Does God Change?

God was changed by his decision to create. 

That decision produced relationships that had not existed before. It introduced time into the equation, and with it, change of some sort. If creation was lifeless, or if it was static, whatever change may have occurred would have been insignificant. Life introduced change that mattered. 

When God decided to make man in his image, it required something of himself to enter into the picture. A thing couldn't be said to be a living picture of God without a wisp of God animating it, making it so. When that occurred God joined himself to time and creation in a way that made them, in some fashion, a bit of him. Consequently, people are eternal and I infer the same could be said of angels.

When Jesus entered into the world as a flesh and blood human baby, the reality of the above distilled into perfect focus. God forever joined with creation in the body of Christ. What was true before, but only understood vaguely and seen through a mist, became crystal clear. Jesus, flesh and blood Son of God and second Adam, will always be. So will angels always be, so will humans always be.

Angels have no perpetual physical being, they are merely created spirits. Humans are created spirits joined to perpetual physical bodies. Angels were not made to be physical, humans are not what they've been made to be without physical bodies. That is why there is a resurrection of fallen humans but not for fallen angels, who had no physical bodies from the start. 

As a result, there will always be a spiritual realm in which angels exist, and there will always be a physical realm in which humans exist. 

The nexuses of both realms are heaven and hell. Faithful angels and redeemed humans live forever with God in an everlasting spiritual/physical realm, the New Heavens and Earth. Unfaithful angels and unsaved humans are confined inescapably to a lake of fire, also an everlasting spiritual/physical realm, the torment of which is sufficient to keep them from so much as even imagining rebellion toward God, the Creator.

When all is as it should be after the final judgment and the re-creation, will God be the same as he was apart from creating?

Essentially, yes; that is what immutability is really about. What he was he always will be— perfect missing nothing. But, in Christ, he will have an everlasting physical being interfacing with physical re-creation. That will be different. Furthermore, there are all those eternal relations he has spawned between himself, mankind and angels, beings all living and interacting on the level of God's created likeness.  

So, when considering the eternality of creation, can there be any doubt that God will have changed in some way given his decision to create?

I think not, what do you think?

How Can the Imperfect Become Perfect?

Jesus said we must be perfect because our heavenly Father is perfect. It seems an onerous demand to make upon intrinsically imperfect creatures, so is that what it intended to convey? God is undoubtedly perfect and so are his standards, so if humans are ever to peacefully coexist with him we'll have to align with his standard rather than him to ours. That much is certainly true, but I doubt that Jesus' statement was a demand so much as it was a statement of fact.

If God allowed imperfection to remain in his universe he wouldn't fit the definition of being perfect, and by extension, that of being God. If he did that, the best that could be said was that perhaps he understood what was perfect, maybe even that he wanted what was perfect, but he, himself, would not be perfect because he didn't or couldn't "make it so." "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" is not the mantra of perfection. So, Jesus spoke truth on that mount, really a logical necessity: if it wasn't so, God wouldn't be God.

We, however, are not perfect, nor can we be. We are not God. There is one, alone, who is good and it ain't us! But we must be, if we're ever to get along with him who is. We are made by a perfect creator and it is a necessity that we be perfect in all that we are. If not, we will have to be made perfect not as we are.

What?

Right now, we are free to think, desire, choose, act, create, etc. In order to continue to do so, we'll have to come into accord with, be perfectly aligned to, and be absolutely congruent with him who is perfect. If we willingly yield the degrees of freedom we have through faith (i.e. obey) because we trust God in his perfections, and are infused with the Holy Spirit throughout our being, we can thereby be enabled to walk in agreement with the perfect God. We can be like Jesus was as he walked among us.

Or...

We can be confined in hell, and by that I mean the Lake of Fire. As terrible, even barbaric, as that might seem, it is not the petty, vindictive, hissy fit of someone really big and strong. It is a logical necessity. In view of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect God it is the only outcome possible. If those made in his image, and are eternal as a result, will not choose perfectly, then they must be perfectly incapacitated from making any choice whatsoever.

We are not perfect, nor can we ever be. Not of ourselves, not by our own resources. Yet, we must be perfect nonetheless! The solution to our dilemma is simple-- don't be dependent on our own resources. God is willing, even desirous, to share his perfect Spirit with those who put their trust in Christ. When he who is perfect is abiding in those who can't be perfect on their own, perfection becomes remarkably possible. When those folks are recreated at the Rapture, then their perfection will be complete.

If We Would Just Catch Our Breath

It has been broadly accepted that mankind is nothing more than a highly evolved animal, not really any different from any other living thing out there. No other animal is even remotely like us in the ability to reason, or to will, or to communicate, or to abstract, but according to the modern conception that is only a matter of degree rather than substance. I don't believe that, but then, what makes man so special in my view? In the early chapters of Genesis, we are told exactly what that is and especially with regard to all other life.

The creation account in the beginning of Genesis is really an elucidation of God’s determination to make mankind in his image. The creation of the universe itself and all other lifeforms is treated as the backdrop to that ultimate aim. No more explanation than “and God said…and God saw that it was good” is offered for all of those creations, but for mankind a bit more needed to be said. The thrust is that mankind is unique, special among God's creations with something nothing else in all the physical world has.

Mankind was made in the image of God, which means they are a likeness resembling God. God is non-corporeal and outside of the created order (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17), which means that man’s resemblance to God is not physical but something else. Physically, mankind is much like anything else that is alive and is separated by mere degree from all else. However, nothing else is like mankind in those areas of divergence noted above and that is where the image of God shines forth. God is the only thing other than man (and angels) that shares those qualities.

Presumptively, God fashioned man, physically, from the same material he had used to make other creatures. Whereas they were brought forth from the earth by a mere word, mankind was formed [Hebrew: yatsar] by God in the manner of a potter and then directly breathed into by God which granted man soulish life. Although later in the creation account, that word (formed) was applied generally to all the creatures God had made, I find it interesting that in dealing with the detail of creation, a clear difference in how that played out is specified.

