Morality, Choosing Sinful Actions, Consequences - Salvation in Christianity

Protestants believe that grace is the only means to salvation (Sola gratia).  Good or bad actions - including sinful actions - are works and works cannot grant or takeaway salvation. On the other hand, Catholics believe that good works along with grace lead to salvation.  Both positions lead to problematic issues that will be examined in this article.

Let us start with the common ground.  All Christians admit that humans are incapable of avoiding sin. There are two reasons why humans are incapable of achieving salvation solely by the merit of their own actions: (1) Humans are incapable of living a sinless life; (2) Humans actions are limited and cannot redeem for egregious sins (such as the Original Sin which all humans inherit).

Given the limited nature of their actions, humans need God's help, God's forgiving nature, to achieve salvation. That is where the Christian concept of God's grace comes in - receiving as gift what one does not deserve.  Grace is unmerited favor bestowed by God.  Grace is mercy, not merit.  Grace cannot be earned - either by avoiding negative works or performing positive works.

Grace is mercy and not merit. Grace, then, is the opposite of karma, which is all about getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve, and not getting what you do deserve. Christianity teaches that what humans deserve is death with no hope of resurrection.  It is only with grace of God that humans are saved.  With grace of God, achieved as a gift for having faith in the redemptive power of the sacrifice of Jesus, all can achieve salvation.  This is the Christian Good Word.

In the Bible, positive works had no redemptive value.  Hindus have a concept of punya and papa.  Punya is the collective value of positive works that had the potential to mitigate the impact of papa.  Such a possibility is never contemplated in the bible.  Social service then, has no redemptive balue whatsoever.

Old Testament provides commandments.  Violating those commandments is a sin.  Violation of a command is a negative work.  Thus, in the Old Testament, one becomes a sinner by doing negative works.  The only positive works that could mitigate the cumulative burden of sin is making sacrifices to the God.

New Testament is clear that living under the guardianship of the laws is not going to save or ever bring salvation.  What saves is grace of God gained by living a life of faith.  Righteous living lived through the law will not save!

Galatians 2:20-21

 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Galatians 3:23-25

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custodyunder the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Bible is clear that grace is only received as a gift and not as pay for works.  

Romans 4:4-8

When people work, their pay is not given to them as a gift. They earn the pay they get.  But people cannot do any work that will make them right with God. So they must trust in him. Then he accepts their faith, and that makes them right with him. He is the one who makes even evil people right.  David said the same thing when he was talking about the blessing people have when God accepts them as good without looking at what they have done: “It is a great blessing when people are forgiven for the wrongs they have done, when their sins are erased!  It is a great blessing when the Lord accepts people as if they are without sin!”

Protestants believe that salvation is entirely by grace, received by all Christians for the redemptive work (sacrificing his own self) of Jesus alone.  Protestant view is that no one can avoid sinful actions; thus works can never be a means to salvation.  Consequently, Protestant Reformers argued that a sinner is not accepted by God on account of the change brought in the believer by God's grace, but that the believer is accepted without any regard for the merit of his works.

Antinomianism is the name given to the doctrine that argues that if someone is saved by grace, he/she has no need to live a holy life, to ensure good works, given that salvation is already ensured.  The word antinomianism comes from two Greek words, anti, meaning "against"; and nomos, meaning "law."Antinomianism means “against the law.” Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws of God for Christians to obey to ensure their salvation.  For, obeying laws is related  to works.  If works do not lead to salvation, if salvation is purely by God's grace (free gift of God), then obeying God's laws as layed out in the Bible is metely good living and not a means to salvation.

People may wonder, “If I am saved by grace and all my sins are forgiven, why not sin all I want?”

Paul the Apostle was fully aware of this question and offered a clear answer.

Ephesians 2:8-10

I mean that you have been saved by grace because you believed. You did not save yourselves; it was a gift from God.  You are not saved by the things you have done, so there is nothing to boast about. God has made us what we are. In Christ Jesus, God made us new people so that we would spend our lives doing the good things he had already planned for us to do.

Romans 6:1-7

So do you think we should continue sinning so that God will give us more and more grace? Of course not! Our old sinful life ended. It’s dead. So how can we continue living in sin?  Did you forget that all of us became part of Christ Jesus when we were baptized? In our baptism we shared in his death. So when we were baptized, we were buried with Christ and took part in his death. And just as Christ was raised from death by the wonderful power of the Father, so we can now live a new life. 

Christ died, and we have been joined with him by dying too. So we will also be joined with him by rising from death as he did. We know that our old life was put to death on the cross with Christ. This happened so that our sinful selves would have no power over us. Then we would not be slaves to sin. Anyone who has died is made free from sin’s control.

