Are Natural Catastrophes God's Judgment?

I can think of a number of verses where Christians have heartlessly assumed God's judgment upon the poor unfortunates of society. And when I hear these pronouncements I hear them as from the lips of foolish people who misunderstand God's rulership and heart. Who simply assume the worse and feel vindicated for needlessly sharing the guilts and fears of their own hearts. Too often we feeble human beings look upon the natural catastrophe's of this sinful world and simply surmise God is austerely ruling His fallen creation vindictively without understanding that nature itself has a kind of "free will" that is given to it just as mankind has its own free will (this is known scientifically as "indeterminacy").

Should we decry God's handiwork in the moral evil committed by our own hands as much as we decry His handiwork in the natural disasters that we witness falling from the skies, the waters, the earth and winds? No, I think not. For the bible teaches plainly that though God rules over all - even fallen men and natural calamities - it is a rulership that would bend these fallen events towards His Sovereign will in some manner towards a larger plan and purpose that He has set forth. That somehow God will circumvent this world's sin and evil and bring to it a holiness and order that was intended.

Nor is God the cause of these events though He is present within these events in some mysterious way that may save some while others may perish. Whether because of sin or fate it is left for God to sort out. At times the bible tells the reader that God has sent the wind and the waves by His command. That He has opened up the earth and caused fire to reign from the heavens. That He has sent sinful nations to "rain down upon" His errant people to cause repentance from wickedness and idolatry. But at other times He has prevented such awfulness from occurring for a time. Or has allowed similar events with no more influence upon it than sent by nature's own hand of chaotic indeterminacy as granted to it by the power of creational freedom (thus asking the eternal question how did sin enter into God's holy estate of creation - cf. The Origin of Sin, Hell and Universalism). And from an Open Theist viewpoint God's knowledge of these events is as they occur in real time (though not denying His foreknowledge of the event as one of many permutations from the same event each with its own infinite number of permutations). Though we might further ask whether by foreknowledge could or would God do anything? To which my standard reply would be "Anything and everything that He can!!"

However, we misunderstand God to naively voice our opinions as if God is simply judge-and-jury and not the Lover-of-our-souls. Who would stand with us in times of trouble. Who would protect us where and when He can. Who would deliver us from evil and lead us to salvation. And when He does not we cannot simply say that God is feeble, weak or less than the Sovereign-of-the-Universe. Those would be unwise pronouncements spoken from unbelief, pain, agony or despair. No, God is the Creator of all the Earth. Whose rule is from one end of heaven to the other. And it this, His very creation, that He would rule despite its fallenness. Though willful. Though harmful. Though cruel. But within this sphere of death and destruction God rules. He will guide. He will provide. He will be vindicated. He will defeat sin and death. And stand with us through every evil suffered and harm inflicted however cruel and destructive.

God will be present with us until the end. Both in this life as He will in the next. And we have this assurance that He will deliver us by His Spirit into His eternal care and salvation. This is His promise to His people as it is too all humanity. It is our Christian hope. It is neither fatalistic nor deterministic. It is neither uncharitable nor merciless. But it is one fraught with this life's infinite perplexities and confusions. Its doubts and dismays. its eternal hopes and yearnings. We are but guided by this mere element of faith that is as strong as the cords of death. And we are told to be faithful whatever comes to us in this wicked world of woe and suffering. Therefore, be ye strong and courageous. For God is our God as much as He is the God of the whirlwind and of the storm. He aches with our broken hearts. And is troubled by our woes and agonies. And whispers "Peace be still, all ye troubling waters toiling within the depths of our anguished souls."

R.E. Slater

March 13, 2012

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ps - Some final thoughts I have overlooked in the article above:

1. We are to remember that we are directed to bring peace and harmony to this world where we can... that said, this also means that we are to cease from bringing troubles and woes to our fellow man. To share love and goodwill with one another as much as we are able.

And when disaster comes, to be in prayer and in assistance as we can for those in need, destitute, harmed and suffering. To do all that we can to bring help and rescue, aide and comfort, peace and longsuffering to all men - not only to those we consider friend - but to all men, whether friend or foe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2. Here is an example of Jewish believers supposing God's judgment upon poor unfortunates who had been building a tower which fell in and killed many innocents.... Jesus' response was to caution such foolish religious sentiments as indicative of "God's judgment" and reminding those pronouncing such sentiment as standing in fearful judgment themselves requiring their repentance.

Luke 13

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

WDRB News

March 2nd tornadoes Kentucky, Southern Indiana

News Reports

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10561066-at-least-28-killed-in-indiana-kentucky-ohio-as-tornadoes-sweep-midwest-south

My response to John Piper’s Recent Statements about God and Tornadoes

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/my-response-to-john-pipers-recent-statements-about-god-and-tornadoes/

Dr. Roger Olson

March 8, 2012

My Response to John Piper’s Recent Statements about God and Tornadoes.

During the last week or two I have received numerous e-mails, some from journalists, asking my opinion about John Piper’s explanation of the recent rash of deadly tornadoes across the South (Southern Indiana, Kentucky, March 2&3, 2012) . Apparently, he has at least implied that God sent them as judgments on particular communities and reminders of their need to repent.

My first response is that this is nothing new. John has been saying things like this for a long time. This reminds me of Oral Roberts’ ORU (Oral Roberts University) a year or two before the media had a heyday with that claim. People who knew I taught at ORU asked me about it on a daily basis for weeks. All I could tell them was that this was nothing new. I had heard Oral say things like that (and even stranger things) long before the media discovered that one and made a circus out of it. I don’t know why that particular claim went viral, so to speak.

The same is true here. If I’m not mistaken, Piper has been saying things like this for a long time now. Why is everyone suddenly so worked up about it? Also, Piper is certainly not the first Calvinist to say such things. Are people really so unfamiliar with Calvinism that they don’t expect a Calvinist to say such things? Well, most Calvinists don’t say them so publicly. But many Calvinists have believed them and said them more quietly and discretely for a long time.

For example, R. C. Sproul has long said that there is no maverick molecule in the universe, that God controls every thought and twist and turn of every molecule in the universe.

John Calvin himself said it. If you doubt it, read Chapter XVI of Book I of Institutes of the Christian Religion. See especially part 2: “There is no such thing as fortune or chance.” Then see part 7: “God’s providence also regulates ‘natural’ occurrences.” There Calvin says “…no wind ever arises or increases except by God’s express command.” Then, in section 9: “The true causes of events are hidden to us,” Calvin offers an illustration of God’s special, meticulous providence that rules over everything. He asks his readers to imagine a merchant who enters a wood (forest) with a company of companions and unwisely wanders away from them and is slain by thieves. He concludes “His death was not only foreseen by God’s eye, but also determined by his decree.”

I could give similar examples from later Calvinists including Edwards, Boettner and Sproul. And I do give them in [my book], Against Calvinism. So when Piper says that God did not merely foresee or permit the terrorist attacks of 9/11 but designed and governed them and when he says that a tornado was not merely permitted by God but sent by God, he is simply saying what conservative Calvinists (not necessarily all Reformed people) have always said.

What may be new in Piper’s statements is his apparent certainty that these events are judgments of God. Most Calvinists have been content to say they are from God without drawing that conclusion. Perhaps it’s what they meant and perhaps they said it, but I haven’t found where they assigned a particular reason to specific catastrophes.

What I would like to know is how Piper can be so sure a tornado outbreak was not only foreordained by God but also that it was foreordained as judgment. Judgment on whom? Why? Why that particular region of the country? Of course, he’s not obligated to answer those questions, but he shouldn’t be surprised if people ask and expect some kind of answer.

It seems to me the better part of wisdom not to say immediately after a calamity that it was God’s judgment UNLESS you are prepared to explain why it was sent by God then and there. Even more, it would seem to me cruel to say it was God’s judgment, while people are still burying their children, AT ALL. AND it might have the unintended (?) consequence of inhibiting people from rendering aid to victims. After all, if God sent this as judgment….? It’s an inevitable question for some people.

But let’s take this further. If Piper (or anyone else) believes ALL calamities and catastrophes are sent by God (as Calvin apparently did), I would suggest he/they bite the bullet, so to speak, and go the rest of the way. It’s fairly easy to speak from a distance about God’s judgment on a whole region of the country far away from where you are. But wouldn’t an Old Testament prophet go to that region and stand in the middle of the destruction and proclaim it and call for repentance? That would take courage and it would demonstrate how seriously you take what you are saying.

But even more: I’d like to hear one of them (Calvinists or anyone who believes God foreordains and designs and renders certain everything that happens) say publicly that it was God who caused a predator to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. I seldom hear or read them saying so. And yet, it would seem that, too, must be included in God’s meticulous providence AS IT IS BELIEVED BY THEM.

I once heard then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop speak on “God Killed My Son.” He spoke for almost an hour on how the only comfort he received after his son’s tragic mountain climbing accident was that it was not really an accident. It was planned and rendered certain by God. God killed his son is what he said several times. Then he went into great detail about how his son’s death was sudden and painless. But what if it wasn’t? What if his son was instead tortured to death by a psychopath? It happens. Would that also be God? Because then it involves moral evil and hideous, innocent suffering.

I am not willing to rule out the possibility that God might send judgment on a city with a seemingly natural disaster. Who knows? (But I don’t believe God causes people to do evil as in the case of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) God is God. He may very well have reasons I can’t even fathom. And, of course, in the end, we are told God will intervene in history and defeat his enemies. I’m sure that won’t be pretty. However, EVEN IF GOD TOLD ME a natural disaster that caused untold suffering was his judgment I would not announce it publicly. Unless, of course, he told me to. Does Piper claim God has told him to proclaim these things? Or is he just speaking out of his theological convictions? I’m not sure about that.

Like most Christians, I suspect, when I hear about a natural disaster that kills people I tend to think it’s simply evidence of the world’s fallenness and the not-yetness of the new world God has in store for those us. In other words, it’s evidence of God’s absence caused by our forgetfulness of God rather than something planned and brought about by God. And I see it as evidence of the not-yetness of God’s plan to free creation from its bondage to decay (Romans 8).

