There is so much
disagreement in the world. There are
disagreements regarding politics, religion, sports teams, news networks and
everything in between. Some of these
disagreements are subjective in nature and will continue to exist as long as
there are people to disagree. Others are
of an objective nature, such as religion and history. Even though we disagree about countless
things, we posit that there exists at least one truth on which all people must
ultimately agree: We, every single one
of us, will die.
The people
who live in the developed world rarely entertain this thought. It is something we do not witness very often,
and when we do we are taken by surprise.
Something within us empathetic within us, but almost akin to seeing
someone else diagnosed with a terminal disease, we don’t actually believe that
it will happen to us. And by believe, I
don’t merely mean giving intellectual assent to the fact that we will die. I would say that most everyone believes they
will die in such a sense. Rather, I use
the word believe as it is used in Scripture, that you believe and dwell in an
inescapable truth so that it ultimately effects the way you live your
life. Our belief in gravity falls in
this category. Every person on earth
believes in gravity, that we will stick to the earth every day when we wake up. And because of our experience and our belief,
we act accordingly. No one with all
their faculties intact wakes up and expects to float about through the air. Gravity is inescapable, and we act the
part. Death is just as inescapable, and
we largely ignore it.
So here we
deal with the elephant in the room. You
and I and everyone we will ever know are going to die. We don’t have to like it. Our emotional response to this truth is
irrelevant. The truth remains objective
and uninfluenced by our efforts in modern medicine and other areas of
technological achievement. And so, for
one fleeting moment, all of humanity must conform to the great truth of our own
mortality. It is in that moment, in the face of this sobering truth, that we
ask, “What happens after you die?”
Immediately
our agreement diverges into a thousand different streams of thought. Some claim reincarnation. Others claim we head to oblivion and
non-existence. Heaven, hell, and even
parallel universes are on the table. Our
present purpose is not to debate all the strengths and weaknesses of each
postmortem claim to existence. Rather,
we are here to understand the position of the skeptic/atheist on the issue and
give a reasonable Christian answer to their question, “What crime deserves an
eternity of punishment?”
Necessity of Justice
The author
and speaker Rob Bell has posed this question more specifically by asking, “Does
God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for
things they did in their few finite years of life?”[1] Bell, who purports to be a Christian, sees
this as something that a loving God would be incapable of doing. This stance is accepted by many both outside
and within the Christian Church. The
problem is that this stance is distinctly non-Christian, unbiblical and
logically flawed given basic theistic presuppositions.
As discussed
in the last chapter, there is great evidence that there exists an external,
objective moral law that applies to all mankind. Murder and rape are wrong across the
board. Love and selfishness are virtues
at all times and in all places. Contrary
to the atheist mode of thinking, we will hold this objective moral law to be a
reality. However, if the objective moral
law is a reality, then there are logical consequences that flow from its
existence. As previously discussed,
there comes an innate sense of “oughtness.”
Faced with a decision between right and wrong, one may still choose to
do wrong, but know that they ought to do the opposite.
This can be
clearly seen in worldly government.
Putting aside an objective moral law for just a minute, let us just consider
the law of the United States. Homicide
is against US law. One is not free to
murder whomever they wish in the United States.
If one were to commit homicide and be caught, there would be necessary
consequences for that person. Law
enforcement is a necessary part of the legal system. It does no one any for congress to declare
homicide illegal if no one was ever punished for committing the crime. Moreover, it is the entity that institutes
the law (in this case, the US government) that must see to it that the law be
enforced. Failure to do so would
inevitably lead to anarchy and social decay.
Wherever a
legitimate law exists, there must necessarily be a judicial system to implement
it. The lack of such a judicial system
would, in effect, render the law useless and void. We see this in corrupt governments across the
globe. People of influence, power and
wealth often get away with crimes they did commit. Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union during
World War II, is credited with murdering as many as 20 million people in Soviet
labor camps.[2] However, Stalin ended up in a relative place
of power being on the winning side of the war.
He was never held accountable for his actions, even though Hitler and
the Nazis killed 9 million less people than did Stalin and the Soviet
Union. We can call this many things, but
we can unanimously say that this is simply unjust.
Justice is a
high virtue in every society.