Whereas a general, creative word was sufficient for every other creature, with man God got his hands dirty and infused his own breath into Adam. Every creature had living being [Hebrew: nephesh chayyah, the animation of living being] granted by God, but had so without any reference to breath breathed into it by God himself. For creatures, God merely said, "Let the earth bring forth..." For man, God took dust in his hand and formed the creature, then breathed out of himself into man's nostrils the breath of life.

What is important about this distinction, it seems to me, is that the quality that makes mankind living souls uniquely from God is also the means by which God’s image was uniquely communicated to man. We are in God's image, not just because we are like God descriptively, but because we came directly from God substantively. We are, in essence, breath from God. Human beings truly are the offspring of God.

As wonderful as that is, it has a drawback--it means we last forever, just like God. God is eternal and the breath that came out of God and was put into man (and made him a living soul) lasts forever too. Therefore, people never cease to exist, their soul is eternal. Ultimately, body and soul will brought together, as at first, and permanently assigned to their place of eternal abiding. So the only question about our future existence is not if we will, but where we will and under what conditions.

We certainly can't be destroyed, anymore than God can!

Most of us are only all too aware of our need for the redemption of our broken, dying bodies: physical death, and what leads up to it, is enough to get that message across. Thankfully, we have the necessary vicarious sacrifice in the death of Christ and his victorious resurrection from the dead for that, provided we place our trust in him. But what is the more essential need included in the mix is the redemption of our eternal souls, those whisps of the very breath of God which last forever. Everlasting life is in our hands from the scarred hands of Christ, if we would just pause in faith and catch our breath.

How Does Apostasy Occur?

"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."   Romans 3:28 NIV 

Justified, in regard to the verse above, means to be declared righteous or acceptable to God. Guilty humans at trial under a magnifying glass in a cosmic court need a verdict of "not guilty" in order to be freed from the consequences of sin. Without being justified by God they will be bound over to judgment, which in a cosmic context, unfortunately, can only be cosmically ultimate. For someone actually guilty (as are all humans before God) there can be no escape in such a court on the basis of technicalities, obfuscation, ignorance, prejudice or character (i.e. good works).

Faith, as used in the above verse and as generally understood as "saving faith", is an apprehension of who Jesus is and what he has done which moves a person to trust Christ as his or her savior and follow Christ as his or her leader. As long as a person has faith that Jesus came from God, died for his or her sins, rose bodily from the dead victorious over sin and death, and is his or her Lord, that person is justified without the possibility of change in status. However, if such faith is lost or reversed, then so too is the condition for justification, and hence salvation, and the result is apostasy or falling away. We can lose our salvation, therefore, if we lose our faith.

Works, as spoken about in that verse, are actions of mind or body which accrue toward the worker's justification. In this instance, they are specified to be in the context of the law, i.e. the Mosaic Code. However, works of the law cannot possibly effect justification because: 1) good works have no power to erase or nullify bad works; 2) even the works of law associated with sacrifices intended to remit sins cannot undo the sin nature of the sinner, which has him or her in sin, virtually, before the last whiff of smoke has dissipated; and 3) it is impossible for the blood of animals to cleanse a guilty human conscience. [How could they? Neither party (God or the sinner) has any "skin in the game."]

Since salvation is not founded upon nor attributable to works then neither can a loss of salvation be the result of such. Our works, in themselves, good or evil, do not have the power to engage, alter or to unravel what Jesus Christ has already done on the cross and in rising from the grave. Whereas keeping a clean conscience is a boon to faith, keeping or not keeping a clean conscience can neither keep one saved nor cause him or her to lose salvation. Sin, though it doubtless arises out of some sort of unbelief, cannot be the source of apostasy anymore than it is the source of salvation; otherwise, virtually every Christian would eventually apostatize.

Apostasy is departing from the faith. It starts with some disappointment or disillusionment with Christ and ends with one abandoning the trust he or she has in who Christ is and what he has done. If one does not trust in Christ as the Son of God, nor rely upon his death and resurrection for justification before God, that one cannot possibly be saved so long as he or she remains in such unbelief. It matters not that he or she believed at one time or even that he or she was baptized.

Sin is not and never can be the cause of apostasy!  Faith is what effects justification, and a departure from faith is the only thing that could effect a loss of salvation.  

Does God Love Our Children Less Than We Do?

Does the God who breathed life into them love our children less than we do? We would never write them off, or send them into flames no matter what they had done. Yet, it appears that God is willing to. Do we love and care for them more than he does? No, but we certainly tolerate sin and the company of sinners more than he does.

Whatever is not of faith is sin, so faith is the key for our children. If our children do not come to trust God there will be nothing that can be done for them. There is no obligation that could be enforced upon God in the name of love which could cause him to give eternal life (freedom) to those who do not trust him. Could God allow the evil of sin and rebellion to continue just because some of those who have faith happened to have children who did not? Not without resigning his throne as God!

Since the Fall, however, no one is able to believe (at least effectively) without divine enablement. The Spirit of God attending the word of Christ is the instigator of such enablement, so if our children do not hear that word and come to faith thereby they have no possibility of life. Oh, they may be graced under a parental umbrella for a spell, but there are no reliable coattails to heaven. Those who do not trust God can have no eternal hope.

The love of God is broad and deep, but its object is humans made in his image with creaturely freedom. It is important to God that our children be in his image and have creaturely freedom. Everyone made like that must come to the place where, freely, they trust God and choose to follow him. Our children must come to that place or be separated from God forever.

Perhaps we could never bear to write-off our children and would always find a way to preserve them and commune with them. We are not God. We do not see what he sees and do not have the pure moral clarity he does. God does love our children, but not with sin-stained, sentimental affection like we are apt to. He loved them enough to make them in his image and to redeem that image eternally through the sacrifice of Christ.

God wants our children with him forever, but that is not possible if they do not trust him.

The Keys of Death, Hades and David

The Keys of Death and Hades

He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."   Revelation 1:17b-18

We use the word key in various ways. It can signify the crucial piece to understanding something or solving a problem. It can merely signify the importance of a thing. It can serve as a figure of affection; for instance, "the key to my heart." It can reference authority, or it can simply be a key, a device that opens a lock.

