What Crime Deserves an Eternity of Punishment

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.

Does God have free will? Could He choose to do evil?

Freedom is a good thing. Rather, perhaps, it will widely be accepted by those reading these pages that freedom is a virtue to be treasured by a man once he has it, and to be fought for by the one who possesses it not. As an American, this is foundational to our view of society, life and governance. The second sentence ever written in this country stated that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Liberty is the central idea that conceived this nation, and it is the virtue that has fueled it ever since. We are to be free from tyranny, free from oppression and free to pursue that which brings us the most joy. Multitudes have fought for it. Thousands have died to gain it or preserve it. Yet, just like the virtue of love, so many do not know what constitutes true freedom.

Freedom of the Will

This question requires some preliminary work on our part. We cannot ask if God has free will if we do not fully comprehend what it means for one to possess free will. We must ask ourselves, “What is freedom? How do we know when a person or their will is actually free?” Once we establish answers to these questions, we will then be able to tackle the question: “Does God have free will? Could He choose to do evil?”
Freedom within a given political system is the social/political notion involved in discussions of rights and the authority of state and law. This political freedom has been called the freedom of permission. This sort of freedom, for which so many have fought and died, serves as a physical example of what we will be discussing in this chapter: Freedom of the will. Not all people find themselves in a situation of political freedom, but if freedom of the will is a reality, everyone will have it. With this in mind, some great thinkers have found freedom a subject to define and expound upon. The British logician Bertrand Russell once stated, “Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to the realization of desires.” In other words, according to Russell, freedom as it pertains to a person’s will, is the ability to do that which one desires or wants to do. Indeed, even the President of the United States is not free to swim across the Atlantic Ocean. He may be the leader of a “free nation,” but he is not able to do all that he desires. He has obstacles which impede him from doing certain things, as we all do.

However, practicing free will regarding those things which we are able to do requires the ability to make decisions. We cannot freely do anything without freely choosing to. Napoleon said, “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” The contemporary French philosopher Simone Weil said, “Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense, consists in the ability to choose." True freedom is only realized when one is able to make decisions on their own accord and then proceed to bring their desires to fruition without impediment.

Is America a free country? In the political sense, yes! But what of the person who, when questioned about their actions says, “This is America. It’s a free country. I can do whatever I want.” It is a very popular perspective held by the democracies of the west, but fails to acknowledge an important difference between political freedom and freedom of the will for an individual. Is one free if and only if they have the ability to do that which they desire most? The President is not free to swim to England, for he is not able. But what if his desire was more doable, perhaps more sinister? What if one had an extreme dislike for a particular person who had wronged them in a merely subjective manner? What if their strongest desire in life was to see them suffer for their actions? Furthermore, what if they had the ability and authority to administer such suffering? Would they simply be acting freely? Hitler desired to exterminate the Jewish people. What if he had won the war and proceeded to do just that? The world might not have been experiencing political freedom, but Hitler would have had gained the ability to do that which he desired without impediment. Would that be an exercise of basic freedom of the will, the ability to do that which one desires most?

This line of thought leads us to a realization that freedom as it pertains to a person’s will cannot simply be the ability to do that which one desires, for sometimes what one wants contradicts that which is morally right. Thus, we propose that freedom be considered, at least in part, as the ability to do that which we ought. Whether a person admits it or not, we all have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. Regarding this, Aristotle again wrote, “And it is characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust; and association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.” The concept of right and wrong is the foundation for all forms of society and government that have ever existed. Yet, not everyone or every people group agrees uniformly as to what is objectively right and wrong for everyone, at all times, in all places. Still, it is undeniable that each individual person has their own idea of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, good and bad.

For example, imagine you are at a bus stop and you see a man forget his briefcase and board the bus. You happen to know the man. He lives down the street from you, and it would be easy for you to return his briefcase to him. However, you find that the briefcase contains more than $10,000 in cash! You look around quickly. No one else is at the bus stop, and no one has seen the man leave the briefcase or you arriving to find it. If you walk away with the money, you are guaranteed to never get caught or even accused of any wrongdoing. You could really use the money too. Every inch of you desires to take the money and run. Yet we must ask, are you free to do so?
Some might say yes, you are free to take the purse in such a situation. The people who take this position will most often appeal to the lack of repercussions for their actions. The lack of witnesses would give you the upper hand. No one could prove you took it or that it was ever the man’s money to begin with. In essence, you would have authority over the situation, and some would take this to mean that you have the most free will in the given situation. However, this is ultimately an appeal to the atheistic argument that “might makes right.” In other words, all human morality is absolutely subject to the one or ones that hold supreme authority. This is how any tyrant or dictator treats their subjects. They are in power. They can enforce whatever rules and laws they wish, and thus their opinions become the moral law for their people.

Those who would claim that might does not necessarily make right assert that you would not be free to keep the money, for it would be against the law even if you were not caught. But let us suppose this occurred in a society where stealing was not considered offensive but rather in one that adhered to a “survival of the fittest” mentality. The man forgot his briefcase. It’s his fault. Finders become keepers. Would you be practicing freedom in a culture such as that if you decided to steal the money? I assert the answer to that question is no.

I assert the following statement is true. There is an objective system of rights and wrongs that exists outside of mankind but applies to every individual person. If such an objective “moral law” exists, then it holds authority over all men. If it is objective wrong for the man down the street to brutally beat his grandmother every morning, then it is just as wrong for the most powerful person on the planet to beat their grandmother. What is right and what is wrong would not be created by society, but rather would have existed from the dawn of civilization to be discovered by man.
If our assertion fails to be true, then there are no absolute values of right and wrong, but merely a matter of subjective opinions. Many ethicists take this latter stance when dealing with issues of morality. They think of such things as speeding tickets. It is very common to be going with traffic and be 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. Technically, you and every car around you are being driven by misdemeanor offenders. However, that is not how the law is usually carried out. There are levels of right and wrong, and it is all relative to what everyone else does. Now if a car zooms past everyone going 40 mph over the speed limit, the driver would be much more likely to be pulled over and issued a citation. The idea that an action we know to be bad looks to be good when compared to another’s worse transgressions is called moral relativism. The person who lies is not as bad as the person who murders. Therefore, as the reasoning goes, lying is relatively ok from a moral perspective. Most of us function this way in some or most facets of our lives, but I claim that this is not and cannot be how reality works.

Moral Law

When one says that all morals are relative, we must ask the necessary question, “Relative to what?” When something is described as being relative, there must be some foundation, some fixed point to which we can relate all other things. Take the speed of a car for an example. We say a car is going 50 miles per hour when it is traveling over the ground at 50 mph relative to the ground. We naturally assume the earth and the ground to be stationary. In doing so, we take earth to be our reference point from which we determine all vehicle speeds. Yet the earth is not stationary. It spins around it axis. At the equator, the surface of the earth is traveling at about 1000 miles per hour, relative to its axis. Furthermore, the earth orbits the sun at an astonishing 67,062 mph with respect to the sun. In each of these instances, though, we must adopt a point of reference with which we can describe the state of all other things.

