This is one of the great questions kids like to ask. It is also a favourite of Richard Dawkins, this question being the main argument he raises against God in the God-delusion.
Usually it is a response to Christian arguments for the existence of God i.e. everything that exists has a cause except the uncaused first cause; for you cannot have an endless regression of causes.
If so, then God must have a cause. What can be said in response?
1. Because anything exists, something must be uncaused. I would argue that the existence of anything at all presupposes the existence of an uncaused cause. Otherwise we are left with an endless regression of causes. Certainly both options are philosophically ridiculous and outside our experience. However, when combined with all the other evidences I have outlined above for the existence of God, the idea of a first uncaused cause is the better of the two options.
2. We cannot know the cause of God. Having suggested that an uncaused cause is a better explanation for our existence than an endless regression of cause, the truth is that we simply do not know the origins of God. I believe that the best explanation for the universe is some sovereign omnipotent being. However, if God had an origin then the creator of ‘god’ becomes God and we fall into the endless regression of causes again. That being the case God ceases to be God and God is in fact the creator of the god we know! So we are left with God as God. The combination of evidences for the existence of an all powerful, all knowledgeable and everywhere present God is the best explanation for existence, history and experience.
3. Jesus shows us who God is. The best way to know God is not through the creation however, it is found by working outward from the miracle of Jesus. Jesus was beyond any human who has lived or ever will live. He rose from the dead, did innumerable miracles and taught an ethic and belief that transcends all other philosophies and creeds. He was a Jew and as such promoted the God of Judaism as the true God. The search for God is not then found in philosophical thought and answering such questions but in searching the Scriptures, understanding his/her character and will and then living it. It is better to leave such philosophical wonderings to mystery and walk in faith with God.
I conclude that the best option of available options is that God is the uncreated creator of all that exists. I accept that this is beyond our reason but conclude it is the only way of making sense of creation and history.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Why would a loving God send people to hell?
One of the aspects of Christianity that puzzles some people is the thought that God sends some people to hell. While this seems distasteful and incongruous with a God of love, in fact it makes good sense when one considers the whole picture.
Before looking at some of the data it is important to state one thing from the start. That is this: the nature of hell is not clearly defined in Scripture. The most common image used for hell is of a lake of fire (Matt 25:45; Rev 21). Some believe that this should be taken literally and see hell as eternal ongoing punishment in a lake of fire. However, some reading the same data argue that hell is not in fact actually eternal suffering, but is being destroyed in a lake of fire for all time i.e. annihilation. That is, those who live forever with God are made immortal, those who reject God are destroyed (conditional immortality). Still others believe that the passages in question which refer to fire are to be taken symbolically. They would hold that all people are given immortality at their conception. Then, if they do not enter saving relationship with God, they will enter hell not necessarily a literal lake of fire but a place of eternal separation from God and all that is good. That being the case, hell is eternal existence in a place devoid of relationship, creation and light; some would say eternal solitary confinement in darkness and nothingness! Whichever is true, hell is a horrific concept. At its heart is separation from God and who wants that?
Now to some of the broader issues that call into question hell as unjust and unloving:
1. Hell is God’s yes to humanities no: Hell is only for those who have rejected God and his offer of salvation. That is, people who have said no to God’s offer of eternal relationship with him in his unblemished world to come. That being the case, hell is God's yes to humanities no to his offer of salvation. Some will respond 'what about those who haven't heard the message'. I have dealt with this objection earlier arguing that all will be judged on whether they responded to God in faith as he is revealed to them through creation and as revealed (cf. Rom 1:20; Abraham in Rom 4; Melchizedek in Heb 7; Heb 11).
2. Hell is essential for the destruction of evil: Justice and logic tells us that if a God exists who is pure, just, loving and good that for his justice to be demonstrated and his love to be complete, that at some point he must extinguish evil from the universe. Whether this is achieved by annihilating it or by confining it to a place for all eternity; the world to come will be free of evil and this is goo. Such confining or annihilation is a loving act to remove evil from the universe; setting free those who long for and pursue goodness and love.
3. Hell is God’s grace and love to lovers of good: Hell is God’s way of removing the tension and pain of living in a fallen world. For those who long to be with God, to enjoy freedom without evil and suffering, to experience life without pain and death, hell is the negative side of God’s yes to them. Heaven is the positive side, a world without suffering, pain, torment, grief and death! Hell then is the setting free of the universe from all that is not good including death, pain and more. I say it is then an act of love. In fact God's holding back from moving in this way is also an act of grace to give all created humanity a fair chance at responding. This cannot go on indefinitely; he will move before evil will triumph and this is right and good.
4. When one considers the extent and nature of evil, hell is totally justified: If Satan exists as the bible describes, he deserves eternal suffering! Jesus said unambiguously that hell is designed for him (see Mt 25:41). After all Satan has sought to destroy all that is good and which God has established and deserves such eternal torment. Similarly Hitler in WW2, Stahlin in communist Russia, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other meglomaniacal despots of history deserve nothing short of hell for the horrendous way they treated people. The tragedy is that all evil will be deal with in the same way and so many who are far less given over to evil will also suffer; however, God is consistent, he will destroy evil. Especially so when the whole Bible testifies that for God all sin is disgusting and an afront. As such, it must be dealt with because of God's nature, love, justice and purity.
5. Hell is easily avoidable: Those who baulk at hell need not do so for hell is not inevitable but can easily be avoided by accepting Jesus as Lord and saviour. All we need to do is accept God's offer of release from evil, from sin, from eternal destruction in whatever form. God offers us eternal friendship, joy, unblemished and unparalleled bliss by simply accepting his offer of salvation in Christ. That being the case, hell becomes a non-issue if we accept his offer.
I conclude that hell is a reasonable, just and loving concept. It is loving in that it is God’s yes to
humanities no and it sees the removal of evil from the cosmos, something that all reasonable people long for. It is just in that eternal destruction in whatever form is reasonable for Satan and utterly wicked humans. However, the nature of hell is not completely clear. While I consider that eternal separation from God would seem the most likely interpretation, other views of literal eternal burning and annihilation options are possible on the evidence given. The best response is to say yes to God and avoid hell, whatever form it takes.