When it is said that a person holds the key to something the meaning is relatively straight forward. They have the means and therefore the power to unlock what is locked, they exercise control over it. To say that Jesus has the keys to death and Hades is to say that he has the ability to open the door to death and Hades and the power to release those who were locked in behind it. Jesus has authority to release people from death and Hades.

Death is the common fate of all the living. When anything living crosses that threshold, whatever animated its life is lost to its physicality. If that life isn't reinstated quickly it never can be, it's locked up behind death's door. For humans, that impelling, animating something is called a soul, an incorporeal, spiritual essence which carries not only the life force, but the personhood of the human.

Before Christ's ascension, humans souls were locked in Hades (Sheol in Hebrew) upon death. The body turned to dust and the soul was locked in Sheol. There is some thought that Sheol really just meant the grave, but I think Jesus' teaching concerning the rich man and Lazarus completely undermines such thoughts. Jesus envisioned Sheol as a place where dead people were kept self-aware, conscious. Whereas it may have been "restful" for the faithful, Jesus revealed that it was anything but for the unfaithful.

Once in either condition, there was no way out. Death and confinement thereafter in Hades was a one way trip. Jesus, however, overturned the order of all that had gone before and did what no one had done before or since. He entered into death and Hades, and then, of his own accord, he came back. His authority and power over death and Hades was thus neither theoretical nor derivative--it was demonstrative. He went there and came back with captives in tow, that is why he is said to have the keys of death and Hades.

There are not literal keys in Jesus hand, of course, as if he required a tool to open that figurative door. His power is intrinsic to who he is. The keys are merely a figurative way to put the concept into graphical terms. Jesus, the Son of God, has power over life and death, what was irreversible to everyone else is reversible to him. The most impenetrable, intractable wall humanity faces, death and Hades, Jesus had the power to walk right through, and most importantly for us, he has the power to bring others with him.


The Key of David

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.'"   Revelation 3:7

The phrase, "the key of David," elicits similar thoughts as did the phrase, "the keys of death and Hades." In both phrases, the word key relies upon the same basic symbolism which refers to the possession of authority. Whereas the first expression has an inherent Jewishness to it, the second is markedly Greek (Gentile). Regardless, what is in focus is an eschatological, teleological authority--the possessor of the keys has authority to affect and effect the end of things.

David, God's choice to rule over Israel, conquered and then established Jerusalem as the capital of all of Israel shortly after he had consolidated his power over all twelve tribes. Thereafter, the city was often referred to as "the City of God" or the equivalent. Why not? The God-appointed king was there and the only tabernacle of God on earth (the Temple) would be. So, to have the Key of David meant having authority over Jerusalem, and by extension, to have authority over God's kingdom (see Isaiah 22:20-22).

The symbolic connection to the New Jerusalem is obvious. The Messianic heir to David (Jesus) is the one in authority over the New Jerusalem. He has the power to let folk in or to keep them out (see Matthew 16:18-19 for an interesting connection and extension). If entry into eternity with God is something one desires, one will have to come to Jesus and get his approval in order to enter. Thankfully, to be coming to him is all that it takes to get it!

Though there is nothing particularly Jewish about Philadelphia, it was in the message to that church that this Jewish nomenclature was used. In the Kingdom of God, neither Jewishness nor Gentileness matter a whit, despite the fact that there is distinctive historical tracks for Israel's redemption and for that of the Gentiles. I don't think much can be read into that, for the new Jerusalem is of infinitely greater import than the original, and it is to that the symbol actually points.

Is There A Person God Cannot Save?

Is there a person that God cannot save? I suppose it depends on what one means by "save".  In any given perilous situation (e.g. my car going off a cliff) the answer would have to be "no", God could save anyone in any situation. If what is meant by use of the term is to be preserved alive after the final judgment of sin, then the answer is "yes", and resoundingly so. That being said, I still must confess that scripture convinces me that if God could save everyone from judgment, he would.

"‘...As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked..."     Ezekiel 33:11 NASB

It is quite clear from scripture that there is a place of eternal judgment and that it will be populated with unsaved sinners as well as the demon horde. Eternal confinement to a lake that burns with fire seems harsh, minimally--not at all the kind of thing one might anticipate someone styled "Savior" doing. I think it would be natural to think that God would have done something about that, if he could have.

He did.

"...I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."      1 Timothy 2:1-6 NASB

It seems to me, what God could do to save all humanity from judgment he did do. If all humanity does not end up saved, the fault will not lie with God, but with man. He has provided a substitutionary sacrifice for sin that effectively meets the demand that both man and God see for justice, and effectively reconciles the broken relationship between God and man the sinner. All that is left is for man to no longer want to be a sinner.

Now that is not something that can be imposed. It can be coaxed, an invitation can be made, and a supernatural effort to convince the sinner of his perilous status can be undertaken. But to write over the will of the person in order to make it happen would only serve to cause the sinner to cease being a man. The result could not be said to be a man being saved, but would represent a man being transformed into something other than a man, something less than the image of God.

Man was made in the image of God, to do as he pleased. A man could not be said to be a man on those terms if someone else's pleasure were substituted (especially unwillingly) for his own. To be a man is to have independent will. Unfortunately, it is also to have the possibility of withstanding every effort of God to turn that will to the obedience of faith.

Is there a person God cannot save? Yes, the one who won't repent and believe the gospel.

Evil and Freewill, Concurrence & Moral Sufficiency

There could be no evil whatsoever apart from the capacity of something in creation to oppose God. That opposition would have to be something initiated independently of God; that is, it could not be decreed or impelled by God. Something nominally opposed to God but actually decreed by him could only have the appearance of evil--in actuality, it would be the very will of God. There can be no evil, therefore, apart from freewill, and since there is evil in this world, this world is one which free will exists.

