You've seen the signs, I'm sure. You know the situations, I'm sure. "We're outraged because bad things have happened and we don't think we've received justice!" Well, I'm not going to talk about those situations. I'm going to talk about a different one.
It isn't really hard to go through Scripture and find a host of reasons to complain about justice. I mean, just start with the concept of Hell. Hey, what's up with that? We're looking at some not-too-bad people who just don't "accept Christ as their personal savior" and, boom, they're going to eternal damnation? Hey! Some of them never heard about Jesus. What's up with that? At church we looked recently at the Ananias and Sapphira story (Acts 5:1-13). They sold some property, kept some of the price back, and told the Apostles, "This is what we sold it for." Struck dead. On the spot. For what? Not for keeping money back. That was fine. No, it was for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). Really? I mean, wouldn't we classify this as a "little white lie"? Or how about the mysterious story of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-3). These were Aaron's sons, the high priests at the time. They suffered the ignominious death of being consumed by fire before the Lord. Wow. Their sin? They "offered unauthorized fire." (Lev 10:1) Wait ... what? In what sense was fire authorized or not? What distinguished between authorized and unauthorized fire? From all appearances they didn't actually do anything wrong; they just did something that was not commanded. And that gave them an up-close-and-personal demonstration of "Our God is a consuming fire." (Heb 12:29) Seems harsh. Another disturbing incident is the great Uzzah incident. Well, maybe not so great. I wouldn't doubt that some of you never heard about it. But right there in 2nd Samuel we find the story of Uzzah (2 Sam 6:1-10). The Ark of God, stolen earlier, was being returned to Israel. So David got a couple of brothers to help him get it back to Jerusalem. One brother was in front and the other alongside the cart with the ark on it when it started to tip. Uzzah, out of sheer reverence, put his hand up to keep God's Ark from falling into the mud and instantly God struck him down (2 Sam 6:7). How is that justice? So upset was David (2 Sam 6:8) that he didn't even take the Ark back (2 Sam 6:9-10). Oh, and who doesn't remember that quaint little story when Elisha was walking along and was insulted by a gang of boys (the text says "small boys") (2 Kings 2:23-25). That's right, insulted. They called him "baldhead". For that he cursed them in the name of the Lord ... and "two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys." Whoa, now, hold on! That's a bit of an overkill isn't it? (And a bad pun, I suppose.) Now, some have argued that it wasn't "small boys", but possibly adolescents or even servants (a possible translation of the word used for "children") and "little" refers to their character, not their size. Big deal. Insults produced ... death. "Sticks and stones my break my bones but words will never hurt me. On the other hand, you might be in a lot of trouble."
We, of course, could go on and on. The Flood (killed all but 8 humans on the planet), the capture of both Israel and Judah, or how about the classic "kill 'em all" edict from God against the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:3)? Lots of examples. We get it. Looks tough for God. To Abraham's question, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Gen 18:25), some might be tempted to suggest, "Good question" or, worse, "No, apparently not." Many have come to the "aid of God" by simply assuring us that "That stuff never actually happened and you who take the Bible as true and, worse, infallible will have to admit that your God is a moral monster." I mean, seriously, when God strikes dead a man whose name means "God is gracious" for a little white lie, what else can you conclude? ("Ananias" means "God is gracious".)
Looks tough for God. Or, does it? We have two possible approaches here. One is the ever-popular "plausible deniability" approach. "Never happened. You guys are reading as history things that were never meant to be historical. They may have been myth or legend or parable or allegory or maybe even pure twaddle, but it never actually happened." Or there is the "Okay, it happened" approach where you, you know, go with what the Bible says. Is it necessary to conclude that, if the Bible is accurate on these things, God is a moral monster? I don't think so.
Let's try it from another direction. Assuming that God did strike Nadab and Abihu dead for "strange fire" and Uzzah for touching the ark and Ananias and Sapphira for a "white lie", here's the question. Was He just in doing so? Your answer is determined by your view of God (not vice versa). You might answer, "No, He was not just" and your view starts with a diminished "God" who is subject -- subject to you and your personal code of justice. You might answer, "Yes, He was just in doing so" even if you're having trouble with it, because your view begins with "God is right." I would answer, "How can we even ask such a question?" because my view begins with a Holy God who is above our evaluations, values, and standards and is always right. (That, of course, is a "Yes" answer -- God is always perfectly just.)
It puts a new twist on "No justice, no peace." If God is not just -- if He is not just in the way He has responded to His creation as Lord and Master -- then He is not God and we are without peace. If God is unjust in giving eternal torment to those who have earned it, we are without peace. On the other hand, if God is just in all of this, then we who squirm at stories and concepts like these have some readjustment to do in our thinking. Either He is the Righteous Lord and His Word is reliable ... or not.