Before looking at some of the data it is important to state one thing from the start. That is this: the nature of hell is not clearly defined in Scripture. The most common image used for hell is of a lake of fire (Matt 25:45; Rev 21). Some believe that this should be taken literally and see hell as eternal ongoing punishment in a lake of fire. However, some reading the same data argue that hell is not in fact actually eternal suffering, but is being destroyed in a lake of fire for all time i.e. annihilation. That is, those who live forever with God are made immortal, those who reject God are destroyed (conditional immortality). Still others believe that the passages in question which refer to fire are to be taken symbolically. They would hold that all people are given immortality at their conception. Then, if they do not enter saving relationship with God, they will enter hell not necessarily a literal lake of fire but a place of eternal separation from God and all that is good. That being the case, hell is eternal existence in a place devoid of relationship, creation and light; some would say eternal solitary confinement in darkness and nothingness! Whichever is true, hell is a horrific concept. At its heart is separation from God and who wants that?
Now to some of the broader issues that call into question hell as unjust and unloving:
1. Hell is God’s yes to humanities no: Hell is only for those who have rejected God and his offer of salvation. That is, people who have said no to God’s offer of eternal relationship with him in his unblemished world to come. That being the case, hell is God's yes to humanities no to his offer of salvation. Some will respond 'what about those who haven't heard the message'. I have dealt with this objection earlier arguing that all will be judged on whether they responded to God in faith as he is revealed to them through creation and as revealed (cf. Rom 1:20; Abraham in Rom 4; Melchizedek in Heb 7; Heb 11).
2. Hell is essential for the destruction of evil: Justice and logic tells us that if a God exists who is pure, just, loving and good that for his justice to be demonstrated and his love to be complete, that at some point he must extinguish evil from the universe. Whether this is achieved by annihilating it or by confining it to a place for all eternity; the world to come will be free of evil and this is goo. Such confining or annihilation is a loving act to remove evil from the universe; setting free those who long for and pursue goodness and love.
3. Hell is God’s grace and love to lovers of good: Hell is God’s way of removing the tension and pain of living in a fallen world. For those who long to be with God, to enjoy freedom without evil and suffering, to experience life without pain and death, hell is the negative side of God’s yes to them. Heaven is the positive side, a world without suffering, pain, torment, grief and death! Hell then is the setting free of the universe from all that is not good including death, pain and more. I say it is then an act of love. In fact God's holding back from moving in this way is also an act of grace to give all created humanity a fair chance at responding. This cannot go on indefinitely; he will move before evil will triumph and this is right and good.
4. When one considers the extent and nature of evil, hell is totally justified: If Satan exists as the bible describes, he deserves eternal suffering! Jesus said unambiguously that hell is designed for him (see Mt 25:41). After all Satan has sought to destroy all that is good and which God has established and deserves such eternal torment. Similarly Hitler in WW2, Stahlin in communist Russia, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other meglomaniacal despots of history deserve nothing short of hell for the horrendous way they treated people. The tragedy is that all evil will be deal with in the same way and so many who are far less given over to evil will also suffer; however, God is consistent, he will destroy evil. Especially so when the whole Bible testifies that for God all sin is disgusting and an afront. As such, it must be dealt with because of God's nature, love, justice and purity.
5. Hell is easily avoidable: Those who baulk at hell need not do so for hell is not inevitable but can easily be avoided by accepting Jesus as Lord and saviour. All we need to do is accept God's offer of release from evil, from sin, from eternal destruction in whatever form. God offers us eternal friendship, joy, unblemished and unparalleled bliss by simply accepting his offer of salvation in Christ. That being the case, hell becomes a non-issue if we accept his offer.
I conclude that hell is a reasonable, just and loving concept. It is loving in that it is God’s yes to
humanities no and it sees the removal of evil from the cosmos, something that all reasonable people long for. It is just in that eternal destruction in whatever form is reasonable for Satan and utterly wicked humans. However, the nature of hell is not completely clear. While I consider that eternal separation from God would seem the most likely interpretation, other views of literal eternal burning and annihilation options are possible on the evidence given. The best response is to say yes to God and avoid hell, whatever form it takes.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Why is there so much suffering when God is supposedly so good?
A question that is very much related to the question of evil (see earlier blog) is... why is there suffering when God is supposedly so good?
As I suggested earlier in terms of the existence of God, suffering is a result of God allowing humanity freedom. That is, evil is horrendous but serves the function of enabling humanity to choose between good and evil. However, it exists not because God authored it, but because humanity since its inception, have consistently chosen it.
An examination of life of earth I think shows that a good degree of suffering on earth is caused byhuman error. I am sure most agree that it is unfair to blame God for a wars and other human induced problems. These happen because humans choose, in their freedom, to do the wrong thing.
By what do we do with so-called 'natural disasters' or 'acts of God'. These things appear to have nothing to do with human agency. I have to admit that for me this is one of the hardest questions to answer (another is as Dawkins points out in 'The God Delusion' is 'how did God come into existence [more on that in later blogs]).
My answer may not satisfy you but this is how I see it from my reflection on the Biblical witness. When humanity fell into sin firstly at the Fall (Gen 3), it was not merely that humanity was marred with sin and fallenness, but that all creation fell. That is, the Fall was a cataclysmic event that saw the whole of the created order ruptured and its original intent, goodness and beneficience marred. As Paul says in Rom 8:20-21, all creation is in bondage to suffering, death and decay. This extends to the whole created order whether it be the earth, the tectonic plates, volcanoe, the weather systems, the effect of sunspots on the earth, the sea etc.
As such, suffering is not a mere result of human failure in a direct sense, but a result of the cosmic fall of creation. Indeed, where there are 'natural disasters' there is often a complex interplay of direct human and indirect human 'natural factors'. So for example, an earthquake occurs and houses that are poorly built (direct human failure) fall and more lives are lost than should happen. I would say that earthquakes, droughts, eruptions, tsumamis and more are a result of human failure in the cosmic indirect sense in that the whole created order that we experience in this universe is marred. In addition, the effect of such events is often exacerbated by the problem of human sin in a more direct sense.
Paul tells us in Rom 8:22 that this creation will be set free from its bondage to decay, death, suffering and fallenness at the point of the culmination of human history at the return of Christ. Then, all things will be put in order including the restoration of creation. It is unclear how this will work; whether it will be restoration of the existing created order or a completely new order.
There are other things we can say about suffering. God is not distant from our suffering. Creation itself and the granting of freedom to humanity from robotic or coerced obedience led to God experiencing the grief and pain of seeing his beautiful world and beloved people reject him. He experienced the pain of seeing humanity inflict pain upon each other with the exertion of power and dominance. And he chose to participate in suffering to redeem his creation. Indeed, it is suffering saved us. It is through pain and the ignomony of our greatest enemy death that evil was defeated on the cross.
