A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part V
Free Will
Let’s take a break from
the word study, having considered every use of ‘Gehenna’ and ‘Vale of Hinnom’
in the Bible, and consider an argument that I made at the end of my first original
article.
The argument is thus: If
God commits the action of sending someone to hell, then it is unjust if
two specific qualifications are met:
1)
If He does not tell us that He will
send us to hell when we die in unbelief or misconduct
2)
If He expresses that the idea of
‘hell’ disturbs Him
Again: if these two
qualifications are met, then He would undoubtedly be proven unjust by
placing us there, given everything He has said about grace, love, forgiveness,
and mercy.
On this note, Alex
replied:
“You commit yet another non-sequitur in your reasoning here. The
conclusion does not follow the premises at all. The original question posed is
if God predestines people to hell. Meaning that, if indeed it could be
proven that God predestines people to hell, the question becomes: does
that make God unjust?”
I don’t know what Alex is
delineating, here. What I said simply wasn’t in relation to
‘predestination,’ but in relation to ‘whether or not God sends anyone to
hell,’ which is why I didn’t mention predestination. I wasn’t hiding
that.
“Say, for example, an evil scientist builds a robot. If the scientist
programs the robot to destroy a city, is the robot going to jail, or is the
scientist going to jail? Of course, the scientist is going to jail, not
the robot. This is important because, in this analogy, the scientist is
akin to God, and the robot is akin to us. Why would the robot get
punished over something he does not have control over?”
This is the “Romans 9”
question. I already covered these verses in my original study, and Alex never
replies to them, so let the record show that, for some reason, Alex didn’t want
to consider them. I, however, adore these verses, and will repeat
them for you here.
First, look at Romans
9:18–
Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will,
He is hardening.
This is coming off a major
proof from Paul that God is in control of His entire creation
– both the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys.’ Of course, Alex does not agree
with this saying instead:
“Although I agree that God is in control of His entire creation, I do
not agree that that verse demonstrates that. It demonstrates that God will have
mercy on whoever He wants. It does not say God has control on everything. That
is quite the literal understanding of said verse. Now it also literally says
that He will harden those whom He wishes to. However, hardening and mercy are
two concepts which deal with sin in particular. Moreover, hardening is
strengthening someone in their resolve while mercy is more of forgiving someone
for what they do. Therefore, this verse alone does not show the total control you
wish for Him to have.”
I don’t know where Alex
finds his definition of “hardening,” but it falls short on two different
points: 1) If hardening here refers to strengthening someone’s resolve,
then why shouldn’t we conclude that God is sovereign over this
individual?? Surely we cannot say that the all-knowing God (Who expresses
numerous times in scripture that He has a plan for all of creation, and will
bring this plan to fruition,) is not sovereign, even with this uncanny
declaration that He will harden and have mercy at will??
And 2) what if hardening
were broader in scope? Sure, it has the intended effect of strengthening
one’s resolve, but God explicitly makes note of Pharoah being
hardened in the previous verse (9:17!) God makes it clear in Exodus that He is
the One hardening Pharoah’s heart (Ex. 4:21, 9:12, 10:1, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8, 17.)
Though Israel are His chosen people, He used Israel’s enemies –
their sin, their hardness against Him – for a clear and direct
purpose.
This is, of course, not
an isolated event in Scripture. God often uses Israel’s enemies (powerful
nations with grotesque, barbaric forms of government/leadership,) against
Israel, to teach and educate them (Is. 10:5, for example.)
You will be protesting to me, then, ‘Why, then, is He still blaming?
For who has withstood His intention?’
The question is presented
as a protest – not as a genuine, reasonable question. Paul knows that
this question isn’t designed with any desire for a genuine answer, but with an
attempt to reproach the Scriptural truth that Paul had presented just
prior.
The word for is
used to try and show that everything ‘unjust’ in man’s conduct must be
the result of God’s resolve. Yet these two questions are stating two completely
unrelated facts. It’s a fact that God blames men, and it’s a fact
that no one has withstood His intention, but these two do not contradict
each other. To try and join them is an attempt to forcefully attribute the
wickedness of man to God, as if it’s something He wants, and
erroneously conclude that God wants it.
Now, how does Paul reply,
pray tell? Does he submit to the objector and his question, or does he show
that the objector is the problem by forcing these two facts side by
side?
O man! Who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God?
So he begins by
roasting the objector (getting “aggressive,” as Alex would put it.) I wonder if
Paul should be cancelled for hate speech?
That which is molded will not protest to the molder, ‘Why do you make
me thus?’