Punishments for different crimes vary, but there is always the reality
of the consequences for acting outside of the constraints of the law. This is not a bad thing. As a boy in rural Wisconsin, we would begin
every day of school by standing up and reciting these words with our hand over
our heart:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.[3]
These words
are foundational to American virtues. It
pronounces freedom as well as justice
for all. In order for a society to have
freedom, there must also be justice. Without justice, there would only be
chaos. Peace would be unachievable. Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Peace and
justice are two sides of the same coin.”[4] One cannot have peace without order. Furthermore, one cannot have order without
law. But, as we have seen, it is
impossible to have law without justice.
Therefore, if a meaningful law exists, then justice is a necessary component of that law.
The Atheistic Perspective
It would be
good to take a step back at this point and acknowledge that not everyone would
agree with the previous assertions. Most
notably, for the purpose of this manuscript, the skeptic/atheist should have a
problem with many of the claims made thus far.
Their basic assumption is that God does not exist, or at least God
should be assumed not to exist until He is proven to be real. Without a god, there cannot be a binding objective
moral law of any kind. There can be no
real sense of oughtness. If someone
feels bad for their actions, it is only because their social upbringing has
implanted that into their psyche. If you
can do something and not get caught, then that particular action can never be
called wrong. Thus, it can never be
justly punished. In such a worldview,
judicial corruption (inasmuch as it helps oneself) is a desirable thing. If one has disobeyed one’s local civilian law
but has some means to escape without repercussions, then they have simply done
that which is best for them. It is
survival of the fittest. It is the very
foundation of naturalism and atheism.
For the
atheist, justice can only be considered an illusion created by those in power
to maintain their influence and keep the masses from anarchy. In such a sense, it is random construct of
the most influential members of society.
Murder cannot be considered objectively wrong, but it can be seen that
it is logically better for the biological system’s overall survival that it be
deemed “illegal.” Thus murder becomes
illegal, and those who commit murder, though they have committed no “wrong” in
the atheist’s mind, are brought under the authority of the governing powers and
punished according to their whim and opinion.
For the atheist, justice cannot exist.
Rather, it is replaced by the personal persuasions of those who hold
dominion over the masses.
Lastly, we
should recognize the consequences of the atheistic worldview concerning
postmortem existence. Clearly, from such
a perspective, there cannot be any continuation of life after death. Death is final. One dies and simply becomes worm food. They cease to exist. This philosophy is known as
Annihilationism. There is no reward or
goal to strive for except one’s own self-interest. The here and now is all one will ever get, so
they must make the most of it. Other’s
interests, emotions, feelings, indeed, their very lives are of no consequence
to the atheist. Stealing, lying, and any
other sort of “unethical” act are fair game if one can escape whatever
authorities exist. If they happen to be
the one in authority, they can do whatever they please without ramification
(again, imagine if Hitler won the war and became emperor of the world).
If such a
worldview is true, then there is no eternal or objective incentive outside of
the self. There is no heaven. Moreover, there is no hell. There is no ultimate law to be followed or
justice to be had. We are living a
purposeless, meaningless life, and every person’s goal should be either
self-destruction or gaining worldly power by any means necessary.
Assessing the Atheistic Perspective
The
implications of the atheistic perspective are summed up quite well by Wayne
Grudem as he says:
If there was no punishment… at all,
even people like Hitler and Stalin would have nothing coming to them, and there
would be no ultimate justice in the universe.
Then people would have great incentive to be as wicked as possible in
this life.[5]
If there is no god, then we must succumb to the fact that we
can serve only ourselves. It is the
logical conclusion. Since all things are
the product of random events, those who are inhibited financially, physically,
mentally or otherwise just got the short end of the cosmic stick. There is no need to help the needy. In fact, it may be beneficial to eliminate
them all together. Our physical
resources are limited after all. Those
who prefer to help the needy and give to the poor should be considered delusional
at best. After all, if one antelope is
taken down by a pride of lions, other antelopes don’t join in the fun! Self-preservation and self-interest are the only logically valid modes of
motivation.
If an atheist obeys the law of the state, it can only
because it somehow serves their best interest.
Not being incarcerated is preferable to being in prison. However, given any and every opportunity to
take advantage of others without consequence, one should definitely take
it. There is no sanctity of life. There can be ultimate purpose behind the laws
of man. All is random. All is pointless. There is no reason. We are our own gods.
Another Perspective
Thus, when
the atheist asks, “What crime deserves an eternity of punishment?” they cannot
be asking from their own point of view, for they have no grounds to either
believe in the concept of objective crimes or eternal existence. Rather, they must be hypothetically asking
the question from the philosophical perspective of a theistic worldview. In the case of this chapter, we will answer
this question from the particular theistic worldview of Christianity.
