Learn to Defend God's Beauty

After listening to a few of Christopher Hitchens's debates with Christians, one quickly sees (because of how many times he returns to the subject) that his core problem with Christianity is that he finds the Christian God petty, tyrannical, spiteful, unjust, hateful, and unreasonable.  In short, he hates Him and wants nothing to do with Him.  I've been finding that this is not at all unusual for atheists.

Those of us interested in apologetics spend a lot of time learning to defend the reality of God and Christianity, but not nearly enough time learning to deeply understand the beauty and goodness of His character and actions.  But we need to be able to do this if we are to present God to someone else as a person--someone worthy of devotion and trust. 

Why is it necessary to demonstrate God's goodness in addition to merely arguing for the truthfulness of Christianity?  Consider this quote from Future Grace:

When you believe merely on the basis of a testimony you might assent to the truth without delighting in it or seeing it as spiritually beautiful.  But when you believe because you have had a spiritual "taste" or "apprehension" of spiritual beauty, then the faith itself is permeated by this taste of spiritual beauty.  [Charles] Hodge says, "We may believe on the testimony of those in whose veracity and judgment we confide, that a man of whom we know nothing has great moral excellence.  But if we see for ourselves the exhibition of his excellence, we believe for other reasons, and in a different way...."

What makes faith saving faith is this "different way" of believing that comes from a different (not alternative, or contradictory) way of apprehending or tasting the reality behind the testimony we affirm...[Hodge:] "It is a faith which rests upon the manifestation by the Holy Spirit of the excellence, beauty, and suitableness of the truth...."

In other words, as apologists, it's necessary but not enough to argue well for the existence of God; after all, even the demons believe this and are no better off for it, for they still do not see God as beautiful and love Him.  We need to spend enormous amounts of time reading the Bible, thinking through the character of God in light of every aspect of that character as presented in the entirety of the book.  How can God be good in light of hell or the destruction of the Canaanites?  Is God a tyrant?  What does His justice look like?  His mercy?  His love?

Prove to an atheist that a God that he finds hateful and ugly exists, and that atheist will still find Him hateful and defy Him.  But describe and defend the beauty and goodness of that God, and perhaps the Holy Spirit will move him to love.

Comments

[Jesse]

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Philippians)

[Lori Vance]

A great post! Also point made, and well taken.

[MijkV]

Hitchens is more than a philosopher like some of the other neo-atheists, he's a theologian. He's a really bad theologian.

It's ironic that Hitchens's strategy to disprove God is to jump into the theological arena, do a two-bit hack job of theology, and then point to his shoddy work as a case against God. It's a case against Hitchens as a credible theologian.

With atheist attacks against God now coming on the theological front, the answer to bad theology is good theology (to rephrase C.S. Lewis for this modern context). Unfortunately, there may be as much an aversion to theology by today's Christians as there was to philosophy in Lewis's day.

Amy's right: apologists may be getting caught off guard by the Hitchens approach because we do not spend enough time pursuing God as a person, seeking to “deeply understand the beauty and goodness of His character and actions.” God is much more than just a philosophical fact to be reckoned with, He's a good father seeking his lost and broken children.

[Sam]

I think you make a great point, Melinda. But I have noticed a tendency on the part of some Christians to so want to make God seem palatable to non-believers that they end up watering him down to the point of distortion. I think we have to keep in mind that some people will reject God BECAUSE they fully understand him.

I was on Yahoo Answers yesterday, and a fellow posted a question about why Christians believe after reading the Bible. He said he was a Christian until he decided to read the Bible cover to cover. He was appalled by what he learned about God.

And I've met other people who were happy-go-lucky Christians until they discovered that the Christian God was not any sort of God they wanted to worship.

I get the impression from Ezekiel 11:19-20, Romans 8:7-8, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 that people are not even ABLE to accept the true God of the Bible unless God changes their hearts. Christopher Hitchens strikes me as being the classic example. He hates the God of the Bible. For him, I don't think it's a matter of presenting it in a way that would be more palatable.

We should be honest about what kind of God we serve, defending his goodness and beauty, careful at the same time not to distort him in an effort to make him seem palatable to people who would reject him if they honestly understood him.

[Sam]

Woops! I mean Amy. Sorry.

[Amy Hall]

>>I think we have to keep in mind that some people will reject God BECAUSE they fully understand him.

