16
Sep

Should We Fear the Lord?

indexCould a “loving” God really condemn so many people to Hell? That question causes most skeptics to stumble as they consider the truth claims of the Christian faith. It makes little sense to them, as they view God as cruel rather than caring. As one non-believer summed up:

 “Since the majority of people in this world aren’t Christians, may not even know about God/Jesus/Christianity, the problem I have is that according to your religion, the majority of this world’s population throughout time will be dammed into hell. A god that will torment/torture these souls for eternity just because the don’t know God, believe in the Christian God or even heard of His possible existence, is not one I want to believe in.”

 How can the Christian apologist respond?

 The first step, I submit, is to focus on what the skeptic is really saying – while he may have reasons to question God’s goodness or his love, his conclusion appears to be emotional rather than logical – he does not want to believe in a God who would condemn people to hell “just because” they don’t believe in Him, or perhaps have never heard of Him.  There are indeed answers to the challenge, answers that have been formulated, debated and discussed for centuries, but first it bears pointing out that the skeptic is asking the wrong question of himself. He’s asking whether he “wants” to (or should) believe in a God who he thinks is unnecessarily harsh or mean spirited. The better question, I would submit, is whether the Christian God is the true God. In other words, are the Christian claims about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus historically true and therefore worthy of belief? Once I settle that question, I can try to make sense of whether my God is “fair” or “loving” or whether he possesses a whole host of other attributes that I may find desirable. But whether I “like” him – or at least my impression of him – or not, is not really the issue.

Perhaps an analogy might help. I don’t want to “believe in” a world in which innocent people suffer as much from the effects of gravity or floods or sunlight (or whatever other natural force) as guilty people. In other words, if someone accidentally falls off a cliff, I think it’s unfair that they fall and die, just as often as the person trying to commit suicide. I don’t think its fair that people accidentally drown or get skin cancer from the sun. The notion that these things happen doesn’t sit well with me. And I think it’s unfair that millions and millions of people throughout the world and throughout history died of infections simply because the learned people of their place and time had no notion of antibiotics. I don’t want to believe in human bodies that are unable to fight infection until someone in some remote part of the planet “happens” to discover antibiotics. It just doesn’t seem right.   

The point is obvious, and it sounds awfully silly when articulated. If I come down with an infection, wherever I happen to be in the world, you can bet that I will seek antibiotics – because they conform with the way things really are, that is to say, they work – whether or not I think the circumstances of who discovered them or who else might have access to them is “fair.” So, whether I think the Christian God is what he should be is rather beside the point; the question is whether there is good reason to believe that the Christian description of God “gets it right.”

If there is a God, he is the creator of the universe and the natural order we find within it. This much the skeptic should concede. And what conclusions will a study of nature support regarding its creator? Well, despite the fact that nature is stunningly beautiful – from a sunset to a seascape to mountains covered in snow – it is also largely uninhabitable to us. In a universe beyond comprehension, there is only a sliver of air in a remote planet that can sustain life as we know it, and most of that sliver of air contains things which can do us great harm. If there is a God, he is the God that created all this – and us in the midst of it all. Given this obvious fact, why should I doubt for even one moment that his approach to the after life may be rigorous as well? Why would I think that in this one area – who achieves salvation – he all of sudden doesn’t have any rules to speak of and “everything goes?” All you have to do is “be nice” and believe “sincerely” and you’re in? Really? Nothing else in nature operates this way, so why would this most important of things be any exception?

Now, I would hasten to add that this observation can be easily misunderstood. Many will conclude that Christians are simply afraid of God. This would badly miss the point. Yes, the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. These reflections may help me begin to  understand what that passage means. But God has so much more in store for us; what he offers us in return for our acceptance of his gift is infinitely greater and more wonderful than anything we can presently imagine.  But should we not also tremble when we think of God’s righteousness and holiness?

Dealing with the skeptic who doesn’t “want” to believe in the Christian view of God can be challenging. Perhaps the direct approach offered above can put a stone in his shoe to get the conversation started.

Posted by Al Serrato

Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Email

Tags: , , , ,

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Comments

  1. John Moore says:

    God is certainly good, but it’s his own goodness. When we fear God, it’s because we fear our own sense of goodness is different from God’s. That’s serious because of God’s immense power. We should fear god like a rat fears cars when he’s trying to cross an eight-lane highway.

  2. Eric says:

    This is not a sensible rebuttal.

    You see, the person in question is not using the above to attack the existence of your god. He’s questioning the validity of your god’s claims.

    You see, the biblical god claims to be loving. We can demonstrate that he is not. He claims to be omnipotent, but we can demonstrate he is not. It is possible to demonstrate incoherency within the supposed “word of god.” This does not prove that no god exists. It proves that, as described, your god cannot exist because he is self contradictory.

    A more pertinent example would be if christians believed that the world was a good place where only bad people had bad things happen to them, and good people had only good things happen to them. We would point to the evidence to the contrary. You believe that the fictional god of the bible is good, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, and that his word is perfect. We simply point out the numerous inconsistencies in that belief, because then the house of cards falls apart.

    • Al says:

      As I tried to point out, this was not offered as a rebuttal. To rebut the actual claim, one would need to define words such as “loving” and “omnipotent.” The post was meant to address the emotional content of the response – I “refuse” to believe in a being who would do x or y or z. This response prevents the challenger from actually considering the evidence.

      I don’t think the challenger was questioning the “validity” of God’s claims. He was simply disagreeing with God’s stated position as to salvation. This disagreement does not establish that God is self contradictory. The point is that God’s stated view of salvation is in conflict with the view that people hold. Some people will be condemned to hell because God’s view of salvation is different than their view of salvation. Self contradiction would require proof that God’s actions are not “loving.” But since God grants people free will, it would be difficult to establish that the only way he god properly “love” them is to take free will away from them and make them robots who have no say in their ultimate destination.

Leave a Reply