Why Doesn’t God Just Obliterate the Devil and thus Get Rid of Evil? December 02, 2008
Posted by preacherwin in Apologetics, Reflections.Tags: Apologetics, Bill Mayer, Devil, Evil, Good, Inerrancy of the Bible, Religulous, righteousness, scoffers, Scriptural Truth, Sin
trackback
Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil?
One of the projects that we engage in at Rocky Bayou Christian School is that of helping to train students how to defend their faith when it is challenged. One of the ways in which we do so is to pose questions to the student body that challenge the faith and then challenge them to write out a response for a prize. Each of these questions are drawn from atheistic websites, blogs, books, or movies to ensure that the questions we use are ones actually being presented by unbelievers.
This month’s question is, “Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil and thus get rid of evil—and if he can, what is he waiting for?” The question itself comes from the trailer for Bill Mayer’s new movie, “Religulous.” The movie is presented as a documentary—more a “mock-u-mentary,” designed to poke fun at religious people. In his interview on Larry King Live this past August, Mayer gives the motivation for asking this question. Mayer states that religion is “the ultimate hustle,” that Christian leaders “need” the Devil, “because if God got rid of the devil—and he could because he is all-powerful—then there is no fear, there is no reason to come to church, there is no reason to pass the plate, we are all out of a job…” This statement falls on the heels of the comment, “at some point, mankind is going to have to shed this skin (Religion) if he is going to move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it, and on another level, it just ticks me off…”
It is worth making one more comment about the interview on an indirectly related note: when speaking about the afterlife and the Christian’s view that we know what will happen to us after we die, Mayer makes a wonderfully true comment. Mayer states, “unless a God told you personally what happens to you when you die, it all came from another person with no more mental powers than you.” And that is exactly the point. God did come and tell us what will happen to us when we die, and he tells us the way that leads to eternal life, which is through a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the way that leads to death, which is the way that Mayer seems to have chosen to pursue—to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And we have these words of God recorded for us in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not the writings of men, as I would presume Mayer would assert? While my point here is not to present a full defense for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures (as others have written excellent volumes on just that subject), let me set forth several basic points.
The first thing that we must present is that the Bible itself claims to be God’s word. Now, your initial response very well may be to assert that a statement like this is circular reasoning. And on some level, it is. But let us pose the question, what might be true about the Bible if this statement about it being God’s word is true? We would expect, were it written by God, that all of the facts that it contains are true. And indeed, while evolutionists would assert that the creation story is untrue, evolution is a theory based on a speculation of the order of events. The “mountains” of evidence that so many evolutionists point toward are illusory, and Creation Scientists can present interpretations of the evidence that are arguably more compelling than the evolutionary models, and which are consistent with Scripture. If you doubt this, try getting a college Biology professor to agree to debate with a Creation Scientist—you will find it to be a rather challenging task. The Creation Scientists are willing, but the evolutionists are not—basic logic should tell you that they are hiding something if they are unwilling to engage in such debates.
But let us look at events that are clearly documented in history. What we find when we examine the archaeological evidence is that there is nothing to contradict the historical Biblical account. In addition, when we compare Biblical records of historical events with extra-Biblical documents of the same age, we find once again that there are no contradictions. There are more textual accounts, for example, to the life of Jesus than there are for example to the life of Julius Caesar, but no-one doubts that Julius Caesar lived, nor do they doubt the historicity of his writings.
In addition, we might not only expect that the history that the Bible records is accurate, but we might also expect that the things that it foretells is also accurate. Now, certainly all of the things that the Bible foretells have not yet come to pass, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of prophesies that the Bible did foretell that did come to pass. For example, Isaiah prophesied that the man who would be used of God to return the exiles to Jerusalem would be named Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), a prophesy that was given roughly 200 years before the event took place. There are numerous prophesies that are given about the coming Messiah as well—that he was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that a forerunner would be sent (Malachi 3:1), that he would be rejected by his people (Psalm 118:22-23), numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12), that the soldiers would divide Jesus’ garments (Psalm 22:18), and that in his death his bones would not be broken, but his side pierced (Exodus 12:46, Zechariah 12:10). We could go on, as there are many more, but as a friend of mine who used to be in the meat packing industry regularly says, “If the sample is true and free from bacteria, the whole lot is likely true and free from bacteria.” In other words, to prove that a tree has roots you don’t need to dig up every tree, but only a representative sample. Time after time, it can be documented that Biblical prophesies have come to pass. By every scientific measure, then, one must accept the validity of the whole.
One might also suggest that if the Bible were written by God himself, it would be true and without contradictions. And indeed, that is exactly the case. It is granted that there are some people who would point out that the Bible does seem to contradict itself on occasion, but in each of these cases, the contradictions are only apparent ones noted from a surface reading of the text. Reasonable explanations can be given for each of these apparent contradictions. One thing that we have learned from the discipline of forensic science is that in crimes, oftentimes very unusual events take place. And while a crime may at first seem to have taken place in one way, when all of the evidence is examined, rational explanations can be given for why the initial assumptions were wrong. If one is going to seek to say that the Bible contradicts itself, all of the evidence, both internal and external, must be examined before any rational conclusions can be reached. I suggest that once that examination is made, the Scriptures will be recognized to be internally consistent.