Yet, even though freewill is expressed in a way that is not determined by God (or it wouldn't be free), it is allowed by him and it's exercise sustained by him. It reflects his will for the way things should be, and without such concurrence, it wouldn't be. If that is so, how can the same difficulties which determinism suffers from in regard to the problem of evil not ultimately be true for freewill as well? If God, the omniscient and omnipotent, proceeds despite evil he could foresee or does not stop what is proceeding against his will, there would seem to be a problem with evil after all.

I don't think that is so two reasons. First, God is good, and making something in his image just could not be evil by any stretch of the imagination. Even among human beings, we consider it good to have a son or daughter, even though we know they will do things that are bad. The beauty of being made in God's image is an amazing thing, human beings are amazing creatures. That God would want to make us in his image, able to will as he does and love as he does, is a remarkable demonstration of benevolent grace and something that properly could only be said to be very good.

Second, evil isn't being allowed. It's only the perspective of the current regimen of time that makes it seems so. Death and entropy themselves are arguments against evil being allowed, revealing that God has pulled the plug on this fallen realm of fallen beings. Within our bubble of time we may think evil is allowed and that it's been going on forever, but from God's timeless perspective evil is being dealt with virtually immediately. In this realm's wake, after it's been flash-burned in a cosmic reboot, evil will be something not likely to be even vaguely remembered.

So evil exists because God made creatures in his image which had the power to will, freely, as he does. That was not an evil thing to do, only good, because God is only good, and so too would be those creatures made like him at the time of their creation. Only creatures made with this god-like capacity would be able to experience the full spectrum of God's goodness relationally. God is inherently good, and inherently relational (e.g. the Trinity), and so creating creatures who will as God wills, and love as God loves could be nothing but good.

Since evil can be so evil, however, one has to wonder if doing the good of creating such creatures was a sufficient moral cause for the omniscient God to create them. I think that it was, but that it will not demonstrate itself to be so in time, where those creatures continue in evil even as God does the good he can in regard to them. Only in eternity when freewill creatures have embraced that they have been made in his image, have submitted themselves to be in that image, and choose to abide in it in agreement with God, will those creatures be like Christ and live eternally free but in perfect harmony with God. That situation will be as good as good can possibly get!

That will result in unspeakable joy for God and those creatures so abiding in it, and I think it is more than a sufficient moral cause for allowing the potential of evil in making those creatures in the first place. Does that provide a sufficient moral cause for allowing evil in the meantime, or for having to contain it endlessly, idly, incapably in the age to come? Since God is good and omnipotent, could he not have accomplished his aims some other way without allowing evil? Probably not, but since God is good, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless.

Of course that won't stop me from saying a bit more on the subject...

A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part II

Continuing our look at Christ's Message to the Church at Thyatira, the vision-driven church...

Some interpreters of the Revelation suggest that Jezebel was the wife of the vision caster in Thyratira. Even though there are a few linguistic reasons for such an interpretation, I find none of them convincing in the least. Primarily (as I've written elsewhere), the angels to whom these letters are written are not pastors, prophets, vision casters, or even humans--they are angels as is consistent with the use of the term throughout the Apocalypse. Pastors and bishops are never called angels (or messengers) in the NT, and it would be a novel application of the term to use it as such in these messages to the seven churches.

Furthermore, since the same Koine word means "wife" and "woman", it is not necessary to interpret the reference to Jezebel ("that woman") as "your wife", even if an extra pronoun (your, second person, singular) is attested in some minority manuscripts. She is female, she may be married, but there is no way she is married to an angel! The bottom line: there is nothing compelling about such an interpretation, and much that militates against it.

Christ gives this self-styled prophetess time to repent of teaching and misleading Christians in Thyatira to commit sexual immorality and participate in idolatry. Of course, in that time she actually has an opportunity to lead more astray, although time granted for the one leading others astray is also time granted for those being led astray to come to their senses and repent. If they don't, they'll go down with her because followers never shed their responsibility for following what they follow. The Antichrist may be thrown into the fire first, but those who follow him get thrown in just the same afterward.

Striking her children dead is a shocking threat, not really unique in biblical revelation, but appalling to our modern sensibilities all the same. Whatever else that says about God, it certainly undermines any notion that he is the touchy-feely type that loves everyone unconditionally. God is love, but he does with people as he sees fit, and who is there that can argue with him about it or question his judgment? History has an ample record of bracing catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death (~1340's), the Shaanxi Earthquake (1556), the Spanish Flu (1918), the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004), and the Haitian Earthquake (2010), which should convince any of us that it is a fearful thing to be in the hand of a God who can suddenly bring us into judgment.

If one sees the name Jezebel as a merely figurative assignation, (i.e. there was not a woman actually named Jezebel in Thyatira), then I would think it was permissible to see her children along the same figurative line. In that case, the children would be her second layer or level of followers rather than actual biological offspring. Those she commits adultery with would be the first layer, those that are won to her way as a result of the first layer would be the children. All three (her, her first followers, and the followers of followers) are justifiably threatened with judgment, for none are innocent.

When God strikes in judgment, it is meant to get our attention, but does he do so just because he desires to demonstrate his wrath? I think that the answer to that question must be both yes and no. No, in that he didn't desire it within himself as if wrath were an attribute of his nature; yes, in that given rebellion, he does desire to respond to it with wrath. Apart from creatures rebelling, there would be no need for, nor any expression of wrath--God is not innately wrathful. He doesn't have to, and hasn't fixed the game just so he has an opportunity to hurt someone and break things, but when it comes to unrepented of rebellion, God wants folk to know what reaction to expect from him.

So never read the wrong message into his patient forebearance--God searches the mind and heart, with absolute transparency. And what he knows in secret, he'll make known in judgment seen by all.

Does Hell Have Anything to Do With Justice?

Eternal damnation in fire seems anything but just. The punishment is more than disproportional to the crime, really to any crime imaginable. Besides, there are folk, which by just about any measure, seem to be of a good sort, but whom the Bible offers little hope because they do not believe Jesus is the Christ. With this in mind, I ask, "Can hell have anything at all to do with justice?"

My answer is no (and yes).

