Alex O'Connor's Contradiction (On Suffering)

Introduction

Are you one of those crazy people who just love sitting down and watching a 3 hour debate on some theological discussion, or in the case of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (with his word salads) - a full 8 hours? Well, I am. From the philosophical debates about the existence of God and the problem of evil, I see that there has been a change of the guard since I was a teen and the level of public discussion has definitely increased in complexity and also sincerity. There have been many great debates - Sam Harris v Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig v Sam Harris, Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor etc. Trent Horn is definitely a significant force on the theist side and Alex O'Connor on the atheist side. Both are improving on or at least articulating old arguments in new ways that I find intriguing. For example, Trent is improving on the Kalam Cosmological argument (an infinite materialistic past is impossible), and Alex is giving credit where due - that human suffering isn't so much of an issue due to its allowance of higher order values, but he instead focuses on animal suffering (more on this later). I am not so convinced Alex is the "non-resistant, non-believer" he claims to be. 

Alex

Alex has a fantastic accent, sharp wit, and depending on the interview, he has a charming and genuine feel about his discussions. He purports to be a "non-resistant, non-believer" which gives the impression he is very open to believing in God. He even stated in one interview that the main idea that is keeping him from believing in God is the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. While holding this in mind, I do find it suspicious that he finds himself debating frequently against the resurrection of Jesus, the divine command for the Canaanite "genocide", and whether Jesus even claimed to be God. For someone who is non-resistant and has only one mentioned reason for not believing in God, he certainly is very actively opposing Him. There might be more to his story than he lets on. Alex seems to rely on a rather literalistic approach to what I call "lemon picking" which throws a lot of Christians off in debate. Lemon picking is a way of deliberately missing a point and looking at the negative. For example, many Christians use Galatians 3:28 to end slavery - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Alex doesn't believe we can use this passage because it would mean denying the literal existence of male and female. Alex clearly misunderstands the significance of this passage - that slaves and non slaves are equal in the eyes of God. Many of the reasons for slavery throughout history is that slaves are seen as worth less than free people. Galatians alternatively claims otherwise.  

This leads me to the main topic of this blog post... Alex's contradiction. 

Unnecessary Animal Suffering

Alex's main gripe is that he can't understand how a good God could allow unnecessary animal suffering. This is a fair point and shows that Alex has some keen sense of morals. It is a significant Biblical idea that we as imago dei are meant to have dominion and tend God's creations from early times. This means caring for animals is a deep God-given moral compass He has given us. I am glad Alex is using it. Alex likes to weaponize it in his debates. The Knechtles unfortunately appeared to have a rough time chatting with Alex in this short half-hour discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtajMlNcnw&t=7s. In it at 1:25 Alex says to Cliff that if Alex pushed a button turning Cliff into a random wild animal, Cliff would kill himself immediately because of how miserable his life would be. Essentially, Alex is claiming that there is no value in living the life of an animal. 

Colonising Planets

Is Alex consistent with this proposition? Let's find out. In a debate with a rather worthy opponent - Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Horn pressed Alex on his rhetoric around this issue. He posited to Alex to imagine that all humanity left earth to colonise another planet. Alex has the opportunity to wipe out all nature on earth after we leave with the pressing of a button. Alex essentially gets his wish. He can end all unnecessary suffering. Alex responded basically that he didn't think he would push the button but would rather choose a button that reduced suffering. He provided no metric for deciding at what point is too much suffering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1JgXOKDQ. Trent clearly drives this point home and moves onto why Alex cannot find that metric. Alex's utilitarianism gets in the way. 

Although Alex's concerns weren't really sufficient for determining how much suffering is too much, he did raise an interesting analogy about a deer being caught under a log and starving to death, even without knowledge by humans of this ever happening. This situation of suffering seems pointless to us. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there are possible areas that could be explored further regarding where justified suffering could be found within the experience of animals.

Pain Is Good

First, at a silly level, we might consider us living life without pain receptors in order to minimise suffering (much like zombies or lepers). Clearly, this would be an unpleasant experience. The feeling of a hard day's work is a genuinely good feeling even if I had risked injuring myself doing so (or I had to plan my day so that I wasn't carelessly smashing into everything). This seems like a frightful dream to consider the feeling of having no pain receptors. 

