals, can and do have wrong doctrine for which the church needs soldiers of the truth to rescue them from. Even Paul sought to rescue the Galatians from a slide into legalism as believers were in danger of returning to the bondage from which their belief in the Gospel had rescued them. Yet, I believe that it is clear that Paul still believed that they were genuine Christians.
So how far can a Christian fall into bad theology? I don’t really know the answer to this question, but I did notice something today in reading Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that I had not taken notice of before. Paul is warning the Corinthian believers who he considers to be “strong” not to make the “weak” stumble. It would seem that the “strong” believers were eating meat sacrificed to idols and in doing so were causing much spiritual consternation among the “weak” who thought it sacrilegious to their new faith to participate in such a practice.
Paul says,
“Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. ” (1 Cor. 8:4-11)
Paul readily admits that there is nothing inherently wrong with eating meat that was sacrificed to an idol based upon the fact that the gods that the idols represented did not exist. In other words, good theology tells us that there is only one God. This is monotheism. It is a theological bedrock of the Christian faith. You cannot be a polytheist who believes in many gods and be a Christian, right? It would seem that this is the case, but what do we make of Paul’s exhortation here?
In this passage, Paul defines “strong” Christians as those who have a monotheistic worldview and act accordingly. But then in verse 7 he does some interesting. He says “not all have this knowledge.” There are two important questions here: 1) What is the knowledge? and 2) who are the “all” that don’t have this knowledge? What is the knowledge? The knowledge that there is only one God and that the other gods don’t actually exist. Who is the “all”? We understand that the Roman culture in Paul’s day did not have the knowledge that there was only one God, as they were polytheistic. But the problem is that the “all” is not those outside the Church, but Christians within the Church. Notice, these people were “accustomed to the idol until now” (v. 7; emphasis added). Before, they worshiped the idols; now they worshiped Christ. Notice also in verse 11 Paul says that these people were brothers “for whose sake Christ died.” Could it be that Paul was conceding that there were redeemed individuals in the Corinthian church who did not know or truly believe yet that there was no such thing as other gods? Was Paul speaking of Christian polytheists?
It would seem to be the case. If I am right, this in no way would lighten the burden of the church for teaching good theology. In fact, it only strengthens it. Paul calls those who have bad theology “weak” and those who have correct theology “strong.” I know the intent of this passage is how to show grace to those who are weak in their faith, but it is a strong case that good theology is the foundation for Christian strength. If the Corinthian church was dealing with polytheism within its ranks, how much more should we, who did not have the Apostle Paul as our visiting teacher, be on the look out for those who need to have their foundation strengthened with the basics of the faith.
Is there such a thing as a Christian with bad theology? Yes. How bad can it be? I don’t know, but in this case there seem to have been Christian polytheists. I am open to thoughts.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- How bad can a Christian’s theology be?
- Grudem: Predestination Based on Foreknowledge Still Does Not Give People Free Choice
- An argument against atheism?
- “If We are Faithless He Remains Faithful” . . . Faithful to What?
- Are You a Misfit in the Church? What is Wrong with You?
Parchment and Pen » How Sinful Can a Christian Be? on 04 Jun 2007 at 1:24 am #
[...] briefly covered the question “How bad can a Christian’s theology be?” in a previous post. While I admitted that we must be somewhat agnostic to this question, using the illustration of [...]
Leslie on 05 Dec 2007 at 5:32 pm #
Dear Michael:
I am an average Christian, theologically speaking. But, when Paul says that not all have this knowledge, could he be talking about the fact that not all Christians know that eating food sacrificed to idols is not sinful, and not as you suggest? Because when the Corinths trusted Christ, wouldn’t they have known that Jesus alone is God, and that the idols are just that, mere idols? Wouldn’t that be one of the reasons they’d trusted Christ at all? I don’t know, am just asking. I would certainly appreciate your response.
Leslie
C Michael Patton on 05 Dec 2007 at 7:16 pm #
It could be, but it seems that the antecedent to “not all have this knowledge” is better understood to be about strict monotheism.
It is also interesting to look at the polytheism of King Solomon.
Leslie on 07 Dec 2007 at 5:08 pm #
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your response. I am an Indian Christian, living in Chennai,
S. India. If there could be Christian polytheists, then there are quite a few in my land. Because Hindus do not have any problems accepting Jesus along with their deities, are you suggesting that they could be saved without them being conscious of it? If we accept that as true, then are we not dabbling into inclusivism here?
In your post about the essentials about salvation, you rightly say that one has to believe in God in the first place. And I am sure you don’t just mean God in the generic sense, but the God of the Bible (who by his nature is exclusivistic). That being the case, how could anyone come to Jesus, holding onto their non-existent gods at the same time, when the understanding that Jesus is the exclusive path to God is essential for salvation? No one, I hope you agree, could be a Christian and a Hindu at the same time in the same sense. A Hindu-Christian is an oxymoron, is it not?
And in the case of King Solomon, does not the Bible say that his wives turned his heart away from the Lord. I take it to mean that he was deliberately distancing himself from the Lord. And the Bible does not sound sympathetic about it!
I would definitely appreciate your resposne.
Leslie on 10 Dec 2007 at 6:18 pm #
Dear Michael:
I do not frequently respond to posts in a blog. So, if you’ve found my tone inappropriate, please excuse me. Since you have not responded to my previous comment, I thought you found the tone argumentative. Please be assured that it was not. I was only trying to clarify. Thanks.
C Michael Patton on 10 Dec 2007 at 6:30 pm #
Leslie, I am so sorry. I just never have time to respond to many of the posts, especially the older ones. I will try to get to this soon. Your question and comments are great.