Re-Thinking God: God is Holy

First people have to understand one things bout what the definition of holiness is not and what it is: it is not 'wholly other' and it does indeed have to do with behavior and righteousness. See the following posts and then come back, don't worry the post will still be here.

The 'Wholly Other' God and Other Nonsense

Definition of Holiness in response to a guy named Michael

You know today it is the fifth anniversary of the 'Wholly Other' post but I still feel the same about the subject. Imagine that, guess I have been re-thinking God for a long time.

That said and having read all that (you have read it haven't you?) I began to see God's holiness not as something different but something follow as an example. God becomes the definition of what it means to be morally pure and right in action.

This remains the one attribute that defines God more than any other. In heaven around the throne this is what is said -- "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is filled with his glory." It is this attribute that saved the God of the Bible for me. Why? Because i began to realize that it is because of this purity God has the right to define what is pure and what is not. When he places the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden He knows exactly what is what. It is not for me to define it but Him. Letting God define evil means that His actions are not evil and if I were to do those same actions with the same motivation as Him, it would be without sin.

Simple put, we as people like to play games with the definition of evil so that we can paint God as evil. But if we let God define evil and good then we have to submit to the fact that the highest likelihood is that when we look at God in the Scriptures and say "God is being evil" we are wrong in our understanding of evil. If we accept the fact that in all God's Biblical actions there is no sin or authoring of sin then the definition of sin we often use of "missing the mark" is wrong. God's actions are good and holy - morally pure.

So when God gets angry and destroys a nation of people or orders genocide, it is holy action. God is not being evil because his holiness would not allow him to act if the action were evil. Holiness defines who He is and what He does. That of course, leads us to God's Justice

Next: God is Just

Re-Thinking God: How Much Does God Really Know?

Webster: Having infinite awareness, understanding and insight and possessing universal and complete knowledge.

If there is an area that I have changed the most in my understanding of God it is God's Omniscience. The question that dogged me the most was always one involving the problem of evil. If God knew absolutely that evil would result from his creating the world and that because of it people would absolutely go to hell for their sin, why did he create the world in the first place? Because of this absolute knowledge God becomes absolutely responsible for evil existing.

One thing that started to change in me, as I read through scripture to escape my agnostic pit, was my understanding of HOW God knows things. It is not just about WHAT God knows, but HOW he knows it because of the way he created the world.

As you look through the backlog of my posts you will find many labeled 'Open Theism' and I now make it no secret that I am an open theist. I see no other way to avoid the charge that God caused evil unless He only knew evil as a possibility and not a certainty.

There is a lot of things I could say here, and to get a full understanding of where I am coming from, reading every article I have written on open theism starting with The ABC's of Open Theism and then all the rest in any order will give you a good start. There are a few specifics to mention here:

1. God knows the past and present absolutely.
2. God knows the future both absolutely and propositionaly (both what will be for certain and what is possible)
3. There are some things that God does not know: any sin He has forgiven.

For me the definition has changed: God knows everything that is knowable and He knows it in the way it is knowable.

Next: God's Omnipresence

Re-Thinking God: How Powerful is God Really?

Omnipotent: All-Powerful, Having Unlimited Power.

Well that is the normal standard definition anyway no matter what dictionary/encyclopedia you run to. The question is does it accurately describe the power that the God of the Bible possesses?

"Gee, Mr. Rabyd Theologian, why are you even asking this, the answer is an obvious yes", you might say. "Gentle Reader, this series would not be entitled Re-Thinking God if I didn't think this definition was not at least a little off", I return.

There is for starters the Omnipotence Paradox: Can God make a rock he cannot lift? If He can't, he is not omnipotent? If He can, he is not omnipotent? Now it may simply be that the definition of omnipotent is not specific enough, I mean does such a power actually exist to make a rock you cannot lift? Perhaps what this paradox teaches us is that we need to be more specific in what we mean by possessing all power or we need to define the ALL in all-power better. Some philosophers and theologians have rejected the paradox as ridiculous, but that does not necessarily make it so.

It could also be said that perhaps God places limits on himself in some way. I mean after all to be all-powerful, wouldn't you need the power to limit your own power? It might answer some of the questions surrounding God's power.

The more common challenge to the idea of God being all-powerful is Theodicy: God is love, God is omniscient, God is all-powerful and yet evil exists. 'Either God is not love, not omniscient or NOT ALL-POWERFUL' the argument follows. The thing is if the definitions of these are clearly defined, then there may be an explanation for evil because of change in the definitions.

Thankfully, for myself, I really have no problem with getting a little more detailed about the definition of omnipotence, because to just say God is all-powerful is overly simplistic in my book. What do we mean by all and what do we mean by power?

Some of us like to give God comic book like powers like a superhero. The question is do such powers actually exist or are they imaginary. I mean do we really know what powers actually exist or do they only exist in the minds of human imagination. It is a possibility that some powers we think exist, do not exist. Such a consideration may factor into our definition.

