For many atheists, no amount of argument will ever convince them that a loving God could consign any of His creation to Hell. One such challenger put his objection like this:"It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions."
It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide a satisfying answer to this challenge. After all, even for believers, the doctrine of hell is difficult, and goes against our own inclinations - to forgive ourselves, to lessen our own culpability, to judge ourselves as "basically good." It's only by resort to Scripture, and a bit of philosophy, that we affirm that a just God must have a place of punishment if there is to be such a thing as free will.
A "just" God does justice, which means to punish or reward appropriately. In the Western tradition, we punish people for the actions they commit, but the extent of punishment is dependent also on the person's mental state, and a person's mental state is reflective of his or her beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person's beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices and wants the victim dead; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering a person's beliefs may well be relevant, especially if those beliefs have motivated the criminal behavior.
But the challenger's mistake is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for not accepting the gospel. Christians believe that people are condemned for their sinful behavior - the "wages of sin is death" - not for what they fail to do. The quoted challenge is like saying that the sick man died of "not going to the doctor." No, the person died of a specific condition - perhaps cancer or a heart attack - which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can - and does - provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don't normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift - i.e. eternity spent in His presence - from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.
The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our "kind" or "generous" behavior. This fails to grasp what God is - a perfect being. We cannot impress Him. What we do right we should do. We don't drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. This is expected of them. They can't commit a murder and then claim that punishment is unfair, because they had been kind and generous in the past. When a person gets his mind around the idea of what perfection entails, trying to impress a perfect Creator with our "basic goodness" no longer seems like such a good option.
So, in the end, we find ourselves in a predicament. We use our free will to rebel against our Creator, but we want Him to accept this rebellion, and us, with "no questions asked." When God judges us, He finds us wanting in both our actions and our beliefs. But in His goodness, He also provides a solution to our problem, a bridge that gaps the divide that exists between us and Him. There is nothing unfair in any of this.
After all, entry onto that bridge is free, and available to everyone. But we must first want to cross over.
Posts
6 comments:
Excellent post! If there is anything I could add (wishing I could do it as articulately), it would be that the "good", "kind" and "generous" in our society are often simply reaching a level of cultural acceptance -- that is, being "good", "kind" or "generous" according to accepted cultural norms (in the vein of "even the pagans do that" of the sermon on the mount). They would like personal credit for centuries of the civilizing influence of the gospel, when, in fact, they are typically failing to reach even the moral standard that they claim for themselves.
i would have to kindly disagree with this.
We are judged on what we know as Paul stated in Romans. Christ mentioned this to the Pharisees - they would have been without sin if they would have never saw Christ. But they became jealous and filled with rage and murder.
The bible clearly states everyone is judged on what the principle of sowing and reaping.
2 Cor 5:10For we are all to stand before the judgment-seat of the Messiah, that each may receive retribution in the body, for what he hath done in it, whether of good, or whether of evil.
There are a number of other verses that support this in the OT/NT such as Matt 7 where they knew Jesus and performed many wonders in His name - but they were lawless and He stated that He didnt know them despite they claimed to know Him.
Paul warned about this multiple times:
6And I say: Walk ye in the Spirit; and never follow the cravings of the flesh.
17For the flesh craveth that which is repugnant to the Spirit; and the Spirit craveth that which is repugnant to the flesh: and the two are the opposites of each other, so that ye do not that which ye desire.
18But if ye are guided by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19For the works of the flesh are known, which are whoredom, impurity, lasciviousness,
20idol-worship, magic, malice, contention, rivalry, wrath, strife, divisions, discords,
21envy, murder, drunkenness, revelling, and all the like things. 6And I say: Walk ye in the Spirit; and never follow the cravings of the flesh.
And they who perpetrate these things, as I have before told you, and also now tell you, do not inherit the kingdom of God
Note - as I have before told you, and also now tell you, do not inherit the kingdom of God
There are many other scriptures... Plenty in OT / NT.
So much for mental accent..
Shalom,
Mike Singer
I would like to just make a small comment on what Anitpas Knight said above.
In Matthew 7 about the men performing wonders in Christs name..... these men did not bear fruits of the spirit,(Jesus said so right before in Matt 7:20-21) so Christ said he did not know them because they were using his name in emptiness, they did not truly have a relationship with Him and thats why He did not know them. Just before He says in (Matt 7:21) that not everyone will enter His kingdom expect those who do the will of the Father.
This does, in a way, justify what you were saying about our works but if you keep reading in Matt 7:24-27 Jesus talks about building your faith on a strong foundation, that is, Him. The men who used His name were using it in vain not actually having built a strong foundation of faith in Jesus Christ.
So it all ultimately comes down to our beliefs right? Our belief in Christ is the very core of our actions, fruits, works, what have you.
In my opinion, Timothy Keller said it best, "The Bible’s purpose is not so much to show you how to live a good life. The Bible’s purpose is to show you how God’s grace breaks into your life against your will and saves you from the sin and brokenness otherwise you would never be able to overcome… religion is ‘if you obey, then you will be accepted’. But the Gospel is, ‘if you are absolutely accepted, and sure you’re accepted, only then will you ever begin to obey’. Those are two utterly different things."
Now this is all what has been revealed to me personally from reading Matthew 7, if there is something big I am missing please tell me, I am merely a student anyway.
What you've written makes sense.It bears remembering however that the Bible needs to be assessed and interpreted in light of the whole. It can be misleading if we focus on a particular phrase or paragraph or even chapter if doing so blinds us to other concepts. But having said that, I think we're on safe theological grounds concluding that it is belief in Christ that saves. Works flow from our love of Christ; they may bring us rewards, both here and in the life to come, but they don't earn us admission.
I appreciate this post very much as it clarifies the basis by which people can be condemned to hell. However, the final statement ("we must first want to cross over") undercuts the Gospel by hinging our salvation not on what Christ has done but on what we do. According to my sinful nature, I am utterly opposed to God and dead in sin (Romans 8:7, Eph. 2:1), ie. not at all interested in a bridge to Him nor wanting to cross over it. It is only by God's grace, received through faith in Jesus, that I or anyone else is saved.
AAW
Thanks for the feedback. I think we are actually saying the same thing. God does all the work, including giving me the capacity to respond. When I said "want" to cross over, I did not mean to imply that our "wanting to" actually accomplished anything; God still is the one in charge who is doing the work. But he will not force us to respond to him. Do you agree?
Post a Comment