I think it is the height of insensitivity to target calamities in which husbands, fathers, mothers, children have died horrible deaths and pronounce them “God’s judgment.” I would urge Christians not to do that unless they are certain God has called them to do it and given them the reason that particular disaster was his judgment. And I would urge people like Piper not to do it unless they are also willing publicly to proclaim that a kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered child was also targeted by God and why. It’s all part of a package deal in his, and their, case (i.e., Calvinists). So, my challenge to them is to bite the bullet and not just proclaim natural disasters or even man-made disasters “God’s judgment” but also to explain that they believe every child murdered, tortured, raped is also suffering because God willed it.

Further thoughts about catastrophes

and God’s judgment

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/03/further-thoughts-about-catastrophes-and-gods-judgment/

Dr. Roger Olson

March 10, 2012

This is a response to comments made in response to my previous post about John Piper’s blog entry about the recent tornado outbreak in the eastern U.S.

True, in this particular blog entry Piper does not explicitly say the tornadoes were God’s judgment on those towns. He does say, however, that the tornadoes were “God’s fingers.” In light of everything else he has written and said about calamaties and catastrophes, it is clear to me that he believes not only this tornado outbreak but every natural and man-made disaster (including the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.) are from God and not only in some attenuated sense in which most Christians would say they are from God by concurrence. (That is, by God’s permission and granted ability as the creator and governor of nature.)

So, IF Piper does not think this tornado outbreak was God’s judgment on those specific towns, what does he think about God’s purpose in sending it? He seems to believe it, like other natural and man-made disasters, is a wake up call to people to repent. But IF he only means that we all should sense our finitude and repent, that’s a Christian truism. I don’t know any non-liberal Christian who would disagree with that. But he seems to mean more than that. Not all non-liberal Christians believe that all natural or man-made catastrophes are directly from God.

What I wonder is this: IF Piper was NOT saying that this tornado outbreak was God’s judgment, what does he think about it (beyond it was from God)? The natural question, all inquiring minds want to know, is WHY would God drag his fingers across that particular landscape at that particular time? Simply saying something like “to bring people to repentance” doesn’t suffice. Of course, Piper’s no more obligated than Jesus was to explain further. (Although we don’t know that Jesus didn’t explain his cryptic comments about those who died when the tower of Siloam fell further.) However, I think he should not be surprised if people assume he thinks God’s fingers had a specific purpose for that particular tornado outbreak at that particular time and that it is God’s judgment. Think of the possible alternatives.

Option 1: God chose those particular, specific towns to destroy with those tornadoes (his “fingers”) because of something about them.

Option 2: God chose those particular, specific towns to destroy with those tornadoes (his “fingers”) randomly. (Like the TV reporter who blindly throws a dart at a map of the U.S. and then goes to the location to find a story.)

Option 3: ?

I can’t think of a third option that doesn’t fit within one of the first two. Can you? Assuming the tornadoes were “God’s fingers,” either God dragged his fingers across that particular landscape at that particular time because of something about that particular landscape or arbitrarily.

If God chose that landscape (towns, farms, etc.) randomly, then he is arbitrary. I’m certain Piper doesn’t believe that. I’m sure he believes God always has a reason for what he does. At least I hope so.

But if God was not choosing arbitrarily, randomly, then he had to have a reason for destroying the towns and farms (etc.) of that particular landscape at that time. What could it be?

How many options are there for thinking of God’s reason for destroying a town?

Now, again, I agree that a person can simply say “God did it” and not offer any further explanation, but I think such a person ought not to be surprised if people press for a better answer than that. And surely Piper himself has some idea why God chose that particular landscape to destroy at that particular time in that specific way.

Option 1: God chose them (the people living there) simply to make an example of what he can do anytime, anywhere, unexpectedly to anyone without any particular reason. Meaning, he chose it because it isn’t where people would expect God to do it so that people in such areas won’t become spiritually complacent.

Option 2: God chose them because there was something about them or some of them that made him angry or at least wanting to cause them great harm and even death. Most people would call that “God’s judgment.”

Option 3: ?

Again, I can’t think of a third option that doesn’t fit within one of the first two. Can you?

Now, remember, all of the above assumes, with Piper and all consistent Calvinists and other divine determinists, that every catastrophe is specifically from God whether directly or indirectly. That is, they are all sent by God in some manner and are not simply what happens in a fallen world.

Appeals to the book of Job to explain catastrophes raise more questions than they answer. For example, if one correlates what Piper said about this particular natural catastrophe and what he surely believes about all of them (“fingers of God”) with Job, then Satan becomes God’s fingers.

So, at the end of the day, anyone who says a natural or man-made disaster, calamity, catastrophe is from God must be thinking either that it was an arbitrary act of God, done for no particular reason other than perhaps to create fear (which still doesn’t explain why that particular place), or that it was in some sense God’s judgment.

Rule those out and you are back to God simply permitting natural and man-made disaster to happen because this is a fallen world and the kingdom of God is not yet. Rule out that and God’s arbitrariness and you’re left with God’s judgment. I would prefer to say it was God’s judgment than to say God is like the TV reporter who blindly throws a dart at a map.

Now, again, let’s step back and take a bird’s eye view of Piper’s and other Calvinists’ divine determinism. If everything without exception is from God, planned, designed and governed by God for a reason such that God is not merely permitting it but actively willing it and rendering it certain (and I demonstrate in Against Calvinism this is the traditional Calvinist view and I am confident it is Piper’s as well), then the holocaust and the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of an innocent two year old child are also “from God” in that sense.

IF that’s true, then, I ask, why ever be upset about such things? Why react emotionally or with righteous indignation as if something happened that shouldn’t have happened? After all, God’s ultimate purpose in everything is his glory [(according to Calvinism)]. (I demonstrate that that also is the traditional Calvinist view and I have asked many Calvinists if it’s their view and the answer has always been yes.) So, one who believes that has to say that the holocaust and the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of a two year old child glorify God. Then why object to them? Why oppose them? Why blame the perpetrators? Why try to prevent them?

This is the supreme Calvinist conundrum. Yes, every theology has its soft spots where appeal to mystery is necessary. But this is more than a “soft spot.” This is a true conundrum because Scripture directs us to be righteously indignant about certain things and to oppose them and to blame the perpetrators as if they are responsible for them. And we cannot help it. We all operate daily AS IF horrible events such as these were NOT from God for his glory even if we say, when pushed, they are.

In other words, while divine determinism (including strict Calvinism) may be able to appeal to a few verses in the Bible and while it may be touted in an ivory tower or from a nice, clean pulpit in a nice, clean sanctuary or over the internet, it is literally impossible to live consistently.



For Further Discussion

Tsunamis: Or, Why I'm No Longer A Calvinist -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/03/tsunamis-or-why-im-no-longer-calvinist.html

* * * * * * * * * *

Below are a couple of articles that project general Christian thought upon the topic of natural disasters and catastrophes. Rather than comment one-by-one on each instance, verse or statement, I would give these as a general basis of thought to which this website may contain further discussion as I have had time to discover or speak to each area. For the time being it is left to the reader to reflect upon the appropriateness of the thoughts illustrated below. For the most part I will concur with the sentiments so given but may differ by degree or entirely in those cases giving too much credit to the devil.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * * *

Natural Disasters in the Bible

Mark 13:7-9 ESV

And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains. “But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.

Isaiah 45:7 ESV

I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Isaiah 54:11 ESV

“O afflicted one, storm-tossed and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and lay your foundations with sapphires.

John 1:1-51 ESV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it....

John 3:16 ESV

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Genesis 6:6-7 ESV

And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Job 1:8-22 ESV

And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord....

1 Samuel 12:18 ESV

So Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel.

Revelation 2:1-12 ESV

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent....

Luke 1:1-80 ESV

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth....

Exodus 9:13-35 ESV

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Rise up early in the morning and present yourself before Pharaoh and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, “Let my people go, that they may serve me. For this time I will send all my plagues on you yourself, and on your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is none like me in all the earth. For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth. But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go....

Psalm 1:1-20:9 ESV

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous....

* * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Calvinism:
 

Does God Send Killer Hurricanes and Earthquakes?

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/does-god-send-killer-hurricanes

Why is the world in such a mess if God is in control? How could a God of love let masses of people die from killer hurricanes, catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks and disease? Why such bizarre carnage and chaos? Is the world coming to an end? Is God pouring out his wrath upon sinners? Why is it so often the bloated bodies of the poor, the elderly, and the children that are strewn among the rubble? These are the questions most people are begging to be answered.

Although God is often viewed as the One causing these terrible catastrophes, He is not responsible. God is not in the business of causing natural disasters and calamities. On the contrary, He is the giver of life. The Bible says, “ . . . for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but My salvation shall be for ever, and My righteousness shall not be abolished" (Isaiah 51:6). This text declares a dramatic difference between natural calamities and the work of God.

When God came to earth in the form of man He did nothing to hurt people, only to help them. Jesus said, "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56). He said, "Many good works have I shown you from My Father. For which of those works do ye stone Me?" (John 10:32). He says, ". . . it is not the will of your Father who is in Heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14).

It was God's design that His sons and daughters should forever smell the fragrance of exotic flowers, not rotting corpses. They should always enjoy the delicacies of tropical fruit and tasty dishes, not face hunger and starvation. He is the one who provides the fresh air from a mountaintop and cool sparkling water, not ugly pollution.

Why does nature seem to be becoming more and more destructive?

