If God is All-Loving, then why . . . ?

A common question about God, or objection raised in the form of a question, begins with “If God is all loving then why . . . ?” So many words can be used to complete this thought, a few of which are evil, pain, suffering, or natural disasters. In this post, I will give my attention to that place where all are destined to go should they die in their sins and not in Christ, Hell.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, was a sermon preached by Jonathan Edwards on July 8, 1741 and is considered by many the greatest sermon ever preached on American soil. The sermon pulled no punches and served as the catalyst to the Great Awakening. Typical of the preaching of the time, the sermon warns of the fragile and precarious position of non-believers and how there is nothing keeping them from hell, eternal torment, and damnation but the good pleasure of God, who at any moment, will call them out of this life. Edwards was interrupted many times during the sermon because people were passing out or crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” The first time I read the sermon, it shook me to my core. Want to read it? Click here.

Many people today have a hard time believing that an all-loving God would send someone to a place where they would be tormented for all eternity. The thought is that if God is all-loving, then He must be all forgiving, since to forgive is an act of love. Therefore, if God will not forgive, He must not be all-loving. Another way to put it is to say, “It is not a loving act to send someone to hell, therefore, no one is sent to hell.”

What people forget is that while God is all-loving, He is also a Holy and Righteous Judge who hates sin. Because God is perfect, He will judge perfectly the lives of every person who has entered into history. Romans 2:5 reads, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

As a parent, I love my children without condition. However, I have expectations of how they ought to behave, and when my children disobey either my wife or me, or act out in defiance, then I correct them through various means. Sometimes toys are taken away, others they are sent to their room, and yes, there are times when they have earned a spanking. From my children’s perspective, all they know is that mommy and daddy are doing something which cause them discomfort. From my perspective, my love is the motivating factor that drives the punishment. There is a correlation between the unconditional love I have for my children, and the punishments they receive when they behave inappropriately. How much more than does God’s all loving character serve as a motivation to punish when His standards are not met?

But doesn’t God forgive? Yes of course He forgives, but forgiveness is offered on His terms and they are non-negotiable. God’s all-loving character was made manifest when He poured out His wrath on His Son. Jesus died for those who put their faith in Him. When a sinner confesses Jesus as his or her Savior, Jesus is giving that person His righteousness, while taking onto Himself their sin; a spiritual transaction takes place. If that is not the ultimate act of love, then I do not know what love is.

When a person is called out of this life, they will either die in Christ or die in their sins. Where they stand with Christ when they slip into eternity will determine where they spend eternity. God does not force someone into heaven against his or her will. If a person does not want God in this life, then they will not want God in the next. Where do you stand with Christ?

Is Evolution Compatible with Creationism

Back on October 28 of this year, Pope Francis declared that evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not, “a magician with a magic wand.” Click here for the full article.

There are two different events being declared as true by Pope Francis, the big bang and evolutionary theory. I happen to agree with the former as being true. There is good scientific evidence in support of the big bang such as the expanding universe, second law of thermodynamics, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity just to name a few. Furthermore, there is a synthesis between the big bang and creationism. Understanding the law of causality, namely that whatever begins to exist has a cause, it is logical to posit a cause necessary for the big bang to have occurred, which points to a Creator. However, there is no scientific evidence to support evolutionary theory. In fact, the evidence suggests something different. Most importantly, the theological implication to believing that evolution is true does great damage to redemptive history.

In his book, On Origin of Species, Darwin writes two chapters that focus on the problem with his theory and the evidence required to support his theory. Scientists are always looking for the missing link. Darwin realized the importance of finding the missing link to support his theory; however, Darwin was not looking for one missing link. Instead, he admitted that if his theory of evolution were true, then millions of transitional forms ought to exist. Darwin raises this question, “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” Darwin knew that for his theory to be proven as true, the fossil record would have to yield not just one missing link, but millions. To date, not a single transitional form has been found.

Further to the problem of transitional forms, Darwin admitted that an event like the Cambrian Explosion would prove fatal to his theory. Darwin writes, “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification through natural selection.” The Cambrian Explosion is a term used for the great number of complex creatures that suddenly appeared in the fossil record, with having no evidence they evolved from lower life forms. You can read more on the Cambrian Explosion here.

The lack of scientific evidence in support of evolutionary theory ought to make everyone second guess what they were taught in school. Although much more can be written on the Science, I’d rather discuss the theological implications for the Christian who does not see a problem with believing evolution to be true.

If evolution were true—again there is no good evidence to suggest that it is—then the story of redemption falls apart. If evolution is true, then the fall of Adam and Eve is an allegorical tale filled with mythology. However, in the Bible we read over and over again that Christ is the second Adam. What does this mean if the first Adam never really existed? We read that as man, in Adam fell, now man can live in Christ? If the fall of Adam is not a historical event, then the redemptive work of Christ makes no sense. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then the biblical doctrine of the fall becomes impossible to maintain. However, the Bible testifies to the historicity of Adam.  In Romans 5:12-21 Paul linked God’s redemptive plan and Christ’s atonement for sin with the fall of described in Genesis. In Romans 5:12-14we read, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given—but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 we read something very similar.  “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Jesus Himself understood Adam and Eve to be historical figures.  In Matthew 19:4-6 In response to questioning from the Pharisees about marriage and divorce, Jesus declared, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female . . . .”

If Adam and Eve are not historical than how does one explain the genealogies recorded in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3?  If we read the book of Genesis allegorical, at which point do we stop.  The life of Abraham is clearly connected to the history that preceded him.  Without an historical Adam and Eve, and without an historical fall, the doctrine of atonement and redemption doesn’t make sense.

Part of the problem is that the Bible is no longer counted as a work in which historical events took place. This makes it easy for the skeptic to criticize the biblical account of creation and the Christian to harmonize the creation account with evolutionary theory. Theologian R. C. Sproul hits the nail on the head when he says,

It is the historical dimension of sacred scripture that is under so much attack today, and it is the historical dimension of our faith that is at the center of the controversy, that our faith is somehow not tied to history.  The New Testament marries history and redemption.  I’ve heard theologians say that the Bible is not normal history that it is redemptive history; therefore it doesn’t matter whether it is historically correct or historically accurate.  Let me remind you that, yes the Bible is redemptive history, the history of redemption.  But I also have to remind you that it is redemptive HISTORY. And the Jew put his life on the line for the historical reality of his faith.  We believe in the God, WHO was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  We believe in the God WHO brought us up out of the land of bondage, out of Egypt, out of a real historical place and gave us a real historical exodus and gave us a real historical redemption because I am a real historical person and I need real historical redemption.  Don’t play around with spiritualization’s of it, the Jew had no time for that in the ancient world.  And so the historical centrality of redemption is really a non-negotiable of Christianity.