Elect or Non?

Recently, a friend was struggling with assurance and the concept of divine election. He looked at me and said, "How do I know if I am one of the elect? How do I know I am not among the non-elect?"

I replied, "The answer to that question is simple. What do you want? Anyone can be lost if they want to be. The rest are elect."

It is a disarmingly straightforward truth: lost people are lost because they want to be lost. Saved people are saved because God has given them the will to know Him. Damnation is according to our own choice; salvation is according to His. 

Divine Decrees, Election and Hell: A Moderate Calvinist Viewpoint

In the last post, I referenced a then ongoing discussion I was having with Roger Olson. As this pleasant discussion continued, we turned to the topic of hell. The reality of eternal punishment tends to provoke deep thought. The text below is excerpted from my response to Dr. Olson, and represents my best attempt to briefly explain my Calvinistic view of the topic. This is one person's attempt to theorize about how the Biblical data can fit together within a Calvinist framework, and of course a lot of additional clarifications would be needed for this to be a fully satisfying effort. My proposal follows some other Calvinist thinkers and carefully distances from others. The primary aim here is to understand how it is possible for a Reformed approach to extol God's total goodness while affirming His total control over all things. Some of my high Calvinist friends (you know who you are!) will undoubtedly find this view too "soft." I have to admit that I still have a lot of questions about my own view and am still puzzled by much of this at the end of the day. These matters are lofty, and much too wonderful for me.

In my brand of Calvinism (which is admittedly not “high, federal Calvinism”, but historic/moderate), although we unabashedly affirm that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, we do not view good and evil as decreed symmetrically. In other words, while God ultimately intends to allow evil to occur, and to use it for His good purposes, He is also strictly separated from evil in significant ways, as follows:

• He does not commit evil Himself (actually, He can not); However, He is directly involved in good whenever it occurs (He can do good only)

• He never acts as the direct or proximate cause of evil; However, He is always and only the direct or proximate cause of good

• He only intends evil in a passive way; However, He actively intends good

• note: these distinctions also serve as an explanation of why we do not rejoice in the evil that we view as divinely ordained

To illustrate, we say that election is solely a “positive” decree. It is God’s decision, from eternity, to do good (savingly) to certain hopeless sinners. God does not “positively” decide to condemn the others; He decides to allow many (or perhaps most) sinners to voluntarily condemn themselves. Thus reprobation is nothing more than the absence of election. 

Further, although God does not choose to ordain the salvation of all sinners, He positively decrees to give life, breath, food, water, possessions, and many other kindnesses to all people in spite of their rebellion against Him. This is Common Grace. Although God “hates” sinners for their wickedness (Ps. 11:5), He “loves” them as His creatures (Ps. 145:8-9, 13, 17). 

Similarly, our theology views hell as neither a mere concession to evil, nor as a mere utility for revealing God’s glory. It is viewed as a deeply tragic yet glorious conquest of evil by justice. Hell is unspeakably tragic in that a portion of those made in God’s image break fellowship with Him forever. Yet it is glorious in that all unrepented evil is justly and eternally condemned. 

Although God ultimately “decreed” the outcome, those condemned were condemned by their own will, and voluntarily. Having unregenerated hearts, they preferred their own condemnation to God’s holy presence; they preferred the caustic sting of justice to the mercy sincerely offered; they called out for the rocks to fall on them to escape from the presence of a Little Lamb. 

Thus, hell’s condemnation is viewed as passively ordained (one might even say as a “concession” to the creature’s will); however, hell as an enactment of divine justice is viewed as positively ordained, and as good triumphing over evil. This approach represents an extension of the same compatibilistic reasoning we apply to the story of Joseph, the appointment of wicked Cyrus as God’s servant, and the death of Christ on the Cross. In each case, God ordained evil and intended good simultaneously. The evil was done voluntarily by the creature; the good was done purposefully by God.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

 

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities": 

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com, 
 a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

For a textbook example of how the failure to apprehend Biblical paradox can lead to erroneous theological conclusions, check out Randal Rauser's article, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist."
 