When Adam and Eve sinned it brought a natural consequence to the earth. "And unto Adam He [God] said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, `Thou shalt not eat of it,' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (Gen. 3:17). The descendants of Adam became so violent and corrupt that God allowed the world to be destroyed by a global flood (Genesis 6:5,11). The fountains of the deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11). There was great volcanic activity. The layers of the earth's crust were formed and nature was turned out of its God-given course. The stage was set for earthquakes, and killer storms. As the consequences of sin have progressed from that day to this, the natural world is nearing its end; the results of our first parents’ disobedience is becoming more and more evident as this world is wearing out. But God is still in the business of rescuing, helping, and healing. He holds out salvation and everlasting life to all who will receive Him.

If God does not bring calamities, who does?

Many people do not believe in a real devil, but the Bible is very clear on this point. Satan exists, and he is the destroyer. Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18, NKJV). Satan was once a holy angel at the right hand of God in heaven (Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28). He rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. “So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:9). Jesus said, "the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and the father of lies" (John 8:44). The Bible says that the devil attempts to deceive the whole world, and one way he tries to do this is by spreading the idea that there is no real devil. According to recent surveys, fewer and fewer people in America believe the devil really exists. The existence of a real devil is the only thing that can explain the existence of evil in a world that is predominantly good. “Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time” (Revelation 12:12, NKJV).

The Old Testament story of Job is a classic example of how God sometimes allows Satan to bring calamities. Job lost his cattle, his crops, and his family to vicious attacks, a killer hurricane, and firestorm. Job’s friends said these disasters came from God, but a careful reading of the book of Job reveals that it was Satan who brought these evils (see Job 1:1-12).

Why does God give Satan permission to destroy?

Satan deceived Eve, and through her he led Adam to sin. Because he had tempted the first humans—the head of the human race—into sin, Satan claimed that they had chosen him as the god of this world (see 2 Corinthians 4:4). He claims to be the rightful ruler of this world (see Matthew 4:8, 9). Through the ages, Satan has been fighting against God, trying to establish his claim to this world. He points to all those who have chosen to follow him as proof that he is the rightful ruler of this world. The Bible says, “Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slave whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16, NKJV). God has given His Ten Commandments as eternal rules for living, for determining what is right and wrong. He offers to write these laws in our hearts and minds. Many, however, choose to neglect His offer of a new life and choose to live outside God’s will. By so doing they support Satan’s claim against God. The Bible says that this situation will only get worse as time goes on. In the last days, “evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13, NKJV). As men and women remove themselves from God’s protection, they are subject to Satan’s destroying hatred.

God is love, and His character is perfectly unselfish, and just. Therefore, His own character prevents Him from doing anything that is unfair. He will not interfere with man’s free choice. Those who choose to follow Satan are free to do so. And God will allow Satan to demonstrate to the universe what the consequences of sin really are. In the calamities and disasters that befall the earth and destroy lives, we can see what sin is like, what life is like when Satan has his own way.

A rebellious teen may choose to leave home because he finds the rules too restricting. He may find a cruel world waiting to teach him the harsh realities of life. But the parents do not stop loving their rebellious son or daughter. They do not want them to be hurt, but they can do little to prevent it if the child is determined to go their own way. The parents hope and pray that the difficult realities of the world will bring their child home, much like the prodigal son in the Bible (see Luke 15:18). Speaking of those who choose to follow Satan, God says, “I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’ ” (Deuteronomy 31:17, NKJV). This is the message that we may learn from calamities and natural disasters. They can lead us to seek the Lord.

Why did God create the devil?

Actually, God did not create the devil. God created a beautiful, perfect angel named Lucifer (see Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28). Lucifer, in turn, made a devil out of himself. Lucifer’s pride caused him to rebel against God and to challenge Him for supremacy. He was thrown out of heaven and came to this earth where he tempted a perfect man and woman to sin. When they did so, they opened a floodgate of evil upon the world.

Why does God not kill the devil?

Some have wondered, “Why doesn’t God stop the devil? If it is not God’s will for people to die, why does He allow it to happen? Have things gone beyond God’s control?”

God could have destroyed Satan when he rebelled in heaven. God could have destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned—and started over. However, if He had done this, He would have been ruling from the standpoint of force, rather than love. The angels in heaven and human beings on Earth would serve Him from fear, not love. In order for love to flourish, it must operate on the principle of freedom of choice. Without freedom to choose, there would be no such thing as real love. We would simply be robots. God chose to preserve our freedom of choice and to rule by love. He chose to allow Satan and sin to run their course. He would allow us and the universe to see where sin would lead. He would let us see the reasons for making the choice to serve Him in love.

Why is it so often the poor, the elderly, and the children who suffer the most?

Why is it so often the poor, the elderly, and the children who suffer the most?

Is it fair for the innocent to suffer? No, it’s not fair. The point is that sin is not fair. God is fair, but sin is not fair. That is the nature of sin. When Adam sinned he gave himself and the human race into the hands of a destroyer. God allows Satan to become active in working through nature to bring about destruction as a consequence of man’s choice. God does not want it to happen. He did not want Adam and Eve to sin. But he allowed it, because that was the only way human beings could have the gift of freedom of choice.

A son or daughter may rebel against good parents and go out into the world and live a life of sin. They may have children. They may abuse the children. This is not fair, yet it happens when people make wrong choices. A loving parent or grandparent would want to rescue abused children. And so does God. This is why Jesus came to this earth.

Does God send calamities to kill sinners?

Some mistakenly think that God always sends calamities to punish sinners. This is not true. Jesus commented on acts of violence and natural calamities that happened in His day. The Bible says, "There were present at that season some who told Him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, "Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay; but unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all other men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, nay; but unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-5).

These things happened because in a world of sin there are calamities and atrocities that take place that would not happen in a perfect world. It does not mean that everyone who dies in such calamities is a sinner nor does it mean that God causes the calamity. It is often the innocent that suffer the consequences of living in this world of sin.

But didn't God destroy wicked cities like Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes. In past times, God has brought judgment upon the wicked as He did in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, NKJV). The destruction of these wicked cities was an example of the judgments that will come upon the whole world at the end of time as a result of sin. In His mercy, God allowed His judgment to fall on Sodom and Gomorrah so that many others might be warned. This does not necessarily mean that when an earthquake or a tornado or a tsunami strikes that God is pouring out His wrath in judgment upon cities like New York, New Orleans, or Port-au-Prince. We live in a sinful world and disasters can strike at any time.

Some have suggested that natural disasters are perhaps the beginning of God’s final judgments upon the wicked. One should not rule out the possibility that sinners are receiving the consequences of their rebellion against God, but we cannot correlate particular disasters with divine retribution against specific sinners or sins. These horrible events may well be simply the result of living in a world that has fallen so far from God’s ideal. Even if these disasters might be considered early warnings of God’s final judgment, none should conclude that all those who die in them are eternally lost. Jesus said that in the final judgment it would be more tolerable for some of those destroyed in Sodom, than for those who reject His invitation to salvation in cities that were not destroyed (see Luke 10:12-15).

What is the wrath of God that will be poured out in the last days?

The Bible explains God’s wrath as allowing human beings to choose to separate themselves from God if they so desire. When the Bible speaks about God’s wrath, it does not mean that God is vindictive or retaliatory. God is love, and He wants everyone to be saved. But He allows men and women to go their own way if they insist on doing so. The Bible says that destruction comes to the wicked, because “My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13, NKJV).

This tells us that God’s wrath is the inevitable consequence that comes to those who choose to separate themselves from Him. God does not want to give up any of His children to destruction. He says, “How shall I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you as Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; my sympathy is stirred” (Hosea 11:8, NKJV). The Lord longs with all His heart to see everyone eternally saved. “ ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11, NKJV).

Is God on vacation? Why does it seem like He stands by and lets all this happen?

Where is God when all this happens? Do not good people pray for safety? The Bible says, "Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?" (Jeremiah 23:23). The Son of God did not remain aloof from suffering. He suffers with the innocent. He was the classic example of the suffering of the innocent. As a matter of fact, from the beginning, He has done only good. He accepted the consequence of our rebellion against Himself. He did not stay away. He came down to this world and suffered in our suffering. God himself experienced the most horrible pain imaginable upon the cross. He endured the pain of the hostility of a sinful human race. He took upon Himself the consequence of our sins.

When disasters happen, the real point is that they could happen to any of us at any time. It is only because God is love that one heartbeat follows another. He gives life and love to all. Every day, billions of people wake up to fresh air, warm sunshine, delicious food, and comfortable homes—because God is love, and He showers His blessings on the earth. We have no individual claim on life, however, as though we had created ourselves. We must acknowledge that we live in a world that is subject to death from a variety of sources. We need to remember, as Jesus said, that unless we repent we shall all likewise perish. Calamities serve to remind us of the fact that apart from the salvation that Jesus offers, there is no hope for the human race. We can expect more and more destruction as we come closer to the time of His return to earth. “Now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11, NKJV).

No More Pain

The calamities and catastrophes that engulf our world serve as reminders that this world of sin, pain, hate, fear, and tragedy will not last forever. Jesus has promised that He will return to Earth to save us from our world that is falling to pieces. God has promised to make everything new again and that sin will never rise up again (see Nahum 1:9). God will live with His people, and there will be an end to death, crying, and pain. “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:3, 4, NIV).

* * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Evangelicalism:

Natural Disasters: A Biblical Perspective

http://www.ucg.org/news-and-prophecy/natural-disasters-biblical-perspective/

by Tom Robinson, The Good News

Following are points we should keep in mind concerning the biblical perspective on tragedies, regardless of their scale or circumstances:

1. God has said in Bible prophecy that natural disasters would grow in frequency and intensity as the end of the age approaches—to shake people out of their complacency and lead them to seek Him (Matthew 24:7; Luke 21:25-26; Revelation 6:12And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
See All...; 11:13; 16:18).

2. In His design for the world, God allows many events to run their course according to "time and chance" (Ecclesiastes 9:11), so that many tragedies are, for those affected, accidental and unforeseeable.

3. Those who die in accidents or natural disasters are not necessarily greater sinners than those who survive (Luke 13:1-5). (This was mentioned earlier in my opening comments)

4. Personal tragedies or calamities are not necessarily the result of one's sins (John 9:2-3).

5. Natural disasters or accidents should humble us, helping us to see our dependence on God to sustain and deliver us (Revelation 16:8-11).