Though I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I want to make several more practical observations about the Bible that only seek to affirm that it is God’s word. First of all, one of the things that separate the Bible from mythic and religious writings of the ancient times is that it gives accurate names as well as detailed historical as well as geographical information. Most ancient religious documents are rather vague when it comes to such details so that they cannot be refuted. The Bible presents this kind of information, and as noted above, it is not found in error when challenged. Secondly, the Bible has had a greater impact on the events of worldwide history in a way that no other book can claim. Nations have risen and fallen around the contents and teachings of this book. Philosophies have emerged with the contents of this book as their foundations. The bible is the most widely-read book in history and even non-believers have benefited from its insights and wisdom into human nature. In addition, people have been willing to die for the veracity of this book in a way that no other book can claim in history. And finally, on a very pastoral note, the Bible has the ability to bring peace to a dying person’s heart unlike any other book in human history. When folks are on their deathbeds, they typically do not ask for someone to read from Shakespeare’s sonnets, but regularly ask to have some of the Psalms read to them. This again is a sign that the words of this book transcend humanity and are found to be of divine origin. No other book, religious or secular, can claim the authority that the Bible claims for itself, and it is irrational to ask for a higher authority to attest to the divinity of the Bible than God himself because God himself is the highest authority—and He claims thousands of times in the scriptures that these words are his own. If you doubt that this book is truly God’s word, I challenge you to sit down and give the Bible an honest read from cover to cover, examining the evidence for and against, before you seek to challenge its authority.
Now, as to answering Mayer’s specific question about why God does not destroy the Devil and thus rid the world of evil? To answer this question well, there are several things we need to take into account. First of all, there is an important distinction that needs to be made between the Devil and evil in the sense that even if the Devil were to cease to exist tomorrow, there would still be evil in the world. The name “Devil” comes from the Greek term, dia/boloß (diabolos), which literally refers to one who engages in slander against another (certainly something that Mayer is guilty of when it comes to God). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, dia/boloß (diabolos) is typically used to translate !j’f’ (Satan), which means, “accuser.” Satan is described as the accuser of the faithful (Zechariah 3:1-2; Job 1) and one who incites to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). The Devil, in turn, is described as tempter (Matthew 4:1), enemy of God (Matthew 13:39), betrayer (John 6:70), murderer and Father of Lies (John 8:44), oppressor of God’s people (Acts 10:38), enemy of righteousness (Acts 13:10), the one who sets snares for God’s people (1 Timothy 3:7), and the father of those who make a practice of sinning (1 John 3:7-10). Ultimately it will be the devil and those who serve him who will be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented eternally (Revelation 20:10,15). Thus, in a sense, part of Meyer’s answer is answered. God has promised that he will destroy the devil, but such will not take place until all of God’s elect have been brought to faith (arguably Christ’s return is keyed to the death of the last martyr [Revelation 7:11]).
Before I address the question of evil and it being taken out of the world, I want to address the follow-up question that Meyer posed—what is God waiting for? In other words, the question can be rephrased—why doesn’t God just get on with it? In a sense, the answer was given just above—God is waiting for the final predestined believer to come to faith/the last martyr to give his life for the Holy faith. To understand this better, it is important to look at how Peter addressed this very question in his second epistle. Peter was dealing with those who were scoffing and saying “nothing has changed since the old days—where is this God of yours?” It is almost as if Peter were writing to Mayer on this very issue—or perhaps Mayer isn’t overly creative in asking questions. Peter states that the reason God is taking what seems to us to be a long time is not because God is slow to act, but because God is patient, being willing to endure the mocking and scoffing of unbelievers until the very last member of his elect has been brought to faith (2 Peter 3:8-10). Thus, in God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the earth, when he chose his elect throughout history (Ephesians 1:4), God also determined to stay his hand of eternal judgment long enough for the very last believer would be brought to faith—he will not lose even one of those who he has so ordained to become his own (John 10:28).
Finally, we are left with the question of evil. The first thing to note is that while the concept of sin is related to the concept of evil, they are not synonymous. The Old Testament word for sin derives from the Hebrew verb aj’x’ (chata), which means to miss the mark or target that one is aiming at. Thus, sin is missing the mark of God’s righteous character or not being able to live up to his standard. In turn, the antonym of sin is righteousness. In contrast, the Hebrew word for evil is [r: (ra), and it is typically used as the antonym of bAT (tov), or “good.” Deuteronomy 30:15 presents this contrast quite clearly where Moses presents the people with the following statement: “See, I put before you this day the life and the good—the death and the evil.” In other words, that which is good and that which is evil are seen as the necessary results of obedience or disobedience respectively, or in the context of our discussion—good and evil are the results of a righteous lifestyle or a sinful lifestyle. One might take the concept one step farther, understanding the fall of mankind as described in Genesis 3 as the entrance of evil into the world, that good is ultimately reflected in what it was like to live in an unfallen world and evil is reflected in what it is like to live in a fallen world.
