The Choice

The question has been asked so many times that has morphed from a question into a challenge; "How can a merciful and loving God condemn people to eternal torments in hell?"

The question is not just posed by atheists and skeptics, but also by some sincere, but woefully uneducated Christians. The argument has some merit on the surface. God is love. All men are created with a sin nature.

Since, by definition and design, all men are sinners and our Creator God is love, it logically follows that a loving God who created sinners would be unjust in condemning them to hell for being what they are.

God is the Righteous Judge. If He is so righteous, it seems logical that He would take into account the mitigating circumstances.

Especially since the chief mitigation is the fact it was the Righteous Judge that created the unrighteous sinner and that unrighteousness is the default condition of man. That cannot be stressed strongly enough.

The default condition of mankind is that of utter depravity. People are not born good and then learn bad things. It is precisely the opposite.

There is a common canard in our society that dictates that racism, for example, is learned behavior. A 'learned behavior' is something that has been taught to someone, or a way of thinking that they did not come up with themselves.

The prevailing worldview is that children who grow up to be racists are taught to be racist as a child. In this view, unless a child is taught to be racist, he will grow up to be 'color-blind' so to speak.

An article posted on the American Psychiatric Association's website attempted to argue against racism as a 'mental illness', claiming that racism "is mainly a product of learned behavior," and "a majority of explicitly racist persons do not have any psychopathology."

I don't know if racism is a mental illness, but I know that racism is not something that children are taught. It is something that they must be 'untaught'.

Children are racist by nature. Studies conducted that put one black pre-schooler into a classroom full of white pre-schoolers showed the white pre-schoolers abused, ostracized and teased the black kid corporately, that is to say, they did so as a group.

Reversing the situation produced the same results; the black kids abused, ostracized and teased the white kid, again corporately. Were all these pre-schoolers taught to be racists?

Moreover, who taught them to be abusive? Who taught them the principles of boycott, or ostracization?

These are fairly advanced principles for pre-schoolers -- it took Jesse Jackson a lifetime of effort to fine-tune them into the social weapons they are today. Where did these kids learn to be racist?

Any school teacher will confirm that children are not only racist, they are mean. Kids are really small terrorists without advanced weaponry or a cause. And we were all kids.

If we reach back far enough into our memories, it is fairly obvious that the cruelest people we ever met were our own classmates.

Everyone remembers that one kid who was taunted unmercifully, (maybe it was you) because of their skin color, their religion, their social status, or some other characteristic that made that kid different. (I remember a kid we all teased because he was ugly.)

I was teased unmercifully because I had no hand-to-eye coordination. When we would choose up sides to play baseball, the two team captains would choose their players until they got to me. Then they'd fight over who got 'stuck' with me -- as if I wasn't there.

My nicknames were alternatively, "Easy Out" and "Butterfingers" -- two terms that make me cringe to this day.

Children have to be taught not to hit each other, bite each other, they have to be taught not to steal, to show respect, not to lie, etc.

Prisons are full of folks who blame their upbringing for their shortcomings. That's a cop out. Children needn't be taught bad values because 'bad' is their default state.

Prisons, as rehabilitation centers, attempt to teach 'good' values -- or the word 'rehabilitation' is meaningless.

A long example to prove a short principle; We are born sinners. Evil is our default condition. It is goodness that is the learned behavior.

To return to our original premise, if a loving God created us without a spark of goodness, then how could He then condemn us to an eternity of torment for being what He made us to be -- and still call that 'perfect justice'?

It is worth noting that the only inherently evil creation in the corporeal (physical) world is humanity. Animals aren't evil by nature. They do what comes naturally.

Sin isn't a learned behavior. It is something that must be unlearned. The degree to which a human being 'unlearns' selfishness, cruelty and sadism becomes the measure of his goodness. Provide the right set of circumstances, say, New Orleans after Katrina, and humanity reverts to type.

Doctors murder patients to save themselves. People with no criminal record become looters. The strong prey on the weak. Right and wrong, as social concepts, essentially evaporate.

