Sitting in Sunday School as a kid, Mrs. Her Name Is Hard to Recall told me the “fear of the Lord” was reverential awe for God, not being scared.
Slouching in Bible College waiting to be kicked out, Dr. I Will Protect His Identity told me this answer was inadequate and overly soft. He proceeded to expound at some depth on the idea of the fear of the Lord.
Much later as a philosophy graduate student in love with Plato, I was intent on learning exactly what the fear of the Lord is, because the Bible said in Proverbs 1:7 that it was the first step to knowledge or wisdom.
What is the fear of the Lord?
I think my Sunday School teacher was sort of right in the context of teaching children. The fear of the Lord is not being afraid as I was afraid of the Hound of the Baskerville. God is love and not horrible.
Non-Christian friends often think Christians live in constant terror of being smitten, but this is wrong. If God wanted to smite me, I would already be smitten. Instead our fear is motivated by love.
Perfect love casts out the bad source of fear, but longs to better serve the Beloved and fears giving pain.
As I got older my Bible college professor helped me, because he reminded me that it was scary to fall into God’s righteous hands unprepared. In myself, when I am most myself before redemption, I am unfit for the joys of Paradise. The love of God is wrath to me and Beauty will appear horrible.
It is part of the horror that is me that I find love wrathful and beauty terrible.
I am often too distracted to be afraid, but the dialectic, the path to wisdom, reminds me of the terror of being human. I am mortal man doomed to die. Eternity is in my heart but I cannot live in it by nature. My heart’s deepest longings are often what is worst for my own happiness and God wants my happiness.
It is fearful thing to be confused in a reasonable cosmos, selfish in a loving universe, and a dullard in a world of wonder.
An awe for God, His nature, and His works, and even a little bit of self-awareness is terrifying. I am terrified that having tasted a bit of the good things of God that I would miss those good things.
How do I know if I fear God?
I will love my neighbour to show my love of God. This love will make afraid of being cruel to His image in the people around me. I will treat the office workers as if they were Jesus to me.
I will read Scriptures with my whole heart and mind. I will honour Scriptures by asking them my best question and waiting to hear answers. When the truth is revealed to me, my love of Truth will motivate eager obedience to the new insights.
I will love God so much that the thought of missing His goodness, truth, and beauty will fill me with dread. I will pray for His grace and mercy at all times, because love takes nothing for granted.
September 7th, 2011 | 8:01 pm | #1
“How do I know if I fear God?”
There was a time when my heart learned to fear God. It happened back in 1984-85. I feared my sinful soul needed to get right with God.
As John Newton said:
“T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.”
It has been a growing process of coming to know how much our Lord loves me. And this great love and kindness takes away all my guilt and being afraid. There are times when I have a similar fear I had when I used to disobey my earthly father, when I get a bit rebellious, but as I repent and seek my Savior’s promise of rest, He is there, and my Father is there as well, as the Holy Spirit helps me understand.
September 8th, 2011 | 11:15 am | #2
[...] FEAR OF THE LORD: “God Scares Me.” How do I know if I fear [...]
September 8th, 2011 | 11:24 am | #3
Live in constant fear of being smitten? Not really. But sometimes I do think more like “My Master who art in heaven” then “My Father who art in heaven.” A pity but it is true.
September 8th, 2011 | 12:09 pm | #4
“My heart’s deepest longings are often what is worst for my own happiness and God wants my happiness.”
There are times when I believe that if my heart’s deepest longings were fulfilled, I would be happy in this life. However, I don’t know that God’s concern is for our “happiness” in our current temporal state.
I think that God’s concern is that we are spiritually formed in preparation for the eternal paradise that is to come. This spiritual formation comes at a the cost of learning faithfulness and discipline in a way that leads to holiness…even when it means incredible pain and forsaking what I believe would make me happy in this life.
September 8th, 2011 | 2:41 pm | #5
“If God wanted to smite me, I would already be smitten.”
Does this sort of reasoning work for anyone not already “smitten”? Does the JMR not fear that God will “smite” his friends and loved ones?
September 8th, 2011 | 4:09 pm | #6
Rollen,
I do not fear God will “smite” my friends or loved ones. I know God loves them. He wants what is best for them. I do fear that they will be the sort of people that make love wrath.
In other words, I fear they will be no better than I am.
September 8th, 2011 | 4:50 pm | #7
Perhaps God won’t “smite” your loved ones, but might he still condemn them to eternal torment in hell, having made his “love wrath”? (If there’s a big difference between smiting and tormenting in hell, I guess I’d also be more fearful of the latter.)
September 8th, 2011 | 6:04 pm | #8
Rollen, I believe what JMR is saying is that God honors our freedom, but freedom always has consequences, whether for good or bad. The consequence of refusing to love God is eternal torment because God is the unique source of joy and meaning.
September 8th, 2011 | 7:02 pm | #9
Honoring freedom it may be, but if it makes God’s love wrath, and the wrath brings “eternal torment”….
September 8th, 2011 | 8:48 pm | #10
I still don’t think you’re understanding. God’s love is God’s love. That’s immutable. What changes is the vessel. Lewis says there are three options in the universe: Be God; be like God and share His goodness and joy; be miserable. Humans are not God, so we can experience the second or third option. People make themselves miserable.
September 8th, 2011 | 9:59 pm | #11
But JMR speaks of wrath. Where does wrath fit in to your story?
September 8th, 2011 | 11:00 pm | #12
God is love. But just as the same sun melts wax and hardens mud, some receive Love as wrath and some as Joy.
The receiver changes the signal. Human problems are ontological and not just behavioral.
September 9th, 2011 | 11:35 am | #13
Sounds Protagorean. Just as the bathwater is warm to one and cool to another, so the “love” of God is joyous to one and wrathful to another.
September 9th, 2011 | 8:06 pm | #14
No. God does not force us to find love as wrath, but we are the monstrous ego that demand that love be turned our way . . . and so make the most lovely thing in the cosmos into our own doom. We cut off our own legs and call God a monster for not making the “ideal” size we have in our own minds.
September 9th, 2011 | 8:19 pm | #15
We are all sons of wrath, really. “But God….”
September 9th, 2011 | 9:28 pm | #16
So is God truly wrathful towards these people, or is it merely a false appearance of wrath?
September 11th, 2011 | 10:08 pm | #17
God is simple (philosophical sense).
The closest human analogy we have for His state is pure love.
He loves humankind.
He has only love in Himself.
His wrath is, therefore, apparent to us (therefore real to us), but is not essential to His nature.
September 12th, 2011 | 12:04 am | #18
The question I asked is not whether God’s wrath is “essential to His nature,” nor is it whether God’s wrath is “apparent to us” (or “real to us“).