6. Natural disasters have sometimes been the direct judgment of God on a rebellious humanity (Genesis 6:6-7, 11-13, 17; 18:20; 19:24-25).

7. Some natural disasters are made worse by man's poor judgments (Proverbs 14:12) and age-long rejection of God and His laws, resulting in worsening environmental and climatic conditions.

8. God is a truly loving God who is working out a great plan for all humanity (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 15:22-24).

9. Converted Christians who die in natural disasters will be resurrected to immortality in the first resurrection at the return of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 20:4-6).

10. The sufferings experienced now in "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4)—this era of man's self-rule under the influence of Satan the devil—are writing a lesson of experience about what it means to live in a world cut off from God and His ways.

11. We don't know all the reasons God brings or permits specific calamities or why particular people are made to suffer by them, but we should trust that in God's omniscience and ultimate wisdom He knows how to work out what is best for everyone in the end (Romans 8:28; 1 Timothy 2:4).

12. Jesus Christ will eventually return to usher in the rule of the Kingdom of God (Revelation 11:15; Daniel 7:14), under which natural disasters will no longer plague mankind.

13. When all humanity is at last glorified, there will be no more pain, suffering or sorrow (Revelation 21:4).

14. All the sufferings of this brief present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory we will ultimately experience for all eternity to come (Romans 8:18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
See All...; 2 Corinthians 4:17-18).

Learning to Swim with the Sharks

Like Mark Healey, we as Jesus followers seem to face a lot of "sharks" in our Christian walk in life as we learn to face our fears and allow God to use us where He would have us go into "waters teeming with ferocities." But when we learn to walk by faith and not by sight we find very quickly that these waters are "home" to our earth-bound travels. And that growing in faith must begin first as a "daily, new, untried" experience that can quickly envelop us beyond all those barriers in life that once seemed to overwhelm us and made us quit from fear and uncertainty. Soon, though, we will find ourselves very comfortable in living the Christian faith as Jesus showed us how to live it. For it requires an open heart. It requires courage. It requires wisdom. Prayer, resources, study, and knowledge. And most of all it requires belief that God can use us when we make ourselves available, prepared, and open to his leading. May the Spirit of God grant to you all His divine resources and more this very day of your faith walk with our eternal, almighty God.

R.E. Slater

March 10, 2012

"For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 12.10, ESV)

"Sharky" with Monster Energy's Mark Healey

Apologies To The Parents I Judged Four Years Ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kara-gebhart-uhl/mom-judgments_b_1319775.html

Kara Gebhart Uhl
Blogger, pleiadesbee.com
March 6, 2012

To the Parents I Knew Four Years Ago: I'm Sorry

I have come to realize many things since having three children. For example, I now know that I can read "We're Going on a Bear Hunt" seven times in a row without going insane. No matter what people say, throw-up is throw-up and I don't care if it is my daughter who is throwing up but her throw-up makes me want to throw up. I am a really fast diaper changer. And it's true: love does not split, but grows with additional children.

But perhaps one of the biggest realizations I've made as a relatively new parent (my daughter turns 4 in March, my twin boys turn 2 in May) is how incredibly judgmental I was pre-children.

You, the woman at Kohl's who pushed a cart with your screaming toddler draped on the rack underneath it, ignoring her as she scraped her feet on the floor because she couldn't have the toy she wanted: I judged you.

Girlfriend with children who had Nick Jr. on the entire time I visited: I judged you.

Parent at the park who did not pack an organic, free-range, all-food-groups-represented, no-dessert lunch complete with sandwiches cut in cute little shapes, who instead fed your children chicken nuggets, cold French fries and (gasp) chocolate milk? I judged you.

Not out loud, of course. But internally, I was smug. I thought things like I would never have children who would behave in such a manner in public. Or, Doesn't she know the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV until the age of 2? Or, How can he possibly be feeding his children that crap? Has he not read any of Michael Pollan's books?

And what's worse, now that I'm a parent, I realize internal smugness isn't so internal. As a parent, I know when I'm being judged. I can sense it, even when nothing is being said out loud. It's in the look. The double-take. The whisper to the companion they're with.

It's hard not to care about what other people think. But still, that quiet judgment can sting, especially on days when my nerves are shot and my children are in the worst moods -- a combination that often leads to a situation judge-worthy by many.

But now, as a parent, I do things judge-worthy even when my children are being good. Last Thursday is a perfect example: My son had a physical therapy appointment a good half-hour drive away. On the way back from the appointment both of my boys fell asleep -- we had eaten lunch out, complete with Oreo cookies and Popsicles for dessert, (judge!) after the appointment and it was close to their naptime. Of course they fell asleep. My daughter, however, who has long given up naps (!), was still awake.

When I pulled into my driveway, I had two choices: Wake up the boys and deal with their short tempers having only slept for 25 minutes, or sit in the van with them while they slept, bribing my daughter with apps on my iPod and promises of candy once inside if she would just sit and be quiet for a half hour longer (!). I chose option B without blinking. And I left the car running (!) the entire time.

When the boys woke up, they were furious because of the cricks in their necks -- thanks to the car seats we bought without good head support to the side simply because they were cheaper (!). My daughter was at her wit's end with being trapped in a car seat in a car that wasn't going anywhere just because I wanted some peace and quiet (!). I took everyone inside, plopped them on the couch, got out some gummy candy and turned on "Little Bear." Two episodes. (!!)

Pre-children: I was going to cloth diaper.

Post-children: I did with my daughter, sort of, but not with my twins.

Pre-children: No TV until age of 2 and then only 30 minutes a day.

Post-children: Ha.

Pre-children: Only organic, healthy, homemade food.

Post-children: My kids love Wendy's.

Pre-children: Public tantrums are unacceptable.

Post-children: Removal of the child is only sometimes doable; predicting when a tantrum is going to strike is often impossible.

Pre-children: Complaints about childrearing and its hardships annoyed me (this was your choice, no?) and saddened me (parenthood is supposed to be a wonderful thing!).

Post-children: Parenthood isn't wonderful 100 percent of the time.

My day-to-day routine isn't what I envisioned it would be four years ago. Some of the things I imagine I'm judged on now are minor, others, a little more major. But mostly they are simple faults and I now know that they don't make me a bad parent. Sometimes I leave dirty diapers on the changing table. My children's socks don't always match. I forget to brush my daughter's hair. I use TV as a way to take a breather. I utilize the fast-food drive-thru. I bribe. I'm sometimes too easy. I'm sometimes too hard. I sometimes make the wrong decision, give the wrong punishment, ask too much, ask too little. But within all these minor and major faults is a singular truth: Most days, I'm doing the best I can. And I honestly believe that's a truth that can be applied to most parents: Most days, we're all doing the best we can.

Because here's another realization I've made as a parent: Everyone's situation is different. There is a story behind every action and inaction. Every parent has his or her own style. Every child has his or her own temperament. What might be a stellar day for my family has been a downright awful day for another -- perhaps the parent's job is in danger, their parent is sick or they just had an argument with their spouse. Perhaps the child is failing math or being bullied at school, or the toddler hasn't slept for two weeks. This can explain the short-temper in the grocery store or the harsher-than-necessary punishment, or the lack of care when it comes to sweets or TV or a late bedtime. We don't know, can't know, someone's entire story.

That said, I believe there are absolutes in parenting so yes, sometimes, I still judge. (And I realize that the irony of this piece is that in writing about not judging others, I'm now judging those who judge.) I know that, for some, it's impossible to provide their children with life's basic necessities: food, clothing and shelter. But I believe we, as parents, must try. I believe we must do what we can to protect our children from harm. I believe we should always love our children, even when, especially when, we don't like their actions, we disagree with their decisions or we're just having a difficult day with them.

But everything else is minor. Everything else doesn't matter. There are children who are abused, who go to bed hungry, who have never known love, and four years ago I was judging the toddler who watched an hour of "Sesame Street"?

I feel bad about my pre-children smugness. I feel bad about the sting I may have, unknowingly, made another feel. I feel bad -- and laugh out loud at the thought -- that I, at one time, before I had children, believed I knew better. Parenting is difficult enough -- there's no reason we should judge one another, not for the things that don't matter, anyway, and not for the things we see a snippet of rather than knowing the full story.

So to the parents I knew four years ago, I'm sorry. I know better now.

Emergent Christianity is like a Bowl of Chili !

Recently I read an article about the different kinds of chili that can be found across America. I'm not a cook myself, nor do I care much for anything made with beans, so I found this quite interesting because I had never thought about that before, as much as from my ignorance as from never sampling such a wide variety of culinary creations in my vagabond travels by taste and by choice.

But after reading through this humorous tract it made me think of the many types of churches, faith congregations, and individual worship styles and beliefs existing around the world when it comes to all things Christian. And it is exactly this style of effort and expression that causes me to think of a broader, wider, deeper vein of faith not found in many of its more earnest forms today that seem separatistic, individualistic and dogmatically driven.

However, it is exactly this style of faith that Emergent Christians should look forward to as a participatory body with one another. An Emergent faith that revels in its plurality, its flavors, its expressions, colours, tastes and attitudes. That refuses to be locked down by any one ideology or cultural portrayal. That is wide, generous, vital, and beautifully expressed around the world as one multi-ethnic, multicultural, pluralistic body of Christ. And like chili, though it is made with differing ingredients, methods, and a variety of culinary dashes of expression, is still in its essence, chili.

This is the promise of Emergent Christianity... and for that matter, any Christian faith that would lift Jesus up as Lord and Savior. A faith that is adaptive to society, progressive with the times, assimilating to the responses of humanity, regardless of race, colour, nationality, class, gender, rich, poor, sideways or anyways. One that lifts Jesus up before all else so that every idol, every ambition, every idea, trade, pride or possession bows its knees to the Messiah King of all Creation. At its heart this faith is Christological, Christ centered, Messianic, and Spirit bourne.