The Bible even seems to limit what power is by placing boundaries: "All power in Heaven and Earth" as an example. Not powers in places that do not exist. Still a lot of power but, all-power may only be inside all of heaven and earth. Actual power in actual places, not imaginary planes of existence.

The question of whether God places limits on Himself is actually a question of God's character so I will leave it till then, except to say that it would seem to have all power and not have a power to control it would mean not having all power. To be all-powerful seems to imply the power to control your power.

A working definition of Omnipotence: To have all power that actually exists and the ability to control that power as one sees fit.

I like this better, it allows us to ask the question: How exactly is it possible for God to deal with the problem of evil with the powers that he actually has? How can God use his power in this situation? Ect. We can ask these questions and be more specific in how God's power actually applies.

Next: God's Omniscience

Theology for Dummies - Philosophical Theology

Wikipedia: "Philosophical Theology is the disciplined employment of philosophical methods in developing or analyzing theological concepts."

While it is argued when this discipline appeared, there can be no doubt as to its purpose: take any theological concept and trace how it developed and ask the questions: "Is it philosophically sound?"; "Does that theology make sense; is it logical?"; "Does it line up with how we understand the world and God?", etc. Take any theological idea and take the questions philosophers ask and ask them to analyze that theological idea. That is the aim and purpose of philosophical theology

I really got into philosophical theology in seminary. There are certain disciplines of Christianity like apologetics (defending the faith) and issues like the problem of evil that require some philosophy in them.

Before I go further, I know a lot of Christians like to quote Paul from Colossians 2:8. But in all cases, the point is not against philosophy in and of itself but against 'vain' or 'empty' philosophy. It might be said the philosophical theology is how you tell the difference between 'vain' philosophy and solid philosophy.

In any case, no one can escape using philosophical theology from time to time. We are always as Christians checking to see if our doctrines are sound. We all ask of the Bible and what we believe: Does this make sense? We all use logic and reason as we approach Scripture and that makes use in a limited sense philosophical theologians.

Philosophical Theology proper though will take any doctrine or theological concept and put it through the wringer and see if it holds up. Probably the most famous is Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he argued that the old doctrines of revelation must give way to the new because of new theories on knowledge.

For myself I find that philosophy can be a good way to test a theological idea to see if it is sound. Logic does have its place as we analyze the Scriptures. Where it can fail is that if the Bible says: "A is true, but philosophical theology says 'A is not true' you still have to side with the Bible and say 'A is true'. You just may have to think real hard to get it to make sense or come at it from a different angle of thinking that satisfies the philosophical objections to 'A' being true.

Next: Natural Theology

Prayer and The Problem of Evil - Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he gave this model. The model is different in Luke, but the basic principles are the same. The idea is to create and outline of prayer. This outline has at least two lines that deal indirectly or directly with the problem of evil.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

Forgiveness is probably the most powerful weapon against relationship evil. It covers and removes the power of grudge, vendetta, revenge, hatred, anger and strife. When something is done wrong in a relationship there are few things more powerful than forgiveness to put a stop to the evil that can result.

It does have a responsibility to it -- anyone can pray this; it takes actually doing it to unleash that power. Part of getting answers to this part of the Lord's prayer involves our response to praying it and actually forgiving those who wrong us. Of all the parts of the Lord's prayer, this is the only one that Jesus commented directly on by adding that if we do not forgive, God will not forgive us. It may be that a lot of the personal evil we are experiencing is simply the unforgiveness of God because we have not forgiven others ourselves.

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

There is something expected in this prayer as well. It is one thing to to ask for God to lead, it is another to actually follow. I wonder how frustrated God gets when we ask for his leading through the minefield of temptation, He gives it and then we step on the mines anyway because we do not trust him. We experience the evil of these bad choices, but we cannot blame God because God warned us, we just didn't believe that he was actually answering our prayer.

Both of these things indicate a responsibility to act on what we pray. Prayer is not just some simple talking to God exercise, it involves action that reflects the character of what we pray. Evil, both in our relationship and the situations of our life may simply be caused by the fact that we do not take responsibly to act on our prayers. We pray for something but in a sense do not expect it to be answered or do not act in accordance to what we know we should do.

Next: Jesus' Teaching on Prayer

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 2 - God Goes to War

Numbers 31 is a troubling Scripture from the standpoint of modern westerners. It is not just the fact that God orders a war but genocide.

The chapter is basically about Israel's war with the Midianites in which God orders that Israel to utterly destroy the Midianites. To leave no male alive and to only spare women that were virgins so that they could become wives to the Israelites. For all practical purposes this would mean the end of the Midianites forever as the virgin girls would be suddenly Israelite the moment they had sex with and Israelite male.

I really have no problem with God going to war. In the Law there are laws about murder, but there are also laws about how to divide the spoil after a battle. The context for killing, and the Hebrew word for 'to kill' are different. One is premeditated crime of an individual; the other the act of the state in its own interests. If God therefore wants to act as king of His country (A state of affairs that would last until the monarchy of Saul) and wage war on his enemies, He has just as much right to do so as any other king.