First of all, I'd say every word of Scripture is of use to a Calvinist. But let's take a look at his arguments to see what's good and what's not so good, and whether he has a point.
 
Where Rauser Gets It Right
 
First, we should point out a couple of positive features.

1. He refreshingly notes that some Calvinists believe that "God loves all people but has a special love for the elect." Non-Calvinists often miss this point, but Rauser does not. The truth is, all mainstream Calvinists affirm this, while hypers deny it. 

2. He correctly notes that the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" compels us to place greater weight on the clear passages when we are examining less clear passages. That's a useful principle that no self-respecting Calvinist would argue against.

Pretty good so far.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

 
1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Non-Omnibenevolent Calvinism (NOBC): God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. 

Omnibenevolent Calvinism (OBC): God loves all people but has a special love for the elect.

Here's what he misses: Biblical Calvinism embraces the paradox of God's love and hatred for all unrepentant sinners. What Rauser terms OBC and NOBC are each essential components of mainstream Calvinism. In other words, there is a sense in which God loves all people, and there is a sense in which He hates all the wicked. He is nonetheless omnibenevolent. So, we have three apparently contradictory propositions:

• God loves all people, sinners included (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35)
• God hates all unregenerate sinners (Psalm 11:5)
• God has a special love for the elect (Ephesians 1:3-6)

These propositions are not actually contradictory or mutually exclusive. They appear to be, and yet they are not so hard to reconcile on Calvinistic terms. Different Calvinists resolve the paradox in different ways, but every mainstream Calvinist affirms these three undeniably Biblical truths. Rauser's artificial division of two separate Calvinisms - one affirming one truth of Scripture, and the other affirming another truth of Scripture - creates a false dilemma that is not applicable to mainstream Calvinism.
 
I don't believe Rauser purposely creates a straw man here; I think he is truly unaware of the beautiful Biblical paradox that Calvinism embraces (in fairness, this might partially result from the fact that most debating Calvinists are so zealous to get their point across that they fail to present a balanced perspective). However, Rauser's misunderstanding fatally clouds his analysis and renders his arguments invalid because he assumes that Calvinists believe God can only love or only hate a given class of persons. Scripture presents a more complex disposition, and most Calvinists are willing to accept this.
 
Properly speaking, God loves and hates all of the unconverted, including the unconverted elect who are under His wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The non-elect are loved through Common Grace, while the elect are loved with Saving Grace. Unconditional Election means God has chosen to show saving mercy to a subset of sinners who are chosen beforehand according to His own wise counsels. Reprobation means that God has chosen to allow some sinners to go on in their natural course of rebellion and receive the just punishment they are due. Even so, the reprobate are extended much mercy and patience throughout their earthly lives (Romans 9:22, Romans 11:32, Psalm 145, 15-17). There is nothing to prevent God from saving them if they are willing to be saved. No one suffering in hell can deny that God showed love to him, that God was kind to him, that God was patient with him, that God was willing to save him on condition of repentance, or that God treated him justly. No one suffering in hell can say that God somehow prevented him from repenting; all who are there know that they were unable to repent simply because they were unwilling - and that they remain unwilling in spite of their sufferings. Esau included. 
 
That is the ugly face of human sin. No wonder God condemns it.
 
To the elect, God grants a willingness to be saved; yet for His own part He is always willing and ready to save all who come to Him. He is truly omnibenevolent! Jacob and Esau were both loved and hated in various ways, but Esau was not loved with electing love, while Jacob was. Thus we conclude, in opposition to Rauser: the phrase, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," is of great use to the Calvinist because it highlights the electing love of God. Yet it does not diminish His general love for all people, or His general hatred for all the wicked. 
 
All the words of Scripture are useful to the Calvinist because he strives to take all of them together, as the whole counsel of God, and hold them in their proper balance.
 