The concept of relativity is not new, and it is indeed a proven physical fact. Einstein wrote extensively about knowledge anything is only possible when seen from a perspective that is relative to something else:


… two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies.
Every description of events in space involves the use of a rigid body to which such events have to be referred.


We’re starting to see the problem with the idea that right and wrong are completely relative, for when we ask, “Relative to what?” all that is left at our disposal are themselves relative claims to right and wrong. Something cannot be relative to the relative, for this line of reasoning would not allow for any conclusion at all. Nothing could be right, and nothing could be wrong.

Furthermore, without an absolute in morality, we cannot measure anything in a moral sense. When I say a tree is 20 feet tall, most people would be able to visualize and understand how tall the tree is in their minds. The understood universality of the measurement of length known as a “foot” is used as an unchangeable standard. If a foot was relative and continually changed in length with the ebb and flow of culture, then we would not be able to measure length with any certainty at all.

Morality also functions this way. When someone says that one action is morally better than another, the statement can only make sense if there is an absolute best which all other actions can be objectively compared to. To not have such an absolute moral law would render any and all discussions regarding morality meaningless. The famed Christian scholar and apologist Normal Geisler writes, “Real moral disagreements are not possible without an absolute more standard by which both sides can be measured. Otherwise both sides of every moral dispute are right.” If that is the case, then morality has lost all meaning. In fact, it is just a figment of our collective imagination. If there are no moral absolutes, there are no morals at all.

Thus, if we can all agree that there is at least one thing that is morally righteous or one thing that is morally wrong, we must agree that there exist some moral absolutes. That is, there exist objective moral duties that apply to all persons, at all times, and in all places. The sense of “oughtness” is a sense of morality. We all have an objective moral responsibility because there is an objective moral law. We should be careful not to confuse is with ought. What someone is doing can change from time to time. What someone ought to do is always the same.

Opposing Worldview

Yet, there are those who vehemently deny that such objective moral laws exist at all. Commonly, the person who holds this view is either a skeptic/atheist or a postmodernist (one who denies all objective truth claims). We will first deal with the skeptical atheist.

If there is an intelligent Creator, then it is logically possible (one might say probable) that they created an objective moral law as well. If there is no such Creator, as the atheist would argue, then objective morality cannot exist for it would require a transcendent moral law giver, the very thing atheism foundationally denies. According to atheism, we live in an amoral universe that came into being by random chance. Any claim to right or wrong would just be strong personal preferences that have been adopted over time because they help the human race to survive. And yet even atheists think evil is something to be avoided, that happiness is good, and hard work is a virtue. How do they explain this?

Oftentimes, the atheist (we can include skeptics and naturalists here for our present purposes) will employ the theory of evolutionary ethics to explain the seeming objectivity of morality. Evolutionary ethics is an attempt to bridge atheistic naturalism with the reality of an imbedded moral sense. In simple terms, the theory puts before us two separate colonies of primitive man. One colony is of the random persuasion that stealing is a virtue and should be encouraged. The other colony randomly adopts the idea that stealing is bad and should be punished. In a world without any god, there cannot be any overriding cause or purpose. Even thoughts of right and wrong must be random in origin. But those thoughts that promoted the propagation of a certain colony would be accepted by future generations. Presently we see the cumulative collection of morals that are simply the result of a randomized process of “survival of the fittest.”

This theory has many problems, but its fatal flaw comes from its basic presupposition. It assumes that all things are the result of random, purposeless events. The result of random, purposeless events cannot possible be organized nor purposeful. Thus, if our sense of morality is the product of a random sociological evolutionary chain, then its end result is purposeless, and there would be absolutely no logical reason to pay any attention to them. The most these so-called morals have done is allowed primitive man to survive. Now that we have achieved total domination of the earth as a species, we should be able to reject whichever morals we choose without consequence. C.S. Lewis addressed this evolutionary model, which he called our herd instinct, the following way:


We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct – by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way… But feeling a desire to help [another person in need] is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.


Lewis goes on to explain that we often have simultaneous impulses which make us desire to do opposite things. Suppose there is a man who yells of a great danger, and then pleas for someone to help him. One would likely feel the impulse to flee the danger and preserve oneself. They would also likely feel the impulse to save the man based on their herd instinct. How does one decide which impulse to follow? Logically, they will always follow that which they desire the most. But that isn’t always the case. We can all testify to times we did something not out of desire, but because we recognized it as the thing we ought to do. Thus, there must be a third thing that resides in us that tells us which impulse we ought to follow. This thing which judges what we ought to do cannot be itself one of the original impulses, for oftentimes we find ourselves doing that which we desire not to do, putting ourselves in harm’s way. This runs contrary to every human impulse, especially the strongest of human impulses, that of self-preservation.

Furthermore, if evolutionary ethics is true and has led us to have impulses that we label as morals, then we ought to be able to point to a single impulse inside of us and which would always be considered “good,” for we would still need a consistent point of moral reference to speak of good and evil, even if they were the product of random events. Regarding this, Lewis writes:


There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses – say mother love or patriotism – are good and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage his fighting instinct… Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses.


A second argument given by some regarding the origin of what is perceived to be an objective moral law is that it is simply a moral construct. That is, in the case of a democracy like the United States, a majority of the people within a society decide for general populous what is right and what is wrong. This is a postmodern view of morality that does not allow for an absolute transcendent moral law. Even though the philosophical movement known as postmodernity, or cultural relativism of all truth, is regarded as a recent movement, it was actually addressed and related to the topic of freedom as early as 350 B.C. by the great Greek philosopher Aristotle:


… there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state. For two principles are characteristic of democracy, government by the majority and freedom. Men think that what is equal is just, and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will, and that freedom means doing what a man likes. In such democracies everyone lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, “according to his fancy.” But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live by the rules of the constitution, for it is their salvation.


Aristotle is clearly stating what many of us already intuitively know. If the majority of people within a certain culture agree on a certain truth claim, it does not necessarily make the claim true. For years, the majority of western society claimed the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Might does not necessarily make right, and likewise majority does not necessarily make right. The objective moral law is the same way. If a culture were to arrive that by and large believed that it was good to physically beat those of a lower financial status than themselves, should their actions be considered acceptable in their culture? Another example, if the Nazi’s had won the war and converted the majority of the world’s population to their way of thinking, would that make their actions virtuous instead of evil? Of course not! Such thinking would be preposterous!