I absolutely agree with what you said above. This is why I say "perhaps" at the end! The Holy Spirit must "manifest the excellence and beauty" of God to people in order for them to see it. But I think He does this when the excellence and beauty is proclaimed by people. And since I don't think a watered down version of God is excellent or beautiful, I agree that it doesn't help anything to do that.

[gerstin]

his core problem with Christianity is that he finds the Christian God petty, tyrannical, spiteful, unjust, hateful, and unreasonable.

This is a good and timely post. In the latest comments under the June 2nd post ("Moral vs. Pragmatic") we see some Christians (I take it they are believers) defending a rather barbaric and Molochian understanding of Yahweh, apparently only so that they can preserve a cultural/political agenda which says we must reject abortion as evil in every possible way. These people are defending the claim that God might very well view unborn babies as an abomination, sending them to suffer eternally in hell. Moreover, it is suggested that God is glorified by so condemning unborn babies.

That more people are not outraged by such claims is both remarkable and disturbing.

[Sam]

>>But I think He does this when the excellence and beauty is proclaimed by people.

I can certainly agree with that.

[Nathan Rose]

"One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple." Psalms 27:4

[Jesse]

>> unborn babies as an abomination...
>> sending them to ... hell
>>
>> That more people are not outraged by
>> such claims is both remarkable and
>> disturbing.

If God judges us according to our deeds, good or bad, how could he condemn one who hasn't done anything at all?

But as Amy pointed out, we're really reaching in speculation here...

gerstin, are you personally outraged that someone would claim God might send an unborn baby to hell?

[Strabo]

Well said, gerstin, I couldn't agree more! Hitchens is actually very observant, and I think what is sees is an unfortunately large number of people who call themselves Christians who project their own personalities onto God, and it is the believers who are "petty, tyrannical, spiteful, unjust, hateful, and unreasonable."

When you talk about things like God condemning people to Hell, then naturally you're going to turn people off. Because it's wrong, wrong, wrong! God would never condemn anybody to Hell! People condemn themselves when they alienate themselves from God by acts of selfishness and idolatry.

When you have people calling themselves Christians, and then running around condeming their neighbors instead of loving them, it's really are setting a tragic example. Jesus never condemned anyone, He only forgave.

But it seems a lot of people prefer dogma and ritual to compassion, so is Hitchens really all that far off the mark?

[Jesse]

Jesus never condemned anyone? What about his harsh words in Matthew 23?

[Strabo]

Jesse, Jesus may have condemned sin itself, and warned of its Eternal consequences, Jesus Himself never sent anyone to Hell. That isn't how God operates.

Sin and hell are a product of free will. God loves us so much He even allows us to turn our back on Him, and nothing hurts Him more.

[Jesse]

I agree that Jesus didn't come to judge the world, but what about his second coming? I also agree that sin and hell are products of free will, and that God allows us to turn our backs on him.

But how does one come to the conclusion that God does not (or will not) send anyone to hell, or that he never will condemn anyone? How, then, can God be considered a Judge?

[ToNy]

The God of the bible seems quite petty to me. And quite different from Jesus I might add.

But who cares.

If the biblical God exists, I don't care if he's mean.

If biblical God exists and is a nice guy, work to love him and serve him in heaven.

If biblical God exists and is a mean guy, work REALLY HARD to love him and serve him in heaven.

[Strabo]

God doesn't condemn anyone, people condemn themselves by making the choice to turn away from him. That's why God could never "send an unborn baby to hell" (would be an abominable idea, if it wasn't nonsensical!). An innocent by definition cannot go to hell because there has been no sin, let alone an absence of repentance. But that it neither here nor there.

You ask how can God be considered a Judge without sending people to Hell. Jesse, I would say that Jesus is like the yardstick against which we measure the morality of an action. God is "judge" not like a mortal judge but God serves as the standard by which all things are judged. God is the salvation and if we refuse we have no one to blame but our own hard hearts, not God for "sending" us anywhere.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"When you have people calling themselves Christians, and then running around condeming their neighbors instead of loving them, it's really are setting a tragic example. Jesus never condemned anyone, He only forgave."

Hmm...first of all...there can be a mistake made here on the other side of this argument where a warning can be misunderstood as a condemnation. How it is received often hinges on how it is delivered. While it is true that Jesus did forgive...there were times when there were no indication of His giving forgiveness. The case of the moneychangers in the temple comes to mind. When the rich man asked what he must do to inherit eternal life Jesus told him "“One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But the man was not interested in giving up his love of money and posessions. While it could be argued that Jesus offered forgiveness in his case, He did not actually give it. So, Jesus did not forgive in every instance. Something was required from the one that was to be forgiven. Since the bible teaches that He will return to judge the living and the dead...the time of condemnation had not yet come. Each will be rewarded according to his works and if one earned condemenation, that is the coinage that he will be paid in and it is quite clear that Jesus will decide that.