September 12th, 2011 | 1:00 pm | #19
God’s wrath is real to us in the sense that His love is actually received by us as wrath. It hurts. But it is not wrath in its nature, but impact on us.
This is due to our seeing love as hate.
September 12th, 2011 | 1:42 pm | #20
My most recent comments here are not appearing. Perhaps a website glitch?
September 12th, 2011 | 3:15 pm | #21
“This is due to our seeing love as hate.”
So it’s a misperception. We can therefore say this: God doesn’t actually punish anyone in hell; those who think they are being punished in hell are simply misinterpreting the experience of being showered in God’s love.
Sounds a bit like the idea of Maya in certain eastern religions.
September 12th, 2011 | 3:21 pm | #22
It scares me that many Christians say that wrath is an essential attribute of God’s nature and do mean it in the way that JMR is arguing. They argue as if wrath is an essential attribute like love. What really scares me is that some believe that God makes some people for the sole purpose of experiencing said wrath.
September 12th, 2011 | 4:45 pm | #23
Rollen,
Sure.
The people in Hell are getting the best they can get. Too bad they wanted it, asked for it, begged for it.
Hell is God’s love to sinners who will not be saved.
September 12th, 2011 | 4:46 pm | #24
I should add that if you misperceive a thing then it often becomes real to you. God damns us, because we are damned. We are damned, so God damns us.
September 12th, 2011 | 5:00 pm | #25
JMR, it seems, by your own lights, you perpetuate error when you say “God damns us” (or damns anyone, for that matter).
You should rather insist that God never damns anyone. Damnation by God, on your view, is only a false appearance. As a punishment of God, hell, like Maya, is simply an illusion.
September 12th, 2011 | 5:23 pm | #26
Rollen,
Hell is real. See Dante. Hell is God’s Hell, being the best He can do with this broken creation. It is just and loving.
And I will go ahead and say God damns in the same way I say the sun rises and that the arm of the Lord is not short. I am a human and from my perspective that is a meaningful way to talk.
Yes?
September 12th, 2011 | 5:24 pm | #27
Also, if I experience pain and someones says, “Your pain is an illusion.” then it is still true that I experience pain. If I make a great pleasure pain, then it is a pity and an evil, but it is still pain to me.
It is not “illusion” in one sense of the term, though it is a grave error.
September 12th, 2011 | 5:39 pm | #28
The figurative ways of speaking about the sun and the Lord’s arm make sense without, as far as I can see, perpetuating any error (and certainly not any errors as significant as the error in question, under which people falsely perceive the love of God as the wrath of God!).
Strictly speaking, your view seems to be that the wrath of God is an illusion, and that hell–as a punishment of God–is also an illusion. On your view, God does not actually punish people in hell.
So, if there is any real pain associated with “hell”, it is pain that is based on the misperception that one is being punished. (Similarly, one can experience real fear in a dream.) I would think, therefore, that you would try to be especially careful in speaking of these things, so as not to perpetuate any of these pain-inducing illusions.
September 12th, 2011 | 9:55 pm | #29
The Lord tests the righteous,
but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Let him rain coals on the wicked;
fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
7 For the Lord is righteous;
He loves righteous deeds;
the upright shall behold his face.” Psalm 11:5-7
“If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Matt. 5:29
Jesus also said, “Don’t fear those who can kill your body, and not your soul. But, fear Him who can throw your body and soul into hell.”
September 13th, 2011 | 9:43 am | #30
JMR’s treatment of “hell” and the “wrath” of God is in many ways more attractive than the biblical characterization of these things.
September 13th, 2011 | 4:44 pm | #31
I think my comments are the Biblical characterization of these things when thought about by a reader not intent on attacking a strawman.
September 13th, 2011 | 8:06 pm | #32
What is the straw man you speak of, if you don’t mind me asking?
September 14th, 2011 | 11:17 am | #33
I invite anyone to make better sense out of JMR’s characterizations of hell and the “wrath” of God.
Can anyone explain where I was unfair to him?
September 21st, 2011 | 9:48 am | #34
I’ve been pondering this post and the debate regarding God’s love/wrath. I need to preface my comments by stating that my training is in theology – not philosophy. So, my perspective may take this conversation in a different direction.
Yes, God is Love; and God loves all of humanity. Does God pour out “wrath” on some of creation? There are certainly many Old Testament references to God’s wrath falling on defiant people who rejected God’s will.
Yet, whenever I ponder God’s true character or question His motivations, I look to the most perfect revelation of God – Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, Immanuel (“God with us”), became human so that we might have right relationship with Father God and better understand His character and nature.
During Christ’s time on earth he poured out love – and mercy- on all who were open and willing to receive him and his message. He even approached those who were considered sinners with love and mercy (i.e. – the “woman at the well”). Jesus reserved his anger – or “wrath” – for the hyper-religious people who served the Law to the detriment of people. Jesus’ outbursts of anger/wrath were directed at the Pharisees, Sadducees, and temple money changers who used their positions to subjugate others for the sake of promoting their own personal power and economic gain. In short, he reserved his anger/wrath for people who were merciless and unjust with other people. His anger/wrath fell on those people who chose to reject his message of love, mercy, and forgiveness.
Yes, God is love and He desires to pour out love, mercy, and forgiveness on all people. So, does God send people to hell? I don’t think so. Like the Pharisees who chose to reject Christ and conspired to have him killed, I think that people choose hell when they also reject Christ in favor of idols.
September 21st, 2011 | 11:11 am | #35
Gwen, I can sympathize your willingness to reinterpret “the many Old Testament references” in light of other dominant themes in the Bible.
Here is how I am understanding you (so correct me if I err). The picture you give is of a lover whose hands are tied. God, in this picture, is like a loving mother who cannot lovingly stop her wayward son from disregarding her parental advice and destroying his life with the imprudent choice to pursue a writing career (the mother foresees the sufferings in such a career). In this case, it’s not that the loving mother is viewing her son’s suffering as a punishment or a “just reward” for his rejection of her advice. At any rate, the son’s future suffering as a writer is not a punishment inflicted upon the son by the mother. Rather, the suffering of her son is simply the consequence of his poor decisions that the mother painfully foresees. Allowing the son to so ruin his life, however, is the inevitable cost of respecting his autonomy as an individual (for the mother to force her son to enter medical school is not a loving option). Allowing him to ruin his life is a necessary feature of the mother’s respectful love for her adult son.
September 21st, 2011 | 1:08 pm | #36
JMR, #23: “The people in Hell are getting the best they can get. Too bad they wanted it, asked for it, begged for it.”
I don’t know about that!
Imagine this. JMR is on the other side in Heaven. The people in Hell are in eternal agony and torment where there is wailing and the gnashing of teeth. The people in Hell hear the bellowing, booming voice of JMR exclaiming:
“The people in Hell are getting the best they can get.