Ultimately, the purpose and need for hell is not justice, it is peace--God's peace. Due to his omni characteristics, opposition from other beings to what he knows is right and best puts him, in effect, at odds with himself. Opposition to God (sin) cultivates chaos into the order he has established and leads in an unswerving path to greater and greater divergence and disorder. Where can he go to not see it, to not hear it, to not have to swallow it wretching at the taste of it (wrath)? For one perfect in every respect, things have got to go his way or no way. Any other way would make him other than what he singularly is.

Christian theologians have traditionally cast the terrors of hell as justified on the basis of egregious offenses by sinners against a righteously indignant God. By and large, however, the offenses envisioned were nothing more, really, than being human (for instance, eating a set aside apple). This misses the point entirely--God doesn't hate people (sinners) just for being people, but it is necessary for them to come into agreement with him, for there is life and love in nothing else. Rather than casting God as the ultimate, cosmic Gloria Allred throwing an eternal hissy fit over being offended, we would do well to help sinners understand the need of reconciliation with God.

Only secondarily is hell about justice, or the retribution for wrongs done. This gets the most attention, even scripturally, which makes some sense. Retributive justice is of the most practical concern for humans, but it is only derivatively divinely purposeful. God gets no pleasure from the death of the wicked, not the physical which comes first nor the eternal which will follow. There is no delectable glory attachable to hell. It is necessary rather than desirable.

To be clear, God does love justice. If death (and hell) were about justice, God would love the death of the wicked and glory in it. He'd spit on their carcasses and dance on their graves. Would Jesus have wept over Jerusalem if he loved justice in that way? God is just, of that there can be no doubt, but I do not see that hell is primarily about justice. Hell does serve the cause of justice eternally, but the nature of hell, its unending continuity, are not in place to serve justice, but peace and order as God sees it.

Evil Is Not Self-Existent

Evil is real but not self-existent. It isn't an eternal verity, it is only a passing thing, here for time, but not for eternity. If it were not so, God could not be God as presented in the Bible. Instead, god would have to be of a dualistic conception, light and dark at once.

Evil can only exist consequently. Consequent of something God did? Well, yes, but not directly. God did not breath evil into existence, did not cogitate it and then induce it. Evil does not arise from the heart of God, though evil has most certainly arisen.

Evil is not a creation of God, but a creation of creations. Evil bursts into existence when a creation created with the capacity to itself freely create, creates against the will of God. That creation can be an attitude, an action, an aim, or whatever, but to be evil it must be at odds with God--that's what makes it evil. God's response to such is corrective and terminal.

Given God's omni characteristics, if evil were allowed to continue, it would be as if he harbored evil within himself. That would be schizophrenic and impossible, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Because God is everywhere always, evil cannot be. Therefore, God has circumscribed evil within time for a time until he deals with it eternally.

From the perspective outside of time, evil has not even been a hiccup. For us in time it seems as if evil has been around forever (and always will be), but that is only an illusion we experience from our perspective within time. Outside of time, this realm of time is not so much as even a flash. God who is always the same is there "already" at the beginning and end, whereas evil is not.

Evil is not self-existent, not eternal, and not therefore truly something. Although here and now it is real and has far-reaching consequences, in the eternal scheme of things it is as nothing. Evil is consequent (and therefore dependent) upon creatures taking free actions which are in opposition of God. Where there is no will in opposition to God, there is no evil.

Lead With Sin

When Christians engage the educated and urbane evangelistically and/or apologetically, they often make a mistake of order, as I see it. They will engage the unbelieving on some issue they think will bear fruit, like the existence of God, the historicity of the resurrection, the founding of the church, etc.. More often than not, they end such entanglements having convinced their "opponents" of nothing more than that Christians are idiots who accept flimsy evidence, and who, with flawed conscience, follow an immoral figure as god.

It irks me beyond measure to see and hear the arrogance of this new class of atheists who seem everywhere at the moment, and who appear on the ascendancy culturally. They willingly engage Christians in debate along the manner limned above, and smugly toss away the challenge to their views--even though on the basis of sheer forensics, they've gotten their clocks cleaned. They're heroes to the young, brain-washed, and uninformed, who follow them like lemmings to their inevitable plunge into hell.

Why do these unbelieving, self-inflated blusterers seem bullet proof? I think that as long as the issue is God in general, or even Jesus Christ in particular, these blind guides and their rodent trains will continue to the precipice undaunted. They can be out debated and argued under the table until the cows come home, and it won't change a thing. A change of heart and mind is desperately needed, but it isn't going to come by arguing about things that are outside of themselves.

You see, change is wrapped up in the notion of repentance. Jesus has not come to call those who see no need for repentance but those who do. If any headway is to be made evangelistically with the growing horde of the educated, urbane, and unbelieving, the argument will have to be about man, not God. The man in them has to be humbled, shown that he is sinful, that he may be able to think a noble thought but lacks the self-control to live a noble life, that as a species he is tied up with the death of everything.

If something doesn't snap the pride of man, he marches unheeding into the fires of doom. An awakening must arise in each one, individually, deep inside. Something has to break the gaze upon self, so that the head can turn to see that the Redeemer is near. Christians have attempted to engage the unbelieving with every argument imaginable, and found their punches landing without impact. Perhaps it's time to lead with sin.

It is not like a logical, even a factual argument is going to bring anyone to salvation. That cannot happen apart from that unseen work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did clue us into what the Holy Spirit is convicting people of, and it's not forensics. So, if one wants to flow with the Spirit, and see their witness have supernatural affect, the effort to concentrate on is to help the unbeliever realize he is a sinner. Apart from that he'll never be saved.

What Happens After We Die: Final Thoughts

I think the scriptures are reasonably clear about what happens when people die. The body turns back to dust in death and the soul departs to one of two places. For the believer (or the immature child of a believer) the soul is ushered into the presence of God, where he or she stays until the Rapture. For the unbeliever, their soul is placed into Sheol (in Greek, Hades), under some duress (if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was intended to describe the afterlife factually).