It’s counterintuitive,
simply put. If God is God, then your relationship to Him as created
is such that you really have no grounds to question His authority, whether
He were ‘righteous’ or not. Earlier in Rom. 1:18-3:26, the righteousness of
God was fully exemplified and proven. The One in absolute Authority over
everything is righteous, and yet someone (like Alex,) who has had
this aspect of God revealed to them, still has the gall to ask the
question??
Of course, Paul doesn’t
solely give this angry outburst. He continues,
Has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same
kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for dishonor?
God, being “God,” that
is, the Creator of all, can do whatever He wants with the
creation He made. He expresses at one point earlier in this letter that
creation was not voluntarily subjected to vanity (Rom. 8:20.) No one
enjoys vanity (well, no spiritually-minded person, anyway,) and yet God
clarifies that it was not a willing decision on creation’s part to be
subjected to vanity.
God expressly clarifies
that He does make the vessels of dishonor, here. He can, and does,
do so. Do you understand why? No? Well, He’ll elaborate on why in
a moment, but isn’t it greater to have faith in what the text says here,
than to sit there and deny the truth until you ‘see some evidence?’ (1 Cor.
1:21-23)
Whether you or I
like it or not, God tells us that He makes vessels of dishonor –
and, moreover, that He makes these vessels out of the same clay as that of
the honorable! Indeed, we are all composed of the same flesh. We are all
subjected to vanity, and all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God (Rom. 3:23.) He doesn’t have to prove this, but He will anyway.
This is not the only time
that we see the ‘potter/clay’ analogy in Scripture. We see in in Jer. 18:1-6,
Is. 29:16, 45:9… Israel and any other who have studied the Hebrew scriptures
should have no trouble recognizing this figure. Paul is not saying,
“Hey, I have the answer, so contend with me.” He is, in truth,
saying, “Hey, God gave you the answer to this already, so don’t
pretend like this is new information.” Similarly, I am not asking you to
recognize me and my theology; I am pointing at the text, highlighting
the fact that you, Alex, by asking the question you’re asking,
are challenging God.
God has not yet answered
the objection, however. “Why, then, is He still blaming?” He will do
so after the important fact of God’s right to do whatever He damn
well pleases with His creation is established. God never gave authority to
Israel in order for Israel to say, “You have no right to blind me! Nor do you
have a right to save those of the nations!” This is a toxic claim, one
rooted in spiritual ignorance and malice toward any good
happening to others, which, again, is part of the reason that God’s answer is
so brazen, here.
Now if God, wanting to display His indignation, and to make
His powerful doings known, carries, with much patience, the vessels
of indignation, adapted for destruction, it is that He should also be
making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,
which He makes ready before for glory–
Us, whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the
nations also.
God gives two reasons
for creating the imperfections of His creatures–
1)
To display “His indignation”
2)
To make “His powerful doings” known
What we see, with this,
is a very clear design behind the creation of evil (Is. 45:7, Ecc.
1:13.) There is a clear answer given by the God of Scripture as to its
relative purpose. If there were no evil, He would have nothing to be indignant
toward. If Pharoah had not disrespected God, God would not have been able to
display His authority over His creation!
What’s more is that God does not deal with this irreverence spitefully or angrily. Intent is just as important as action, here. He doesn’t turn stone-cold and deal with humanity like a Cylon would, but bears with the irreverence with patience. This patience, this borderline lax attitude on His handling of sin, does not display “forgetfulness,” or that He “does not care,” but shows a patient handling of sin while it still plays a necessary role in His creation.
Alex doesn’t seem to like
the answer God gives, instead saying:
“So He forces people to do bad so He can show us how indignant He is
over the things He forces others to do? Yeah, no. That is not right.”
It is understandable that
Alex would twist what God said here (for he, like anyone believing in free
will, refuses to acknowledge God’s authority and right to control His own
creation.) He is under sin, and this causes him to change the sentences. God
says He is indignant toward irreverence and unrighteousness, per Romans
1:18. He takes grave issue with human pride (which is rooted in the
self, and justified by the doctrine of free will.) He does not say He is blindly
mad for no reason, but that He detests the falsehoods protruding from
man’s mouth. Man, as we know, was made for fellowship, and this cannot be effected
between a righteous and unrighteous party – the two will always
be at odds with each other.
The indignation, then, serves
its purpose. When God displays His anger, it is temporary (Ps.
30:5,) and through His judgment, the sinning creature learns its lesson,
and can then fully appreciate Christ, the Savior of the irreverent from
unrighteousness (Rom. 5:8-10.)
Moreover, this objection
that Alex gives shows that he is not a fan of scripture for what it
says, and must change the text in order to like it. So… he likes
God, but only if God agrees with him. This is backwards. Whether Alex likes
it or not, this is one passage of many that directly declare God’s authority
over His entire creation. Observe Deut. 32:39–
See now that I, I am He, and there are no other elohim beside Me. I
Myself put to death, and I keep alive; I have transfixed, and I
Myself shall heal.
