Thursday, September 30, 2021

Is eternal punishment unfair?

I'm in many apologetic groups on FaceBook. In one such group, a member made the following statement:

I've never understood the claim that a sin, no matter how small (say, a failure of cognition) against an infinite God, requires infinite punishment. I understand that many Christians also find that claim to be fatuous, and inevitably adjust their theology to one of universalism, annihilation or a finite punishment.

I've heard similar points made many times so rather than replying on FaceBook, I thought I'd make my reply into a post here. I have several points I can make.

So what if it were unfair?

I've always found it curious how some people have this expectation that the universe must be fair. A cat will kill a mouse. Is it “fair” that the mouse really has no defense against the cat except to hide from it? Where do people – especially atheists – believe cosmic justice would come from? The universe doesn't care what happens. “Fairness” can only exist if there is a real God who administers justice. In the absence of divine justice there is nothing but cruel, indifferent reality.

But assuming that God is real, why must He be limited to our sense of justice. I might think it's unfair to pay a $35 fine for failing to put 25¢ in the parking meter. Apparently, the city of Cincinnati doesn't think that's unfair since that was the amount I had to pay them once for a parking ticket. The laws are made by the person (or people) in authority and they also set the penalties for the people who break the laws. The guilty might feel his punishment is too great for his crime. That doesn't matter.

Now, I'll explain in a moment why God's law is fair. But even if it were to seem unfair by every measure of our sensibilities, what are we supposed to do? Should I conclude that God can't be real because He's not fair? You can see how that doesn't follow. Perhaps you could argue that He isn't worthy of our worship because He is unfair. That is foolhardy because your indignation toward the law doesn't excuse you from being bound by the law. The mouse can protest all it wants but, in the end, the cat will still eat the mouse.

It is far, far better to simply acknowledge the reality of the situation. There is a God who judges sin. Your protests, your finite understanding of justice, and all your moral outrage will not be a defense.

We're all guilty

The question asked on Facebook was why only one little sin will send someone to hell. It's rather optimistic to believe there is anyone who has committed only a single sin. Is it wrong to lie? Most people will say yes. OK, if it's wrong to lie then how many lies have you ever told? It's just you and the computer right now so at least be honest with yourself for a moment. How many lies have you told today? This week? This month? This year? Let's face it – we're all habitual liars.

Thou shalt not bear false witness is just one of the Commandments (Exodus 20:16). How about the other Commandments? Have you always put God first? Have you ever taken His name in vain? Have you always kept the Sabbath holy? Have you always obeyed your parents? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever coveted anything? You can see where I'm going with this. It's not like there's someone out there who has committed just one sin; everyone of us broken every Commandment many, many times. We're all guilty. If we want to talk about the fairness of going to hell over a single sin, then perhaps we should ask what is the just punishment for someone who is a habitual, unrepentant sinner?

God is more than fair

In Jeremiah 18:1-6, we read this haunting account:

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

The point of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and, so, are subject to His will.

God created a perfect universe where there was no death or suffering or toil. He gave mankind dominion over the entire earth and everything in it was for our benefit. Yet we rebelled. We continously rebel. God has no obligation to conform to our limited sense of justice. He did not have to forgive Adam nor does He have to provide salvation to any of us. If He destroyed all of creation at the very moment Adam sinned, that would have been fair. But that's not what He decided to do.

People sin every day. We've already seen that we habitually break His commandments. If God should decide to destroy us at the very moment we sin, that would be fair. But that isn't what He decides to do.

God could have required us to earn our salvation. If He put some tremendous burden on us, where we had to do 1,000 good deeds to atone for each sin we commit, that would be fair. Since He has no obligation to provide any salvation, even a plan of salvation by works would still give us some sort of chance to be saved. But that's not what He decided to do.

What God did do is leave His heavenly glory to put on a body of flesh, He came to earth in the most humble of circumstances, He lived a sinless life, He was scorned and shamed, and finally He was tortured and put to death on the Cross to pay the penalty that we owed for our sins. After this, Christ rose from the dead and currently sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. Finally, the Bible tells us that God will restore the creation that was marred by our sin and we will live forever with Him in a home He prepared for us.

Praise God!!

What exactly do these critics think is fair? Do they believe they can live their life however they want, they can indulge their flesh, they can spurn God, and they can mock the death of His Son – but if God punishes them for it, then they want to whine that He is being unfair? Yes, I think that's exactly what they want.

