People say if they go to hell at least they’ll at least have plenty of company. Have a party maybe. Could this really be the case? Are not companionship, the pleasures food and drink, raucous laughter all gifts from God? As well, would not the absence of the Spirit deprive those in hell the necessary restraint from performing egregious evils? In the absence of such divine gifts, a mass of people very probably could become a massacre (of sorts). If God took away his influence from our world right now, we’d have hell on earth. Rwanda, Darfur, Auschwitz are mere glimpses of such a situation. Genocides show that even God’s ordained means of restraining moral evil, namely governments, cannot completely control and overcome the insidious tendency of human depravity. Thankfully, God has mercy on us. Human governments are no match for divine grace.
But, some object, isn’t it unfair that God sends people to hell just because they happened to not believe in Jesus? That seems like a good question to me. The answer seems to lie in the fact that no one is sent to hell because he never heard of Jesus. He is sent there because he has committed serious moral crimes against a perfect, holy God. Such crimes require justice. And, as a free moral agent, he ought to have known better because God’s moral law is written on the heart. His existence is made evident in creation. But why does God require justice? This rather long article by Glenn Miller addresses this question (I’m still reading it – looks interesting though).
11 comments:
I've also heard it said about heaven that those who don't know Jesus wouldn't want to be there. (I can't remember if I read that in Lewis' 'The Great Divorce' or somewhere else). The idea was that if heaven is a place of infinite worship, it would be a 'hell' of sorts to those who don't know God.
hey there, i've always found the apostle Paul's line on this disturbing. he seems to think that natural knowledge of God--the law written on our hearts--is enough to make us guilty when we act sinfully; as you say, we should know better. but the converse of this would seem to be that natural knowledge of God is all the knowledge we need to come to know God, to stay out of hell. If natural knowledge is enough to get us into hell, it should be enough to keep us out, at least potentially--right? But I don't see Paul, or the NT as a whole, saying this. It seems the general consensus among NT writers was that Jesus is somehow necessary for salvation; that natural knowledge of God won't cut it. Of course, there's a million different things it might mean to say that Jesus is necessary for salvation...OK, maybe not a million. But for starters, do individuals need to be consciously aware of the historical person of Jesus to come to God? Or can they come to God--via Jesus--through other, perhaps natural, means?
As I read Romans 1 and 2, it seems that Paul is saying that natural knowledge is sufficient to come to know that God exists, but that some (or perhaps many) people purposely ignore him. They’re suppressing the truth (1:18) and are neither glorifying or giving thanks to him (1:21). It seems these people are in a similar position as the demons of James 2 who are shuddering in their belief in God. Belief as intellectual assent, it seems, won’t bring salvation. It needs to be combined with saving faith (Heb 4:2). (say, how’s that for prooftexting?)
In Ro. 2:12-16, I believe that he is using conscience for gentiles in the same role that the law played for Jews. But it’s not the knowledge that condemns us to hell. It may accuse us and compound our guilt, but it does not initiate that guilt. We would be rightly condemned even if such knowledge were absent because of what we did sinfully.
So, it’s our moral turpitude, our sin that condemns us not our knowledge or lack thereof. In other words, we are rightly condemned to hell because of what we do, but we don’t necessarily need to actually know this, though I do think all (or most) people do in fact know this at some level or another.
OF course, it’s one thing to know enough to know we’re in trouble. It’s another to know what to do about it. (I don’t know if that all made sense but it’s all I’ve got right now)
I don’t think that people need to be consciously aware of the historical person of Jesus to come to God. If that were the case none of the Old Testament heroes of the faith would be saved. Their faith was certainly in Yahweh. But since Jesus is the second person of the trinity, having faith in the preincarnate Christ and the incarnate historical Jesus is the same thing since they are (he is? - seems strange to use the pronoun 'they' for one person) the same person . Of course, Jews were in a special situation since they were the ones through whom God was preparing the incarnation. What about non-Jews? I’m not too sanguine about general revelation being able to bring about saving faith (even though I think it can certainly help in bringing folks to intellectual assent in God’s existence). I’ve been reading a little on Molinism. I think that, if molinism is a bibilically viable option, then I would follow that explanation. Maybe. That's if I actually understand it. Which I probably don't.
I believe that's Lewis. There are those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "THY will be done". I really ought to buy the book. The public library copy is gettin rather grungy
i'm not so sure about the thought that our knowing--or our ability to know--that x is wrong is *not* a necessary condition on our being guilty for x (that is, that we don't need know our sin is wrong for us to be guilty). i admit i haven't gone over Romans 1-2 in a while, and i'm sure your interpretation is entirely defensible. but consider: your eight month old infant is playing w/ your cat and, in an incredible display of strength, she wrenches one of the cat's eyeballs out. we probably want to say that she's not guilty for this. why? well, it's because she doesn't know that wrenching out cat eyeballs is wrong. it's also because *she couldn't be expected to know* this
--it's not even possible for her to have this sort of knowledge at her age. analogously, in the case of (full-grown) humanity and sin, it seems that in order to be responsible for our sin, we must either in fact know it's wrong, or be plausibly expected to know it's wrong--such that it's only through negligence that we don't have this knowledge. seems to me that Paul has something closer to the second consdition in mind; he seems to be saying that everyone *should* know that sin is wrong--since the law is written on our hearts--and that this is what makes us accountable, whether or not we *actually* think that sin is sin. but i agree with you that very many people in fact know that when they sin it's wrong, and do it anyways.