Ecc. 1:13–
It is an experience of evil Elohim has given the sons of
humanity, to humble them by it.
Ecc. 3:1-8, 10-11–
For everything there is a stated time, and a season for every
event under the heavens: a season to give birth and a season to
die; a season to plant and a season to chop down what is planted.
A season to kill and a season to heal. A season to breach
and a season to build. A season to weep and a season to make
merry. A season of wailing and a season of dancing. A season to
fling away stones and a season to collect stones together. A season to
embrace and a season to stay far from embracing. A season to seek
and a season to stay far from embracing. A season to seek and a
season to count as lost. A season to keep and a season to
fling away. A season to tear and a season to sew. A season to
hush and a season to speak. A season to love and a season to
hate. A season of war and a season of peace…
I see the experience that Elohim gives to the sons of humanity to
humble them by it. He has made everything fitting in its season.
However, He has put obscurity in their heart so that the man may not
find out His work, that which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to
the terminus.
Ps. 139:13-16–
For You Yourself achieved the making of my innermost being; You
overshadowed me in my mother’s belly. I shall acclaim You, for You are
fearfully distinguished; marvelous are Your works/ You have known my soul very
thoroughly; my skeleton was not suppressed from You, when I was made in
concealment; I was woven together as in the nether parts of the earth. Your
eyes saw my embryo, and my days, all of them were written upon Your scroll. The
days, they were formed when there was not yet one of them.
Prov. 16:9–
A man’s heart, it devises his way, yet Yahweh establishes his
steps.
Prov. 21:1-2–
Like rillets of water is the king’s heart in the hand of Yahweh;
wherever He desires, He redirects it. Every way of a man seems
upright in his own eyes, yet it is Yahweh Who gauges the hearts.
Is. 45:7–
Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of
evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things.
Is. 46:10–
All My counsel shall be confirmed, and all My desire shall I do.
Lam. 3:36-38–
To overturn a human in his cause, does not Yahweh see? Who is this who
speaks and it comes about if Yahweh does not determine it? Do not both the evil
and the good come forth from the mouth of the Supreme?
John 1:3–
All came into being through [the Word,] and apart from [the Word] not even
one thing came into being which has come into being.
Rom. 8:20–
For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily,
but because of Him Who subjects it…
Rom. 11:32–
For God locks up all together in stubbornness,
that He may be merciful to all.
Rom. 11:36–
For out of Him and through Him and into Him is all.
Eph. 1:4-5–
[God] chooses us in [Christ] before the disruption of the world, we to
be holy and flawless in His sight, in love designating us beforehand for the
place of a son for Him through Christ Jesus; in accord with the delight of His
will…
Eph. 1:9-11–
[God is] making known to us the secret of His will (in accord with His
delight, which He purposed in [Christ]) to have an administration of the
complement of the eras, to head up all in the Christ – both
that in the heavens and that on the earth – in Him in Whom
our lot was cast also, being designated beforehand according to
the purpose of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel
of His will…
Eph. 2:8–
For in grace, through faith, are you saved, and this is not out of
you.
1 Tim. 2:4–
God wills (A.V. “desires”) that all mankind be saved and come
into a realization of the truth.
This is a small sample
of the overwhelming number of verses which speak to God’s authority
and sovereignty over all of creation. Whereas we do not see a single verse
where God says, “I have not seen sin coming, and did not realize the impact it
would have, but I maintain that giving flawed creatures control over their own
destiny was the right and loving thing to do,” we read, in contrast, God
(almost repetitiously) crediting Himself with authority over every
facet of creation.
Honestly, I don’t see the
issue. I don’t see why we should deny such clear, direct statements from God. I
don’t even see why this doctrine is so unbelievably important to the
Christian faith, other than the fact that Christians do not apprehend the purpose
of evil (as stated in Ecclesiastes above,) and enforce it to answer to atheist
objections against their view. However, I see now that this is such an
important concept to Alex and others which proclaim that “free will” is a
necessary part of creation, which means that Satan must be using this
doctrine (which directly denies the texts above) to blind the
apprehensions of The Many, keeping the evangel of Christ from illuminating them
(2 Cor. 4:2-6.) As such, I will tell my readers now that I will make a
full-fledged study against the doctrine of free will when I reach Rom.
9:18-24 in my study of Romans.