So why does God permit us to live in a world that is less than perfect and is often filled with evil rather than with good? Admittedly, such a time is only for a season, for there will come a time when Jesus will return and remake the heavens and the earth free from the effects of evil—restoring the world to an unfallen state, but with one catch—we will no longer be able to fall into sin. Yet, for now, we live in a fallen world and not only do we sin, but we are forced to endure not only evil people all around us, but also evil events that take place—events that are reflective of the fall of mankind. So why does a good God permit such evil? First of all, God permits such to go on in the world around us to remind us of the effects of our sinful actions and hopefully compel us to grieve over our own sin as well as the sins of others. Secondly, evil in the world around us stands as a constant testimony against the secular humanists and almost every other religious system. Most religions and the secular humanists believe that deep down mankind is good and that it will only truly become good when it “sheds the skin” of religion and moves forward apart from God. The Bible tells us quite the opposite. We are born in sin (Psalm 51:5) and we pursue sin (Romans 3:10-12) with all of our strength apart from a movement of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If mankind were good, then mankind would be perfecting itself and wars and political oppression and greed would come to an end. Yet we are sinners, and thus we stumble and fall into sin. Mankind is fallen and evil is a constant testimony to that fallenness. A final reason for God’s permission of evil in the world is that he uses evil to strengthen Christians in their faith. Facing evil, trials, and tribulations force us to draw closer to God and to rely on his strength and thus grow in our relationship to him.
In other words, for the Christian, while evil is something that we never desire to enter into our lives, when it does, such evil things are not necessarily bad. In fact, in many cases, the scriptures remind us that it is good to face evil things so long as we are relying upon God, for such cases will grow us to be stronger in our relationship with Jesus Christ. One final note—while the final destruction of the Devil will not take place before the second coming of our Lord, Jesus did once and for all time defeat the power of the devil upon the cross of Calvary. Yet, though Satan has been defeated, we must endure for a little while longer while God works out his plan in the world.
In a nutshell—God does has already destroyed the Devil and has promised to cast him in the lake of fire in the end times. Second, God is waiting for the last of the elect to come to faith and/or the last martyr to die. Third, even if the Devil were thrown into the pit tomorrow, we would still have evil in the world due to the fall of man and man’s sin—something that can only be remedied through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Fourth, evil is not always bad though it is always unpleasant. God often uses evil to bring about his work in this world as well as using it to sanctify and mature us in the faith.
another question. take two 5 year old boys. one is born into a loving family, and one is born into an abusive family. the one born into a loving family has a disease that is not painful however causes him to die one night at the age of 5 painlessly while being held in the loving arms of his mother. the other 5 year old has no fatal disease, but sadly, dies at the hands of his abusive father after being beaten brutally. I assume they both end up in heaven? why did one have to endure more torture/pain then the other. would you venture to say there are levels in heaven? for example, the boy who went thru more pain on earth gets to sit closer to God? either way, let’s say, afterwards in heaven they either both get the same treatment, or there are different levels to attain to? otherwise what was the point of the child suffering? I first posed this question to a friend but my example was of a man.. of course the answer had to do with the choices they made, etc. but when I posed the question using the example of a child, where we can’t really put their choices too much into that equation, the question was not answered. When I take away the layer of a human understanding the concept of conscious choices/etc, it aids in helping us answer the question more directly to its point. will you touch on this?
To begin with, I would call your attention to Matthew 20 and Jesus’ parable of the laborers in the vineyard–all worked different hours, all toiled in the sun for different amounts of time, and some brought in greater amounts of harvest than others–yet all were given the same wage. While I recognize that Medieval theology built a theology of a tiered heaven, there is really very little in scripture to build that theology on–in fact, the weight of scripture is that we are but “unworthy servants” (see Luke 17:10). The Apostle Paul, who suffered more than most of us could ever dream (see 2 Corinthians 11 for a run down of this), said that his own works were like dung (Philippians 3:8). So to answer the one element of your question, no, when one suffers more, one does not attain a better place in glory.
So is God unfair? Yes, in a sense, but not in the way you are thinking. We are all sinners and thus guilty of eternal condemnation. What we all deserve is a life on earth wracked with pain and suffering and then to be eternally judged in final condemnation. So, in terms of “unfairness” in the truest sense, it is those who receive relatively little pain in life to whom God is being more unfair. And, since even the worst day in the worst place on earth is paradise in contrast to a minute in Hell, even the most wretched existence has experienced this unfairness of God. Personally, I typically choose to call this “grace,” but it is an unfair act in the most elementary sense.