Too bad they wanted it,
asked for it,
begged for it.”
And a good many of these tortured LFW souls will likely respond, “I don’t want this awful misery, I didn’t ask for it, and I certainly didn’t beg for it. This guy in Heaven who says I begged for Hell is a jerk.”
September 21st, 2011 | 1:47 pm | #37
Rollen,
I think that your analogy to my argument is a fair one.
Although I would take exception to the example of a writer as a “poor career path”. My husband is a gainfully employed writer who is doing just fine! :)
September 21st, 2011 | 5:45 pm | #38
TUAD,
Of course the people in hell didn’t ask for eternal suffering and torment. The decisions they chose to make in this world, however, do have lifelong consequences. That’s much like saying, “All I wanted to do was pet a shark; it’s too bad, I suppose, that I forgot to cover my bleeding wound before I jumped in the water. Who knew the shark would try to eat me?”
September 22nd, 2011 | 4:36 am | #39
Nikolai Volk: But no one could argue that the person who didn’t know that the shark was going to eat him, would deserve to be eaten? Analogously, can anyone really know the full implications of their choices, concerning their eternal fate? Do they still go to “Hell” even when they don’t know that their choices will ultimately cause them to go to “Hell?”
In other words, to take your shark analogy, if someone unwisely pets the shark, naively thinking that no harm will result from it, and I see that I can rescue the person before the shark attacks him, am I right to rescue him? I say yes.
Similarly, if one does all the unwise things that may cause one to go to Hell, but God, being of infinite Mercy rescues this person, is this not also proper?
Mailyn McCord Adams, has some excellent points, on universalism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_McCord_Adams
September 22nd, 2011 | 11:58 am | #40
Gwen, I think that the characterization of hell we’re entertaining might have two surprising implications. First, it would suggest that certain passages of the Bible are seriously misleading (regarding, in particular, the associations of hell with God’s punishment, judgment, and wrath). Second, it would suggest that God will make hell quite comfortable for those (all beloved by God) who are there. That is, just as the loving mother could be expected to do much to counteract the sufferings of her son after he has pursued the ill-advised career, so God would make his beloved in hell as comfortable and as happy as possible. Unlike the mother, however, God’s resources are not so limited.
September 22nd, 2011 | 4:26 pm | #41
Rollen, your description of hell is starting to sound a little bit like heaven. However, I don’t think that hell is so much a “place” as it is an existential reality. Hell is total and complete separation from God and all the goodness and love that one receives by being in God’s presence. How does one describe what that separation might feel like except to say that it is eternal torment and pain?
We see a glimpse of hell might be like when we read of Christ’s death. I think the greatest source of torment for him was not the physical pain, but the anguish he felt when God had forsaken him and his death separated him from the perfect communion that he had enjoyed in the presence of a good and loving God.
September 22nd, 2011 | 7:09 pm | #42
Hell is a place where a rich man went to, and he was in torment. Also Jesus said, Don’t fear men who can kill your body, but Fear god who can throw your body and soul into hell. And Jesus said it would be better off for Judas to never had been born.
God’s wrath, and hell, and His judgment are very, very scary. Yet, when one comes to Christ, and Christ covers you with His blood, then God’s wrath has already been satisfied in Christ on the Cross. Hallelujah!
September 22nd, 2011 | 10:26 pm | #43
Bret,
“Similarly, if one does all the unwise things that may cause one to go to Hell, but God, being of infinite Mercy rescues this person, is this not also proper?”
No. This makes a mockery of any notion of free will. Free will isn’t “no matter what you do you get the ultimate reward;” free will means living with the consequences.
Bret, you are right in trying to stop that person from petting the shark, because trying to save people’s lives is a good thing. But it isn’t your fault if she perishes by the shark’s jaw, because it was her choice. Free will does have negative consequences, but that doesn’t make the idea itself bad.
“Traditional doctrines of hell err again by supposing either that God does not get what God wants with every human being (“God wills all humans to be saved” by God’s antecedent will)…”
God does not get what God wants when we sin, yet God doesn’t abolish sin. God does hope that we all could come to Him and be saved, but he also granted us free will, which allows the beautiful synergistic relationship between the Divine and the human. As nice as universalism sounds, it is really just the lighter side of the very dark determinism coin.
But then the last part of that quote:
“…or that God deliberately creates some for ruin.”
First off, nice false dichotomy. Second, God doesn’t make us choose ruin. We choose ruin. You seem to think that free will only counts when it doesn’t hurt us, but free will means biting the bullet just as much as it is reaping its rewards.
September 23rd, 2011 | 2:29 am | #44
Hi Nickolai, thanks for your response. I understand your point about free will, and it’s a good one. But, as you noted, no one freely chooses eternal damnation. If they knew that their choices would ultimately result in going to Hell, they wouldn’t choose them, so it seems problematic that people really choose to go to Hell.
The notion of “informed consent”, could be applicable here. If people really knew what Hell would entail, they would in all likelihood not make the choices that would result in going there. It may seem to be a free choice, to go to Hell, but if they really knew what Hell was like, would they still choose to go? Also, if anyone was asked: would you choose to go to a place, forever, where you would have the opposite of complete happiness and joy, how many would say yes?
And, the freedom the greatest good? Certainly freedom is a wonderful thing, and should be valued highly. But does it take higher priority, than one’s ultimate happiness, which can only be obtained in Heaven?
So, when we talk about “free choice”, with respect to deciding whether to go to Hell, or not, most, if not all people don’t really know what they’re choosing: eternal torment, lack of happiness; few would really choose these things. So it doesn’t seem to really be a free choice. And, even if it is, should one accept the proposition that freedom, as important as it is, should take precedence over every other good, including one’s eternal happiness?
September 23rd, 2011 | 2:46 am | #45
Also, Nikolai, one can accept that humans have freedom, just not absolute freedom. We know this, with respect to our earthly existence. Humans have different genetic predispositions, and environments, that limit our freedoms. But we still have freedoms. Clearly, one could argue, the notion that God would allow genetics or our environments, to limit our freedoms, would seem to be taking away our freedoms, to some extent, and is unfair. But, whether it’s fair or not, some people do enter the world with less freedom than others; everyone has freedom, but just not in the same degree. Since God has already restricted our freedoms, but we still have limited freedoms, it’s not unthinkable for God to restrict our freedom with respect to going to Hell or heaven.
And, since people have varying degrees of freedom, due to genetics and their environments, this means we’re not all on the same playing field, with respect to fee will. For some, choosing God may be easier, for genetic, and/or environmental reasons, whereas for others, it’s harder. The corollary, of course, is that neither can take full “credit” for the choice of going to Heaven, or “blame”, for going to Hell, due to these genetic/environmental variables, entirely outside of one’s control. So, without God allowing the salvation of all, ironically, whoever goes to heaven and hell, will do so, at least in part, because of these genetic/environmental variables, as well as free will, making this at least partially deterministic.