Pain Is Necessary

Moving to another level, it is often said that suffering is necessary for higher order goods such as love, kindness, mercy, and compassion. I emphasise the "necessary". Jesus said that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If God wants to express Himself (as Creator) as the greatest expression of good, then this may be why God allowed/caused evil to enter the world in the first place - so that the greatest expressions of love could become a potential reality. God expressed this through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. There is a certain beauty with higher order goods that you do not get without suffering. I am glad that Alex acknowledges this in multiple interviews. However, one could imagine that suffering might be reduced so much that all unnecessary suffering ceases to exist and therefore maximising the good ratio. Though, I am not sure that this is possible.

If we wanted to witness the "greatest love" of someone giving their life for a friend, I suppose we could minimise suffering so that only one person needed to experience this, almost like a single exemplar of suffering for us all to observe and feel pity for. Maybe, there is an exemplar "murder" story we all "know" about. Although this scenario allows us to maybe understand or empathise to a small degree with the exemplar/s of suffering for each scenario, there feels like a certain travesty and arbitrariness about it that is difficult to explain. I would argue that the exemplars alone are not enough to qualify as producing that "higher good" within us. Much like merely seeing someone garden and consequently getting a sore back and limbs is not enough for us to enjoy the relief of putting their feet up and resting after the fact. Having the ability to participate or the potential to participate in a higher good holds its own value. It must follow that if we have this potential to experience a higher good then we must also have the potential to experience suffering.

The very existence of suffering just being around the corner (as horrifying as it may be at times) provides within us a feeling of a need to band together and to help each other that in itself is valuable. We don't know when suffering will impact us, but through compassion, mercy, and love, we can experience pleasure of being in unity with others in the face of  real potential of suffering. This is infinitely more valuable than minimising suffering to a mere exemplar and addresses the real difficulty of deciding what unnecessary suffering actually is. Minimising suffering doesn't produce a ratio of more good.

Pain Is "Good/Necessary" For Animals Too

If this idea can work for people, then why could this not work for animals too? Alex frequently uses the deer being eaten by a lion as an example of unnecessary designed suffering in nature. I cannot speak as completely understanding (if at all) what the life of a deer may be. For a start, as many philosophers claim, there is a certain extra level of suffering a human can experience than an animal. An animal might experience suffering, but not the despairing self-awareness kind of suffering that true consciousness brings. They might feel pain, but not necessarily think, "I am in existential pain, and this is unfair". Animals don't have the ability to suffer as much as people, or at least they experience a different kind of pain to us. 

I wonder if a similar concept of the value of life and the real potential of suffering could be applied with deer as with people. Even though being hunted down and eaten by a lion is truly terrifying, could it be valuable for a deer to experience the safety of a herd instinct or comradery, even in the face of real dangers? A lion likewise, experiencing its own unique version of the herd instinct as they hunt together? These positive experiences of animal behaviour may be worth the suffering involved. This is the reason why when we step back, it would be difficult to push the button that exterminates all non-human life on a planet because there is something inherently valuable about nature and its own experiences. Many ultimate Sci fi movie villains attempt minimising suffering through extermination... we all know this is wrong and is actually destroying all that is good with it.

Higher Goods Within People

If animals may garnish some form of good through the real risk of wide spread suffering as people do, people can also experience higher order goods from animal suffering. Many people such as the SPCA here in New Zealand exist so that they can exercise a higher order good of caring for at risk animals. They cannot reach and save every animal from every situation, but the very knowledge that suffering is happening outside of their perceived control motivates them to creatively act to minimise "unnecessary" suffering. In a way that makes the unnecessary suffering a necessary part of motivating the greater good of SPCA's mission. Without the sense of a natural world run by natural laws where real risks and the potential of suffering exists, we can never experience these higher order goods.

This argument can be placed into a polly syllogism:

1. If God embodies the highest form of goodness, then His nature necessitates self-expression through creation.
2. In creating the world, God actualised the potential for widespread animal suffering as a means to manifest essential goods.
3. The existence of widespread animal suffering is necessary for cultivating higher-order virtues in humanity, such as compassion, mercy, and concern.
4. Additionally, this suffering plays a role in fostering lower-order goods in animals, such as the herd instinct, which contributes to survival and social cohesion.
5. Therefore, the actualization of widespread animal suffering within creation is justified as a means of producing both higher and lower-order goods.

Conclusion

In the end, it is difficult to separate the necessity of suffering from higher and lower order goods. In Scripture, God went into a long monologue with Job challenging Job to understand his own limitations of insight. Job was humbled by this monologue. Ultimately, we cannot see all the necessities of any single event, but because God is good, we can trust that He has a greater plan for good that sometimes only He is aware of. This is infinitely more reassuring than the purposelessness of an atheistic view on suffering. We can speculate, but ultimately it is His prerogative to run this universe as He sees fit.   

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 4 - MORALITY & EVIL)

So far we've discussed the impact of our (extra-Biblical) worldview on our approach to Scripture. We've used progressive revelation as a practice engagement with the tricky complexities of honest Scriptural interpretation, and being willing to challenge our worldview. We've explored the nature of relationships, and discovered the cognition and communication fall short of defining 'relationship' because of their very nature, and not just because we humans can only handle them imperfectly. In addition, it seems as if God - technically capable of using 'perfect' communication and cognition - seems to have deliberately utilised bias in these things in His pursuit of what really matters to Him - a relationship of love.

Morality

A discussion of morality flows naturally from our discussion of communication, because it functions very similarly. Morality refers to the pattern of our behaviour. Like communication, it is inherently cognitive - we consciously decide what to do, and so it is a window into another person's cognition, but also suffers similar interpretation inaccuracies as communication. And just like communication and cognition, morality finds its true purpose in relationship. It is meant to be person-based, not abstract. We are meant to want to be like Christ and to please Christ, based on our flawed cognitive understanding of Him through our relationship. 

Because cognition cannot reach a static full encapsulation of a person, our morality will never be able to fully encapsulate them either. For this reason, some argue that we are meant to disengage our morality from cognition, and just follow the rules God has set down without question or interpretation, because this is the only reliable way to reflect God. I don't think this is the case, because the only way morality can reflect anything, is through people's interpretation of it - and they interpret it by trying to see through to the person that produces it. We reflect God by being a person that people see God in, and by behaving in a way that springs forth from this person. This cannot occur if our morality is disengaged from our cognition - it actually makes the reflection of God's character less accessible, not more accessible. Besides, the very nature of relationships and people means that things like morality and cognition could never capture a person, even if we disregard the link between morality and cognition. Relationships are meant to be dynamic processes that engage with the other person, and so a static cognition and a static morality cannot fully capture this. 

In other words, you cannot legislate the kind of morality God is after through fixed laws. They could never be nuanced enough, and there is always the possibility of life situations bringing together multiple conflicting values and unique considerations for the relationship which could NEVER be exhaustively described. No doubt God has a preferred way to behave in each situation, but we can only know this if we know God through relationship. So instead of prescribed living, there has always been a need for prioritisation, flexibility, and pragmatism BASED upon the right living relationship with God. I'm not advocating a liberal lifestyle - the relationship I'm advocating includes a desire to submit to God, and also a recognition of the complexity of applying God's values to real life situations. 

But God still legislated morality - if this was not for 'prescribed personal morality', then what was it for? We can argue for some specific purposes behind the OT law e.g. Societal coherence, which was difficult to maintain in a largely 'religious' society where God was never-the-less rarely relationally known, and where cognitive understanding of God was incomplete. But a big reason - the one that applies to ongoing legislation even in the NT - ties back to the purpose of communication. God wants us to see a prioritised understanding of His cognition THROUGH the commandments, and then base our morality on the relationship, which will include submission to our cognitive understanding of Him. Our morality will often look 'prescribed', but the different emphasis allows for deviations that please God when situations arise that aren't covered by the legislation with enough contextual relational nuance. 

Because morality is cognitive, it will change with progressive revelation and an evolving cognitive understanding of God. It needs to be emphasised that God does not want us to take the burden upon ourselves to guess / determine the 'next phase' of morality and progressive revelation. Its also worth mentioning here that morality (and to a lesser extent, communication) DOES have non-cognitive influences, which could potentially reflect non-cognitive aspects of the relationship. These are, however, much less precisely expressed and are readily overwhelmed by cognitive influences.

You can see that morality behaves much like communication and cognition - dim but important reflections of the underlying important spiritual love relationship. The intrinsic biases of morality must also be deliberately designed by God as they are natural consequences of deliberately designed cognitive biases. And just like we don't need to properly cognitively understand the God we love, we also don't need to legalistically and un-critically 'submit' to any particular legislation from God in order for the love to be real - but we DO need to engage in the process of submission. 

Evil 'Gaps' in the Relationship

I've talked a lot about what a relationship intuitively means to us, and about how our modernistic mindset can cause us to wrongly perceive many 'normal healthy' aspects as imperfections. But we all know that there ARE real cognitive deviations and gaps in our relationship with God, things that should not be considered healthy. And often it can sure seem as if its the 'healthy aspects' of normal relationships that become the culprits. Using our example of progressive revelation, it is often the intrinsic bias in communication and cognition that leads to problems in our relationship with God - and yet we've discussed them as natural and healthy, and something God has deliberately designed. What is it that makes some 'imperfections' normal and healthy, and others problematic? What is God's purpose behind allowing 'gaps' in the experience of Him through relationship, when He knows they will often cause problems? If modernism is wrong and many gaps are actually healthy and good, can we find another way to talk about the reality of bad gaps, ones that are real deviations from God's ideal relationship?

I think we can :) Lets start with some definitions - these are entirely my own definitions, which I think are supported by Scripture, but they're open to debate in the comment section! 'Good' and 'Evil' are terms which describe the quality of the experience of God through relationship. God is intrinsically 'good', and everything else is 'good' to the degree that it brings about the experience of God. 'Evil' is any lack of 'good' i.e. any gaps in the experience of God's goodness. This makes sense from a more Jewish perspective as well, where 'good' and 'evil' refer to something close to 'function' and 'dysfunction'. If God's fundamental aim is for us to experience Him in a relationship of love, anything which fulfils this function (i.e. our experience of God's character through His expression) is 'good', while anything that does NOT fulfil this function is 'evil'. Evil is intimately linked to sin, because sin harms our experience of God through relationship. Because these things are tied to relationship, you can see that 'good' does NOT refer to an attainable 'full' end outcome, but rather to an ideal uninhibited experience of a process (the ongoing relationship). Even from an eternal perspective, the 'good' all things work toward is an ideal ongoing relationship with God. Likewise 'evil' refers to the inability to have this ideal uninhibited experience of the process of relationship.

Note that both of these terms are dependent on your perspective. From an eternal perspective, we know that ALL things work together for 'good' i.e. are functioning (ultimately) to enhance our experience of God through relationship, even if it is 'evil' from a temporal perspective. And this makes sense, since ultimately all things are in some way an expression of God and Christ, even if you think He is merely 'permitting' their existence. God says that He Himself performs 'evil', where the experience of God in relationship is clouded or confused in a temporal sense - and yet he also says that all His actions are 'good' in an eternal sense. Also, both of these definitions are dependent on our interpreted experience of God from various perspectives, NOT on how well God is actually expressing Himself (I'm sure He is never actually limited in the expression of Himself, even temporally). This is why some 'normal' aspects to relationships, like incomplete cognitive understandings and varied and incomplete expressions of God, can be perceived as 'evil' when occurring in specific contexts. Its not these healthy normal aspects that are the culprit per-se, but the entire context has led to an impaired experience of God, which means the whole situation can rightly be called 'evil'. I believe 'evil' will not exist in heaven, but this is not because I think relationships will fundamentally change - I still think God will express Himself in varied and incomplete ways, and that our cognitive understanding of God will be incomplete and growing. Evil ceases to exist in heaven, because God will express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will experience clearly (in a temporal sense). In this life, 'evil' exists because God chooses to express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will NOT interpret clearly, even though they ultimately work toward enhanced experience of relationship.

Scriptural 'gaps'

Its obvious at this point that Progressive Revelation ties into our discussion of 'evil'. From many perspectives it enhances our relational experience of God, and is clearly 'good'. But from some perspectives progressive revelation can also be called 'evil'. You've probably felt this already yourself, when considering the implication that God has deliberately introduced bias into our cognitive understanding AND into our morality . As I've discussed earlier, much cognitive bias is a normal part of healthy relationships, but in some contexts it can also function as an 'inhibition' of our experience of God through relationship, especially when we can sense the spirit-wrought ache in our hearts for a more accurate cognitive understanding. It is thus sometimes a temporal 'evil' designed by God as part of the 'good' of progressive revelation. The 'good' of progressive revelation becomes more obvious as the revelation accumulates to produce a more accurate picture, and as we learn things from God that would not make as much relational sense if not for the previous 'unbalanced' cognition, and as we realise the limited role cognition and communication can play in relationship anyway. We should experience these unbalanced views of God as part of the ongoing expression of our relational God - simultaneously acknowledging the 'evil' this can encourage / allow from our temporal perspective AND the 'good' from other perspectives.

Summary

Reality is not as idealistic as I've been suggesting in the series so far. 'Evil' refers to NON-healthy gaps in our experience of God through relationship. But its not a simple division between gaps which are 'evil', and gaps which are normal and 'good' (i.e. the nature of relationships and cognition and morality). These descriptions depend on your perspective, and since there are usually multiple appropriate perspectives, there is usually a mix of recognising 'good' and 'evil' in these gaps. And some apparently 'evil' aspects may in other contexts be considered normal and 'good' aspects to healthy relationships, and continue to exist in some form in heaven. Importantly, all forms of 'evil' are ultimately 'good' and serve to enhance our ultimate experience of God, because permitting their existence is still itself an expression of God, and He is ultimately good (which is why He works all things work together for good). Progressive revelation demonstrates this nicely, as this variously biased revelation - with all its 'problems' - is still 'God-breathed' and good and trustworthy as part of the expression of His character. 

Do you agree that morality should be relationship-based, and thus more flexible / pragmatic than mere legislation? 

Do you agree with my relational-experiential definition of 'evil' and 'good'? 

What do you think of the assertion that 'evil' is ultimately good (from an eternal perspective), and an expression of God? 

Would life or Scriptural interpretation be easier / better if things could be definitively  divided into 'good' and 'evil' categories, instead of being both from different perspectives?

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll explore how relationships deal with the 'evil' gaps we've just discussed - through 'faith'. This will open up some more possibilities to discuss, regarding what God is doing by deliberately creating / allowing these gaps (especially those we find in Scripture).  
• After that, I will have (almost) finished my defence of the bias God has created within Scripture :) And I can work toward positively addressing how God wants us to approach His Scriptures, given its divine inspiration, purpose, and 'gaps' / biases. 
• Then we'll  explore this in more detail over some of the phases of progressive revelation. 
• And then onto the practical implications of a  proper vs improper approach to Scripture.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil (this post)
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

Mental Illness

I have an interest in mental illness and how it relates to God, free will / sovereignty, biological disease, sin, and the 'normal' experience of life.

These posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) by Brad Hambrick are very insightful! All he writes is a list of questions that get you thinking.

I like the following questions in particular. Any thoughts from people?

1. In the modern psychological proverb, “The genes load the gun, and the environment pulls the trigger,” where is the person? Why do we think of genetic influences as if they negate the role of the will or personal choice? Substance abuse can have a clear genetic predisposition, but every addiction program – even those most committed to a disease model – appeal to the will as a key component to sobriety.
2. Can we have a “weak” brain—one given to problematic emotions or difficulty discerning reality—and a “strong” soul—one with a deep and genuine love for God? If we say “yes” to this question in areas like intelligence (e.g., low IQ and strong faith), would there be any reason to say “no” about those things described as mental illness?
3. How much should we expect conversion and normal sanctification (spiritual maturity) to impact mental illness? Outside of medical interventions, most secular treatments for mental illness focus on healthy-thinking, healthy-choices, and healthy-relationships; so how much should Christians expect sound-doctrine, righteous-living, and biblical-community to impact their struggle with mental illness?
4. Would we want to eradicate all anxiety and depression if we were medically capable of doing so? What would we lose, that was good about life and relationships, if these unpleasant emotions were eradicated from human experience? Would that be heaven-on-earth or have unintended consequences that are greater than our current dilemma?
5. Can we have a collective disease? Is mental illness always personal or can it be cultural? Cultural changes necessarily add to or detract from the kind of stresses that influence mental illness. How should we understand this influence and when might an “epidemic” require a collective solution as much as personal choices?
6. Are we trying to medically create an idyllic sanguine personality? Is “normal” becoming too emotionally narrow? If not in the medical establishment, then are societal norms pushing people in this direction and the service-oriented medical profession trying to accommodate its well-intended, but misguided clientele?
7. How do we best assess when the relief of medication would decrease the motivation to change versus when that same relief would increase the possibility of change? Pain can both motivate and overwhelm; is this simply about personal thresholds or should mental anguish be evaluated by a different set of criteria?

HUMAN NATURE

Post number 4 (following 'God's nature - obscured'):

I haven’t written a post in this series for a while. In the meantime I’ve been having some great discussions on two relevant topics - which I’ll quickly mention here. At some point I may modify my earlier posts to reflect these subtle changes in my thoughts :)

Firstly I’ve been challenged to recognise the value and limitations of both modernism and post-modernism. The value of modernism is in its drive to know everything, including the details of reality. But it is limited by pride and an excessive focus on ‘reductionism’. The value of post-modernism is in recognising the flaws of modernism, becoming aware of the integral nature of bias and worldview and subjectivity in ‘knowledge’, and becoming aware of system synthesis knowledge (above and beyond reductionistic knowledge). But it is limited by its rejection of absolute truth and inability to challenge the bias it recognises to change. One day I will write a proper article on this, but until then I hope my posts reflect a balanced approach to knowledge pursuit :)

Secondly I’ve been researching the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’, and I’ve recognised the Hebrew concept of ‘spirit’ is not so much about a ‘non-physical’ aspect to reality (they definitely did NOT believe this was true!), but IS more about an ‘eternal’ aspect to reality. Referring to ‘spirits’ is not really defining what they are, but it is defining their nature and function - i.e. eternal. Exactly how our souls are eternal is up for debate - maybe there IS a separate ‘thing’ called a spirit, but that is definitely not clear in Scripture.

With that in mind, lets talk a little about human nature, in preparation for discussing how God’s nature interacts with ours. This post (along with the next) will be unashamedly deterministic ;) I'll deal with the issue of human responsibility in post number 6. 

Remember I'm very keen for your input (and disagreements)!

Human Nature

Humans are created uniquely in the image of God, a pinnacle in the creative expression of His character. 

This means we are conscious ‘spirits’, but are created primarily to interact with the temporal fleshly realm. Our souls are thus dualistic in nature - having both spiritual and fleshly aspects and purposes.

Being spiritual means two things. Firstly, we have the potential for spiritual senses - altering our perceptions of reality/pleasure, moulding our character, giving spiritual aspects to our wills/desires/emotions, etc.

Secondly, even when our body dies, we are eternal, meaning our souls and characters are contiguous throughout life and death.

Total Depravity

Although God’s character is potentially perceivable spiritually, our fleshly perception is infinitely more influential on our characters than our spiritual perception. This is because we were created to experience and interact primarily with this realm.

Thus ANY evil in the fleshly realm inevitably results in a perception of evil which cannot be combated by mere human ‘spiritual’ perception of God’s goodness. This means that, if any evil exists in the fleshly realm, every single human is destined to fall.

Total Depravity states that all of humanity can ONLY fall and develop sinful characters (collectively known as the ‘sin nature’ of humanity) in the face of life with evil, and that faith is thus impossible. 

This was demonstrated by Adam’s Fall, but not CAUSED by Adam’s fall. The curse did not  involve forcing Adam’s offspring to have a different ‘fallen’ nature to what Adam originally had. It merely involved a further propagation of evil, which demonstrates we all have the same nature as Adam. This is why God can judge us ahead of time ‘in Adam’, because Adam was a true representative of us.

For humanity to sanctify and develop holiness and faith, God must do something - either supply full total fleshly saturation of His character (eliminates evil, and thus the possibility of faith in the face of evil), OR powerful spiritual perception of His character (beyond our spirit’s natural capabilities).

Limited Atonement

God requires the existence of evil (and thus human total depravity), and His justice subsequently demands that this evil and sin be dealt with (which is why all men are judged in Adam). 

God’s justice is itself a necessary expression of God’s love - possibly the most necessary aspect, because without it the very importance of God’s character to our pleasure is thrown into question. Since God is infinitely important to the universe, sin is infinitely terrible, and only an infinitely terrible display can demonstrate this. Infinite suffering of humanity, or finite suffering of an infinitely important person, is required. 

But His love not only desires justice, but ultimately for all mankind to delight in His goodness. How can these things be reconciled?

God Himself - the most infinitely important person in existence - came to demonstrate the seriousness of sin on our behalf, by suffering and dying - the atonement. 

The atonement allows God to forgo the removal and punishment of any evil/sin that He sees fit - and so demonstrate other aspects of His love - without compromising His justice. 

The atonement is as expansive as God can have it. We know God desires it for the whole world. It is offered to the whole world. It is sufficient for the whole world. And the whole world is required to accept and love it.

But the atonement is none-the-less ‘limited’ in that it only actually keeps a select few people from Hell. Since God can mould all characters as He sees fit, this must be a deliberate act on God’s part, known as election or predestination. 

Unconditional Election

The election has two huge implications. It means that God deliberately separates humanity into two groups, including a select group of specific people to be in Hell, AS PART of His entire aim in all that He does - His expression of Himself, in relation to other beings (I’ll discuss this more later). 

And if Hell is inescapable once there, it means that this expression is in fact targeted at a select group of specific people in heaven, and NOT at all of creation. 

How does this election work? Scriptures teach that God does not elect based on any intrinsic merit. It also teaches that EVERY aspect of our souls (including faith) has merit attached. 

Thus election cannot be based on foreknowledge of our existing/inevitable faith or sanctification. But it must be based on something, since God is far from random! 

God has chosen a particular collection of people to develop a particular set of characters, via particular processes, in relationship to the complexities of the rest of His creation (including other people) - SO THAT the end result is the greatest possible expression of Himself to as many people as possible.

Summary

1. Humans have a dual nature - spiritual, but focused primarily on the temporal fleshly world
2. This means that evil in the fleshly world inevitably leads to humanity falling - Total Depravity
3. We are judged in Adam because Adam is our perfect representative - we would have all behaved as Adam did
4. The atonement demonstrates God’s justice, freeing Him from demonstrating it in other ways (e.g. removing or punishing evil immediately)
5. The atonement is evidentially limited, which must be a deliberate decision on God’s behalf - meaning some are elected, others are not.
6. The election is unconditional, and yet our faith is ascribed merit in Scripture, meaning the election cannot be based on ‘foreknowledge’ of inevitable faith.
7. The election is not random, but is ultimately based on God's drive to use complex processes to maximise the display of His character to as many people as possible.

The Series

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

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)

The problem of 'mercy'

This post by John Piper at Desiring God is good.

I've heard other people rephrase the 'problem of suffering' like this before - the real perplexity of the universe is that God shows mercy.

Any thoughts on this perplexity? And is it really something we should focus on?

Why Does the Truth of Hell Rise to Watershed Significance?

August 1, 2011 | by: John Piper | Category: Commentary

“If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15).

“Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations!” (Revelation 15:3).

“My eyes flow with rivers of tears because of the destruction of the daughter of my people” (Lamentations 3:48).

If God is not bound to save anyone from hell, he is not bound to save anyone from suffering. If God would be just to sentence all of us to hell because of sin, then he is just when any of us experience suffering that is less than hell on earth. If all of us deserve hell, that is the main “problem of evil,” not cancer and tsunamis. Compared to hell, the horrors (unspeakable horrors) of this world are short and moderate.

If that sounds like an overstatement to you, it’s not because God hasn’t seen your suffering, but, perhaps, because you haven’t seen God’s hell.

This is one of the main reasons why the biblical teaching on hell rises from time to time as a watershed doctrine. Included in the truth of God’s justice in throwing people into hell (“throw” is the biblical word), are implications for God’s justice in all suffering.

One implication: None of us ever experience suffering more severe than we deserve. If we are not in hell at this moment, we are experiencing massive mercy.

Loud love is calling us from heaven. O that we may have ears to hear:

“Do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:4–5)

Instead embrace Christ as your God-given substitute:

“Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).

Christ endured hell for all who own him as their Life.