Blog Adventures - Good or "Good"?

I am getting into a bit of trouble over here in the comments section of Baptist pastor Wade Burleson's blog. Wade leads Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK.

I realize many readers of this blog question Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity, in terms of epistemology. People often judge their religion's truth by different methods and standards than they do many aspects of everyday life - this is called compartmentalization. This is an essential topic to discuss. But I am even more interested in moral compartmentalization, where some believers attribute actions to a "good" God that they would never consider good for themselves or for others. When this happens, when the word "good" is divorced from what we consider to be good, then the word loses its meaning.

As a former Baptist who grew up in the town of Enid, this is the angle I take when occasionally dipping my toe in here. Wade is smart fellow, a historical scholar, and a nice guy, so he, and the other fine folks folks commenting, are fun to interact with.

Question on Calvinism

In Calvinist theology, all people are depraved and sinful. God chooses some of them to be redeemed. The evidence of their election is their belief in and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them. God chooses others to be damned for their sins so that He can demonstrate divine punishment on them forever to further His own glory.

Presumably, under this system, God loves people differently. He loves the elect more than the damned, and this is why He saves them. If this is so, then God cannot be “all loving”. This is because there are people that He is loving less than others, and therefore He is loving less than the maximum possible amount.

So God is all powerful, but not all loving. Again, He is choosing some to redeem and some not to redeem, and if there are different levels of love, then there is some love that he is choosing not to exercise.

So if God is not all loving, can God be properly described as all holy or all righteous? Can the terms “righteous” or “holy” be meaningful if they are separated from love?

Consider Matthew 22:35-40:35

and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So all the law hinges on commandments to love and to love fully. Is God righteous if He chooses to love less than He is able? If righteousness and holiness are conceptually divorced from love, do they have any meaning? Or are people praising God with statements like “God is holy” simply saying “God is God”, which tells us nothing about His character?

A response to Wade Burleson's recent blog on Christian Universalism

Warning! Theology to follow....

I am not a person who thinks that the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant revelation. In fact, I think the Bible is 100% man-made, albeit one of the most important man-made books ever. And it offers us spiritual riches for sure, perhaps even an entry-point into certain kinds of deep truth. I believe in faith (when it means "trust" anyway) and I use God-language in describing reality and in my deepest thoughts and feelings. I think I am a reverent agnostic.

Anyway, this post is not to criticize or defend Scripture, but I wanted to be clear on my opinion of Scripture.

All that said, I also enjoy arguing for Christian Universalism (the idea that in the end, God will save all), even when it means accepting the premise that Scripture is wholly reliable and uniquely inspired in its communication about God. It's a premise that I disagree with, but one that I can accept for the sake of argument. Why do I care? Because I love Christianity and I would rather it exist as something that a reasonable person could hope is true, rather than in a form that any reasonable person should hope is not true.

Wade Burleson, in a recent blog post here talks about Christian Universalism, which is a hot topic thanks to Rob Bell's new book. It's called "Hell's Bells" I think. Oh wait. I mean "Love Wins" is the title! ;)

I would like to say that I enjoy discussing things with Wade quite a bit. He considers what his conversation partner is saying, he is polite and he is straightforward. I have always appreciated this. Wade does a great job of outlining the two premises that many Christian Universalists accept which leads them to the conclusion that God will save every person who has ever lived. He phrases the premises in the following way:

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world, and therefore His will, to reconcile every single sinner to Himself.

2. It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for every single sinner.

Wade states that if a person believes these two premises, then it will necessarily lead to Christian Universalism, for God has both the will and the power to save every person.

Wade agrees with premise two, but he disagree with premise one. This is the standard Calvinist position, in contrast with the Arminian position that accepts premise one but not premise two.

Wade believes that God does not wish to save certain people. He believes that God has created people that He does not love enough to save. Wade writes that while he agrees with Bell on God's love, grace and kindness, he disagrees "with him over the extent to which, or maybe it is better said "the sinners to whom," God has chosen to show His love, grace and kindness."

God will withhold his life preserver from many, despite having the power to pull them out of the waves, and it is simply because He does not want to help them.

I may get into what I perceive as a deeper disagreement with Wade in a subsequent post, but first I look at the Scriptures Wade uses to justify His position that God does not wish salvation for all people.

"How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-4).

First, the typical Christian Universalist maintains an exclusivist position. This means that they do not believe a person can come to God if he ignores salvation through Jesus Christ. Rather, the universalist simply believes that in the end every person will cease to ignore salvation and will be saved by God. So this Scripture does not seem to violate Christian Universalism at all. Secondly, if one looks at the context of this verse, then we see that there are consequences for ignoring God's salvation. Once again, this is certainly a view shared by the Christian Universalist. If being apart from God is suffering and being with Him is bliss, then this is obvious. The typical CU position I have run across is that people will certainly resist God's salvation, leading to their own suffering. But given the unending love of God, the extreme benefit to the sinner of coming to God, and the unlimited means at God's disposal (patience, time, etc.), then all will eventually come home. So the Hebrews verse presented simply says that a person cannot be saved if he ignores God's salvation. A Christian Universalist would agree but add that in the end God will accomplish His redemptive purpose by leading all people to stop ignoring this great salvation.