When Jesus as God made flesh died on the cross, he experienced the full brunt of evil and torture and death itself without falling into its snare. He could have fought back with the glorious power he had at his fingertips; rather, he chose not to use to fight evil. Instead, he allowed himself to be destroyed. In so doing and as a result of his flawless life, he was able to overcome death and make a way for us all to be saved. All we have to do is put our lives in his hands and his death becomes our judgement and we are saved, through his suffering.
So God has experienced suffering. He knows what it is like to be human. He knows pain, he knows grief, he knows the feeling of being rejected, whipped, beaten, nailed, punched and killed. He is not a distant God who is not connected to our reality.
Suffering also tells us we are alive. Sometimes it is easy to believe life is an illusion and then we pinch ourselves. Pain and suffering remind us that life is for real.
Suffering reveals good where suffering does not exist. Unless suffering existed, we would not know the concept of no suffering. It is the absence of suffering we yearn for because suffering exists.
Ironically and disturbingly, God uses suffering to make us better people. It is well known that it is in times of pain and suffering that we grow the most. In fact some would argue that suffering is essential for growth in a fallen world. It is a recurring theme in the NT that suffering leads to character development (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). In a fallen world, one of God’s main ways of developing us, is through suffering.
Christianity also points to a force of evil that seeks to enhance suffering, Satan. God is not the author of suffering. However, he has allowed evil to exist as his antithesis, humanity in its freedom chooses to rebel and sin, and so suffering has invaded and infected God's world. Suffering ultimately however, is engineered by the power of evil, the personal anti-God and his minions who seek to inflict pain and torment on us all.
Thankfully, Christianity is in the end, all about hope. We are assured that suffering will ultimately be destroyed and we will live forever in a pain-free zone (Matt 25:36; Rev 21:1-4). The hope of the Christian message is that God will bring this age to a conclusion and destroy all evil and suffering. At that point, suffering will cease to exist and those who have said yes to God will live forever with him in a place of bliss and joy.
For me, this is one of the most attractive aspects of Christianity. As I peruse my own frailties and the problem of evil which pervades our planet manifested most strongly in murder, war, violence, rape and oppression, I hold fast to the promise of the end of suffering, when every tear will be wiped away, every injustice dealt to and all things made right. The cross and the resurrection which points to God's victory over suffering and death, promises us this and I yearn for the day of Jesus' return. The resurrected Jesus is the first-fruits of the harvest of this victory which will come to complete consummation at his return.
So suffering exists and will continue to exist as long as humans are allowed the freedom to accept or reject God. God will end this when he is ready. In the meantime, I believe that this suffering has a redemptive and educative purpose and should not be written off as valueless. It tells us we are alive, it points to goodness, it has been defeated in the cross and resurrection. Ultimately, where God is accepted, at Christ's return, suffering will be removed from the experience of all in the world to come. Roll on that day I say!
As I suggested earlier in terms of the existence of God, suffering is a result of God allowing humanity freedom. That is, evil is horrendous but serves the function of enabling humanity to choose between good and evil. However, it exists not because God authored it, but because humanity since its inception, have consistently chosen it.
An examination of life of earth I think shows that a good degree of suffering on earth is caused byhuman error. I am sure most agree that it is unfair to blame God for a wars and other human induced problems. These happen because humans choose, in their freedom, to do the wrong thing.
By what do we do with so-called 'natural disasters' or 'acts of God'. These things appear to have nothing to do with human agency. I have to admit that for me this is one of the hardest questions to answer (another is as Dawkins points out in 'The God Delusion' is 'how did God come into existence [more on that in later blogs]).
My answer may not satisfy you but this is how I see it from my reflection on the Biblical witness. When humanity fell into sin firstly at the Fall (Gen 3), it was not merely that humanity was marred with sin and fallenness, but that all creation fell. That is, the Fall was a cataclysmic event that saw the whole of the created order ruptured and its original intent, goodness and beneficience marred. As Paul says in Rom 8:20-21, all creation is in bondage to suffering, death and decay. This extends to the whole created order whether it be the earth, the tectonic plates, volcanoe, the weather systems, the effect of sunspots on the earth, the sea etc.
As such, suffering is not a mere result of human failure in a direct sense, but a result of the cosmic fall of creation. Indeed, where there are 'natural disasters' there is often a complex interplay of direct human and indirect human 'natural factors'. So for example, an earthquake occurs and houses that are poorly built (direct human failure) fall and more lives are lost than should happen. I would say that earthquakes, droughts, eruptions, tsumamis and more are a result of human failure in the cosmic indirect sense in that the whole created order that we experience in this universe is marred. In addition, the effect of such events is often exacerbated by the problem of human sin in a more direct sense.
Paul tells us in Rom 8:22 that this creation will be set free from its bondage to decay, death, suffering and fallenness at the point of the culmination of human history at the return of Christ. Then, all things will be put in order including the restoration of creation. It is unclear how this will work; whether it will be restoration of the existing created order or a completely new order.
There are other things we can say about suffering. God is not distant from our suffering. Creation itself and the granting of freedom to humanity from robotic or coerced obedience led to God experiencing the grief and pain of seeing his beautiful world and beloved people reject him. He experienced the pain of seeing humanity inflict pain upon each other with the exertion of power and dominance. And he chose to participate in suffering to redeem his creation. Indeed, it is suffering saved us. It is through pain and the ignomony of our greatest enemy death that evil was defeated on the cross.
When Jesus as God made flesh died on the cross, he experienced the full brunt of evil and torture and death itself without falling into its snare. He could have fought back with the glorious power he had at his fingertips; rather, he chose not to use to fight evil. Instead, he allowed himself to be destroyed. In so doing and as a result of his flawless life, he was able to overcome death and make a way for us all to be saved. All we have to do is put our lives in his hands and his death becomes our judgement and we are saved, through his suffering.
So God has experienced suffering. He knows what it is like to be human. He knows pain, he knows grief, he knows the feeling of being rejected, whipped, beaten, nailed, punched and killed. He is not a distant God who is not connected to our reality.
Suffering also tells us we are alive. Sometimes it is easy to believe life is an illusion and then we pinch ourselves. Pain and suffering remind us that life is for real.
Suffering reveals good where suffering does not exist. Unless suffering existed, we would not know the concept of no suffering. It is the absence of suffering we yearn for because suffering exists.
Ironically and disturbingly, God uses suffering to make us better people. It is well known that it is in times of pain and suffering that we grow the most. In fact some would argue that suffering is essential for growth in a fallen world. It is a recurring theme in the NT that suffering leads to character development (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). In a fallen world, one of God’s main ways of developing us, is through suffering.
