All of us tend to think of ourselves as good persons. This assessment is largely true. All of us are capable of, and often do many good things. But if we’re honest with ourselves, this isn’t the whole story. All of us are equally capable of evil, even if we are unequally guilty of evil. Sure, you and I are not as bad as Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Compared to them we are saints, relatively speaking. But how do we stack up when compared to God?
God is a morally perfect being. He requires that we be morally perfect as well, and yet we aren’t. Whether our acts of evil are big or small, many or few, they are all violations of God’s moral perfection, and these violations have consequences. Even if you only committed one sin per day between the ages of six and 75, that adds up to more than 25,000 violations of God’s moral law! If you were guilty of breaking that many human laws, no judge could ignore it. How, then, can we expect the God of perfect justice to turn a blind eye to our moral failures? While God is a God of love, He is also a God of justice and cannot ignore these violations. Acts of moral evil are deserving of punishment (death), and no amount of good works we do can negate those acts. That’s bad news for you and me! But Christianity offers a solution, and hope.
While God’s justice demands punishment for sin, His infinite love desires mercy. This presents a problem: How can God pardon us of our moral crimes without sacrificing His justice? Someone needs to pay for the crimes we’ve committed against God. If not us, then who? This is where Jesus comes in. To meet his own demand for justice, God took up a human existence in the face of Jesus Christ, and personally suffered the penalty for sin—death—on our behalf; the innocent suffering on behalf of the guilty. He took on himself the punishment that was rightly ours, and in exchange gives us the righteousness that is rightly his…if we will entrust our lives to him. No one else has done this for us. This is why we must trust exclusively in Christ if we wish to receive forgiveness. And this is why Christians proclaim your need for Jesus.
God has offered us a solution to our moral problem, but on His terms, not ours. So now you have a choice. If you accept what Christ did for you, trusting in His good works to save you rather than your own, then God will consider your moral debt as paid in full. If you reject Christ, however, you will be rejecting the only solution to your guilt, and consequently must pay for your own crimes. If you choose to stand before God based on the merits and demerits of your own works, surely you will face the judgment of God. But if you choose to stand before God based on the merits of Christ’s work, however, you can expect mercy and grace.
So do you need Jesus? If you are morally perfect, no. But if you are like us, the answer is an emphatic yes. What will you say to Christ, then? How will you respond to what He has done for you? The choice is simple; the choice is yours.
August 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
What would you say to someone who claims that the widespread ignorance of Jesus among the total population of the world, now and throughout history, is conclusive evidence that God–if He exists, and if Jesus is indeed necessary for salvation–is neither perfectly just not perfectly loving? The argument is basically that justice requires equality of opportunity, and love requires maximization of benefits; yet the vast majority of people are unaware of the only available means of avoiding hell, through no fault of their own. Here are the two formalizations.
1. Offering salvation to people is loving.
2. Offering salvation to more people rather than fewer is more loving.
3. Some people have not had salvation offered to them.
4. It is in God’s power to have offered salvation to everyone.
5. Therefore God is not maximally loving.
6. Justice requires a distributive fairness.
7. Salvation is a good provided by God.
8. God has acted to provide at least one necessary condition of salvation to some people (knowledge of Christ), and not acted to provide the same necessary condition of salvation to others.
9. It is in God’s power to have provided this necessary condition of salvation to all.
10. Therefore God has not shown distributive fairness, and is not just.
A related complaint is that Jesus came to earth at a certain time and in a certain place, thereby “rigging the game” in favor of those who also happened to live at that time (or later) and in that place (or within its long-term sphere of influence). Therefore, God is apparently arbitrary in deciding who gets to hear the “good news” and who does not.
I have some responses of my own in mind, but would like to get your initial thoughts before posting them. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 10:55 am
Good article Jason! I certainly don’t want to open the “Calvinistic vs Arminian” can of worms in here. But, with all the the Almighty (through His Son) did for us, we all are left with the responsibility to choose life or death. That is always a humbling thing to consider – that our choice one way or another has eternal consequences.
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 11:13 am
aletheist,
This is an entailing topic–one that is deserving of its own post. I can only make some quick points here in the comments section.
First, I don’t think God’s justice can be questioned because that is merely His “rewarding” us for our behavior–whether it be good or bad. Those who sin are deserving of judgment. God is under no obligation to extend forgiveness to anyone. Those who sinned, and who are punished for their sin, are punished justly.
What about God’s love, however? That is a much more serious issue. The charge presumes that God has not offered salvation to everyone. But the Bible teaches that God has made Himself known to everyone through creation and conscience. The problem is not that God has not revealed Himself, or that man is ignorant. The problem is that man has rejected what may be known of God, and instead devised gods of their own. But if someone does submit to God’s general revelation, God will provide them with more revelation–the revelation they need to be saved.
As for “your” related complaint, it does not matter which side of the cross one lives on. While Christ is the grounds for salvation, salvation has always been by faith. Only the object of that faith changes. David did not know or have faith in Christ, and yet He was saved because He trusted in God for His salvation, and obeyed the covenant.
Jason
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 11:14 am
truthofgod,
Yes, it is a weighty choice indeed. And yet most people think little of it.
Jason
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm
aletheist,
God cannot be deemed good by human standards. If we judge His actions in the OT, we could not conclude that he is perfectly good, and probably not even good over all. But God is the one who decides who and what is good, and exempts Himself from those standards. For that reason you cannot say that God is “not good” for denying knowledge of Jesus to those requiring Jesus for salvation.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Jason writes:
“What about God’s love, however? That is a much more serious issue. The charge presumes that God has not offered salvation to everyone. But the Bible teaches that God has made Himself known to everyone through creation and conscience… [I]f someone does submit to God’s general revelation, God will provide them with more revelation–the revelation they need to be saved.”
Some Christians believe that God gives those never exposed to Jesus the chance to accept Christ after their death, perhaps after the resurrection during the End Times. If they’re right, it solves the problem. But saying that it’s mere coincidence that more individual Americans accept God’s truth on Earth than individual Chinese, and thus God’s truth is just as available to a person in China as in Alabama, seems untrue to me.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Arthur,
Your description is not consistent with what most theists have said of God, and what I believe the Bible teaches about God. God does not decide what is good, as if it is a decision He makes based on His will or power. God is the good. His nature is good. And because His nature is Good, it would be impossible for God to exempt Himself from goodness, in the same way it would be impossible for humans to exempt themselves from epistemic finitude. Goodness is not something God is distinct from, and merely exemplifies/follows. He is the good, and thus everything He does is good (which is not the same as saying it is good because He does it).
We do not deem God to be good based on human standards. We have an intuition of what goodness is, and when we behold God, we recognize that He fits all that we intuit goodness to be. And from whence do we get that intuition? From God, because we are made in His image.
to be continued…
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 2:32 pm
continued…
I find it amazing that as a Christian you would say God is “probably not even good overall.” Arthur, I do not mean this as a put-down in the least, but I have to tell you, that while you claim to be a Christian theist, in so many ways and in so many subjects, you think and argue just like an atheist. If I didn’t know better, I would think you were an atheist. I’m not saying we should not think critically about our faith. We should. But you seem to agree with the critics of theism in so many ways/points that I don’t know why you don’t agree with their conclusion. Don’t get me wrong. I value your contribution on this blog, and I don’t want you to go away! I’m just making an honest observation. Your thinking puzzles me.
When it comes to this issue, I think we’d both agree that God acts in ways that on their face, seem hard to reconcile with a good and loving God. So I understand why atheists make the charge they do, but as a Christian theist, I am more charitable to the text than they are. I thik it is possible to maintain God’s goodness while acknowledging all that God has done. Part of it is in understanding that God is not subject to the same rules as we are. Take, for example, the killing of entire villages including the women and children. We think of that as evil, because we know we are not supposed to murder. But the prohibition against murder is not a command that applies to God. As the author of life, He is free to give it and take it as it pleases Him. Our lives are His, not our own. The reason it is wrong for us to take a human life without moral justification is because we did not give it, and thus it is not ours to take. This is similar to how parents put curfew restrictions on their kids, that they do not abide by themselves. Are the parents violating the rules? No. The rules only apply to the children.
Jason
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Arthur,
I’m not saying it’s mere coincidence that more people believe in God in American than in China. I am saying that the knowledge of God belongs to all men via natural revelation. Natural revelation provides basic, yet sufficient knowledge to know the true God. The problem is that most people reject it. Special revelation provides more information, and results in more conversions than natural revelation alone.
Furthermore, there are historical reasons for this disparity. People tend to believe what their parents believed, so if the Gospel takes hold in a culture, that culture will largely remain Christian in future generations. That happened in Europe, and by extension, America. That did not happen in China.
Jason
LikeLike
August 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Jason:
Your comments about justice are almost identical to my sentiments–I think that it is a category mistake to characterize God’s salvation as “just” or “unjust”. Looking at the formal argument–#6 is a questionable definition of justice in the first place, #8 is an assumption that we have no way to verify, and #9 may actually be false if humans truly have free will and it is important to God that it be preserved.
Regarding love, the key term is “offer”. The atheist will claim that a perfectly loving God would, of necessity, make every person who ever lived explicitly aware of His existence, as well as the Gospel message and the salvation that comes from believing it. Looking at the formal argument–#2 is questionable because offering salvation to people whom God knows will reject it is not necessarily more loving (perhaps the opposite, since that would bring them even further under God’s judgment); and again, #4 may actually be false if humans truly have free will and it is important to God that it be preserved.
I am familiar with the notion that God gives more light to those who respond to the light that they have. I can believe it because I know God personally and trust His character, but this carries no weight with a skeptic. For example, we apparently have to assume that not a single resident of the New World prior to 1492 responded “properly” to creation and conscience, given that none of them ever heard anything at all about Jesus.
I completely agree that the nature of God is what is good, by definition. This is the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma–is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good? Neither; something is good because it is consistent with the eternal and immutable nature of God.
The cultural aspect of Christianity is another objection that I have heard–God is arbitrary because people in different countries have different probabilities of knowing about Jesus. My response is that culture is the result of innumerable free choices that humans have made throughout history. Presumably, at one time everyone had knowledge of God–right after the Flood, for example–so why should we blame God for the failure of subsequent generations to maintain that knowledge?
LikeLike
August 13, 2009 at 6:25 pm
aletheist,
Good input. I agree with most of what you said, so I’ll only speak to those that I have a slightly different opinion on.
You said the idea that God gives more revelation to those who respond to natural revelation, while true, will not carry any weight with a skeptic. That’s true in a sense, in that this fact (if it is a fact) is probably not sufficient to fully satisfy his complaint against God’s love. Neither will he consider this explanation to be well-evidenced. But the issue is not whether he personally finds it persuasive or thinks it is true. The question is whether that is what Christianity teaches, and/or if it is possible. If it is, then on the Christian worldview God is willing to provide salvific knowledge to anyone at any time and any place.
I also don’t think we can conclude a priori that no Native Americans responded to general revelation prior to 1492. There is no way of knowing that. Just as in reports that I hear today in which an angel or Jesus appears to people in remote parts of the world and gives them the Gospel, that could have happened in pre-1492 America. Not saying it did, but none of us know. Or of course, it could be that no one heeded the general revelation. After all, that is what most men do. They suppress the knowledge.
Jason
LikeLike
August 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Jason,
Have you ever attended a Congregational church? All UCC churches are not the same; Jeremiah Wright’s church is UCC, for example. But in the mean, the beliefs of the congregants are quite varied, including those of the pastors who often refer to religious beliefs across the spectrum. Some wags claim that UCC stands for “Unitarians Considering Christ.” Within the UCC, my views are not as unrepresentative as you might think.
Arthur
LikeLike
August 16, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Arthur,
No, I have not. But the issue is not whether your views are representative of others with the UCC, but whether they are representative of the Christian faith. If your views are reprentative of the views within the UCC, I would ask the same questions of them I asked of you.
Jason
LikeLike