Paul is clearly saying two things:

1. You are free from sins you have committed before coming to Christ.
2. You are not free to commit sins after you receive grace (saved).  You are new, not the old sinful person.

But what if a Christian really chooses to commits sin after accepting grace?  After all, a Christian has free will?  Will he lose the gift of grace?  Is he eligible for asking for repentance again and again? 

Paul is aware of these questions as well and offers a response.

Titus 2:11-14

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness, who died to make us pure—people who belong only to him and who always want to do good works.

What Paul is saying is that, once you received grace, it is no longer a choice for you to live a life of sin.  Your sinful life is dead - it cannot resume.

There is  further strengthened by James who says faith without works is useless.

James 2:20-26

You fool! Faith that does nothing is worth nothing. Do you want me to prove this to you? Our father Abraham was made right with God by what he did. He offered his son Isaac to God on the altar. So you see that Abraham’s faith and what he did worked together. His faith was made perfect by what he did. This shows the full meaning of the Scriptures that say, “Abraham believed God, and because of this faith he was accepted as one who is right with God.”  Abraham was called “God’s friend.”  So you see that people are made right with God by what they do. They cannot be made right by faith alone.  Another example is Rahab. She was a prostitute, but she was made right with God by something she did. She helped those who were spying for God’s people. She welcomed them into her home and helped them escape by a different road.  A person’s body that does not have a spirit is dead. It is the same with faith—faith that does nothing is dead!

Unfortunately, the question remains left unaddressed.  But what if a Christian really chooses to commits sin after accepting grace?  After all, a Christian has free will?  Will he lose the gift of grace?  Is he eligible for asking for repentance again and again? 

What if a Christian, after accepting grace, chooses and commits evil works?  Do they lose grace?  If so, then no human would receive grace.  If the Christian commits evil works, is the Christian still worthy of retaining or regaining grace?  Are there ANY ethically wrong negative works make them unworthy of grace forever?  Is there a level of ethically wrong works where Christians become unworthy of grace?

Christians admit that humans are incapable of avoiding sin.  That is exactly what grace means - receiving as gift what one does not deserve.  Grace is unmerited favor bestowed by God.  Grace is mercy, not merit.  Grace cannot be earned.  But does this grace accept repentance after any sin?  After relapsing into sin any number of times?

This is the crux of the Christian dilemma.

(1) If humans are incapable of avoiding sinful choices and actions, can works ever lead to salvation?  (2) Can God shower his grace on sinful just for repenting?  Can God continue to shower his grace on those who continue to choose a sinful life?  

(3) Can someone other than the victim ever forgive?  By saying God forgives, have the Christians invented a psychological means to suppress need for true repentance and acts if reparation?

(4) What about people who committed sins all their lives but come to accept Jesus as their savior towards the end of their lives?

(5) What about those who commit sins freely knowing that future repentance or acceptance of Jesus as Christ can always absolve them of their sins?

(6) What about those who commit sins freely unknowing that future repentance or acceptance of Jesus as Christ can always absolve them of their sins?
(6) What about people who live an exemplary life yet never choose to accept Jesus as their savior? If Hitler repents at the time of his death and accepts Jesus and Gandhi dies not accepting Jesus as his savior, does it mean that Hitler receives grace and not Gandhi?

Who among these are worthy of being absolved for their sins?  If some of the Christians do not receive grace because of the egregious nature of their sins and from the consequences of their sins, is grace limited somehow?  If all Christians are eligible for grace irrespective of the sins they commit, no matter how egregious their sins are, then what is the moral imperative for Christians?

These are tough challenges that create the unbridgeable schism between Catholics and Protestants.

Ravi Zacharias' argument for 
biblical moral-law giver

Ravi Zacharias, the Christian apologist, is a glib speaker who mesmerizes his Christian audience by parlaying a collection of well-practiced arguments.  The most frequently used argument is the one that asserts that morality is meaningless without the foundation of the biblical god and his directives to mankind.  

Argument stands on two claims: (1) morality is absolute, and (2) absolute morality is sourced from the biblical god, the moral-law giver.  This is the stronger form of  the argument for morality which not only requires there to be a transcendental God who represents all that is good but also requires God to be the moral-law giver.  

Ravi Zacharias central assertion is that these very biblical commandments as ontologically essential to the very concept of human morality.  For morality to be more than a convention, God has to exist and provide an existential basis for morality.  However, God is not merely gifting mankind the mental faculties to reason about morality.  Ravi requires additionally that absolute morality is given to mankind as laws by the Biblical god.  In saying this, Ravi Zacharias is staying faithful to the Bible.