Genocide is a different story. To wipe out an entire people group is a harsh action. The question is it justified? One could argue that God is in a better position to judge these things or has a different standard for himself involving justice. Perhaps the first is true about God being in a better position to judge these things, but God is said to be just and the definitions of justice simply don't change just because one entity has more power that others. Justice is justice.

No the real question is genocide sometimes justified? What we are asking here is can a group of people get so corrupt and so vile that they whole lot of them deserve death. Looking at this time period for not just the Midianites but all of Canaan the answer might be 'yes'. Worship of the gods of the time period involved some pretty disgusting rites:

1. Ritual drunken orgies are the norm with temple prostitution as the chief means of support for the temples. Incest was a common accepted practice in religious rites. That's dads with daughters; sons with mothers; brothers with sisters, etc.

2. Human sacrifice in particular the burning to death of a man's firstborn son. Not a quick burning either, but the child was basically placed in a hole in a bronze idol that was then heated from the inside slowly cooking the child to death while drums beat so the child's cries could not be heard.

The whole area is wracked with wars and disputes which were filled with brutality and rape. Slavery was common and while the Law of Moses allows for a kind of indentured servitude, it was not the brutal, for life, under the lash that the people of this time in Canaan practiced.

It wouldn't have been so bad but the local politics, culture and religion supported these activities and promoted them.

There is also the practical advantages of genocide to consider in this case:

1. The fact that Canaanite worship survived became an absolute plague to the Israelites that got them into trouble with God on a regular basis.

2. The fact is the surviving Canaanites and the the Israelites would battle for centuries in which more people would die, more women would be raped and more misery and suffering would be dealt out over the long term than if the Canaanites had simply been destroyed. In short, kill a few now over a short time inflicting short term misery or kill a a whole bunch more over a longer period of time causing continued, long term misery.

3. Had all of Israel's enemies been destroyed, the odds for a lasting peace in the region would have been far higher.

God would be in a better more knowledgeable position to judge these things and see the bigger picture and the lasting impact. Even so, this is troubling to my humanity because to fulfill this you would see soldiers breaking into homes and they find a woman nursing her baby boy, then by the order of God, they would have to spear them both. But in truth as a king going to war in this region, He would have been no different than many others, only in this case the objective is to ultimately crush evil in an area of the world.

Perhaps we should consider that, we may not like the means but had the full will of God been carried out, evil in Canaan would have been destroyed. It is just perhaps we simply do not like the means with which God had chosen to do this act. But then again He is God, it seems in the authority structure that he would have the right to choose any means He wants.

I will be honest, this one still keeps me up at times because God here seems unfair. Why give the Israelites the power and the right to wipe out a sinful race when they at times were just as vile. In truth, there are a lot of races could be condemned to death but are not. So why at this time and in this way? In this case, we may simply have to exercise faith in the justice and goodness of God.

Next: Herod's Slaughter of Infants?
Previous: Marriage and Rape 

Prayer and the Problem of Evil - Part 1 -- Conditions and Possiblities from James

Now I bet there are some out there that have prayed for a dying loved one and have watched them still die. After thinking on that you also came to the conclusion that you prayed in faith and they still died. So did God then lie?


Now I do not believe it was the will of God that death came into the world at least not for humans. The more deterministic camp says so but then they have God being the author of sin and evil and that is out because the Bible is pretty clear God is not the author of these things; He fights them.


Another option is that God knew evil would come and created the world anyway -- makes Him still the author of evil because once He creates the world evil and death are going to come. He still caused them because He could have stopped them by not creating the world in the first place or creating a world where the possibility of evil could not exist.


A third option is God only knew evil as a possibility. This is known as the open view or open theist position (the one I hold) where God sees evil as a possible but not inevitable end, because He has given Mankind a choice. Eat the tree --'death and evil'; don't eat the tree ' no death and no evil'. Both possibilities exist even in God mind and He is ready for either one. Mankind blows it so God begins to work against evil and redeem us from it and it's consequences. God is only responsible for creating the possibility of evil but did not actually create evil or suffering, they are simply the product of the disobedience of the human race.


Now in this evil world God still lets us talk to him and request things from him through prayer, but because of the evil unleashed things are still going to have multiple possibilities and because we still get carnal from time to time we can very much think we are right with God even though we are not. Evil and sin are always there to possibly screw things up.


Two great passages on prayer are both found in James: 4:1-6 and 5:13-18


James 4:1-6 actually offers up several conditions to answered prayer: 1) You have to ask, 2) You must not have wrong motives in particular that we are praying to consume the results on our own lusts with worldly gain of any type, and 3) You must pray in humility. That is in submission to God's desires. Now that is from God perspective, not ours.