[Romans 3:5-6]

"The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He [for inflicting wrath]?...May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world [if not through His wrath]?"

[Strabo]

Luouis, I wouldn't say that Jesus wouldn't forgive the rich man, after all, isn't His forgiveness infinite?

I would say rather that by refusing to give away all his possessions (read: materialism) ie sinful life, which can vary from person to person, in this case the man's idol was money so the solution was for him was to give up that idol, and he couldn't.

In effect the rich man condemned himself inwardly even though he asked to follow Jesus. Jesus would forgive this man if only he really wanted it.

[Strabo]

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) Romans 3:5-6 (sans elipses)

Clearly, this isn't meant to be taken literally, as we see the parenthetical that this is in the speech of men. God's "vengeance," St. Paul correctly observes, is a sophisticated theological idea not merely the "vengeance" analogous to that of mortal men, which is sinful.

Here vengeance is just shorthand, it is a letter after all, and both parties knew what he was really talking about, God's vengeance Him getting back at us like a petulant child. Salvation is like a present waiting to be unwrapped, and what may feel like God's vengeance is really is really just God asking us to unwrap it.

Keep in mind, the sinner is already in hell, they just don't realize it. And if they think that salvation is worse than the material world they are just like the rich man.

[Strabo]

Correction:
God's vengeance *is not* Him getting back at us like a petulant child.

[Alan Grey]

Hi Amy,
Interesting thoughts...
From a previous post on str
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/hitchens-made-two-major-admissions.html
I would suggest perhaps Hitchens has a problem with anyone telling him how to live, not with the character of God.

I do agree that we need to show the true character of God, but as the shallow and self-serving accusations show, the new atheists real root issue is rebellion, not who God is.

[Scorpion]

I think Ravi Zacharias is an absolutely outstanding example of this sort of dialogue. And even mark driscoll.

Its one thing that I would like to see more of in "apologetics", that is, not merely skimming over sheer logic (not that that in itself is bad), but getting to really, really know who God is personally. It will manifest itself in wonderful ways when you dialogue, and help you "point towards the cross".

P.s

I do not think it is outrageous to assert that babies "are an abomination", in light of Gods absolute goodness. I think it only magnifies his amazingness, that he would care for our little ones that we throw out. Maybe thats just me though.

[Brad]

gerstin, you underestimate God's holiness, and mans utter wretchedness. What is this talk of "innocent" and "free will" and "choosing" to turn away from God as though this is what *earns* just punishment. There is no innocent human creature anymore in the womb or out, by nature men are children of wrath, estranged from God and running from Him until God drags him/her to Himself. There is no such thing as freewill in the sense that it's being used above, and the only choosing being done is consitent with the nature of fallen men continually rejecting God at every turn. John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws[Strong's G1670 - helkō to draw, drag off]
him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

His purpose in election will stand: Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Also consider what this is acutally saying:

Eph 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, Eph 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), Eph 2:6 and raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, Eph 2:7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in [His] kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

For Strabo:
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Here above we have Jesus condemning false believers, quite contrary to your naive statements so far.

And please consider this:

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Mat 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. Mat 13:12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Mat 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Mat 13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; Mat 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. [Their] ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, Lest they should understand with [their] hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

Jesus, in judgement refusing to bring an effectual salvation
message. These are surely in hell.

God says to Moses after raining fire on Aarons sons, Nadab and Abihu [for offering strange fire and incense]: "By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified."

Heb. 19 "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

I better quit.

[concerned]

Great job guys--way to defend God's beauty. After all, it's so beautiful to call babies an abomination and make them suffer for all eternity. In some twisted way this is supposed to show how great and magnificent God really is. Beautifully Orwellian.

[Acts 13:48]

Wow Brad! What rare and precious truth you have spoken here!
Re: June 09, 2009 at 10:22 PM

[Jesse]

In light of concerned's concern, I thought I'd post on the beauty of God's involvement in the formation of a child, courtesy Psalm 139:

"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

"My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

"your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

God's works are wonderful. He did not create an abomination. But we all, because of our sins, have made ourselves detestable:

"All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14, see also Romans 3)

But God's grace is this:
"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5)

He did not lie and pretend we were not an abomination in his sight.