The Old Testament is very clear: (1) Sin is violation of Biblical god's command.  (2) Where there is no biblical god's command, there can be no sin.  Thus, morality is indeed provided by the Biblical god in the form of divine command's or laws.

Ravi's central argument is that one cannot speak of good and evil, values of morality,  without the Biblical God.

Ravi's argument can be summed up as follows:

• Whenever people speak of evil, they are also implicitly positing the concept of good.
• To express moral judgments about good and evil, you must posit that good and evil exist
• If good and evil exist, you must posit a moral law by which we can distinguish between good and evil
• If a moral law exists, a moral law giver must exist
• If a moral law giver does not exist, moral laws do not exist.
• If moral laws do not exist, we cannot distinguish between good and bad.
• If we cannot distinguish between good and bad, then there is no problem of evil.
• Then the entire argument of using the problem of evil against God self-destructs.

Did you spot the fallacies? 

• Ravi is conflating existence of the concepts of good and evil with the existence of good and evil. We can all agree that concepts of good and evil exist, but that isn't the same thing as saying that good and evil actually exist in any form or capacity beyond their human constructs.  
• Besides presupposing existence of good and evil, Ravi further assumes the need for a cause for their existence - a moral-law giver.  This assumption too is unwarranted.  It is a fallacy because it is presupposing the conclusion.  
• Ravi's argument that good and bad become relativistic without a God is just absolutist speak.  Saying that good is defined by the God who represents all that is good hardly clarifies what is good.  Defining one unknown in terms of another unknown which is much more complex is no clarification at all.  This is the well known God of the gaps fallacy.  In addition, by associating all goodness, and nothing but goodness, to the biblical God,  Ravi in fact quietly conflating the abstract transcendental notion of God, who is all good and nothing but good, with the biblical God who regularly interacted with humans, showed human emotions, and showed proclivity to pick one side and punish the other.  Biblical God's tyrannical acts and pronouncements countenanced in the bible are opposed to our modern, conventional sense of what is good and moral.  Moral commandments  of a jealous God, who sides with a chosen party in the desert and smites hard another party not on the same side, is arbitrary and unjust.  Founding fathers in America saw no usefulness for the moral law-giving biblical God and instead sought a naturalistic approach to foundational principles of equality and justice where the natural order is the God's will.

Thus, Ravi's argument does not offer any support to the existence of good and evil, the existence of absolute morality, the need for an absolute moral-law giving God, and finally why the biblical god should be the same as the God of goodness.

So where, then, do we derive the concept of good and evil – or, more pragmatically, right and wrong? We derive them not from the metaphysical absolutes given by God's decree, but from universal principles that are grounded in the philosophy of fairness and justice, while ensuring complete absence of arbitrariness in meting out moral judgments of fairness and justice.  Immanuel Kant did exactly this.  Moral commandments  of a jealous God, who sides with a chosen party in the desert and smites hard another party not on the same side, is arbitrary and unjust.  Founding fathers in America saw no usefulness for the moral law-giving biblical God and instead sought a naturalistic approach to foundational principles of equality and justice where the natural order is the God's will.

Notwithstanding dire pronouncements of biblical moral-law giver, we can say this because we have faculties of reason independent of the bible.  Smarter apologists are fully aware of this predicament and spend enoromous efforts to align biblical interpretations with reason.  William Lane Craig, a famous and much better kniwn apologist than Ravi Zacharias, recognizes the difficulty of appealing to absolute morality.  Instead, he only speaks for objective morality and limits his argument to use of an abstract concept of God as the source and basis of morality.  That is, however, a big limitation as there is no seemless bridge to go from the abstract concept of God to the interference-prone, moral-law giving God.

Can Vicarious Redemption be Defended?

Liberal Christianity embraces a series of denials: Christ is not divine, mankind is not inherently sinful, the Scriptures are not authoritative and unchanging, heaven and hell are not literal, morality and theology are not absolute, and social mores do not flow from Scripture, but are an ever-changing product of our evolutionary enlightenment.  This is an admission of disappointment with the traditional biblical narrative, dogma, and doctrines and  accordingly throwing in the towel.  There is nothing to debate with a view that disowns all controversy.


Let us instead look at how traditional Christians argue for Vicarious Redemption, also known as the Christian Doctrine of Atonement or Salvation.  Weakness in their apologetics exposes the reason for the disappointment of liberal Christians.

Main issues against Vicarious Redemption are: How can entire generations be guilty of a crime that an ancestor committed?  How can the omniscient God burden future generations with a sin that they did not commit and are incapable of atoning for?  How can one suffer to atone for the sins of another?  In particular, how can the murder of Jesus atone for the sins of other humans?