At the end of time God will raise all the dead who had not been raised up to that point. Everyone of them, soul reunited with body, will be brought before God's judgment bench for final disposition. Those written in the Lamb's Book of Life are taken into eternity with Christ, those that are not are judged by their works and thrown into the appropriately heated place in the Lake of Fire. The conditions of all parties is final and eternal.

We cannot be essentially destroyed; we cannot have our wills co-opted and still be what God made us to be; the unrepentant among us cannot be allowed to roam free. What can be done with the likes of man after death and for eternity? Those that repent and embrace Christ can be cleansed and remade and then freed to live in agreement with God. Those that do not repent must be locked forever into an environment that will keep them from expressing their sinfulness.

Annihilation is clearly unscriptural; universalism is as well; inclusivism is and isn't at the same time. For the incapable children of believers, inclusivism is absolutely true. For the incapable among unbelievers there is some reason to be optimistic that it might be true. For what I'll call "noble savage inclusivism," the doctrine can only betray the semi-pelagianism of the one promulgating it, and it is patently untrue.

When we get to eternity, I am sure there will be surprises concerning who made it and who did not. There is no reason not to think that we will find the odd unknown walking the golden streets, who far from the climes of the Levant, was visited by God (like Abram), repented and put trust in him as a result. While I'm satisfied admitting my necessary ignorance in the matter and leaving it to the judge of all the earth to do right, I am certain that there will be no post-mortem grace, nor will any idolater see the kingdom of heaven.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism II

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

Even the case of the immature and the infirm being included in salvation is anything but airtight. At best a hopeful biblical principle, rather than an explicit statement, can be derived for their salvation. As I see it, three possible grounds exist for inclusivism concerning the immature and infirm: (1) infants have nothing to repent of and so would be included in Christ's resurrection; (2) the immature and infirm are not able to apprehend creation's witness of God, are not truly able to meet the condition of salvation (faith in Christ), and so would be included in the provision of atonement which was made for everyone; and (3) the children of a believer are included in the the body of Christ unless they decide not to believe.

I do not see how infants could have anything of which to repent. Even though they are born into sin and death, separated from God, they have not sinned personally. They have not even had the opportunity to ignore God's witness in creation, so including them in judgment would seem a travesty of justice. It is a God-given principle that children are not made to pay for the sins of their fathers, so it would appear they must be safe.

We do have some disturbing precedents in scripture, however. I wonder, how many infants died in the Flood, or why infants and children were killed by the invading Israelites under the command of God? It seems evident to me that there are mysteries in understanding how God views the situation of children. I search in vain for that one clear, unequivocal passage of scripture that answers these questions.

To me, inclusivist doctrines purporting to understand what God will do in these instances reflect more what the author would like God to do than they report what God said he would actually do. Given Christ's universal atonement, I see the logic in formulating an exclusion to the condition of faith in Christ for those incapable to express such faith through disability. What I do not see is that clearly demonstrated by scripture.  

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism I

We're continuing on the subject of what happens after we die, specifically discussing whether or not people who did not have an informed faith in Christ while they lived could be included in the benefits of the salvation Christ wrought after they die (inclusivism).

So far I've shared that annihilation of the soul is an impossibility because of the nature of the image of God in which mankind is made. I've also said that manipulation or control of the image of God by fiat would so mar it as to render it no longer the image of God. I've also stated concerning repentance that "through the Gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit we have our opportunity." That, however, raises the question about whether or not the lack of opportunity might negate the need for the Gospel and conviction. Let's explore.

God does not, I don't know that he can, make a soul (in his image) live in accord with him if that soul doesn't want to in its own right. Adam and Eve were good according to God, without sin within, but they were not willing to submit. Jesus faced serious temptation, especially in Gethsemane, but was willing to submit. In the prototypical models of humanity, it seems, the principle is that the image of God must willingly agree and submit if there is to be agreement and submission at all.

God is not without tools to accomplish his purposes with the image of God: he can convict, he can persuade, he can woo, and he certainly can suggest. Indeed, he must do all that and more if any are to be saved, but putting puppet strings upon the image of God is just something he will not do over the long run. The result would not be the image of God if he did. Therefore, repentance is absolutely essential to living in God's image after death.

It seems to me an open and shut case that anyone who knows enough to repent, must repent, or face hell after death. That repentance cannot be just a simple recognition of one's own sinfulness, but must entail determination to live, going forward, according to God's will. Nature itself is sufficient to convince mankind of God's existence and his basic nature, and is therefore in itself sufficient to render all men everywhere without excuse for denying, disbelieving or ignoring their Maker. With that in mind let's look at a hypothetical example.

Let's say there is a unevangelized pagan somewhere at sometime who looked upon the witness of creation and realized that God was behind it. That pagan reasoned that he must acknowledge his Maker and submit to him. Would not that pagan be like Abram in Ur, or even perhaps even something akin to Naaman? Would that pagan thereby find mercy and grace in God, and be included in Christ? No, he would not for very good reasons.

At very best, and by his own reckoning, he would serve God according to his own devices; would be dependent upon his own works to maintain his status with God; would have to fashion his own religion to serve God (is that not intrinsically idolatrous?). What is unclear about the scriptures' judgment about the efficacy of any of those actions? If works do not justify a Jew, who has the law from God's mouth, how are they going to justify a pagan who has conjured his law through his best intuition? He may get a few things right, but by no means would be justified before the Lord. He may know there's a Creator, what he needs to know is the Savior.

In the case of Abram, and all of the OT patriarchs (Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, even Samuel) what made the difference for them was the visitation of God. Whether by direct appearance, or through the Holy Spirit revealing, or by the word of God being heard (or read), God must make the difference if a person to a have saving faith (which was true for even Naaman and the Ninevites in Jonah's day). This is just not something people come to on their own, even looking at the witness of creation. Some may object saying that's unfair or unloving (subjective), but what's more important is whether or not it's true (objective).

I say, we must trust God to abide by the word Jesus spoke (John 6:37-47 ESV):

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 

Jesus, in this passage, tells us how saving gets done. In a nutshell, salvation is the work of Christ, the benefit of which is bestowed on all who believe in him. That belief is specific and personal, for it results in the saved coming to Christ, looking to Christ, and believing in Christ. To those who grumbled about his claim to be the divine means of salvation, Jesus defended his exclusivity and necessity and dismissed their objections by saying that if a person was learning from God, he would come to Christ.