I could bring up Scriptures which state plainly that God does will the salvation of every sinner (1 Timothy 2:3-7 comes to mind). But it's not too hard to come up with a view and find Scriptures to support it. Many criticize the Bible for this, perhaps justly, but I also think it contributes to the richness of the Bible. It can be quite theologically ambiguous. Perhaps we must seek ourselves, using our ethical intuitions and our reason in determining a view of God that is (hopefully) truly worthy of praise. For his supreme power? Sure. But much more importantly, for His perfect goodness.

And my question to Wade must be - if God has the power to save, to reconcile, to perfect His creation, and yet He lacks the will to do so, then is God perfectly good? I imagine that Wade would respond that our sinfulness means that we all deserve eternal separation from God (presumably by God's own decree), and that God is not obligated to do anything for us in order to maintain His perfect goodness (I apologize to Wade if this is an incorrect guess at his view). But this seems odd to me. If one has the power to make something better, to sincerely convict the heart of the sinner, to bring about healing and redemption, and one does not do it, this does not sound like perfect goodness.

Then we might also ask why God wishes to create sinful creatures with a will counter to His own (yet He created them that way so is it really counter to His will?) if there is no ultimate purpose of redemption for them. The Calvinist response I have often read is something like - God has created some people not to save so that, in the interest of His own glory, he can display His justice on them for eternity. Their suffering will be a testament to God's holiness, righteousness and justice. And their suffering is God's intent.

But if this is what we use the label "good" for, then I am not sure I want to be "good".

I appreciate Wade's engagement with this issue. I will try to write a bit further on broader notions of love, justice and goodness. And I would love to read other's thoughts.

Blog Adventures yet again part 5

I enjoy interacting with Southern Baptist minister Wade Burleson, and fellow commenters, on his blog. Wade has recently announced that he will be discontinuing his blogging (or at least the comments portion) in order to focus more on other aspects of his ministry/career.

We did have one last really good exchange back in October, which I have gleaned from his blog and am reposting here along with all relevant comments.

It's a long read (of short comments). I wouldn't take it up unless your are really interested in the subject matter - which is the conservative Christian doctrine of penal substitution, natural law, hell, etc. and whether this is compatible with a good and loving God. I have always appreciated the interaction at Wade's blog - It's always thoughtful and interesting.

I will post the comments only - the original post is here if you would like to read it.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.

God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong.

In fact, all it shows is that God requires vengeance, no matter to whom it is enacted. And it reduces love to a servant of the idea of "justice". And justice only means revenge.

I believe and hope that the opposite is true - that justice is a means to serve love. That justice is not revenge, but is a process of rehabilitation, protection and deterrence.

It is also ironic that the context of Matthew 5:48 ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") is a lesson in why we should forgive our enemies. According to the theology in this post, this is something that God the Father cannot actually do (He gets "paid" anyway). This would mean, if we are to be led by the Father's example, that for us to forgive others, we need to be appeased in some other way.

And this is not what forgiveness means.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.

God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong."

Steven, Jesus IS God. Do you understand the implications of that within the context of your comment?

The "Innocent" was Himself in the form of a perfect Human. That is why the Sacrfice is so great.

(My friends, this is why ESS is so very dangerous to our Faith. Because it can only logically lead to lessening the Sacrifice, that "God with us" made.)

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Lydia,

How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?

If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

"If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment."

I think you might chalk atonement and the manner through which God punishes Himself for the sins of His people as something men would call "foolishness." I can't, however, escape the fact Steven that the Creator has revealed "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." In other words, it seems difficult to argue with God, particularly since the argument is against Him paying our debt.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?"

That is why we call it Grace. And the greatest free gift of all.

Romans 3

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade!

The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law.

So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?

Lydia,

If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required.

Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short. Let's at least hope that this is the case - for the sake of the whole of God's creation.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Steven,

You write: "The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law. So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?"

Good thoughts. A brief response.

"Natural law" is consistent with God's revealed law. Thou shalt not murder is law, both naturally and through revelation (God's word). If a person whose conscience is seared, or defiled, or dead murders someone, it is a violation of God's standard whether their inner conscience tells them so or not. Likewise, if someone hates someone, a sin that requires a more sensitive conscience to feel than murder, that hatred is a violation of God's standard whether they feel it or not.