Moreover, the Christian faith is an authenticising faith, one that cuts a path deep and wide as a leveler of society among all the religions and dominions of mankind. Where those who bear the cross of Christ flavour their faith with love, tolerance, respect, justice, righteousness, care and mercy. One that is selfless, sacrificial, and serving. A faith that may be hard to define, hard to grasp, even hard to follow because of its many costs, but one that in the end is founded upon Jesus above all else whatever its differences of expression. This is the strength of God's new covenant with a redeemed humanity. A covenant that reaches out to all men everywhere with life eternal that begins here-and-now in our present experience. Our present lives. Our present earth-bound societies and communities, friends and family. It is an experiential faith bearing spiritual realities too sublime to grasp when Spirit-born by blood and by water. One that is separated from an earthly faith filled with fear, threat, uncertainty or disambiguations.

Though hard to define the Christian faith is nonetheless, in its essence, still the faith of its Savior. Let us then praise God for His wisdom and grace! For the beauteous fellowships of His many peoples and faiths! And perhaps, when we think about it, we can see God's wisdom when He describes Jesus' life, and the faith of His followers, to that of necessary foods and drink - as yeast, salt, wheat, bread, wine, water, various fruits, drinks, seasonings, spices, herbs, honey, olive oil and on and on. A faith that can be as bitter as it is sweet. Filling as it is beggarly. One that is nurturing to the needy. Bounteous to the believing. Considered as nothing to those lost in darkness and pride. A sumptuous feast to those who would dine. But a contemptible table that is despised in the land of sin and the wilderness of the devil. Or as a table of plenty for those lost in wildernesses of disillusionment and destruction. Perhaps a sustaining flask of oil-and-meal to those found at life's end like the hated prophet Elijah fleeing before the wicked hands of an idolatrous king and queen but helped by a merciful widow caring for a starving son. Or like manna from heaven that waits upon expectant hands.

We have a wonderful God who is a living Savior that will provide for the children of His household. "Come and eat," says the Groom. All has been set and is ready for service. "Come," says the Bride, "Come dine with me at my bridal table." The table has been set and awaits your attendance. "Come," says the Spirit. "Sup of the fruit of the vine and find life everlasting." It is the table of Gethsemane on the eve of the Savior's hardships and cross. "Come," says the Savior, "I am thy bread and thy wine." Let us bow our heads and offer thanksgiving together at this moment of sacrifice and redemption.

Come then, and worship the Lord God Almighty, all ye who are weary and laden with sin. Come to the table of the Lord our Savior and King of Kings. The Alpha and the Omega. The Lion and the Lamb. Our High Priest and holy offering. He who serves as the very temple vessels themselves before the Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire in the Holy of Holies. He who is God's smoke by day and heat by night. Who gives grace to beggars by the pools of healing. And mercy to the lame and blind upon God's right hand. He who is, and was, and is to come. The trumpet of the seven seals of God on that last day immemorial. The coming One who walks among the seven churches of God. Who lives both now and forevermore. Come and eat as thy very fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of life. He who is the bread of God and Manna upon the high altar of holy fire. Come.

R.E. Slater

March 1, 2012

MOTHER LODE: If you give an alien a bowl of chili...

http://www.mlive.com/advancenewspapers/opinion/index.ssf/2012/02/mother_lode_if_you_give_an_ali.html

Published: Friday, February 24, 2012, 12:05 PM Updated: Friday, February 24, 2012, 12:08 PM

By Cathy Runyon | Advance NewspapersAdvance Newspapers

Now and then I come upon some aspect of American culture that is puzzling to me, so puzzling that I wonder how anyone from another culture could possibly make sense of it. It happened just the other day when I was talking with some friends about recipes for chili.

Imagine a friendly alien from outer space landing in your driveway and knocking on the door requesting lunch.

“Sure, come on in,” you say. “I’m making chili.”

“Ah!” says the alien, anticipating the collection of some new data about this amazing planet that is the current topic of study. “Please explain. What is chili?”

And you say, “Chili is the favorite meal of Americans in January and February. There are contests to see who can make the best chili. It starts with ground beef and lots of onions and green pepper. Add canned whole tomatoes and smash them with a metal spoon. Mix in kidney beans, salt and pepper, and as much chili powder as you like.”

You serve up a big bowl of home-style chili to the alien, along with a slice of fresh cornbread or possibly saltine crackers. The alien thanks you, then heads back out to the exploration unit (the mother ship is hovering far above) and flies off to Texas to take a few more notes.

Thanks to the warm reception it received earlier, the alien knocks confidently on another door. The owner arrives holding a shotgun and restraining a large barking dog, but the alien doesn’t mind. The customs of other native groups intrigue him.

“Do you by chance have any chili?” it asks.

“Durned if I didn’t jist take a kettle off the range,” says the homeowner, chaining the snarling dog to the leg of the sofa and returning the gun to its pegs above the door. “Sit yerself down.”

But the alien does not recognize the food before him. It is chunks of meat in a smooth sauce, with no beans or tomatoes, with tortillas on the side. Its first taste makes it wonder if humans’ mouths are lined with polyethylene, but the alien is not one to complain.

“Thank you,” it gasps, and quickly flies off to California for more observation. At an outdoor café it orders chili, and is served a creamy white soup containing bits of chicken and white beans. Perhaps the server, wearing rollerblades and bobbing his head to music coming through earphones, did not understand the request. The alien leaves a handful of diamonds on the table in payment and quietly leaves.

More research does not resolve his confusion. Chili, it seems, contains meat or no meat, red or black or white beans or no beans, tomatoes or no tomatoes, sweet potatoes or winter squash in chunks or pureed.

There is, however, one unifying characteristic – chilies, either whole or powdered. But chili powder might be a mix of many kinds of peppers, and the powder may contain cumin and/or oregano, garlic and other stuff.

Life is like a bowl of chili – all good, but hard to define.

  

FOODS OF THE BIBLE

Seasonings, Spices and Herbs

• Anise (Matthew 23:23 KJV)
• Coriander (Exodus 16:31; Numbers 11:7)
• Cinnamon (Exodus 30:23; Revelation 18:13)
• Cumin (Isaiah 28:25; Matthew 23:23)
• Dill (Matthew 23:23)
• Garlic (Numbers 11:5)
• Mint (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42)
• Mustard (Matthew 13:31)
• Rue (Luke 11:42)
• Salt (Ezra 6:9; Job 6:6)

Fruits and Nuts

• Apples (Song of Solomon 2:5)
• Almonds (Genesis 43:11; Numbers 17:8)
• Dates (2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chronicles 16:3)
• Figs (Nehemiah 13:15; Jeremiah 24:1-3)
• Grapes (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 23:24)
• Melons (Numbers 11:5; Isaiah 1:8)
• Olives (Isaiah 17:6; Micah 6:15)
• Pistachio Nuts (Genesis 43:11)
• Pomegranates (Numbers 20:5; Deuteronomy 8:8)
• Raisins (Numbers 6:3; 2 Samuel 6:19)
• Sycamore Fruit (Psalm 78:47; Amos 7:14)

Vegetables and Legumes

• Beans (2 Samuel 17:28; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Cucumbers (Numbers 11:5)
• Gourds (2 Kings 4:39)
• Leeks (Numbers 11:5)
• Lentils (Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 17:28; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Onions (Numbers 11:5)

Grains

• Barley (Deuteronomy 8:8; Ezekiel 4:9)
• Bread (Genesis 25:34; 2 Samuel 6:19; 16:1; Mark 8:14)
• Corn (Matthew 12:1; KJV - refers to "grain" such as wheat or barley)
• Flour (2 Samuel 17:28; 1 Kings 17:12)
• Millet (Ezekiel 4:9)
• Spelt (Ezekiel 4:9)
• Unleavened Bread (Genesis 19:3; Exodus 12:20)
• Wheat (Ezra 6:9; Deuteronomy 8:8)

Fish

• Matthew 15:36
• John 21:11-13

Fowl

• Partridge (1 Samuel 26:20; Jeremiah 17:11)
• Pigeon (Genesis 15:9; Leviticus 12:8)
• Quail (Psalm 105:40)
• Dove (Leviticus 12:8)

Animal Meats

• Calf (Proverbs 15:17; Luke 15:23)
• Goat (Genesis 27:9)
• Lamb (2 Samuel 12:4)
• Oxen (1 Kings 19:21)
• Sheep (Deuteronomy 14:4)
• Venison (Genesis 27:7 KJV)

Dairy

• Butter (Proverbs 30:33)
• Cheese (2 Samuel 17:29; Job 10:10)
• Curds (Isaiah 7:15)
• Milk (Exodus 33:3; Job 10:10; Judges 5:25)

Miscellaneous

• Eggs (Job 6:6; Luke 11:12)
• Grape Juice (Numbers 6:3)
• Honey (Exodus 33:3; Deuteronomy 8:8; Judges 14:8-9)
• Locust (Mark 1:6)
• Olive Oil (Ezra 6:9; Deuteronomy 8:8)
• Vinegar (Ruth 2:14; John 19:29)
• Wine (Ezra 6:9; John 2:1-10)

Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?

As I re-read Roger's article I began to think in terms of classic theism as versus process theism... the first asserts God's freedom of dependency from Creation, the latter asserts the necessity of God's dependency upon Creation. In the one view God is Creation's governor, in the second it's necessary partner. A third view, one that I have been calling "Relational Theology" reaffirms the classic position but then goes on to say that God has further declared Himself in partnership with His Creation, thereby admitting the various truisms of process theology. But rather from a volitional, and not a non-volitional argument, and thus avoiding the panentheistic corollary of involuntary bond(age) between God and His Creation which says each is necessary for the other's existence. The Classic view says this is not so, and the relational view goes on to further assert that God has voluntarily bound Himself to His creation not out of coercion, necessity or actuality, but from a free will or libertarian choice. In this way I find Dr. Olson's article on this subject a little more intriguing when thinking through the infinities of God's ontological estate (to place it dryly in its systematic vernacular), or better, the majesty of our infinite God who created by choice and by grace something apart from Himself in which He inhabits, partners with, and devotes Himself to, by choice and by grace.