James 5:13-18 was a favorite of many when I was in the Pentecostal church. Particularly, the part that says: "and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick...". There was always a heavy emphasis on the WILL part, but once again the conditions were often overlooked 1) calling for the elders of the church 2) anointing with oil but even here the meaning of this is subject to debate -- it could be anoint like in pour on the head or like in the case of the Good Samaritan where oil was used in a medicinal sense. 3) Do it in the name of the Lord -- humility again -- it is His authority not your own. 4) Offer the prayer in faith (Note: this is not the only condition to answered prayer as some would claim). 5)Based on verse 16 there is also confess your sins to one another and prayer for each other.

Given all these conditions one thing is for sure, you are not going to get an answer to prayer just by praying -- there is a lifestyle of holiness, community and faith that must be lived as well. There is also being the part of a church with a trust level high enough where confession of sin to each other is not only possible but brings about forgiveness. Not to mention that there are many other verses in the Bible that offer up conditions to answered prayer.

What this ultimately means is a prayer offers a possibility to God, one which He can choose to take or not to take depending on the spiritual condition of the person praying and their relationship to Him and the church. Praying does not force God's hand it simply gives Him one more thing to choose, but not a possibility that He must to choose.

In prayer, what I think is often forgotten is that God is the one in charge and we really can't tell Him what to do but we can petition Him. How he fulfils His Word is strictly up to Him.

Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

The Second Reformation

Well, you have to hand it to Martin Luther, the guy had guts. In our modern language -- balls. What is needed now is a whole bunch of Christians with the same testicular fortitude. Why? Because there is a second reformation of thought needed in the church in the Western World again. There are several reasons I think this is needed:

1. Religious Experience Has Failed to Prove God to a Secular World: Now my former brethren the Pentecostal/Charismatic types are going to hate me for saying this but your experiences with God don't prove a blessed thing. The problem with religious experience is all religious people have them and that extends beyond Christianity. A Quote by a Christian lady on Facebook to my agnostic friend:"we don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel God in the wind, in the sunshine. We know clearly there is a God..." Hmmm. I wonder if a Hindu could say the same thing: "We don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel Karma in the wind, in the sunshine. We clearly know Karma exists..." See my point? A religious experience or feelings about spirituality only prove something to the one who has them; change the perspective or belief system and experience can be duplicated in other religions. As proof that a faith is ultimately true personal religious experience is for the most part useless. From my own experience in the Pentecostal movement, I have seen preachers fake an extraordinary amount of things and try to teach me how to do it as well. Psychological manipulation is very real in religious societies and so experiences in that regard are not proof of anything but gullibility or emotional need and susceptibility. One thing Christians need to remember is 1 Peter 3:15 -- 'and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you of the reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That means to anyone at anytime. It is not a waste of time to give a reasoned response to why you believe based on what they understand and believe, in fact I would say it is the command of the Lord.

2. Theological Hardness: On the flip side, reformed thought of the Calvinist variety has so dominated for so long it no longer, or perhaps never had, the flexibility to change in the face of new questions. The answers that convinced people of the truth of Christian faith in the last 300 years no longer work. Reformed theology ultimately just adds fuel to the fire of the problem of evil and in the end seems like an arrogant mind that refuses to budge in the face of Scriptural questions. Many, not just in the Reformed camp have got to the point that no new ideas will be accepted about any doctrine of theology. Meekness (see 1 Peter 3:15 above) is needed to realize that no person has God in a box or completely figured out and to not leave room for change in our thinking is just our pride talking.

3. The Increase of Knowledge. Hate to say it there is so much information and options out there it makes your head spin. I would even say there is a new group of religious folks out there that I can only label the "TryAnythings". The move from one faith to another to try it out and see if it fits. One thing this has caused is a despair that a thing called "TRUTH" even exists. This is all made possible because Christianity is no longer the only game in town and the other options are easily found. The Technology of Today makes any religion no matter what or where it is accessible. This has led to a smarter and more knowledgeable population who have seen a lot and while Christianity may claim uniqueness, they can see similarities and that is what they treat Christianity like any other faith.

How is such a reformation going to happen? I don't think a fat monk is going to come along and nail 95 thesis to the door again, I don't think that the second reformation will belong to any single person. It is about a change of spirit so large that is going to be one of those quiet revolutions that is in many ways already happening. The Emergent Church takes a lot of flak from some corners of Christianity, but at least they are listening to what unbelievers are saying and formulating a response. That is however only one response; there are more.

One thing that is also happening is that Christians are returning to their Bibles and reading them for themselves and formulating new beliefs based on their own reading about God, Salvation and Christ. I am going to say this -- it is about time! It may take the passing of an old guard of thinkers in favor of a new one to make these changes. This means an inflexible denominational systems are going to fail to attract new people as more and more people will want a church where they can be free to believe differently than their brothers and sisters in Christ and still be accepted as part of the family of God.

Technology may provide accessibility to other religions but it also means that information about Christianity is also accessible like never before including about the historical questions about the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. It is also leading to a phenomena I and others call --faith without borders where Christians don't inhabit certain countries anymore with dominate cultures; they are everywhere. Those that are embracing this no longer dominating but permeating the world are part of the reformation to come.