The
following presuppositions are then to be accepted for the following logical
discourse. God exists[6] and is the creator of all things.[7] Among this creation, God instituted a
transcendent moral law over all of humanity, which He wrote on each of our
hearts and placed in each of our minds.[8] There are, of course, many other attributes
of God that are necessarily true, but those mentioned here will set the
foundation for our discussion on crime and punishment.
From our
earlier dialogue in this chapter, we know that in order to have law of any
kind, there must be a method of enforcing that law and disciplining those who
break it. This enforcement is generally
referred to as justice. Justice is not
revenge. Revenge is an uncontrolled
emotional response that often does not fit the original crime. Justice is the implementation of fair
discipline to those who break a set law.
Now, if a transcendent (universally applicable and binding for all
people at all times) law exists, then its corresponding mode of justice must be
transcendent as well.
The problem
with this idea is that we do not actually see this practiced in reality
regarding our worldly laws. For example,
the speed limit on the local freeways in the Dallas area is generally 60 miles
per hour. However, from experience, I
know that the majority of the time the traffic on these roads is either
standing still (rush hour) or consistently flowing at around 70 to 75 miles per
hour. In the latter case, there are
literally thousands of people at any given moment breaking the law. Yet, it is rare to see even a select few
drivers being issued citations. The
reality of the situation is that there are not enough police to enforce the law
when everyone is breaking it uniformly.
Furthermore, the authorities understand that one simply cannot go 60 or
below in such traffic, for they would become a hazard to those coming up behind
them. So, in a sense, the masses make
the rules.
It is an
unfortunate speculation in many cities that individuals are more likely to be
pulled over if they are from a certain ethnic background. This is not to say that they were not
breaking the law. The vast majority of
drivers exceed the speed limit. Most of
us are lawbreakers in that sense.
However, the implementation of enforcement of these laws can be
skewed. Grace and understanding are
given to some, while others receive citation after citation. This is the nature of a worldly law. A finite law can only be enforced finitely. One may have been driving for 40 years,
customarily going 5 mph over the speed limit.
Yet, they have never been issued a traffic ticket. According to the records of the police
department, has that person ever sped?
No.
Such cannot
be the case when discussing a transcendent law implemented by and all knowing,
all powerful Creator God. One of God’s
commands in Scripture is to obey the civil law under which one finds themself.[9] As a command from God, this is part of the
moral law, for it is something we ought to do at all times. Yet, there are still thousands of Americans
going over the speed limit at this very moment who will never be issued a
citation for their offense. Will they
escape justice? In this world, they most
likely will. But God will necessarily
know how and when each and every person breaks each of His commands.
Furthermore,
since God knows who is guilty of breaking the civil law (speeding) and that
most have not been held accountable in this world, He must implement a fair and
just punishment for the offenders. Why
must He? Consider the case that He
didn’t. Then it could be said that God
implemented a transcendent law that applies to every person, and then either
did not enforce it at all, or He enforced it arbitrarily. In the first case, where God does not induce
justice for a crime at all, then the law which was broken would be
nullified. It would be law in word
only. But this does not make sense if an
omnipotent, omniscient God instituted the law, for He would both be able to
know the law and who would break it before hand and be able to enforce due
justice on all who broke it. Thus, if
God knew that he would not enforce a given law, He simply would not have given
it. It would be akin to telling a child
to steal cookies from the jar, and then proceed to watch them steal cookie
after cookie and do nothing about it.
For all intents and purposes, the rule regarding the cookies doesn’t
exist, and the rule might as well have not been implemented.
In the
second case, if God were to only judge a select subgroup of peoples for their
transgressions, God would cease to be loving or just. A judge cannot have two people committing the
same heinous crime before them and let one go and sentence the other to
death. That would not just. Such a judge could never be called good. So we see it must be an all or nothing deal
when dealing with the moral law and its enforcement. But we have seen that doing nothing is not an
option for God, and so He must uniformly discipline all offenders.
God, by His
very nature, must judge each individual according to the wrongs they have
committed against His transcendent law.