R.E. Slater

March 1, 2012

Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?

http://rogereolson.com/

by Roger Olson

posted May 17, 2011

Many (not all) Calvinists argue that libertarian free will or, the power of contrary choice, is an incoherent concept. (E.g., Jonathan Edwards, Lorraine Boettner, R. C. Sproul, John Frame, John Piper, et al.) The reason is, they argue, that it amounts to belief in uncaused effects. They argue that people act according to their strongest motive.

What I’ve often wondered is whether Calvinists who argue this believe God has power of contrary choice. If God has power of contrary choice, then it cannot be a strictly incoherent concept. But to say God does NOT have power of contrary choice seems to make God a prisoner of creation; without power of contrary choice God’s decision to create would be necessary and that would make creation less than gracious and, in fact, a part of God’s own life – not a free act as if God could have done otherwise.

Wikipedia - J. Edwards

The way Jonathan Edwards attempted to get around this in The Freedom of the Will was to say that "God always does the wisest thing." Contemporary Calvinists who follow him closely agree. In other words, according to Edwards, God could have done otherwise than create the world, but he created the world because it was “most fitting” to do so.

My question is how this gets around the problem. To me it seems like a dodge; that is, it seems to attempt to answer the challenge without answering it. It seems like saying both at the same time – that God could have not created and that God could not have not created.

The question is simply this: Is it logically conceivable that God might not have created the world? Is it conceivable that God might have decided against this creation or any creation?

Edwards’ answer seems to say yes and no at the same time. That’s against the laws of logic UNLESS he can explain how the “yes” and the “no” are referring to different things. But in his explanation, they aren’t.

The question is: Is God the prisoner of his own wisdom (or of anything)? I’ve earlier discussed here the issue of nominalism/voluntarism versus realism – i.e., whether God has a nature. But even the strictest realists do not believe God is a prisoner of his eternal character. Rather, his eternal character guides his decision; it does not necessary govern them.

IF one says that God “always does the wisest thing” WITH THE ASSUMPTION that there is always only ONE “wisest thing,” then how is one not making creation necessary and therefore not gracious? (A basic principle of theology is that what is by nature cannot be by grace. If I HAVE to rescue you, it’s not an act of mercy or grace.)

Why assume that there is always only ONE “wise thing” to do – even for God? Why couldn’t it have been wise to create but also wise not to create? Of course, as any rationalist will ask, then why did God create? Was it simply an arbitrary choice – like throwing the dice?

Here I’m tempted to throw back at the Calvinist his or her own argument that God’s choice of "some to save" and "others to damn" is not arbitrary without any hint at what might explain it. In other words, if it’s fair for the Calvinist to argue that divine selection is not based on anything God “sees” in the elect or the damned (that differentiates them) and yet is not arbitrary, then why couldn’t the person who believes in God’s power of contrary choice argue that God’s choice to create is not arbitrary even though no specific reason for it can be given?

However, I prefer to argue that for God, as for us, there are moments when two alternative options are equally wise and no controlling, determining factor interior (such as motive) or otherwise determines which option one must choose to be right.

For example, some married couples confront the choice whether or not to have a child. I know couples like that. They wrestled with the decision, they thought about it long and hard, and they never really came up with a determinative reason to have or not to have a child. Some such couples decide to have a child, which is wise, and some decide not to, which can also be wise.

It seems to me that to say “God always does the wisest thing,” implying by that that God must do such-and-such (e.g., create the world), is the same as to say that God is a machine and that the creation and redemption of the world is not by grace but by nature. Only if God really could have done otherwise than create can creation be by grace only. Grace cannot be compelled and still be grace.

The upshot is, of course, that IF the creation and redemption of the world by God is truly gracious and not automatic, then God must possess libertarian free will, power of contrary choice. And if God possesses such, it cannot be an incoherent concept.

Now, it’s another thing entirely to argue that God possesses power of contrary choice but humans don’t. That’s a different argument. The natural answer is “Why?” If God possesses it, why couldn’t he give it to humans? There doesn’t seem to be anything about power of contrary choice that requires deity. It’s not like omnipotence, for example.

[By definition, Creation is not the same thing as God but is something set apart from God and yet bears God's divine Image or divine essence to itself. This realtionship is ontologically distinct from one another, though each bears the imprint of the other, and in a fashion each inhabits the other in some metaphysical sense, which is what is meant by divine Image or Essence. - re slater]

I think Edwards skirted the issue and so do his followers who repeat his argument in one form or another. To say “God always does the wisest thing” is either to imply that God is an automaton, in which case creation and redemption are automatic and not gracious, or to imply that God COULD do that which is something other than “the wisest thing.”

I reject the notion that “God always does the wisest thing,” not because I think God is anything less than absolutely wise but because I don’t believe there is always only one “wisest thing” in every situation of choice between options. To avoid making creation and redemption other than gracious, we have to suppose that God really could have chosen not to create. To say “God always does the wisest thing” is to imply that God really could not have done otherwise.

So, the Calvinist argument that libertarian free will - the power of contrary choice - is an incoherent concept falls on its own sword UNLESS the Calvinist is willing to make God the prisoner of his wisdom, that is of his nature, in such a way that creation and redemption are not gracious.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*For a related article see "The Origin of Sin, Hell and Universalism" -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/origin-of-sin-hell-and-universalism.html

The Origin of Sin, Hell, and Universalism

It seems that in order to talk about Hell and Universalism one must also talk about God and Sin. So let me back into the latter discussion by first addressing Universalism in terms of covenantal concepts. Then speak to God and sin. And lastly death and hell.

Sin and Universalism

According to Andrew Perriman (a view that I would agree with), the church is a corporate salvific community of believers within an ever-expanding and re-populating Abrahamic covenant resident through the testamental eras in an rapidly unfolding eschatological sense. And it is to this covenant's jurisdictions that superintends over all other soteriological considerations of "universalism" commonly argued within various branches of the Reformed Church. His is the biblical theological view that focuses on God's covenanted people, or incorporated communities, while the Reformed soteriological statement may focus on the systematic view of salvation delimited only to covenanted individuals. Curiously both theological positions originate from within Reformed theology itself out of which Calvinism's more systematic theologies were birthed bearing a multitude of logistical statements and theological deductions that seemingly require advance degrees in philosophy and linguistics to even begin to follow through its many centuries of synthetic arguments. Specifically as it expounds and exposits on that area of doctrine described as "soteriology" and better known in the vernacular as "the doctrine of salvation."

But the covenant view focuses on (i) the gracious charter of God "cut" or established between man and Himself through enactment of sacrifice. In the ancient Near East this is known as the Suzerainty-Vassal covenant treaty binding each agreeable party to variously named obligations, blessings and curses. Its structure is readily recognizable throughout the entirety of the book of Deuteronomy in all its chapters. While the soteriological systematic view focuses only on the implications of not heeding that charter as implemented between God and man. (ii) The first view sees a covenant meant for all peoples living in a land of universal blessings, whereas the other sees it as meant for "the elect, the predestined" who may only participate in God's delimited blessings. (iii) The first view avoids reflecting on the metaphysical implications of death and the grave, while the second view creates stricter boundaries upon death by giving considerate focus upon hell itself. So that, regardless of Perriman's purpose of debating implied universalism or not, he has intentionally raised a range of problems presented by the "systematic view of personal soteriology" (known as Calvinism) as versus the more natural or reasonable reading of a "corporate biblical theology of a covenanted people of God" found in Scriptures known as Remnant Theology (as versus replacement or separation theology):

• Replacement Theology - the Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.
• Separation Theology - the Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.
• Remnant Theology - The Church and Israel overlap in some manner of continuity and discontinuity.

Overall one may say with reasonable assurance that God has come to restore all things unto Himself. And that the covenanted church's mission is to proclaim this restoration through the cross of Jesus. That the journey for mankind is the discovery, or realization, of God's universal and inescapable love and the "blessings" that come to a covenanted people reconciled to God as their gracious Suzerainty. But to those who reject the love and sacrifice of God as free-willed beings there will also be required the "curses" that come to a previously covenanted people of God willing to break treaty, and in this case, specifically not bow to the Lordship of Jesus Christ who enacted redemption upon a Cross of Sacrifice. In strict terms, those "curses" may be considered self-made or self-inflicted because the Christian idea of sin is that which is not of God. To not be in God is to be in sin. And because it is a personal choice than it can be considered a self-made hell which is a grievous enough choice that God will continually, and unabandonly, assists us to not make regardless of the personal hell and depravity we carry with/within us through this life. But "curses" does not mean that God will automatically inflict harm and destruction upon those who break from His universal covenant... it simply means that we have chosen sin's harm and destruction upon ourselves by breaking covenant with God. In this way God is not found to be capricious or mean God; nor a totalitarian or despotic ruler; nor even a cosmic monster which can arise with the Calvinistic doctrine of soteriology through its doctrines of personal "election" and "predestination" and its implied "double predestination" to those damned for all eternity under the TULIP system.

Hence, the Abrahamic Covenant is historically re-enacted by Jesus on the cross of Calvary whereon He presented Himself to be literally "cut," or sacrificed, as the Lamb of God so as to establish a finalised ratification of the Covenant of Redemption between the God of the Heavens and the peoples of the earth. Marking this universal covenant as eternally bounded by God's very own sacrifice Himself and consequently reinforced and empowered by His self-made (and willful) covenant with mankind. Thus, it was (and is) a universal covenant with universal obligations, blessings and curses (as so described in the above paragraph). And it is in this manner that the Suzerainty-King is vindicated and is shown to be just and righteous when He returns to enforce His ransomed, conciliatory, covenanted people. All the more so because it was the Suzerainty Himself who was sacrificed in order to enact this binding covenant with man such that no surer sacrifice could be made except upon the personage of the Godhead ratified and invoked (sic, compare the book of Hebrews with the book of Deuteronomy specifically in this regard).