In terms of those who suffer even apart from their own decisions, our state is sinful and we live in a fallen world–a world filled with sin and death. The reality is that we need to come to terms with the fact that these terrible things are ordained by God to be a constant testimony to us that we need a redeemer. We should see the effect of sin in the world around us and grieve deeply that human beings do wicked things to one another (in the case of the abusive father) and that we live in a world that has disease and death (my own children are getting over having strep throat as I am writing this…).
Ultimately, God uses even the acts of his wicked to bring about his work in the world–and he has sought counsel from no one (Romans 11:34). He is sovereign and we only see part of the picture. It is like when we were in grade-school. We were taught that one should never end a sentence with a preposition. Yet, as we have gotten older, we find out that on occasion it is appropriate to do so. Winston Churchill’s comment once was: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something that from now on up with I shall not put. There is a rule that runs deeper than the ordinary rules of grammar–such is the same with God. God uses pain to bring about his will, to refine his own for glory, and to testify about our need amongst other things.
Hopefully this proves helpful
Win
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I can tell that you truly try to first see the point from where a person is coming from … and then from there respond to a question. I appreciate that. (and I hope your little ones are feeling better)
Regarding the reasoning that God is actually being more unfair to the boy who received less suffering is a great response and does almost answer my question, but my question is now just posed in a vice versa context. Why then is he unfair to the least sufferer? What’s the point of fair vs. unfair?
Then the boy who received the less suffering could turn around while he’s up there in heaven and say “man! I wish I coulda had a little more suffering down there! I sure missed out!” (I say that with some humor but you see my point right?)
And I understand we live in a fallen world with disease and death. but Why? Let me ask you this (another question.. going very deep, removing the layers and getting right down to the basic core question) God is the most perfect, unflawed, all knowing Creator (creator emphasized) all powerful.. according to the scriptures, correct?
I’m going to answer that as a Yes. Because it can’t be a No. if it’s a No, stop me right there. So going off the answer being a yes, then it would follow through to say that evil can only exist thru the creation of God. If we say it was created from the Devil, then that’s under the umbrella of God. If it’s created by humans, then it’s under the umbrella as well. Anything that comes into existence is under the umbrella of God’s creation. How is it even possible that such a thing as sin exists? For example, if all this is because God gave us the power of choice, and now all this revolves around the power of choice, why is my choice only rewarded if I choose one path over the other? Why even complicate this whole process with a non righteous path to even exist? I’m just having a hard time with these basic fundamental questions. Essentially, any answer still leaves me to this paradox. If the answer has to do with God wanting to so call weed out the bad from the good, well then why even create the bad? If it has to do with humans creating this on our own, then why bother creating us? If it has to do with God wanting some company up there in Heaven, then what’s the big secret about? I see this going either one of two ways. Either God created this entire thing, all its good, its evil, and not one single thing is wrong with it..And for some reason.. we have now started blaming all this evil on the devil or on us as humans, when in fact, all this time, it’s been God. Or he created this entire thing.. and somewhere during the creation process ended up put a little too much “salt” in the cake mixture… and oops! Freedom of choice, great, now we all have to choose not to disappoint our creator and please him and not fall into temptation..(which implies that God makes mistakes and leaves us to repair the damages)…that darn devil, disobeying God.. and God just not obliterating him right off the bat.. he totally had the power!
Furthermore, and I say with the most upmost respect, but in your answer you said “God is sovereign and we only see part of the picture” but yet we place our upmost EVERYTHING, our lives, our hearts, our actions, on something we only know a part of? and we seem to have all the answers. so if we technically do not have all the answers, then how can we be so sure that what we’re saying is in line with God? since there is a chance that what we’re saying, could potentially be in that realm of the unknown? Apparently the Bible answers everything but is this not the case? Obviously God is leaving something out from our understanding. So then, I don’t have all the facts to make a wise, intelligent, and honest decision on what’s righteous.
The main thing.. is that I’m just having a very hard time seeing the point in all this? What is the point of it all? I feel like each time I ask that to myself, the closest way I can answer that is to go to the beginning.. but the beginning keeps bringing me to the creator.. which is where I then start to go in circles with these paradoxes.
Again, I very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.
The big answer to your question is that the reason and purpose for our lives is to glorify God. The tendency (a fallen tendency) is to be way to anthrocentric in our thinking when we really need to be theocentric. Thus, God is choosing to glorify himself in our lives in a variety of ways–despite ourselves and despite what we all deserve (which is judgment and eternal condemnation. But I started with the end of your argument, let me work backwards some.
The point of God being “unfair” really has to do with his showing of grace and mercy. He manifests that grace in people’s lives in different ways for the sole end of revealing his glory. Sometimes that is hard for us to see from within the trenches of life, though often when we look back with hindsight, we can see God’s wisdom in this. Ultimately, I believe that we will see the great wisdom of God’s plan in eternity even if we don’t see it here. Remember how God presents himself to Moses in Exodus 34: “showing mercy upon those who I will show mercy and grace upon those I will show grace.”