reading this post over, i realize that what you say, Denis, is probably compatible w/ what i was trying to say. i think? BTW, there's an old, somewhat venerable
--though even more bizarre--Church teaching, expressed in the Apostle's Creed, that in the interval between Jesus' death and resurrection he 'descended into Hell', or Sheoul, and that the reason for this was so he could redeem those who, because of historical happenstance, hadn't had the opportunity to hear of the person of Christ, but nonetheless were numbered among the redeemed. though it's really strange to think that OT saints like Abe and Moses would be stuck in Hell waiting for Jesus to descend. it might be less implausible if they were in some neutral, non-Hell-like intermediate state or zone, which might be compatible with the Creed. sorry to ramble so.
Ramble on brother. (It’ll give me time to mull over your comments.)
Luke, I think I get your point that our knowledge is necessary for our being guilty. John 3:19 says: “Light has come into the world but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” It seems all humans (who have the mental/spiritual capacity to know) do in fact know they’re guilty. Many just cover the fact up (out of willful rebellion or perhaps just fear? Or are they victims of spiritual insanity?)
Where you say: “whether or not we *actually* think that sin is sin” is closer to what I wanted to say than what I actually wrote.
Is coming up with fascinatingly strange examples and thought experiments a prerequisite for being a professional philosopher? It sure seems to be whenever I read philosophical works.
Whenever we say the Apostle’s Creed in church I remain silent during the “descended in hell” part because I don’t think it’s true (if by hell one means gehenna). My reading on this is that ‘hell’ refers to Hades or Sheol, the grave or abode of the dead and that this phrase wasn’t even part of the original creed. But it seems redundant to say that he was “crucified dead and buried” and then to say he descended in to the grave. I always thought the parable of the richman and lazarus indicated that Abraham at least (and if him why not other OT saints?) is currently in heaven. Unless ‘Abraham’s side’ is simply a figurative way of saying ‘paradise’. Plus, Jesus told the thief on the cross that he’d be with Him in paradise ‘today’ not three days later.
Have you read "Between HEaven and HEll" by Peter Kreeft? Is that the sort of intermediate zone you're thinking of?
i own the Kreeft book, but haven't read it. BTW, Kreeft went to Calvin as an undergrad, but then went and committed *the* Calvinite cardinal sin: he converted to Catholicism :) i like what you say about the creed; it'd be interesting to see what the actual Latin word there is, and try to map it on to the Greek or Hebrew for Hell or Sheoul. i also appreciate your comment that you don't say that part of the Creed, b/c you don't believe it's true! i find myself doing the same from time to time w/ certain hymns and the like. i'm not sure what i think about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. could just be figurative, but i don't know. the thief on the cross is perhaps better biblical warrant, though of course there's a debate over this too. does Jesus say: 'I tell you, today you'll be w/ me in paradise'. Or: 'I tell you today, you'll be w/ me in Paradise'. I don't have the text in front of me, but i've heard it argued that it matters where we put that comma in. anyways, i'm not sure what i think about all this. probably something closer to your view. i was thinking of sending a few close friends the link to your blog here. would you mind?
You want to send a link to this blog to some close friends? Why would you want to inflict good friends with such punishment? As you can tell by now my intellectual capacities are less than stellar. The more I read the more I realize just how dumb I really am. My knowledge lacks both breadth and depth in a variety of subjects, but I still end up writing superficially about those same subjects.
What were we talking about again? Oh, yeah. Hmmm, do I mind? Well, I suppose there are worse things. If they don’t mind being bored then I guess I can tolerate being the butt of their jokes.(no emoticon here – just a grave look on my face).
Dennis (sorry, I've been spelling it 'Denis'; Rachael just corrected me)--your last post is what certain philosophers might call 'self-referentially incoherent.' That's a fancy a way of saying self-contradictory. Here's why: the wisest among us are precisely those who admit the woeful inadequacy of their own knowledge. Just ask Socrates, the wisest man in Athens. The reason for his wisdom: he admitted to knowing the least. So your claim that you know very little actually demonstrates that you are, indeed, wiser than most! Ha! How's that for philosophical contortionism! Seriously, Rach and I were just commenting today on how interesting the topics of your posts are, and how well you navigate the subject matter. You're balanced and generous, obviously well-read and bright; and most of the time we agree with the general spirit of your positions (so of course that's the clincher). Anyways, there's a few family members and friends with whome these sort of topics always come up for discussion. I'm not sure how big on bloggin' the folks I have in mind are, but what better place to at least attempt to facilitate that discussion than *your blog*? BTW, I haven't forgotten about the Wykstra reference, and there's a book edited by Corcoran I wanted to draw your attention to: Soul, Body, and Survival. Some of the articles are pretty technical, but I think you'd probably enjoy at least a few of them. I'll get around to the specifics on Wykstra soon.
Post a Comment