However, what does this all mean? And how did the church begin to diminish the love of God as it raised the bar on the justice and wrath of God? Is God a God of Love or is He a God of Justice? And do these non-sequitur's of truth bear a similarity of image and intent but miss the mark completely upon the very purposes of the Godhead meant and designed for a fallen Creation?

Was the Act of Creation Sinful?

In this way I find the argument of universalism misguided as a systematic theological argument by missing the intent of God's act of reconciliation. True, God's love is universal. But also true is the rejection of that love offered time-and-again by the Spirit of God to a rejecting mankind. Scripture attests again-and-again that God's relationship to creation is one of reconciliation, restoration, and the glorious re-ordering of Creation's sinful bent away from Himself back unto Himself. In a sense, we have all that is "pure" on the one side of things, and all that is "impure" on the other side of things. Or, we have all that is "God" on one side and all that is "not God" on the other side. But when God recreated His image into something separate from Himself, in the transference man was given free will as part of God's very own image of volition, which thing was also expressed into Creation's very own essence. Thus, God's image was stamped upon Creation's image, (i) part of that being volition or free will. And (ii) part of that being the essence of God however we describe it. So then not only man, but Creation itself, is marked by God's very essence, or Image, and within that essence or Image came free will (I see this explicitly in the creative order when considering quantum physics principles of indeterminacy and uncertainty). And yet, we might ask, how then did sin arise? And how can anything be separate from the very being of God? Even "Creation" itself, like man, proceeded from God and is of God... So how did "sin" result if all had come from a perfect and sinless, holy God?

Perhaps it was the mere fact that Creation was made "separate" from God in some ontological sense - that it took God's perfected, volitional, essential will of harmony as it was reflected and imbued in His Godhead - and it became corrupted in a disharmonious separation from that same Godhead. Maybe, though this is conjecture and not known. But we cannot say that it was without God's foreknowledge of this disharmonious event that it resulted. Why? Because God was not ignorant of the affects of His creative activity upon Creation. This would declare that God was not omniscient. Nor can we say that God was powerless to contain or prevent these same affects or results. This would declare God as not being omnipotent. Nor can we say that God is somehow separated from, and unaffected by, His creative act. This would declare God as not being omnipresent within all parts of His creation. What we can say is that when God created Creation He knew that it would become sinful, and that it would affect His Godhead as much as it would affect itself (omniscience). That He would still continue in the act of creation purposefully (omnipotence). And that its separation from Himself would break fellowship with His holy presence and refuse reconciliation with its all-present Creator-God (omnipresence). Thus we may say that the act of creation is a mystery. That its continuance is a mystery. That its sustenance is a mystery. And that its operation is a mystery. But a mystery that is miraculous and marvelous nonetheless!

Furthermore, the "why's" of God's divine acts must be left only to the divine counsels of God other than to understand that this God created out of pure joy and wished to share Himself with those things other than Himself. Does not the artist do the same thing? Does he not wish to share his heart, his temperament, his being with those around him? Is it not the same difference that we see from the image of the Creator within the artist? That He would share Himself - His heart, His temperament, His being - with all around Himself, or surrounding Himself, or within Himself, beyond that of His very own divine Fellowship? A Fellowship that needed to express itself beyond itself to something that had never existed before; from itself to something other than itself; through itself to the very empowerment of a created world of universe and nature, creature and mankind, each-and-all bearing the imprimaturs of the Divine's wisdom, glory, magnificence, eternity, infinity, and holiness? How like the artist is the very God of the world who colours this world with sublimities beyond the mortal pale? Who makes visible the invisible? And the invisible visible? Who brings sight and sound to the living? Breath and burden to all creatures? Who raises sun and moon with one hand, and lifts clouds and winds with the other? Who speaks peace one moment when at the next moment He trods through the valley of death and destruction? Who bows all things living to His will? Who deigns to walk stride-for-stride with any who are lost and alone, destitute and deprived, without hope or mercy, seeking deliverance and salvation? Yes, this is the God of creation. It is He that is Almighty God. Who will rule and reign. Who seeks His will. His shalom of peace and divine order in all that is, or is not, obedient to His will or peace. Who brings order from chaos. Who uses chaos to bring order. Who is Infinite Wisdom, Power, Ability and Purpose. He it is that is the Creator God of the Universe and none other. Neither image or idol. Neither fallible thought or foolish opinion. Neither pretensions of doubting hearts or ignorant spirits. It is the Creator God that gives all life and breath. Who wishes to share Himself with all that is separate - even as it exists as an integral part of Himself - in the divine mystery of what it means to be creation.

So then, we may only say that Creation is separate from God but inexplicably related to God; that it was birthed from the divine essence of God but in that birthing became corrupted by sin somehow; that sin did not exist until the angels were birthed; and later, even as creation itself was made with man as its central player of disobedience; that God's omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence is neither diminished nor limited in its fullness through His act of Creation; that one of the main characteristics of Creation is volitional, or libertarian, free will; that the Image of God is found in Creation and speaks as much to Creation's holiness as to its fallenness; and further, that the very act of God in creating further portends to Creation's holiness. Consequently, the physical characteristics and fleshly composition of creation is not what makes Creation sinful (contra the doctrine of pelagianism, for one).... It is sin itself resident within Creation that has made Creation sinful. For to be freed from the body is not to be freed from sin - else death and the grave would have no hold! It requires the freedom of redemption to free man and creation from sin. That only and nothing less than this (contra doctrines of self-denial, mortal austerity, fleshly abuse and discipline). It is the soul, and not simply the body, that has become corruptible and requires incorruptibility. The flesh but speaks to this fact. To be fleshly, or of this world, is not what makes sin present. Sin was already present and the fleshly "home" we bear but only attests to sin's presence. Sin has corrupted both our soul and fleshly pale. But looked at another way, all creation, including mankind, bears God's essence. His image. His being. We are holy vessels that have become corrupted through this thing we call sin. And yet, it is God's selfsame essence, will and purpose, that will complete His image of holiness in all things living, all things fleshly, yeah, even mankind. Who will raise (or resurrect, or re-birth) our mortal bodies unto a new heavens and new earth. Renewed by the very redemption of God Himself. Even our Lord and Savior Jesus will join Himself freely with His creation giving to it His glory, sublimity, majesty, honour, and love.

Was the Intent of Creation Sinful?

No. The intent of Creation was not sinful because its Creator-God is not sinful. But somehow "sin" did result and corrupted the volitionalism imbued within Creation (man included, for "nature/creation" has its own type of volitionalism or liberatarianism). Sin corrupted God's Image that had been transferred into His Creation - into that very substance that had been created from Himself as part of His essence, His being, His will. And yet to describe Creation as a "separate part" external to God is inexact. This position would then fall into the various forms of pelagianism which views all matter and flesh as sinful. For Creation is as much a part of God as God Himself is a part of Himself. In a sense, Creation is God and we are but witnessing the turmoil that is occurring within God as a part of God's turbulent creation at an ontological level that we are feeling, and seeing, on an existential level (one could say that the religion of Hinduism highlights these facts, although not strictly Christian it bears a form of Christian observation regarding creation's turmoil... but this is another matter for another time). A turmoil that cannot be left to stand as separate from God but must find reconciliation, restoration and renewal. For it is within God's nature to be whole. To be unified. To find harmony, peace, and "shalom" (the Jewish term meaning "order").

However, we also wish to avoid falling into a panentheism that says that God is as dependent upon Creation as Creation is upon God. This would be the view of Process Theism (or, Process Theology) which position then goes on to add "that each affects the other in a formative way" - which is true, but not true as dependent realities (more said on this in a moment). Nor do we aver a form of pantheism when speaking of Creation as God, and God as Creation, each both-and-the-same. This would be the view of Hinduism and similar religions like Hinduism. Whereas we do affirm that God is both separate-but-conjoined with Creation. Just as Creation is separate-but-conjoined with its Creator. That each bears the essence of the other. This is the view of Christian theism. Moreover, God volitionally declared Himself "bound" to Creation, as much by fiat as by fact (making process theology only partially correct); so that, He Himself must resolve this tension through reconciliation rather than through simple dismissal through destruction or death. This would be the views of both Classic Theism as well as Relational Theism. Furthermore, each affects the other in a formative, but not a dependent fashion. Which is also the view of Relational Theism but not that of its sister position of "Relational-Process Theism" (here commonly referred to as "process theism" within this website).

Lastly, and in some sense, I think God must resolve this tension from an ontological perspective as well. That since Creation is as much a part of His essence as He is of His own essence, then a reconciliation must be made. Or, proposed differently, we are of God's essence (both by His Image as well as by His Creative act), and because we constitute a part of God's Creation, we must be reconciled back to our Creator because His essence cannot be left unconstituted. It demands an ontological re-ordering. A divine reconciliation. Consequently salvation is both a determination made by the Godhead as much as it is an ontological necessity. Because of these facts sin, death and hell will likewise have mandatory consequences both because of divine determination as much as by ontological necessity.

Is the Nature of Creation Sinful?

I might answer this by saying that Creation itself was pure and holy. But when sin entered - however it entered for we do not know and can but only speculate as explained above - it did corrupt Creation both in its Image of God as well as in its nature to be in harmony with God: in the estates of fellowship, devotion, love and good will. Creation literally fell out of fellowship from the Godhead as it were, and has been tumbling on its own ever since, thus necessitating Reclamation. Restitution. Restoration.