Aristotle doesn’t stop by pointing out the flaws of the postmodern ways of thinking about morality however. He makes a profound observation. In every society of every size, there have been given laws by which we ought to live by. Many consider these laws to be repressive. “So many rules,” some say, “take away our freedoms!” Yet Aristotle asserts that such laws are not to be thought of as bar of imprisonment and slavery, but rather as the very foundation on which our individual freedom is built.

Free Will Defined

What then shall we say about morality’s roll in freedom of the will? We have firmly established that there exists an objective moral law. Such an objective moral law should, in some sense, confine our freedoms. After all, even as a free country, the United States also implements laws so that society can function properly and efficiently. Laws are installed for our protection, and it is in this way that laws serve to uphold our freedoms. So whereas free will has been defined as the ability to do that which one most desires, we must modify our working definition of free will to be the ability to do that which one desires, granted they stay within the framework of the moral law. Some have simplified this definition to “the ability to do what you ought.”

Our definition of free will is not finished quite yet. Something crucial is missing. I offer the following scenario as an illustration:

John is a runner. He loves to run and takes every opportunity to run a mile or two; whatever time allows. He cannot remember a time when he did not want to run. It’s just in his blood and he can’t get enough of it. One Saturday afternoon, after mowing the lawn and taking care of some other odds and ends, John decides to go for a run through his neighborhood. It’s a beautiful day, and John is enjoying the wind and the sun as he runs down the sidewalk.

After he runs a few blocks, something catches the corner of his eye. Something big… and fast. It’s the Rottweiler that the Johnson’s never keep an eye on. But the Rottweiler has got his eye on John. Now John runs faster, faster than he’s ever run before with the dog close on his tail. With his lungs burning and legs straining, John makes it to his house and closes the door behind him just as the Rottweiler slams into it.

It is a simple story, but it brings to light a very important fact about free will. John was free to choose to take an afternoon run. He had no impediments. He had taken care of all the responsibilities that he ought to do for the day, and he was free to do as he chose. So John went for a run. He was acting according to his free will. However, when the Rottweiler started chasing him, something about John’s state of freedom also changed. Whereas before John could have stopped to chat with neighbors or tie his shoe, he could no longer stop at all. To do so would be a huge mistake. It did not matter at that point if John wanted to run or not. He had no choice, and without choice, there can be no free will.

Thus we arrive at a definition for free will that I assert is accurate and exhaustive. Free will is the ability to choose to do that which you desire most, within the limits set by the objective moral law, all the while having the ability to choose the opposite option in the event that circumstances were to change. The logical consequence of such free will is that with it, any individual can be held ultimately responsible for their own actions.

Does God Have Free Will?

At last, we find ourselves where we wanted to be from the beginning. Does God have free will? The short answer is yes, He does. In fact, God has the most freedom than any other person who will ever exist. However, the simple answer of “yes” will likely not quench the quizzical mind. Thus, we must realize what the will of the Judeo-Christian God looks like and how this influences Himself and all of creation.

There is one thing we must establish here and for the rest of this manuscript. When questioned as Christians regarding Christian teachings and beliefs, it is necessary to turn to those sources of information that are the very foundation for our faith. In Christianity, there are two sources of truth that can be attained. The first is what theologians call “general revelation.” This is the revelation of truths that are known by all persons at all times. The laws of logic, the reality of physical creation, the internal moral law are uniformly accepted by all peoples regardless of religious belief. The second source of truth is the Canon, Scripture, or Holy Bible. The Bible is known as God’s “special revelation” to His people. While most everyone adheres to the truths of general revelation, there is much more skepticism regarding the inerrancy and authority of Scripture.

It is neither the goal nor the scope of this text to exhaustively defend the truthfulness, authority or origin of the Christian Bible. If such topics interest the reader, you might look to Josh McDowell’s works The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Evidence for Christianity. Many other works of advanced archeological and historical studies have been done that offer strong justification for that claim that the Bible is true, accurate, and its original meaning preserved in the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages in which it was written. Thus, from this point onward, we will be addressing each of the questions levied towards Christianity in this manuscript with the understanding that as Christians, we accept the Bible to be true. It is from this platform that we will reason from the Christian perspective. If the reader takes exception to this presupposition, then I would strongly encourage the setting down of this manuscript until further investigation has been carried out regarding the validity of the Bible. The Bible is where God has chosen to reveal what He will about Himself. Without it, very little could be known about Him. With it, we can understand to a great degree the answers to the hard questions posed both in this chapter and the chapters that follow.

The theologian Wayne Grudem defines the God’s will as “that attribute of God whereby he approves and determines to bring about every action necessary for the existence and activity of himself and all creation.” If an all-powerful, sovereign God exists, this would be the expected definition of his will. Everything in existence is under his direct power, and He chooses what does and does not happen in all things. Scripture is clear about this teaching. We are told that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” In the original Greek, the phrase translated as “everything” is τὰ πάντα (ta panta). Paul, the writer of this Scripture, uses this phrase in many other places in the Bible, always in reference to all creation or everything that is in existence. Furthermore, the verb Paul uses that is translated as works in the above scripture is ἐνεργοῦντος (energeo, works, works out, brings about, produces). The tense of the verb is of great importance because Paul uses the present participle which indicates that this action of working out all things is a continual, ongoing activity on the part of God. God did not simply “kick things off” and then watch from His perch. He is active in all things by his own free choice.

The Apostle John writes, “For you [God] created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Again, all things, in every aspect are put under the authority of God’s will. There is no authority on earth or in Heaven that usurps the ultimate authority of God and His will. Paul writes, “…for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” God is bound by nothing and no one. He is truly independent. He has no need for anything or anyone , and He obeys no one but Himself. God did not create man out of loneliness or any other external compulsion for He already had perfect love, fellowship and community from eternity past within the context of the Trinity. Perhaps God’s greatest statement of His own ultimate independence was given to Moses at the burning bush, “I AM WHO I AM.” God defines Himself and exists by His very nature. This sort of independence is unknown to mankind. Regarding man’s dependence on others, Aristotle once wrote, “But he who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”

God’s independence plays an important role in His free will. He is under no authority but His own, and thus He literally does whatever He wants. This also means that God is able to define His own character and attributes. For example, God is perfectly good, holy, just, gracious and merciful. Yet, at times in Scripture it seems as though God’s will does not correspond to the attributes He claims. God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, lived a perfectly holy and sinless life on this earth. Yet He was falsely accused by His own people, beaten, flogged, whipped and mocked, and ultimately He died an agonizing death by crucifixion on a Roman cross. Furthermore, we are told in the Biblical book of Acts that this was all carried out exactly according to God’s will: “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Yet God, in his sovereignty and omniscience knew that this single act in human history would redeem mankind and bring the most glory to Himself.