In part 2, we will examine Rauser's hermeneutical arguments and support our thesis with a study of the Biblical texts themselves.

Rob Bell's REAL Book Cover

Rob Bell says: "We can create all sorts of hells right now if we want to. Genocide, rape, abuse, financial schemes."

"In some ways we see people choosing hell around us all the time. We see people who in the face of the invitation to 'love your neighbor' exploit the neighbor, abuse the neighbor. So I begin with the reality of hell here and now."

Source: interview on Good Morning America

I wonder why Jesus talked so much about the punishment of the wicked as a future event and in another place?

Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

He must not have read Love Wins.

My advice to Rob Bell: Argue with Muslims about the nature of hell if you want to. Argue with the Roman Catholic Church about what hell is like if you must. Argue with angry Independent Fundamental Baptists about hell if you dare. But don't argue with Jesus.

God is Good and Hell is Just

On the most basic level, all of our squawking and screeching about hell reveals a deep distrust of God. Lack of faith, unbelief, and doubt regarding His character. The Bible teaches us emphatically that God will give each and every lost person his or her justly deserved punishment. Nothing more, nothing less. Mercy was available and offered, but roundly rejected. What is the result? What is the just response to defiance, hatred and rebellious distrust of a sovereign, benevolent and all-loving Creator?

Here are some sobering passages that teach eternal torment:

Revelation 14:9-11

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Revelation 20:7-15

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

II Thessalonians 1:7-10
For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

It's hard to imagine how these and other Biblical descriptions of eternal judgment can be reinterpreted to accommodate universalism, post-mortem offers of salvation, or even annihilationism. Nevertheless books have been written. Exegetical word games have been played along the lines of a professional sport. Far fetched and fanciful interpretations have been proposed. Absurdities have been presented with a straight face, as if they were viable alternatives to orthodox Christian beliefs. The Word of God is treated like a ventriloquist's dummy; with enough creative manipulation, one can create the illusion that it says there is no eternal punishment for the unbelieving. 


A concordance study on the Biblical usage of the Greek terms for destruction (apollumi, apoleia, and olethros) shuts down the ventilator that artificially keeps these heterodox theories of the afterlife alive. Surveying the Biblical passages on God's wrath and judgment puts the coffin in the ground and throws dirt on it. Still, the doubters dig around in the graveyard of an untenable hermeneutic, and with the rusty old shovels of humanistic optimism they attempt to resurrect long dead speculations. And all they get from these exhumations of error is a stack of lifeless bones. But religious Americans seem to like bones as much as they dislike hell, and they are happy to buy them, so the doubters keep on digging - and writing, and publishing, and selling. The theological graveyard is full of profits.

Meanwhile, God warns us of an unquenchable and eternal fire that is going to ravage all who reject Him. It has already begun to destroy faithless humanity, rendering all condemned (John 3:18) and naming us children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). We are warned that the unbelieving will be destroyed eternally. The very phrase, "eternal destruction" may sound like a paradox, but it is nonetheless a clear and certain reality and it must be taken whole. Following the historical trend repeated in many other doctrinal disturbances, the propagators of afterlife errors refuse to accept the Word as it is written and in its entirety. They want to "dig deeper" and find something less offensive than the Truth. The trouble is, what they claim to "find" in the text was imported eisegetically from their own minds. While annihilationists deny the eternal duration of the destruction, universalists deny that anything resembling destruction even occurs. The phrase "eternal destruction" precludes both of these errors. It reveals endless destruction - destruction that doesn't end. Not a temporal destruction that has a fixed point of conclusion, but eternal destruction that goes on forever.