Christianity also points to a force of evil that seeks to enhance suffering, Satan. God is not the author of suffering. However, he has allowed evil to exist as his antithesis, humanity in its freedom chooses to rebel and sin, and so suffering has invaded and infected God's world. Suffering ultimately however, is engineered by the power of evil, the personal anti-God and his minions who seek to inflict pain and torment on us all.
Thankfully, Christianity is in the end, all about hope. We are assured that suffering will ultimately be destroyed and we will live forever in a pain-free zone (Matt 25:36; Rev 21:1-4). The hope of the Christian message is that God will bring this age to a conclusion and destroy all evil and suffering. At that point, suffering will cease to exist and those who have said yes to God will live forever with him in a place of bliss and joy.
For me, this is one of the most attractive aspects of Christianity. As I peruse my own frailties and the problem of evil which pervades our planet manifested most strongly in murder, war, violence, rape and oppression, I hold fast to the promise of the end of suffering, when every tear will be wiped away, every injustice dealt to and all things made right. The cross and the resurrection which points to God's victory over suffering and death, promises us this and I yearn for the day of Jesus' return. The resurrected Jesus is the first-fruits of the harvest of this victory which will come to complete consummation at his return.
So suffering exists and will continue to exist as long as humans are allowed the freedom to accept or reject God. God will end this when he is ready. In the meantime, I believe that this suffering has a redemptive and educative purpose and should not be written off as valueless. It tells us we are alive, it points to goodness, it has been defeated in the cross and resurrection. Ultimately, where God is accepted, at Christ's return, suffering will be removed from the experience of all in the world to come. Roll on that day I say!
Monday, February 5, 2007
Aren’t Christians responsible for so much war and suffering
Another of the great objections to people becoming Christians is the commonly stated view that Christians have been at the heart of great violence, war and suffering.
I really wish at this point I could simply say, 'it is not true! You are misreading history!' Rather, I admit this is the case and I apologise on behalf of such misguided so-called ‘Christians’.
One of the greatest tragedies of human history is the great truth that some ‘Christians’ have thought it best to fight wars and be violent. So we read of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Colonialism, WW1, Northern Ireland, Indonesia today and so on; situations where ‘Christians’ were at the heart of wars. I am sorry to all who read this for this tragedy. It is wrong and should not have happened.
Jesus repudiated all such violence. My reading of the essential teaching of Jesus is that he advocated non-violence and love of enemies. I would argue that Christians who are involved in war, violence and the use of the gun and sword have abrogated the essence of the teaching of Jesus in Mt 5. Some argue that Paul in Rom 13:1-4 supports the use of war. However, this is not the only way of interpreting this text. Rather, I would argue that he states that government hold the power to deal with wrongdoers. There is no indication of inter-nation or civil violence in this text. Indeed, in the previous verses Rom 12:19-21 he explicitly states Christians are not to take revenge but leave it to God. And even if Paul had supported Christians at war, a sound interpreter always goes first to the teaching of Jesus. Listen to what he says in Mt 5:38-47:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
To me, despite the difficulties that this view presents, Jesus' calls Christians not to take up arms and violence despite the existence of evil; rather, to love others, pray for them, broker for peace with non-violent means, be agents of reconciliation and resist evil in all ways except using evil means. Hence, while it is true that 'Christians' have been involved in a great many wars, this does not invalidate Christianity or Christ as Lord, Son of God and Messiah; it merely states that these 'Christians' have been doing the wrong thing. These 'Christians' will face God in judgement and it is not for me to judge them. However, I find it disgraceful and shameful that supposed 'Christians' take up arms or endorse the taking up of arms!
Other Christians hold different views such as the view of just war. This holds that if war is to occur it must be just. While I believe the notion of pacifism lies closer to the heart of Jesus teaching than war in any sense, I would accept that if war is ever to occur it must be just. Hence it must be the final resort, it must be self-defence, it must be minimalistic, utilitarian in that it benefits the most people possible and it must be followed up by restoration and so on.
Any use of violence to extend the Christian faith against other cultures, religions and creeds is abhorrent. Crusade wars are completely unchristian and woe to any 'Christian' who engages in them.
So I do not accept the view that Christianity is invalidated and to be rejected because of Christian involvement in war. I would argue that the failure of ‘Christians’ in this regard does not invalidate the faith but the ‘Christians’ involved. We must not make the mistake of arguing that a bad Christian or group of Christians invalidates all Christians. After all if we find a newsreader has been taking drugs this does not invalidate all newsreaders or the news itself. The newsreader in question is the problem. Neither does a rugby player who tramples his opponent, gouges his eye and smashes the ref over invalidate rugby; it is the rugby player who is at fault and will be banned.
So I do not seek to defend the charge that Christians have been guilty of being involved in war. I am are sorry for this and believe Christians should be peacemakers rather than soldiers. They should be the medics, chaplains who care for both sides of a conflict. They are to practice forgiveness and reconciliation, however difficult. They are to be at the head of efforts for peace, working at every level of society from the political world to the school playground and family to model and encourage a different way, a way of forgiveness and reconciliation.
A couple more thoughts. While I cannot deny the role of 'Christians' in violence and war; we must be careful to read history with balance and see the many Christians who have modeled non-violence, reconciliation, peace and forgiveness. History is littered with many such people and without them, perhaps the world would have completely destroyed itself. Finally, when considering Christianity have a look at the first 300 years. It was not until the faith was caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire that the 'Christian' way took on violent means. This calls into question how Christian it really was. This is not for me to judge; but I believe the fusion of faith and politics is a dangerous mix for it leads to such things! In that 300 years Christians with a few exceptions lived out faith in line with Jesus' teachings and the result was a sensational spread of the faith through love, mercy and grace. It is time for Christians to recapture this heart and renounce violence and war as a means to an end and stand firm for forgiveness, non-retaliation, reconciliation, love and peace.
I really wish at this point I could simply say, 'it is not true! You are misreading history!' Rather, I admit this is the case and I apologise on behalf of such misguided so-called ‘Christians’.
One of the greatest tragedies of human history is the great truth that some ‘Christians’ have thought it best to fight wars and be violent. So we read of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Colonialism, WW1, Northern Ireland, Indonesia today and so on; situations where ‘Christians’ were at the heart of wars. I am sorry to all who read this for this tragedy. It is wrong and should not have happened.