September 23rd, 2011 | 3:18 am | #46
“But, as you noted, no one freely chooses eternal damnation. If they knew that their choices would ultimately result in going to Hell, they wouldn’t choose them, so it seems problematic that people really choose to go to Hell.”
Plenty of people choose hell. As the famed Dr. House once said, “Either God doesn’t exist, or He’s unimaginably cruel.” Even if He does exist for some, they’d rather suffer hell than put up with Him. But even more to the point, you’re arguing that hell must be one hundred percent clear for anyone to reject it. I think Christians make hell pretty clear; I don’t really have a bright line for when people are fully cognizent of what hell is. Christians have a hard time knowing what hell is; the Dante-like depiction pervades Western culture, but we don’t know if that’s true for certain. So that claim to me seems insufficient.
“Humans have different genetic predispositions, and environments, that limit our freedoms.”
Such as?… I’m really confused as to your point here.
But my ultimate problem is I think you’re buying into Dr. Adams’ false dichotomy of either process theology or hyper-Calvinism/determinism. I don’t think that’s Biblical or logical, and those both we must consider when approaching this debate. This isn’t a mere, “Well, it’s LOGICAL that God saves everyone.” To undermine Christ’s revelation in scripture is unacceptable, even if it does seem fully logical.
I refuse to accept a God of determinism, Bret, and despite the fact that you value free will somewhat, you completely undermine it if you believe that God creates us to be mentally incapable in regards to the afterlife. Then, when we die, our wrong beliefs (which we had no choice but to have) must be “corrected” by God. I think that undermines not only free will but also exacerbates the problem of evil in the world.
September 23rd, 2011 | 5:29 am | #47
Nikolai, thank you for your intelligent insights, concerning this issue. We don’t agree on this issue, but I certainly admire your intelligence, and good will.
With respect to the genetic and environmental variables, that contribute to who we become, first, whatever genetics become part of who we are, will either enhance us, or restrict us, in some fashion. If, for example, one inherits genetics that predispose one to being more open to religious experiences, one will possess a distinct advantage, over someone who does not, with respect to properly assessing whether Hell is a good, or bad choice. Of course, one’s environment will immensely influence this religious propensity, as well, but in both (genetics and environment), one cannot choose these things, they’re bestowed upon one, (except, of course, until one is an adult, then one can choose one’s environment, but, the earlier environment, and genes, may influence this choice), and will alter one’s freedom concerning the choice of hell.
Also, there’s the issue of why God would create, or at least allow, certain individuals to emerge through evolution, with propensities to reject Him. It seems as if certain people have the odds against them from the start. Perhaps their free will will still choose heaven, but why would God make people with such propensities? Perhaps this is a necessary byproduct of freedom, but why? If God is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, He could conceivably create people with freedom, but only freedom for goodness, namely heaven?
These are certainly difficult problems, that neither of us can solve. But when you assert that your view is the freedom one, this is not entirely unambiguous. As noted above, since God allows people to arise, with propensities toward choosing evil, and hence hell, their freedom seems restricted.
And we all know, unfortunately, of those who have genes and/or environment, that predisposes them toward evil, which alters their free will. After all, they didn’t choose their genes or environment.
And, even if freedom was wholly unencumbered by genes or environment, there’s that mysterious aspect to freedom: why did this person choose hell, and another heaven?
Clearly, there must be a cause or causes, for these choices. But one doesn’t seem to control these causes, hence, it’s hard to see how the hell “choice” is all that free.
I certainly think you make a good point about evil. The latter is a horrible problem. But there’s the issue of whether people choose to be good, because of their fear of hell (ironically, making one wonder how “free” one’s choice to avoid hell is, if one makes decisions, based on fear.), or out of love for the good. This seems to be analogous to people being good only when a police officer is nearby.
One should be good, because of one’s love of Goodness, Truth, and one’s fellow human, rather than fear of punishment.
One should not help one’s neighbor because of some reward (e.g., money) but because it’s the right, moral thing to do.
Morality, becomes reduced to fear, or at least could be, when one thinks of Hell as a punishment, or Heaven as a reward. And, it can reduce our dignity, as well.
September 23rd, 2011 | 9:50 am | #48
Gwen, the view being described (which is not my own view, let me remind) does not depend on the idea that hell is a ‘place’ as opposed to ‘an existential reality.’ You seem to assume that God is completely unable to benefit those who are in hell. Why assume this?
September 23rd, 2011 | 11:11 am | #49
Rollen, if one is completely cut off from another and unable to commune or have relationship, it would seem to me that it would not be possible to care for those individuals any longer.
September 23rd, 2011 | 11:19 am | #50
Why assume that the person in hell is “completely cut off” in this way (a way, i.e., that renders God completely causally impotent with regard to the person in hell)?
September 23rd, 2011 | 12:16 pm | #51
The eternal separation between God and those in hell is created by sin. In addition to being loving, God is also holy and just. God will not tolerate sinfulness in His presence. If God would tolerate sin, then Christ’s death would not have been necessary.
September 23rd, 2011 | 1:24 pm | #52
Gwen, it sounds as if sinfulness, on your view, creates a complete causal barrier between God and the sinner (so that God cannot in any way causally affect the sinner). Is that right?
This would render God incapable of even punishing a sinner. It would also seem to make God’s supposed interaction with mankind (including the incarnation) inexplicable.
September 23rd, 2011 | 2:44 pm | #53
“If, for example, one inherits genetics that predispose one to being more open to religious experiences, one will possess a distinct advantage, over someone who does not, with respect to properly assessing whether Hell is a good, or bad choice.”
Personally, I find these psychological studies to be absurd at best and dubious at the worst. But let’s take for the sake of argument that they are all true. Being slightly predisposed to something doesn’t eliminate free will; that’s like saying because some people are smarter theologians than others that on the whole no one can understand God.
“One should be good, because of one’s love of Goodness, Truth, and one’s fellow human, rather than fear of punishment.”
I agree wholeheartedly, Bret. To be good is to try to be more like God, for He is good itself. However, the existence of hell does not necessarily mean that anyone who is trying to get into heaven is only doing so out of fear for hell. That cannot be the case, and it’s certainly not the message of Christ and the Apostles. The latter, in particular, recognized that we are called to be like Christ, not so that we may earn His favor but because through his death we have already received it. That, however, does not come freely; we must reject it or accept it, which we are all fully capable of doing.