Trying to soften this is useless. Rather than using idealistic and man-centered rationalizations to fight the fires of divine justice, Bible teachers ought to be focused on following the command of Jude:

And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

(Jude 1:22-23)

Those who know the testimony of Scripture and still deny the reality of eternal torment are treating their fellow man in a most unmerciful, cruel and hateful way. They might not feel hatred for others, but they are plainly practicing it. Their efforts do not make true Christianity more palatable, but instead offer a sugar-coated poison to the deceived, crying "peace and safety" when the roof is about to fall in. God is more than able to soften the hearts of unbelievers as we preach His unadulterated message. It is not our job to soften the message so hearers will receive and honor us, but to proclaim the truth and watch Him accomplish the miracle of regeneration.


Questions for Those Who Question

Here are some questions for those writers, preachers and leaders who "question" the clear teaching of Scripture on this subject: are you fighting God's justice? Do you not believe that God can measure out a precisely just amount of suffering for each and every lost individual, stretched out across the span of eternity, taking all of the factors into consideration as He alone can do? Do you think you are a more competent judge of the punishment sin deserves?

If God is the most merciful and loving of all beings, and He is not as repelled by the idea of eternal suffering as you are, whose wisdom and mercy are you trusting in? Yours or His? If God in His loving wisdom consigns sinners to eternal torment, can you open your mind to the possibility that this is a good and righteous thing to do?

Does eternal suffering really appear unjust? Perhaps the doctrine of hell is not meant to answer your standard of justice, but to shape it. Maybe you should measure human sin and guilt by the intensity and the duration of the punishment it warrants. If you truly know the infinite depths of your own sinfulness, you will have no problem at all with the concept of eternal suffering. You will be shocked and amazed that you are not already there! You will repent and lay hold of the freely extended mercy of God, who bears patiently with sinners, who suffers His own wrath in the place of sinners, and who saves sinners from going to destruction. Stop trying to put out the fires of hell with humanistic theories, and simply believe and proclaim the Gospel.

You may think the Biblical picture of hell is unjust, but you will have all eternity to be convinced otherwise. The question is: where?

If there really is such a place as the lake of fire, and if it really is just for sinners to suffer there forever, don't you think it merciful of God to tell us the facts so we can flee to Him and find grace? If you deny or twist His words of warning, what can you expect to receive from Him?

Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

_________________________________________________________
Notes:
Matthew 10:28 is commonly used to defend the theory of annihilationism. ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." The Greek term apollumi is used in various senses throughout the New Testament, including killing or death (to which it is parallel in Mt. 10:28; cf. Mt. 27:20), loss (cf. Mt. 15:24, Mk. 9:41; Lk. 15:4, 6, 8-9), ruin or spoil (cf. Lk. 5:37; Jn. 6:27); perishing spiritually (i.e. becoming lost or dead eternally, not having eternal life and salvation, cf. Jn. 3:16; the present state of the unbelieving, cf. I Cor. 1:18). It is difficult to find an instance of apollumi in which the word implies complete annihilation. Perhaps a case could be made for this meaning in Hebrews 1:11, but even that is a stretch and it is an isolated case. Since physical death is the separation of a person's material and immaterial substance, there is no reason to believe that the second death, or the ultimate spiritual death, is anything like annihilation. Rather, consistency with the idea of "death" and the normal usage of apollumi would lead us to say that the second death (or destruction of the soul) is a further and final separation from God, perhaps even the division of the soul and spirit, or the greater "ruin" of the personality. Since the wicked will be resurrected prior to judgment, it is conceivable that there is a kind of continuous physical dying as well. Similarly, the idea of "lostness" fits perfectly with the idea that a portion of humanity has irrevocably turned away from God and perished. And one might ask: if annihilation is intended in Mt. 10:28, what is there to fear? One could be more afraid of temporal suffering than of merely ceasing to exist.
2 Th. 1:9 is also used to support annihilationism. "These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." Here the Greek word olethros is used. It means "ruin, destruction, death." It is characterized in the verse as being away from God's presence, glory and power. The term is also used in I Th. 5:3, where it is the ironic opposite of the peace and safety that were expected. Contrary to this, the unrepentant sinner who is abiding under God's righteous wrath may well find the possibility of annihilation to be the safest and most peaceful refuge imaginable. But this refuge does not exist, for the New Testament use of olethros carries no implication of ceasing to exist.