This brings forth the immediate question, “Who then is guilty of
disobeying the transcendent law?” The
answer: anyone who has ever done anything God would consider objectively
immoral. Among such things include selfish
thoughts or behaviors,[10] pride,[11] and
anger towards others.[12] In these three alone, I would assert that the
whole world has broken the transcendent law set in place by God, a fact
Scripture attests to when it says, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God.”[13]
By reason
alone we see that each one of us is guilty of breaking God’s law. We also see that God must necessarily bring
about judgment on us for committing those wrongs. But we also know that God is loving, so even
though we know we have done wrong, we know God will be gracious and let us off
with a warning and a smile. Right?
Look Not to the Offender, but to the
Offended
It’s all a
matter of perspective. But whose
perspective is the right one? And what
would be seen from that perspective.
Let’s first consider our (man’s) perspective on the issue.
Clearly the question,
“What crime deserves an eternity of punishment?” is asked from the perspective
of a mortal person who wants to know what they can do so as to not risk
suffering an eternity of punishment. This is a fair question to ask for us. We should expect an answer so that we can
live accordingly. We might be concerned
with how much we can get away with, or maybe we’re just interested in what
particular rules apply to us. I spend
very little time reading women’s health magazines. As a single man, they don’t apply to
me. I am only interested in those things
that impact me.
The
motivations for asking this question may be varied, but that should not change
the answer that is given. It would be
reasonable to ask these questions: Can a life that lasts only a finite amount
of time with only a finite number of crimes actually are punished for an
eternity? If the answer to that question
is yes, then we must come to the conclusion that at least one of those finitely
many crimes must require an infinite and eternal punishment. But how do we know which one? Who decides?
What makes that crime worthy of eternal punishment?
All of these
questions are asked from a human perspective.
But we are the offenders. We may
have the right to ask what we’ve done wrong, but an offender in a trial is
never the one who decides what their just punishment is. It is thus only logical that we remove
ourselves from the potential perspectives list.
But if all of mankind is removed, who is left? The perspective of God, the creator of the
law itself, must be the one we adopt to decide what punishment is fitting for
each crime.
In each case
of wrongdoing, one must always consider several things. What was the wrong that was done? Who was it done to? What was the original intent? Let’s take the example of lying. Lying, or deception, is something we have all
probably done at one time. If one child
asks another child if they have a piece of gum, and the second child says no
knowing that if they said yes they would have to share the piece of gum they do
actually possess. This is a lie. It is a wrong committed against a peer
regarding something of very little consequence.
The punishment will likely be light or non-existent. However, if that same child were asked by
their parents if they were playing with matches near their father’s petroleum
tanks and they lie, saying they were not, and the parents are aware of the lie,
there will be relatively severe consequences.
It is the same physical wrong, but it is committed against one who has
more authority.
Upping the
ante in our example to send the point home, let’s suppose there is a baseball
player who is accused of taking steroids.
He denies it to the media, who have substantial evidence to the
contrary. The media thus dismantle his
reputation and send him into social hiding.
The media is more influential than one’s parents, and thus the
punishment is more severe. Suppose,
furthermore, that this man is summoned to speak before the highest court in the
land and he testifies that he has never used steroids in his life. Suppose he is lying and suppose the high
court knows he is lying. He will be
convicted of perjury and sentenced to federal prison.
All of these
situations have someone committing the same wrong. They all lied. Yet the punishment for their actions
corresponded to the authority of the one lied to. In this way we see that the stature of the
one wronged is of great importance in considering what the just punishment
is.
So when
someone breaks the moral law, who has that person wronged? They may have wronged any number of other
people, but they also have wronged the one who instituted the law to begin
with. They have directly disobeyed and
wronged God. Thus we have to consider
what God’s level of authority and worth are so as to properly determine what
sort of punishment should be administered to one who has done Him wrong. But God is absolutely sovereign over all
things,[14] so He
has infinite authority. God is also good
and is of infinite worth.[15] If we are to accept the fact that the level
of punishment one receives for a wrong corresponds directly to the authority
and worth of the one wronged, then the only logical answer to our question,
“What crime deserves infinite punishment?” has to be, “Any crime that is
committed against God.”
Leave Discipline to the Judge
This is
extremely bad news for everyone reading these words. Starting only with the assumption that a
just, good God exists and that He created a moral law that applies to each
person, we have logically concluded that we are all liable to suffer an
infinite punishment as an administration of fair justice! A question remains. Who would do the judging? According to Scripture, the person of Jesus
Christ, “who will judge the living and the dead,”[16] will be
our ultimate judge. Jesus said, “For as
the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in
himself. And he has given him authority
to judge because he is the Son of Man.”[17] God, being the offended party, has given the
authority of judgment over to His Son, Jesus Christ, the Son of Man.