Second, your argument that penal substitution "violates the inner sense of right and wrong (natural law)" and thus, is a doctrine created by finite man and not God is something I completely understand. You are saying penal substitution makes no sense to you.

It seems to me that what makes sense to you is God punishing people for their wrongs and rewarding people for their good deeds. I think God acts precisely in this manner--except that what most people consider "good" when compared to the good that is God will find that it is nothing but "filthy rags."

For this reason, even if atonement makes no sense to you, I would fall in the category of "Thy Peace" and say that of all the religions on earth, it seems to me I would be the absolute fool to reject the good news that is found in Jesus Christ because everything else points me to something I do, I say, I accomplish. The good news points me to something God has accomplished for me.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade!

I do not accept the premise that the whole of the Bible corresponds to our current "natural" sense of right and wrong. For instance, I do not accept that it is OK to pass a slave onto my son as property as specified in Leviticus 25:46.

Penal Substitition:

It is not my theology that says God requires appeasement (revenge) for sins. It is yours. I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required."

The book of Hebrews can answer this better than I can. Look at what was required for atonement of sin in the OT then read Hebrews. For a glimpse:

Hebrews 7
26 For such a High Priest (Jesus Christ) was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests (OT variety) to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

"Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short."

In terms of God sacrifing Himself for our sins so we can have eternal life with Him, I would agree with you. It is so incredible and wonderful that no words do it justice. But there is also bad news as Wade points out in his post.

I will end with this because it is really about Faith:

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corin 1)

Paul said in Galatians:

20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Steven, It is not just the Cross but the Resurrection which is eternal life with our Savior.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write:

"I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it."

Steven, I am genuinely confused. What you call "retributive justice" I call "righteous punishment." When God punishes a lawbreaker the punishment meets the crime. It's righteous and just. The punishment for disobedience to God is eternal separation from God and His blessings of life eternal and inheriting an earth where the curse has been reversed (heaven).

Also, to argue that it is irrational, illogical and anti-common sense for God to punish the sins of His people in their Substitute is no skin off my nose.

The only other alternative is that there is no substitute or Savior, and/or there is no God that punishes sin.

It would seem to me to require greater faith to believe in the alternatives than it does in Jesus the Christ.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

Could not have answered objections to atonement better than Lydia does in the comments above.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi Wade and Lydia,

Retributive Justice is the idea that punishment is deserved for no greater purpose than to create an "evening out" of things. It's the idea that punishment is revenge and nothing more.

When I punish my child, I (hope I!) do so because it satisfies one or more of 3 conditions:

1. It educates and rehabilitates
2. It creates a deterrent against future wrong doing
3. It protects him and others around him

The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple.

Why is revenge righteous? Especially when God calls us to forgive our enemies? Assuming forgiveness means actual forgiveness and not simply achieving appeasement from another source.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

And once again, even if required revenge is in the nature of God - how does the penal substitution satisfy it? The guilty party goes free. No just punishment has been enacted, but rather a revenge killing for its own sake.

If the answer is mystery, or "yes it seems immoral but we have to trust that it's not" then the whole business of doing theology is irrelevant.

(I am enjoying this conversation, I always enjoy reading both of your points of view.)

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write:

"The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple."

Revenge? How about punishment.

You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?

Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them.

It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.

I'm not sure what your concept of hell is, but it sounds like something from Dante's Inferno rather than Scripture. God righteously, judicially, and personally punishes sinners for their sin. There will be no complaint of "I don't deserve this."

But the good news is God pays our debt and credits us with His righteousness when we trust His Son.

Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi STEVEN,

I am wondering if you have ever seen the Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' ? No English is spoken in that film. It's not needed.

You know, sometimes in attempting to understand and explain that which cannot be understood easily, our 'words' fail to portray a holy event in all of its mystery and majesty.

The crucifixion is only a part of the great Mystery of Christ, which includes His Incarnation, His Passion, and yes, Wade is correct in including Christ's Resurrection.

Some describe the Crucifixion by saying that it was done out of wrath against sin, and some by saying that it was done out of love for us.
How difficult it is for us to express clearly in words that which may not be fully understood.
I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred.
We try to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR words'. . but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Wade,

"Revenge? How about punishment."

I have said that the version of punishment you present is no different than revenge. If I am wrong, then please explain how.

"You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?"

That would be actual forgiveness, and I am just thinking of Jesus' statement to "forgive your enemies".

But I am not suggesting that law-breakers should go unpunished. I am suggesting that just punishment is always an act towards the greater good. Hell does nothing to further the greater good. It accomplishes nothing tangible. It is an act of God towards His creation that is not in their best interest.

"Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them. It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers."

But for what purpose? To further the greater good or to preserve their own power and honor?

1. How is punishment as presented here different than revenge?

2. What does Jesus mean when He says "forgive your enemies" in the context of "be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."? Does He mean we should still insist on punishment from someone, but take it from someone else? Surely not?

3. Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?


Christiane,

I like your approach. I don't have a problem with mystery at all! Surely most of our existence is mysterious. I just have a problem with the idea that we can appeal to mystery when our ideas don't seem to work, but then call out other ideas when they don't work.

best to all - I always try to see us as partners, rough stones rubbing together to create more fineness.

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

You write to me: "Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?"

Good point. I believe there is a HUGE difference.

God is Judge of the Universe, Father to those who trust Him.

Blessings,

Wade

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.

I would never close the door eternally on my child.

Should I expect less of God?

Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I completely agree with Christine:

"I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred."

The Bible describes the perfect holiness of God and the sinfulness of humanity. Sinfulness cannot dwell in the presence of holiness-- it must be cast out. God the Son came to fix the separation caused by sin. There are many metaphors in the Scriptures that describe what the Atonement accomplished, but all human language that describes such things is and must be partial, limited in understanding, and bound by our own human preconceptions.

The main thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was a Substitution. Christ's life for our death. Christ's sinlessness for our sin. The very being of God poured into the separation between us, in a way that will eventually destroy the death we were born into.

The Bible does speak of it in legal terms of judgment and punishment, but that is only one of the ways in which it is spoken of. It is indeed also spoken of in relational terms of Father and child, of the prodigal who comes home to find the Father running down the road to greet him. . .

The truth is above all the pictures, hidden in the nature of God, and as far above us as His thoughts are above our thoughts. If a particular concept does not seem to one of us here to make us mindful enough of the holy beauty of the God who is Love, then another concept of the Atonement from the same Scriptures can help. Our faith is not in "penal substitution." It is in the Christ who atoned for us.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.

I would never close the door eternally on my child.

Should I expect less of God?

Mon Oct 18, 01:08:00 AM 2010

Hi Steven,

What I am going to say is not popular and many Christians disagree with it. But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable.

When Jesus Christ comes back, He is coming like this:

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Rev 19

Here is a snippet of what happens in Rev 21:

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

If you read the OT to the NT, you can see where God gives multiple warnings to people and proof of His Sovereignty in not only caring for them but saving them from total destruction. But so many times they turned their backs on Him. Even to the point of demanding a king like the pagans when God told them He was their King.

And then He, totally innocent, becomes Sin for us so that we might have His righteousness and eternal life.

The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?

Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Steven,

It seems to me that you believe in the "universal Fatherhood of God" but as I read Scripture I hear Jesus say to the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil," and passages where God "adopts" believers into His family, and because of these and other Bible passages I must reject your notion that God is the Father of all human beings and accept the truth of Scripture that He is the Father of those who are "born again" by the grace of God and have been "given the right to be called the sons of God" due to their faith in Jesus Christ.

My understanding of God is not threatened one iota by your belief in the Fatherhood of God for all human beings. Were I a universalist and believed that Christ paid the ransom for every sinner and the Holy Spirit regenerates in time every sinner, I, too, would believe in the universal Fatherhood of God. But I am not a universalist because I don't see the Word of God teaching universalism.

But your desire for a loving, gracous, merciful, pardoning, Heavenly Father is not only GOOD, it is a legitimate understnding of WHO GOD IS -- to those who receive His Son.

"Kiss the Son, Lest He be angry."

Thanks! Enjoyed the conversation.

Wade

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

"The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?"

These are not mutually exclusive questions. The latter is something that many people just do not believe is literally true. People whom God has created.

If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?

Wade,

Fair enough, we have our disagreement. I think God, as you describe Him, is more powerful than good.

Of course, I see the Bible as an amazing, yet man-made, attempt to understand God, rather than a perfect, or even sufficient, revelation. So there's another disagreement.

But the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense and implies an immoral premise at the heart of conservative Christian doctrine.

Of course I disagree with many people whom I love and respect on this. Best wishes to us all as we search for what is truly right! :)

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Kristen,

Thanks for your words, I enjoyed reading them.

Lydia,

One more thought:

"But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable. "

I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong.

Of course God can send people to Hell. He is powerful. But it makes no sense to call it good, unless we change the definition of good itself.

BeamStalk has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

I think Steven is holding his own, but Wade you brought up something:

It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.

Do they punish all lawbreakers equally? Is every punishment the death penalty? With the concept of Hell, it is. Every punishment from the slightest infraction to Genocide is punished by something worse or equal to (depending on your stance of Hell) the death penalty.

Now you say that is what we deserve. Why do we deserve it? Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way.

If I write a program and it fails to live up to the standards I have set for it, am I to blame the program?

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"

2000 years, so far, is not enough time? My question is why didn't He shut the door long ago? We did not deserve Jesus Christ's sacrfice. It is the most loving and merciful gift in the world. You cannot earn it. It is FREE. Why aren't more people receiving that gift of eternal life?