Given all these things, the original question seems rather absurd. There's no reason unbelievers should expect fairness. We haven't committed just one sin – we are each one habitual sinners who do things every day which, by anyone's standard, we know are wrong. We've been told the consequences of our sin but the lost continue to rebel against God. Yet even then, and even though He is under no obligation, God still makes eternal reward available to those who will simply confess their sins and accept the free gift of Christ. Why do people still claim that God isn't being fair?!

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

The subtle lie of definition


Let's pretend, for a moment, that we have no ideas how the mountains were formed. They exist, right? So, have they always existed or did they come into being sometime during earth's history? In search of an explanation, I put on my thinking cap and begin making observations. On beaches, I notice how the waves sometimes make ripples in the sand. In the desert, I notice how sand dunes are formed by wind. These observations lead me to hypothesize that mountain formation is the cumulative effect of millions of years of wind and water moving dirt around. Sounds plausible, right?

Working with this theory, I look around to find examples of mountains being made taller by the wind and rain – but I can't find any. Instead, all I find are mountains being worn by erosion caused by wind and rain. In other words, they're becoming shorter, not taller. Not willing to abandon my theory, I define “mountain forming” to mean “any change in the elevation of a point of land.” Now, even examples of erosion can be used to support my theory.

Do you see what happened?  Instances of erosion may fit my new definition but they do nothing to support my original claim that these processes can form mountains if they just continue long enough. Ideally, I should have abandoned my theory. At the very least, I should change my definition to include, “a rise in the elevation of land....” But I do neither. Instead, I double down on my definition and begin arguing that even a lowering of land elevation is mountain formation because it creates valleys!  I'm not going wherever the facts lead me, but am changing the definition of what I'm explaining to support my theory.  

Clever, huh? Employing such an ambiguous definition actually thwarts criticism of my theory. Such a definition may make my theory somewhat unassailable, but it doesn't make my theory true! Vague definitions like this probably hinder science more than help it. Using this definition, I could continue citing new instances of erosion, call them examples of “mountain formation,” and never once find an example of a mountain truly forming.

So where am I going with this? I've often written about the word games evolutionists play. They constantly want to define terms in their favor. And it's not just scientific terms, they also want to redefine words like “faith.” The word they equivocate over the most is evolution.

If you google the definition of evolution, you'll find that it is usually understood to mean, “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” When most people hear the word evolution, they think of things like fish becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and apes becoming men. Am I right? Yet, when we look around, we never seen examples of things like this happening. Oh sure, we see animal populations change, but they don't change into other kinds of animals.

Enter the ambiguous definition.

Talk Origins, a rabidly pro-evolution website, prefers this definition:

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Wow, that sounds fancy. This is THE definition used by most, militant evolutionists. Notice, though, that it doesn't do anything to qualify the kind of change. There's no condition that the change has to add any new characteristics to the population, for example. If a population of gray and black mice were to go from 50% gray to 45% gray over successive generations, then they've evolved according to this definition. Yet it doesn't explain how something like a mouse could turn into something like a bat over “millions of years.”

For evolution to be possible, biological populations have to acquire new characteristics. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, you would have to add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The supposed first common ancestor didn't have feathers or hair. Neither did it have skin or scales or bones or blood or organs of any sort. How many new traits would you have to add to turn a molecule into a man? So just to say a population has “changed” doesn't mean the population is on its way to becoming something else unless the change adds something. Removing the gray mice from a population, for example, can't add new colors to the population.

The definition of evolution most favored and championed by evolutionists, the one cited above, is very much like my ridiculous definition of mountain formation. Any change in a population is called evolution, even though it doesn't add anything new to the population. Indeed, no new traits ever need to be found and evolution could still be said to be happening. In fact, I believe that's precisely why zealous evolutionists prefer it. Consider this except from the same Talk Origins article:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring....”

I have to shake my head. They're right, it's hard to debate whether evolution is occurring if they are allowed to call any kind of change, “evolution.” Just like no one could question my theory of mountain formation as long as I'm able to include mountains being eroded as examples of mountain forming.

This is why evolutionists spend so much time haggling over terms. They want to bolster their arguments by defining words in their favor. It may be clever but it's still a gimmick. It's subtle. It's lying by definition.

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Thus saith the Lord

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Mic 5:2)

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Psa 22:16-18)

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

This is what is described in the Bible as “prophecy.” Before we had the revelation of Scripture, God would give His word to prophets who would proclaim it to the world. Of course, anyone could claim to be speaking God's word. The difference is that whatever was spoken by God would come to pass. If someone claimed to speak in the name of the Lord, but the thing he speaks does not come to pass, he is exposed as a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:18, 21-22).

Once the thing that God had proclaimed would come to pass, it revealed the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.

Consider the following passage from Isaiah:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isa 46:9-10)

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly in the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did!