Jesus repudiated all such violence. My reading of the essential teaching of Jesus is that he advocated non-violence and love of enemies. I would argue that Christians who are involved in war, violence and the use of the gun and sword have abrogated the essence of the teaching of Jesus in Mt 5. Some argue that Paul in Rom 13:1-4 supports the use of war. However, this is not the only way of interpreting this text. Rather, I would argue that he states that government hold the power to deal with wrongdoers. There is no indication of inter-nation or civil violence in this text. Indeed, in the previous verses Rom 12:19-21 he explicitly states Christians are not to take revenge but leave it to God. And even if Paul had supported Christians at war, a sound interpreter always goes first to the teaching of Jesus. Listen to what he says in Mt 5:38-47:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
To me, despite the difficulties that this view presents, Jesus' calls Christians not to take up arms and violence despite the existence of evil; rather, to love others, pray for them, broker for peace with non-violent means, be agents of reconciliation and resist evil in all ways except using evil means. Hence, while it is true that 'Christians' have been involved in a great many wars, this does not invalidate Christianity or Christ as Lord, Son of God and Messiah; it merely states that these 'Christians' have been doing the wrong thing. These 'Christians' will face God in judgement and it is not for me to judge them. However, I find it disgraceful and shameful that supposed 'Christians' take up arms or endorse the taking up of arms!
Other Christians hold different views such as the view of just war. This holds that if war is to occur it must be just. While I believe the notion of pacifism lies closer to the heart of Jesus teaching than war in any sense, I would accept that if war is ever to occur it must be just. Hence it must be the final resort, it must be self-defence, it must be minimalistic, utilitarian in that it benefits the most people possible and it must be followed up by restoration and so on.
Any use of violence to extend the Christian faith against other cultures, religions and creeds is abhorrent. Crusade wars are completely unchristian and woe to any 'Christian' who engages in them.
So I do not accept the view that Christianity is invalidated and to be rejected because of Christian involvement in war. I would argue that the failure of ‘Christians’ in this regard does not invalidate the faith but the ‘Christians’ involved. We must not make the mistake of arguing that a bad Christian or group of Christians invalidates all Christians. After all if we find a newsreader has been taking drugs this does not invalidate all newsreaders or the news itself. The newsreader in question is the problem. Neither does a rugby player who tramples his opponent, gouges his eye and smashes the ref over invalidate rugby; it is the rugby player who is at fault and will be banned.
So I do not seek to defend the charge that Christians have been guilty of being involved in war. I am are sorry for this and believe Christians should be peacemakers rather than soldiers. They should be the medics, chaplains who care for both sides of a conflict. They are to practice forgiveness and reconciliation, however difficult. They are to be at the head of efforts for peace, working at every level of society from the political world to the school playground and family to model and encourage a different way, a way of forgiveness and reconciliation.
A couple more thoughts. While I cannot deny the role of 'Christians' in violence and war; we must be careful to read history with balance and see the many Christians who have modeled non-violence, reconciliation, peace and forgiveness. History is littered with many such people and without them, perhaps the world would have completely destroyed itself. Finally, when considering Christianity have a look at the first 300 years. It was not until the faith was caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire that the 'Christian' way took on violent means. This calls into question how Christian it really was. This is not for me to judge; but I believe the fusion of faith and politics is a dangerous mix for it leads to such things! In that 300 years Christians with a few exceptions lived out faith in line with Jesus' teachings and the result was a sensational spread of the faith through love, mercy and grace. It is time for Christians to recapture this heart and renounce violence and war as a means to an end and stand firm for forgiveness, non-retaliation, reconciliation, love and peace.
Monday, January 29, 2007
What about those who have never heard about Jesus?
A question often asked is what happens to those who have never heard about Jesus. This is a fair question as Christians claim that salvation is through Christ alone. History tells us that Jesus came mid-history and to one geographical location. To claim then that all those who lived before Jesus' coming or before hearing about him are going to hell understandably seems rather harsh, salvation then is not an issue of personal response but to a large extent an accident of history and geography.
In my view the bible answers gives us some good leads to help us answer this question.
The New Testament refers to a number of people are have been saved and have gone to live with God for eternity, but who never heard specifically about Jesus!
These include Abraham and Sarah (Rom 4) and a whole long list of people in Hebrews 11 who are presented as examples of faith. These include the foreign prostitute Rahab. Hebrews also refers to the high priest Melchizedek of Gen 14 and Ps 110 who was a priest of the Most High God and whom Jesus followed as supreme priest (see Heb 7 in particular).
So this rules out the view that a person who has not heard specifically about Jesus or who lived before him is automatically separated from God for all eternity. So how was it that these people who lived before Christ are saved?
The first thing we can say for sure from the teaching of the NT is that they were not saved because of a perfect life. The Christian Gospel tells us that the reason humanity do not receive eternal life is because they have done wrong. This is universal. Sin separates us from God (Rom 3:23; 6:23). This makes sense, because there can exist no evil, sin or defilement in eternity or then evil will exist forever and contend against goodness.
In the named OT saints in Heb 11 and elsewhere, an examination of their lives indicates that even the very best of them failed to live the life that will gain them eternity by works i.e. none of these people lived a perfect life. Hence, they were not saved because of the things they did per se. They were flawed people who made mistakes. Some like Samson even rejected God for great periods of their life, coming back to him in the last minute (see Jdg 13-16).
Rather, they were saved because of their faithful relationship with God as they knew him as revealed to them (Rom 4:3; Heb 11:1, 39-40). These people were all saved because despite their faith-ups-and-downs, they walked through to their death in a living trusting relationship with God in terms of the way he had been revealed to them.
Abraham for example lived for many years trusting God and doing what he said (read Genesis 12-25). He made mistakes but hung in there. He knew God as ‘El, the God of his ancestors who he worshiped at shrines and as a nomad. He knew nothing about him as Yahweh or as the God of Israel, for Israel did not exist at this point. He knew nothing about Jesus or crucifixion or resurrection. Yet he was saved.
Similarly Moses initially knew God as 'El but after a sensational revelation of his being in which God made himself known as Yahweh followed him (the burning bush account in Exod 3). We are told that he disobeyed God on several situations (e.g. Exod 4:10-26; Numb 20:1-11). Yet he was saved on the basis of his lifelong faithful relationship in this God (read Exodus; Numbers; Deuteronomy).
This suggests to me that in other cultures where Christ has not been preached there are others like Abraham and Moses who knew God and walked in faithful relationship with him. Indeed I am of the view that God is knowable through creation and if we reach out to the creator seeking him to reveal himself to us, he will.
Some will think I am suggesting that people can be saved by other religions or that all are saved. However, I am not saying this at all. These people were not saved by religious ritual or doing the right religious thing like going to a shrine, making the right sacrifice, praying the right way, giving money to the poor, pilgrimmages or doing the right religious thing. No religion can save whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm, Buddhism or even the systems of the Christian church. These are all flawed and to varying degrees, inaccurate expressions of faith.