He does have sure knowledge. Scripture tells us that Jesus knew what people were thinking when they had not spoken.

Why did He "choose" the Jews to show His Sovereignty through? Why did He prosper pagan kings to punish Israel? Why did He allow innocent babies to drown in the flood?

I would recommend all of Romans but here is a clue to the above from Romans 9:

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong."

You are not alone. Thomas Jefferson cut out all the passages he did not like to produce a more comfortable bible for himself.

But think about this:

Because God loves, He also hates. There can be no love unless there is the antithesis of love, which is hate. Those two emotions are inseparable.

If you love babies you will hate abortion. If you love good, you hate evil. If you love God you hate Satan.

Proverbs 6 lists all the things God hates. Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!

But contrast that with His great love to die on a Cross for your sins even though He was totally innocent.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

You do well to show the immoral ideas in conservative Christian thinking.

I have never argued that God is not powerful. He CAN do whatever He wants to us. But this doesn't make it GOOD.

A friend of mine likes to say that Calvinists make the mistake of mixing up God and the devil. Sorry if that is offensive, but it seems relevant. I am poking a bit, but I hope it's for light, not just heat.

If you keep reading Romans into chapter 11, remember what Paul says about God accepting the Jews anyway. Perhaps verses 28-32 or thereabouts shows God's ultimate purpose in creating vessels of grace and vessels of wrath.

Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"

Steven, I want to add something here. When my child was 6 she asked me if Satan apologized, could he be saved? I answered, "Go ask your dad". :o)

So my question to you is, why did God allow Satan?

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Remember how Jacob greeted Esau? Their reconciliation was moving:

Jacob said, "To see your face is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me with such favor." Gen. 33:4

So Jacob saw the face of God in one whom God created for the purpose of eternal destruction?

I think there is a deeper meaning here.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.

Mon Oct 18, 03:01:00 PM 2010

Who am I to judge God who created me before the foundation of the world? That is what Romans is communicating.

If God is not good then He would not have allowed Himself to be mocked, beat and nailed to a tree for us undeserving humans. Do you not see the great love in that?

I just do not understand why that isn't enough?

Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Hi STEVEN,

You wrote this:
"Surely most of our existence is mysterious."

Yes. It is.
It was also for St. Augustine, until he realized something important:


"People travel to wonder at the height of the mountains, at the huge waves of the seas, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and yet they pass by themselves without wondering."
Saint Augustine



"Too late have I loved You, O Lord; and behold,
You were within,
and I without,
and there I sought You.

You were with me when I was not with You.
You called, and cried out, and burst my deafness.
You gleamed and glowed, dispelling my blindness.
You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.

For you have made us for Yourself,
And our hearts are restless until they rest in You.

Too late have I loved You, Beauty ever ancient, ever new.
You have burst my bonds asunder;
I will offer up to You an offering of praise."

-- St. Augustine of Hippo

Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia said:

"Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!"

Some cultural/language context is appropriate to mention here, I think. The "love/hate" dichotomy was used in the ancient Jewish culture to indicate a choice being made. It doesn't mean literal love and hate. Jesus used the same terminology when He said we could not follow Him without "hating" our mother and father and even our own life. Obviously, if He had meant real hate, He would have been directly contradicting the "honor your father and mother" commandment, as well as the "love your neighbor" commandment. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means, "I chose Jacob and passed over Esau."

As for Romans 9, it seems fairly clear to me (my pastor also preaches this) that the context is not eternal salvation, but the choice of God for what part one is to play in His plan. It's about earthly calling/destiny, not eternity. Israel was chosen, but is now temporarily rejected so that the Gentiles can come in. This does not mean than an individual Israelite is prevented from coming to salvation even if they wanted to. Romans 11 makes that clear.

Beamstalk said:

"Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way."

Yes, I think it's an intentional setup. Romans 11:32 says God shut everyone up under sin so that He might have mercy upon all. That's just a few chapters later than Romans 9, so I think it needs to inform our reading of Romans 9.

However. I'm really not sure it's appropriate to argue Calvinism vs. Armenianism on this blog post. I think Wade is quite right to say that God's judgment is for sin, and that it's belief in Christ that saves us from our sin.

I would also like to say that I don't think love and holiness are meant to be opposed. God is Love; therefore love must be holy. God loves us all but also hates everything we do that hurts ourselves or others-- because He loves. Something has to be done about this; hence the Atonement and our resulting sanctification, so that one day He can have a Kingdom where no one does any harm to another, ever again.

Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Lydia,

The problem of Satan (or evil) is difficult within a theistic framework. Perhaps evil was allowed so that we could make a choice. However everlasting damnation stops any possibility of choice. And I am unconvinced of any theodicy that requires the purposeful creation of people to eternally suffer. By what standard is this good?