Your other question is one that people have debated over for generations: why did God create a world with evil in it–or at least, why did God create a world where evil was possible? I think that the best answer is the answer that Augustine gave–and that is as a demonstration of God’s love. We would never have known the sacrificial nature of Christ’s love for his own if we had never sinned and fallen. Thus, in God’s plan, the fall was a means to an end–that the elect of God might know the depth of Christ’s sacrificial love. Seems to me as good an answer as there is.
Blessings,
Win
(and yes, the kids are feeling better, thanks for asking…w.)
Hello Win,
I’ve been taught that God knew us before we were even born. He knows what our entire life and life choices are going to be. Why would He allow someone to be born and he already knows they are destined for hell and burn for entirety? Where is the love in that? Why would God that is all knowing create (Satan) knowing that he would rebel against him; tempt Eve and Adam to eat from the tree of life and therefore allow sin to enter into this world? Why would he do this? He had the Angels to praise and worship him and I feel that he didn’t need us (humans). I also have a God that speaks of Love and Forgiveness will not forgive those in the end that for whatever reason did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour to burn in hell for an entirety. That means that you, me and other Christians will have to see and watch people we have loved very much on this earth be thrown into hell and suffer. Could you spend eternity in Heaven in joy with a loved ones in Hell?
God says to Jeremiah, I knew you before I formed you in the womb (Jer. 1:5), and that is often put together with places like Ephesians 1:4 to infer the principle that God did know us (recognizing that the Hebraic notion of knowing has to do with relationship–so he had relationship with us) from before the foundation of the earth. In both of these senses, though, the object of God’s knowing deals with the elect. That does not mean that God is somehow clueless about the existence of the unbelievers, but it does mean that he has not set his affections upon them. Yet in electing to choose to set his eternal affections on some due to his grace, he still knows who he has chosen not to elect and has ordained them to be vessels of wrath (Romans 9:21-23). The point is that you were taught right, God is sovereign and chooses his own.
So why would he allow someone to be born that he already has destined to hell? If we look back to Romans 9:21-23, the Apostle Paul gives us the answer, and that is to glorify himself by demonstrating his power. You may not find that very satisfactory, but that is what God says of himself. To get your brain around this you need to recognize that because of sin, what we all deserve is eternal condemnation for God is a just and righteous God. He has chosen to shed his grace on some and others not. In Genesis 3:15, we see another clue that helps us to understand, for God pronounces judgment and speaks of two lines or families, the line of the woman and the line of the serpent. 1 John 3 picks this idea up and presents the same thing, though humans may all be of one race biologically, there are two races spiritually. One race are children of God (whom he has set His affection on) and the other race is made up of the children of the devil who are the enemies of God. Remember, God states in his word that he hated Essau (Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13).
In terms of God and the Devil. Augustine argued that the reason that God ordained the fall was so that he could demonstrate his sacrificial love in his Son coming, taking on flesh, and dying for mankind (and note that it was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil that the fall was connected to).
You are right in saying that God did not need us as he still does not need us. Instead he created us so that we can enjoy his goodness and grace. What a wonderful thing it is to delight in Christ!
In terms of knowing that there are loved ones burning in hell–we still find joy in heaven because true joy is focused not on humans or earthly relationships, but on Christ. I had a dear friend of mine pass away from cancer 4 or 5 years ago who was an unbeliever. Though I take little pleasure in knowing of my friend’s torment; I find pleasure even in that earthly sorrow because Christ is glorified even in my friend’s judgment. I grant that a lot of people struggle with a view like that, but that is the Biblical presentation. God is just and he is right to condemn a man or woman for his or her sins; he is under no obligation to redeem any–yet he does in a wonderful way. That is something to rejoice in!
w.
Hi. I’ve read what you have said about the scientific accuracy of the Bible and that it is literally true and not an allegory.
But in Genesis 1, it says that on the first day God Created the Heavens and Earth, Light, and day and night.
But God doesn’t create the Sun until the fourth day. And the day and night come from the rotation of the earth. So whomever wrote that doesn’t seem to know that the sun produces the light.
Also, on the 3rd day plants are created. But how can they grow without light the sun? The sun must already exist.
I’m sure whomever wrote Genesis felt connected to God. And I’m sure you can come up with an explanation as to why there was light, day and night when there was no sun.
But why should I reject the simplest explanation: the the author didn’t understand that light came from the sun? And that it is the work of men?
And why is it necessary for the Bible to be without error in order for it be a great book and worthy of study?
Pete, Let me field your objections in the order that you raise them:
First of all, as I mention in my reflections, the light that is found in Day 1 comes not from the sun, but from the light of the glory of God. When we arrive at the book of Revelation, it is noted that in the new creation there will be no sun because God will dwell with men. In the design of God’s creation, the purpose for which the sun was created will cease to be necessary and thus will not be present. In turn, it is by the light of God, between day 3 and day 4 that the plants began to grow and thrive. One might even argue that the plants will do just fine for 24 hours without light (certainly there are parts of the world that have darkness for long seasons as winter approaches), but I am not making that argument, simply that the light that existed to mark day and night was entirely supernatural of origin.