“But,” some
will argue, “Isn’t Jesus all about love and forgiveness? Surely He wouldn’t send people into eternal
torment!” Unfortunately, this is again a
view only a mortal man could adopt, and underlying it is a terribly distorted
view of love and forgiveness.
Forgiveness can only be expressed if there is something to forgive, and
Love can only be expressed when it is freely given. Jesus, nor anyone else, can be forced to
forgive or to love anyone. With this in
mind, consider Jesus’ words in the book of Matthew:
“When the Son of Man comes in his
glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him,
and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the
sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his
left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed
by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the
creation of the world. For I was hungry
and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to
drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was
sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then
the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in
or needing clothes and clothe you? When
did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply,
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and
sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left,
‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil
and his angels. For I was hungry and you
gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you
did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you
hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and
did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do
for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away
to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”[18]
There is
much to take away from this passage, but it will suffice to concentrate on but
a few verses. Although salvation is a
gift of God that can never be achieved by good works,[19] Jesus
implies that good works will be necessary evidence of one’s faith in
Himself. This faith is purely a gift
from God[20]
that cleanses one from their blemished recorded and produces good fruit. Regarding this, Jesus says:
By their fruit you will recognize
them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise,
every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree
cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is
cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus,
by their fruit you will recognize them.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,
Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of
my Father who is in heaven.[21]
When Jesus
is speaking of the good trees, He is speaking of those who have saving faith in
Jesus Christ. These people, and only
these people, are able to do good in the eyes of the Lord. Without Christ, we are told that even our
most righteous acts “are like filthy rags”[22] before
God. This is not to say that Hitler and Gandhi
will receive the same eternal treatment.
Scripture is clear that there will be levels both of rewards for
believers and punishment for non-believers.[23] But ultimately, without Christ, there is only
everlasting punishment.
“So does
Christianity teach that you can do a thousand righteous deeds but tell a white
lie, and for that one little sin you will go to hell for eternity?” Again, we must consider the situation from
God’s perspective. We have all fallen
short and broken God’s law.[24] This, in turn, separates us from God.[25] God is by definition most holy and most
righteous. The prophet Habakkuk says of
the Lord, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.”[26] If these are true statements, one must
logically conclude that even the most minor offense against and infinitely
worthy God wipes out what we might consider to be a lifetime of good deeds.
Here is an
example that I have adopted that corresponds to this truth. In mathematics graduate school, it is not
uncommon to write a proof for a theorem that can reach ten pages in
length. Mathematics proofs consist of
taking indisputably true statements, applying steps of logic (called
syllogisms) to those statements, and then arriving at a conclusion regarding
the statement (called a theorem) in question.
A simple three step syllogism could be as follows:
1. If
today is Sunday, then the library is closed.
2. Today
is Sunday
3. (Conclusion)
Therefore, the Library is closed.
Notice that
if either step 1 or step 2 fail to be true, then our conclusion will be
rendered false. If it is not Sunday,
then we can’t know if the library is closed for sure. If the library isn’t closed on Sundays in
general, we also can know that the library is closed. This is the nature of logical argument.
Now consider
a logical progression that consists of 10 pages of syllogisms much more complex
than the one above. Let’s say that is
contains 100 syllogisms for the sake of the example. Further, suppose that 99 of these syllogisms
are perfectly logical. However, there is
one syllogism on page five that confuses the ideas of necessity and sufficiency
(This is a common error in mathematics).
What then can be said about the conclusion? It must necessarily be false.
As one can
see, mathematical truth has this way about it that is entirely intolerant of
false statements. Millions of truths
accompanied by one false claim render then entirety of the list of truths
false. Jesus says that He is the Truth[27] as God
incarnate on the earth.[28] If that is correct, then by His very nature
Jesus could not tolerate anything or anyone that is less than perfect. Just as the math professor must declare the
10 page proof as invalid because of one blemish, Jesus must also declare one
unholy and unfit for heaven that has even but one offense against His moral
law.
It is
according to this standard that we will all be judged. This judgment is eternal,[29] and by
our own doing we all are bound for eternal torment and punishment. Heaven and hell are very real places, and by
simple logic, our destination must be hell.
Where is the Love? How is this Fair?