Main defense for Vicarious Redemption goes as follows:

The Christian doctrine of the Atonement is not one according to which we make Christ into a scapegoat for our sins. It is, rather, one according to which Christ adopts a burden on our behalf that we cannot conceivably bear ourselves, but which Christ can and does bear. This isn’t something we do to Christ, but something that Christ does for us. We aren’t asking Christ to do something that we should be doing ourselves. Christ, out of love, is doing for us what, otherwise, would not be done at all, because we couldn’t possibly do it.

Does it really offer a defense?

Atonement is for Original Sin.  Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin and the Biblical God, in his infinite Wisdom, curses Adam and Eve and all their future lineage with the consequences of death and eternal damnation for this sin.  Now, Biblical God burdens all future humanity with this sin knowing fully well, as the omniscient being, that they are incapable of atoning for it.  

Biblical God alone knows why (this is often the Christian escape route that we are incapable of understanding Biblical God's infinite wisdom) future generations have to bear the consequences of someone else's actions.  It is sufficient to say that no modern court of justice would burden one human with the guilt of another's wrongful actions.  That would be inhuman and will be deemed great injustice.  The injustice of future generations having to bear consequences of Original Sin is palpable and needs no more discussion.

Finally, Biblical God decides to accept the death of his own Son, sent to earth as a human, to atone for the sin that he first conferred upon humanity.  Again, it is sufficient to say that no modern court of justice would free a criminal because someone else volunteer's to take the wrath of retributive justice.  Again, the injustice is palpable.

Now, original sin is the most egregious of all sins.  Worse than violations of ten commandments.  Worse than murder.  The more egregious the crime, the less acceptable should such vicarious redemption be.  How can the bearers of original sin be absolved by the sacrifice of an innocent sin-free human ?  What kind of a God would accept such a sacrifice?  These are daunting problems for a critical thinking Christian.

Defense proceeds as follows: 

The doctrine of the Atonement isn’t about responsibility for our actions so much as it is about responsibility for our salvation. It’s the wages of sin that Christ bears on our behalf: guilt, shame, denial, indifference, despair, resentment.  The wages of sin are precisely those things which stand in the way of taking that step into true intimacy. Salvation is about removing those impediments, so that the doors of heaven—the doors that close on our own hearts—are cast open.

The argument having failed for the current life, has now moved to after-life.  That would not be so bad if the personal accountability and responsibility for actions in this life had a bearing in the after-life.  But the idea of salvation kills such a possibility by simply suggesting that believing in Jesus absolves you of your sins and grants you a place in heaven in afterlife.  Even if you are a rapist, a murderer, an original sinner.

One can never imagine what would happen if a court absolved a rapist or murderer because he repents and accepts Jesus.  Would Christians accept such justice?

Offering fallen character of humanity as a defense for human bad behavior and allowing them salvation with a final act of believing in Jesus cannot create a moral this-world, leave alone a moral other-world.

Whether Jesus is son of God or not, whether he can offer salvation or not, the mere thought of forgiveness of past deeds and giving salvation stands in violation of  retributive justice without which human courts of law cannot function.

No doubt liberal Christians have shunned the dogma of Nicene creed.  No doubt Europe has been moving away from Christianity and rediscovering pre-Christian traditions.

Role of Church in Slavery and Colonialism

Age of Discovery

In fourteen hundred ninety-two / Columbus sailed the ocean blue. And it was precisely around this time in the late 15th century, in the so-called “Age of Discovery,” that a worldview began to develop that Europe was the only civilized part of the world; therefore, any part of the planet that Europeans conquered would do that land the favor of bringing both a “superior religion” (Christianity) and a “superior culture” to territory that was either unoccupied or occupied by people the Europeans viewed as heathens or savages.

Doctrine of Discovery and Papal Bulls

The Doctrine of Discovery was buttressed by the worldview of the Crusades. Papal bulls encouraged Christians to “capture, vanquish, and subdue the…pagans, and other enemies of Christ,” to “put them into perpetual slavery,” and “to take all their possessions and property.” Disturbingly, the Doctrine of Discovery, as initially articulated by rulers such as Pope Nicholas (1452) and Henry VII of England (1496), was later imported into the United States legal system in conflicts over the rights to American Indian land such as the 1823 Supreme Court case Johnson v. McIntosh:

Writing for an unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ultimate dominion” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that — upon “discovery” — the Indians had lost “their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,” and only retained a right of “occupancy” in their lands.

Papal Bull Dum Diversas - 18 June, 1452

Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas on 18 June, 1452. It authorised Alfonso V of Portugal to reduce any “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. This facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa.

Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex - January 5, 1455
Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Romanus Pontifex on January 5, 1455 to Alfonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum diversas, it extended to the Catholic nations of Europe dominion over discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Along with sanctifying the seizure of non-Christian lands, it encouraged the enslavement of native, non-Christian peoples in Africa and the New World.

In 1493 Alexander VI issued the bull Inter Caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations.

The Bulls of Donation, also called the Alexandrine Bulls

Alexandrine Bulls are three bulls of Pope Alexander VI delivered in 1493 which granted overseas territories to Portugal and the Catholic Monarchs of Spain.   The three Bulls are:

1. Inter caetera of 4 May 1493
2. Eximiae devotionis 3 May 1493
3. Dudum siquidem of 26 September 1493

The bulls were the basis for negotiation between colonial ambitions of Portugal and Spain which resulted in the Treaty of Tordesillas, dividing the non-Christian world beyond Europe between them. 

The Treaty of Tordesillas was concluded on June 7 1494 to settle the contentious matter of the possession of the newly discovered lands of the non Christian world between Portugal and Spain. It was ratified by Spain on July 2, 1494. and by Portugal on September 5, 1494.

The judiciary precedent of the treaty was the Inter Caetera Papal Bull, issued on May 4, 1493 by the Spanish Pope Alexander VI. The Inter Caetera Bull fixed the demarcation line along a circle passing 100 leagues W of the Cape Verde Islands and through the two poles. This division gave the entire New World to Spain and Africa and India to Portugal. The margin of the maneuver given to Portugal by the papal bull was small.

The Treaty of Tordesillas shifted the demarcation line to a circle passing 370 leagues West of the Cape Verde Islands and thus set the legal base for the colonization of the eastern coast of the land now known as Brazil by the Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvarez Cabral. He landed there on April 22, 1500 claimed the land and named it:Tierra da Vera Cruz (land of the true cross).

Requerimiento [Requirement], by Charles I of Spain: Spanish conquistadors read this document, composed in 1514, to Indians of the new world. It briefly explains Spain's assertion of its legal and moral right to rule over the inhabitants of Latin America. It also provides a rationale for a "just war." Legalistic Spaniards devised this doctrine so that you could "legally" enslave Indians who refused to agree with all the statements of the requerimiento.

The Requerimiento read: "... Of all these people God, Our Lord, chose one, who was called Saint Peter, to be the lord and the one who was to be superior to all the other people of the world, whom all should obey. He was to be the head of the entire human race, wherever men might exist. God gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction. God also permitted him to be and establish himself in any other part of the world to judge and govern all peoples, whether Christian, Moors, Jew, Gentiles, or those of any other sects and beliefs that there might be. He was called the Pope. One of the past Popes who succeeded Saint Peter, as Lord of the Earth gave these islands and Mainland's of the Ocean Sea [the Atlantic Ocean] to the said King and Queen and to their successors, with everything that there is in them, as is set forth in certain documents which were drawn up regarding this donation ...."

"Consequently, as we best may, we beseech and demand that you understand fully this that we have said to you and ponder it, so that you may understand and deliberate upon it for a just and fair period, and that you accept the Church and Superior Organization of the whole world and recognize the Supreme Pontiff, called the Pope, and that in his name, you acknowledge the King and Queen, as the lords and superior authorities of these islands and Mainlands by virtue of the said donation."

"If you do not do this, however, or resort maliciously to delay, we warn you that, with the aid of God, we will enter your land against you with force and will make war in every place and by every means we can and are able, and we will then subject you to the yoke and authority of the Church and Their Highnesses. We will take you and your wives and children and make them slaves, and as such we will sell them, and will dispose of you and them as Their Highnesses order. And we will take your property and will do to you all the harm and evil we can, as is done to vassals who will not obey their lord or who do not wish to accept him, or who resist and defy him. We avow that the deaths and harm which you will receive thereby will be your own blame, and not that of Their Highnesses, nor ours, nor of the gentlemen who come with us."

Immanuel Kant's view of Biblical Ethics

Immanuel Kant holds that individuals are free to act out of principle and moral duty. There are three aspects of Kantian thought that define Kant's views of morality.

Morality originates from rational mind: According to Immanuel Kant, foundation of morality is the ability of humans to think and act rationally. It is the human capacity to reason that makes humans refrain from acting out of impulse or the desire for pleasure. 

Human beings are intrinsically important: Immanuel Kant says that all human beings are intrinsically important and that the well being of each is an end in itself.  This intrinsic importance leads to the fundamental principle that all humans are autonomous and that is the only true freedom.