Secondly, it is to be sure that Moses understood that the sun produces light. First of all, he grew up in the Egyptian courts and thus would have been privy to the scientific developments of his day. Of course, the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation even later still (between 90 & 95 AD). Hundreds of years before that the Pythagoreans had posited the presence of a central fire around which the planets (and the sun) rotated and which provided light and heat.
I find your comment about the “simplest” explanation interesting because up until the last 150 years or so, everyone considered the divine origin of the universe to be the simplest explanation, and is is certainly the natural reading of the text. You are reading your presuppositions into the text and on the basis of your assumptions positing that your modern naturalistic view is the simplest. I would suggest that it is your view that is much more complicated because it simply discards all of the creation account as allegory and subject to the winds of speculation. Also, to just write the ancient culture as backwards and ignorant because they do not share your modern presuppositions is a case of chronological snobbery, as CS Lewis would describe it.
It is not necessary for the Bible to be without error to be considered a great book worthy of study. I did my undergraduate work in the English Department wherein we spent a great deal of time studying many great works that were worthy of our care: Chaucer, Shakespeare, Coleridge, Poe, etc… Yet worthy of study does not mean one ought to base one’s life upon them. And worthy of study does not provide the assurance that the answers to life’s most pressing questions (why am I here? and what happens to me when I die?) are correct. These are questions for which we want absolute and not speculative answers.
The Bible does not present itself simply as a book of literature, as does Beowulf or the works of Homer. The Bible presents itself as the divinely spoken word of God. Over 600 times in the Old Testament, we find the statement: “Thus says the Lord…” And that is not to mention the many comments that are made affirming the same in principle without explicitly making the statement. Similarly, the New Testament affirms that the scriptures were “breathed out” by God and that the authors were “moved” by the wind of the Holy Spirit, thus writing what God would command and not what their preferences would dictate.
And, it then logically follows, that if God is incapable of error (he would not be God if he were), then his word is without error and is binding upon men. All men.
Thus, Pete, it is you who are presenting the novel interpretation of the text, one which none of the authors of the Biblical text would have supported. And in turn, it is our responsibility to harmonize our understanding of science with the plain reading of scripture and not the other way around. That does not mean we run around as some have done and imagine that the world is flat (the Biblical authors never held that assumption), but that we do not write off supernatural causes for things because a naturalistic worldview that is prevalent in the culture would not be comfortable with miracles.
Blessings,
win
I’m not sure if I posited this question on this site or not, (as I have asked this question on many sites with no satisfying answer), but I seek an answer that does not seem to be able to be answered. I am a Christian and agree on all doctrines that I have been exposed to thus far, except for one doctrine. The doctrine of Last Things, specifically including Gods` final judgment. Simply put, I understand a just God judging and so on, as there will be no sin in heaven, but hear me out.
This is the difficult question to answer: I believe my God is a just and loving God; He is the only God, yet He confuses me with this — Why does an all loving God condemn people to an active, eternal torment when they do not follow him. These are people who seem to have no say as to whether they even chose to exist or not, as they did not ask to be born and to be gifted with the state of living. Why this state of active, eternal torment, when he or she didn`t even ask to be born in the first place.
It seems to me that a God of love would simply `destroy` a person of evil, never to be thought of or heard from again (this seems to me, the most loving thing to do, under the circumstances), why this eternal torture to someone who had absolutely no say in the matter of possessing life in the first place … any answers … John
John,
Thanks for the comment, and no, I do not believe that you have posted this question on this particular site, but let it be said that this question is one that has been asked and debated throughout history. Even going back to the fourth century you had a monk named Pelagius posing the question in a similar way by stating that if God expects us to live a righteous life (including the person who never hears the Gospel), we ought to be able to do that. The man who responded to Pelagius was a man named Augustine, who pointed out a basic principle of logic, that “ought” does not imply “ability.” To assume that since one ought to do something that they must have the ability is what is technically called a “Moralistic Fallacy” today.
Let me approach your answer, though, beginning with Scripture. The Apostle Paul speaks to your specific question in Romans 1:18-20. Essentially, what Paul is saying is that people (regardless of where in the world or in history they have lived) are aware of the being of God. In other words, God has created the universe in such a way that it points to him and his existence and that when people look at the created order, the natural response is to look for a creator God who has made all things and to recognize his invisible attributes (orderliness, creativity, etc…). In choosing to reject the existence of God, people “suppress” what they know deep down to be true and they give credit for the creation to one who is not the creator. In failing to give credit to the rightful author of creation, they stand in rebellion against him.
To compound things is the matter of what we typically refer to as “Federal Headship.” Many times in scripture we find God stating that he will punish the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation. In other words, when I stand in judgment, I am culpable not only for my personal sins, but for the sins of my father, Grandfather, and Great-Grandfather. And, if we want to recognize that my Great-Grandfather is also guilty of the sins of his Great-Grandfather, there is a compounding of guilt that goes all of the way back to Adam and Eve.