Rather, they were saved through their relationship of faith in God as revealed to them through creation and through his own special personal revelation.
Neither does this mean all are saved. The NT is clear, more people will not be saved than saved. Jesus made this clear when asked whether only a few will be saved (Lk 13:22-30). What I am saying, is that of the multitude of humanity who existed before Christ and never heard his name, there will be some whose faith in the God of creation will see their faith credited to them as righteousness as did Abraham. Though they did not see the apex of God's revelation Jesus, they honoured God with their lives believing in him and worshiping him (as per Melchizedek).
This means to me that where Christ has not yet been made known, or where he has been made known inaccurately, it is possible that people within these religious systems may be saved through their faithful relationship with him. They are not saved by the system, but by their faith in Christ.
Having said this, no matter who they are, they are saved through Jesus and God's grace, their faith in God being credited to them as faith in Jesus. People who lived before Christ are still saved retroactively by and through Jesus whose death saves them. This means that while they did not believe in Jesus in the contemporary Christian sense, they are still saved by his death and resurrection because of their living faithful relationship with God.
The type of faith that saves is a faith that lasts until their death; that is, they died in that relationship. The NT makes clear that is those who endure in their faith to the end that are saved. Hence it is not enough to say yes to God, get baptised and then expect to be saved. One must remain in that faithful relationship to the point of death to receive salvation (see Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 24:13; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 15:2; Heb 6:1-8; Rev 2:26 etc.)
For me then, those who have not heard about Christ still have opportunity to be saved. However, they are not saved through any religious system or through perfect righteousness, but through an active living faith in God as they know him.
What is equally clear in the NT is that while this may be true, once a person has heard the gospel of concerning Christ clearly explained to them then it is on the basis of their response to Christ that they are saved. Interestingly it is only such people who ask this question! Jesus is God's final and dynamic revelation of his person. He came to end such questions; he came as God's final word. When we have heard the glorious story of his death and resurrection and appeal for us to come to him and experience eternal life, it is on this basis that we are saved. So what will you do? Will you say yes to Jesus? I hope you say yes, because there is nothing I would like more than to hang out forever with you. And God wants that even more than I do!
In my view the bible answers gives us some good leads to help us answer this question.
The New Testament refers to a number of people are have been saved and have gone to live with God for eternity, but who never heard specifically about Jesus!
These include Abraham and Sarah (Rom 4) and a whole long list of people in Hebrews 11 who are presented as examples of faith. These include the foreign prostitute Rahab. Hebrews also refers to the high priest Melchizedek of Gen 14 and Ps 110 who was a priest of the Most High God and whom Jesus followed as supreme priest (see Heb 7 in particular).
So this rules out the view that a person who has not heard specifically about Jesus or who lived before him is automatically separated from God for all eternity. So how was it that these people who lived before Christ are saved?
The first thing we can say for sure from the teaching of the NT is that they were not saved because of a perfect life. The Christian Gospel tells us that the reason humanity do not receive eternal life is because they have done wrong. This is universal. Sin separates us from God (Rom 3:23; 6:23). This makes sense, because there can exist no evil, sin or defilement in eternity or then evil will exist forever and contend against goodness.
In the named OT saints in Heb 11 and elsewhere, an examination of their lives indicates that even the very best of them failed to live the life that will gain them eternity by works i.e. none of these people lived a perfect life. Hence, they were not saved because of the things they did per se. They were flawed people who made mistakes. Some like Samson even rejected God for great periods of their life, coming back to him in the last minute (see Jdg 13-16).
Rather, they were saved because of their faithful relationship with God as they knew him as revealed to them (Rom 4:3; Heb 11:1, 39-40). These people were all saved because despite their faith-ups-and-downs, they walked through to their death in a living trusting relationship with God in terms of the way he had been revealed to them.
Abraham for example lived for many years trusting God and doing what he said (read Genesis 12-25). He made mistakes but hung in there. He knew God as ‘El, the God of his ancestors who he worshiped at shrines and as a nomad. He knew nothing about him as Yahweh or as the God of Israel, for Israel did not exist at this point. He knew nothing about Jesus or crucifixion or resurrection. Yet he was saved.
Similarly Moses initially knew God as 'El but after a sensational revelation of his being in which God made himself known as Yahweh followed him (the burning bush account in Exod 3). We are told that he disobeyed God on several situations (e.g. Exod 4:10-26; Numb 20:1-11). Yet he was saved on the basis of his lifelong faithful relationship in this God (read Exodus; Numbers; Deuteronomy).
This suggests to me that in other cultures where Christ has not been preached there are others like Abraham and Moses who knew God and walked in faithful relationship with him. Indeed I am of the view that God is knowable through creation and if we reach out to the creator seeking him to reveal himself to us, he will.
Some will think I am suggesting that people can be saved by other religions or that all are saved. However, I am not saying this at all. These people were not saved by religious ritual or doing the right religious thing like going to a shrine, making the right sacrifice, praying the right way, giving money to the poor, pilgrimmages or doing the right religious thing. No religion can save whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm, Buddhism or even the systems of the Christian church. These are all flawed and to varying degrees, inaccurate expressions of faith.
Rather, they were saved through their relationship of faith in God as revealed to them through creation and through his own special personal revelation.
Neither does this mean all are saved. The NT is clear, more people will not be saved than saved. Jesus made this clear when asked whether only a few will be saved (Lk 13:22-30). What I am saying, is that of the multitude of humanity who existed before Christ and never heard his name, there will be some whose faith in the God of creation will see their faith credited to them as righteousness as did Abraham. Though they did not see the apex of God's revelation Jesus, they honoured God with their lives believing in him and worshiping him (as per Melchizedek).
This means to me that where Christ has not yet been made known, or where he has been made known inaccurately, it is possible that people within these religious systems may be saved through their faithful relationship with him. They are not saved by the system, but by their faith in Christ.
Having said this, no matter who they are, they are saved through Jesus and God's grace, their faith in God being credited to them as faith in Jesus. People who lived before Christ are still saved retroactively by and through Jesus whose death saves them. This means that while they did not believe in Jesus in the contemporary Christian sense, they are still saved by his death and resurrection because of their living faithful relationship with God.
The type of faith that saves is a faith that lasts until their death; that is, they died in that relationship. The NT makes clear that is those who endure in their faith to the end that are saved. Hence it is not enough to say yes to God, get baptised and then expect to be saved. One must remain in that faithful relationship to the point of death to receive salvation (see Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 24:13; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 15:2; Heb 6:1-8; Rev 2:26 etc.)