“I thought
Christianity was about LOVE! How is this
fair? I do not like this idea and so I
will reject it outright as even possible!”
These are
probably some of the thoughts that swirl around in our heads when we
contemplate this truth, and they do have their place. Christianity is about love, forgiveness and
redemption. But it is not fair.
“It’s not
fair!” No, it is not. If this world were fair, if God were fair, then we would all be headed to hell for eternity without even
a glimpse of hope. We cannot fathom the
degree of our wrongdoing against God because we can’t fathom God. David Kingdon writes, “Sin against the
Creator is heinous to a degree utterly beyond our sin-warped imaginations’
[ability] to conceive of… Who would have the temerity to suggest to God what the punishment… should be?”[30] Jonathan Edwards offers perhaps the best
response to the fairness objection:
Our obligation to love, honor, and obey and being is in
proportion to his loveliness, honorableness, and authority… But God is a being
infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty…
So that sin against God being a violation of infinite
obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous; and so deserving of infinite
punishment… the eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite;
and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable
to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.[31]
Moreover, we
must also consider the proposed case that eternal punishment is not
proportional to our sins. While this
seems preferable to us in an emotional way, it raises far more intellectual
questions than answers. Not the least of
which is this: What did Jesus death on the cross accomplish? Why was it needed? Did Jesus come to die so that He might shave
off a few years from our already finite punishment? The reality of hell and the eternality of our
rightly deserved punishment are most clearly portrayed in the urgency and
importance that Jesus put on our repentance and on the very necessity that He
needed to die to atone for our sins.
There was no other way, for finite people needed an infinite sacrifice
to cover our infinite sins. That
sacrifice came in the person of Jesus Christ, who was fully God, and was able in
His infiniteness to cover our sins.
There was no other way it could be done.[32] This
serves yet again as logical support for the eternal punishment for those who
disobey God.
And so, but
Christianity’s own claims, our eternal destination is the most unfair thing that God could have ever
done with humanity. It is by God’s
unfair grace and love that we have the opportunity to be reconciled to Him through
His Son, Jesus Christ. The theology of
this is deep, but the logic behind it is sound.
Christ is the Truth. Christ is
exclusive. If one rejects Christ, they
reject the only way they can be saved from eternal torment. To believe
in Christ is to know Him, to approve of Him and to trust Him wholeheartedly
with everything that you are and have. In this way, God did the most unfair thing imaginable. He offered to save us from ourselves.
For God so loved the
world
that he gave his one
and only Son,
that whoever believes
in him shall not perish
but have eternal life.
John 3:16.
[1]
Rob Bell, 2011. Love Wins Kindle Ed.
New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers: Chapter 1.
[2]
Brenda Haugen, Joseph Stalin, Dictator of
the Soviet Union (Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point Books, 2006), 69.
[3]
Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892.
[4]
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Public Papers of
the Presidents of the United States in article White House Statement on Withdrawal of Israeli Troops Within Armistice
Lines, February 17, 1957.
[5]
Grudem, 1151.
[6]
Romans 1:19; Psalm 14:1; 53:1; 10:3-4;
[7]
Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:17
[8]
Jeremiah 31:33
[9]
Romans 13:1-7
[10]
James 3:16; John 13:34; Philippians 2:3; etc.
[11]
Galatians 6:3; Proverbs 3:7; 1 Peter 5:5; etc.
[12]
Matthew 5:22.
[13]
Romans 3:23.
[14]
Daniel 4:25.
[15]
Psalm 106.
[16]
2 Timothy 4:1.
[17]
John 5:26-27.
[18]
Matthew 25:31-46.
[19]
Ephesians 2:8-9.
[20]
Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25; Acts 13:48; Romans 9:15-18; John 1:13; 1 John
5:1; 2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37,65.
[21]
Matthew 7:16-21.
[22]
Isaiah 64:6.
[23]
2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 2:6-11; Revelation 20:12, 15; 1 Peter 1:17;
[24]
Romans 3:23.
[25]
Isaiah 59:2.
[26]
Habakkuk 1:13.
[27]
John 14:6.
[28]
John 1:1
[29]
Matthew 25:46.
[30]
David Kingdon, “Annihilationism: Gain or Loss?” (March, 1992; unpublished paper
found in Grudem, p. 1151), p. 9.
[31]
Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President
Edwards, Volume VII (Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, 1809), 330.
[32]
Matthew 26:39.