It is at this point that some may take offense. How can a good and righteous God be so conceited so as to do all these things to maximize His own glory? To this, I respond by asking what else would a fair, just, all powerful, good God glorify? Anything that any intelligent entity does draws attention to something. We as people often draw attention to ourselves and our accomplishments. This is self-glorification on our part. If we draw attention to something outside of ourselves, we glorify it. This is idolatry. Both of these actions are sin. Why? Simply because there is someone else that deserves that attention. The person who created and is above all things rightly deserves any and all glory. If God is truly righteous and good, then He must conform all things to bring Himself ultimate glory. If the Christian God exists, this is the only possible way things could work.

This brings about another point that we should touch on briefly before discussing the arguments that the skeptic puts forth against the free will of God. Earlier in this chapter we were discussing the objective existence of a moral law that all of mankind is obligated to abide by. Part of our free will necessitates that we at least act according to this moral law, this system of rights and wrongs. But if there is such a thing as a moral law, if there exists actions that are objectively right and actions that are objectively wrong, who sets the standard? While the atheist has no answer, the Christian has the most powerful answer of all. The Almighty Creator God set down from eternity past what is morally and ethically right and wrong for all people, in all places and at all times. What does it mean for something to be “right” exactly? Grudem puts forth that what is right is “what ought to happen and what ought to be… whatever conforms to God’s moral character is right.” We would do well to remember this objective definition of righteousness during the rest of our discussion.

The Skeptical Arguments Against the Free Will of God

From the Christian perspective, it is easy to see why we would claim that God has absolute free will. If God can do whatever He wants, and if God is all-powerful, then He is free to do anything He wants and never has to do anything He doesn’t want! His will is perfectly free.

Yet, when one looks at these claims from atheistic or skeptical perspectives, philosophical problems appear to surface. An atheist rejects the concept of God completely. A skeptic cannot prove God exists sufficiently, so they also reject God. Thus to entertain the possibility that God has free will is pointless. Meanwhile, a person can only have free will up to a certain point. Their free will is limited by the physical world around them. We cannot choose to walk around the world, even if we wanted to. Furthermore, if there is no God, one must be in control of their own desires, or else have their desires developed through random events that occur outside their control. These desires directly affect how much free will one will have.

For example, if one desires to partake in unaided human flight, they will not be free to do so, for it is physically impossible. There is a physical obstacle preventing the desired action. If, however, they desire to purchase a computer, they may be free to do so. Yet circumstances come into play. Do they have enough money? Is there a store nearby with the computer they want? Do they have the transportation to go to the store? If they answer yes to all the necessary questions, then they are free to purchase the computer. The decisions an atheist makes during their life directly affect the freedoms they are able to enjoy. If they make decisions that allow them to obtain material goods and resources, they will have more choices and thus, more freedom. If they make decisions that allow them to gain more power and authority, they will also obtain more freedom. Freedom, for the atheist, is entirely dictated by the physical possibilities available to the individual.

It is from this perspective that the atheist may put forth an argument that attempts to refute the free will of God, if such a God were to exist. We present here two of the most common philosophical problems that the atheist or the skeptic will have with the free will of God.

Argument 1: An Omniscient (all-knowing) Being Does Not Have Free Will
The argument looks something like this: If one is all-knowing, they know all future actions perfectly, including their own. Furthermore, they cannot change their future actions, otherwise their future knowledge about these actions would be false, and they would cease to be omniscient. Therefore, an omniscient being must necessarily act according to what they know will happen in the future. Thus they are not able to act freely, for the option to do otherwise is not open to them.

Answer: The argument, while initially convincing, lacks critical insight into the nature of God. We know that God created all things that exist. If God created all things in existence, then He necessarily created time, which is a universal dimension that exists. The creator of something must exist outside of the thing created. Therefore God must exist outside the confines of time. In other words, God is eternal. This has two implications that will affect how we view God. First, God is timeless in His being. Psalm 90 says, “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” In the book of Revelation, Jesus says, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Similarly, the way God identifies Himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” strongly suggests a continual present existence. He exists eternally. As Grudem puts it, “…God’s own being does not have a succession of moments or any progress from one state to another. To God himself, all of his existence is always somehow present.” This concept is nearly impossible for us to grasp, as our experience has been and will always be constrained by the dimension of time in this world. However, a concept being confusing in no way disqualifies it as objective truth (See Einstein’s laws of relativity).

Secondly, as God exists outside of the constraints of time, He must be able to see all time equally vividly. The term “future actions” and the knowledge of them do not apply to God. Furthermore, those things that have passed are seen by God just as God sees the present. The psalmist writes, “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” No matter how far in the past an event might be, God remembers it perfectly. Furthermore we are told, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years.” So we see that a day lasts for a long time, or as the Greek reading implies, forever in the eyes of God. Taking these two things together we must conclude that God sees and knows all past, present and future events equally vividly. This does not mean that God can only exist outside of time, for we must remember God is the creator of time, and the creator of time can interact with His creation in any way that He sees fit. In one sense, it is like a man who is looking at a long, straight piece of wire. He can see all lengths of the wire at all times, but he can also manipulate any part of the wire that he wishes at any time. In the case of God, the wire is time and is infinitely long in both directions.
With these truths in mind, we can see that God’s perfect plan was completely laid out before time began, now, and forever. Would He choose to change it? If He would choose to change it, then it wouldn’t have been perfect in the first place. Could He be forced to change it? If so, then He would not be all powerful, for He would be submitting to another authority. Given the very definition of God, this would be logically impossible. Thus God’s omniscience does not limit His free will.

Argument 2: A Perfect or Moral God Has No Free Will

This argument poses the following logical syllogism: Out of the many possible options in any situation, there will exist a “best” option (taking the theistic presupposition of an objective moral hierarchy to be true). A perfectly moral God must always make the best choice. If He did not, He would cease to be perfectly moral. God cannot do something that is less “good” than another option or else He would not be perfectly good. Thus, in every situation, God has only one choice: the most moral choice possible. From this, it is deduced, God cannot have free will by definition. He is incapable of making moral choices. There are no possibilities to choose from; only the best moral option is available. It is akin to telling a child they have a choice of 50 different foods, but by “choice,” you really mean you can only have the mashed potatoes and nothing else. Ever. There can only be one perfect option, and a perfect God must always choose it. Thus God’s choice in the matter is always predetermined, which is really no choice at all. Without choice, God cannot have free will.

Answer: We must start by saying that part of what this argument puts forth is true. God will always make the perfect and most moral choice. As for the rest of the argument, there are several flaws.

Concerning God always making the most moral choice, we must look to God’s attribute of absolute goodness, which Grudem defines as such: “The goodness of God means that God is the final standard of good, and that all that God is and does is worthy of approval.” Jesus himself said, “No one is good—except God alone.” The grammatical subject of Jesus’ statement includes you, me, and everyone else. Absolutely everyone that has ever lived, save Jesus (as He was God incarnate), cannot be called good. If this Biblical claim is true, then it would be a logical mistake to think that any one of us could understand that which is perfectly good. Instead, the sense of morality that God has placed on our hearts mixes with our personal and often selfish, distorting our view of what we take to be good. One of the important differences between God and us is that if God were to have an opinion regarding something being good, then that thing necessarily is good.

God’s goodness saturates the Scriptures. “The LORD is good and his love endures forever,” writes the Psalmist. In fact, the Psalms affirm the goodness of God over and over. When God first created the universe and everything within it, He saw all that He had made was “very good.” This was not an opinion. This was the thought of God, and as such it was objective truth. So if we are tempted to ask, “What is good?” we can only answer, “That which God approves is good.” This has serious implications at how humanity should look at the world around them. James tells us, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father.”

Furthermore, we are promised that if we believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, then everything that occurs will be for your good. If we correctly perceive something as good, then it is flowing straight from God the Father. Grudem writes, “When we realize that God is the definition and source of all good, we will realize that God himself is the ultimate good that we seek.”

Now that we have considered what it means to say that God is good, we can begin to address the argument at hand. Remember that we defined free will to be the ability to choose that which you desire most, staying within the moral law, and having the option to choose otherwise. The argument finds its problem in this third requirement for free will. God can only do and be good. He can never be not-good in anything he wills. Thus He is constricted by himself so as to prevent His free will.
The refutation of this argument begins with recognizing the difference between desires and one’s nature. Desires can and often do change. One’s nature does not. What do we mean by one’s nature, namely God’s nature? God’s nature is to be the objective standard for perfection, goodness, morality and so on. God is all of these things. Without Him, none of them could exist objectively for there would be no external reference point. Furthermore, God desires everything that He is. Anything that deviates from His nature invokes God’s anger and wrath.
Without neglecting the skeptic’s argument regarding God’s inability to choose, let us consider for a moment the first two aspects of what it takes to have free will. Certainly God will always be within His own moral law, but what about His desires? Do God’s desires change? Can they change? And what impact does that have on His ability to choose?

Allow me to construct a personal example that will help us to answer some of these questions. One of the most foundational basic desires of a person is the desire for self-preservation. In the absence of external influences or deep emotional pain, a person would always choose to live rather than die. We could say this is one of Mankind’s attributes, much like God’s goodness. Now let us assume that a man who has none of these external influences affecting his actions finds himself in possession of a cyanide capsule. He knows that by choosing to swallow the capsule, he will certainly die. If he chooses to not swallow the capsule, he will live. He is under no psychiatric stress and is perfectly content with life. Under this assumption that there are no external or internal influences that would affect his decision would the man choose to end his life? If we are honest with ourselves, we must say, “Of course he would not!” He would always choose to neglect the cyanide and live. It is the superior choice according to the disposition of man.

Now, it is true that the man could succumb to external pressures, or emotional depression. These influences can and often do change a person’s desires. People are susceptible to such things, but God is not! God is both perfect and all powerful. There is no outside source that can affect His desires. His perfect power would always allow Him to choose the option He would naturally choose. And since God is immutable (He does not change), He will always choose the same optimal option.

Conclusion

Thus, the reality of the situation looks like this: God is able to do all that he desires. Moreover, God is always able to do that which he ought to do. And lastly, God does have the ability to do opposite of His nature. That is, God is able to choose to do evil if He wanted to. But, when the situation is looked at logically, we see there is absolutely nothing that could influence God in such a way so as to force Him act against His very nature. What is good is what God approves. In order for God to choose to do what He does not approve, He would have to somehow be forced or coerced into doing it. But an all-powerful God cannot be force by anyone to do anything. Thus God will always freely choose to do good.

Homosexuality and Cognitive Dissonance

For centuries, the topic of homosexuality has sparked discussion of morality among the cultures of the world. The vast majority of religions have either directly or indirectly condemned the activity (for the majority of history it was a question of activity and not of style of living or culture). It has only been recently in human history that homosexuality has come to be known as a way that one lives out their life. It is partly for this reason that homosexuality has come to be such a divisive issue. It has transformed from an issue of morality to an issue of civil rights.

The discussion of civil rights and civil liberties tends to be rife with emotions and opinions originating from different worldviews. Such conversations, by their very nature, will never solve anything. Their only result will be to enflame the masses and their passions towards whichever philosophical worldview they had already adopted. Moreover, any truly democratic decision based off of these discussions will not truly determine which side is objectively right in their argumentation, but only which side has the numbers of majority on their side. This, of course, does not determine objective correctness any more than anti-Semitism was correct in Nazi Germany because the vast majority of Germans accepted its practice.

Rather than delve directly into the enflaming discussion that is the cultural dialogue of homosexuality, I will instead look at the adopted worldview of the position and endeavor to assess it. The ideologies behind the homosexual movement are based on secular humanism. Secular humanism embraces reason, justice and ethics while rejecting the supernatural, religion, and theistic morality. It is a worldview, and as such it must answer several of life’s big questions such as “where did we come from?” and “why are we here?”

We are all well aware of the secular answer to the first question. According to secular culture, the universe is the product of a cosmological “Big Bang” that sent all of existence into being. Sometime after, through a sequence of random occurrences and massive amounts of time, simple life came into being. Then through the intricate biological progression of Darwinian evolution, these simple life forms became much more complex and diverse over time. After billions of years and millions of species, human being came into existence. We are therefore the product of generation after generation the fittest surviving… the product of Godless evolution.

This explanation of our origin also explains the secular humanist’s explanation as to our purpose. Though many will argue that there are greater purposes for mankind within secular culture, they must all agree that the only foundational purpose that we and all life share is to reproduce and propagate their species. Darwinian evolution by survival of the fittest is the only engine that drives all of life forward. It is the foundational truth and cornerstone of man’s existence. Every other purpose that man invents for himself is arbitrary and ultimately trivial. Survival is tantamount.

Now, let us suppose that the secular humanistic way of thinking is true. What ramifications would this have on the claims that popular culture makes regarding the acts of homosexuality? It has become common “knowledge” that one is simply born homosexual. It is genetic. This is the first and most basic truth claim of those defending homosexual activity. From this claim, arguments then proceed to defend the civil rights of all people born into certain circumstances that are beyond their control. If this claim were to be disallowed on their own merits, then the conversation would turn to a matter of preference, and the civil rights arguments would all be disallowed in turn.

If secular humanism is true, then there is no God. Or, at least, if there is a God, He is totally disinterested and inactive in the universe. Without even looking into the consequences this would have on the idea of morality, let us look at where we would have come from. Darwinian evolution is founded on the premise that the fittest survive and propagate their genetic makeup to the following generation. By “the fittest survive,” we really mean that those who reproduce most proficiently become the fittest and pass on their DNA. Those that are not successful in passing on their DNA through reproduction have not been “successful” in the evolutionary scheme and are deemed unfit. Those specimens that are born with some genetic makeup that makes them physically unable to reproduce can never enter into the genetic pool for all the generations to come. Such a genetic makeup would deem the specimen unviable for propagation. Within a few generations, such a gene would be permanently bred out of the population.


If there was a genetic variant that caused reproductive sterility from time to time, it might not cause the death of the specimen with the variation. The specimen itself might even be stronger than all of its contemporaries. However its sterility, within the secular humanistic framework, would be the paramount of all flaws. Supreme genetic makeup encased in a specimen either unable or unwilling to reproduce must be considered to be a flaw within the evolutionary ladder.

One can easily see the trouble this causes regarding the foundational argument in favor of homosexual activity. If people, or any species for that matter, were supposed to be born genetically to partake in exclusively homosexual activity, then they would have been wiped out millions of years ago. Since people with exclusively homosexual desires exist today, then we must find another solution.

There are only two logically consistent solutions to this problem. The first is that people are not actually born into homosexual activity. This would imply that people are either coerced into such activity by their surroundings, or that they choose to partake in homosexual activities on their own accord. However, this would disallow the civil rights implication that people who practice homosexuality often employ for their benefit. Therefore, this rejection is often rejected.

The second logically consistent solution is that Darwinian evolution cannot be true. If the randomness of “survival of the fittest” was to be discounted, and an intelligent designer was to be adopted, then this inconsistency could be accounted for. However, this goes against the very foundation of secular humanism, in which all things are to be explained without the supernatural. It would also complicate the matter from the moralistic point of view. If one were to adopt an intelligent designer, they would also be forced to consider that it could be morally wrong according to the designer’s design to practice homosexuality. Such is the stance of almost every major religion in the world today.

Cognitive Dissonance can be defined a number of different ways. Psychologists say it describes the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. The M.I.T. physicist Gerald L. Schroeder says that it is humanity’s inherent desire to ignore unpleasant facts. No matter which way one chooses to define it, it is quite apparent that the only way one can accept the presuppositions of the homosexual movement and the presuppositions of secular humanism is to ignore the facts of one or the other outright.

I do not write these words to condone hatred or animosity between sides in this ever-emotional and highly heated debate. As a Christian, we should always love those around us. The Bible teaches that ALL sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. To deem that one form of extramarital sexual activity is more wrong than another is not for us to say. Rather, it is our duty to stand by people living in sin with patience and love, encouraging them in times of hardship and always pointing them towards Christ. He, not our arguments or successful debates, is the only hope any of us have for salvation.

Looking Logically at Richard Dawkins defense of atheism

Click below to see a the PDF of the logical analysis of Richard Dawkins' defense of atheism:

Unpardonable Sin

This question was emailed to me at the ministry by a previous inquirer who knew that I was also a former atheist. Being an atheist himself, this was the first of many questions he had for me. Any reference to the questioner's identity have of course been edited to preserve their privacy.

QUESTION:

don't you think you and I will both go to hell, regardless of future piety? I thought intentionally renouncing God was the only unforgivable sin.

RESPONSE:

When one speaks of the one unpardonable or unforgivable sin in Christianity, they most often are speaking of that which is mentioned in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew:

“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” – because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” (Matthew 12:31-32)

I will assume these are the teachings that you are referring to simply because there are no other verses in Scripture that speak of any action of man as being unforgivable. Thus we see that Scripture does indeed teach that there is an unpardonable sin, and it is the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. We again face the task, as we should every time a reasonable question shows up, of identifying exactly what is being spoken of in these instances. If and when we figure that out, we may have a better idea as far as what sin we may commit that will never be forgiven, even by Christ’s blood.

To come to a correct understanding of these passages, it is absolutely necessary to look at the context in which they were spoken (or written). Some will wave a flippant hand at context, but such people are only proclaiming their ignorance in the realm of logic and meaning. The exact same words can mean something totally different in two different contexts. We are not interested in skewing our final interpretation to meet our own subjective opinions. When it comes to claims to objective truth, of which this is one, we should never ask the question “What does this mean to you, the reader?” Such a question is quite plainly idiotic. That is completely irrelevant. What matters is what Jesus meant when he said them. The author carries the meaning, never the reader.

Before we proceed, I should mention that what we are about to look into necessitates a view of Scripture as being true to begin with. As an atheist, this is not a logically permissible stance. I understand that. If atheism is true, the question itself makes no sense. There is no God and there is no Hell. It would be like asking if my older sister likes to travel by teleportation. I neither have an older sister nor does teleportation exist as a means of travel at the time of this writing. It is a question that should simply be rejected as nonsensical. So, in order to avoid this sort of immediate irrelevance, let’s at least temporarily assume the truth of Scripture and the historical accounts which it records.

In the context of the Mark quotation, Jesus was casting out demons and his Jewish opponents (the political/religious leaders of the Jewish people at the time) were accusing Him of doing so in the name of Beelzebub, ruler of the demons. Famously Jesus responds to them with reason and pronounces that a house divided cannot stand. Of course this must be true. If a house is made up of a unified body of members, and its membership becomes divided, then the house as it was once known cannot exist. It could be that one demon would ACT as if he were opposing another demon, thereby committing deception that favors both of their interests, but they could never directly oppose one another. This is why Satan exists to begin with, as he directly opposed God.

The real issue at hand in the context of this historical event was that the Jewish leaders, upon seeing Jesus cast out demons, KNEW that Jesus COULD NOT be genuinely casting out demons by demonic power. However, their deep seeded emotional pride prompted them to reject what they plainly saw to be true and accuse Jesus of something that simply could not be. There are always multiple “possible” explanations for any event. Upon witnessing the events recorded in Mark, one could have seen reasonably thought that they were hallucinating, but everyone would have been seeing the same hallucination, making that extremely unlikely. They also could have thought that Jesus was a trickster or that the supposedly possessed people were just faking or confused. There were many more possible explanations as well. The truth almost always ends up being the most probable of the possible explanations, but the truth is NEVER one of the logically impossible explanations. Yet, this is what Jesus’ opponents proclaimed to be true.

The Jewish leaders KNEW it was impossible, and so they must have KNOWN that Jesus stood in righteous opposition to demons, and was therefore on the side of God the Father. They were not naturalists, postmoderns, skeptics or atheists. They were people who knew God existed, knew His character, knew His attributes and knew what they were seeing was from God. They knew that in the man of Jesus was something working with the power of God. The Bible tells us it was the Holy Spirit. Yet, they said Jesus was acting the part of a demon that was controlling Jesus and performing these actions. They called the Holy Spirit a damned demon KNOWING (not just suspecting) full well that whatever was working within Jesus was from God.

Jesus then issues the statement we are looking at. Jesus says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin after all of this had taken place. And then the author of Mark offers something more. He tells us WHY Jesus made the statement. Jesus made the statement because the Jewish leaders were saying Jesus had an evil spirit. They knew without a doubt the opposite was true, but their pride welled up and accused that which HAD TO HAVE BEEN entirely good as being evil. They blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

The same situation is described in Matthew. The same people are accusing Jesus and Jesus responds in the same way. However, we are told of one additional comment made by Jesus in Matthew. He declares that He is casting out demons by the “Spirit of God.” So, in essence, Jesus is stating the obvious to the Jewish leaders. They knew that to be true before Jesus said anything. Furthermore, because of Jesus’ additional statement, they KNEW that Jesus KNEW that He was acting by the Holy Spirit! Jesus drew the line, knowing it was obvious and knowing the Jewish leaders knew it was obvious. He may have been warning them not to speak their thoughts, or perhaps he was setting the stage knowing full well that they were going to accuse Him. At any rate, the Jewish leaders openly falsely accuse GOD HIMSELF of EVIL… all the while KNOWING what they were doing.

So that is the context. It is one thing to denounce God because you don’t believe in Him, or don’t like Him, or don’t know about Him. It is another to meet God face to face and call Him Satan. For this reason, many Bible scholars don’t even believe you can commit this sin today, for they say it would be necessary to meet Jesus face to face, being perfectly filled with Holy Spirit in His entirety, and call Him filled with an evil spirit knowing that to be false. I am not convinced of this position myself. The context and the statements do not provide a clear cut definition of what constitutes blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but it does give us some profound insights and a high probability of the truth.

To further dismiss the notion that anyone who denies the deity of Christ and His being filled with the Holy Spirit, we need only flip a few pages to the right. Here we come to the book of Acts where Paul, one of those Jewish leaders who hated Jesus and His followers, is directly approached by the resurrected Christ and is chosen to be saved. If anyone had come close to “blaspheming the Holy Spirit,” that apparently did not do it, it must have been Paul. And yet, Paul is author of most of the New Testament after the gospels. I would think it to be VERY probable indeed that Paul is in Heaven.

So, neither I nor you KNOW with absolute certainty when the Holy Spirit is acting in a given situation. We may suspect He is, or we may reject the notion as ludicrous. However, in our rejection, we are acting out of naivety, or skepticism based on what we perceive to be correct reason. None of these stances were permissible to the people whom Jesus denounced and condemned. For these reasons, I personally do not believe neither you nor I are necessarily condemned. There is no Biblical reason to take such a stance, and it simply does not stand up to proper logical scrutiny.

However, I will also say that it is at least possible that we are both condemned for past actions. There is still the tiniest of cracks in that door, and as such I think we would do well to entertain the implications of such a scenario. First, if it were true that we were to be condemned, then atheism would necessarily be false. Deism would also be false. Deism admits a “divine kickoff” to creation and then a non-active, non-interested deity that, if it didn’t exist, would in no way effect the ways of the universe. Such a god would necessarily be incapable of moral implementation, issuance of any laws, or active judgment of any kind. Thus He could not condemn nor save anyone. The moral framework in deism necessarily follows the moral framework of atheism… there is none.

So, if we were to assume our condemnation be possible, we must assume an active, moral, good God that has the power and desire to judge and to save from judgment. We could construct many gods with these qualities, but for the present purposes, let us say that we are dealing with the true God of the Bible. That is, we must necessarily also assume that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, just, merciful, gracious, creator of the universe exists and desires the best possible moral life for each individual person He created. If we claim to assume our condemnation is even possible, we must claim to KNOW that to be true.

Faced with that knowledge, let us look at the situation we would be in as condemned people living on earth, if that were the case. We would know God to be absolute good. We would know His decrees are the best things for our lives. We would know that He created us. We would know that disobedience to His will would be fruitless and miserable. We would know with absolute certainty a vast number of truths about ourselves and about God. Some of these truths (including the assumed truth of our condemnation) might make us very angry or sad. They may even cause us to hate God. Yet even our strongest emotions would not change that which is objectively and absolutely true. We would be acting emotionally and idiotically to act in any other way besides in accordance with the truth. Would I be enormously emotional if God were to tell me I was going to Hell for eternity? Yes. Would I deserve it? YES!!

That’s an incredibly important thing to remember throughout this discussion. We don’t make the rules of eternity. God does. He has the right to. He has the perfect ability to. Are we required to like them? No. Are we going to play by them for eternity? Yes. As people who have been disobedient to God, do we deserve any and every bad thing that comes our way? Yes. Do we deserve any objectively good thing at all? No. End of story.

God is not required to save anyone. In fact, if fairness were the only rule in play, God would be REQUIRED to send us all to Hell! Yet, even if that were the case, He would still be God. We could not escape Him and his decrees would still exist. Who would we choose to serve? Ourselves? That doesn’t make much sense, as we would know we are evil and would lead ourselves into despair both in this life and in the next. Would we serve another person, or even Satan? The same logical flaws apply to that scenario as well. No, the only logically reasonable option would be to honor and glorify our creator, accepting His just judgment on us and crediting it to His amazing and perfect righteousness. Our condemnation, if it were true, would be our own doing, not Gods.

In conclusion, no matter which way you slice it, nothing changes. If God is not real, this whole paper is irrelevant. If He is, the only logical choice is to accept His perfection and act accordingly.

Forgiveness Without Sacrifice

This is a question I received recently at the ministry:

I have read the Bible, as well as Mr. Mcdowell's book The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I have read several other books on apologetics, as well as the apologetics study Bible, and am very familiar with scripture. However, I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, with some deistic leanings. The primary reason is because no one can seem to answer me one question- it is in no apologetics book I have read that I can recall, and it should stick in my mind. The only answer I get is "God works in mysterious ways", "Our ways are not God's ways", or some sort of variation- and I feel that's a cop-out. Apparently, God made us in his image, and as such, even though we are not capable of understanding infinity or anything of that nature, we should be able to understand the human parallels to his motivations. So my question is this- Since humans are capable of forgiving without sacrifice, without any sort of tribute, and do so often, and since that is in fact seen as the pinnacle of forgiveness, why is it that God, supposedly loving, caring, and holy, needed to sacrifice his own son, his own blood, in order to forgive man? Why could he not simply forgive, as man can? A man can let go of bitterness, of a grudge deep in his heart- I have done it myself. Why could God not do the same?

Response

Hey (Name Withheld),

That’s a great question. It’s obvious you’ve put a great deal of time into your thoughts on Christianity and its teachings. I very much appreciate your honesty regarding where you stand on God and your beliefs. I too was a staunch atheist with days where I might have thought some deity existed, but if so was largely irrelevant. It’s easy for me to set my mind back to the philosophical and theological views that I once believed to be true. Since you’ve shared a bit about your thoughts, I’ll share a bit about where I was as well. I was raised in church and knew all the Biblical stories. I also believed they were fabrications. Logic and science solved problems, got answers and healed people. Religion did nothing of the sort. Instead, religion seemed to be a very powerful placebo for people to find purpose and meaning in their lives. That is why it existed, to serve as a fictitious comfort to those who had a need for it. Religion was full of logical fallacies and contradictions and as such it was reserved for the intellectually incapable or emotionally needy.

