Does God stop loving us when we go to hell?

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 2012-05-24T03:40:17.714827-07:00

From C.H. Spurgeon:

Suppose a father should have a certain number of children, and he should give to one all his favors, and consign the others to misery—should we not say that he was a very unkind and cruel father? I answer, yes. But the cases are not the same. You have not a father to deal with, but a judge. You say all men are God's children; I demand of you to prove that. I never read it in my Bible. I dare not say, "Our father which art in heaven," till I am regenerated. I cannot rejoice in the fatherhood of God towards me till I know that I am one with him, and a joint heir with Christ. I dare not claim the fatherhood of God as an unregenerated man. It is not father and child—for the child has a claim upon its father—but it is King and subject; and not even so high a relation as that, for there is a claim between subject and King. A creature—a sinful creature, can have no claim upon God; for that would be to make salvation of works and not of grace. If men can merit salvation, then to save them is only the payment of a debt, and he gives them nothing more than he ought to give them.

Only the children of God are actually children of God.

Cituke · 2012-05-24T10:36:09.669552+00:00

Care to demonstrate what evidence and how it is evidence of God?

I'm not thoumyvision but I thought I'd jump in here. Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." That's one biblical example.

Nevertheless, the request for evidence supporting God's existence (or his power, or his creativity, etc) creates an infinite regress. What evidence supports the evidence I just gave you? And the evidence supporting that evidence? Indeed, this occurs with any claim for justification. Thus at some point we say, "We're stopping here. No evidence is needed to support this particular claim."

Alvin Plantinga, for example, says that about belief in God in general.

egalitarianusa · 2012-05-24T10:27:23.396202+00:00

Those are conjectures not examples of evidence.

SkullKidPTH · 2012-05-24T10:21:55.820059+00:00

I think the whole thing presupposes that Christians will not be in political authority or else wouldn't some portion of the letter addressed the topic?

jf1354 · 2012-05-24T10:19:44.110366+00:00

However, the 'Celestial Teapot' argument is basically tailored to get your goat and you shouldn't spend a lot of time trying to solve it.

The celestial teapot is unimportant. There is no historical, philosophical or cultural importance associated with it. The God of the Bible is another thing entirely.

Every day we are bombarded with truth claims but we can't investigate them all. Therefore we should investigate them based on importance. I think we can safely disregard some teapot in outer space this way.

...but I see a focus on mastering logical debate and memorizing all the possible evidences of God as a bit of a diversion from discipleship, which is more about compassion, seeking justice and caring for those in need.

What about when people have questions? I see as soon as people start comparing Christianity with other worldviews or asking difficult questions about the Bible, you're engaging in apologetics as you answer them.

Apologetics are intertwined with evangelism and discipleship, I think.

honestchristian · 2012-05-24T03:14:52.465244-07:00

It's difficult to discern doctrine from narrative. Nevertheless, there's something to be learned from the display of God's emotions within the context of these narratives.

This article focuses on whether God has two wills in wanting all to be saved yet only saving a few; Piper attempts to elaborate on what that means. I think it applies here because it also relates to how complex God's emotions actually are.

Within the context of that particular verse, I have no doubt that God's heart was deeply troubled, but he also ordained from eternity that all things should come to pass therefore he knew what was going to happen. Piper eludes to this as God's "narrow-angle" and "wide-angle lens." An imperfect analogy but perhaps helpful.

An excerpt from the article:

God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to him at the same time—in fact are always coming to him with no break at all?

Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Psalm 7:11), and yet every day, every moment, he is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Luke 15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of his people (Ephesians 4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Psalm 149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home?

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 2012-05-24T03:09:52.413549-07:00

Actually, human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

Anyway, what I was referring to was that when people typically have a bone to pick with the "all-loving god" they're forgetting that the God of the Bible is not only a loving God, but also a righteous, wise, sovereign, holy God.

honestchristian · 2012-05-24T03:08:16.136755-07:00

How are you defining arbitrary?

honestchristian · 1 day

His nature is perfect. What would it mean to "have control" over a perfect nature? Any change from perfection would indicate a lack of perfection in the first place.

honestchristian · 1 day

No, he doesn't make mistakes.

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 1 day

That's the bad news, yes.

There is good news though.

honestchristian · 1 day

God's nature is eternal; it's uncreated. This relates to his aseity.

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 1 day

Romans 5:10 states, "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."

Therefore unbelievers are enemies of God. That's the bad news.

The good news is also in that verse: you can be reconciled to God by the death of Christ.

unreal5811 · 1 day

Five hours and nine minutes? Man alive, what's to be said in that amount of time?

I'm much more likely to read a 400 page treatise on "gay Christianity" than I am to watch/listen to a video of that length!

amazinglyanonymous · 1 day

That's circular and unreasonable. Paul is right because Paul says he's right?

No. Paul's epistles are not idle observations of a man; they contain the infallible words of God. That, of course, leaves open the possibility that our interpretations remain fallible nevertheless but we search Scripture because in Scripture we know the truth is to be found.

Paul declares something true and he's right not "because he's right" but because sinful people actually do suppress truth by their unrighteousness. If I say two plus two equals four and then someone else says the same thing, they aren't implying that, "two plus two equals four because WertFig said so." I simply indicated the truth.

Well, I'm glad you know the mind of God - could you enlighten the rest of us on his thought process here?

"It's very popular nowadays to say you're searching but not popular to say you've found." -Timothy Keller

I know only what God has chosen to reveal to everyone in the Bible.

Why didn't he give everyone grace since the beginning of human history, what made - say - India or China less worthy?

That's the point of grace. God chooses under the perfect counsel of his own wisdom to whom he will distribute grace. If anyone were worthy of grace, it wouldn't be grace but instead would just be a merited payment.

Or maybe you don't have a psychic tap into YHWH and shouldn't be making this kind of assertion.

The fact that I can't express God's will infallibly does not mean no one can know anything about him.

YHWH has actively sought human recognition and

Men reject God outright regardless of their knowledge of the gospel. He's under no obligation to come to them and save them because, among other things, "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." (Psalm 19:1). God's signature is there and men refuse to recognize it.

we have every right to put our own concerns on the table.

There is no table of negotiation with God.

Keep in mind that we have free will for a reason.

Free will is a myth. We don't have it at all. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:18). Even to put the issue in naturalistic terms, there are an incredible number of forces from within and without imposing themselves on our will.

God wants us to choose him by free will, not by his command.

I don't think the Bible supports the idea that we have free will. We're dead in trespasses (Ephesians 2:1) and dead men cannot choose anything. The ability to choose presupposes life.

He has to convince us that he deserves our prayers to pull that off, and that's going to entail both revelation and salvation.

Indeed. When God saves someone, he does so perfectly and effectively.

Paul knew God personally in his own power, where does he get off saying nobody else can?

Paul did not approach Christ in his own power. His entire life as a Pharisee (as Saul) was an attempt to approach God in his own power. Christ overwhelmed him in an irresistible conversion experience. He attributed every strength he had and every good thing he did to the strength Christ gave him (Philippians 4:13).

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 1 day

I'm not saying this to tear you down but if you weren't so willing to interpret passages out of context, you would better understand what they meant.

John 3:16-18 states, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

What does John mean when he says "in order that the world might be saved through him?" I take that to mean that the possibility of salvation exists at all. God is under no obligation to provide any means of salvation but he has provided one means.

John goes on to elaborate the condition upon which someone is saved. Salvation hinges on the condition of faith; no one is saved without faith.

Arthur Pink makes this point:

When the brethren of Christ said 'Show thyself to the world' (John 7:4), did they mean 'Shew Thyself to all mankind'? When the Pharisees said 'Behold, the world is gone after Him' (John 12:19), did they mean that 'all the human family' were flocking after Him? When the apostle wrote, 'Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world' (Rom. 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on earth? When Rev. 13:3 informs us that 'all the world wondered after the beast', are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term 'the world' often has a relative rather than an absolute force.

...

We understand 'the world' here to mean men of all nations, with an especial reference to the Gentiles, whom Nicodemus (as all Jews) considered to be accursed. To those who reject the explanation, and say, We keep by the plain declaration 'God so loved the world', we ask them to apply the same principle to the following passages: 'on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 10:45), 'God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life' (Acts 11:18), 'declaring the conversion of the Gentiles' (Acts 15:3). Is that expression 'the Gentiles" in these passages a general and indefinite one, or a universal and specific one? is it a relative or an absolute one? That is, does it take in all, or refer only to some? Acts 15:44 answers the question: 'God has visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name!

1 John 4:8 states, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." This is a favorite verse for many non-Christians because any ol' definition of love can be substituted here and make God a caricature to suit their bidding. However, what is love? If you had kept reading, you would have found an answer:

1 John 4:9-11 states, "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another."

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 states, " Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

God's hatred of sin does not contradict this passage. God loves himself and his own holiness above the well-being of his creation. Don't get me wrong: he loves us perfectly but also properly and he doesn't love himself any less as a result.

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 1 day

I don't think John and Paul contradict any Old Testament writing. God's nature is revealed across the entirety of Scripture.

1 John 1:9 states, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." What happens if we do not confess our sins and thus are not forgiven and continue in unrighteousness? What is God's perception of these people?

1 John 3:10 states, "By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother." What happens to those who are not children of God and those who do not practice righteousness?

John's first epistle raises questions that are answered elsewhere and John's writing presupposes knowledge of God's justice.

Paul writes in Romans 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." God pours out his wrath onto those who are ungodly and unrighteous. He goes on to write in Romans 2:5, "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."

I don't disagree that the ultimate good news is revealed in Jesus Christ about whom the New Testament testifies. However, Jesus didn't come to declare a message of blind love. He came to call sinners to repent from sin and turn to God because what Jesus was doing was for their salvation.

unreal5811 · 1 day

There is no record of Jesus maintaining a long-term relationship with unrepentant sinners

Indeed. It's popular for people to say, "Well, Jesus ate with sinners!" He did indeed but he had a goal in mind.

ThisIsMyRedditLogin · 1 day

God does not love those he sends to hell. There are numerous passages that discuss God's righteous hatred of the wicked. This jars up against the ears of those who think the Christian God is entirely a god of love but you cannot separate his love from the rest of who he is.

Psalm 5:5 states, "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers."

Leviticus 20:23 states, "And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them."

Proverbs 6:16-19 states, "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers."

honestchristian · 1 day

Coherency is an aspect of God's nature. Logic proceeds from that nature. God's power cannot overwhelm his very own nature because he himself is not a contradiction. Although his nature is perfect, eternal, immutable and, in its depths, beyond our comprehension, it also constrains God in the sense that he won't do something contrary to his nature. He wouldn't want to anyway because everything he does is informed by his perfect wisdom.

robertwilliams · 1 day

Since reading this article I find that the distinction among civil, ceremonial and moral laws in the OT is artificial.

Here is an excerpt summarizing why this approach is inadequate:

So the traditional approach to the Mosaic Law, which divides it into moral, civil, and ceremonial categories, suffers from three major weaknesses: It is arbitrary and without any textual support, it ignores the narrative context, and it fails to reflect the significant implications of the change from Old Covenant to New Covenant. This approach, therefore, is inadequate as a hermeneutic method for interpreting and applying the Law.

This is an excellent point from Sproul Jr. though:

The heathen find this retort effective not because God’s law is shameful, but because we are shamefully ashamed of it. We are already compromised, having our sense of justice informed by the world, rather than the Word. Our calling is not to squirm, not to apologize, not to try to cover for God. No, our calling is to stand on His Word, to have our consciences held captive to it, to adjust our moral sensibilities so they match God’s, rather than the world’s.

BatmansMasseuse · 2 days

No apologetic argument is perfect. Each is a small piece to a large puzzle.

This doesn't necessarily lead us to the God of the Bible but it doesn't have to, I don't think.

amazinglyanonymous · 2 days

then we'd all be sinners in denial of the first gods clearly perceived.

That's a non-sequitur. If we hold to Paul and his words in Romans then we arrive at the same conclusion as Paul: all men deserve wrath from God Almighty.

It should be clear enough from the wild variety of YHWH-less native cultures across the world that he doesn't just shove his presence down everyone's throat from birth.

God chose Israel out all the peoples in the world because of grace. He was under no obligation to reveal himself to anyone and indeed he's under no obligation to save anyone.

If you take the position that you don't know anything, then you might as well just do whatever and discard ethics and epistemology altogether.

I don't deny that people can know true things. However I agree with Paul that people cannot know God in their own power.

honestchristian · 2 days

It means that we inherit Adam's guilt and his nature. Here is an excerpt from a book on total depravity that discusses the imputation of sin upon every human.

Humans are not born with the ability to avoid sinning. Sin is in our nature and the individual sinful actions are just a symptom of that nature.

tphelan88 · 2 days

Quality not quantity!

WertFig

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login