It seems as though Alex’s
main gripe with the reality of God’s control is that it means He Himself has
created evil, being the very thing he hates. Yet if sin is some unforeseeable,
uncontrollable force that penetrated God’s creation from without, then
God is lying when He says that He created all in His Son, the
Word (John 1:3, Col. 1:15-17.) Moreover, He is lying when He says that
He is all-knowing, for He would not have foreseen sin. This theory would
also give cadence to the idea that sin is dominated by another Supreme
God, which has the authority to eternally and permanently separate the
all-powerful God from His creatures. We would be saying that there is a power
in the universe that has the ability to defeat God’s intention, and as
such, can defeat God.
This is, of course, a
professed belief in two supreme Gods, which should actually terrify Alex,
for he would, in this, reveal himself one of the unjust and irreverent men who
will receive God’s indignation, per Rom. 1:18 (which would explain his hypocritical
nature, given much of his commentary reflects Paul’s charge in Rom. 2:1-2.)
Was it God’s intention
that sin should invade the universe, or was it an error on His part? From the
beginning, the Adversary has been sinning (1 John 3:8) – so did God make
Satan a sinner, or was Satan designed to sin?
Your answer to these
questions will depend on your apprehension of the facts. God says that there is
a purpose to sin that will be fulfilled, as we see in His above
argument. Yet most religious institutions claim that sin was a horrendous
accident that Satan concocted, and that God has been fighting to counter-balance
ever since!
Unfortunately, to
reconcile such a view, these institutions will claim that “God would be unjust
if He created Satan a sinner, for it means that God planned for
the very sin that He hates!”
To this, I will kindly
remind you all that if Satan became defective, and the all-knowing God
did not have a purpose for this, then God failed at making Satan!
If He planned Satan to be this “perfect angel,” and then Satan
did something other than God’s design for him, then God’s intent
for Satan was absolutely destroyed, and thus God, Himself, sinned.
Alex would tell me that I
am “assuming” that God intended to make Satan a perfect angel. This is one of
the few truly sensible things I believe Alex has said. Yes! Yes, it would
be a complete assumption to claim that God intended to make Satan a perfect
angel! So let’s not assume this, and instead accept what God says concerning
Satan, being created a sinner (1 John 3:8,) not an angelic deity.
However, you cannot tell
me that God “made an angel” and then tell me that “God didn’t intend on making
an angel.” If we are going off of Christian mythology, then God intended to make an angel and
failed. The notion of “free will” would not excuse God, for God still
planned the construct of this creature. God says that His deeds are flawless
(Deut. 32:4.) If free will could so obviously have
this consequential poison coursing through all living things,
then the trait of free will would be a stain on creation, and Satan
would be the prime example of this failure. God would reveal Himself unable to
make a perfect creature, and thus incapable of running the story. God would,
then, not be loving, or all-knowing, for being unable to
perceive this outcome, and being unable to rectify it since its intrusion on
the universe. There would be no reason to create to begin with if such a
creation has every opportunity to go awry, with God being unable to
reconcile everyone.
Let’s now turn back to
Alex’s analogy. Who gets placed in jail? The evil scientist, or the robot that
the evil scientist programmed? The evil scientist, of course. The robot
has no life in them by which to effect its own decisions. However,
Alex’s analogy is not an exact 1:1 with creation, which is vibrant,
and alive, not robotic and dead. You have a will; it is
simply not free.
For the past few weeks, I
have been spending a fair bit of time out in Texas’ countryside, away from
light pollution. At about 9:30-10:00 PM, the stars crawl out from their hiding
place, and I get this overwhelming look at a bright night sky – brighter
than I ever could have imagined the night becoming. You can see the
constellations clearly; Pegasus flying across the night sky, the tail of
Scorpius distinct to my south, and a little dolphin (“Delphinus”) swimming in
the hazy arm of the Milky Way.
While I witness this
astronomical marvel, I hear it – creation, itself, singing, vibrating,
moving at all times. Sometimes I feel a mosquito buzz around my ear, or
hear the distant cackle of a hyena. I hear the cow mooing, the occasional
“hee-haw” of its protector, and thousands of crickets, praising God at
the top of their… uh, ‘wings.’
This image of creation
– this experience you are aware of – is living. Just
because something is planned or patterned does not make it an
automaton, and this is Alex’s problem. God did give you and me a will. He
gave you life, to go make your own decisions, get mixed and muddled up
in everything you’ve been brought into. But “making decisions” do not
denote “free will,” and they never have. This is a false correlation.