As you can tell, I’ve been intellectually persuaded otherwise over the last decade or so (since I now work as a researcher at a Christian ministry). But that has persuasion took years of asking the right questions to the right people and refusing to accept answers at face value. Knowledge can never be gained without genuine doubt and uncertainty. So I want to encourage you to keep asking questions. Approach every Christian you know with thoughtful questions.

Now, let’s look to the questions at hand regarding forgiveness, God and less-than-satisfying Christian responses. Starting with the sort of Christian responses you’ve encountered, I would say that the issuers of those statements (God works in mysterious ways, etc.) are both correct and incorrect at the same time. Is God an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that exists outside of time and space? Yes, He is. In that sense, He is truly a mystery in and of Himself simply because a finite human encased in time and space cannot fathom God in His entirety. However, I would disagree with the context in which that statement is often applied to God’s actions. Everything God does has a purpose. His character as it is described in Scripture prevents the idea of God being a haphazard, random being. Often times, as selfish people, we simply do not LIKE what God is doing but choose to trust Him anyway. These people often attribute what they consider to be “bad” acts of God to be simply “mysterious.” The death of a loved one or a bout of depression could be the culprit. But these things are not mysterious when we realize that if God were simply a fair and just God, we would all be cast into Hell immediately without warning or mercy. If there is a mystery about God at all, it would be why He would EVER love a sinful, dirty, disgusting people like ourselves. The real mystery, in my opinion, is that every single human isn’t suffering at a maximum level every second of their lives until they die and rot for eternity. Yet even this is not a mystery if we acknowledge that God is a sovereign, merciful and loving God.

Yet there is one instance in history where something truly unfair in the negative sense did occur. The death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As you correctly point out, His sacrifice bought redemption for all those that believe in Him. It was an act of un-deserved evil carried out against the only perfect man to ever live. Yet, that act also brought about the most glorious good to a multitude people equally undeserving of good.

Finally, we turn to the topic of forgiveness. It is important in any discussion that one first defines what they are talking about so as to not carry on a dialogue that is being understood on two different levels. If I may quote part of your question, you stated:

“Since humans are capable of forgiving without sacrifice, without any sort of tribute, and do so often, and since that is in fact seen as the pinnacle of forgiveness, why is it that God, supposedly loving, caring, and holy, needed to sacrifice his own son, his own blood, in order to forgive man?”

I would strongly posit that “forgiveness without sacrifice” is not forgiveness at all. Suppose a Canadian friend of yours stole money from you and blew it all on non-refundable airline tickets to Cuba. You could not use the tickets (being an American citizen) and you couldn’t get your money back. However, you exercise forgiveness by not holding the offense against your Canadian friend. If your “forgiveness” is contingent upon repayment of some sort, then true forgiveness has not been exercised. However, if we were to suppose a situation where we FELT wronged and yet there was nothing of our taken, hurt, destroyed, etc… then our feeling of forgiveness would be misled. I do not need to forgive someone for letting their dog defecate on my neighbor’s lawn. Nor do I need to forgive someone for doing something I disapprove of if they have committed no wrong against me. If anything, that person that we FEEL like we should forgive needs to extend forgiveness towards us for passing undue judgment against them! We have wronged them when they have not wronged us.

Therefore, if ones forgiveness is only applicable when one has been wronged, then that wrong that is absorbed by the offended is their sacrifice of forgiveness. In some cases the wrong cannot be undone (in the accidental fatality), and in some cases it can (lost money that was borrowed out without interest). In either case, to demand repayment stands in direct opposition to forgiveness. To sacrifice that which was wronged or taken in favor of reconciling the offender to oneself as if no wrong had taken place is the very definition of forgiveness.

So we ask why God, who is supposedly loving, caring and holy would sacrifice His own Son to forgive us our sins. Yet, in our last sentence we have already answered our own question. Forgiveness, which is an act of love, requires sacrifices in equilibrium with the magnitude of the offense suffered. Now, it could be argued that God (being omnipotent) would be the only one who could forgive without sacrificing anything because… well… He’s God. But let us not be so easily deceived by false logic! God’s omnipotence does not free Him to do that which is logically impossible! God cannot create a square circle and He cannot create a stone so big that He cannot lift it. These are logical impossibilities. It is also logically impossible for the benchmark and foundation of all holiness to act in an unholy and unrighteous way. God’s holiness demands that there be justice served to all those who wrong their infinitely glorious creator. That justice, in the absence of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, is death and eternity in torment for all people(eternal because of the infiniteness of the one offended, not because our sins are infinite in and of themselves). God could not wipe that away and have it disappear. There needed to be an sacrifice of equal weight and magnitude in order for those sins to be forgiven.

What would make such a sacrifice of equal magnitude? Well, since they were the sins of man that were to be forgiven, the sacrifice NEEDED to be in the form of man. Human sins could only rightly be atoned for by a human sacrifice (the Biblical book of Hebrews deals with this exhaustively). However, the sins of a finite person against an infinite God require an infinite sacrifice of that person’s life. That is why mankind is powerless to save themselves from their due judgment. No finite acts of righteousness (which is simply how we ought to act anyway. No one gets extra credit for the things they ought to do in the first place) will ever earn a person right standing before God. One act of disobedience towards a holy and infinite God is enough to cement our rightful place as one condemned. But if this eternality of punishment originates from the infiniteness of the one wronged, then the sacrifice that needs to be made for each individual needs also be infinite.

And thus we have a bit of a conundrum. The only sacrifice that will redeem a man from his sin needs to be another man. Yet, his sin is infinite in scope and thus requires an infinite sacrifice. The only infinite being or thing exists is God. So, the only sacrifice that would qualify to save even a single man from Hell needs to be both fully man and fully God. Nothing else could possibly do. Given the existence and character of God and given the sinfulness and selfishness of mankind, this is the only LOGICAL solution that is self-consistent and not self-refuting.

In summary, forgiveness necessarily requires sacrifice. A man cannot simply “forgive” without giving anything of himself. That would be a logical contradiction against the definition of the word forgive. If we are bitter towards someone, it may be that we subjectively do not like them… and they may not have wronged us at all… and in such a situation it is indeed possible to alter our viewpoint from bitterness to one of a more positive flavor, but let us not confuse such emotional molding as forgiveness. It is not. God sacrificed His son, His own blood, simply because that was the ONLY way that a loving God could forgive mankind and redeem His created people to Himself.