It is already happening and like a snow ball rolling down a hill it will grow and then change everything when it reaches full maturity. The only real thing that stands in its way is a Traditional Protestantism but that is dying. It is just a matter of time.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 10 -- Tough Question #4 -- God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Theology is not a science, nor it is an art although it has shadows of both. It is also not some dry exercise of learning doctrine after doctrine with historical analysis to back it up -- it is not about learning somethings; it is about learning who someone is. It is about knowing God.

It is the first and greatest of all human endeavors. Jeremiah spoke to his people long ago "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast of his strength, let not the rich man boast of his riches; but he who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things" declares the Lord. To know what God delights in is the key to knowing God and to true theology as well. When we delight in what He delights in then we are knowing God in truth; that's when we are practicing theology.

God cannot be apprehended by simple learning alone. It takes the whole being of man. It must involve spirit, mind , heart and strength. My spirit must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My mind must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My heart must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My strength must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. When one truly knows God you understand what God understands with your whole being. To me this is the definition of intimacy with God.

That is what makes the doctrine of Hell so difficult. If it was a mere question of Scriptural support I would be pulled between two opinions. Both sides have scripture. The Annihilation Side has the understandings of the frequently repeated terms of "death, destroyed, perish" that appear in many passages regarding final judgment. The Torment Side has the frequent mentions of "weeping, gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment, etc." Now both sides can dispute the definitions of these things in both directions. There is ultimately no clear winner and historically -- this has been a debated point in the church for its entire existence.

So I am left with trying to Know God through trying to understand a simple question: Why Hell?

My strength waits -- deciding which to back; it takes sides and becomes the depths of my convictions when all other things fail. But where there is no sureness, my strength waits.

My heart recoils at the prospect of eternal torment, embracing the relative compassion of annihilation. On the other hand, It embraces the prospect of justice for the innocent victims of the wicked through torment and recoils at the thought of the wicked just getting off with simple non-existence.

My mind embraces the Scriptures on both sides. Seeing both are supported but not supported. The battlefield of my mind still in conflict in much the same way as my heart but with Scripture as the pieces and philosophy trying to decide who has won the victory. My heart and mind battle waiting for some new piece of information, understanding or thought to tip the scale.

My spirit submits to God that regardless of what end there is -- God is righteous. the one thing i can say with assurance with all the other things I know of God -- "The Lord of the earth will do right" It also in God's righteousness that perhaps the rest of me will then follow.

What is right for God. In his love he must show mercy, In justice he brings right to wrongs. In his righteousness he is right in how he exercises both.

I also believe that both sides are right and the same time wrong. I think there also is a reconciliation. One verse, which at first seems insignificant but has great significance -- Revelation 20:14. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Two separate places; two separate purposes. God doesn't create redundancy where it is not needed. Hades is a temporary place to be swallowed up later by the lake of fire. It is, in my mind, because they have tow very separate and different purposes.

Hades -- a place of waiting for the end. It is temporary and has two sides: the place of torment for the wicked and Abraham's bosom for the righteous. It is a place that is described as a place where those who receive good things in life experience torment where those who receive bad things in life -- receive blessing. It indicates a place where the injustices of this world are righted. Where God's love is expressed to the victims, his justice to the wicked is done and all things that are wrong are righted. it may have the possibility of being the place of final redemption.

The Lake of Fire -- the place of final cleansing and elimination of all that opposes God's will. It is the final curtain for the devil, the false prophet and the beast meet their end. Along with any person who refuses to wilfully bow their knew to Christ. Gone -- poof. Ended. In this God justly removes those that would continue to be a thorn in the side of Him and mankind. In mercy he simply removes them. Mercy both for them and those that love them they leave behind. In the end no one will say God did not do right.

My biggest problem with the usual discussion on this is that this twofold place and purpose are never looked at by people. Both are merged into one and that is not the case.

Yet, it is in God righteousness I will trust -- because if I am right -- OK. If i am wrong -- OK. Because the Lord of the Earth will do right in the end regardless of which side of the coin it eventually falls on. That is something I can get my whole being behind.

Finis.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 9 -- Tough Question #3 -- God's Love and Damnation.

Now this gets a little harder. If God's justice stands against annihilation then God's love stands against eternal torment. Or perhaps it is the way we perceive God's love that stands against it. Eternal Torment - - I wonder how many Christians fathom the concept? Think on it long and hard -- it will keep you up nights , if not for others, for yourself. Eternal punishment, burning forever in a lake of fire. For what? -- not submitting to God, disobedience, etc. all in a defined and limited time and space. If God loves all people and desires all to come to repentance why then would he eternally torture people for something they did in only a short time. It sounds like God's love must end at the border of such a place. Sorry it is a big -- "I Don't Love You" to torture a person for all eternity with no hope of escape.

This is probably the greatest reason people give up on God -- how can a loving God do this? More importantly how can God who IS love do this? It is too much for some and honestly this is one thing that has caused my faith shake at times -- it caused this whole series of posts to pursue this question because I still have questions.

Perhaps this is the tough part -- reconciling the justice of God with his love. On the one hand we want people who are wicked to be punished and victims to receive justice. On the other I too like Boyd and many others would be moved with compassion if I was near such a place watching my friends and loved ones burned alive for eternity. I think people who do not have a problem with this have never seen a person burned alive or wondered about it. Perhaps though the answer does not reside in either God's love or justice but in that which binds the two -- His Righteousness.

Next: God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 8 -- Tough Question #2 -- God's Justice and Damnation.

The real issue involving Hell is twofold when it comes to God.

1. How can a God who is just not punish the wicked and do away with evil?

2. How can a God who is love punish people for all eternity for some thing they did in only a short time?

I want to use this post to deal with the first problem.

There are many people who look at this evil world and wonder where the justice is. The cold reality is many time people do thing that are wicked and evil and get away with it. They don't just do small things either. There are the mass murders, rapists and serial killers of the world and for many people the thought is that god will put it all right when it comes to His justice. The simple belief for many Christians is that even if a person escapes justice in this world, they will not escape the justice of God. Hell is part of this belief in justice, in particular that the punishment will fit the crime. I think it becomes morally unsatisfying if a mass murderer, like Hitler, simply gets winked out of existence.

This is one of the problems with the annihilation theory -- it simply stands by itself with no way of God meeting out true justice. It may ultimately be bad for the person who is annihilated but what of the victims and their satisfaction. God is very clear about the 'eye for and eye' thing as a standard of justice -- He wrote it. And what of the martyrs in Revelation who cry out for vengeance for their blood? Simply put annihilation just does not answer the problem of justice -- of the punishment fitting the crime. It seems too light a punishment for evil.

This is where those who believe in torment have a case -- people who are wicked face real pain for what they have done and satisfaction is given for the victims of their sins. The only problem is what about the love of God and the standard of justice being 'eye for eye' is that at what point is it gone past equality and into the realm of torture. But that is the subject of the next post.

Next: God's Love and Damnation.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 7 -- Tough Question #1 -- Torment or Annihilation?

Back to Hell. Sorry couldn't resist. Above is an old illustration of the Rich Man in Hades.

The big question here is does the Bible present a picture of eternal torment or annihilation? I have always been one who believed in eternal torment until I began to truly analyze the Scriptures and what the annihilation theory was saying. They too have Biblical support and the question has one debated in the church since the very beginning. The only problem i ever had and why I dismissed it is that they need the story of the rich man to be a parable and thus not to be taken literally. They NEED this; or so I thought.

On the torment side I felt the weakness was more philosophical. Like my old professor at Asbury Dr. Jerry Walls, who wrote Hell: The Logic of Damnation, I have felt that it is inconsistent with the love of God to torment someone for all eternity for something they did in a temporal or closed existence.

One of my readers and a good writer herself, Paula Titus, has theorized that perhaps eternal torment is necessary because our sinful actions have eternal consequences to others they require eternal punishment. I admit this is strong theory but one which I have some concerns. One is that after doing a detailed study of Ecclesiastes, I can readily declare that not one single temporal action will last. Everything we are and do will be lost to death and the passage of time. No consequence of anything including things done in sin will last. They will be swallowed up in the victory of God's grace and justice. I simply do not see the idea that our actions have eternal consequences simply because God is the Omega -- not us.

Secondly because of that grace and justice and the promise of god's final victory through reconciliation, I would say a place of eternal punishment would stand against that idea of reconciliation. Everyone could look and point to Hell and ask:"If you have final victory God and have reconciled all things to yourself, why do they still live in torment? They are not reconciled are they?" It is a legitimate question.

Not as easy as you think being a theologian -- all this thinking gives one a headache but occasionally there are moments. Both side have in my mind a fatal flaw, unless we have all missed something I really can't buy wither one at the present time. But I think we have missed something in the simple fact that Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different places and may actually have two different purposes. I think that this new view I have cobbled together may have some merit and it also fulfils some of my concerns about the justice of God in relationship to hell.

Next: The Justice of God and Damnation.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 6 -- The Purpose of Hell

OK. What is the purpose of Hell? Now to recap the working theory is that Hades/Sheol is the place of waiting for the final judgment with the Lake of Fire as that place of final judgment where God brings aobut final justice. Now the question is that needs to be answered is twofold. What is the purpose of Hades and what is the purpose of the lake of fire?

Hades -- I think Luke 16:19-31 actually provides us the best explanation of the purpose of Hades/Sheol -- Abraham's words indicate that Lazarus is now receiving good things because in life he did not receive good things. The rich man the opposite is true.

I think deep within the heart of man has always existed the desire for justice and the raw fact is that many time justice does not take place. The 18 year old prostitute is beat to death by an unknown assailant but the police do not give any effort to finding the murder because she is a prostitute-- the killer is never found. Crimes without number like this go unsolved and justice is never done on this earth. Hades is the place where these wrongs are righted -- justice is served. In Hades the prostitute is avenged.

It is a place of the dead where those who received good things in life without care for others find themselves in want. It is also a place where those who receive evil all their lives final receive some good.

Infants who never leave the womb who die by the fault of life or the deliberate hand of men find themselves in a place to choose and grow.

All of these things may be possible in Hades/Sheol. It is simple a place where the shortcomings of this world are righted.

It also may be a place where the dead hear the gospel again -- 1 Peter 4:6 -- "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God." Now this is an odd verse if everything is settled at physical death. It might also answer part of the criticism people have of God -- "What about the heathen who never hear the gospel?" What if they do hear it? Even more telling is the question about babies -- do they really get to choose their faith in God? Does God simply force them to love him? Or does he give them an opportunity to choose?

In Hades these questions may be answered.

The Lake of Fire -- Unlike Hades the Lake of Fire has an ultimate finality to it. It is the place prepared for the devil and his angels. It is ultimately the place where everything that has gone against the will of God is removed forever.

The question at this point is whether that is served by eternal torture or annihilation. To be sure it is a question that relates to God's purpose for hell but it is also a question of God and his justice as well as desires for the human race.

Next: Tough Questions Considered.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 5 -- The Nature of Hell

OK. Given all the biblical considerations Boyd presents, I would have to say that his case is good that most of the teaching on final judgment indicates a finality -- death, destruction and perish. The only problem I see is you have to get rid of the 'parable' Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19-31 which I don't actually believe is a parable. That said is there a way to reconcile the two pictures? Does the picture of the Bible leads us to torture or annihilation?

Why not both?

The Luke account is very much a description of what the Jews view of Sheol or the grave that the Jewish people had for centuries, including before Christ. The concept is place of waiting where the justice of God is brought about on a person. The shocking thing to the Jew who heard Jesus' story is that the rich man (supposedly blessed by God) and the Lazarus are flipped. They would have taught and believed it would be the other way around. Contrary to the beliefs of one commenter on this blog the concept of Sheol appears very early in the Bible -- the first writer to use it was in the book of Job which is the oldest written tradition period. This way before the Greeks even existed as a nation.

At the same time, I cannot ignore Boyd and others like him, including many from the early church that say to end something is to end something. They have a point and their reasoning is sound.

Then I see this verse in Revelation 20:14 -- "Then death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire..."

This indicates two things:

1) These are two separate places: Hades/Sheol is some place separate from the lake of fire.

2) That even Hades (if the lake of fire represents the final destruction, death and perishing Boyd hits on) will to have its end.

So what if Hades/Sheol is the place where the good are blessed and the bad suffer for the lives they lived as represented by Luke 16 but the lake of fire is the final end off all things evil after judgment?

Now I am going to be blunt here -- this satisfies my sense of justice. Is it right for someone like say a Hitler or Attila the Hun to just be disintegrated without suffering something for their crimes? To me it would be fitting for them to suffer every death they ever caused over and over again until the final judgment. Shouldn't the man who burned so many Jews as well as other be burned himself? At the same time, Uncle Larry who was a great guy, never hurt a fly or told a lie, but never accepted Jesus and died in his sins -- what should he suffer?

My working theory is that Sheol is not so much a place of torture but a place of justice being served and inequalities being balanced. Look at Abraham's words to the rich man: "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things; and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here' and you are in agony." I want you to notice the reasoning for why each man is in the place he is in -- one received good in his lifetime but the other bad. Now in Hades/Sheol the situation is reversed by God to make things right. It is not about the book of life or the lamb of God, like the lake of fire in Revelation, but what each person did and received in this life. It is these things that determine what happens in Sheol.

I think I can live with a temporary place of God dispensing justice. The thing I have a hard time with is listening to our loved ones for all eternity cry out in pain for something they did in a short amount of time. It also seems inconsistent with the love of God if someone truly repents -- which they may do in Hades/Sheol -- but God does not honor it. Is Hades also a refiners fire of sorts as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3 as well as a place of an another chance for salvation before judgment? One of my professors, Jerry Walls in his Book Hell the Logic of Damnation explores this possibility and at the time I took his class on the problem of evil, I had to admit he made some good points. He theorized that some people would rather go to Hell -- "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" i.e. Paradise Lost by Milton. Is this getting too close to the doctrine of Purgatory? Maybe, but then again, what exactly is Sheol/Hades? Perhaps some would prefer to be annihilated as opposed to serving God?

Maybe Dante had a few things right?

Next: The Purpose of Hell

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 4 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 3

Seeing this is the hot topic on my blog right now let's continue.

Video 3 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment

Greg is wrapping up and drawing his conclusions to their final end:

1. His final conclusion is one of 'annihilation' that is anything that does not line up with God's will has its ultimate and complete end. The punishment still is eternal -- that is once a person gone they are gone for eternity.

2. Regardless of what way you interpret these things there are three things that are true:
a) We were created for eternal life, b) The consequence of rejecting god is hell -- regardless of what you mean -- and it is not a good thing. c) The sure way to avoid hell is to completely submit to the Lordship of Christ and thus join the church which is predestined for salvation.

Now, I am going to admit that Greg Boyd's view has a lot of merit. It considers the more common uses of eternal punishment and uses a lot of Scripture. It's one weakness overall is its treatment of Luke 16:19-31 as a parable. It certainly has given my cause for pause to rethink the merits of the annihilist position. As I have done osme historicla research -- the fact si that the early church supported both views. The nature of hell was a big debate.

Next: The Nature of Hell -- Biblical Considerations

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 3 Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 2

Video part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Part 2

I can first of all applaud Greg for asking the simple question -- Can we look at this a different way? It is the question I am asking so I am glad he is asking it too.

Considerations he is asking us to look at with my responses:

1. Luke 16:19-31 is a parable: Really? Greg makes this point because he does not want the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus to teach us on the nature of hell. However, Jesus never identifies this as a parable nor does the gospel writer. It could be factual story. It is purely speculation that this is a parable. Even so, parables are not completely one point deals. In the case of the first parable Jesus tells -the parable of the sower -- it could be argued that Jesus is making a single point by using four sub points. The interpretive model that parables only make one simple point all the time is overly simplistic and does not consider the individual nature of each parable may be different. In any case, even if this is a parable, it does not indicate that Jesus is being inaccurate about the nature of hell.

The fact is that this view of the afterlife was and still is the notion of the Jews based on interpretation of Old Testament scriptures of Sheol -- the grave. So, Jesus then would be reinforcing this belief by default. At the least -- if this story is not accurately representative of what the afterlife is like, then we have Jesus perpetuating a false notion -- I certainly don't see Christ perpetuating a false notion of anything, but even if this is just a parable by using the common belief of Sheol he is doing so. Jesus was certainly not shy about blasting false beliefs but here we would have Jesus actually using one to illustrate a point? I don't think so.

2. Many metaphors to describe eternal punishment: Greg rightly makes the point that metaphors are the basis of what we understand about hell -- I think most of his observation are accurate on this one.

3. Three most common ways God refers to punishment in the bible: a) death b) destruction and c) perish. "Be as though they have never been" Obadiah 16 is particularly telling. The point he is making is that all of these things have a finality to them and do not indicate a torture type punishment. I agree.

4. The Bible sometimes speaks of things being eternal in consequence not in duration. He makes good points here. This is part of my problem with the doctrine of hell is that is what is indicated most of the time -- the consequence of eternal death is what is indicated -- once your dead a second time your dead it is not a continual dying.

Now, I agree with most of this except the notion of Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. I really do not think it is a parable but an accurate representation of Sheol or the grave. If so, that indicates some sort of punishment for the wicked and reward for the righteous. One thing that can be said though is the parable does not indicate that Sheol is eternal -- the belief is that it is a place of waiting for final judgment. Maybe this is where the idea of purgatory first comes from but I don't think the 'hell' side is redemptive although it could be.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 3

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 2 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment -- Video 1

The context for this part of the discussion watch Greg Boyd in this video

Luke 16:19-31 provided the backdrop of the discussion. Now I think this story does not actually recount what heaven and hell are like but it is a reinforcement of the Jewish idea of Sheol or the grave. The waiting place for final judgment. It has some marked differences from the idea of eternal fire in Revelation. Here the people are placed in waiting placed and punished or rewarded based on what their life was like on earth. In Revelation, this idea does not appear at all but their the eternal fire has a finality to it based on whoever is in the Lamb's book of life. So Boyd gets off a little wrong in my opinion because I don't believe this story is dealing with the final state after final judgment but a holding place in waiting for final judgment. However he does an excellent job of presenting the problem with traditional thinking on eternal punishment.

Boyd brings up the standard questions in objection to eternal punishment:
1. How can we enjoy heaven when right down the road are people being tortured in flame that I may love and am called to love?
2. How is eternal punishment consistent with the theme that God's anger lasts only for a moment but his love and mercy lasts forever?
3. How is eternal punishment consistent with the teaching God is love?
4. How is eternal punishment consistent with the Bible's teaching regarding God's final victory?

As I watched these points being brought up I can see myself asking the same questions. The issues here are well presented and will serve as the basis for his and our further discussion.

Next: Greg Boyd Video 2

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 1 -- The Main Questions.

On problem that people often work on in dealing with the problem of evil is hell. Now there are at least two major ways to look at hell -- punishment or annihilation. Either way though -- is hell justified? I mean how do we say God is just if God inflicts hell -- an eternal punishment -- for what we do here on earth -- temporal action?

Questions this Series Will Consider:
1. What is the nature of Hell?
2. What is Hell's Purpose?
3. How does God Relate to Hell?
4. Is Hell Justified?

I will be engaging Greg Boyd and his video series on the topic as well.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPS -- Part 7 -- Stepping on TULIPS

I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.

1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.

2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.

4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.

Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.

Finis