I understand that you’re trying to emphasize Christ’s love, Bret, which is admirable, but if you aren’t going to cite any actual scripture that shows that actions don’t have consequences, then I’m afraid I cannot accept the universalist position. God does want us to be saved, but he also gave us free will; God is fully cognizent of the implications of free will.
September 23rd, 2011 | 6:38 pm | #54
So far, these false dichotomies have been brought up in this debate, and I think we ought expel them:
#1: Adams’ paradox: Either process theology (in which God is all-loving but not powerful enough to get his will done, i.e. not omnipotent) or hyper-Calvinism/determinism (God actively damns people to hell). Free will solves for this simply, as does the existence of sin. Sin exists; God does not will sin, but He allows it to exist. This is a strong indication that the free will that God has bestowed upon humanity actually has consequences, and are not temporal to this world. Just because God wants something doesn’t mean that He will always be satisfied. God wanted Onan to impregnate Tamar (Genesis 38), but he did not, and he was struck down dead immediately for not doing so. God does love all, but he is also fully aware of the consequences of wrong actions.
#2: Universe (1): We do good things solely because they are right, and in this universe all go to heaven; Universe (2): We do good things merely out of fear for divine retribution, and in this universe hell exists. This is plainly wrong, as in (2) we can still do good for good’s sake (as we should). Some people will do good merely out of fear for punishment, but that is not the only case.
September 23rd, 2011 | 10:44 pm | #55
“God does want us to be saved, but he also gave us free will; God is fully cognizent of the implications of free will.”
I’m so glad God changed my heart, and didn’t allow me to continue in my free will of being selfish and ungodly and having a heart and mind as heart as granite against His will. Praise His name forever!
September 24th, 2011 | 7:11 am | #56
Hi Nikolai: thanks for your kind comments. I certainly respect your views, you have formulated them intelligently.
you’re right that genetic predispositions don’t eliminate free will. Humans have free will, that’s modified, to some extent, by one’s genes and environment. If someone is genetically predisposed toward, say, bipolar disorder, he still has free will, but his choices could be restricted to some degree, compared with someone unhampered by any mental problem. He’s still completely responsible for his choices, however. He will just need to take medication, and get proper therapy.
This would apply to those with any other problem, that has a genetic basis. It causes some people to have to work harder, to make right choices. This seems unfair, unless, God plans on not loosing anyone to Hell.
Also, if someone is brought up in an environment where she is abused, she may not develop the capacity to make the same informed choices, as someone who grew up in a loving, supportive home.
Also, even though humans have free will, and we must be responsible, sometimes our ability to manifest it properly, is thwarted by the free choices of others. If a girl grows up in a n atheist home, this may set the stage for her choosing to be an atheist, and although her choice is free, it’s restricted by the home she grew up in.
There’s no question that humans have free will. One must never use one’s biology, or environment, for an excuse for bad behavior. We all know that we have control over our behavior.
But, it’s just a fact that it’s limited, to some extent, by our biology and environment. If someone is raised in criminal family, and doesn’t learn proper morals, he will use his free will differently than some who is brought up in a decent home.
You’re right that one does not necessarily have to be motivated by fear, to want to go to heaven, and avoid Hell, but I, well, fear, that more than just a few humans do look at it this way.
Since God knows everything, this would entail that he knows how everyone will exercise her/his free will, and hence, who will be in hell, which creates coherence problems, frankly, for the notion that God wants everyone to be saved.
It just seems to me that, if God wills something, being omnipotent, it will happen, necessarily. For God to will something, and it not happen, seems to imply that God is not omnipotent.
Certainly the bible talks about Hell. But this could be interpreted as a place where one resides temporarily, say, as punishment.
If we choose to go to Hell, and then one argues that the residents here, will be here forever, this would seem to entail that they cannot change their minds. After all, if they freely choose to go there, they can freely choose to leave. If someone argues that, once they’re there, they don’t change their minds, this would, ironically, imply that they’re “determined” to not change their minds. Why is their free will removed at this stage?
September 24th, 2011 | 7:30 am | #57
Nikolai, also, I think the notion of Hell being only temporary, satisfies both justice and mercy. The former, since it punishes people for bad behavior, and provies them with learning; the latter, because it’s not forever: hope exists. Notwithstanding Dante’s depressing assertion, in his INFERNO, it seems completely contradictory that God, who is all loving,would make some people not have hope.
There are problems: when God made humans, he knew which ones would use their free will to go to Hell; how does this make sense in light of his “willing” all to be saved? It seems odd that, a particular person, who he’s creating, who he knows will exercise his free will to go to hell, is also the object of God’s “will” or “hope” or “wish” that he be saved.
Perhaps, if one is referring to these traits (will, hope, wish, etc.) in a analogical fashion, as Aquinas argued we should, when referring to God’s characteristics, the latter are not meant in the same way as when we talk about human traits, this can be coherently maintained.
God gave us free will. We can use it for good, or evil. If one uses it for evil, one will suffer consequences, by going to Hell, for a certain period, not forever. Once this punishment is over, he will reside in heaven. This strikes me as doing justice to the scriptural references to Hell, but also justice for our understanding of God’s forgiveness, and pure Love.
September 24th, 2011 | 4:51 pm | #58
“…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever……. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”-John the Apostle Rev. 20:10,15
From everlasting to everlasting the wicked will be judged righteously. Those who are written in the book of life are shown mercy and grace and forgiveness in Christ alone. These souls deserve condemnation as well, but God…. . What a Savior! Hallelujah!
I long to be with Jesus, and my Father in heaven. Though I am unworthy, He has made me worthy in His precious blood.
Have a good Lord’s day!
September 24th, 2011 | 5:02 pm | #59
“I think the notion of Hell being only temporary, satisfies both justice and mercy. The former, since it punishes people for bad behavior, and provies them with learning; the latter, because it’s not forever: hope exists. Notwithstanding Dante’s depressing assertion, in his INFERNO, it seems completely contradictory that God, who is all loving,would make some people not have hope.”
I don’t think hell as temporary satisfies any of the Biblical references to hell; the only way you could get around this is horrible eisegesis a la Rob Bell, which doesn’t involve interpreting the scriptures as they would have been known to the people of the time. When the Apostles say “X shall not receive the kingdom of Heaven,” that doesn’t mean, “X won’t receive the kingdom of Heaven temporarily.” That makes no sense.
But more importantly: God gave us wills. This means he didn’t “create us with no hope.” That choice is ours to make.
“There are problems: when God made humans, he knew which ones would use their free will to go to Hell; how does this make sense in light of his “willing” all to be saved? It seems odd that, a particular person, who he’s creating, who he knows will exercise his free will to go to hell, is also the object of God’s “will” or “hope” or “wish” that he be saved.”
I don’t see a problem here. Lewis I think answers God’s omnipotence well; he notes that God is in time with us, actively creating. It’s not as if he’s watching us with an infinite fast forward button with which he can skip. God is spatially omnipresent; he is present in past, present, and future.