Even though humans are autonomous, as rational beings they are bound by rational thinking and should arrive at the same universal moral principle which he called categorical imperative.

Categorical imperative:   Categorical imperative states that you should do only those acts which you are willing to allow to become universal standards of behavior applicable to all people, including yourself.

All these three fundamental thoughts go against the moral absolutist position of Christian morality. 

In the four essays that constitute Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, Immanuel Kant articulates his understanding of religion and its place in relation to his rational metaphysics of morals in works such as the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the Critique of Practical Reason(1788) and the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790).

Kant viewed personal freedom as autonomy to decide for one selves the laws that one follows.  To Kant, this alone is true freedom.  Immanuel Kant was very critical of presenting moral actions as a means to any end including ways of pleasing God.  Kant articulated in the fourth essay some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he saw as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical reinterpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to Christianity.

In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant writes:

But suppose there were something whose existence in itself had an absolute worth, something that, as end in itself, could be a ground of determinate laws; then in it and only in it alone would lie the ground of a possible categorical imperative, i.e., of a practical law.
...
If, then, there is supposed to be a supreme practical principle, and in regard to the human will a categorical imperative, then it must be such from the representation of that which, being necessarily an end for everyone, because it is an end in itself, constitutes an objective principle of the will, hence can serve as a universal practical law. The ground of this principle is: Rational nature exists as end in itself. 

The rational being must always consider itself as giving law in a realm of ends possible through freedom of the will, whether as member or as supreme head.

Thus, neither a scripture nor its historical context of related experiences can ever be the source of the catgotical imperative.  The one and only one source is the rational nature underlying all human beings.

Immanuel Kant, in his writings on ethics, refused any role for experience or history in the development of human morality.  Kant held that morality is a pure metaphysical  concept.  Rational beings are capable of developing an innate sense of objective morality without recourse to anything external - either empirical experience or intervention of God.  In other words, empirical knowledge can only illustrate morality but cannot lay the foundation for morality.  

Kant sees human will as the Universal legislator of the law, the only law that it abides by.  The human will is an end in itself, with freedom from any form of external coercion.  Kant gives the name Categorical Imperative to the Universal law that the will legislates itself and at the same time remains subjected to it:  Always act in such a way that your are both legislator and legislated in the kingdom of ends.  Always act in such a way that you could will that the maxim of your act become a Universal Law.  This stands in stark contrast to Christian apologists who require a Biblical God to be the moral giver.  Apologists like William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias insist that there cannot be objective morality without a moral law giver.

Kant completely disagrees with this Biblical view.  In his seminal work "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals", where Kant lays down the foundations of his moral framework, Kant writes:

One could not give worse advice to morality than by trying to get it from examples. For every example of morality that is to be represented to me as such must itself be previously judged in accordance with principles of morality as to whether it is worthy to serve as an original example, i.e., as a model; but it can by no means by itself supply the concept of morality. Even the holy one of the Gospel must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before one can recognize him as holy; he says this about himself too: Why do you call me (whom you see) good? No one is good (the archetype of the good) except the one God (whom you do not see).  But where do we get the concept of God as the highest good? Solely from the idea that reason projects a priori of moral perfection and connects inseparably with the concept of a free will.

Kant sees reason and free will as the sole foundations of morality.  Not Biblical scriptures.  

Kant asks a sharp question: Where do Christians get the concept of God as the highest good?  Christians simply define highest good in terms of God Himself.  Is that a useful definition when we do not know what God is?  Bible offers divine commandments as examples of morality.  Can these examples supply an adequate concept of morality on their own?  

Does Bible define morality in broader terms and not merely offering a few elementary moral precepts such as the ten commandments?  It does, very narrowly, by saying that it is a sin to violate God's commandments and, where there are no commandments there is no sin.  This restriction cripples the possibility of evolving a broader scope for Biblical morality.   In fact, some of the ten commandments even do not match the general human understanding of morality.  For example, a commandment of God identifying Himself as Jealous God and asking us to avoid idol worship cannot be called a moral.  Same goes with the requirement of Sabbath.

To reach a satisfactory moral framework, Kant avoided moral examples from Biblical scriptures altegether and chose to take a pure metaphysical approach - pure in the sense of completely avoiding all empirical knowledge.  History-centric Biblical knowledge offers just that circumstantial empirical knowledge of God-given moral rules.

Kant sees no use of Biblical God or the Biblical moral rules for human morality.  For Kant, all that is needed is a rational creature with free will to develop an innate sense of morality without recourse to anything external, including the Biblical God.

Role of Social Service and Charity in Christianity

In Christianity, salvation is everything.  If there is one non-negotiable thing in Christianity, it is the hope and promise of salvation through faith.