I am perplexed that you are OK with a God that created many of your neighbors for the purpose of everlasting damnation.

You are right. I do not see the salvation of some as enough.

But thanks for your opinion, it is interesting to me for sure.

Christiane,

Good stuff. I think the world is mysterious, including myself, for sure! ;)

Paula,

I love the story! This world is remarkable and mysterious.

Kristen,

I think your take on Romans 9-11 is more consistent with a loving God. The vessels of wrath and grace both serve the purpose of revealing God's all-encompassing love. Perhaps we would not know what it was if we could not see life without it.

But Paul's reference to the ultimate fate of the Jews and his statements about the mystery of God and His mercy towards all reveal that the vessels of grace and wrath are temporal means, not everlasting ends. What is the end, the final purpose of all things?

I hope that it is God for all. Romans 11:36. 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Best to all! Thanks for a delightful conversation. And I truly mean that.

Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":

Kristen, I agree with what you wrote concerning Esau. Thanks for clarifying.

A Little Spong

‎"God is not a Christian. God is not a Jew. God is not a Muslim, Buddhist or a Hindu. All of those are human systems which humans have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God."

Blog Adventures yet again part 4 - final installment

Paula said...

I am not sure this follows. Why couldn't God actualize a possible world in which every person freely chooses Him? If everyone makes the same choice, then does it negate the freedom in that choice?

I don't know if you're familar with the story of Job, but it says that Satan told God that Job was only righteous because God protected him. And God allowed Job to suffer at Satan's hand, just to prove a point: that Job would pass the test. But suppose God devised a possible world where Job was not tested. Don't you think that Job, Satan, and a whole lot of people who have read the story would have missed out on a major chunk of character-building? Love isn't love, and faith isn't faith, if it wilts in the face of adversity. Should God devise a possible world where character is never developed?

I can discuss infinity, but I cannot understand it.

I didn't say we could grasp infinity, but that we could grasp the magnitude of the choice before us.

I don't understand how eternal hell can await the lost if God is all-loving - unless we redefine hell as a preference rather than a punishment

Is love ignorant of justice? What about the victims of criminals? Can God love both the criminal and the victim without being unjust?

It all depends on the definition. If God is a powerful despot who does not match up with our feelings of what is good, but commands the death of children (like in the Old Testament) then perhaps no moral person would bow to this God whole-heartedly

By their own testimony, they knowingly defy God and prefer eternal torment over swallowing their pride. This isn't a matter of definitions but cold, dead defiance. And again, who defines "good" or "moral"? What is the reference point? And children die by disease and accident to this very day; isn't God cruel for allowing that? Or might there be a greater good in eternity? What about testing the character of those left behind?

If good is only good because God says so - then it is arbitrary.

Of course it's arbitrary. Is it any less so if we do the saying so, instead of God? As for his nature, scripture is his communication to us; he has told us what we need to know about him, what we can grasp. We don't get it from ourselves. He has fulfilled prophecies and raised Jesus from the dead, complete with over 500 eyewitnesses; what else is he supposed to do? What would it take? What would be accepted as proof, that a die-hard atheist couldn't explain away?

Thanks for the conversation - Good stuff.

You're quite welcome. It's a good mental workout. ;-)

Steven Stark said...

"Should God devise a possible world where character is never developed?"

If everyone chose correctly, then wouldn't our characters be good? Does God need to create damned souls to build the character of others?

"I didn't say we could grasp infinity, but that we could grasp the magnitude of the choice before us."

I thought that the consequences of the choice were infinite.

"Can God love both the criminal and the victim without being unjust?"

So God does not love the criminal? Then why did he send his Son in your theology?

"And children die by disease and accident to this very day; isn't God cruel for allowing that? Or might there be a greater good in eternity? What about testing the character of those left behind?"

It it difficult to see the suffering of a child being justified by it being a test for another person. I think faith in an ultimate good can be a good thing, but it's dangerous ground to make definite claims about things like that.

I will also leave the proofs of Scripture, prophecies fulfilled - 500 eyewitnesses etc. for another time. Whether there is a good case or not for the reliability of Scripture is a different conversation.

"Of course it's arbitrary. Is it any less so if we do the saying so, instead of God?"
"We don't get it from ourselves."

But we have no choice but to get it from ourselves. We are born with a brain in our head and a heart in our chest, not a Bible in our hand.

Would you mind answering a few questions regarding your opinion of Heaven (God) and Hell (not God) as I find this the most interesting part of our conversation so far.

1. Can atheists have good qualities? Fruits of the spirit?

2. Do all good qualities come from God?

3. If so, do atheists lose these good qualities when they go to the place of "not God"?

4. If so, where do these good qualities go? And is the atheist recognizable anymore as the person they once were?

5. If they do not lose these good qualities, then is part of God in hell since he is the source of all things good?

Paula said...