Where, then, is the hope for the noble savage, if indeed, such a beast exists? I've shown that the development of saving faith requires the visitation of God. If that is so, why would God visit and direct a heathen to someone or something other than Christ? If one postulates there is another path to salvation than saving faith, the burden of proof is upon him. I cannot find any clue of such in the scriptures.

What Happens When We Die: Universalism

I've been exploring what happens after we die, which I continue now by looking into the thought of universalism, which suggests that Christ's salvivic work will be applied to all humans at some point.

Immortality in freedom is impossible for those who are not submitted to God. Can God in his omniscience and omnipotence allow that which is anti-God, that which is evil, to exist and still be God? I don't think so-- minimally, that would be saying that he is not sovereign, ultimately that would make evil intrinsic to him. For evil to remain in what God created would mean that it was reflective of him, that it is one of his attributes.

I've already said the ship has sailed on the possibility of annihilating mankind because we are made in his image, and ensouled by his very breath. I also think the ship has sailed on God enforcing his will on people as if it was their own. We are made like unto God with freedom of will (apart from which there can be no sin or godly love). God could manipulate us, of course, but the cost would be effacing his image in us, which is not his stated will. We are not made of a substance that can be made to do what someone else wants it to and still be in the image in which we were made--God is not of that nature and neither are we.

I have said before that Universalism should be the logical conclusion of Calvinism (insofar as one abides by the meanings of words, that is). To my reckoning, universalism, inclusivism and Calvinism make the error of positing that God will by fiat transform the lost. Though the lost did not want what God wanted nor do as God would have them do, they will because God will make them do so. If Adam and Eve did not live that way in Eden, that is not the way those in God's image live at all. It never has been true on earth and never will be true in the heavenlies!

Granted, some Universalists envision the flames of hell as producing the most beneficial change (repentance) in the those being toasted--God as the ultimate Skinnerian, I suppose; an evangelical approach to purgatory, perhaps. Not only is there not so much as a peep about such a conception in the scriptures, the Apocalypse seems to render the difference between those inside the New Jerusalem and those outside with finality. We have this life until we die to change our minds about God, through the Gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit we have our opportunity.

What Happens After We Die: Annihilation

When it comes to the subject of what happens after we die, humans do not bring a lot to the table. It really is outside of any experience we have or can gain, at least in the land of the living. Logic, intuition and discovery are out the window. No matter how long we think about it, no matter how we try to resolve our feelings, no matter how deeply we delve into the nature of things, we really are left without a clue about what happens after people die. Even near death experiences don't answer the questions, because unlike in horseshoes, nearness doesn't count.

All we have that is authoritative in these matters is what revelation God has seen fit to give us. We can make some suppositions on the basis of that little bit of information, even speculate a bit trying to extrapolate from that data set, but we are beggars when it come to this subject. We have no means in ourselves to get the goods we seek. We can only receive that which the able and seeing has deigned to drop upon us as he's passed our way.

It seems to me, that at its core this issue comes down to properly understanding what it means to be made in the image of God. According to his word, we are the only thing created in the material world for which that description can be made. I think an argument could be made for at least some kind of angelic being fitting the description as well, since they are referred to as the "sons of God" in Job. So, humans and some angelic beings are made akin, reflective of the Father of spirits. What does that mean?

We are made with a sense of self, or personhood, along the line that the Lord God Almighty possesses. We will, choose, want, and create. It is what we've been made for. We're wisps of God's very breath, most assuredly, but that also means we are as indestructible in essence as is he. Can God destroy some aspect of himself? No, I do not believe he can--it would make him less God. Can God destroy some aspect of himself that he's leant to other creatures to live and be as they are? I don't think he can, and hence scriptures consistent testimony that the souls of mankind are eternal.

Annihilation is impossible because at our cores, we are not made of destructible stuff. The possibility of destruction disappeared when God decided to make us in his image and breathed into us the breath of life. Our living soul is made of the indestructible breath of God. We last forever, and God could no more destroy us now than he could destroy himself--that ship sailed at the creation. Even if our bodies disappeared in an instant, our souls would continue forever.

All that can be done with us for eternity is to immobilize us, segregate us, and then expose us to an environment that is so overwhelming that we have no ability to fill the spaces, all of which God is omnisciently aware of, with rebellious and evil thoughts. Generally, we refer to that reality as Hell. Now, some might question whether or not God could be that impotent in the face of his creatures. I mean, couldn't he make them be something else by fiat? Something more agreeable? After all, he is the sovereign Lord.

If God could have created something in his image that was that controllable, it wouldn't have been his image! In the end, whether or not something could be done another way by God is a silly question. The perfect God did what he did. Could it have been done differently? Perhaps. Could it have been better? Absolutely not! If there were some other way, some better way, for God to accomplish his ultimate aims, he would have done it that way. 

Chronology of Apocalypse: Eternity

After Jesus crushes the rebellion at the end of the Millennium, the final disposition of all things (judgment) will be made. First, the Devil is thrown into the Lake of Fire without further delay (and I would conclude all the demons with him). The Lake of Fire is a condition of torment prepared for rebellious spiritual beings, but is capable of receiving physical subjects as well. There is no escape from, nor cessation of its condition--it is an eternal, perfect state.

Hades is emptied as the dead remaining there are raised to life (body and soul reunited) to face judgment. The sea is mentioned as holding the dead separately from Hades, which is more significant of the bodies which are being restored than it is to the souls of the drowned. Sheol/Hades was never a place of ultimate punishment, but more akin to a storage area for disembodied souls. The natural (created) condition of human beings is physical and spiritual, and all the dead will be returned to that condition before judgment takes place. So, at this time everyone who ever lived will be in their natural condition, ready to face final disposition.