I could offer millions of
people decisions with loaded outcomes. Magicians do it all the time! They load
the choices you’ll make so that the “magic trick” is successful every time
(they always guess the seven of hearts! Isn’t that crazy?) The OSS, in
1943, released a memo revealing that they were testing the ability to alter
public perceptions through the film industry. In this memo, the
writer states that “Motion picture can be employed on most of the major
psychological warfare ‘fronts.’ They can be aimed at the civilians and armed
forces of the United States – to inform and instruct, to create attitudes, to
stimulate or inhibit action, to build morale…”
Mankind understands that
“decisions” can be manipulated. If men can astound other men
with pre-determined outcomes, or control populations with psychological
influences, then why should we think that God, Who made these
men, wouldn’t be able to perform a perfected, proper, righteous version
of the same concept, to bring everyone into an understanding of love? Why is
this God such a perfectionist when it comes to the exact placement of the
stars, and the sustainability of the environment, and the rapidly-expanding,
unknown vastness of the universe, but, according to Alex, can’t seem to figure who
on this little blue rock will be saved or not beforehand?
(Alex called me a liar,
here, by the way, that he “never said God can’t figure something out.” Yet the
very theory Alex presents, that God never intended for sin, means that
God also never intended for salvation from sin, and as such Him
sending His Son was a desperate clutch for victory, and not a
pre-planned event, as God says it was – 1 Pet. 1:19-20. He would not be
all-knowing, and would thus be susceptible to losing track of many things.)
Alex’s example does not
fit the claim; ‘God’s control’ doesn’t mean ‘we the machines,’ and there’s no
reason for this assumption to be made. The problem with hell is not
“whether or not someone is pre-destined to it,” though that would be horrific.
The problem (which was the point of my initial objection in my
original article,) was hell itself, and the horror that God would truly
throw someone in there after not telling us He would in the slightest. And,
finally, the point was to show that it was, relatively, man (in 4th
century AD) who added this term “hell” – not God.
(Alex again calls
me a liar here, telling me that the point of my original series was to ask,
“Does God predestine people to hell?” And, while this is true, and it did
require me to cover the lies of both “eternal torment” and “free will,”
I am not lying by telling you that the point, the purpose of the
original articles, was to highlight the issue with such a doctrine, how
incongruent it is with established facts concerning God, and how compatible it
actually is with God’s enemies.)
Alex does not seem to
believe that there is any indication, in Scripture, of God causing
others to purposefully sin against Him. Yet there most certainly are –
almost too many to count. Take, for example, 1 Kings 22:19-22, where
Micaiah, the prophet of God, declares to King Ahab concerning a conquest he
desired to make. Here’s Micaiah speaking:
“Hear the word of Yahweh: I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all
the host of the heavens standing by Him, to His right and to His left. Yahweh
said, ‘who shall entice Ahab, so that he may march up and fall at
Ramoth-gilead?’ Now this one said thus, and another was saying thus. Then a
spirit came forth, stood before Yahweh, and said, ‘I myself shall entice him.’
“Yahweh asked him, ‘By what means?’
He replied, ‘I shall go forth, and I will become a false spirit in the
mouth of all his prophets.’
Then He said, ‘You shall entice, and, moreover, you shall prevail.
Go forth and do so!’
And now behold, King Ahab – Yahweh has bestowed a false spirit into
the mouth of all these prophets, for Yahweh Himself has decreed evil concerning
you.”
Here is a clear, fantastic
example of God causing evil (a false spirit to lie to an
individual) for the greater good (being the death of an evil king, which He
Himself instituted to begin with for the sake of showing man’s inability
to follow the law – Rom. 3:19-20, 5:20, Gal. 3:10-12.) This is one of
many examples, but I would argue that the greatest is Christ’s
death on the cross – the greatest sin on man’s end is the greatest fountain
of blessing on God’s end. This dichotomy plays a role at all times,
in all of our lives, whether we apprehend it to its fullest extent or
not.
The question naturally
arises that, “If man added the word ‘hell’ here, then didn’t God plan for
this discrepancy?” The answer is, yes. Yes, He did. This is, in truth, only
a discrepancy from the perspective of the objector – not to God, Who
answers to it multiple times. You can read about this in my Romans study,
where, in Rom. 1:18-32, we read of God deluding man by giving them the
experience of worshipping the created instead of the Creator. The
reason is because, while He does will that all be saved and come
to a realization of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4,) He is performing it in a process,
so as to display other aspects of His character, as Romans 9 pointed
out to us. To learn love, we must, for a distinct measure of time, experience
its opposite. The irreverence of mankind will only last for an exact amount
of time, to show our weakness and highlight His deserved indignation. It will
be a short, seven-year period (Dan. 9:25-27) – just long enough for man
to get the message, and just short enough to keep Him from overextending
the punishment.
As such, He must hide His
word. Observe Prov. 25:2–
It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a matter, and the glory
of kings to investigate a matter.