Man was created in God's image. He was created with the ability to discern between right and wrong, and was also created with the ability to choose which path to take.

This planet is the only place in God's creation where evil is permitted unfettered operation. Theologians call it the 'cosmos diabolicus'. It is enclosed by an atmosphere which keeps evil from escaping out into the universe.

When Satan came to present himself before the Lord, "the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." (Job 1:7)

It is Satan's domain. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he offered the Creator of the Universe a bargain:

"the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me." (Matthew 4:8-9)

Although Jesus is the Creator (and Satan knew it) the 'cosmos diabolicus' was Satan's to offer.

So, again we return to the central question: "How could a loving God condemn us to eternal torment for being what He made us to be?"

A lion who hunts down and kills an injured wildebeest that can't keep up with the herd isn't doing evil because he selected the weakest and most vulnerable prey. That's what he was created to do. He has no other choice.

And THAT is where God's perfect justice comes in. We DO have a choice. We were created specifically to that single purpose. So that, when given the choice, we could then choose God.

God's perfect justice demands that there be some provision of salvation for those who choose Him -- or He could impose no penalty for those who choose to reject Him.

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Therefore, man has a choice between 'good' (God) and man's default nature of evil (self). Jesus Christ represents God's perfect justice.

Having defeated the sin nature by living a perfect life, He was uniquely qualified to pay the penalty perfect justice demands, because no created being could earn the currency necessary to pay the price on their own behalf.

Each of us is acutely aware of our sin nature. We spend a lifetime seeking to overcome it, and in so doing, learn that it is impossible. We then are confronted with a choice.

We can choose Heaven by humbly accepting the offer of Pardon extended to us, knowing it is not something we earned, cannot earn, and cannot buy or steal.

Or we can choose hell, the place prepared as the eternal repository for sin after this cosmos diabolicus is destroyed at the end of human history.

The earth will have served its purpose as a confinement area for sin, and having served that purpose, "shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." (2nd Peter 3:12)

After Satan is banished to hell and sin is contained, the cosmos diabolicus gives way to "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2nd Peter 3:13)

God doesn't condemn us to hell. He condemns sin. But in His mercy, He provides a way for us to shed our sin nature through the regeneration of salvation.

But we are the ones who make the final choice. It is indeed perfect justice that the condemned be given the choice -- while still in their sins -- of where they will spend eternity.

Having expressly provided the choices to us, it would be utterly unjust of God to ignore the choice we make.

Christianity is a system that requires faith. That’s okay, faith is required in almost every situation.

Take our criminal justice system. A person is charged with a crime. The evidence is presented to a jury, each member of which is required to make a good faith decision based upon the evidence presented. Objectively, one decision is correct and the other is incorrect. In order for the defendant to get justice, each juror must get it right.

Similarly, we are presented with the evidence of Christianity, of God’s love and mercy, etc. That evidence resides in a book we call the Bible. Like the jurors, we must make a decision. Is it true and should I embrace it, or is it not true?

Unlike the juror in the criminal trial, if I get this one wrong, if I decide the evidence is lacking, I am the one convicted and punished. It is like requiring the jurors to get it right and punishing them if they don’t.

But beyond that, if I look at the evidence (the Bible) and decide it is lacking, then that same Bible says that I deserve to be punished forever and ever without end. I think that is fundamentally unfair. I know, fair doesn’t come into it. God is not required to be fair. But the notion that because I have made a good faith examination of the evidence and found it lacking, and therefore deserve everlasting pain, is not compatible with the notion of a loving and merciful Father.

As RegulatorCountry above mentioned, people can discuss divine sovereignty vs free will, a mystery at best, for a long time. I happen to prefer somewhere in the middle between the two extremes as realistic.

If, as Christians, we are to face the ultimate battle with evil in the near future, we must band together and, it seems to me, between our many diverse sects, that the best common ground between divine sovereignty and free will lies somewhere around "limited providence", or call it what you will.

In this view, God is most definitely in charge of the world without portraying him as the puppetmaster who manipulates every tiny thing and every one. This approach perhaps better accounts for some of the polarities; for example, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven"...what is the point of praying that, if God's will is simply being played out as a providential dictate?

Well, I grant you that I'm not sure, but I still tend to zoom out a smidge, bringing God's personal care and powerful involvement in both nature and history, while also leaving room for human freedom and responsibility. Is this so wrong?

Somehow, from the tone of your posts, I get the idea that you feel my beliefs in this particular "side-issue" are a game-changer? Is "proper thinking" on this specific topic essential for salvation? Does a literal reading of providence/free-will change the rules of our eternal prospects? Must we believe in every shred of minute doctrine between the two leather covers to ultimately be with Him? I think not, however laudable it might be.....of course that's opinion talking, opinion full of hope.

The early church fathers were concerned about separating the "wheat from the chaff" too, which resulted in the essentials of Christian belief stated in the Apostles Creed, and others, which I happen to believe with conviction. Why was their final "statement" not 200 pages, instead of one sublime paragraph? Is Christianity really capable of being defined so simply? Well, yes, I believe it so.

So I guess, in summary, I would like to hear your understanding of what precisely are the basic requirements, the real essentials, for Christian salvation? Do you include extreme providence? Do you include Lev 19:28 (I'm being facetious here on Lev, but you get my point)?

Don't make your list too long...reciting such an all-encompassing 'creed' threatens the length of our weekly services, which, at roughly one hour, already has my nephews squirming in the pews!

Your turn.

So you boldly state that the Bible maintains a fundamental contradiction - even when there isn't a single supporting passage in Scripture that supports "free will"

If you'll revisit my reply, you'll discover that I stated the opposite, and that any apparent contradiction was due to misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings such as yours. Yes, you do cite scripture that speaks to the elect and there's quite a bit of it, as again was briefly addressed in my original reply. However, there are also quite a few passages that support so-called "free will," from the beginning in Genesis with the very first rebellious, sinful act in eating the forbidden fruit.

Passages such as:

This is good and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:3-4

So, having been down this road many times with family members in the past: The Word is truth, and according to your understanding of scripture, there is no "free will" of any sort, and to nip any looming semantic quibbles that would mean no ability to choose salvation and to repent of sins. So, I'm sure you'll agree that on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:3-4, we are all predestined to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.

Right? Would you like to contend with the implications of double-predestination as relates to John 3:16? There are many others, from Genesis onward. Was Eve predestined to cause Adam to sin, or was she willful and rebellious?

In all sincerity and despite the tone of your response, I've actually taken the position that both are true and are a matter of perspective. Men perceive making choices and do make choices. God perceives all from beginning to end, all is known. That is the source of the apparent (there's that word again, don't skim past it this time, please) contradiction. The Word is truth and there is no contradiction. Any appearance of it is due to our limited ability to understand.

"Why would evil, which is a spiritual problem not a physical one, affect astronauts going to the moon?"

The author wrote:

Which led me to ask:

How did this effect the astronauts who went to the moon?

An implication of what the author wrote is that evil found off this planet, if it even exists, is not the same as evil found on this planet, and is fettered in its operation.

Another implication of what the author wrote is that the evil we find on earth would not be found on the moon because the evil we find on Earth "is enclosed by an atmosphere which keeps evil from escaping out into the universe."

It follows that when astronauts were on the moon, they were not subject to Earth's evil because Earth's evil is enclosed by an atmosphere which keeps it from escaping out into the universe and therefore it would not be on the moon. It also follows that when on the moon astronauts may or may not have been subject to some unearthly evil which would have been fettered in its operaton. So, given what the author wrote, what was the spiritual effect on the astronauts when they were on the moon?

That's one way to put it, that attempts to encompass the entirety of scripture. I will say that those who profess a belief in predestination are not wrong, per se. It would appear that attempting to create doctrine from the the perceived implications of foreknowledge, that difficulties arise with other scripture.

The same is true with ardent belief in free will. God's will will be done, we do not thwart it in rebellion, in the great scheme of things.

So, the truth would reside between the two seeming polarities, with God's will being paramount. Greater minds than ours have attempted to puzzle through just how this would work, and perhaps some of them have touched upon some aspect that is accurate. But, it's a very old debate, going back to Aquinas and before.

We're not very likely to resolve it here on FR for those who choose to believe strongly in favor of one way or the other. It's not a core, salvific matter of faith besides, so disagreement and debate is understandable and even permissible for those who take their faith seriously and wish to delve further into the Word.

Was there some point?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, there is a point. When one says that it takes faith to be Christian this implies that it doesn't take faith to be something else.

**ALL** sentient beings have a religious belief system. That religious belief system requires and act of faith because the existence of God can not be objectively measured or proved.

It is important to stress that **all** sentient beings are people of faith ( in something) because the atheists of this world go about promoting their secular humanist worldview as being somehow “neutral”. Atheistic secular humanism isn't any more neutral than Christianity.

It is important to stress that **all** thinking people have faith ( in something) because currently taxpayers are **FORCED**, by threat of police action to support, uphold, and establish a NON-neutral secular humanist religious worldview in our nation's socialist schools and in the public realm.

Was there some point?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, there is a point. When one says that it takes faith to be Christian this implies that it doesn't take faith to be something else.

**ALL** sentient beings have a religious belief system. That religious belief system requires and act of faith because the existence of God can not be objectively measured or proved.

Yes, there is a point. When one says that it takes faith to be Christian this implies that it doesn’t take faith to be something else.

It implies no such thing. In fact, what I said was, “Christianity is a system that requires faith. That’s okay, faith is required in almost every situation.”

You completely missed my point. My point was not that there is something wrong with Christianity requiring faith. What’s wrong is that if one fails to believe it (either because he examined it and finds it lacking, or was never presented with it), he is burned in hell forever. That’s the intrinsic problem with Christianity.

To expand on my original analogy, it is as if a juror examines the evidence presented in a trial and conscientiously but erroneously concludes the defendant is innocent, he, the juror, is punished. Forever and ever, without end. Only a monster would implement such a system.

So, having been down this road many times with family members in the past: The Word is truth, and according to your understanding of scripture, there is no "free will" of any sort, and to nip any looming semantic quibbles that would mean no ability to choose salvation and to repent of sins. So, I'm sure you'll agree that on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:3-4, we are all predestined to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.

If a person is perfectly comfortable with the Scriptures appearing to contradict itself, and finds a hermeneutic that demands that difficult passages replaces clear passages in forming doctrine, then I suppose you could force an interpretation of "all men" to only mean, without exception, every person head for head. On the other hand, if you value the integrity of Scriptures, you might interpret difficult passages in light of clear ones and then allow the acceptable interpretation that "all men" means "not just genetic descendants of Abraham" but includes people of every tribe and nation.

But that is just me.

I do agree that the Pelagius/Augustine, Erasmus/Luther, Arminian/Calvinist Taylor/Edwards Hodge/MacArthur Geisler/White debate has raged on for generations yet in each case, the Free Will view has been found "heretical" by orthodoxy. The fact that heresy keeps cropping up generation after generation doesn't validate the absurd notion that both are truth, it just means that at least one is a lie, and is confirmed to be a lie each time it is tested.

My interest in this case, is the same one I have for "theistic evolutionists" who somehow find comfort in thinking that wildly opposite views are somehow compatible. I am interested in knowing the dysfunctional mind that finds contradictory views both to be True statements about the same thing in the same context.

The current leading explanation is that the people making the charge are far more interested in killing the discussion than they are in preserving or understanding Truth, that somehow it is impossible for two people to have a disagreement without there being some eventual gunfire.

It simply comes down to this. Who is responsible for your salvation, because the responsible party is the one who is Sovereign and that same party should receive the Praise and Glory. I find it interesting that the Free Will Cabal converts the entire work of God into an unfulfilled hypothetical entitlement that lays around totally unused and worthless until the sinner decides to selfishly use it for himself.

Look at the passage in 1 Timothy that you provided. You also came up with the most logical conclusion provided that the "all men" definition fit your personal interpretation that is formed outside of the rest of Scriptures. But then there is dissonance in that if it was God's desire for all men, head for head, to be saved, then why hide Easter eggs for men to have to search and eventually stumble over? If the Creator of the Universe desired all men, head for head to be saved, then why not just go ahead and open their eyes and call them from the grave? Why even put fruit or the command to not eat the fruit in the garden? There is no sin where there is no law. So the Free Will view contradicts even this odd interpretation of 1 Timothy in that empirical evidence should clearly tell us that salvation is hard to come by because its hard to find - it seems that God put together a mechanism that leads to certain failure.

If you take that same passage of men of every tribe and nation, then Election explains all that we see around us as people of every tribe and nation come to Christ - it is as if God's Desire is being perfectly fulfilled.

Furthermore, I have never had a free will enthusiast ever answer the question: How can a person who is born "dead" (not just wounded) to sin, hates God, hates righteousness, loves his sin, is deceived by and does the bidding of his father the Devil, wants other to join in his sin; doesn't understand the Gospel, is deceived by Satan, blinded by God to it, considers the gospel foolish, doesn't seek after God, doesn't ever care to please God, couldn't do it any way, and would rather be crushed by rocks than bow the knee to God - can just snap out of it all on his own and instantly have saving knowledge of God and desire to repent and love God with their entire mind, body and soul.

That mechanism has never been revealed - it just magically happens and never because of the work of God.

There are a few flaws in your reasoning, but I have met these problems before and there is no shame in making certain flawed assumptions. I won't preach a sermon here, but may I refer you to the scene of the Wedding in Heaven, of the Bride of Christ and The Christ?

In the wedding scene there are more groups there than just bride and Groom and Father of the Bridegroom. The New Testament of the Bible tells us that all except the Bridegroom and the Father of The Bridegroom are at the wedding because of what Jesus accomplished with His life, death and resurrection.

Jesus told a story about someone trying to be at the wedding but without the wedding garment (that which is available only because of what Jesus did in the flesh and with His resurrection). That person who was tossed out for lack of the garment and met a terrible fate, ending up where there is gnashing of teeth.

One of the oft missed aspects of the story Jesus told about Lazarus and the Rich man after death is that the rich man is where he is in torment because he rejected truth while alive, the truth brought to the human family via God's relationship with men and in particular the Hebrew people. Paul expounds on that in the Letter to the Romans, how men have always had some witness of The Creator, even if it only entails the creation itself.

One of the attributes of God we find in The Old Testament and New Testament is that God is a Just God. From that we may surmise God will not have anyone rejected because of injustice by The Judge.

So we may be confident that God therefore has a way to measure the hearts of all men, to find if they believe truth of God The Creator and would therefore accept The Truth (The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us), or pull up in their own pride and choose to not believe there is The Creator. It is in God's purview to do the measuring (He is Just and IS The Sovereign God) in whatever way He chooses and at whatever moment He chooses.

Because of our limitations regarding what is time and how/what is life eternal (we will all, great and small, good and bad, be alive eternally, some to eternal joy and some in darkness, and probably much fewer, alive in torment reserved for satan and his angels), we cannot say definitively when God measures. But we may be assured that He does measure because He is Just.

We also may be assured that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Salvation is based upon the promises of The Just God, Whom will not lie and cannot be defeated in His Promises. If we learn anything from reading the Bible, we learn that there is coming a where/when that shall allow no lie, therefore ONLY The Truth will be perceivable and God will measure every heart by His standard, not that defined by men, though many man-made approaches have common aspects of God's Truth, and those all point to Jesus, not some other means to receive the wedding garment or be The Bride of Christ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.