God does will that we can be saved. But he also did will that we have free will, which means that we suffer the consequences of our choices. Even though it is nice that all end up in heaven under your purview, it completely obliterates free will. In your view, evil is an unnecessary suffering in this life because no matter what we do we’ll all end up in heaven. This makes the problem of God and evil substantially worse, it seems quite plainly.
September 24th, 2011 | 9:12 pm | #60
Nikolai, i’m grateful for your insightful, thought inducing comments. you have clearly thought these issues out comprehensively.
I think, though, that there’s a consistency problem with the notion that God has created, and respects our free will so much, that he’s willing to lose many to Hell, and yet, he stops respecting our freedom, once we’re in hell.
Since humans are obviously highly fallible, it’s reasonable to expect that we can make big mistakes with respect to our eternal salvation, and it seems unfair, and inconsistent for God to value our freedom so much, in one realm, but to totally ignore it (in hell) in another.
If someone, after entering hell, realizes what a grave mistake that he’s made, and chooses to be in heaven, it seems strange that God would say, sorry, it’s too late, you didn’t have a change of heart at the right time. If God wants everyone saved, and he respects our freedom, it seems that the only way to do these things, is to allow those, with a change of heart, to come to heaven.
September 24th, 2011 | 11:18 pm | #61
“I think, though, that there’s a consistency problem with the notion that God has created, and respects our free will so much, that he’s willing to lose many to Hell, and yet, he stops respecting our freedom, once we’re in hell.”
First off, the problem that has been mentioned before on this blog still arises: if we can will our way out of hell, could we not will our way out of heaven?
This ties into a second problem, one that I think this point you’re making buys right into. There cannot be a infinite regress of free will; we can’t forever be bouncing back and forth between heaven and hell. Your advocacy amounts to there being no permanent consequences for our actions, which I think doesn’t make any sense.
But still, aside from all of these logical problems, one looming one has remained this entire time: there is nary a hint of scripture to support the universalist position. Our view of heaven and hell is informed by Christ and his Apostles, and this was never present in anything they said.
September 25th, 2011 | 12:38 am | #62
One thing that we can agree on, Nikolai,is that God is in charge. He has and will decide how much freedom we have, and what the options are.
Interestingly, you do recognize that God has placed limits on our freedom, when you state that there’s no infinite regress of choices. If a person wants to leave Hell, he cannot, because God chooses not to respect his freedom, after death.
Another way of stating this is, after one goes to hell, or heaven, one is determined to stay there.
So, we both accept that God controls where we go (you argue that it’s either heaven or hell, based on our choices here, I argue that it’s either heaven or hell, based on our choices here, but, eventually everyone will end up in heaven), it’s just the details. We both argue that freedom is limited, we just disagree about where, and when.
It seems that, if God respected our freedom fully, he would allow for us to change our minds, after death.
But you agree with me that there are limits. you say God limits us to either heaven or hell (what if we don’t want either?), and we cannot switch, I say it’s heaven, and we cannot leave.
I don’t consider it such a fatal objection to my view, that one is “destined” for heaven, since you also accept “destiny”, in the sense that one will either go to heaven or hell, and cannot leave.
September 25th, 2011 | 6:13 am | #63
“I don’t consider it such a fatal objection to my view, that one is “destined” for heaven, since you also accept “destiny”, in the sense that one will either go to heaven or hell, and cannot leave.”
Where you and I differ is that in your case, our destiny is set outright, before we’re even born. No matter what we do, we will always end up in heaven. That’s deterministic. In my view, our choices are what cause us to end up in one place or another. God doesn’t actively damn people; we choose hell with our wrong actions. In your case, this life ultimately amounts to a pointless interim prior to heaven. The very nature of determinism in regards to our present existence is that our current existence is nullified; nothing we do has actually any bearing on the ultimate end, for it is already set without anything to do with our wills.
In my view, this life actually has bearing on the life and the world to come, because it is comprised of freely made choices by individuals who have the ability to shape their lives.
Moreover, aside from the fact that there can’t be an infinite regress of choice (that is to say, we can’t always be bouncing back and forth between existences; finality must come eventually), this idea that God “recognizes our free will after we die” makes little sense to me. Of course someone suffering punishment will want to be rid of it; but that person doesn’t just get to change his mind in hell because he doesn’t like it. What we do in this life has bearing on the next.
September 25th, 2011 | 6:16 am | #64
But this of course forgets one other problem: what if some people choose hell, and then want to stay there? The great Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft put it well when he said, “The national anthem of hell will be: ‘I did it my way.’” We may think of hell as The Inferno, mostly because that seminal epic poem is so prominent in Western culture that we now take its depiction of hell as fact (in conjunction with some of the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation). But it doesn’t seem to me that hell is going to be like that, especially given the eisegesis that most often accompanies a reading of the Biblical text in regard to hell.
September 25th, 2011 | 12:20 pm | #65
“…it doesn’t seem to me that hell is going to be like that,”-Volk
Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God disagrees with you, according to His words.
My friend, you would better off never being born, than to go to hell. Never,,,, Being,,,, Born,,,, my friend.
September 25th, 2011 | 6:45 pm | #66
donsands,
Perhaps I should clarify. I do that hell will be a torturous experience. I don’t think, however, it is a literal lake of fire, nor do I think that it is a nine-tiered chasm in which the different layers are assigned to different types of sins. I think the Bible uses highly allegorical language for hell (as we never get an actual concrete description), and I think that Dante’s envisioning of hell, while as far as literature is concerned is amazing, is necessarily informed by Dante’s reading of scripture (and his view of certain politicians and church leaders of the time).
Hell, like heaven, is a place imbued with mystery. We know heaven will be glorious, but we don’t know exactly what it will be like. Likewise, we don’t know exactly what hell will be like, but we do know it will be a terrible place to be.
September 25th, 2011 | 8:33 pm | #67
Nikolai, thanks for your comments. It’s great to interact with you. You’re obviously someone who manifests intelligence, and conviction.
I do think that I need to clarify my views, to some extent. I believe in free will. We know from our own experience, that we have freedom, and therefore that we are morally responsible.
But it’s not absolute, as you accept, since you don’t believe that humans can manifest it, in either heaven or hell, at least with respect to whether one can change from heaven to hell, or vice versa.
So, are choices are restricted, to some degree, in your view. You accept the notion that God determines that we only have two alternatives with respect to the afterlife: heaven or hell. This is determinism, except of a lesser sort, than the notion of only one alternative.
However, I think that, to call mine, or yours “determinism”, without significant qualification, is misleading.
I do believe that people are responsible for their actions, and these actions have consequences.