God hides a
matter, so that His kings will find it. Back in Romans, Paul points out
that those who obtain the “superabundance of grace” (the conciliation of
God) and the “gratuity of righteousness” (the justification through faith from
God) shall be “reigning in life through Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17.) God hides
Paul’s evangel, so that His pre-determined kings are displayed to
find it. He clarifies in Eph. 1:4-5 that He chose believers today before
the disruption of the world, being designated beforehand for the
place of a Son, through Christ Jesus.
Alex asks a very critical
question, here:
“Wait, so what happens to those who are not predetermined ‘kings?’
What is their fate? Where do they go?”
There are other glories
for other individuals outside of Paul’s evangel. Believers in the evangel of
the kingdom will, of course, take part (likely as proselytes) in the coming
millennial kingdom. Many will be judged in accord with their acts (described in
Rom. 2:3-16,) and, on judgment day, will either be placed in the second death,
or on the new earth. The judgment and the blessings will be carried out.
Afterward, the consummation will occur (as noted in 1 Cor. 15:24,) where
the last enemy is being abolished: death (1 Cor. 15:26,) all are thus
vivified (1 Cor. 15:22,) and reconciled to God (Col. 1:15-20,) and, through
their corrective journey, will safely be able to acclaim that Jesus is Lord
(Rom. 10:8-13, Phil. 2:9-11,) and as such, all will be subjected to God –
making God All in all (1 Cor. 15:27-28.)
Such an outcome is too
specifically documented to be a fluke, or mere possibility. God is exact
and precise in His revelations, and to ignore the cited verses above
would be faulty.
In sum: may we learn that
this “hell” mistranslation is a part of the story, and not an accident
that God could not have possibly accounted for! To everything there is a
season, and yes, you can hate the lie while understanding its
temporary necessity, being a predecessor to God’s revealed glory.
Wrapping
Up Alex’s Objections to My First Article
We have a little bit
more concerning all the “predestination” stuff, and then we can wrap up Alex’s
comments on part one of my original hell articles. I thank God that I’ve been
able to go through and rectify some of the comments in the article, as well as
clarify some more points concerning free will in this series.
“Let’s assume for a moment that what you’ve been saying about Gehenna
is true. Ummm… there is still a punishment being done to a person who
was predestined to go there!”
To make God’s powerful
doings known, yes, and to highlight the contrast between righteousness and
lawlessness. Per part 5 of my original study, we already know that God plans on
abolishing death (1 Cor. 15:26,) so that He becomes All in all (1
Cor. 15:28.) Thus the punishment that one suffers in Gehenna is temporary,
not permanent.
I will note also that
Gehenna is said to combust at the end of the millennial kingdom (Rev.
20:10, 2 Pet. 3:10.) This is directly followed by Judgment Day, where
those whose bodies were cast into Gehenna will be presented at the Great White
Throne to be judged. So, this ‘Gehenna’ is clearly not the end of an
individual’s existence, but a temporary location.
“Predestined” does not
mean “evil.” It means “opposite of free will,” sure, but “free will” doesn’t
mean “good,” either. God firmly established in Romans 9 that He has the
right to do whatever He pleases with that which He created.
Alex replies,
“But what is the judgement? Like what happens to those people who were
predestined to Gehenna and now are in front of God? I actually am curious to
know your theology on this. I’ve never heard of this sort of eschatology
before.”
Another excellent
question. The judgment itself is separate from that of Gehenna, which
was limited to the millennial kingdom. This judgment is “Judgment Day,” and can
be found in Revelation 20:11-15. I covered these verses in my original series
of articles, and will be considering them again in brief later in this study.
“God sent the person there because God wanted to or because God
programmed Him to go there.”
I would argue that both
would be true, in the case of Gehenna. Alex may not like that
answer, but guess what? The worst sin of all, being the murder of
Christ, was also desired by God! And He says as much, in Isaiah
53:9-10!
And they appoint [Christ’s] tomb with the wicked, With the rich His
sepulcher, Although He had done no wrong, And no deceit was in His mouth. Yet
Yahweh desires to crush Him, And He causes Him to be wounded.
With that, please don’t
tell me that “predetermination” somehow means there’s no life, or care, or
meaning to the story. You would not tell me that J.R.R. Tolkein is evil for making
the evil Sauron to tell his story. There’s a clear and intentional contrast that
is being displayed in this current eon. Without the death of Christ, we
could not share of the blessings imparted to us through His blood (Rom.
3:24-26, 5:9.) Nor could we appreciate the resurrection of Christ and
the life imparted with it (Rom. 6:3-11.) The unjust death at the hands
of the Jews, was just at the hands of God, because of the intent that
went into the action of each (Matt. 26:3-4, Rom. 4:25.)