In response, God has set about to do this very thing - to reclaim, to restitute, to restore - in a complex array of salvific events that will renew the original charters of Creation back unto Himself. Importantly, man figures advisedly into God's plan of renewal. Somehow, in the depths of God's being man has been determined as an instrumental factor, and even a major element, in the restoration of Creation. "From Adam came sin" it is said by the Apostle Paul, and "from the Second Adam (Jesus) comes sin's defeat and death." This would also speak to, and include, all followers of Jesus, called the Church, which has the divine commission to "defeat" sin and death through the power of the Cross, by water and by blood, through the Spirit of God. For through Jesus - and through that divine fellowship known as His body the Church - comes the very renewal of life and restoration of Creation in the wisdom and mercy of God.

Thus, while God tarries, the Church is to be about its mission of spiritual salvation and reconciliation; corporate and civil justice and equality; economic benevolence and fairness; and ecological restoration and provisioning, among other things here considered. We are not to simply wait for Christ's Parousia but are to put to use all the talents and abilities, insights and passions, energies and imaginations, of the Church of God into our blighted, misused, mispurposed, benighted world. In this way has the Kingdom of God come unto men. A Kingdom that will be ultimately rejected. An upside-down Kingdom that is not understood. That leads by example through selfless servitude, sacrifice, and sharing. But a Kingdom proclaiming God's heart-and-will within the fallen realm of God's creation destined for final reclamation, restitution, and restoration.

Conversely, if Creation were left to itself it would lead to a completion of death, ultimate disorder, and be invariably marked by hatred and animosity. This state of affairs could then no longer be a part of God's essence. Nor His divine Godhead. Nor of God's holiness. For injustice would be the reigning ethic in this anarchical "kingdom" of total despair, total isolation, consummate self-absorption, consummate brokenness, and consummate societal destruction known as death. A death that would either be "temporary" and compelled towards a final annihilation. Or a death that is eternally locked within itself upon its own self-propagating prison walls and dungeons of chaining darkness, torment, and "hells." But a death no less. And one that its Creator-God must rectify. Must correct. Must resolve. Even prevent. Not only because He wills it so, but because He can do no other but reconcile His Creation back unto Himself. His Godhead. His essence (sic, the concepts of relational theism and ontological order have now been placed together as interlocking positional themes).

Annihilation as a Theologoumenna

As a brief aside, my own view of death is one of annihilation as the only logical consequence rather than an existing "eternal state of death" we call hell, or the Lake of Fire, posited by theologians as an eternal residing part of God's creation forever and ever and ever. But in either case, whether Death is annihilatory, or whether it is eternal in its estates, God's essence is rectified and order is established however He chooses its ending determinations. Yet it seems to me that a more perfect order of wholeness subtends itself towards the view of annihilation, a view we call a theologoumenna, which is not strictly a biblical doctrine but more of a theological supposition that seems biblical.

And I think the Love of God would demand this too. That He be not consider our eternal tormentor and executioner, but our everlasting Restorer - either to life eternal, or to a final, completed death that is extinguishable. Perhaps we might say that death in-and-of itself is ultimately distinguishable. That in its very nature or essence is ultimately found its perishability. And it is in this wise that sin and death cease an eternality of existence. So that even in the very concept of death itself can be found the overarching shalom, or restorative order, of God. Something that can not continue because it simply can not continue paradoxically. That in itself it finds a finality and an end. That said, the force and nature of God is to reconcile, to restore, to overwhelm a creation bent on refusing God's divine personage and glorious being. Creation's sinfulness cannot continue. It cannot succeed. It can only succeed in holding to its own rebellion with its consequential results of death and final destruction however that works out.

Summary

And so we are told that even in Creation's rebellion it will be defeated through a final death... and a final reordering of creation. In the end, the Suzerainty-King shall rule, and He will rule completely. Neither sin, death, hell or devil shall defeat His universal grace, mercy, hope and supreme majesty. As there has come a "Day of Reconciliation through Christ," so there will come a "Day of Wrath" (described as the "Day of the Lord" in the OT) visited upon those who refuse God's covenant of love, truth and justice enacted upon Christ's life and ministry, even as it was enacted upon His death, His resurrected ascension, and His returning Parousia to rule and to judge. Till that time we proclaim God's purposes. His heart. His intent. And His abiding desire. That His Just Love demands no less. That His Loving Justice cannot be refuted. That His purposes cannot be defeated. That His essence must reign supreme.

R.E. Slater

February 28, 2012

*For a related article see "Does God Always Do the Wisest Thing?" -
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-god-always-do-wisest-thing.html

A new perspective on universalism and hell

http://www.postost.net/2011/03/new-perspective-universalism-hell

Andrew Perriman

Wednesday 16 March 2011

One of the things that has surprised me in the Bell’s hell controversy is the assumption behind much of the criticism that the denial of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment amounts to an endorsement of universalism—or at least as a “preliminary step” in that direction as it was put to me by Steve Hays on the Triabloggers site. Practically speaking, Steve has a point—consider, for example, this personal testimony from The Beautiful Heresy:

In my mid-40s I discovered Universalism about mid-2004 and immediately began reading all I could about it. I was raised as a Pentecostal Fundamentalist and could never quite grasp why G-d was so angry with me and the rest of the world that He wanted to condemn us to Eternal Torment. G-d seemed weak, angry and schizophrenic to me. This journey is about my discovery of G-d’s universal and inescapable love.

But universalism is not at all an inevitable corollary of the argument, on the one hand, that the supposed “hell” texts in the New Testament mostly have reference to historical events, and on the other, that the final destiny of those whose names are not written in the book of life is simply destruction, death (Rev. 20:15). In fact, it seems to me that the historicizing hermeneutic that locates the wrath of God in history—judgment on rebellious Israel, judgment on an aggressive, idolatrous and over-bearing paganism—also weighs heavily against the universalist position.

I can only offer a very limited response to the universalist argument here, prompted by a question about my statement that universalism “like much traditional evangelical thought, it is premised on the priority given to soteriology”. I will not look at the various texts usually put forward as evidence for universalism. I will simply outline some general lines of thought.

It may help, in the first place, to establish a distinction between two ways of defining Christianity.

1. The traditional understanding has been that Christianity is essentially a general religion of salvation, which makes the primary task of the church the salvation of the lost, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that as many people as possible escape the punishment (or perhaps annihilation) of “hell” and gain eternal life with God in heaven. In this construction personal salvation precedes the corporate existence of the church—and very often we find that neither ecclesiology nor missiology develops beyond a simple multiplication of this primary function.

2. The alternative approach regards “Christianity” (the quotation marks indicate reservations about the validity of the term) as an intrinsic continuation of the calling of Abraham, against a background of persistent and escalating human rebellion, to be the progenitor of a people marked out by a more or less exclusive covenant commitment. My argument in Re: Mission is that the people of God was from the outset determined as “new creation”: Abraham is promised the original blessing of creation, he is told that he will be made fruitful, that he will multiply, and that his descendants will fill the microcosm of the land of Canaan. The Christ-event lay at the heart of a massive convulsion in the historical existence of this “new creation” people, but the basic “missional” purpose remained intact: to bear concrete, embodied and prophetic witness amidst the nations and cultures of the world to the redemptive presence of the Creator and to the final hope of renewal. In this construction things are the other way round: the corporate and political existence of the church precedes the “salvation” and incorporation of individuals.

Under the first option there can be a reasonable debate about whether all humanity or only part of humanity will be saved. That is what I meant by the statement that universalism is “premised on the priority given to soteriology”.

Under the second option this debate makes less sense. The people of God is by definition a limited set [(a "remnant" people - skinhead)]. It is a people called out of the world—chosen, elected, set apart, transformed, sanctified—let us say, for the sake of the Mission Dei. When that people gets into trouble, it needs to be saved—from Egypt, from Babylon, from Antiochus Epiphanes, and critically from the condemnation of the Law that finally brought the wrath of God upon it in the form of the war against Rome. The manner of that final salvation opened up the door to Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-22), but it did not thereby transform the renewal movement into a general religion of salvation.

Most of the “salvation” or restoration texts in the New Testament, I would suggest, have to do with this deliverance of the historical community of Israel from destruction or obsolescence. Within the covenantal and narrative-historical framework the question naturally arises whether all or only part of Israel will be saved. So Jesus is asked as he makes his fateful journey towards Jerusalem, “Lord, are those being saved few?” His answer suggests that he thought it unlikely that many would find the narrow path leading to life (Lk. 13:22-24; Matt. 7:13-14). It seems to me that Paul was equally pessimistic about the fate of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), though his quotation of Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26 suggests that he held to the hope that following judgment—following the “punishment” of the war—all Israel would repent and be saved.1 It didn’t happen, and both Jesus and Paul were proved right.

There is also in scripture the prospect of a final restoration of all things—leadme.org (what a name to give your son!) points this out and draws the conclusion that this “involves the reconciliation of each human soul”. But I wonder whether that conclusion can be defended exegetically. Colossians 1:19-20 is the obvious text to consider here:

because in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell and through him to reconcile all things to him, making peace through the blood of his cross, through him whether things on earth or things in the heavens.

The idea of cosmic reconciliation achieved through the cross is not easily accommodated into Paul’s thought, though Romans 8:19-21 certainly has a bearing on the matter.2 But the point to note is that this reconciliation is framed precisely in cosmic rather than human terms.

In Ephesians 2:11-22 it is Jews and Gentiles who specifically are reconciled and find peace through the cross. In Colossians 1:15-20 it appears to be the larger structures of the cosmos that are reconciled: “whether thrones or dominions or sovereignties or authorities” (1:16). This is in some sense an extension or expansion of the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles in the renewed people of God, but neither here nor in Romans 8:19-21 do we clearly have the thought that the restoration of the cosmos includes the “salvation” of all people.

In John’s symbolic vision of the new heavens and new earth it appears that the unrighteous, those whose names are not written in the book of life, “the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars”, are explicitly excluded from the restored cosmos. This may raise numerous other questions about the “ethics” of final judgment, but it is difficult to reconcile with the “beautiful heresy” of universalism.

• 1. See The Future of the People of God, 136.
• 2. See J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans, 1996), 103 n. 45.