For me then, those who have not heard about Christ still have opportunity to be saved. However, they are not saved through any religious system or through perfect righteousness, but through an active living faith in God as they know him.
What is equally clear in the NT is that while this may be true, once a person has heard the gospel of concerning Christ clearly explained to them then it is on the basis of their response to Christ that they are saved. Interestingly it is only such people who ask this question! Jesus is God's final and dynamic revelation of his person. He came to end such questions; he came as God's final word. When we have heard the glorious story of his death and resurrection and appeal for us to come to him and experience eternal life, it is on this basis that we are saved. So what will you do? Will you say yes to Jesus? I hope you say yes, because there is nothing I would like more than to hang out forever with you. And God wants that even more than I do!
Friday, December 29, 2006
Aren't Christians Hypocrites?
One of the objections to people becoming Christians is that Christians are all hypocrites. That is, they make great claims of being morally wonderful and then in reality, prove to be far from perfect. They are then seen as self-righteous, party poopers who try to impose their morality on everyone else but are far from perfect themselves.
Well I agree with this criticism to a degree. Christians are not perfect or better than anyone. Christians who claim the moral high ground make a crucial mistake from my reading of the Bible which forbids hypocrisy and self-righteousness. This is the thrust of Jesus' parable telling us to take the log out of own eye rather than look for the speck in others eyes (Mt 7:1-5).
An honest Christian will admit that they are not better than anyone else. What stands them apart is not their superiority in ethical behaviour (although they should be trying to live righteously), but that know they are no better than anyone else; they know they are not perfect; they know that they are sinful and full of weakness. What they have realised is not that they are superior, but that they need God’s forgiveness and salvation! Christians are not better than others, they are just forgiven!
If a Christian sets themselves up as superior they better watch out, they have showing the cardinal sin of pride and need taking down a peg or two.
Christians all let the team down at some point or other. All Christians make mistakes and are flawed. We are far from perfect. We all say one thing and do another because we are sinful.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians after a few years or so, can start to think they are better than others. They look down on society and have high expectations of others. They bemoan the sins of the world, while a huge log is often hanging out of their eyes. I have been guilty of this myself and am seeking to stop doing this, it is wrong.
So on behalf of all those Christians (myself included), let me apologise; sorry! I apologise to you personally for any Christian who has been a hypocrite and put you off Jesus.
I want to suggest to you that the existence of Christian hypocrites does not actually invalidate the essence of the message and the faith itself. What it does do is invalidate the honesty of the person involved. Jesus remains the same whether a follower of Jesus is a hypocrite or not. Jesus himself is what we believe in, not people who follow him.
I encourage you to look beyond human representations of Jesus to Jesus himself. He was no hypocrite but a wonderful man worthy of your allegiance. There is no evidence of hypocrisy in him; in fact, the people he challenged the most were those who claimed to be righteous in God's eyes, saw themselves above humanity and even shut out those who were supposedly less holy. Jesus himself hung out with sinners. He despised the self-righteous pharisee and declared righteous the sinful repentent humble tax-collector (read Lk 18:13-18 and Mt 23).
I accept that it is true that some Christians are hypocrites and that no Christian should be. Rather all us Christians should be humble in their lives and in the reality of our weaknesses, of which, if we are honest, there are many.
However I also believe that the existence of many hypocritical Christians does nothing to invalidate the faith or Christ and should not be used as an excuse to reject Christianity. If you are doing so, I challenge you to look beyond the hypocrisy of Christians to Jesus who was no hypocrite. Remember too that all of society is full of hypocrites who say one thing and do the other. What my hypocrisy does is reinforce the need for all of us to come to Christ as the only way to salvation. Will you do it?
Well I agree with this criticism to a degree. Christians are not perfect or better than anyone. Christians who claim the moral high ground make a crucial mistake from my reading of the Bible which forbids hypocrisy and self-righteousness. This is the thrust of Jesus' parable telling us to take the log out of own eye rather than look for the speck in others eyes (Mt 7:1-5).
An honest Christian will admit that they are not better than anyone else. What stands them apart is not their superiority in ethical behaviour (although they should be trying to live righteously), but that know they are no better than anyone else; they know they are not perfect; they know that they are sinful and full of weakness. What they have realised is not that they are superior, but that they need God’s forgiveness and salvation! Christians are not better than others, they are just forgiven!
If a Christian sets themselves up as superior they better watch out, they have showing the cardinal sin of pride and need taking down a peg or two.
Christians all let the team down at some point or other. All Christians make mistakes and are flawed. We are far from perfect. We all say one thing and do another because we are sinful.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians after a few years or so, can start to think they are better than others. They look down on society and have high expectations of others. They bemoan the sins of the world, while a huge log is often hanging out of their eyes. I have been guilty of this myself and am seeking to stop doing this, it is wrong.
So on behalf of all those Christians (myself included), let me apologise; sorry! I apologise to you personally for any Christian who has been a hypocrite and put you off Jesus.
I want to suggest to you that the existence of Christian hypocrites does not actually invalidate the essence of the message and the faith itself. What it does do is invalidate the honesty of the person involved. Jesus remains the same whether a follower of Jesus is a hypocrite or not. Jesus himself is what we believe in, not people who follow him.
I encourage you to look beyond human representations of Jesus to Jesus himself. He was no hypocrite but a wonderful man worthy of your allegiance. There is no evidence of hypocrisy in him; in fact, the people he challenged the most were those who claimed to be righteous in God's eyes, saw themselves above humanity and even shut out those who were supposedly less holy. Jesus himself hung out with sinners. He despised the self-righteous pharisee and declared righteous the sinful repentent humble tax-collector (read Lk 18:13-18 and Mt 23).
I accept that it is true that some Christians are hypocrites and that no Christian should be. Rather all us Christians should be humble in their lives and in the reality of our weaknesses, of which, if we are honest, there are many.
However I also believe that the existence of many hypocritical Christians does nothing to invalidate the faith or Christ and should not be used as an excuse to reject Christianity. If you are doing so, I challenge you to look beyond the hypocrisy of Christians to Jesus who was no hypocrite. Remember too that all of society is full of hypocrites who say one thing and do the other. What my hypocrisy does is reinforce the need for all of us to come to Christ as the only way to salvation. Will you do it?
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Why did Jesus die on a Cross in such a way?
One of the great questions worthy of consideration is why Jesus had to die in such a manner. Now assuming that the problem of the world is the existence of evil, I suggest that this is the best alternative to save the world from the scourge of evil. I can think of three others possible ways God could have saved the world, none of which are realistic and all which violate his character or purposes.
1. Overthrow evil (annihilation): One way to remove evil from the human realm is for God to simply step in and exterminate it in an instant. People often ask why God does not do this! After all this would solve the problem of the existence of beings that are completely and utterly evil (e.g. Satan and demons) and would remove the problem.
However removing evil in this way would be a problem where people who are partially evil are concerned. And the truth is that we humans are all corrupted, all fallen to a greater or lesser degree (Rom 3:23). If God was to destroy evil in this way, he would have to destroy us all in an instant, and any possibility of relationship with God would be destroyed eternally. God, because of his character and desire to save, is not prepared to do this at this point. Ultimately, when time is complete according to God’s agenda, he will destroy all evil. However, he wishes to give humanity time to repent.
2. Overpower evil (robotism): Another way for God to overthrow evil is to simply force humanity and all creation to acquiesce to his power. As God with all power (omnipotence), he could if he chose to simply force all that opposes him to obey him.
The problem with this is that human freedom would be abrogated. This would defeat the purpose of God in creating people with choice and freedom. God’s character of love demands that he gives us freedom to respond, it is those who freely accept him that will live forever with him.
3. Overlook evil (universalism): Another way for God to solve the problem of evil is to simply not worry about it and let it exist eternally.
The problem with this is that despots like Hitler and Satan himself would then live forever with the whole creative power of heaven and God at their fingertips. This would make heaven an eternal cosmic hell! This would also violate God’s character which involves justice, he cannot allow evil to rule.
Hence God chose a fourth alternative. He chose to overcome evil through sinless perfection, crucifixion and resurrection.
God had to choose a way to solve the problem of evil whilst still allowing humanity to remain free to choose. This ruled out the above possibilities. Hence he conceived of the idea of allowing himself in his eternal form to become human whilst retaining his divinity. This he achieved in the person of Jesus born of Mary. He then lived in the human realm refusing to fall prey to temptation whilst demonstrating the loving, healing, just character of God. In so doing he fulfilled the prophetic expectations of the chosen community, to be the anointed king in the line of David sent from God to save his people (cf. Is 9; 11).
He then allowed humanity to reject him and kill him. He allowed this death to be culturally understandable as a sacrifice (hence the cross, the blood and his death cf. Lev 17:11). He allowed this death to be horrendous and excruciating, symbolically absorbing the worst humanity could throw at him. He then died in a physical sense, but due to his sinlessness, passed through death and was raised from the dead by God. He then invited all humanity to simply place their faith in him and they would be saved.
They would be saved not on the basis of their own perfection but on the basis of Christ’s perfection. At the moment of accepting Christ, the believer’s sinful existence would be replaced by Christ’s sinlessness. Hence at the point of the death the believer, on the basis of Christ, would pass through death to life. God would then replace their inner being with complete purity, extinguishing their evil in the cross. Then as they stand before God in judgement they are seen as faultless, the judgement of the cross being their judgement, and they need have no fear of hell. Those who reject Christ stand before God in judgement day with their evil and sin before them and they will join all evil in eternal separation from God.
I am amazed at how creative and clever this is. The cross is a gruesome disgusting way for a man to die on the one hand; however, on the other hand it is a brilliant, culturally relevant way for God to save the world without violating human freedom and his character whilst destroying evil! To me the only way to respond to such brilliance is to accept Jesus as saviour and Lord.
1. Overthrow evil (annihilation): One way to remove evil from the human realm is for God to simply step in and exterminate it in an instant. People often ask why God does not do this! After all this would solve the problem of the existence of beings that are completely and utterly evil (e.g. Satan and demons) and would remove the problem.
However removing evil in this way would be a problem where people who are partially evil are concerned. And the truth is that we humans are all corrupted, all fallen to a greater or lesser degree (Rom 3:23). If God was to destroy evil in this way, he would have to destroy us all in an instant, and any possibility of relationship with God would be destroyed eternally. God, because of his character and desire to save, is not prepared to do this at this point. Ultimately, when time is complete according to God’s agenda, he will destroy all evil. However, he wishes to give humanity time to repent.
2. Overpower evil (robotism): Another way for God to overthrow evil is to simply force humanity and all creation to acquiesce to his power. As God with all power (omnipotence), he could if he chose to simply force all that opposes him to obey him.
The problem with this is that human freedom would be abrogated. This would defeat the purpose of God in creating people with choice and freedom. God’s character of love demands that he gives us freedom to respond, it is those who freely accept him that will live forever with him.
3. Overlook evil (universalism): Another way for God to solve the problem of evil is to simply not worry about it and let it exist eternally.
The problem with this is that despots like Hitler and Satan himself would then live forever with the whole creative power of heaven and God at their fingertips. This would make heaven an eternal cosmic hell! This would also violate God’s character which involves justice, he cannot allow evil to rule.
Hence God chose a fourth alternative. He chose to overcome evil through sinless perfection, crucifixion and resurrection.
God had to choose a way to solve the problem of evil whilst still allowing humanity to remain free to choose. This ruled out the above possibilities. Hence he conceived of the idea of allowing himself in his eternal form to become human whilst retaining his divinity. This he achieved in the person of Jesus born of Mary. He then lived in the human realm refusing to fall prey to temptation whilst demonstrating the loving, healing, just character of God. In so doing he fulfilled the prophetic expectations of the chosen community, to be the anointed king in the line of David sent from God to save his people (cf. Is 9; 11).
He then allowed humanity to reject him and kill him. He allowed this death to be culturally understandable as a sacrifice (hence the cross, the blood and his death cf. Lev 17:11). He allowed this death to be horrendous and excruciating, symbolically absorbing the worst humanity could throw at him. He then died in a physical sense, but due to his sinlessness, passed through death and was raised from the dead by God. He then invited all humanity to simply place their faith in him and they would be saved.
They would be saved not on the basis of their own perfection but on the basis of Christ’s perfection. At the moment of accepting Christ, the believer’s sinful existence would be replaced by Christ’s sinlessness. Hence at the point of the death the believer, on the basis of Christ, would pass through death to life. God would then replace their inner being with complete purity, extinguishing their evil in the cross. Then as they stand before God in judgement they are seen as faultless, the judgement of the cross being their judgement, and they need have no fear of hell. Those who reject Christ stand before God in judgement day with their evil and sin before them and they will join all evil in eternal separation from God.
I am amazed at how creative and clever this is. The cross is a gruesome disgusting way for a man to die on the one hand; however, on the other hand it is a brilliant, culturally relevant way for God to save the world without violating human freedom and his character whilst destroying evil! To me the only way to respond to such brilliance is to accept Jesus as saviour and Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)