Alex does not agree with
two notions, here – first, that “predetermination” means that the outcome is,
literally, determined beforehand. And second, that purpose for the sin
against Jesus doesn’t mean that this is the case for everyone else. Let’s first
deal with his disagreement against the first notion:
“Predestined can mean that the outcome has been predetermined. Which I
am completely fine with an outcome being predetermined. It is like signing a
contract with either Walmart or Target. Maybe Walmart has predestined the new
hire to take in carts for $12 an hour while Target has predestined the new hire
to be a cashier for $15 an hour. We however, have control which job we want.”
Here Alex confuses man’s
pre-determinations with God’s pre-determinations. I think we can all
agree that there is a radical difference between man, the mortal
with limited sense and ability, and God, the all-knowing, all-powerful
Deity. God’s abilities of foresight, insight, and hindsight are second to none.
We, relatively, do indeed decide which “job” we want. However, this
decision does not escape the foresight of an all-knowing God. God is not
unable to foresee the outcome of weak creatures such as ourselves. We
shouldn’t even be attempting to argue that this would be the case, but
such is Sin, I guess.
Alex’s second notion is
trickier, but no less impractical. So, let me get this straight; God doesn’t
intend for Sin, but just happens to have the very Cure on
standby? Like, as in, He didn’t know Sin would take over His perfect
world, but still had the exact resolution to the scenario?
What if I didn’t plan
on shooting someone, but I just so happened to have bandages for bullet
wounds in the back seat of my car?
What if I didn’t plan
on flying to the moon, but just so happened to spend the night in a
rocket ship?
What if I didn’t plan
on cheating on an exam, but just so happened to have the answers written
on my hand?
…Was that enough
practical examples, or am I still just a big bully?
“Your second premise is also off. I firmly believe that, growing up,
you got in trouble with your parents many times, and they had to correct you.
Do you think they want to correct you? No. But they do it. Does that
mean that they are unjust if they correct you? Not at all! You deserve
your punishment.
Likewise, this whole idea of Gehenna, whether you see it as ‘eternal’
or ‘temporal,’ is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God is ‘just’
for predestinating people to it.”
The first paragraph
highlights, to me, that Alex truly is intelligent, and knows that
a punishment, by definition, is corrective in nature, and not torturous
in nature. God does not punish because He believes you to be a lost cause,
but punishes to correct. This is indeed shown in the family
structure laid out in the west today, as well as many other cultures. The
parent corrects the child until they are old enough to make their own
decisions. Whereas the parents are imperfect and may teach wrong
lessons, however, God is righteous and those He punishes will learn the
lesson He is conveying through His punishment.
As for the premise itself
(which, as a brief reminder, is that God is unjust if He sends someone to hell while
explicitly saying that the idea of perpetually burning people alive disturbs
Him,) I don’t see how Alex’s explanation of “punishment” negates or
disproves the premise. A good parent doesn’t enact a punishment that disturbs
them, but gives one that fits the crime. When my dad punished me, he
didn’t take my hand and slam it over a heated stove, or take a baseball bat to
my leg, or drop me off the roof.
God is kind of not
stupid, and understands this concept, being a Father Himself. In loving His
world, God gave His only Son (John 3:16.) His most prized
possession was handed over to the likes of us. If He then proceeds
to give a disturbing punishment afterward, anyone at the Great
White Throne could indeed sit there and say, “You are inconsistent, God! First
you tell us you love us, imparting immeasurable blessing on a select number of
people through your Son’s sacrifice, being our transgression, and
yet now you tell us that there’s this eternal punishment that
won’t ever end – while clarifying that you are disturbed by
the notion of passing people (especially loved ones) through fire???”
Alex later claims, in his
reply to my third article:
“Now, it is evident that you think that, since God is love, He is
incapable of sending people to a place of eternal torment. However, this is not
so. Being that God is love, He allows you to pick freely whether
or not you choose to believe in Him and stick to His side. Romans (5:8)
demonstrates this purely and exquisitely:”
God is commending this love of His to us, seeing that, while we are
still sinners, Christ died for our sakes.
No “choice” is presented
in this verse in the slightest. If there were a choice, Paul would have
said, “God is commending this love of His to us (unless we deny Him, in which
case that ‘love’ window closes,) seeing that, while we are still
sinners, Christ died for only those who know how to accept Him under all the
right conditions, which can be confirmed at your nearest Baptist church. By
the way, I love man’s philosophy!”
Alex claims that my reply
is an argument by derision, for he is “only referring to the ‘God is love’”
part of the verse. I reply that if this is all he is referring to, then he has
no reason to cite Romans 5:8 after saying “God allows you to ‘pick freely’
whether or not you choose to believe in Him,’ for Romans 5:8 doesn’t say this
at all.