Judgment will by two kinds of books. One is the Book of Life, the others are the Books of Record (my name, not the scriptural name). If one's name is not found in the Book of Life, the Book of Records will determine the nature of judgment against that individual (i.e. how hot will be their eddy in the Lake of Fire). If one is found in the Book of Life, the Book of Records will determine the nature of rewards that one will experience in God's presence (i.e. our normal conception of heaven). Either way, it is true faith in Christ which is the marked difference between one class and the other.

Anyone raptured prior to the Millennium (the Church, the 144,000, the martyred mark resisters) has nothing to fear at all from this judgment, for they all are already in their eternal condition, which is alive with Christ. The dead raised in order to face this judgment are in a heap of trouble, by and large, I'm not certain any of them will escape judgment. Their works will not excuse any of them, and only those who died during the Millennium, unmarked, could possibly have true, saving faith in Christ (otherwise they'd have been raptured). Those found in the Book of Life enter eternity with Christ, those not are thrown in the Lake of Fire to burn eternally.

Everything that had to do with this current, temporal, existence is then done away with: Death and Hades and the damned are thrown into the Lake of Fire, and in a flash, the heavens and earth are made new (no death, no entropy).  God's habitation, the heavenly Mount Zion, the New Jerusalem, descends upon the new Earth, and eternity as it should be takes flight. No Devil, no demons, no death, no disease, and no damned will be there anywhere but bound in the roiling fires of the Lake. The righteous in Christ live on forever, free to move about the cabin, and enjoy the adventure with our heavenly pilot.

Vicarious Not Cumulative Atonement

I suppose it is possible to look upon the passion of Christ--it's beatings, whipping, stabbings, humilitations, crucifixion, rejection by God, and death--in pity and say, "that was awful," while simultaneously doubting whether it was really tantamount to all the punishment for all the sin that has ever been and will ever be committed. Really, people have been treated to far worse fates before and since, and their deaths are not looked upon with any wonder. The reasoning in such an approach seems to calculate that what occured was not sufficient to bear the cumulative weight of sin. There was not enough blood shed, nor enough anguish experienced, and only one death incurred, and that accounts for every sin ever sinned?

The problem in such logic, as I see it, is that the atonement of Christ was not suffered cumulatively, but vicariously, prototypically. For Christ's passion to be effective vicariously for any individual whatsoever, it would only have to be sufficient for the very worst individual that ever lived. Adam and Eve were prototypically the best that mankind would ever be, Christ on the cross had to be prototypically the worst that mankind could ever be. So the cross does not have to "mathematically" reflect the sum total of all punishment against sin, it merely has to be sufficient to encompass the very worst individual any individual could be.

Really, we're not all that different from one another. Our conceptions of degrees of sin and punishment are a bit stilted as I see it. Does being Hitler or Stalin and missing out on God differ substantially from being grumpy Uncle Charley who refused to believe in Christ and missed out on God too? The Lake of Fire may have warmer eddies in one spot than another, but how much does it matter when one is swimming in fire and drinking flames? If there are gold medals awarded in the race to hell, they can only be made of fool's gold.

What the atonement had to be in order to be for all, was sufficient for any sinner to gaze upon it with faith and say, "that was me." We aren't saved in groups but as individuals, the atonement of Christ was masterfully fashioned by God to work perfectly in that regard. It does so because it functions vicariously, not cumulatively and any sinner that ever lived can see sufficiency in the cross for himself or herself.

The Awfulness of Life Reflects the Awfulness of Hell

I was taken to task by a commenter a little while ago about my assertions concerning hell and its purpose. Hell is an unpleasant and an unpopular topic--as difficult to talk about as it is to hear about. Perhaps as a result, there is not enough cold-blooded, biblically-accurate, analytical teaching on the subject. It requires a certain bluntness and fearlessness if one is to deal with it sufficiently and effectively. I've given it a shot before on this blog, but I think I need to visit it again.

The Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that creation can reveal quite a bit about the person of God, particularly in regard to his power and the unchanging attributes of his divine nature. When I look at creation, even though I see exquisite natural beauty, I also see overwhelming ugliness. I see people die agonizing, untimely deaths; I see a tooth and claw natural realm which fights the living staying alive at every turn. If storms and quakes don't swallow the living whole, there's always sharks in the ocean (or on Wall Street) who'll get the job done. It's rough out there!

It's not at all unusual to find people who think life is unfortunate and unjust, and who associate those characteristics with the God behind it all. For some Christians, the most immediate response to such thoughts is that there is someone other than God working such mischief. Really, what does that solve? God is the creator of that mischief-maker too, so he's still on the hook for the way things are. The truth is that there's no avoiding responsibility for what is when one is omnipotent!

Folk treading water in the swamp that is life may think that things are terrible and unfair, and blast the Creator for making it so, but from God's perspective life is anything but. The God who sees all, knows all, and is everywhere would be doing himself and all he has made a disservice to allow what he knows is not right to exist. That may seem to necessitate the instant annihilation of anything that steps out of harmony with God, but that would miss God's ultimate, and ultimately righteous, redemptive purposes in creation. Instead, God has ordained that fallen creation take a slow spiral down to a crash and burn, which is the milieu of all that lives in the here and now, and then after the crash will come the appointed judgment.

Would it be better for everything here in life to be hunky-dory, totally blind to God's perspective on sin and the sinners of this world, only to have them surprised by the furies of hell afterwards? If life was pleasant, just, and right, we would never give God a second thought. We would never consider our death and suffering and its meaning and never know we were at odds with an eternal, ominscient God who can't pretend nor just forget. We'd live idyllically to a ripe, old age and die, and then, pow, be hit in the kisser with everlasting fires of eternal punishment.

We may find this life of suffering and death frustrating and unfair, but if life was going to continue for some measured time after the introduction of sin, it was actually good of God to give us at least a sensored preview of hell. The awfulness of life is a prophylactic demonstration of the utter awfulness of hell. Life is not meant to demonstrate that all is well in the world and that God is in his heaven, but that God is at odds with sinful humanity and his fury over it is white-hot. 

The only question that matters is whether or not the trailer has gotten your attention enough to take steps to avoid it?