"At the heart of Christian faith is the reality and hope of salvation in Jesus Christ. Christian faith is faith in the God of salvation revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian tradition has always equated this salvation with the transcendent, eschatological fulfillment of human existence in a life freed from sin, finitude, and mortality and united with the triune God. This is perhaps the non-negotiable item of Christian faith. What has been a matter of debate is the relation between salvation and our activities in the world."

— Min, Anselm Kyongsuk. Dialectic of Salvation: Issues in Theology of Liberation. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989, page 79)

Can people achieve salvation by works? What kind of works?  Any works which are good deeds or works in the sense of fulfilling God's commandments?  Christians often claim that social service is a distinguishing characteristic of their religion of love.  They are quick to point out all the charitable organizations that they run and the funds that they actively donate to/raise for those organizations.  Since salvation is one and the only ultimate goal for Christians, social service, to be a value for Christians, should be a means to salvation in Christianity.  If it is not, it cannot be of any value to Christians.

That salvation comes by the mere act of belief is stated in the New Testament:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. But those who do not obey the Son will never have that life. They cannot get away from God’s anger.” John 3:36

 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.  If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.  John 15:5-6

The Bible is also clear that salvation cannot be by both grace and works.  If salvation is possible by works, grace is pointless.  If salvation is possible only by grace, what is the real motivation for works?

And if he chose them by grace, then it is not what they have done that made them his people. If they could be made his people by what they did, his gift of grace would not really be a gift. Romans 11:6

It gets even more explicit that grace of Jesus removes all sins.  Thus, following commands of God is not required at all for salvation.

But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. God makes people right through their faith in Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness.  They are made right with God by his grace. This is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins.  Romans 3:21-26

Matthew 7:21-23 clarifies that not all Christians who hold faith in Jesus gain salvation.  Their rejection, however, is NOT FAILURE TO DO POSITIVE ACTION BUT PARTICIPATING IN NEGATIVE ACTIONS in the name of God.  Thus, social service as a positive action will not save the faithful.  However, fake faith healers who claim miracles in the name of Jesus will be denied salvation.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter God’s kingdom. The only people who will enter are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. On that last Day many will call me Lord. They will say, ‘Lord, Lord, by the power of your name we spoke for God. And by your name we forced out demons and did many miracles.’ Then I will tell those people clearly, ‘Get away from me, you people who do wrong. I never knew you.’

Romans 6 takes an interesting spin where Paul comes out with an interesting and essential question: 

Romans 6:1-2

So do you think we should continue sinning so that God will give us more and more grace? Of course not! Our old sinful life ended. It’s dead. So how can we continue living in sin?  

 Romans 6:20-22

In the past you were slaves to sin, and you did not even think about doing right. You did evil things, and now you are ashamed of what you did. Did those things help you? No, they only brought death. But now you are free from sin. You have become slaves of God, and the result is that you live only for God. This will bring you eternal life.

Paul is saying that a Christian before turning to Christ was a slave of sin but after turning to Christ they are slaves if God and good.  This position seems to suggest that a Christian should also mend ways from bad to good.  But that is not quite what it is saying.  The statement is not prescriptive but descriptive.  Thus, if a person takes to sin, he cannot be a Christian.  But if all humans are sinners and cannot avoid sin and therefore need Jesus to be their savior, that means they cannot avoid sins even after accepting Jesus as their savior.  Romans 6 makes the situation impossible unless we accept that it is a normative position.  That is Paul is asking Christians to live only a good life.  However, that is not a necessity for salvation.

There have been many theological debates on this issue.  Roman Catholics say do good works to be saved.  Protestants say that good works cannot save (i.e., bring salvation).  Calvinists say do not do bad works to be saved.  

John MacArthur writes, clearly showing his Calvinism:

“The point is not that God guarantees security to everyone who will say he accepts Christ, but rather that those whose faith is genuine will prove their salvation is secure by persevering to the end in the way of righteousness” (The Gospel According to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], p.98).

Others disagree.  they say, "God does not grant the sinner salvation based on the kind of life he lives.  If God granted salvation on the basis of life we live, none of us would qualify for salvation. Living the right kind of life is the fruit of salvation, but never the cause."

No doubt there are quotes of Jesus in the Bible where he advises his followers to choose to serve than to be served.  Jesus was asking his followers to be kind but never suggested kindness as a means to salvation.