"If everyone chose correctly, then wouldn't our characters be good? Does God need to create damned souls to build the character of others?"

God doesn't need to do anything. ;-) The question is whether we are all-knowing, such that we are sure there is a possible world where no one will suffer. All I can say for sure is that this world is the one God chose, therefore it must be the best possible world. Otherwise we'd have to wonder why anything good happens, if God is not supremely moral and both just and loving. And again, if God is not the reference point, there is none, and nothing can be called "good" or "better" because it's someone's mere opinion.



"I thought that the consequences of the choice were infinite."

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We know that we will spend eternity in one of two places, and we are capable of choosing between them.



"So God does not love the criminal? Then why did he send his Son in your theology?"

I wasn't clear on that, sorry. God does love the world. But he would not be just if he treated the criminal and the victim the same. To ignore crimes is hardly loving, is it. So what I meant was that he would be showing no love for the victim if he withheld justice.

"

It it difficult to see the suffering of a child being justified by it being a test for another person. I think faith in an ultimate good can be a good thing, but it's dangerous ground to make definite claims about things like that."

It's equally dangerous to presume that God must answer to his creatures. I think we need to remember that God sees a much larger "world" than we do.



"But we have no choice but to get it from ourselves. We are born with a brain in our head and a heart in our chest, not a Bible in our hand."

Why do you think God had people repeat and write down his words? Are we born with all the knowledge we will ever need, such as how to eat, bathe, dress ourselves, talk? We have no problem saying children must depend on adults to tell them these things, so why is it wrong for God to make people depend on him for knowledge about him?

As to your questions, let me try to explain this way. As I said, "good" and "bad" need a reference point, of which God is the ultimate one. But the decision point between heaven and hell is not good/bad, but faith/non-faith. Which place you go is decided the moment you die, based solely on what you did with Jesus. (Of course this is for the time since Jesus came; before that is a different story, as scripture tells us; "In times past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent"). After that comes judgment, and all will be judged according to their deeds. If you were saved and did something bad, you will lose rewards. If you're lost and did something good, you will lose a degree of suffering. That's the best I can understand from what God has told us. My description of hell as "the place of not God and therefore not good" is probably too simplistic, but the idea is that it's a place to get away from God. I won't pretend I have all the details of what that means, but at the same time I don't think atheism has the omniscience required to say God has not met the qualifications of ultimate justice and love. That's all I've been trying to say.

And quickly:
Yes, atheists can exhibit many fine qualities. There is someone in this blog who can attest to that. And it puts many Christians to shame. How would we tell them from the fruit of the Spirit? We're human and can be easily fooled. But rest assured that God knows.


"Bad" is the absence of "good" just as "dark" is the absence of "light".

Paula said...

Sorry, that last line was meant to be up with a previous paragraph.

Steven Stark said...

"The question is whether we are all-knowing, such that we are sure there is a possible world where no one will suffer. All I can say for sure is that this world is the one God chose, therefore it must be the best possible world. Otherwise we'd have to wonder why anything good happens, if God is not supremely moral and both just and loving. And again, if God is not the reference point, there is none, and nothing can be called "good" or "better" because it's someone's mere opinion."



But if words like good, best, better, etc. only have meaning because of what God says is so, then any world God created would be the best possible world - even if there was rampant suffering all the time with no relief. In your definition the words "good", "better", etc. lose all relevance to how they are used in the everyday world. They are God's "mere opinion". And I supposed they could change at any time. Perhaps God's nature changes? Perhaps the rules will be different tomorrow? Is consistency a virtue? What if God declares that it isn't? We have no firm footing on which to move forward - perhaps faith will be declared evil tomorrow? On the contrary, a relative position is one of strength. It doesn't mean everything changes all the time, it means that everything depends on everything else. Like a building where every bit is required to keep it stable. And that doesn't leave no room for some "necessary", consistent theme, but that's another conversation I think.

"But the decision point between heaven and hell is not good/bad but faith/no faith"

This doesn't seem to support your view of heaven = God, hell = not God where God equals all goodness. As you say many atheists have many very good qualities, and assuming they will be the same people in hell, I'll have to surmise that there will be some aspect of God in hell - and of course that a "universal reconciliation" where "God is all in all" will never really happen in your view. And yes, perhaps the Dalai Lama will be trying to help the poor in hell - why not?.

In conclusion, I think that your overall view, as I understand it in this context, shows a confirmation bias. When a thought affirms classical Christianity, it is good. When it does not affirm it, then we are putting our own judgement and ethical intuitions above God.

Your view requires us to ignore our ethical intuitions and our own judgements when making decisions about various views of the Bible and of God. But we can't even begin to accept or deny various views about the Bible or God without our own ethical intuitions and judgement. It's self-refuting.

