I just did an entire series of posts on the “problem of Hell” as it were. I gave and answered objections. I pointed to Abraham’s concern about God’s justice. I considered the nature of sin. I pointed to the nature of God. Sure, there was a News Weakly in there and a brief detour for Memorial Day, but then I … threw in a post about a hymn? Some might have thought I was changing subjects. I wasn’t. The hymn in question claimed that God leads His dear children into all sorts of difficulties, and I pointed out that Scripture makes the same argument. Is that connected? Yes … yes, it is. The hymn wasn’t a detour; it was a setup. If God lovingly leads His children through suffering in this life, then suffering cannot be incompatible with His love—and therefore Hell cannot be dismissed on the grounds of love alone. You see, here’s the basic complaint. How is it possible that a God of love would want or even allow for the possibility of Hell? Obviously, He can’t, so … Hell is right out. Let’s consider that for a moment. First, there is a fundamental problem. The entire “Problem of Evil” is that if there is evil in the world, it is because God is either not powerful enough to stop it or not loving enough to stop it. Are we now going to argue that He’s not? If we argue that a loving God would never allow unpleasant things, we unintentionally adopt the very premise of the Problem of Evil—that suffering disproves God’s love or power. But Scripture rejects that premise outright. Think it through.
Consider the premise. Love and Hell are opposed. More precisely, if we love someone, we would never want unpleasant things to happen to them. Seems obvious, but is it? It's obvious if we’re talking about a “feel-good” love like today’s use of the word. Modern love is therapeutic. Biblical love is transformative. Our culture’s definition of love is not the Bible’s definition of love. If it was, we’d have all sorts of problems.
If God’s love means the absence of unpleasantness, Scripture should reflect that. Instead, it shows the opposite. Joseph told his brothers, “You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good” (Gen 50:20). That is “God intended it.” It wasn’t a surprise. It didn’t “slip through.” God … intended it … for good. Intended what? The bad things his brother did to him. Or there’s Job. When he lost everything, he “did not sin or charge God with wrong,” but declared, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21-22). And when God allowed Satan to strip away his health and his wife said, “Curse God and die,” he said, “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:9-10) If a loving God never wants unpleasant things to happen to His loved ones, Job was drastically wrong. Jeremiah claimed God had robbed him of hope (Lam 3:1–18), yet in the same chapter he finds his hope in the steadfast love of the Lord (Lam 3:21–24). Jeremiah did not believe that a loving God never intended unpleasant things for His own. Paul suffered from a thorn in the flesh, prayed to have it removed, and was denied. God told him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness” and Paul boasted in his weakness. Paul certainly didn’t believe a loving God didn’t want unpleasant things for His loved ones.
The problem, you see, is that our version of “love” is different from God’s version. Culture’s definition of love is not the Bible’s definition of love. Am I making that up? No. Jesus explained it Himself: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Now, that “God so loved the world” is not a quantity, but a quality. “God loved the world in this way.” What way? He gave His Son for those who believe. That’s not “He doesn’t want unpleasant things for those He loves.” Jesus did not say, “God loved the world by shielding it from pain.” He said God loved the world by giving His Son — which assumes the world is already perishing. He promises unpleasant things for those He loves (e.g., John 16:33; Acts 14:22; James 1:2-4). This is the God who is love. His love is not the love we’ve redefined it as. His love is much better. Scripture keeps repeating that we are perfected in suffering (James 1:2-4; Rom 5:3-5; 1 Peter 5:10; Heb 12:5-11; Heb 5:8-9; 2 Cor 12:7-10; 1 Peter 1:6-7; 2 Cor 4:16-17; Acts 14:22). God's love allows and plans suffering for a good purpose. God wills "to show His wrath and to make known His power" on "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22).
God’s love requires freedom for us, and we’re free to choose Hell. God’s justice has consequences. God’s holiness requires separation from sin. All of these combine to give mercy meaning. If God’s love does not eliminate suffering in this life, we have no grounds to claim it must eliminate the possibility of Hell in the next.
1 comment:
If there definition of love is the absence of suffering, God is the most unloving being ever to exist. He purposefully sent His Son to suffer and die. As you point out, we need to realign our definition of love with God's definition, or we get the whole Bible wrong.
Post a Comment