27 comments:
we have a nasty habit of viewing God thru our sin biased vision, supposing that God is just like us. perhaps if we could get a glimpse of His Holiness we would become undone and cry out " woe is me for i am unclean, and i come from a people of unclean lips". apart from Christ no flesh can stand in the presence of our HOLY GOD. if one wants justice; then they must be judged as well. i prefer Mercy, and as such i am commanded to pray for those who want justice, so that they too may receive Grace and Mercy.
Either He is the Righteous Lord and His Word is reliable ... or not.
Third option: OR your interpretations and understandings of God and how to interpret the Bible are fallible and mistaken.
Yes, Bob. I cannot fathom those who say, "If that is what God is like, I want nothing to do with Him" rather than, "If that is what God is like, apparently I need to revise my understanding and values." But, like "Anonymous" there (which, I suspect is Dan T hiding behind the anonymous moniker because I won't post his comments), they feel that "My interpretation cannot be wrong, so the Scriptures and the historical understanding of them from the days of Israel through today are wrong and God is the kindly old gentleman I picture him to be." They fail to see that sin is as big as it is in the same way they fail to see that no justice means no peace for us.
Anonymous,
Due to the response here and the echo of another person (who has been banned from commenting here) that loved that kind of response, I am tempted to assume that you are indeed a coward, that very same person hiding behind an "anonymous" tag to get around my preventing you from commenting. But, since I don't have proof that it is, indeed, the infamous Dan T. at work here, I'll respond as if you are not that person and treat you as if your comment is real.
You referenced my two-point possibility and offered a third. Maybe my interpretation is wrong. I can only assume that you didn't actually read the post. The entire thing was built on the problem -- did God actually do these things and, if so, was He justified? I offered two possible answers. 1) No, He didn't. 2) Yes, He did. Then I pointed out that if He didn't, then there are a lot of problems with justice and the reliability of Scripture. If He didn't, Uzzah, Nadab and Abihu, Ananias and Sapphira, and that whole Elisha story (along with a lot of others) never happened. Presented as historical and believed by Jews and Christians throughout history to be historical, we would have to conclude that none of that was true. And since Luke wrote Acts and, of course, the Gospel of Luke and since all four Gospels were written in the same style of presenting an historical account, it would be likely that the entire story of Jesus and all the outlandish stuff that entails is equally untrue. Along with a goodly portion of the Old Testament. Oh, but we're not done. If your position that He did not do this is true, then the concept of Hell, considered by most to be the most unjust item in all of Scripture, is false. In which case Jesus died for nothing and all of the New Testament writers who reference that grave concern for the unsaved were wrong, along with all of Christendom from the beginning until now. What you end up with in "your interpretation and understandings of God" at this point is ... a hollow entity without reliability, justice, or force.
In the end, then, my proposal still stands. Either He is the Righteous Lord and His Word is reliable ... or not. You, as always, are free to believe that He is not righteous and His Word is not reliable, but "your interpretation is fallible and mistaken" doesn't solve that problem. It simply makes my point.
I literally just wrote almost this same thing at my blog. If you start from a position where God and His acts must pass the judgement of our flawed, limited, finite human brains and what makes sense to us, then you are simply trying to shrink God down into a box that you can understand. Once that is done. then you are left with a God who can be manipulated into supporting whatever you want because your human ability to make sense of things is now the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
The other option is to acknowledge God's sovereignty and power and to trust in His justice, mercy, goodness and love, and to acknowledge and live in the mystery of what we may not know for certain.
FYI, It seems that Dan has a new smart phone and when he uses it to comment it shows up an anonymous. So I suspect you are correct in your assumption. It will be interesting, if it is Dan, if he will admit it.
Shrinking God down, coupled with inflating Man, has been sinful Man's strategy through all of time. I don't want to do it.
I know that Dan shows up as "Anonymous" at times. Seen it at your blog. But he generally signs his name at the end, which is perfectly fine. This anonymous did not. So I'm not sure.
GOD IS HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.
let God be Just and every man made a lier. so that all may stand condemned in sin under the law. if God sees fit to kill all mankind, he is still just and Holy. and yet He is merciful in that He, by his amazing grace, chose to save some. only man with his blood stained hands, cries out that God is unjust. his condemnation is deserved.
who has believed our message? to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
they are forever watching but never see. forever listening but never hear.
i like what Craig said. that was a very good analogy. if i understand what he is saying.
because we cannot fathom the depth and breath of God's nature, we being sinful, try to reduce the LORD to our own limited dimensions.
I don't it's Dan T. This wasn't inane and incomprehensible. Want fully thought through, but doesn't fit his style. Plus it's only one sentence, when has he ever been able to limit himself to so few words?
