Scripture reading(36)
“Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
Observations:
Does everyone go to heaven?
Would a truly loving god ever not allow anyone into heaven?
Is god’s love truly unconditional?
According to one commonly held viewpoint, there are no boundaries in relation to god’s love, and that his love is absolutely and completely unconditional.
This viewpoint may be popular, but does it accord with scripture?
No. Neither does the idea that everyone is granted entry into heaven after death, a viewpoint advanced by some who feel that a truly loving god would never deny entry into heaven for anyone.
Granted, ardent students of scripture will find several examples which describe the nature and extent of god’s love, – Romans 5:8-9 being a good example.
But nowhere does the bible say that his love is unconditional, and the concept that god’s love does not come with any conditions attached does not accord with scripture. Nor do the viewpoints that everyone goes to heaven after death, or that a truly loving god would never send anyone to hell.
Indeed, this passage, and others like it, contradict these kinds of popular beliefs. This passage makes it clear that there is one condition attached to god’s love and toward entry into heaven.
That condition is simply this: belief in Jesus Christ, god’s only son.
There is one condition, and one condition only, for entry into heaven after death – absolute faith that the death of Christ Jesus on the cross is sufficient to cover the cost of your sins. Those who believe in Jesus are granted immediate and full forgiveness for our sins.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those who do not, whom the bible says are not forgiven for their sins and will be denied entry into heaven.
Why is god’s love not unconditional? I feel that it is important here to explore the issue of why some of the popular notions above do not accord with scripture.
The notions, that god’s love is completely unconditional and that a truly loving god would not deny anyone entrance into heaven upon death, are, in my view, based around a popular, worldly view of god, as opposed to a view of based around the teachings of the bible. This worldly view describes how we imagine god to be like, or how we believe that god should be, as opposed to how god is actually described in the bible.
One of the fundamental problems with this worldly view of god is that it tends to gloss over or ignore one very important fact – that we have all sinned against him, and that our relationship with him has been broken as a result. (refer Genesis 3)
The idea that a loving god would not deny entry into heaven to anyone, for example, would hold true if we had never sinned. If we had never sinned, if we had never rebelled against god, then any denial of entry into heaven on his behalf would be unfair and without justification. After all, what just god would deny entry into heaven to those who had done nothing wrong?
But this is not the case, and indeed, the bible says that each and every one of us has, at some point, turned away and rejected god. The first sin was committed in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve at that time represented and acted on behalf of the entire human race at that time. But more than that, the bible claims that each and every one of us has, at some point, turned away and rejected god our maker and heavenly father.
This is where the worldly view falls down. For god to automatically grant everyone a free ticket into his heavenly home, he would have to pretend that our sin does not matter, or that it does not matter that we have rebelled against him rejected him.
But it does matter. God, with his complete integrity, could not just ignore our rejection of him.
That is why we need Jesus. Our sin cannot go unpunished, and someone needs to take the punishment for us. Either it can be Jesus, whose death on the cross god has deemed sufficient for the complete forgiveness of our sins, or it can be us, who will otherwise have to take an eternal punishment, in being locked out of the kingdom of god forever.
Prayer:
Dear heavenly father,
Sometimes, in our arrogance, we try to demand that you be whoever we want you to be.
We forget our place – that you are the maker and master of heaven and earth, and that we, lowly sinners, are accountable to you, not the other way around.
Lord, we try to gloss over our sin and our rebellion, and in our arrogance, we sometimes think that we are entitled to a place in your kingdom in spite or our brokenness.
But thank you lord, that you did not leave us broken. When we were lost, you have provided a way for us to be reconciled to you. You took the punishment on yourself, so that we may be forgiven, and so that the depth of your amazing character would be revealed and on full display.
For that, we can only fall down on our knees and praise you.
In the name of Jesus Christ our lord.
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So, have you never, ever once felt that there sure seems to be something wrong with the idea of God torturing billions of people for all eternity?
For example, isn't the only reason you believe in Hell is because you feel you HAVE TO? That, if it were not for a handful of passages that say there is a Hell, and if all you had was the other 99% of what Jesus taught about God being compassionate, loving and forgiving, you'd never just come up with such a horrendous idea?
And if it were up to you, wouldn't you, out of Christ-like compassion, at a minimum, turn the flames of Hell off? Perhaps some people could not or would not go to Heaven...but why the torture, the worst sort of pain, with no end? What does God get out of that?
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it--that there's a reason why these few passages contradict the core message of Jesus--because he was opposed to Hell!
If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Hi Rick,
Thanks for stopping by.
I must confess that you have made me sit up and think a little bit here.
To some extent, I guess that the existence of hell is something which I have just assumed without a great deal of question to some degree, particularly based on the passages in the gospel which do appear to refer to it.
Thank you for having the courage to challenge me with regard to this matter.
With regard to your first point, if I made the rules, then no one would be sent to hell. From my own personal viewpoint, I would not have thought that any person, no matter what they had done, should be subject to endless torture after death.
But I don't make the rules - god does, and the decision with regards to our eternal destination rests with him and not me. And though it was not given as greater prominence within the gospels as other teachings, Jesus did appear to refer to hell quite clearly in a number of passages.
More broadly, I can certainly see your point about what you feel represents a conflict between the concept of hell and the teachings of Christ about compassion. Certainly, the need for compassion represents a prominent feature of the teachings of Christ, and there are a number of examples of this in each of the four gospels. I can certainly see why many people feel that this is a contradiction – and I would be the first to acknowledge that the words ‘compassion’ and ‘hell,’ do not seem to go naturally together in the same sentence.
But with respect, I do not necessarily agree. Many parts of the bible (in both the old Testament) are quite clear that whilst god is full of goodness, love and compassion, he will not tolerate being continually rejected by his creation, and that there are serious consequences for those who rebel against him continuously.
I personally believe that each and every one of us has, at some point in our lives, sinned against the lord, and that whilst he loves us, our sin has serious consequences. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which to me represents the greatest act of compassion which the world will ever see, was a peace offering from god. If we reject the peace this, then our sin remains, and god cannot simply pretend that it doesn’t. As far as I understand it from my reading of the bible, the price of this sin, as determined by god, is eternal destruction.
From my viewpoint, god has given us a peace offering as an act of compassion. If we reject it, we are saying that we are prepared to accept the consequences of punishment for our sin.
Again, thanks for your comment and I hope what I have said makes some sense to you.
Post a Comment