The other ten followers heard this and were angry with the two brothers. So Jesus called the followers together. He said, “You know that the rulers of the non-Jewish people love to show their power over the people. And their important leaders love to use all their authority over the people. But it should not be that way with you. Whoever wants to be your leader must be your servant. Whoever wants to be first must serve the rest of you like a slave. Do as I did: The Son of Man did not come for people to serve him. He came to serve others and to give his life to save many people.”  Matthew 20:24-28

 There are three serious challenges to the claim that social service is associated with Christian salvation either as a cause or as an effect.

1. In practice, Christian "social service", almost always, goes hand in hand with conversion efforts suggesting that social need is used as a means to engage and convert.  The motive is readily evident - not their own salvation through works, but hope of salvation for others.  Such a hope is justified only if good works alone cannot bring satisfaction and God's grace alone can bring salvation.
2. History is replete with evidence of Christian establishment (including Popes) involved in inhuman acts.  If they were saved because they accepted Jesus, and salvation guaranteed good reflected life, where did such inhuman acts come from?
3. Scripturally, Jesus does not say much for social service in matters of salvation which is the only promise for becoming a Christian.

For (1), it is sufficient to show that works do not contribute to one's personal salvation.  If so, then social service does not help the one and only goal in Christianity of personal salvation.  It follows then that social service is not required and, if performed, is a device for some other end.

On (2), I will not elaborate but offer a recollection of the poignant challenge by Christopher Hitchens to the Christian claim of a moral high ground:

You have to propose a right action committed or a morally right statement made that could not have been performed or uttered by a non-believer.  Then there is corollary challenge where you are challenged to find a wicked action undertaken or a wicked statement made by a believer because of and only because of their belief (which would not have been made by a non-believer).  

Reflection on this challenge readily cuts through to the essence of (2) and debunks Christian claims of a higher moral living.

Let us start with (3) through a conversation of Jesus quoted in the Bible.


A Rich Man Refuses to Follow Jesus    Matthew 19:16-26

A man came to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?”

Jesus answered, “Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is good. But if you want to have eternal life, obey the law’s commands.”

The man asked, “Which ones?”

Jesus answered, “‘You must not kill anyone, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not tell lies about others, you must respect your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor the same as you love yourself.’

The young man said, “I have obeyed all these commands. What else do I need?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all that you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me!”

 But when the young man heard Jesus tell him to give away his money, he was sad. He didn’t want to do this, because he was very rich. So he left.

Then Jesus said to his followers, “The truth is, it will be very hard for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom. Yes, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom.”

The followers were amazed to hear this. They asked, “Then who can be saved?”

Jesus looked at them and said, “This is something that people cannot do. But God can do anything.”

________________

Works cannot lead you to Salvation:

(1) To have eternal life (i.e., salvation, according to Christianity), it is not works but following God's commands that is the way to salvation.  Jesus is even specific about which laws: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie about others, respect father and mother, and follow the golden rule. 

(2)  People cannot do this (because they are not perfect).  Only God can do anything (including enabling  salvation for the limited mortals with his grace).  In other words, God's grace is the only means to salvation.

In other words, all humans violate God's moral commands at one time or another.  Thus, rest of the human actions are not sufficient to guarantee salvation.  God's grace then is the only way.

God's grace is the only way to salvation.  In particular, social service (and all other works) then is not a means to salvation.  

Does Salvation lead you to good works?

History is replete with stories of Christians, missionaries, and even Popes doing actions which are inhumane in the name of their religion.  Unless we are willing to say that they are all not saved inspite of being Christians, we have to concede that salvation has not led them to good works.

In other words, good works is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. 

One big question then remains.

How does one get God's grace?

The law was given to us through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  John 1:17

We have been made right with God because of our faith. So we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Through our faith, Christ has brought us into that blessing of God’s grace that we now enjoy. And we are very happy because of the hope we have of sharing God’s glory. Romans 5:1-2

Why then do Christians provide social service? 

Because, they are convinced that God's grace is the only way to salvation.  By hook or crook, they want to get people to God's grace by converting them to Christianity.  When they could do this through colonial conquests or through inquisition, they did.  Now, social service is their way to mingle with the community and convert them.  Mother Theresa was known to convert people who are on their death bed.  Why? Because she believed that it was necessary for these dying people to gain their salvation.

So don’t be ashamed to tell people about our Lord Jesus. And don’t be ashamed of me—I am in prison for the Lord. But suffer with me for the Good News. God gives us the strength to do that.  God saved us and chose us to be his holy people, but not because of anything we ourselves did. God saved us and made us his people because that was what he wanted and because of his grace. That grace was given to us through Christ Jesus before time began.  2 Timothy 1:8-9

So prepare your minds for holy service. With complete self-control, put all your hope in the grace that will be yours when Jesus Christ comes.  1 Peter 1:13