A God-Centered Defense of the Biblical Doctrine of Hell

Editor's Note: In a recent post, I pointed out that a Biblical understanding of sin takes the mystery out of the doctrine of hell and places it back in the doctrines of grace, where it belongs. The author of a book called, "Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell" took exception to my overt affirmation of the reality of hell. I was headed out of town for the weekend and could not respond to his comments, so I asked my friend Chris DeVidal to respond. And I'm glad I did. Here's the thoughtful and God-exalting response written by Chris . . .

The basis of your argument is:

* We didn't ask to be born, and yet we are damned
* Infinite punishment could not possibly be merited by a finite crime
* Jesus seemingly preached against hell in Luke 9:51-56

Editor's Note: The first assertion is the height of ingratitude. The second is inaccurate due to a low view of sin (which springs from a low view of God, as Mr. DeVidal is about to demonstrate). The third is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture that any first year Bible student could dismantle with ease. But let's allow Chris to answer, he does a better job . . .

Please allow me to answer these three points with one question:

What motivates God to do all that He does?

Why the creation? Why the cross?

You might say, "love."
And that's a good answer, but it needs more refinement.
I think you might mean, "love for humans."

Tell me, what did God (the Father) love before He created us?
I think there can only be one answer, the Son.

Who is the Son?
Deity. God.

If you don't agree with me on this point we have a different discussion. So let's assume you agree.

So what motivates God?
Love. For Himself.

Don't take my word for it. Ask yourself what motivated Him to save when you read Isaiah 48:9-11.

Or John 17:1 Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You.
Or John 14:13 ... so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
Or John 16:14 He will bring glory to Me ...
Or Acts 12:23 ... because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down ...
Or Psalm 25:11 For the sake of Your name ... forgive my iniquity ...
Or Romans 9:17 I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed ...
Or Exodus 14:4 ... I will gain glory for Myself through Pharaoh and all his army ...
Or Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for My own sake ...
Or Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord ...
Or Ezekiel 20:14 But for the sake of My name I did what would keep it from being profaned ...
Or Psalm 106:7-8 Yet He saved them for His name’s sake,to make His mighty power known.
Or Isaiah 43:6-7 ... everyone who is called by My name,whom I created for My glory ...
Or Jeremiah 13:11 ... to be my people for My renown and praise and honor.
Or 1 Samuel 12:20-22 ... For the sake of His great name the Lord will not reject his people ...
Or 1 Corinthians 10:31 ... do it all for the glory of God.
Or Ezekiel 36:22-23, 32 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes. ... I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Or 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.

(Reminder, God wrote those verses about Himself.)

Want more proof?
How about the biggest book in the Bible: The Psalms.

What are the Psalms' basic content?
Praise God!
Praise God!
Praise God!

The Psalms were written by God. So what He's really saying is,
Praise Me!
Praise Me!
Praise Me!

What motivates God most is love for Himself.

By beginning with the assumption that God revolves around man, you are led down a terrible road - even to the point of inventing a different god than what is found in the Bible.

This is called idolatry.
(I don't know if you're an idolator, but the warning must be clear: assume that man comes first and you will become one.)

I'm not sure you were aware of this assumption. I know of very, very, very few people who have asked and Biblically answered the question, "What motivates God?" Not even me. But you must ask this question to rightly understand the Bible. When you see that God is motivated by love for Himself, the Bible falls into place. Your life will radically change for the better. Trust me.

So if God loves Himself above all things, how does that presuppose the doctrine of Hell?

Let me explain . . .

God is infinitely worthy.

Worthy of exaltation.
Worthy of majesty.
Worthy of respect.
Worthy of praise.
Worthy of honor.
Worthy of glory.
Worthy of song.
Worthy of all!
He is WORTHY of obeying, simply because He is worthy.

Now, what is sin?

What is sin but a rebellion against His command? What a TERRIFIC insult to His honor!!! He said "don't do it," we say, "you're not worthy of obeying." On the basis of His worth alone, He should be respected, listened to, agreed with, obeyed. He is supreme over all!

If He says jump, our only answer ought to be, "How high?" Simply because He is worthy of obedience.

David the Psalmist agreed. He sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba and his son and dragged all of Israel down into scandal, thus sinning against literally millions of people. Yet he wrote these words:

Against You, You only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in Your sight
(Psalm 51:4a ESV)

Why?

so that You may be justified in Your words
and blameless in Your judgment.
(Psalm 51:4b ESV)

Another way to consider sin is it is deeds that would be done only if He isn't really there.

If a dignitary, some royalty or ambassador, visits your house and you go about your life as if he were not there, you would greatly insult him. How would your and my life change if Jesus knocked on our door and said, "I'll be following you around from now on, listening to your thoughts, words, watching your actions and judging your fears." Would you act or think differently?

To the degree that you would change, there is unbelief that He really is watching, that He really does exist. This belittles Him. God will not tolerate belittling of His name for very long.

He is most motivated by love for His own self-worth.

Tell me, what would it communicate about His opinion of Himself if there was no punishment for those who belittled the worth of His great name, the name that He loves?

What if He did nothing to uphold the worth of His great name?

GOD WOULD BE INFINITELY BLASPHEMOUS.

If God were not to uphold the glory of God, God would deny God the glory that God deserves. God would be heaping scorn upon God. That would be blasphemous!

Let us consider even the smallest little grumbling about the weather, alone in your car on the way home from work. I was guilty of this a few weeks ago.

What are we really saying?

First, we say that God doesn't know what He is doing. Don't you see that He is watering the plants to feed you? He doesn't have to. He could let you try to make plants grow all on your own, without any water at all anywhere on the earth.

Second, we say that God doesn't love His creatures to send this providence. There are literally MILLIONS of people on earth shaking their fist in His face, and He gives them a sandwich. What a tremendously loving, patient God this must be!

Third, we say that God doesn't exist. When we complain to the air about circumstances, we are effectually complaining that He sent the circumstances. We would never, never, never, never, never question His providence if He were sitting in the car next to us. This belittles His great name. God will not tolerate belittling His name for long.

Grumbling under our breath to ourselves about the rain must be an infinite affront to the majesty and authority and worth of HIS GREAT NAME.

What an amazing God, then, who visits the furious wrath deserved upon those who grumble about His rain. He visits the full fury of hell, upon His Son, who gladly volunteered for the job "for the joy that was set before him." (Hebrews 12:2 ESV)

I CANNOT believe I get to worship this God!

What a God!
What a God!
What a God!

In summary, hell is a doctrine that is demanded by an understanding of the nature of the God of the Bible. Period.

If you don't agree, you have to deny the core, fundamental essense of who God is.

Ultimately, in order to escape these Biblical truths, you must create another god.

This is called idolatry.

Conclusion

* God loves Himself above all things, and does all that He does to bring glory to Himself.

* God is worthy of all, and worth giving glory to.

* Even the slightest grumble under your breath, alone by yourself where no one hears, is worth an infinite amount of punishment. (Indeed, I did not say this earlier but an infinite amount of punishment in hell really isn't enough to pay for just one of our crimes, let alone our multiplied crime upon crime. If hell didn't exist the trees and the rocks would SCREAM for justice!!)

* God would not be just to Himself if He did not mete out the just punishment on those who grumble under their breath.

* This God is amazing who visits the fury of infinite wrath upon Himself in order to show kindness to us, so that we will in turn bring Him the glory He deserves.

WHAT A GOD!
WHAT A GOD!
WHAT A GOD!

"...bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." (Isaiah 43:6b-7 ESV)