David and Craig, "Anonymous" was, indeed, Dan T. He offered two more comments, including the affirmation that it was him. Which means you won't get to see the continued claims that my interpretation is wrong ... you know, without any actual, let alone biblical reason as to why. The best he has is "I disagree" and "You make God out to be a monster" kinds of things. No reasons. No answers. No response to the problems this creates. No alternatives.
Bob, I keep that quote from Whitefield on my blog to remind me of what you said. "Before you can speak peace to your heart, you must be brought to see that God may damn you for the best prayer you ever put up ..." To the other side, we're "damaged goods" and grace is almost required. To me, we're damned goods and any kindness or mercy from God to me is startling. I am the "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner" guy, not the other one.
David,
Good point. It is however his exact position. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not anonymous has the courage to identify themselves.
Stan,
I suspected as much. I'm dealing with the same situation at my blog right now as he (sort of) argues that newborns are 100% free from any sort of sin.
The question I've asked in the past is "Are we sinners because we commit sin, or do we commit sin because we're sinners?". To me this is a crucial foundational question. Because if your argue the first then you end up with the possibility of a sinless human being as well as being saved by our own righteousness. Neither seems a biblical option.
I don't think that it is that we are born sinners, but we are born without the capacity to not sin. I've kind of gone around about this with Stan and my brother. For the longest time I believed that we are condemned from the point of conception. Us being made with a dead spirit (if it were alive we would have the capacity to not sin) is what leads us to our first actual sin. I'm still not completely sold on "all infants/unborn/mentally challenged get a free pass into heaven", but I am will to hedge my bets on God's grace if someone is in need of comforting. I would not be upset with God if He did condemn them, they are spiritual dead and only the Spirit can change that, and this He would be completely just. I worry that the crowd that believes while heatedly that He saves them are in the same danger as those that deny God's wrath or much of anything else listed in this post.
David,
I've spent enough time looking at this to be reasonably convinced that God shows mercy to those who deserve it including newborns. My bigger problem is the insistence that we are born 100% free from sin and that we then earn punishment (or salvation) because of what we do (or don't do). I've also seen this played out to, "Do you really think that someone who has told 1 tiny little lie is deserving of hell?". It just turns into a system of salvation by works rather than by grace. You nailed it when you said the we are born with a dead spirit which is made alive through Christ, that is exactly how I look at it. While the other side is arguing that we are born sinless and sin ourselves into hell through our actions.
The bottom line for me is that I will always err on the side of assuming that God will show grace or mercy to those who are unable to understand for themselves.
"Do you really think that someone who has told 1 tiny little lie is deserving of hell?"
I suspect, Craig, that this in part is behind the outrage against what I wrote in this post, because Ananias and Sapphira told a "tiny little lie" and were struck dead for it. That is, a reasonable, Bible-believing person being asked that question would have to say, "Well, it appears that this is precisely what the Bible teaches."
You're right. If infants are born sinless, then:
1. It is possible to remain sinless throughout one's life.
2. Salvation is not given to infants who die; they go to Heaven because they earned it. (Salvation is not required for those who never sin.)
3. Jesus was not the only sinless person to have ever lived.
4. While the Bible claims that death is the result of sin, infants die all the time for something they never did.
5. God is unjust (or the Bible's clear presentation of the magnitude of sin is wrong).
It's what we do. Magnify Man; diminish God. Part of that is "minimize sin". Now it's a "transgression", a "mistake", an "error", not much more than a "boo-boo". And we end up with Universalism or, at least, practical Universalism, nullify Hell, and cut out the Cross. New and improved Christianity ... you know, without all that "bibley" stuff in it.
"Magnitude of sin" is exactly the problem. Since we only have the experience of gradation of sin, we assume God has one as well. We seem to forget "anyone that is guilty of one of these laws is guilty of them all". Sins against our fellow Man are gradational because we are equal. All sins against God are equal because He is so much more than us. His holiness is so far beyond what we can actually comprehend that the slightest infraction against Him is deserving of the ultimate punishment.
My question for you though, if God does condemn those unable to understand, will you still praise Him, or does He no longer fit your understanding of God?
Stan,
two things at church this morning struck me as being relevant.
1. The essence of all sin and of our sinful nature is our desire to place ourselves in God's place. This just really struck me this morning in a way I hadn't really thought about.
2. The more we are aware of God's holiness, the more we are aware of our sinfulness.
I'm pretty sure that substituting the term "bent toward sin" or "tendency toward sin" in place of sin nature is simply minimizing sin and maximizing our ability to overcome it. If we can convince ourselves it's just a tendency, not our nature then we can seemingly control it. If we can just put a number on how many sins or how bad the sin's are that will tip the scales toward hell, we can just walk along the edge.
The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that establishing the relative positions of humanity, God, and sin is crucial for understanding Christianity. As long as folks place their Reason or what makes sense to them as the final arbiter of right and wrong then it's just the newest version of "Did God really say...". I may be late to the party on really giving this the thought it deserves, but I just don't see how any of Christianity works with human Reason or sense as the last word.
"My question for you though, if God does condemn those unable to understand, will you still praise Him, or does He no longer fit your understanding of God?"
Not that I'm afraid of answering but I have the same question for you that Dan wouldn't answer. What do you mean when you use the word condemned?
"The essence of all sin and of our sinful nature is our desire to place ourselves in God's place."
Thus, a "tiny white lie" is classified as Cosmic Treason (so to speak), an uprising against the Most High. Because the problem isn't the lie; it is the revolt. That is why a single transgression makes us liable for all (James 2:10). It's also the reason that a "tiny white lie" crosses the threshold. (I'm curious what the other side would classify as sufficiently egregious to merit damnation.)
"The more we are aware of God's holiness, the more we are aware of our sinfulness."
Precisely. Which is why Bob was giving us "God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY."
"The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that establishing the relative positions of humanity, God, and sin is crucial for understanding Christianity."
ABSOLUTELY!
Condemn, sentence to eternal damnation.
David,
This is the problem I have with Dan right now. It seems as if he and you are equating being condemned (found guilty) with the punishment (sentence). So while I would argue that we are all justly condemned, that Jesus interposes Himself between conviction and sentencing and has already taken our punishment. Why I draw the distinction is that it's not the condemnation per se, but what happens after the condemnation that is important. In Dan's case this is simply a blatant ploy to elicit an emotional response to the unjust condemnation of a "sinless" newborn in a bid to score rhetorical points. I'm not quite sure of where you are coming from.
Do you understand why I asked the question?
Craig, as I've been following the conversation between you and David, it looks ... odd. The question was whether or not you would praise God if He condemned those who do not understand. It appears as if your answer is "Jesus interposes Himself between conviction and sentencing and has already taken our punishment." This looks like the standard universalist position. Jesus paid it all. No one suffers the sentence of Hell. I suspect you're actually referring only to the infant question, giving a reason upon which God might not send infants to Hell. But it looks like a free ticket to Heaven for everyone.
Stan,
Sorry for the confusion. I'm more referring to the fact that Dan (and possibly David) is using the term condemned as a shorthand to refer to both (in legal terms) the conviction as well as the sentence. I'm suggesting that Jesus sacrifice fits between those two events.
I'm specifically thinking of this in the context of newborns/those who have no knowledge which is obviously a very specific and singular situation. I feel pretty confident that God will treat newborns who die with mercy and will bring them to Himself. Part of my problem is that I don't really agree with using the term condemn in this situation, but am using it since it is the word being used by others.
In the larger sense of salvation, I tend toward the reformed position of election, and would never intentionally suggest a universalist approach. I think that the distinction I am trying to draw is that all humans are condemned, yet Jesus intercedes between that and the sentence for those who are saved.
One of the interesting things to me is that if one accepts that God is sovereign and that He alone decides who is saved, then the whole question of newborns kind of becomes moot. Yet folks like Dan treat it as if it is some sort of scandal.
Again, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm pretty sure we agree on this I was just so focused on one small discussion that I didn't look at the larger implications of what I said.
That was what I thought you believed. I was just getting it clarified, perhaps more for others than for me.
No problem, glad to do so.
Then a better way for me to ask the question is, if God in His justice sends the unborn to hell, are you still satisfied with God, or does that not fit with your understanding of God and if He did, He's no God worth following? My feeling is that most people would not worship a God that sent the unborn to hell, which speaks directly to the topic of diminishing God's justice.
Does He save them? Possibly. I find nothing convincing in Scripture to say He absolutely does, but I'm amenable to the idea. He would be fully just in sending them to hell and fully merciful to save them. I think it folly to base more hope in His mercy than justice. He is both in equal measure. For me, if He saves them, praise be to God, if He doesn't.... praise be to God. When it comes to a grieving parent, I am willing to comfort them with their child in heaven. I think my biggest worry about Him sending them to heaven is the idea that abortion then is ultimately good. Think about how many children are going to heaven without having to deal with sin or choosing salvation. That is why I can't really commit to fully agreeing that they are saved.
I agree that I would not have a problem with a God who sent infants to hell, as I said I'm perfectly fine with the doctrine of election and the sovereignty of God. I've seen enough in scripture to be convinced that God will not punish those who could not have seen or understood the witness available to them.
My counter to the abortion argument is that it is one more instance of people trying to usurp God's power and prerogative and to attempt to use God to make their sin seem more palatable.
Post a Comment