“Now, if you read John 3:16-21, you see that Christ came to save us
from something. All men die, man. It’s not salvation if all men have to go
through death and return to the dust and the spirit goes back to God. Salvation
from what? The unseen?”
The salvation in
view is a process, which I expound upon in my Romans series, which is
the series that considers the sole theme of Romans, being God’s salvation
through Paul’s evangel (Rom. 1:16-17.) I quoted George Rogers’ study in my
own, where he writes,
“‘Salvation’ comprehends the full result of acceptance of
the gospel beginning with rescue from wrath (Rom. 5:9), and issuing in
conformity to Christ in glory (Rom. 8:28-30)… There is a past salvation
from the penalty of sin dating from the time we first believed (Rom.
3:21-26.) Then there is the present deliverance from the power of
sin by which we are saved from sinning and attain maturity (Rom.
6:1-7:25.) Finally, we shall be saved from the presence of sin
altogether, at the advent of a Savior Whom we await out of heaven (Rom. 13:11,
Phil. 3:20-21.)”
Alex is, again, mad that I quoted George Rogers, here, but I cite him
because his teaching is rooted in the text he’s citing. I have not used
George Rogers to found my viewpoint in anything, whereas Alex has
claimed that he believes certain things because they are verified by “early
church fathers.” Whereas I can remove this quote and still carry a
scripturally-rooted argument, Alex cannot, and, if his “you’re mean” and
“majority rule” quotes were removed, the argument remains spotty (which, for
any who have taken the time to view Alex’s papers – this is why I’m not
replying to much of his second set of papers, where much of his questions have
been answered already, or much of his claims have already been debunked
elsewhere in this elongated study.)
What we are being saved from is the sin that reigns in death.
We are justified from it, brought to an understanding of God through our
deliverance from it, and at the end, when our Savior arrives, we will be
snatched away from it, being given new bodies that do not house
it (Rom. 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:51-53.)
To summarize, I can share the two verses that come after Romans
5:8, where Paul does not express that we are saved ‘from hell,’ but:
Much rather, then, being now justified in His blood, we shall
be saved from indignation, through Him. For if, being enemies, we were conciliated
to God through the death of His Son, much rather, being conciliated, we
shall be saved in His life.
Man is not endangered by a potential for “eternal torture and
suffering,” but from God’s indignation, which is laid out in
Revelation. This would lead to death, of which without Christ, there
would be no reversal.
“God loved us enough to give us free will.”
Proof? I have a hundred
verses stating the opposite (and no, that’s not hyperbole, and I already
expressed a few over in Romans 9.) God would be mighty unintelligent to
make a creation, tell them not to eat fruit on a tree, watch them fail, and
not have a plan for any of it. If the whole tree debacle is unplanned,
then God failed at making Adam. I don’t think either myself or Alex
likes this conclusion, so let’s rather consider the overwhelming number of
verses by which God expresses His authority over and plan for all
(Lam. 3:36-38, Ecc. 1:13, Ps. 139:13-16, Rom. 11:32-36, Eph. 1:4-11, 1 Cor.
15:22-28, and many, many more.)
* * *
This is the last comment I will reply to from Alex
concerning ‘Part 1’ of my original study. My refutation ran on a little longer
than I expected, but I think the information is valuable – especially in this
day and age, where Alex’s talking points are mindlessly thrown around by
people who have never self-reflected concerning their own beliefs. It is
critical to note that Alex’s argument here, being unfounded and lacking the
textual criticism that he is claiming that I do not have, is not
exclusive to Alex alone. Many accept this idea of hell and don’t know why
they believe it.
I would liken the churches that teach this eternal
torment to that of the pharisees, who were venomous with their words and
inconsistent in their claims, while bashing those that have carefully
considered the Hebrew texts. These churches do not have a foundation in
the oldest Greek manuscripts to stand on, nor do they care to learn on
this front. They perform the spiritual equivalent to shooting crack into the
toes of every poor victim in the pews, such as Alex; they are addicted to
this false teaching, as it puts them in an “elite believers” club that outsiders
will suffer for eternity for refusing to join.
This is the same mentality that goes into
the mafia in The Sopranos. It is the same mentality that goes into the KKK.
It is the same mentality that goes into political extremism. These are
power hungry men who seek the destruction of those who disagree with
their flawed perspective. It is, as Paul calls them, the ‘maimcision,’
in Phil. 3:3. Titus 2:9 clarifies this as well:
Stand aloof from stupid questionings and genealogies
and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain. A sectarian
man, after one and a second admonition, refuse, being
aware that such a one has turned himself out, and is sinning, being self-condemned.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment