God, Justice and Love

Have you ever wondered what is the purpose for Justice?

Is it an arbitrary consequence for a broken law... or is there more to it? What is God's idea of justice from His perspective? Have we settled for a far simpler version of justice than God intends?
It has been a tendency of societies to punish people without the intention of restoring them - i.e. through imprisonment and capital punishment. Not only that, but often Christian doctrine upholds a punishment concept of justice instead of one focused around love and restoration. Often concepts of justice seem to seek to satisfy some abstract idea of justice, and to force people to be "good" through fear and compulsion. 

Yet, there is another way of looking at justice. If we look at justice from the perspective of love ("God is love" - 1 John 4:8) it brings a different perspective for the purpose of justice. By seeing justice through love, ideally we can seek after a practical restoration of wrongs where all parties experience compassion and love. Such a practical restoration could be where the wrong done is made right, both within the wrong doer and with the victim. I ask, is it really enough to try make people "good" through arbitrary judgements? Does it even "work"? Shouldn't our aim be to restore the conscience of a person to the point where they want to do good, not out of fear, but out of courage? Surely that would produce a more wholesome society. 
It is interesting that studies show Restorative Justice is more successful than punitive punishments on many accounts such as reducing recidivism, reducing post-traumatic stress amongst victims (including revenge), and both offenders and victims are more satisfied with Restorative Justice than conventional criminal justice. (See Restorative Justice: The Evidence)

We were having a heartfelt and thoughtful discussion with Cindy Skillman over at the Evangelical Universalism forum on the subject "Post-mortem punishment and the perfect love of God". She had this gem to share which I thought was so well put I had to post it here on the Benevolent Hecklers. She compares human justice with God's justice. She ultimately asks what God's attitude is towards post-mortem punishment using a Biblical concept of love. Let me know what you think!   

"This is what God (through Paul) says love looks like:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

Some say that God would LOVE to save all people, but He cannot because they refuse to be saved. Love never fails. Some say that when we die in the flesh, God gives up on us. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. AND Love never fails.

Sure God can punish for the purpose of healing. Earthly parents do this, and we submit to it. How much more should we willingly submit to chastisement from our Heavenly Father who always does it for our good? Earthly parents who punish for the sake of punishing and NOT to heal and reform an erring child, are considered monsters--rightly. And THAT is only temporal, temporary, earthly punishment. Yet we think that our Heavenly Father will punish to no purpose other than revenge and so-called "justice," not for a short time, not to reform, not to cure, not to make anything right but ONLY to administer far in excess of Moses's limits of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--forever and ere.

Justice is NOT taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. That is only a limitation on excessive punishment. Justice is not eternal torment, whether or not eternal torment is deserved. Justice is not the chair for a murderer or prison for a lesser criminal. Those things are human attempts at justice, or human attempts at imagining ultimate justice.

Justice is making things right.

None of the punishments we could administer or imagine could ever make things right. Justice means you get your murdered wife back, and the man who murdered her becomes the loving brother to you and to her that he ought always to have been. THAT is making things right. Everything else is a poor, impoverished human attempt to prevent the criminal from having an advantage he denied his victim. Did he kill? Let him not live, for his victim is dead. Did he steal? Let him have nothing, for he has diminished his victims, forcing them to support him without their consent. THAT is the best WE can do. It is far, far from the best God can do."

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith

Introduction

Many of us have felt guilty for feeling doubt regarding our faith, whether it be our whole faith or parts of it. I hesitated about using the word doubt in this article because of its potentially negative connotations. However, I choose to use it because it captures the emotion behind what many of us feel when we question or enquire about areas of our faith that we don't understand. Interestingly, Fuller Seminary completed a study on what is most helpful for young people to retain their faith and build maturity, and found that wrestling with doubts was a key. Experiencing doubt can be emotionally draining and a fearful experience, and this needs to be recognised and addressed. When looking at the Bible, it seems to portray God as being merciful (in some cases praising) towards those who express questions or doubts. Faith doesn't seem to be an unquestionable act of trust in God, but more a choice to trust God, whilst acknowledging and wrestling with our doubts.  

 Retrieved from http://www.redletterchristians.org/wp-content/uploads/Faith-in-times-of-uncertainty.jpg

Opening questions to consider:

Is it right or wrong to question our beliefs?

Is it unhelpful or helpful to question our beliefs?

What does God expect us to do?

What does evidence suggest we do?

Two Mindedness is not Necessarily Helpful

I admit that the Bible does emphasise that it is not helpful to be two-minded in our beliefs according to James 1. After looking at many scriptures relating to uncertainty and faith, what James appears to be referring to here is a person who is permanently indecisive and without conviction in life. Most people would say that a person having no conviction about social injustice or various issues would be a person who is unhelpful and impractical to reality. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Scripture and Doubt

There are many situations in the Bible where people experience a type of doubt and it is not always seen with disdain. What God appears to respect in His Word is the sincere seeking of truth that people partake in. As the Bible says "seek and you will find".  The prophets would repeatedly appeal to what God has done in the past as evidence of God's power and glory, rather than just claiming that God is God. This suggests that God does not expect blind faith, but faith based on evidence. Paul also took time to argue the gospel reasonably and based on evidence. If faith is based on evidence, then it is based on conviction of that evidence and not a fake conviction of nothing. God is more concerned about the sincerity of heart than about shallow publicly espoused allegiance to Him, as Jesus so often accused the Pharisees of doing. 

Mark 9 shares a story where Jesus answered a doubting man's prayer. Jesus said that he needed to believe in order to receive His assistance. The man replied that he believed, but also asked Jesus to help him with his unbelief! What the man requested seems to be an oxymoron, but Jesus had mercy on him and granted his request. It seems that an admission of faith while experiencing doubt can even have prayers answered! God doesn't seem to need our unwavering faith to bring about His purposes. This story suggests that Jesus is more interested in a sincere pursuit of Him, even if that pursuit involves admission of doubt.

Paul says at the end of Roman 14 that we need to be congruent (consistent) or true to ourselves. He says that if we go against our conscience, it is more or less akin to sin. In the context of doubt, this could mean that acknowledging the doubt and wrestling with it, rather than going on pretending it isn't there, is the more helpful way of living.

Matthew states that even Jesus expressed a form of "doubt" when He cried "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". I am not saying that Jesus necessarily intellectually doubted His Father's existence, but that He existentially doubted (experiencing emotional or intellectual doubt) God's faithfulness to Him while He was on the cross. We all go through periods in our lives where we experience doubt about God's existence, goodness, or our understanding of "correct" doctrine - whether it be emotional or intellectual. Christ seemed to be free to express his anguish without worrying about the judgement of religious lofty eyes.

Jude 22 also chimes in on how to deal with doubt. He emphasises the mercy that we need to show to those who doubt. Rather than thinking less of those who experience doubt, he appears to imply being slow to judge and quick to hear. 

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith 

I have been reading a book recently by Nancy Pearcy called "Saving Leonardo: A call to resist the secular assault on mind, morals, & meaning".  In it she brings to our attention a fascinating study by Fuller Seminary that investigated High School graduate's tendency to lose their faith after school. In the study they found a key factor that influenced whether youth kept their faith or not. They found that the most effective factor was not prayer or Bible studies, but the safe exploration of questions before leaving home. The college students said that the more they felt they could safely express their doubts meant that they developed higher levels of faith and spiritual maturity. Pearcy believes that the best way for teens to be prepared to give an answer for their faith (1 Peter 3:15) is by personally wrestling with questions. Jesus interestingly said that we are to be child in like some way. Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer said that being childlike is not about believing the first thing we have been told, but about a tendency to ask questions! Pearcy concludes that we need to have the attitude of Paul "Test Everything; Hold fast what is good". 

As counselling theory has well established, safely and honestly exploring our realities (without fear of judgement) helps us to have a greater awareness and understanding which equips us to live more fruitful and sincere lives.   

Doubt and Fear

The alternative extreme to double mindedness is when people engage in a blind following of one belief without questioning it or hearing and entertaining another's viewpoint. I wrote a post recently on the subject of Group Think, its' dangerous tendencies, and how to combat it. I do believe in the usefulness of constructive talk around what we generally see as evidence for the faith (and there is a lot), but if this talk is not balanced it can produce fear amongst people when they doubt something that is taken for granted. Why do we fear? It could be because it has been ingrained into us to believe blindly or else be condemned, instead of engaging honestly with our doubt. I have felt at times that the attitude within church culture can be that to doubt is a sin or a weakness. However, there is a more helpful and God honouring way to view doubt.If I love truth, and God is truth, then I love God. The search for truth comes first, if it doesn't, then we just believe whatever we first come in contact with, or whatever suits our fancy. That would not be honouring God to believe something for the sake of it. On a similar note, if I expect someone else to question their world view in the humble pursuit of truth, then I must also too. God wants us to love Him with our heart, strength and mind. I am not saying that we blow about in the wind 24/7, but how C.S. Lewis put it: "Faith... is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods". People believe things for many reasons, and it would often take a huge amount of evidence before their belief would change anyway. I believe the honest pursuit of truth is the attitude that God would find most helpful to work with, rather than a dogmatic adherence to creeds with the suppression of doubt.    

Conclusion

Scripture suggests that it is not evil to experience doubt, but part of the process of finding out who we are and why we believe what we believe. Instead, we can be true to ourselves. The Fuller Seminary study shows that being real, and safely exploring our doubts leads to a stronger faith. It suggests it is more dangerous to not safely question your faith. However, it is not helpful to always be wavering and double minded, but instead having a humble conviction about what we do have evidence for. Experiencing doubt is not something people can always avoid due to the enquiring minds God has given us, but it can be extremely frightening and painful. One way to help relinquish this fear is by sincerely searching for truth while having an attitude of trust towards God, that if He is truth, He will guide our sincere searching in the most helpful direction. We cannot ever understand everything. Being true to ourselves is the best we can do, and what I believe God wants us to exhibit. I am not suggesting giving up on faith, but suggesting the necessity to express doubt as a part of our faith.

P.S.

Joshua Griffiths is currently doing a series talking about how relationship and the existence of knowledge gaps is essential for a full understanding and experience of faith - Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 3 - RELATIONSHIPS)

Biblical Support for Universalism - Part 6

In Search of a Coherent Narrative

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism's Philosophical Problems

Part 4: Calvinism’sScriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 5:  A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Previously we looked at how ambiguous the Greek and Hebrew words for "forever" are in both the Old Testament and New Testament. It seems wise to interpret them as indefinite periods of time rather than strictly "forever". Doing this means that it is unnecessary to conclude that people will be in hell forever and opens up God’s potential activities in the future aions that make up eternity. What I would like to address now is various scriptural support that suggests that all people will eventually be saved. I emphasise again that this does not mean that I am suggesting people don’t go to hell, only that we have misinterpreted the length of “punishment” or “rehabilitation” within hell.

Photo retrieved from: http://jesus-photos-pictures.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/god-holding-world-in-his-hands-photos.html

Both Calvinists and Arminianists talk about God’s heart and his desire to save all people, but don’t really go much further than that. Alternatively, Universalism emphasises God’s will and determination to save all people.

Here are some verses that emphasise God’s determined will to save all people:

Romans 5:15-19 is an amazing passage exclaiming the power and extent of Christ’s death in comparison to Adam’s sin. The wording here is extremely fascinating and seems to point towards Universalism. The passage states more than once that Adam brought death to the many, but Christ’s death brought the gift of life to the many. In Arminian and Calvinist tradition one would think that it should say "through Adam death came to the many and through Christ life to the elect few". But no, Paul illustrates that Christ’s impact is just as big and if not bigger than Adam’s impact on humanity. Isaiah 53:11 also emphasises the many and not the few that Christ will save.

1 Corinthians 15:20-26 has another direct comparison between those that are brought to death through Adam and those through Christ. Although this one is even stronger because this time it says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”. This passage also states, “the last enemy that will be destroyed is death”. The Bible talks about the lake of fire as the second death in Revelation. Therefore, I ask, if death is destroyed then how can it survive in the greater part of humanity… for eternity? Will hell fire reign forever or will Christ rule with all things under His feet and destroy death altogether? Oh death where is your sting…

At this point, I would like to be intellectually honest and point out that the Greek word pás meaning “all”, which is often used in the New Testament, actually could mean “all”, or “all types of”. From what I found there is disagreement about what it means generally speaking and therefore people say that the context should interpret its meaning. In this context, it would not make much sense to suggest that through Adam all types of people die, and through Christ all types of people shall be made alive. As with the following verse in 2 Peter 3:9 where pás is interpreted as “everyone”… it does not make much sense to say that God is not willing that any soul should perish but that “every type” of people be saved. It appears the word “any” would directly interpret what is meant by “everyone”.

The classic verse 2 Peter 3:9 is often interpreted as an expression of emotion by many, but the Greek suggests that it is so much more than that. It says, “The Lord is not slow to fulfil His promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but wants everyone to repent”. The Greek word for “wishing” is boulomai, which actually means "to determine". HELPS Word-studies is worth quoting:

1014 /boúlomai (“resolutely plan”) is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire (“wishfulness”) behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God’s “thélō-offers” can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai (“planning”) always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

This word seems much stronger than what many translators have put into English. If God intends or determines that not any should perish, I ask, who could possibly thwart the determined plans of God? Unless of course God is deceiving Himself that He is able to save everyone, but He actually cannot and is grasping at the wind.

Colossians 1:19-20 is one of my favourites because it exclaims the supremacy of Christ and His mission to reconcile all things to Himself. It says that God is pleased to reconcile all things to Himself through Christ, both on earth and in heaven. Once again, here is very broad universal language seeming to include all things. Not only does it say all things but it specifies what it means by all things - and includes both heaven and earth.

On a similar note, we also have Ephesians 1:7-11. 

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will”. 

The Greek for unite in this passage, anakephalaioó, means to “sum up” or “bring a head to”, which implies that Christ is in the business of reorganising everything in Him. I would question God allowing sin and death to reign in hell as a means of summing up everything in Him. Interesting though how at the end it says that God works everything according to the counsel (Greek is boulé = God’s resolved plan) of His will (Greek is thelo = desire), which has huge implications for verses such as 2 Peter 3:9 and many others which use stronger words than thelo. It does not sound like God is intending to fail at completing what He desires to happen.

John 12:32 is straightforward when it says that when Christ rises up He will draw all men to Himself. I assume He means women also… J

1 Timothy 4:9-11 is an extremely odd verse to read when not read from a Universalist perspective. It says that God is the Saviour of all people (there it is again), and especially of those who believe. It seems strange to me to talk about God being the Saviour of all people, but then talk about how He is the Saviour especially of those who believe. To me this sounds like it could be a grand plan of salvation that is in the process of saving all people, but has not yet saved all.

1 John 2:2 also is fascinating because he is reminding us believers that Christ died for the wider whole. In it John states that Christ’s death was not just for the propitiation of our sins but for the whole world.

Lamentations 3:31-33 is a powerful few verses talking about God’s longsuffering. It says,

“For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though He cause grief, He will have compassion according to the abundance of His steadfast love; for He does not afflict from His heart or grieve the children of men”. 

This is further evidence that God is not in the business of eternal conscious torment, but instead to reconcile all back to Him.

Acts 17 states that God determined the boundaries of the nations so that they would seek Him. Here is a different Greek word, horizō, which also means “to determine” and the passage states that the purpose of determining the nations is that they would seek Him. Once again, it says nations and not the elect. Verses such as Luke 11:9-13 say that if we seek we will find, and therefore illuminates the potential that God determined all nations would seek Him.

It is interesting that God says that He does not take delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11 & 18:32). Alternatively God desires and commands that all men everywhere come to repentance (Ezekiel 33:11, Acts 17:30).

Last, but not least, comes an amazing chapter from Paul - Romans 11. Some of you may be surprised this contains evidence for Universalism, but on the contrary it is full of it. In the beginning, Paul talks about how God has reserved a remnant of Israel for Himself and these select few are ones that follow Him. In v7 Paul calls them the elect, and refers to the non-elect as the “others”. Paul refers to how God caused these non-elect to stumble and fail to see. However, in v11 Paul asks, “Have they stumbled that they should fall?” He goes on to answer his own question. “By no means,” he says, but that through their trespass salvation shall come to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. It would not make much sense for Paul to be talking about the elect stumbling and falling. What Paul seems to be saying is that the non-elect or non-chosen have stumbled, but will not fall. Paul says this is because of a grand plan to bring in the Gentiles also. The point of this is that Paul includes the non-elect into at least a position for potential salvation. Paul gets firmer later in the chapter. He says:

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all."

Here Paul expresses God’s ultimate grand plan, that through a process of experiencing sin and disobedience everyone can experience mercy and reconciliation with God - the Jew, the Gentile, the elect, the non-elect… everyone. Paul finishes with an open-ended exclamation about how wondrous and unsearchable are God’s ways… let him speak for himself:

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and how unscrutable His ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?" For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." 

The final verse completes the evidence provided in this part of the series. There are many more concepts and verses in support of Universalism, but these scriptures stood out the most as providing clear examples. All things are from God, through God and to God, and I would suggest that sometime in the future aions, all things includes all people.

Conclusion:

We have seen how the Bible has many passages suggesting that all people will be saved. It suggests it by the language its uses such as “all”. It suggests it through God’s determining language used to speak about saving all people. It suggests it by direct comparisons between the many who have sinned through Adam and the many who have life through Christ. It suggests it through the salvation of the non-elect and ultimate mercy shown to all people. Last but not least, it suggests it through the all-encompassing power and extent of God’s control and grasp of all things. 

Next, I plan write a post that seeks to philosophically pull the idea of Universalism into a systematic theology. I welcome any thoughts and comments from people who may agree or disagree with something I have said. We are all a work in progress and hopefully we all seek Truth.

Next

Part 7: A SystematicUnderstanding of Universalism

Christian Ethics in a Secular Environment

Can Christian ethics and a secular environment be reconciled? Here are some thoughts on the meaning of the “law” within Christianity and how it applies to Social Work ethics or even life in general.

Imagine that you see a sheep in a field. You see the sheep and exclaim “ah, there is a sheep in that field”. However, unbeknown to you, the sheep that you thought you saw was actually a rock in the shape of a sheep; and behind the rock in the shape of a sheep, there was actually a sheep.
-      Did you know that there was a sheep in the field?
-      Were you correct that there was a sheep in the field?
The statement was technically correct that there was a sheep in the field, but what you had in mind was incorrect.
Epistemology is the study of “how you know that you know things” and applies to ethics as much as anything else. As the sheep in the field scenario illustrates, knowledge is largely subjective, meaning that it is from our personal perspective.

Ethics and Social Work
Ethics in Social Work likewise are also subject to interpretation. Not every person will see all aspects of a given situation before them.
For example:
What does it mean to act in the client’s best interests? We may have a vague understanding of what it means, but how that is perceived and outworked varies greatly. This is largely due to our own interpretations.

Context plays a huge role in determining which ethical action to take. Depending on the context, what may seem in the client’s best interests may require an action that will vary from case to case. This calls for humility when working in these situations. We will never have all the knowledge in a given context. We may think we do at times, but one must remember that knowledge is largely from our perspective, even if we may think it is “common sense”… Knowledge is heavily influenced by our cultural background and life experiences. You can say that you believe there is a sheep in the field, but in actual fact, because of our fallible natures and limited knowledge, we should be aware that we could be very wrong. 
Depending on how much we can see of a given scenario or even how we see it from our perspective, no universal ethic will necessarily look the same. We may have a general understanding of what to do, just like we have a general understanding that there was a sheep in the field, but we are ultimately limited in our knowledge.


Even worse than working with a lack of knowledge, ethical practice may even directly conflict with itself. What if you thought you were looking at a sheep in the field and your client or colleague saw a rock in the shape of sheep? Both are looking at the same scenario. Who says who is right?

The Duck/Rabbit picture is a great example. Some people see a rabbit and some people see a duck. Both appear equally correct from each perspective. In an ethical dilemma one must be chosen and each choice with its own consequences.     
So how do we decipher what any particular ethic practically looks like when working with clients?  


Human rights v Moral rights.
Marie Connolly shares an understanding of practical Social Work values that I particularly like, which comes from a rights based perspective. She claims that there are two types of rights, human rights and moral rights. Human rights are concerned with the wellbeing of people, whereas moral rights are concerned about smaller issues in the grand scheme of things. From my understanding, moral rights which could come from asking “what is the right thing to do”, can become troublesome in Social Work because they are often from our personal values and don’t necessarily impact wellbeing greatly. On the other hand, human rights tend to be more helpful when making ethical decisions in Social Work. Instead of asking “what is the right thing to do”, a Social Worker coming from a Human Rights base may ask “what would be most helpful thing to do to produce wellbeing?”. Doing this enables us to sieve through the various decisions available.
An example could be a parent’s rights over their children. It is a moral right for parents to provide for their children, but if the children’s wellbeing is compromised, then the child’s human right comes into effect and overrides the moral right of the parent. It wouldn’t be helpful for the Social Worker or the child to value moral rights over human rights in this situation.

Difference in Christian thought.
Marie Connolly comes from a secular perspective, which I generally agree with. But what about Christians? Much of my upbringing consisted of encountering a variety of Christians that come from different schools of thought. Many Christians come from an objective law focus when it comes to moral rights and I did too for much of my life. Think back to the sheep in the field. An objective outlook would claim that there is definitely a sheep in the field, but a subjective outlook would believe there is a sheep in the field and would admit that due to limited knowledge, they could be wrong.

Congruence
An objective outlook is fine - we are all entitled to our opinion - but this type of Christianity may find it difficult to do social work in a secular context, because of the limitations that an objective outlook creates. I wrestled with this earlier on in the degree. How can I work in a manner that honours the “morals” of Christianity at the same time as “supporting” someone else’s opposing morals? Carl Rogers thought that a person’s psychological well-being was connected with how well they were able to live congruent lives. A person who is able to be congruent between their perceived reality and with their actual experiences, results in less anxiety. For me this has been true. The more I can reconcile my conscience with reality, the more at ease I feel with myself. This makes the place of ethics in Social Work and my interpretation of what these ethics mean to me, very important.


Laws made for man
The more I have studied the Bible I have found that I have misunderstood a huge part of the gospel, and much of what Jesus emphasized. Many Christians try to preach the Ten Commandments as a list of written “rules” from God. However, I over looked that Jesus Himself denied that these were “rules” per se. Jesus revolutionised the purpose of a law when he and his disciples picked heads of grain in a field on a Sabbath (which breaks the Sabbath law of doing no work). Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Likewise I believe that laws are made for the benefit of people (therefore making them more like principles), rather than people being made for laws.


Fulfilled in love
To me, what the law produces is a motive of self-concern. E.g. if I follow this law then God will value me. However, more recently I see that Christianity teaches a rather different way of understanding morality and ethics.
The apostle Paul talked about how Jesus fulfilled the law, and summed up the law in what he called one word: “ For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Galations 5:13-14),
Living with the principles of dying to our selfish selves helps me to naturally look outward towards the needs of others, rather than following a law “just because”. This outlook ties in well with Human Rights ethics. Jesus was concerned about people’s wellbeing rather than a set of arbitrary rules. The “rules” or principles Jesus and the writers of the New Testament expected us to live by were for our wellbeing!

I have at times wrestled with Corrie Ten Boom type scenarios regarding lying versus telling the truth. For those who don't know the story, Corrie lied to the Nazis in order to protect Jews in her care. At times like these, I believe it is helpful to look at ethical dilemmas within their context and looking at things from a wellbeing perspective. Sure, it may not be right or helpful generally speaking to ourselves and society to be a false witness, but when it comes down to the wellbeing of another (like hiding Jews from the Nazis) wouldn’t it be more Christ-like to break a law for the wellbeing of another? I ask this remembering of course Jesus’ attitude to towards the law of the Sabbath. 


So how does this outlook relate to Social Work ethics? Just like with Social Work and ethical dilemmas, as a Christian, I will inevitably encounter ethical dilemmas. However, the difference is that I can work with more flexibility regarding what might be considered “Right” or “Wrong” in a given situation. I can live with greater congruence between my personal and professional values.

Following are some of the verses I found helpful to consider when thinking about ethics:

Matthew 5:43-44
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” 

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

Ephesians 4:29
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Romans 14:4-6, 14-15
4 ”Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…
 “14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love…” 

Mark 12:31
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”



I would also like to conclude with some words of wisdom from Captain Barbossa:

"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"

'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems – Part 3

In Search of a Coherent Narrative 

Introduction

Part 1: Arminianism – A Seemingly Attractive Narrative

Part 2: Arminianism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems

Part 3: 'Freewill'? Arminianism’s Philosophical Problems 

Part 4: Calvinism’s Scriptural and Philosophical Problems 

Part 5: A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism 

Introduction

Previously I discussed how the concept of man’s Freewill does not hold a monopoly on scripture. I also discussed how foreknowledge seems to fail to explain how God’s predestination is a response to man’s Freewill choice of Him. This additional discussion looks more closely at the very concept of Freewill, not so much from a scriptural perspective but from philosophical perspective. This post asks how Freewill is actually meant to work, and explores some potentially negative consequences that is associated with Freewill thought. I realise books could be written on these subjects, but here, I aim to at least provide an exploration of some ideas in order to provoke thought around these subjects.

Cause and Effect

Arminian thought regarding Freewill cannot be explained. I believe it cannot be explained because it does not provide an answer to the important concepts of cause and effect. Cause and effect is the direct relation between a cause and the effect that it brings. Let me explain using the scenario of salvation. If we choose God over absence from Him, cause and effect would ask “what caused us to choose or not to choose God?”. Freewill thought would state that WE chose to or not to. However, in reality I do not think that it is that simple. Observing nature provides us with an understanding of cause and effect within creation. Quite simply, we are to a great extent products of our environment. I was raised in a New Zealand European family who are strong Christians. Guess what happened to me? Yes, I took on largely their language, culture, values and even their faith. My upbringing dictated to a great degree who I would become. Others absorb their surroundings also, such as a person in an Arab state may likely grow up to be a Muslim. Proverbs strongly hints towards a similar conclusion where the impact that our surroundings can have on us, actually determines the path we walk. It states that when you “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” When observing reality, it seems to suggest that our context that we live in drastically dictates where we will grow up, how we will act, and what we will believe. Thus, I believe we can fairly ask, “What causes me or anyone else to accept God or not to accept Him?”

A Dichotomy

When observing the concept of cause and effect and its relation to Freewill, it leads to a dichotomy about the nature of our Freewill. Either our decisions have direct causes, or they have ‘random’ causes. In Arminianist thought, people must have ultimately (in the end) an EQUAL choice between salvation or absence from God. If it is not equal then it implies that our circumstances, our experiences, and our nature would be the deciding influences to tip the balance on what we ultimately decide. Some Arminianists say that our surroundings do have an influence, but that we still have a choice to override that influence. However, if something does influence me then it must definitely have an effect on me. Can I really be held responsible for responding to an influence that had an effect on me, especially if that effect had no opposing influence to pull me in the other direction? If it were really true that we had a free choice to choose against influences, then reality would reflect that. As demonstrated earlier and clearly seen in reality, influences heavily determine the outcome of individuals in society - the way we think, the god (or lack of) we believe in, and even the prevalence of generational or societal sin! If we deny that influences determine outcomes then we must look at the alternative, which would mean something even more drastically unsettling. If we have a perfectly equal choice with no influencing factors, then what is it within us that makes any particular choice? What would cause me to choose to be saved, but the person across the road to choose not to be? I cannot say that it is because I wanted to be saved more, because that would be a predisposition of mine, or created by an outside influence. The only other disturbing option is that the decision would be completely random. If the decision is completely random, then there is no basis to discuss the importance of making any choices whatsoever. So any particular decision either has a cause (or a largely determining factor) or is completely random.

In my opinion, according to cause and effect, God ultimately created my circumstances, and He created my predisposition. I do not see any way that our Freewill can fit into this picture. I will speak more on the implications of this in my final post.

The same problems with the concept of Freewill can be applied to God. If God had choices before Him and randomly chose one, He would be an inconsistent and untrustworthy God. He definitely would not be the same yesterday, today and forever as it claims in the scriptures (Hebrews 13:8). In scripture, if God does something, it seems to always be for a reason, and that reason does not seem to be random. Either He makes random decisions (Which isn't Biblical or logical) OR He has some predisposition inherent in Him that causes Him to decide one way or the other. God would not be the God of the Bible if something existed outside of Him (Randomness or other) that would largely determine Him to do one action or another. Therefore, He must have a fixed nature that determines His actions.

Dangers of Freewill Thought

The concept of Freewill also creates other concerns when relating to people and creating discourses about society. The concern is that Freewill may cause us to lack compassion for those who reflect their external environment. I realise that we do have individuals natures that can cause each of us to act differently in different situations, however when looking at reality there is a strong correlation between our circumstances and the type of people we become. Freewill thought, on the other hand, limits the degree to which our external environments can be looked at as a potential cause. For example, if a child is born into a low income, abusive family with no work ethics etc, how would he be judged in Freewill thought if that child grew up to become just like his or her parents? The child would be seen as choosing ‘Freely’ his lifestyle, and therefore judged with limited compassion. With a true commitment to Freewill, I believe it is not possible to have full compassion on that grown-child’s disposition while being consistent with Freewill thought. Under Freewill thought, instead of compassion or understanding, the tendency can be to focus on, treat and judge a person on the symptoms of their behaviour, rather than addressing the underlying causes of their behaviour.

Unless we acknowledge the power that external circumstances have over our choices, it not only extremely limits our ability to have compassion on people, but it restricts the belief in the power to assist change. I believe that as one can take on the characteristics of their environment, so we can create new environments where there is hope for change. However, this is not as possible in Freewill thought. We would be merely wishing that people would change their “free” mind from each moment to the next. In fact, what good have we done if we have merely for the moment convinced someone to “freely” choose God? No real change has been done in their life because they then may freely choose to reject Him at any given moment. Believing that influences truly can have an effect provides a more positive outlook to changing the characters of people towards becoming more Christ-like.

Heaven? 

What happens in heaven - do we have Freewill to choose God or not to choose Him? If we do not have Freewill in heaven, then we are back to being mere ‘robots’, which Arminianism appears to characteristically oppose like a vampire to garlic. Some Arminians say that the glory of God will be so great that we will not want anything other than God. However, all that is saying is that we have a predisposition to enjoy the glory of God rather than having a “real” choice – thus taking our Freewill away.

Death of Innocents

One last thought about Freewill, is that of the death of the unborn or young child. If the way to God is only generated by a Freewill cognitive choice on our part, then this makes it nigh impossible for children to cognitively choose salvation. One could say that children either automatically go to heaven or hell, but these conclusions take away the purpose of “choice”/Freewill in the first place. Arminian thought would normally state that it is impossible to have loyalty without the opportunity to be disloyal; therefore, children going to heaven would mean a reneging of this value. Unless of course they believe in another age or realm after death, by which children can have a choice, which most Arminians probably deny. Maybe children just die and no longer exist for eternity? Who knows, but the Arminian narrative does not provide answers consistent with their narrative on this point.

Man’s Freewill does not Absolve God’s Responsibility for the Existence of Sin

On a brief note: Freewill does not get God off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for the existence of evil (as I briefly mentioned in the previous post). Some people in defence of a Freewill state within humankind say that because people can ‘freely’ choose to commit evil, any evil that happens in the world is because of humankind. However, I believe that I can demonstrate that God has at least some responsibility for evil in this world. For example, if I were to throw someone into a pool of sharks and then hope the sharks would overlook that person, and that person then gets eaten, I would consider myself responsible for that outcome. God is involved in equivalent situations that actually happen in reality. He lets children be born into likely to be or currently abusive environments. Thus, the motive to believe in Freewill as a means to absolve God of ‘guilt’ is put into question.

Final Remarks

Many Arminians accept paradox when it comes to our Freewill coinciding with God as our Creator. This is a noble act. Many things cannot yet be explained, but if we want to explain how our relationship with God works, then these topics need to be addressed. Arminians do mean well. I do not think that all Arminians believe in Freewill in order to belittle God’s sovereignty per se, but instead aim to take the responsibility of sin onto our shoulders. Another up for Arminianism is that it clings to much of scripture, by enabling the potential for all people to be saved - something which Calvinism denies, as we shall see in the next post. However, when looked at closely, Arminianism is grossly unexplained, and can have the potential to oppress those who reflect their environments.

Next post we look at Calvinism and the issues that it has as a scriptural narrative.

Calvinism's Scriptural and Philosophical Problems Part 4

What did God mean by calling His creation "good"?

Lately I have been pondering about the meaning of "good" when God said that what He had made was "good" in Genesis chapter 1. In the past we have discussed in Bible studies that the definition of good and evil in Hebrew is often thought of in a concept of function and dysfunction (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_good.html).

Lamentations 3:38 talks about how God issues good and evil or in other words "function" and "dysfunction". This view of good and evil gives a new picture. It is not that God is morally "evil" in His actions but in order to bring about full functionality in creation sometimes dysfunction is necessary. At this point in time I think about God flooding the earth in Noah's day - it was an act of dysfunction. It was not ultimately God's intended end or ultimate outcome to cause death, but it was necessary to do in order to reach His intended and ultimate outcome for His creation (justice and salvation).

Coming back to the title of this post, I have been wrestling with God's definition of "good". How can something that is "good" become evil? If it is good or functional, then where is there room for it becoming bad or dysfunctional? If something is good would it not be completely resilient to evil? These questions came from an understanding that when God made everything good, it meant that it was perfect in a present complete sense.

But these questions have brought me to a new understanding of what is "good" in His sight. I believe that "good" to God is like a painting that He has begun and delights in the intended outcome or conclusion. When God created the world I don't think that He was surprised that mankind fell. I don't think that Christ was plan B. He was before the foundation of the world and was intended for sacrifice and salvation from the foundation of the world (John 1, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20). The gift of Christ and therefore the fall of man is plan A.

So if Christ was God's intended outcome, in order to reconcile man to Himself, then Adam and Eve in their "perfect" state were not perfect at all in God's eyes in a complete finished sense. It is interesting to note that Paul said that Adam was of the dust and Christ is of heaven; first comes the natural and then the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). Adam was not complete without Christ, even before Adam "fell".

So why did God intend or allow dysfunction (the fall) in His overall "good" functional picture? I wonder whether in order for mankind to experience the fullness of love, grace and sacrifice, then a negative or dysfunction is necessary. In order to know the difference between functional (God's best intended complete outcome) and dysfunctional then we as mankind need to experience both. Thus the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil" is necessary in order to appreciate what is truly functional. Adam was of the dust, and before the fall he was not yet aware of dysfunction, nor was he aware of the aspects of complete function. This complete function was the act and demonstration of love and sacrifice modelled by Christ. It is important to note that currently, mankind as a whole are able to experience aspects of function, such as love etc, alongside dysfunction. But mankind have not yet experienced God's full intended functional end-outcome, where dysfunction does not exist.

What is this end-outcome? To become like Christ Himself, valuing what He values. To die in order to have life more abundantly, and to experience dysfunction in order to become and appreciate complete functionality.

I will leave you with this verse from Romans 8:18 "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory, which shall be revealed in us" - KJV (Some versions say "to" instead of "in", but I believe it means "in" or both).

Isn't it cool that the glory will be revealed "in" US?! God is moulding and developing us into His masterpiece and suffering is a part of it! (Romans 5:3-4)

GOD’S NATURE

Post number 2 (following THE SOUL):

Anything we know about God’s nature is completely dependent on Him revealing His nature to us. There are various means of such revelation, ranging in clarity from intelligible recorded language (Scripture) to the expression of the resulting character in reality (i.e. creation, incarnation, sin and suffering, end-times, etc). 

Regardless of the clarity of revelation, there is some degree of interpretation by us, the recipients. We sense the language (with varying degrees of accuracy) and perceive it’s meaning (with even less accuracy) in line with our own current character.

I realise my own fallibility in receiving revelation, and welcome anyone to persuade me toward a truer and fuller perception of God’s nature! This is very important, because God’s nature is the basis for his character, and everything else!

Remember I’m mainly interested in peer review - both of philosophical validity and clarity, and Scriptural support.

Fundamentals

Most fundamentally, God is a conscious (soulish), relational (Trinitarian) spirit. 

His soulishness means He has a character, Free Agency (a hedonistic drive for best expression), and desires.

His relational nature is unique - for most other beings, this is merely one way of expressing a particular kind of character (which is itself malleable). God's intrinsic and unchanging relational nature becomes especially relevant to his creation of and interaction with humanity.

Another aspect of God’s nature, is that He is the ‘I AM’ - the ONLY self-sufficient, self-existent thing in existence. As such, God is not dependent on ANY other being for existence (and is thus eternal), but everything else is dependent on Him for existence. 

This does NOT mean he does not allow other beings to have God-like properties - after all, He has given angels and humans conscious spirits (and thus souls) just like Him. But the existence of anything depends on God wanting it to exist. 

The necessity of this clarification is obvious when considering the pre-existence of human spirits. If God is eternal and our spirits depend on his desire for their existence, it is possible that this desire has been present for eternity with God Himself. Thus it is possible that human spirits are eternal - but ONLY GOD is self-sufficient, self-existent.

Unlimited Expressiveness

God is free to fully define his own context, in which His free agency operates. 

This means his context is designed to match his strongest desires - to allow maximal expression of His character, and thus maximal pleasure. 

It also means He has full and true perception of all things - his desires are spot-on, and his will knows exactly what the best expression of his character is.

Being always able to express his character fully, God is never under any pressure to mould His character.

This means that His character is the same, for all eternity.

It also means that He will inevitably attain maximum possible ultimate pleasure in the context He created.

This character is extremely broad and complex - given that it is not limited by anything except God’s nature (which is minimal).

God’s Free Agency mean that expressiveness is also part of His nature. Combined with a broad, complex character and ultimate expression, this makes powerful creativity part of God’s nature. EVERYTHING that exists is part of the perfect ultimate expression of God’s character. The observable and unobservable aspects of the fleshly and spiritual universes, along with various created beings and their natures, all serve this end. 

The complexity of creation itself is part of the perfect expression of God’s character, since God’s character is complex. But it also means that each and every minute event within reality has broad ripple impacts (Butterfly Effect). It is possible that God deliberately chose a reality in which his methods are somewhat constrained by these effects, because this best reflects His character.

Holiness

The character of God is referred to as His holiness - consequently, any created being’s character is holy to the degree that it aligns with God’s. Since God’s character is constant, holiness is a constant knowable standard of character. 

Holy characters have potential to find the greatest possible ultimate expression and pleasure of any characters in all of reality, since it is designed to allow the greatest ultimate expression of God’s character, which is holy.

Since holiness is the best way to pursue and attain ultimate pleasure, anything which encourages holiness is ‘good’ in multiple senses - maximising pleasure, maximising utility, fulfilling purpose, and being holy. 

Developing holiness is ‘sanctification’. To sanctify, characters must perceive a reality in which holiness finds best expression. They must perceive a reality created by and for the expression of God’s character. This is why ANY expression of God’s character is, by definition, ‘good’ for all created beings.

The Grace of God means that His character is always ‘good’ when it is expressed, and it is always perfectly expressed. It is an impersonal property of existence, which describes how God's expression happens to always be ultimately 'good' for us.

Human holiness also wills for 'good' to be expressed, resulting in 'good works'. These please God because of what they indicate about the character, regardless of his decision to bring them success or not (based on perfect holiness and knowledge).

Since God’s character it is so broad and complex, there are multiple varied ways that different (more limited) being’s can be holy - this is God’s purpose to display his character. Thus there are multiple ways to be sanctified. Also the way in which holiness works itself out in the will is even more varied, depending on context - but it will always be an expression of God’s character.

Human holiness is also different from God's holiness, in that our natures are NOT un-limited in our expression. EVEN IF we were perfectly aligned with God’s character, the expression of this character will be limited by our natures. 

True human ‘holiness’ (from God’s perspective, and what will bring us the most pleasure) is thus angled heavily toward finding pleasure in experiencing God’s OWN expression of this character, more than our personal expression of this character.

Thus human holiness includes a set of attitudes towards God’s own character - including confession (understanding, belief/perception, acceptance, and ownership), love (and desire), and trust (and hope). These can obviously exist apart from each other, but are collectively known as ‘saving faith’.

Relationship to Created Beings

Love is defined as pleasure in the pleasure of another being, with whom we have a relationship. 

There are three ways this can happen - mutual experience (both simultaneously enjoy each other, but on a superficial level as if they were just part of a pleasurable context, rather than primarily in the pleasure of the other), mutual characters (the characters are alike, so that when one expresses itself, it is as if the other had also), or the development of a character whose expression involves giving pleasure to the other (and can thus be sacrificial to this end). These are known (in Greek) as eros (sexual passion), philios (brotherly affection), and agape (sacrificial love) respectively.

Sacrificial agape love is based on God's grace (His intrinsic 'goodness', both defining and encouraging maximal possible pleasure in holy characters). But more than that, it includes a relational desire for His created beings (themselves a product of His character expression) to find delight along with Him - i.e, to delight in His character. While grace is impersonal, love is personal, and not only describes God's expression but influences it.

For humans, agape love for God will also aim to maximise His delight in a reciprocal manner - but it is different to God's love, because we bring Him pleasure by being holy and enjoying His own character expression!

God is able to completely mould all created characters as He sees fit. This is because character moulding is dependent on perceptions of good/evil - they sanctify and/or harden based on the balance of goodness/evil that they perceive. 

God is in complete control of the actual presence of evil vs goodness throughout life (thus manipulating character moulding over time), and is also able to provide powerful instantaneous spiritual perception via the Holy Spirit (discussed later) in any degree He sees fit.

God works all things together to bring about what he has predestined. Since soul states cannot be the basis of election (election is unmerited as discussed later, but soul states are clearly ascribed merit by God), this leaves God bound to mould characters as required to bring about what He has predestined.

The problem of God designing sinful characters is addressed later when I discuss the necessity of sin. 

Summary

1. God is a conscious (soulish) and trinitarian (relational) spirit.
2. He is the ‘I AM’ - the ONLY self-existent, self-sufficient being - the creator and sustainer of everything else in all of reality.
3. Being able to define his own context, God is unlimited in expressiveness, is all-knowing, and is unchanging.
4. The creation as a whole IS the complex expression of God’s character, and that (according to God's Free Agency) must be its ultimate purpose.
5. Sanctification is the process of becoming holy - aligned with God’s character.
6. Any sanctifying pressures are ‘good’ because holy characters will find ultimate best expression in a universe designed for the expression of God’s character.
7. Human holiness includes faith, which means it focused on God’s expression of his own holiness.
8. God is loving because He wants other beings to align with his character AND find maximal ultimate pleasure in it.
9. God is able to completely manipulate the moulding of all created characters, because He is in control of their prior character development, their current context, and their spiritual perception (via the Holy Spirit).

The Series:

1. The Soul
2. God's Nature (this post)
3. God's Nature - Obscured
4. Human Nature
5. More to come...