He did not act unjustly and leave our crimes unpunished.

Jesus paid it all... you are free to either accept or reject his pardon. He will not force it upon anyone.

[Brad]

It is a beautiful thing to know God's holiness, a standard we are only able to barely grasp. The inspired Word of God contains these revelations for a reason. By them, we come to understand God's patience and longsuffering because the shockingly harsh descriptions of events where men,women,and children felt the full force of His just wrath came long after it would be due. All the while, I'm sure someone was preaching a message to them that everything is ok, maybe even that God doesn't condemn, people condemn themselves. God's patience is not a thing to be taken for granted.

It is a beautiful thing to fear God, because we cannot even begin to approach His purity and goodness. Isaiah, a prophet of God said:

"Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Isa 6:2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. Isa 6:3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy [is] the LORD of hosts; The whole earth [is] full of His glory!" Isa 6:4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke. Isa 6:5 So I said: "Woe [is] me, for I am undone! Because I [am] a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts."

We do no one any favor by presenting only a minimal opinion of the gravity of the dangerous situation fallen men are in. They need salvation, *from* God's wrath. Until a man sees a reason to cry out woe is me, woe is me, who can help, why would he. I mean, if God doesn't condemn, I have nothing to worry about.

I recommend RC Sproul's "The Holiness of God", and "Saved from What"

[MijkV]

Justice = punishing crimes?
This is the gospel according to Smith & Wesson.
Do a biblical word study on justice/righteousness and see how it compares.

And as for God's wrath, read Romans 1. The tragedy is that people currently experiencing God's wrath don't even know it (including Hitchens).

[Jesse]

What, precisely, is incompatible with justice and punishment? If Jesus was not punished for our crimes, then just what did he suffer for?

[Jesse]

... and why does our justice system enforce penalties (i.e. punishments) for crimes?

[Scorpion]

"Justice = punishing crimes?
This is the gospel according to Smith & Wesson."

As opposed to what? Im curious, maybe justice isint the word your looking for?

[MijkV]

uh oh, the italics are stuck on again. oh well.

good questions...

I don't dispute that the path to justice may include punishment, my problem is with the view that justice is punishment.

Jesus suffered in our place for our sins for the sake of our redemption. This is mysterious, which is why it is portrayed in the NT with varying images. When I look at these images I do not see a single one that depicts an angry deity needing to be propitiated with a human sacrifice. But that's just me.

A reader comes to a text with lots of cultural baggage, and your mentioning of the US "justice system" is a good example of how our culture affects the way we read "justice" in the NT.

I didn't suggest a word study to prove a point, it was an honest suggestion. A good pair of books debating this issue are Piper's "The Future of Justification" and N.T. Wright's "Justification."

[Brad]

Hi MijkV you are so right on about Romans 1, and by some stroke of providence, RC Sproul's "Renewing Your Mind" radio broadcast specifically quoted the passage and he did his usual great job of speaking of the offense we make to God by not being grateful along with those who do not recognize Him as God.

Here: http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=0&id=2597

is the url to the show today if anyone wants to listen. It's about 25 min. long.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Strabo
"Luouis, I wouldn't say that Jesus wouldn't forgive the rich man, after all, isn't His forgiveness infinite?

I would say rather that by refusing to give away all his possessions (read: materialism) ie sinful life, which can vary from person to person, in this case the man's idol was money so the solution was for him was to give up that idol, and he couldn't."

You actually characterized the situation correctly. However, I didn't say that Jesus "wouldn't" forgive the rich man, in the sense of not being willing to offer it even to him. I think that the offer was there. What I said is that in that particular instance there is no evidence that the exchange of forgiveness took place. In so far as Jesus' forgiveness being infinite is concerned, I take it that you mean limitless. In that sense, the answer has to be no. Fallen angels are not offered forgiveness...so, there are limits to God's forgiveness. I think that God as sovereign of all that He created is within his rights to do as He will with that creation. I think that forgiveness is an expression of mercy and Romans 9:15 clearly states that God will have mercy on whomever He wishes to. It is His right as the creator.

[Strabo]

As for the fallen angels, it think there is a big difference going on between human sin (which happens temporally) and angelic sin (which is eternal in nature). When a man sins he turns his back on God for a period of time, but it is not irrevocable because a man can always change his mind at a later time and return to God. Angels on the other hand exist outside of time. The same way that God and the Soul are eternal in nature so too when Lucifer rebelled against God, he turned his back on Him for all eternity. So the action these angels took was irrevocable, insofar as "revocation" has no real coherent meaning outside of a temporal context.

Thus, it isn't that there is a limit to God's ability to forgive (for how can His infinite forgiveness be limited?), rather it is nonsense to talk about fallen angels being forgiven because no opportunity exists to seek forgiveness for an Eternal sin. There is no limit on God's forgiveness, the limit is an eternal, self-imposed limit on Lucifer's ability to partake of God's forgiveness.

I don't disagree with you, Louis, that God as sovereign has right to as He pleases with His creations. Romans 9:15 says God will have mercy on whoever he wishes, and He wants to have mercy on everyone! The greatest miracle is that God sent his only Son in a covenant with man that all sins might be forgiven. God may have had a right but He gave it up. Gods mercy is infinite, it's only limit is as against the sinner's willingness to accept.

[Pro Life]

Strabo, isn’t “accepting Jesus as your personal savior” an attempt to keep the first commandment? That is, to reject all other gods and accept the one true God, Jesus? Paul says if you start down that road, you have to keep all of the commandments perfectly, which none can do.

If you remove the work of The Holy Spirit from the following verse in Galatians 5, is there anything in a person’s natural composition that would choose Christ?

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Also, if Christ died for all sin, wouldn’t that include the sin of unbelief and rejecting him?

[Jesse]

>> Strabo, isn’t “accepting Jesus as your
>> personal savior” an attempt to keep
>> the first commandment? That is, to
>> reject all other gods and accept the
>> one true God, Jesus? Paul says if you
>> start down that road, you have to keep
>> all of the commandments perfectly,
>> which none can do.

Isn't not murdering also an attempt to keep one of the commandments? What follows by this line of thinking?

[William Wilcox]

Echoing Pro-Life, when the rich man refuses to give up his wealth this is an indication of his failure to keep the first commandment. It seems Strabo is suggesting that forgiveness through Christ cleanses even this sin.

I suggest those interested please check out the thread on "Moral vs. Pragmatic" before accepting gerstin's characterization of that conversation.

I appreciate Brad, Jesse and Pro-Life responding from scripture on this thread!

[Pro Life]

>Isn't not murdering also an attempt to keep one of the commandments? What follows by this line of thinking?

>>Jesse, if “accepting Jesus” is a condition of salvation, so are all of the other commandments conditions of salvation, including not murdering. This is salvation by works.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Strabo

“As for the fallen angels, it think there is a big difference going on between human sin (which happens temporally) and angelic sin (which is eternal in nature). When a man sins he turns his back on God for a period of time, but it is not irrevocable because a man can always change his mind at a later time and return to God. Angels on the other hand exist outside of time. The same way that God and the Soul are eternal in nature so too when Lucifer rebelled against God, he turned his back on Him for all eternity. So the action these angels took was irrevocable, insofar as "revocation" has no real coherent meaning outside of a temporal context.”
I really don’t know how you come to the eternal/temporal sin characterization. Have you any biblical texts that describe this distinction? What I know about the nature of sin would seem to indicate that it is rebellion against God as sovereign. In fact, this is the critical definition of sin and the reason for judgment and ultimate consequences of that judgment. I don’t know what your primary source of information leads you to believe that angels exist outside of time. Could you clear that up a bit? What I do know about angels is that they can take on human form and interact with human beings. So, it seems that they can certainly exist within time. The same with time/God question…I am not convinced that God exists outside of time, just that He is not entirely restricted by time in the same way we are. As to souls…we are in fact soulish creatures and as such we too continue to exist after this life ends and while we are not eternal in the same way that God is, in a certain sense we will live for an eternity…where depends on the issue of salvation. Now, you used the word “when” in the phrase “when Lucifer rebelled against God”. That word denotes time and therefore there was a point in time when Lucifer rebelled. That being the case, I don’t really get the impression that you are firmly convinced that angels exist outside of time. The way you portray the event seems to indicate that you believe otherwise.
Again, I think you have to qualify your assertion that angels exist outside of time in order for your argument to stand. I just don’t see the evidence for this. If you have some to offer, please provide it and I will be happy to examine it.

[Jesse]

>> Jesse, if “accepting Jesus” is a
>> condition of salvation, so are all of
>> the other commandments conditions of
>> salvation, including not murdering.
>> This is salvation by works.

How does accepting a free gift qualify as salvation by works?

If Bill Gates walks up to you, and hands you a check for a million dollars, asking nothing in return, you do have to choose whether to accept or reject the check, right?

If you took the action of choosing to accept the check, walked down to the bank, and performed the good work of depositing it, would you say you earned that money? Would you boast that you got what you deserved?

[William Wilcox]

Pro-Life,

Could "accepting Jesus" be both a condition of salvation and not be considered works? That is where I thought you were going with Gal.5.

If all human sin past and present is wiped off the books, does that mean that nothing else is required, all are universally innocent and right with God as if the Fall had never happened?

Strabo said: "Gods mercy is infinite, it's only limit is as against the sinner's willingness to accept."

If all sin is forgiven, what does the sinner's willingness or lack thereof have to do with anything unless there is also a necessary act of human will required?

I suspect that if Hitchens thought of Christianity in terms of universalism it would be more palatable to him. It is the judgement & hell business that people really resent. How often have you heard "who are you to judge?"?

Applied to people that could be a valid objection. Applied to God it is hubris.

I think it would irritate Hitchens & others further to suggest that salvation was not subject to any act of the individuals free will. God decides who is a sheep and who is a goat and thats that! This appears arbitrary and contrary to justice because nothing we do or can do makes any difference. How can God be considered just and decide this way? There is the apparent clash between free will and determinism.

Amy's advice is the best: "We need to spend enormous amounts of time reading the Bible, thinking through the character of God in light of every aspect of that character as presented in the entirety of the book."

[Jesse]

William, I like the way you worded it:

>> Could "accepting Jesus" be both a
>> condition of salvation and not be
>> considered works?

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be earned by works. But nowhere does it say that salvation is unconditional. Some attain it, some do not. If it were unconditional, then why is there all this talk of God's wrath and judgment in the Bible?

[Brad]

Good move Pro Life I want to also jump in if you dont mind. I would not even answer Jesse's question since it's nat a valid representation, if it were, there'd be no "accepting" of anything.

Jesse, let me ask to answer from this scenario, suppose 2 people as similar as any 2 could be heard and learned equally of the gospel message, 1 became a believer and 1 did not. The question is, what is it about the 1 that believed that is different from the 1 who didn't?

In other words, from your view, it's something to do with the man that makes the difference--the believer did[worked] something in and of himself. Pro Life is right on, that is a work and makes God a debtor once the work of "accepting" is accomplished.

[Jesse]

I don't see how my scenario with Bill Gates, means there'd be no accepting of anything. I was merely trying to demonstrate that if one accepts a free gift, the gift was still free and unmerited.

As for the two who hear the gospel, I suppose the main difference would be that one believed and one didn't. What's your point?

Maybe we need to back this train up and be clear on what we're arguing about, because I think I'm confused. ProLife and Brad, you seem to be in agreement about something I and William seem to disagree with.

I think we agree that salvation cannot be earned or merited, right? It seems to be there's a disagreement about what that means. If I understand correctly, your position is that accepting the Gospel (or becoming a believer) is a work, and since it is a work, it cannot merit salvation. Is that accurate?

[Jesse]

Brad,
By the way, I did listen to the RC Sproul broadcast you posted a while back, and I do have the utmost respect for his teaching. If you can think of any of his work that is relevant, I'd be obliged to have a look.

[Jesse]

My apologies, can we strike this one from the record?

>> As for the two who hear the gospel, I
>> suppose the main difference would be
>> that one believed and one didn't.
>> What's your point?

Since you did write in your point, and I don't read carefully enough...

>> In other words, from your view,
>> it's something to do with the man
>> that makes the difference...

I wouldn't say this accurately reflects my view. In my view, something to do with the man certainly is a difference, but that's not what makes the difference.

What makes, or causes, the difference, is God's work, not the man's work, as it is written in John 6:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

[concerned]

It is telling that some people here are unwilling to deny that God sends unborn babies to hell, were they will suffer for all of eternity. You can dress that up with all kinds of rhetoric, but it's all just flowers on the coffin. Its telling that some people here are willing to defend the goodness of so condemning unborn babies. From such people, I don't want to here about the "goodness" of God.

[Pro Life]

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this (the Gospel), they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Notice, believing is a fruit or characteristic of those who are saved.

If it were a condition, the verse would say something like "as many as believed were ordained to eternal life" which it does not say.

"Whosoever believes will be saved" also portrays the characteristic fruit of the Spirit in those whom God saves, and not a condition for the self righteous to save themselves by meeting.