I will leave the discussion here. You are welcome to the last word - I will publish it on my blog along with our other conversation. Thanks again for a spirited and, most importantly, good-hearted discussion! I appreciate your efforts towards a coherent theology. Good luck to you and perhaps we will converse again some time soon,

Steven

Paula said...

"But if words like good, best, better, etc. only have meaning because of what God says is so, then any world God created would be the best possible world"

I disagree. The best possible world is a matter of God's choice among all possible worlds; he only chose one out of many. The fact that God allows people to be sentient beings means there can be less than optimal worlds.

"In your definition the words "good", "better", etc. lose all relevance to how they are used in the everyday world. They are God's "mere opinion"."

Yes, as I've said, they are arbitrary according to God's choice. But whose choice would not be arbitrary? And no, God cannot change, although his boundaries for us may change. The rules have changed through history, but it has been a path to an end, and that end is Jesus Christ; he is the final revelation. Think of it as good parenting; you don't give a toddler the same responsibilities as a teen. And if God cannot be considered "firm footing", who or what would you propose as a replacement? God is not fickle like the god of Islam whose sovereignty does operate in a moral vacuum.

"On the contrary, a relative position is one of strength. It doesn't mean everything changes all the time, it means that everything depends on everything else."

I'm sorry, I don't see this as an improvement over the fact that God himself never changes, and that he has brought us to a point in time by the path of his choosing. What you're describing is the opposite of a firm footing, something like a world where the laws of physics may vary from day to day. A world where nothing can ever be depended upon is completely meaningless and purposeless. Aren't you arguing that "good" is meaningless then? Would it be okay with you if tomorrow child molesters were seen as heros?

"This doesn't seem to support your view of heaven = God, hell = not God where God equals all goodness. As you say many atheists have many very good qualities, and assuming they will be the same people in hell, I'll have to surmise that there will be some aspect of God in hell - and of course that a "universal reconciliation" where "God is all in all" will never really happen in your view. And yes, perhaps the Dalai Lama will be trying to help the poor in hell - why not?."

(continued...)

Paula said...

(... continued)


The only reason we can claim being "good" is by Jesus' imputed righteousness; that's why he came. But this imputation is not forced on anyone; you have to choose it by your own free will. So the only truly "good" people are those who are in Christ, and they will all be in heaven. And everyone in hell will be "poor" and needy, but no one will be given aid. Hell is not a picnic or a party.

"In conclusion, I think that your overall view, as I understand it in this context, shows a confirmation bias. When a thought affirms classical Christianity, it is good. When it does not affirm it, then we are putting our own judgement and ethical intuitions above God…"

I disagree. My view is based upon the evidence for Jesus having risen from the dead, and for more reasons than I can put in a blog comment, that he is God. Therefore all things are to be measured by him, and he has told us his values and requirements in the Bible. In contrast, the foundational "givens" of atheism are based upon nothing outside of ourselves. And since we only know a portion of what God knows, we have to trust him for the rest. Faith is all God asks from us; faith in who he is.

And in all honesty, I think even the most hardened atheist has to admit that by their own definition, they too suffer from a confirmation bias. They begin with the premise that human reason is the measure of all things, such that whatever doesn't match up is "bad". I don't see any difference between my alleged confirmation bias and yours.

"Your view requires us to ignore our ethical intuitions and our own judgements when making decisions about various views of the Bible and of God."

Again, I disagree. You keep ignoring the fact that God is not limited to this life or dimension; your view requires us to make the finite the judge of the infinite. I've explained these things to the best of my ability, but your own philsophies are far less satisfiying IMHO. I could ask you how anything could ever come into exsitence out of nothing, or how a giant explosion could possible result in complex order, or how information can ever arise by chance. Atheists typically brush off the question of origins because they claim they are only concerned with change. But if they can ignore questions about origins, they have no right to demand answers about origins from theists; it's a two-way street. This all ultimately comes down to whose presuppositions are better, and I've never seen an atheist give a satisfying defense of theirs.

I agree that we've pretty much exausted this, since arguing about presuppositions can never be resolved. And I thank you as well for being calm and reasonable, unlike so many other atheists I've encountered. But let me leave you with this:

I am a Christian for one reason: Jesus rose from the dead. I believe he is God in the flesh, and I accept the testimony about him. I believe he is trustworthy, and I relate to him as family. This is no academic exercise for me, but something much more, a relationship with my creator. I want to spend eternity in his presence, and try my best to encourage (not frighten or lay guilt) others to do the same. Being reconciled with God is what this is all about, and it happens by believing what Jesus said about himself, about his rising from the dead. I don't have all the answers, any more than anyone else, including atheists. But I have a package that makes sense to me, and I look forward to eternity as a time when "bad" is no longer remembered for those who did the one, simple, free thing required to escape evil. I hope someday soon you'll come to see that God really does love you.