But the consequences have to be proportional to the choices. Certainly, for example, it would be outrageously unfair, and immoral, to send someone to life in prision, for theft. Similarly, it would be, I would submit, outrageously unfair and immoral, for someone to have to spend his or her eternal life in, as you put it, “a terrible place to be.”
God realizes that our freedom, although he respects it, can lead us astray. Someone who chooses drugs, should never be allowed to live a life misery, because we respect his free will.
Frankly, the notion that people will spend eternity in hell, is a reflection of giving too much respect to freedom. Freedom is to be respected, but love, yes love, takes higher priority. Let me explain.
If i have a child who chooses to smoke crack, I will not, and I believe that you wouldn’t either, Nikolai, if you had a child who did this, argue, it’s too bad, but he has a right to his freedom.
No. We would argue that, having proper freedom presupposes a normal fuctioning mind. one who decides to take drugs, does not possess a normally functioning mind, and to allow him to continue out of a respect for his freedom, will only lead to his destruction.
Similarly, someone who chooses to be in hell, is addicted to the drug, if you will, of self worship, which will necessarily lead to his eternal destruction. and, just as you would never abandon your daughter, say, to her choice of cocaine, and living in the streets, God would never abandon any of his children to a “terrible place”, forever, out of respect for their freedom, when this freedom necessarily leads to self destruction.
September 25th, 2011 | 8:34 pm | #68
Nikolai,
Hell is taught fairly clear in the Holy Writ, as is heaven. I encourage you to study the Word of God, which is the truth. Man’s thoughts can be either good, or bad, such as Dante’s. But, the Word of God is quite revealing, when we pray and ask our lord to open our eyes and ears to His truth.
It would be better off if a soul was never born, NEVER, than to die and go to hell. That my friend says it all.
September 25th, 2011 | 8:59 pm | #69
Nikolai, if someone chooses to jump off the empire state building, do we allow him to do so, out of respect for his freedom? Why or why not? If someone chooses to not take his antiepileptic medications, do we let him suffer the consequences, of his resultant siezures? Why or why not?
September 25th, 2011 | 10:32 pm | #70
Okay, there’s a clear disanalogy between the scenarios you’re talking about and one’s salvation. We can try our best to make someone believe in Christ and affirm His word, but belief can’t be forced. Some actions can; we may make someone try to do community service, a strong Christian virtue, but that doesn’t make her a Christian. Belief is a very personal choice.
On a more technical level though, there are clear points of disanalogy. With the Empire State scenario:
(A): The person desires to jump off the Empire State building.
(B): We stop her because it will lead to her death.
(C): We are capable of stopping her; we can physically grab her from the building and hold her back.
(D): Stopping her prevents her from physically dying.
With hell:
(A): The person desires to go to hell.
(B): We try to stop him because it will lead to his damnation.
(C): We are capable to some extent; that is, we can try to show him the proper way of getting into heaven.
(D): We cannot physically stop him from going to hell, however: we cannot force him to believe something (for that would not be genuine faith). Nor can we physically descend into hell and pull him out, bringing him into heaven.
(E): We can try our best to save someone from hell, but we cannot physically prevent this ourselves. That is between him and God.
These points are more than enough to show that those two things are not at all the same. You’re confusing the agents of action here in regards to saving.
But even more remains the ever-pressing issue: there is no scripture, no word of Christ, to support the idea of a positively deterministic God.
September 25th, 2011 | 10:41 pm | #71
donsands,
I agree with you in the severity of hell. What I’m saying is that as for hell’s actual composition, we’re not quite clear. The Bible, inspired as it is, is a work of literature, and as such it employs highly metaphorical language that is not meant to be read literally (St. Augustine makes some excellent points on this subject regarding the creation account in Genesis). Hell is clearly painted as an unpleasant place; as for its literal composition, that is left up to the imagination, as is heaven. The idea that heaven is “clear” is even more wrong, I think. Heaven, as Christians know will be glorious, but for one to claim that he can understand being in God’s presence “clearly” teeters over the edge of heresy for me.
September 26th, 2011 | 12:34 am | #72
Nikolai,
I respectfully disagree. The analogy is apt. Why? Because in both cases we have free will being exercised, in both cases the people are choosing things that are bad for them.
We rightly choose to interfere with someone who is deciding to kill him or herself. Why? Because even though this person is exercising her free will, and free will is a good thing, we rightly judge that her life is of more importance.
With respect to the person who decides to go to Hell, God decides to interfere with this person deciding to go to hell. Why? because even though this person is exercising her free will, and free will is a good thing, God rightly judges that her eternal well being is of more importance.
September 26th, 2011 | 12:40 am | #73
Nikolai, also you seem to believe that the person must also believe in Christ, in order to be saved. I don’t accept this premise. I believe that through Christ we are saved, but because this is a free radical act of generousity on god’s part, and it’s not contingent on anyone “accepting” or “believing” in Christ. Christ does not require that of anyone. He’s too generous for that.
September 26th, 2011 | 6:07 am | #74
Bret, any person who would make confident assertions about Christ’s character or intentions must be able to point to some source (or sources) of information and say, “I believe this source gives us reliable information about Christ, I can point to this locus here in the source to back up my assertions, and the source provides no reliable information to contradict what I am saying.”
It seems to me that claims like you have made come from someplace other than the documents that give us the information we have about Christ. I’d like for you to tell us from where it was that you got the information that led you to this conclusion, and how it squares with passages like John 3:16-21, Matthew 7:13-27, Matthew 8:11-12, and Matthew 25:31-46.
If you got your information from somewhere other than the NT, I would suggest you re-think it; for if it’s not based on the actual evidence of Christ’s life, then it’s based on someone’s imagination. In that case it’s made up, invented, false; an assertion made against all evidence.
Jesus Christ is gracious, giving, and self-sacrificing to a degree we cannot even imagine. Last night I did a word study on the word “gift” in the NT, and I was blown away by all that God gives to us. (Here’s one sub-selection of locations that speak of God’s gift: John 4:10; Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17; Rom 5:15-17; 2 Cor 9:15; Eph 3:7; 4:7). Thank God for his incredible generosity! He offers an incredibly good eternity to those who (John 1:12) receive him, who believe in him. The NT bears consistent witness to this.
But the NT never says anywhere he will give his gift to those who don’t want it when he offers it, which is while we remain alive on this earth. On this, too, the NT is consistent.
Our eternal destinies will not be decided by any imaginary Christ but by the real one.
September 26th, 2011 | 9:19 am | #75
Anyone want to try to make sense out of JMR’s comments about the “wrath” of God?