Punishment for sin, thus reflects two elements. First, the severity of the guilt and second, the significance of the one against whom you have sinned. We have already mentioned the severity of the guilt in the terms of Federal Headship. If we are infinitely guilty of sin before a perfect God, one should expect the punishment to be infinite in its severity. In addition, the more important a person, the more intense the offense. Were you to punch me in the nose, that would not be good, but it likely would not land you in jail. Yet, were you to punch the President of the United States in the nose, you would probably land yourself in jail for a long, long time. God is infinitely greater and more important than the President, so you probably get the picture as to where I am going.
Let me take the thought one step further because you ask why not annihilation. First of all, the idea is not found in the Bible, so those proposing a theology of divine annihilation of the ungodly is importing human ideas or preferences into the Bible. Jesus does speak of being destroyed (Matthew 10:28), but in the context of the torment he speaks of in other places, the implication is that Hell is a place of eternally being destroyed.
The more specific matter is whether God is being more Righteous by eternally tormenting with a punishment that fits the crime or simply causing someone to cease to exist. This, of course, is at the heart of your question. I would suggest, though, that the just thing to do is to punish appropriately and when we understand the magnitude of our sin before God, we then begin to come to terms with the nature of God’s punishment. God is Gracious and loving too, but the way in which God demonstrated his love (John 3:16) was to send Jesus to die in our place so that we would then be under his Federal Headship (Romans 5:12-17). He showed his mercy in Christ and if people then reject that mercy it would seem that righteous judgment would prevail.
Put it on human terms, for sin not only affects the one against whom sin is directed (God) but also affects the community in which the sin is perpetrated (God’s Kingdom). If for example, there is a man in your community that is captured after kidnapping, raping, and torturing 14 little girls across a period of several years. Forgive my choice of illustration as it hits home for many people, but I am trying to think of about the most heinous crime I can think of. This man is caught, arrested, and is found guilty on all counts in a court of law. Which is more appropriate: punishment or exiling the person to an abandoned island, effectively removing them from any human influence. True, the analogy breaks down between exile and annihilation, but follow the logic. I would argue that were a judge to exile in a case like this, that the community would rise up and recognize the judge of an unrighteous judgment. The church is not so much rising up and saying God isn’t punishing unbelievers enough, God’s righteousness is perfect, but the idea is that a just God would execute just punishment in a fashion that would satisfy the need for retribution.
All that God does is done to show his glory to us as humans, so even in the suffering of unbelievers in judgment, God is being glorified because his righteous nature is being vindicated in that punishment.
Certainly there is tension here–there must be. God is good and loving; God is also just and perfectly righteous. So his justice is loving and his loving is just.
I hope that this helps get you on the right track with regards to the matter at hand. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you continue on your path of working this through. Thanks for the dialogue.
win
Hello, I have a question that I haven’t been able to get a rational and impartial answer to. Before asking though, I’d like to make it known that I am definitely a believer w/ my mind on the good things of God. My question is: It seems so illogical to think that our good and very fair Father would make the criteria for spending eternity in heaven dependent on accepting Jesus as our Lord. Here’s why…it seems that people raised in “Christain Countries” have an unfair advantage over people raised in Muslim or Buddist countries, especially a hundred years ago when communication was not as advanced as now. Any thoughts? Thanks.
Tom
Thanks for your question, Tom, it is one that I many people struggle with, so it is worth discussing. That said, let me reframe your question slightly, in what I believe is a more Biblical form.
“If God is good and very fair, it seems illogical that he would send his Son to save anyone.”
Jesus, of course, makes it clear that only those trusting in him will be granted admittance to heaven (John 6:44; 8:24; 14:6; etc…), so that is our starting point. The other place that we need to start is in Revelation 20:11-15, where the final judgment is portrayed. What we have there is all people who ever walked the face of the earth — Christians and non-Christians — standing before God and being judged by their works and all falling short of God’s standard on the sole basis of works. It is then, only those whose names are in the Lamb’s book of Life who are spared being thrown into the pit. As Paul writes, it is a work of God’s grace by which we are saved, not our own works of piety (Romans 11:6).
I am assuming that up until this point I am going over old territory. My point in doing so is not so much to rehearse information that you already know, but to set a foundation on which we can build the rest of our discussion, so be patient with me in this.
What is interesting, though, is that this “Book of Life” is described by scripture as having been written since “before the foundation of the earth” (Revelation 13:8; 17:8). This is consistent with the language of Ephesians 1:4, where it speaks of God choosing (or electing) believers since before the foundation of the earth.
While it is true that the idea of a God who elects who he will choose to bring to himself is an idea that many Christians find uncomfortable, it is something that the Bible teaches over and over. The idea is that we live in a world where ALL deserve eternal wrath, but God chooses to save some from the eternal fires of hell through his Son, Jesus Christ. On what basis does God choose? Not on our works, but on the basis of his grace. He pours out his grace first and it is that grace that even enables us to believe in Christ as our Lord and Savior in the first place.
Paul uses the analogy in Romans 9:19-23 of a potter working with clay and making some vessels for glory and some for destruction. Do we consider the potter unfair that he makes some vessels that will be used to show his wrath? No, it is the potter’s right to do so. A potter today might make both fine vessels and clay targets for trap shooting. He has the right to do so and is not being unjust to the target clay if it is getting what it rightfully deserves in the first place.
If you want to say that God is “unfair” then what we need to say is that God is unfair in saving any of us. If we rightly understand our sin, we will rightly understand that we are a million miles away from deserving the grace God offers us in Christ. In a sense, the Gospel is the tool by which we share with people that God is unfair and that all who cling to Jesus as their Lord and Savior will be passed over — much like the people of Israel were passed over from the 10th plague because the blood of the Lamb was over their doorposts.
It is true that being raised in a “Christian Country” means that the Gospel is heard more freely than in Muslim nations. That being said, the Gospel is going out in those Muslim nations, though in the midst of great persecution. God has promised he will not let his word return void. And sadly, there is much disbelief in our own nation where the Gospel is freely preached. Why? It takes the work of the Holy Spirit to give re-birth (John 3:3) to a soul which is dead in sin. And all whom God has elected to be in the Lamb’s Book of Life will hear the Gospel and be saved, for our God is a sovereign potter working with his clay.
Hopefully that is helpful in reframing your question somewhat. If you want to continue the discussion, Tom, feel free, I would enjoy the dialogue.
Blessings, Win
Win,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand what you are saying but in order to consider this view the verses below would have to be explained to me.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Also, to my understanding Romans 9:19-23 is implying that the unsaved person was not barred from being saved but chose not to be. However, God could still use him to fulfill a purpose, e.g., King Cyrus freeing the Hebrew captives.
In getting back to my original question, I’m more so seeking insight that anything else. It seems so illogical that God would exclude, for the most part anyway, entire nations from heaven simply because they never had the gospel clearly explained to them.
Once again, thanks for your time.
Tom
Tom,
Let me offer an interpretation of the passages you mentioned.
The first was 1 Timothy 2:4:
In context, Paul begins chapter 2 with the language of prayer for “all” people. The word “all” that Paul employs is the Greek word “pas” which can be used to refer to everyone without exception within a group but more often than not, “pas” is used to refer to individuals within a group. In other words, he is not saying “all people without exception,” but is speaking of all people without distinction. Thus, in verse 2, Paul gives examples of the kinds of people we are to pray for — namely those in power over us. Paul surely is not suggesting that every Christian commit every political leader into their prayer list (though such would not be a bad thing), but instead, we are to pray for the leaders whose decisions affect our lives. This interpretation is reinforced in verse 8 where the same word is chosen to speak of our praying in every place…surely that is not to infer we are to pray to God in every location of the planet, but of the gathered body.
2 Peter 3:9
In this passage, the operable question is “who is this you? In context, the “you” is speaking of the elect throughout the generations. Remember, Peter is writing to Christians, not to pagans. The “you” denotes that he is speaking to this Christian audience here.
I suppose the more important insight that I can offer, though, is to look at the entire canon of scripture and ask yourself, what does God teach in this context. Is God the wimpy guy in the clouds hoping that we will choose him, or is God a sovereign God who draws people to himself. I propose that the Bible presents God as the latter. Then to interpret the anomalous verses in light of the clear. Blessings,
win
Good morning and thanks once again for your reply. I follow your reasoning on this topic but it opens the door for so many more questions. As time permits I will post them and hopefully gain more insight. Have a blessed day. Tom
Tom, always happy to dialogue. And you are right, there are a lot of questions that this discussion opens, like that of the extent of God’s omnipotence and the role of our wills.
One thing that I forgot to note last night, was the reference to King Cyrus. Use the interaction with the Egyptian Pharaoh when Israel was in bondage and during the plagues. After each plague there is a short-lived repentance and then a hardening of the heart. After some of the plagues, it states that Pharaoh hardened his heart, but in others, it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God stated that the purpose of this was to bring Egypt into judgment.
In seeing the example of Pharaoh, I would suggest that the account is not consistent with the idea of a God who genuinely desires that every man and woman and child in creation without exception be saved. Rather it makes more sense, at least as I read the texts, to see a God who sovereignly chooses who he will save from the rightful judgment that they deserve. I suppose that brings me back to one of my original comments, it is his Grace to us that is unfair, not his dealing justice fairly to the unbelieving world. Remember Romans 1, that God revealed enough of his own character in the world around us to point people to himself (not to save them, but to hold them responsible with the implication that you seek the truth), but people choose to suppress that knowledge and worship the creation rather than the creator. Sadly, many in our own communities fall into that category as well.
God Bless you, Tom, I am happy to dialogue whenever on topics like this.
win