September 26th, 2011 | 12:22 pm | #76
Rollen,
If I understand JMR correctly, God’s wrath is not an emotion. Since God cannot change, and since God is love, and since God is not a set of attributes but rather a personal being, then His wrath must be intrinsic to who He is and consistent with His character. God’s wrath, then, cannot be another facet of God that is shown to some and hidden from others, at least not in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, God’s wrath is indistinguishable from His goodness. The difference is in the one receiving. An apt analogy comes from Lewis’s “The Magician’s Nephew” wherein Aslan speaks and is heard by some to be speaking intelligibly and by others as making growling sounds. I think Lewis was intending to make the same point JMR is making.
September 26th, 2011 | 1:36 pm | #77
Does this mean that God never actually has any wrath?
September 26th, 2011 | 3:50 pm | #78
Bret,
But your analogy (a) still falls prey to the problem of infinite regress of choice and (b) confuses the agent of action. Comparing our responsibility to stop people from killing themselves, thereby undermining the life God has given them to live on this Earth (see Philippians 1), and God’s ability to predetermine an entire existence is not analogous. In our case, stopping someone from committing suicide is not tantamount to determining their life forever. Theoretically, he or she could try to commit suicide and succeed after we have successfully rescued him or her from the first attempt at suicide. In God’s case, rescuing someone from hell and keeping him or her in heaven permanently is effectively predetermining that person’s life.
But let’s assume for a moment that the analogy is correct. By that token, God is morally culpable for the people who do successfully commit suicide. He could have prioritized their lives over their free will, but he didn’t. As mentioned prior, God does wish for us to live out our lives here on Earth (i.e. our lives here do have bearing on the next), but in the case of people who commit suicide he, by your logic, cares more about that person’s free will than their ability to stay alive. I see this as a deeply problematic problem with your casuistry.
And I echo Tom’s comments on the scriptural presentation of Christ. I admire your attempt to magnify God’s grace and mercy, especially since we live in a Christian culture that often emphasizes fire and brimstone more than anything else, but I cannot deny who Christ presents Himself as in the Bible. That Christ is no fatalist; He respects our wills, even when they do harm to ourselves.
September 26th, 2011 | 5:50 pm | #79
Also, thank you for the dialogue here, Bret. We’ve made it through an entire reasoned conversation without condemning each other to hell or calling each other heretics. I think we’re both just Christian people trying to better understand God’s word and his call for us. We’re clearly convicted in our dissent, but we do so in a manner that doesn’t strip ourselves of our humanity and our love.
It just makes me sad that not everyone can live up to this quality of debate.
September 26th, 2011 | 5:55 pm | #80
*That last sentence wasn’t referring to anyone in particular; I was merely referring to the inflated, hyperbolic rhetoric that pervades our political and religious discourse these days. I realize now after typing it how cryptic that was.
September 26th, 2011 | 7:52 pm | #81
“It just makes me sad that not everyone can live up to this quality of debate.”
Jesus couldn’t, could he. he even whipped people out of the temple. there is a time for war, and a time for peace.
September 26th, 2011 | 8:33 pm | #82
donsands,
First of all, I don’t believe in any ethic of war coming from Christ’s teaching, but that’s tangential to the actual debate we’re having. Do you see any evidence in scripture of Christ demonizing his opponents, treating them as inhuman, and resorting to cheap name-calling? I don’t. Christ showed love to all, even those He disagreed with.
Whipping people out of the temple is not the same as trying to degrade people. Christ was cleansing the temple, as it was becoming unclean with the immoral commerce of the time. And, by the way, Christ wasn’t in a debate. He wasn’t arguing. He didn’t hit or harm anyone in that incident; he did overturn tables, but that isn’t tantamount to a “war” or anything of the like.
September 26th, 2011 | 8:35 pm | #83
Donsands,
“Jesus couldn’t, could he. he even whipped people out of the temple. there is a time for war, and a time for peace.”
…..huh????
Even if your sentiment is correct, this is a time for peace an discussion isn’t it??? If not, then I sincerely fear you coming to my house to kill me because you might disagree with me.
September 26th, 2011 | 10:20 pm | #84
Thanks, Nikolai, for the debate. I’m grateful to you, for contributing to a rational discussion. It doesn’t look like we’re going to convince each other, but that’s ok. You’re obviously a very intelligent, rational person, and I respect your commitment to the truth, as you see it. Thanks again.
September 26th, 2011 | 10:29 pm | #85
Tom,
thanks for your, as always, inteligent and thought provoking questions and insights. Based on Christ’s character, and infinite mercy, it’s reasonable to deduce that he would never allow anyone to suffer forever in Hell.
Now, scripture is clear, however, that Hell does exist, and some may go there. But there’s no reason to believe that this will be the place that these humans, created in the image of God, will remain forever.
I think that biblical interpretation is a very difficult process. The four Gospels, that the later Church concluded should constitute part of the offical canon, cannot, in my fallible opinion, be taken literally. Even the earliest of these Gospels, Mark, was probably written at least thirty years after the Ressurection of Christ. I, therefore, believe that one cannot take every part of what is written as absolute truth. They were written by men, and allow very important, were never meant to be interpreted as directly from God, to the brains of the writers, to paper.
September 27th, 2011 | 5:30 am | #86
Bret,
You deny that the Gospels can be fully believed, and yet you draw the conclusion that “Based on Christ’s character, and infinite mercy, it’s reasonable to deduce that he would never allow anyone to suffer forever in Hell.” What do we know of Christ’s character and mercy apart from the Gospels? You have chosen to interpret the Gospels in a certain way, and to draw a certain picture in your mind of Christ’s character. Apparently you believe some portions of the Gospels are true; otherwise you wouldn’t think there was anything whatsoever to be known about Christ’s character. But you don’t take all of the Gospels’ information to be true. So it would seem you must have some criterion for selection, by which you decide which portions to accept and which to discard. So I’m curious—what is that criterion, Bret?
September 27th, 2011 | 12:44 pm | #87
“Even if your sentiment is correct…”-Livingston
It is the truth. Jesus whipped people out of the Temple. he was angry. I’m not saying we need to whip each other. But there is certainly a time for anger, if it is righteous. Paul tells us: “Be angry, but sin not.”
My point, and bottom line is that debates can be very heated at times. We humans can become emotional about truth, and it can actually be a good thing. How’s that?
If our Lord, Jesus Christ, whipped people and was mad about their sin, then surely we can be mad about sin, or especially if someone is twisting and perverting the truth, the Gospel, can’t we.
And, I guess I need to say, we should be violent, and killing one another, since you mentioned me killing you.
I’m simply speaking common sense here from the Scriptures. Hope you understand that. But, if you can’t, and it makes you angry, then that may be a good thing for God to use in your heart.
have a pleasant day my friend.
September 27th, 2011 | 12:46 pm | #88
Big Whoops! “we should be violent” Should be NOT be violent. Sorry about that chief.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact