The Sermon on the Mount: Law or Gospel?

You've heard the expression, "The devil is in the details?" When people say this they mean that small things in plans and schemes that are often overlooked can cause serious problems later on. Some have suggested that this idiomatic phrase was derived from the supposed original statement that "God is in the detail." The truth in either idiom is the same however: details, sometimes even small ones, are important! It's the small details of something which can often muddle or confuse someone's judgment about something very important.

This is especially true in theology I think. When it comes to interpreting the Bible in preparation for preaching, unfortunately, I've discovered that the failure to be attentive to seemingly small details in a passage can derail an entire sermon. Clearly, even missing the detail of a single verse in your sermon could have a drastic outcome in the perception by the congregation of your interpretation not only on the passage you are preaching from, but on your entire take on the Gospel!

I recently heard a sermon where the pastor interpreted Matthew 5:48 in such a way that it suggested that he was at least confused about whether the Sermon on the Mount as a whole was to be understood as being in reference to the Law or the Gospel. This confusion occurs frequently enough I suppose, but it is alarming none the less because it means that as a church body we generally do not have any foundation regarding the necessity of clarifying this distinction between Law and Gospel.

Fleshing out the Necessity of Making this Distinction

We live in a day when few professing Christians bother to seek to understand either the law or the gospel as they were intended to be understood, much less their relationship to each other.

This distinction that the theologians of old were convinced needed to be clarified in preaching was that the Law condemns, threatens, and brings no good will to men; and the Gospel gives life where the Law brings death. This must be communicated clearly in a sermon otherwise the hearer fails to find the wrath and condemnation of the Law, which is intended to drive him to Christ; nor do they find the mercy and grace in the Gospel. If the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the seriousness and inescapability of the condemnation of God's law, then it must not be suggested that anyone can be perfectly obedient to it as it requires; or that Christ was suggesting that anyone could obey it as it was intended to be obeyed when He said in Matthew 5:48, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Just as God is perfect, just, good, unchanging, etc., the same is true of His law -- it is a perfect, unchanging expression of His character.  There is a universal application of God's law too.  It refers to all people, of all nations and all ages.   

Jeremiah 6:19; Romans 3:19; Leviticus 24:22; Psalm 47:2-9. 

Another aspect of the law is its universality.  There isn't more than one standard for obedience.  The law that was revealed to Moses is Christ's law.  It didn't originate with Moses. It was God's law revealed to him:

God's law (Jeremiah 31:33) =

the law of Christ (Matthew 5:17) =

the law of Moses (10 Commandments Deuteronomy 4:13)

John Murray said

"The law is the moral perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of life and conduct."

In The Life of St. Paul, James Stalker writes

The law has no creative power to make the carnal spiritual. It cannot change an unrighteous heart into a righteous one. The purpose of the law is rather to aggravate the evil; it multiplies offenses. It is fully able to describe the sins of human nature, but rather than serving as a roadmap to avoid them, the Law turns into the temptation to sin.

The whole history before Christ could aptly be described as God allowing time to prove that fallen man could never reach righteousness by his own efforts, and when He had demonstrated that man’s righteousness was a complete failure – He brought in His secret weapon: The righteousness of God.

This is Christianity. This was the sum of Christ and His mission – the conferring upon man as a free gift, of that which is indispensable to his blessedness, but which he himself had failed to obtain by the keeping of the law. It is a divine act; it is grace; and man obtains it only by acknowledging that he has failed himself to attain it and by accepting it from God; it is got by faith only. It is “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon them that believe.”  The law was no part of salvation. It belonged entirely to the preliminary demonstration of man’s failure .

Martin Luther said that the law ought never to be preached apart from the Gospel, and the Gospel ought never to be preached apart from the law.

"If any man be not a murderer, an adulterer, a thief and outwardly refrain from sin, he will swear that he is righteous and presume on his good works and merits.  Such a one God cannot otherwise mollify and humble, that he may acknowledge his misery and his damnation but by the law; for that is the hammer of death and the thundering of hell and the lightening of God's wrath to beat to powder obstinate and senseless hypocrites."

[Grace in Galatians, Rev. George Bishop, 1912, p. 52]

William Perkins explains how confusion stems from a failure to distinguish whether or not a passage is speaking about the Law or the Gospel:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it…. A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them….

By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works.… The Law is, therefore, first in order of teaching; then comes the gospel. [William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 54.]

Theodore Beza said the same:

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings… "'The Law'" is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." "The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own 'righteousness.' Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." [Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien].

Calvin also discussed this issue, showing us why we needed to understand which one was being brought forth in God's revelation:

...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him." [Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, tr. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10].

"Thus," Calvin observes, "Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is 'a compensation for their lack,' not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.” [Calvin, 1559 Institutes 3.14.13, italics mine].

Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ. [Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author].

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that

the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the Holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein." [Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.]

Louis Berkoff stated that this distinction is not merely to be understood as being in either one or the other of the testaments either:

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus.

[Pasted from <http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-treatise-on-the-law-and-the-gospel/> ]

Let me conclude this section with some observances that the Rev. George Bishop makes in his commentary on Galatians regarding the purpose of the law:

 = The law has its place, (if a man uses it lawfully -- i.e., according to its proper design and intention) although it cannot save or help to save any man…

= The law serves the necessary purpose of showing what sin is, and the impossibility of fallen man's obedience.  It was added … in order to bring sin to light and [severely and well-deservedly] condemn it.

= …the harder [man] works for salvation, the more surely he damns himself.  The law then comes in like a hammer and knocks this snake on its head … the law smites the doer of the law for righteousness whether it be doing in whole or in part.

= The law locks the door on the sinner; Christ unlocks the door and sets it wide open. 

= This is how a man becomes a child of God -- not by keeping the law, nor by trying to keep it, but by simply believing on Christ. (pgs. 49-55)

Though the Reformers were most careful to clarify and make this distinction in their preaching, this is by no means critical only if one is interested in Scripture from a Reformed perspective. This does add credence to the argument however, that in general, Reformed theologians are more careful in their understanding of theology with respect to a systematic approach to the Bible. Making this distinction is hard work, and can be easily overlooked by beginner theologians, more so by beginning Christians.

The Verse  in Question

Why is Christ's first recorded sermon characterized by Law and not by grace? Why are the themes of God's mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, compassion and grace absent from the Sermon on the Mount?  Why isn't there even a thread of explanation of grace?

Because you need to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience to His law, and that you are utterly incapable of accomplishing that before you can ever understand the extent and the need for His grace.

The passage in question was Matthew 5:17-48.  The verse in question is Matthew 5:48: "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." In the context of the entire passage of the Sermon, should this verse be understood as Jesus speaking about the absolute condemnation inherent in the Law?  Or should it be understood as explaining the grace of the Gospel?

Charles Erdman, in his Commentary on Matthew, wrote

"The Sermon sets forth the fundamental laws of the Kingdom … and it fills the heart of the hearer with bewilderment and despair.  It reveals a divine ideal and a perfect standard of conduct by which all men are condemned as sinful and to which men can attain only by divine help … Its theme is the righteousness which the King requires.

A little homework about how many modern scholars interpret the Sermon on the Mount shows that most don't see any reference to the Gospel in it at all! Though Bill Bright's conclusions and perspectives are Dispensational leaning, I do believe the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ has addressed the interpretational problem correctly by noting that the Sermon on the Mount is devoid of grace!

“It could not be that Christ was addressing the Christian Church in the Sermon on the Mount ... There is nothing about the Holy Spirit, our position in Christ, [or] redemption through the blood of Christ in this sermon ... As a way of salvation it is useless.... It is legal, not gracious in character, and is full of judgments and threats (Matthew 5:22-29).  It offers no salvation to any man.  The non-Christian world, which so admires this sermon, is condemned to hell by it.  As a way of sanctification it is useless.... the motive is fear, not love.... The way of grace is not here.”

I would contend that his comment that 'As a way of salvation it is useless' is perhaps shortsighted. It might be better to say that without a proper grasp of the severity of the law as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no sense of one's need to run to Christ for salvation. So the Sermon in itself is useless to save, unless it is seen as the catalyst for man to see his complete failure to observe the perfect requirements of the law and seek salvation in Christ alone. This is why it is critical to keep a proper perspective on the intent of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

It appears that the Pharisees Jesus was referring to were thinking that the Law wasn't that hard to keep. All you had to do was not commit adultery, for instance, and you had kept that aspect of the law. But Christ shows us clearly that the intent of the law was much more serious. Its intent was to show you that you couldn't keep it! If you had lustful thoughts in your heart for a woman, you had already committed adultery with her. It wasn't about whether or not you could get close to keeping the law either, and yet still be righteous.

The purpose of Christ’s comments about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount is to show us our inability to keep the Law perfectly, with the intention of having us flee to the mercy of Christ as Savior. For a pastor to conclude his sermon on this passage by suggesting that Christ's last comment in this section (5:48) was a plea for us to radically obey the Law, by saying, “In what way should we imitate God? Radical obedience to the law and loving others," clearly suggests that he missed making this important distinction.

The issue that Jesus was demonstrating in his discussion of the law in the Sermon on the Mount was that it is impossible to keep the law, regardless if you were attempting to keep it in a Pharisaical way, or as a believer. This is why I am suggesting that Jesus' remark "You shall be perfect just as your heavenly Father in heaven is perfect" is not a command for us be more obedient, but rather, the final nail in our coffin of self righteousness delineating our condemnation that the law presents.

Jesus concluded this section of the Sermon with the words "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." The pastor said that verse meant, "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." In other words, he was suggesting that Jesus was commanding that the hearer actually be perfect in his actions as God is perfect!  Now if that were possible, one certainly would not need Christ or the mercy found in Him alone.

I believe Jesus was actually driving a nail into anyone's self-righteous coffin with this statement! He is actually saying that the Law demands complete perfection -- and therefore, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to fulfill it by any human effort! If this is what Jesus meant, one can only wonder why the pastor would have said it means "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." This interpretation, it seems, is simply a moralistic platitude.

Granted, it isn't often that we hear pastors in evangelical churches make statements like this. An ex-Mormon who heard this sermon was deeply troubled by this pastor's take on this verse -- and rightly so. Taken at its face value, she thought his statement was about as close to Mormon doctrine as one can get. After all, Mormon doctrine would interpret this verse just like this based on their understanding of theology!

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

"Christ [Was] Not Begotten of [the] Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing with the Mormon church.

Pasted from <http://carm.org/teachings-of-mormonism>

Now please understand that I am not suggesting that this pastor intentionally meant to teach a doctrine anything like the Mormon doctrine of man becoming God. It just so happened, that his interpretation at this point was virtually identical to Mormon doctrine. What I am saying is that his presentation was unclear enough to suggest that he at least inadvertently misrepresented Matthew's intent with his interpretation because of his failure to make the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Hence, the importance of clearly defining how we understand the law/gospel distinction in our sermons. For an ex-Mormon to walk away from this sermon not knowing what the pastor intended to mean is at least poor communication.

What about Obedience?

Part of the distinction we are talking about also means that we are not suggesting that the Law has no significance in the life of the Christian believer any longer either. It is critical to remember that even Christian so called 'obedience' to the law is sinful and imperfect. It is not that the Law should now be ignored (antinomianism), or that it should become our means of salvation (legalism), but rather that it becomes the Christian's guide to understanding the will of God.

… the unparalleled tendency of the historic Reformed faith [is] to ground its adherents in the vast and glorious freedom of the Gospel, and always in such a way as not to minimize a life of practical holiness, but rather to excite and encourage true piety and devotion [due to the grace received in the Gospel] http://www.reformedbooks.net/review_lawgospel.php.

Michael Horton wrote that

we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness [The Law & the Gospel, Michael S. Horton, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996].

Horton further clarifies the need to be most careful in our explanation:

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself.

While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). In fact Calvin took this thought even farther by writing that

The logical consequence of [the] doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is that never, not even after the remission of our sins, are we really righteous. On the contrary, we have noted that the sanctification which accompanies justification, or at least begins with it, enables us to become precisely more and more aware of our sin [Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of his Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1950), 258-259].

Calvin says the same thing here as well:

For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification. Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal for holiness and innocence. But where consciences are worried how to render God favorable, what they will reply, and with what assurance they will stand should they be called to his judgment, there we are not to reckon what the law requires, but Christ alone, who surpasses all perfection of the law, must be set forth as [our] righteousness. [Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.18]

The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

 Jesus was putting the final nail in the coffin of our doom with this statement in 5:48 by meaning that all of us are subjected to the death, condemnation and misery inherent in the severity of God's law, which he just articulated in the Sermon on the Mount in 5:17-48.  Didn't Jesus mean that thinking we have somehow kept the Ten Commandments means that there can be no escaping His judgment?

The pastor's comment then that “The intent of the law is to bring life,” at the close of the sermon, clearly reveals a failure to understand this distinction between gospel and law. In 2 Corinthians 3:7 it is clarified that the Ten Commandments are the ministry of death, not life, as this pastor said.

This particular exposition of Second Corinthians 3:2-18 clarifies this.

"The law is literal, it rests on written documents … and what is spiritual is the Gospel…. The Apostle says he is drawing a parallel … between the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former 'kills,' inasmuch as it denounces death without hope on all who disobey it; … the spiritual system of the Gospel brings life and immortality to light, and affords the means of salvation, it imparts life, new life, by the Holy Spirit… [Law and grace] are contrasted as to their tendency: that of the Law was punishment: that of the Gospel was reformation, rather than punishment; salvation rather than condemnation." [Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament with Notes, vol. ii, 186].

In summary then we must note what the failure to clearly make this distinction implies:

“The law and the gospel are the principal parts of divine revelation; or rather they are the center, sum, and substance of all the other parts of it. Every passage of sacred Scripture is either law or gospel, or is capable of being referred either to the one or to the other . . . If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth. If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.” —John Colquhoun

Pasted from <http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-Treatise-on-the-Law-and-Gospel-p-18409.html

There is an excellent book on this topic called A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun, ed. Rev. Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999) that is well worth the time to read.

The Abyss and the Myth of Evolution

Evolution says life is Godless:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion."
-- Sir Julian Huxley


Evolution says Life is Purposeless:

"Life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins


Evolution says Life is Meaningless:

"There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death.... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans."
--William Provine


The incredulous evolutionary ‘molecule-to-man’ theory, assumes that all organic life arose from a materialistic evolutionary process, from a single source, which itself arose from a non-living, inanimate world. The following quotation from Life Nature Library reveals the extent to which this startling notion is accepted.

"When Darwin started his career, the doctrine of special creation could be doubted only by heretics. When he finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason. He demolished the old theory [special creation] with two books...On The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man ... at two strokes Darwin gave modern science a rationale, a philosophy, an evolutionary, and thereby a revolutionary, way of thinking about the universe and everything in it... But at the same time, he dealt mankind's preening self-esteem a body blow from which it may never recover, and one for which Darwin may never be quite forgiven. For it is one thing for man to be told (and want to believe) that he was created in the literal image of God. It is quite another thing for him to be told (and have to accept) that he is, while unique, merely the culmination of a billion years of ever-evolving life, and that he must trace his godhood down a gnarled and twisted family tree through mammals and amphibians to the lowly fish and thence to some anonymous, if miraculous, Adam molecule." (Life Nature Library, Ruth Moore and Time-Life Editors, 10).

In contradistinction, the creation, or ‘according to its kind’ theory, assumes that all basic plant and animal types (created kinds, or species) were brought into existence by the acts of a supernatural Creator Who willed their creation to be so, and the bringing into being of those life forms was via sudden creation, not an evolutionary process.

The Evolutionist's Challenge

The incredible molecule to man theory assumes that science and imagination are capable of rendering a trustworthy explanation for the origins of every form of life, from the simplest to the most complex, and from extinct forms to existing forms, without the need for any type of miraculous intervention by an intelligent Creator, and without any specific purpose or reason for the existence of those life forms.

The Creationist's Challenge

Creationists accept that limited variations have taken place within a distinct species, but such variations have not led to the origin of a different form of life, or even another species. Their challenge is whether it is provable, for example, that a dog, a bird, a fern and a cricket all arose from the same ancestor. That the theory of evolution has been proved to be a reliable scheme to describe how life came into existence can only be assumed. The supposed research of some scientists is not directed toward discovering if evolution has actually taken place, but toward proving how that which must have taken place did take place. Yet the hypothesis of evolution is accepted as a fact not because it is based on a scientific explanation of the data, but rather on faith. Countless examples could be expressed that show how evolutionary scientists acknowledge a total lack of "scientific" proof for their claims of evolutionary development, but the following two examples from the writings of Charles Darwin should suffice.

1) In a letter written to G. Bentham in May 1863, Darwin wrote

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not." (Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Clark and Bales, 96).

2) Darwin wrote in chapter six of The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, entitled "Difficulties of the Theory," that

'Some [of the difficulties in my proposals of evolutionary theory] are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; ... First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?' (Origin of Species, 124).

Essentially then, the "philosophy" which lies behind evolution claims that it must be true even though scientifically there are grave problems with its basic propositions. Perhaps the most fundamental problem for the originator of the hypothesis, and one that to this day cannot be satisfactorily answered, is that if the theory truly represents how life began, then the presence of thousands of transitional fossils from one species to another should be plentiful.

The Evolutionist's Conclusion

1) The Evolutionist's claims are not based on fact but on conjecture
The evolutionist does not require that his theory be based on facts.

'Science does not claim to discover the final truth but only to put forward hypotheses based on the evidence that is available at the time of their presentation. Well-corroborated hypotheses are often treated as facts, and such a fact is that of organic evolution ...the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and there is no known fact that either weakens the hypothesis or disproves it'.(Human Evolution, "An Introduction to Man's Adaptations", Campbell, 1).

Apparently the fact of the absence of a fossil record which demonstrates the progression of one life form to another as Darwin himself realized is not enough of a deterrent to this hypothesis for Mr. Campbell. As another writer clearly illustrates, Darwin made up his mind about the "evidence" of evolution without even using the most accessible physical scientific evidence available, the fossils of living forms.

'Darwin reached his conclusion [that there must have existed in the past an ancestor common to all primates, including man,] that the mechanism of evolution must act upon man as upon other life forms. To Darwin, there was no other feasible explanation for the observed similarities [between man and primate]. Darwin never utilized the human fossil evidence that was beginning to accumulate in various parts of the world. Thus he ignored two of the most important areas of evidence in support of his theory--genetics and fossil man material. Yet these and other, later developed studies have yielded what must be considered proof of the evolutionary process. Evolution in theory becomes evolution in fact.' (Human Origins, "An Introduction to Physical Anthropology", McKern, 31).

Though Darwin never availed the fossil record in an attempt to show the veracity of his evolutionary theory, McKern and other evolutionists believe that the truth of evolution stands in spite of the failure of Darwin and others to use the fossil record to bolster the supposed evidence. In spite of Darwin’s personal disbelief that the fossils prove his theory, note what this same author remarks about "the facts" of evolution at the beginning of the next chapter of Human Origins entitled "Evolution -- In Fact."

'The evidence for the evolutionary process is derived from many separate and diverse fields of inquiry: comparative anatomy, embryology, geography, genetics, and many more. In all cases the evidence is based on inference. There is simply no way in which to prove events of the distant past.' (Human Origins, 33, italics mine).

According to my American College Dictionary, the word "inference" is defined as:

The process of arriving at some conclusion which, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

Remarkably enough, other brilliant scientists conclude the same thing, namely, that even though evolutionary theory is ultimately merely a sketchy conjecture, it nevertheless must be a fact.

'Formation of the [initial] self-reproducing particle, whatever might have been its precise chemical makeup, was, at least potentially, the dawn of organic evolution. Although at present self-reproduction is not known to occur except in nucleoproteins, self-reproducing units of other composition might have occurred on earth or in other parts of the cosmos.
Our understanding of the fundamental life phenomena is admittedly sketchy, and the hypotheses about the origin of life are only conjectures set up to promote further thinking and experimentation.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Dobzhansky, 19).

Nucleoproteins are "any one of a group of substances [proteins] present in the nuclei of cells and viruses, consisting of proteins in combination with nucleic acids."

Increduously, Dobzhansky admits that

'Not only nucleoproteins but even their constituent amino acids and nucleic acids are synthesized exclusively in living organisms and never spontaneously from inorganic substances. Spontaneous formation of these energy-rich compounds is highly improbable on the basis of physiochemical conciderations. Nevertheless, several scientists....have tried to visualize conditions under which chemical substances now formed only in living organisms could have arisen without the intervention of life.' (Evolution, 'Genetics, and Man', italics mine, 18).

Though evolutionists admit they have no real answer to the problem of the origin of the first protein arising from an inanimate world, they cannot answer the remaining problem that now confronts them. Proteins are only ever formed in nature by living organisms, yet those organisms themselves depend upon proteins already existent for their own existence. In other words, when confronted with this problem of how life arose from their conjectured inanimate world, scientists must resort to faith for their answer: "At the time when life did not exist, how did substances come into existence which today are absolutely essential to living systems, and yet, can only be formed by those systems?"

In 1947, a French scientist named Lecomte du Nouy, studied the probability of one protein molecule forming by chance. His conclusion: 10 to the 243rd power billion years.

Even if that one protein molecule happened to form by chance, how much more time would it be before millions of protein molecules were made so that somehow a single cell could come into being by chance? Furthermore, all those proteins would somehow have to have enough time to form into all the necessary and vital parts of cellular functions, such as: mitochondria, chromosomes, chloroplasts, vacuoles, the endoplasmic reticula, ribosomes, centrioles, and other parts which are extremely complex in themselves?

Yet the facts remain the same: PROTEIN DOES NOT PRODUCE LIFE as the evolutionist hopes to have us believe. There is plenty of protein at meat markets and in graveyards that has never produced the smallest speck of life!

2) Evolutionist's claims must deny science
According to evolutionary thought, religious theories about human beings are empty promises. Man has no soul, he lives here and now without an eternity, he has no accountability to a Master who created him. Man has no dignity, no hope for salvation from the reality of sin, and no bright, utopic future other than the possible hope of evolving into something better over great periods of time, though his final destination is extinction. In the process of maintaining his claims, the evolutionist must deny the realities of basic science to adhere to his claims.

On the one hand, scientists acknowledge that life comes only from living things. Even the 1963 edition of The American College Dictionary says:

"abiogenesis, [spontaneous generation], is the hypothetical production of living things from inanimate matter."

The fact that scientists still hold to this absolutely incredulous stance on spontaneous generation, is fantastic, because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove it is true. On the contrary it has been proven to be false through the scientific process. And strangely enough, evolution cannot be true unless the premise of spontaneous generation is true!

'The theory of abiogenesis, thus gave way to that of biogenesis, which maintains that all life arises from preexisting life ... geologists tell us that at one time, long ago, life could not have existed on the earth. The doctrine of special creation, that is, that each species of animal was specially created, is sufficiently refuted to the satisfaction of most biologists by the facts of organic evolution. Life must, therefore, have originated on the earth from non-living matter, or it must have been brought to the earth from some other part of our universe. The latter idea, known as the cosmozoic theory, is so improbable as to be hardly worthy of consideration... The dominant theory now (to account for the origin of life on earth), is that when the environmental conditions became suitable for life, certain molecules became organized into the first living system. Even now, life might conceivably arise from non-living matter if the various elements contained in protoplasm were to unite in the proper quantities, in the proper relations to one another, and under favorable conditions; but actually we have no real evidence of this.' (College Zoology, Hegner, italics mine).

Again, this is exactly what all evolutionists must buy into to maintain their theory of evolution, even though it is absolutely unreasonable to do so! Irving Alder, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, absolutely contradicts himself within ten pages of his book How Life Began.

"It is the law of life that living things come only from living things, and like produces like." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 15).

"The first living cells must have developed from dead matter, on the earth, some time over two billion years ago. Figuring out how it happened is the greatest detective story of all time." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 25, italics mine).

3) Evolutionist's claims require millions of years
The introduction of eons of time into the formula of the evolutionary equation is necessary to render what science has proven to be the impossible, as at least a highly remote feasibility.

'If life comes only from life, then every living creature which exists now is a direct descendent of the first bit of living protoplasm which appeared on earth... The origin of the first life of necessity is a highly speculative issue. Indeed, our inability to observe spontaneous generation in nature or to bring it about artificially in laboratory experiments shows that life must have arisen under some conditions which no longer obtain at present and about which we can only make the vaguest guesses... Even so, spontaneous formation of complex proteins and nucleoproteins is a most improbable event, at least in terms of short term intervals. Given eons of time, a highly improbable event may, however, take place somewhere in the universe. Such a "lucky hit" happened to occur on a small planet, earth, a mere speck in the vast cosmic spaces. As soon as a particle appeared that was able to reproduce itself, that is, to engender synthesis of its copies from materials present in its environment, the evolution of life was launched.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Theodosius Dobzhansky, Columbia University, italics mine).

Donald E. Chittick writes that Darwin finally found the ultimate escape hatch for a failed system of reasoning which cannot be held together on the basis of science.

'Time, however, is the escape hatch from the clear implications of the improbability of life arising by natural processes' (The Controversy, 228-229).

George Wald, a well-known scientist and evolutionist, proves that the evolutionist clings to his faith desperately, not because of scientific evidence, but because of a preconceived mind set.

Writes Wald,

'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracle.' (The Controversy, 230).

The Creationist’s Conclusion

1) Evolution does not fit the definition of "science"
Science is defined as:

"A branch of study that is concerned with a connected body of demonstrable truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less bound together by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain." (Oxford Dictionary).

One's decision to accept evolution is not, then, based on science, which is limited to the study of physical phenomenon and processes as they exist in the present.

The Creationist's conclusion is that evolution is not a science, in the true sense of the word, but rather a philosophy. Actually, it would be better to call it a myth! It remains in the true sense of the word, a "theory." (A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact).

2) Evolution does fit the definition of a philosophy
Evolution is not universally accepted because it is proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because its alternative, special creation, is not only incredible, but would involve our accountability to the Creator.

'Man is alone in the universe, and he is the result of an impersonal, unconscious process, and he is his own master and must manage his own destiny.' (Dr. G.G. Simpson, Prof. of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard University).

The only factual explanation for the fossils that do exist is that there was an explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life, recorded by the fossil record, without the evidence of great epochs of time where transitional forms gradually linked one basic kind to another. Thus, the indication of development from simple life to complex life over millions of years is an unreliable fallacy.

Aquinas's 5 Proofs for God in the Abyss

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.\

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Considering Death in the Abyss

THE DEATH CLOCK

Welcome to the Death Clock(TM), the Internet's friendly reminder that life is slipping away... second by second. Like the hourglass of the Net, the Death Clock will remind you just how short life is. http://www.deathclock.com/

A THANATOPSIS ON HEBREWS 2:14-18

Keeping the Thought of Death Alive: The Most Essential of All Works

Why do so many ideologies throughout the world fail to ponder the significance of human death? Why are people so afraid to look closely at their own impending deaths before they arrive at its doorstep? Why do we plan to the minutest detail the small, miniscule moments of life, yet neglect to consider the eternity that awaits us at the door to our deaths? And this, In light of the fact that our deaths are for such a very long time!

Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, gave one of his slaves a strange standing order. Every morning this slave was to march into the king's chamber, and no matter what the king was doing, announce in a loud voice, "You must die!" I doubt if many of us would appreciate that kind of daily reminder of the inevitability of our own death, much less order it.

In truth, the person who has not confronted their looming death has not adequately prepared themselves to confront one of the greatest challenges that life presents: what are we to make of death? I am, by no means, suggesting that this confrontation is any easy task. It takes more than a fair amount of courage to engage one’s mind in a thanatopsis, a meditation upon the subject of death. Yet, like all disciplines, there is much to be gained by a deep reflection on this serious topic.

From the moment that Christ entered His last three years of ministry, the fact of His imminent personal death as the final culmination in His life of ministry and service was ever before Him. Ironically, the Apostle John declares that our eternal life is found in Christ’s death. “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men (John 1:5).” “For the bread of God is He Who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (John 6:32).” “And I give them [My sheep] eternal life and they shall never perish .... (John 10:28).”

All that the Scriptures promise in Christ are true for us because of what took place at Christ’s death. All of the significance of His life and that which we believe to be true for us in eternity became a fact not only because of His perfect life, but through His atoning death. Christ’s death has a very practical theological side too it as well. Because of Christ’s death, the Scriptures say that we have forgiveness of sins. We are justified before a holy God. We have Christ’s righteousness added to our account, and therefore we now exist in a peaceful relationship with the Father.

The kind of life that is presented to us in the gospel of Jesus Christ is an eternal life. That eternal life exists, oddly enough, because of Christ’s sacrificial death. Without His death on our behalf there is no good news regarding either this life, or a life to come. It seems all the more wonderful and fitting then that Christ’s work regarding our salvation commenced in the moment of His death. As Christians we of all persons have the greatest reason to be hopeful in the face of death, because God himself has shown us that, though so much about the subject is shrouded in mystery, it is, in the final analysis, a most blessed hope.

George Kennan became the United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1952. As a thoughtful and devout Christian man, he was one day greatly moved and impressed by the dreariness of a Soviet Marxist funeral. It was there that he was first awakened to the very real Marxist misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of life. Oddly, for Kennan, this meaninglessness of life was captured and expounded in Marxist idealogy, when he witnessed their failure to attach any significance to the meaning and purpose of death.

Kennan’s disdain for the doctrine of Marxism stemmed from a careful look at how shallow its doctrinal probe reached for satisfactory answers to the questions raised by the phenomenon of death. More than any other reason, Marxism, (as with any religious ideology that proposes to influence the lives of human beings), must be abandoned because it fails to recognize that the total individual human condition must also embrace elements of tragedy. He wrote:

“As an adequate and enduring personal philosophy Marxism has many deficiencies; but the greatest of them is that it has, in contrast to Christianity, no answer to the phenomenon of death. This is why there is nothing more pathetic than a Marxist funeral; for to the Marxist this formality celebrates nothing more than an inexplicable, unpreventable, and profoundly discouraging event in the human experience. Unable to give meaning to death, Marxism is unable to give meaning to life. This helplessness is the guarantee of its impermanence and ultimate failure as a personal and political ideology.”

As Vice President, George Bush represented the United States at the funeral of Leonid Brezhnev. Bush was deeply moved by something that Brezhnev’s widow did at the funeral.
She had been standing motionless next to her dead husband’s coffin during the entire ceremony. Seconds before the coffin was to be closed in finality by the Russian soldiers, Brezhnev’s wife committed an act not only of great faith and courage, but at the same time, an act of profound ideological and civil disobedience. In those final seconds before her husband’s memory was sealed shut by the coffin lid, she quickly reached down and made the sign of a cross on her dead husband’s chest.

There, in that singular simple fleeting movement, she had expressed the hope that Breshniv and the atheistic philosophy he had for so long paraded before the entire world, had, in the final analysis, been an empty inevitable tragedy in itself, that offered no answers to the questions men had concerning death.

The entire world was left to wonder in that fleeting gesture, had she not hoped there was indeed something more than an inexplicable emptiness at the end of the road of life? Wasn’t Breshniv’s wife suggesting by the sign of a cross, that Jesus Christ, so vehemently denied in that atheistic culture, might be the truth that her husband’s philosophy had for so long rejected?

John Climicas, a seventh-century ascetic, wrote: “You cannot pass a day devoutly, unless you think of it as your last.” He called the very thought of death the “most essential of all works”, and a gift from God. “The man who lives daily with the thought of death is to be admired, and the man who gives himself to it by the hour is surely a saint.”

The Context of the Stunning Truth About Death in Hebrews 2:14-18

Hebrews 2:14 begins by teaching that

“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted” (NKJ).

Hebrews 2:14-15 are perhaps two of the most astounding verses in all of Scripture. They are rife with the larger focus and depth of purpose of Christ’s life. These verses, which we will examine more closely, are located within the larger context of the author of Hebrew’s explanation of the purpose and function of Christ’s humanity.

It seems that the recipients of this letter had been wrestling with two theological issues, which the author of the epistle is clarifying. The first issue that apparently troubled their theology was that they could not understand how the human being Jesus Christ could have been a more accurate revelation of the character of God than the Angel of the Lord had been in the Old Testament. Repeated references to the Angel of the Lord appearing to men when God desired to communicate to the Hebrews had probably made them wonder why that accepted means of revelation had now been set aside for an apparently more superior revelation in the person of Christ.

Secondly, they were obviously struggling with the implications of Christ’s suffering in death. If Christ was indeed the Incarnate One, how could He die? And what was the value of Him suffering in death the way that He did? How could His death on a cross be anything more than dreadful? How does Christ’s foreordained suffering in death demonstrate any kind of goodness of God the Father toward humanity?

The author states that God found it “fitting” that Christ would be made perfect in suffering (2:10). He affirms that Christ’s suffering death does indeed serve men, the seed of Abraham, by redeeming them (2:16). He concludes chapter two by saying that Christ’s suffering propitiated sin and enabled Him to aid those who suffer.

The author of Hebrews seems to make an astounding connection here in verse 14 that we must not miss. He began by telling the reader in the opening verses of the Epistle, that God, who had once spoken through the Angel of the Lord, now speaks to us “in” His Son Jesus. He was the One through Whom the worlds have been made. Indeed, Christ is the “brightness of God’s glory” and represents the very character of God Himself (1:3). Chapter two verse one begins by reasoning that because these things are true about Christ, we must pay heed to that truth about Christ’s superiority, and not drift away from Him doctrinally, substituting some inferior understanding about Him for the truth.

The author explains further that all things have been “put under Him”, even the things that we cannot now see that are being put under Christ’s authority, namely, death itself (2:9). Man, in spite of all his many supposed triumphs in life, is ultimately defeated in death because in death we face judgment for sin. But the full magnitude of God’s graciousness to us is seen when we comprehend that His eternal Son is the only human, who unlike us, conquers death. Where there is only ever defeat in our own deaths, there is great glory in Christ’s death. Because of the suffering of Christ’s death as a man, we see Jesus already crowned “with glory and honor” in his defeat of the enemy that had defeated us all, death.

Christ’s death is said here to be, in some sense, on behalf of everyone (2:9)! Not in an “atoning” or “substitutionary” sense of dying “for them”, but in the sense that Christ’s death was a statement of all of humanities inability to overcome and destroy the cause of death, sin.
Death had been the enemy and foe of every man. Death was a foe which ultimately brought every human being defeat, and yet, had at last, been defeated by a man! The grace and glory of God are abundantly expressed in the fact that the motive for Christ’s incarnation was to defeat death at the cross. He was indeed “born to die.”

In Christ’s defeat of death, He experienced the death that had bitterly defeated all men, only to finally triumph over it in grace and power. In that defeat, Christ defeated that which had subjected all men to the fear of death.

And so the author of Hebrews suggests that rather than looking at Christ’s humanness as being a cause for theological concern as to the validity of God’s true revelation, Christ’s humanity should rather be seen as a remarkable evidence of God’s divine goodness towards us.

In an almost stunning view into the seriousness and true meaning behind the significance of human death, the author reveals, without any apparent compulsion to clarify for the reader the bare bones theology of death, that there are three purposes to Christ’s death.

III. Three of God’s Purposes in Christ’s Death

a) Christ destroyed him who had the power of death (2:14)

We must ask two questions of the text here. “In what way is the Devil understood to be destroyed” in this text? And, “in what way does the author of Hebrews mean that the Devil had the power of death?” The Devil still exists, tempting and enslaving men to sin. It is in this ability to tempt and enslave to sin that the Devil is said to have “the power of death.” In no way then can we say that in Christ’s coming “to destroy him who had the power of death” are we freed from anything more than the Devil’s ultimate power which prevailed against us in death. Christ’s death has served to deliver us from the tyranny of the devil’s reign over both our lives and our death. In Christ, we are rendered safe from the bondage of sin to which the Devil introduced us, and Christ has so redeemed us from the death due to sinners, that death is no longer to be dreaded.

Surely, the words of A Mighty Fortress Is Our God must have been written after reflecting on this very passage!

“...For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great; and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

“And though this world with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us.
The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him; his rage we can
endure, for lo! his doom is sure; one little word shall fell him.”

When the writer of Hebrews speaks of the Devil’s “power of death” he refers to the Fall of man in Genesis 3:15, where Satan’s temptation in the garden of Eden introduced death by enticing Adam and Eve to transgress the will and commandment of God which had promised death for disobedience (Genesis 2:17). The Lord refers to the devil’s introduction of sin in John 8:44, where He calls “the devil a murderer from the beginning.” It was there, in the beginning, at the garden, that the devil became the author of sin, and then perhaps immediately, the author of death also (death having been introduced because sin had been introduced) -- and it was there that the Devil figuratively is assumed to have gained the power of death over us.

Wonderfully, it was in the death of our Lord that God did also destroy the cause of death, sin. One commentator said, “by bringing life and immortality to light, Christ delivered those whose continual fear of death placed them as it were in a state of slavery to a relentless tyrant.”

b) Christ released those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (2:15)

What an amazing statement this is. It asserts that there is a fear of death that holds men to bondage for a lifetime, from which Christ releases us. I don’t think that the author of Hebrews is saying that Christ released us from the fear of the way that we might die. He is concerned with our fear of death at a much deeper level. It is not simply the ceasing to be that men fear in their conscience. It is not simply “the shuffling off of the outer covering” that alarms men.
Dr. Bernard Seltzer, an outstanding surgeon, wrote a book entitled, "Mortal Lessons: Notes on the Art of Surgery." In it he suggests that as a culture, Amebicans have failed to learn to contemplate death. Our more natural reaction is to try to disguise death by acting as if is of no concern to us. He says, "He who shrinks from this contemplation is like an Elizabethan 'dandy' who breathes through a handkerchief that has been soaked in vinegar in order to avoid the rank whiff of the poor." It is a striking illustration of our utter neglect as a society to contemplate death. It may be safe to say that we are the most death-denying culture in all of human history. Yet, ironically, the fear of death is the most prevalent among those who avoid its contemplation.

This fear of death is as Shakespeare said, “.... the dread of something after death.” Lord Bacon remarked that “Conscience does indeed make cowards of us all. Men fear death as children fear the dark.” All children fear the dark. But it is not that children fear for what is there necessarily, but for what they imagine to be there, for what their conscience suggests may be lurking.

G. K. Chesterton, the British author and theologian wrote:
“The timidity of the child or the savage is entirely reasonable; they are alarmed at this world, because this world is a very alarming place. They dislike being alone because it is verily and indeed an awful idea to be alone. Barbarians fear the unknown for the same reason that Agnostics worship it— because it is a fact.”

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard understood the fear of death. He saw the fear of death as an anxiety which pursued men their whole lives, from the time of their birth till the day that they died. This fear is based upon a conscious fear for unforgiven sin which is brought into effect by the work of the law which is written in men’s hearts (Rom. 2:15). This fear is represented in Adam’s fearful response when he first sinned (Gen. 3:10); in Felix’s response to Paul’s preaching (Acts 24:25); and here in the book of Hebrews by men who reject the preaching of the gospel of salvation (Hebrews 10:27-31).

The great sting of death that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:56 is sin. “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is to the ensuing results of sins, i.e., death, that men have been bound all their lives. And the only deliverance from that bondage to sin is genuine faith in the finished work of Christ, a faith the Paul tells us can “liberate” us from that fear.

How strange it seems that we no longer express the urgency of possessing the kind of faith that frees men from the fear of the horrible bondage of death, as was once owned by the Puritans. Matthew Poole, the great Puritan divine, wrote

“The fear of death is a painful and wasting horror, working the saddest apprehensions and tumultuous workings of the soul, from its apprehended danger of death spiritual, temporal, and eternal, when the wrath of God does not only dissolve the natural frame, but makes an everlasting separation from Himself, shutting them up with the worst company, in the worst place and state that is possible for the human mind to imagine, and that forever.”

This verse expresses in a striking manner how miserable the bondage of those who fear death. And they live in that dread because they look at death apart from the grace of Christ, for then, nothing but a curse appears in it.

The question that Scripture implores each one of it’s readers to consider is worthy indeed: “Why do we die except for God’s wrath against sin?”

Death here does not only mean the departure of the soul from the body, but also the punishment which is inflicted on us by an angry God. Death here includes the idea so prevalent in Scripture of eternal ruin. As one Puritan commentator said, “Where there is guilt before God, there immediately hell shows itself.” How many of us have never read John 3:36? “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Calvin said that “through a consciousness of sin the judgment of God is ever presented to the view. From this fear Christ has delivered us, who by undergoing our curse has taken away what is dreadful in death.” It is a Christian duty to live in light of the fact that Christ has empowered us to be free from the fear of eternal ruin that comes with sin. “If any one cannot pacify his mind by disregarding death, let him know that he has made as yet but very little proficiency in the faith of Christ; for as extreme fear is owing to ignorance as to the grace of Christ, so it is a certain evidence of unbelief.”

From the following statement by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart it would appear that it is our duty to become intimately acquainted with our death. Mozart wrote

“As death, when we come to consider it closely, is the true goal of our existence, I have formed during the last few years such close relations with this best and truest friend of mankind, that his image is not only no longer terrifying to me, but is indeed very soothing and consoling! And I thank my God for graciously granting me the opportunity of learning that [meditating upon my] death is the key which unlocks the door to our true happiness.”

Charles Spurgeon suggested that we become so familiar with death that we die, in a sense, every day! He wrote that

“No man would find it difficult to die that died every day. He would have practiced it so often, that he would only have to die but once more; like the singer who has been through his rehearsals, and is perfect in his part, and has but to pour forth the notes once for all, and have done.”

c) The turning away of the wrath of God

Hebrews 2: 17 says, “Wherefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

The sentence He had to be made like His brethren is an imperfect active indicative verb. It means that in time past, it was always true that God had intended that Christ was under obligation and bound by necessity, to become like one of us. And herein is the motive or purpose of His being made like one of us, “To make propitiation for the sins of the people.” The verb to make propitiation is an aorist infinitive. It implies motive or purpose. If we were to take a photograph of what God was purposing to do in Christ’s death, it could be summarized in the statement “God, in offering Christ as a sacrifice, was intending to make propitiation for sins.” That was His purpose in the Incarnation of Christ. That was His intended result. Christ’s work is to bring God and sinner together in reconciliation, to make the One propitious and gracious to the other by sacrifice.

This propitious work of Christ’s includes the idea of turning away God’s wrath toward sin by an offering. “Propitiation” appears four times in the New Testament: Heb. 2:17; Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2, 4:10. Note the difference between expiation and propitiation. The intent here in the passage in Hebrews is not simply to describe some blanket expiation, or cancellation of sin for all people. God did not simply cancel all sin and it’s penalties once and for all in Christ’s sacrifice. If that were the case, then no one would ever need to have any fear of death at all, because the guilt and punishment associated with sin and death would be non-existent!

Rather, Christ, by the sacrifice of Himself, satisfied God’s justice by placating God’s wrath toward all those who have genuine faith in Christ, and procured their pardon for each and every sin of omission and commission they had accrued in their entire lifetime.

The wonderful truth found in Christ’s suffering and death is that the cross is God’s ordained means of removing the condemnation toward sin which His justice required. Death entered the world because of sin. And because of sin, men have all their lives been bound to the penalty of sin, death. And in death, men rightly find fear and judgment from a holy and righteous Judge.

This is the true testimony of God’s love toward sinners. The love of God which is poured out towards us in the merciful offering of Christ for sin cannot be known and apprehended apart from the fact that Christ’s death averted the wrath of God due us by our sin.

The death of the soul is very different. It is the judgment of God, the weight of which the wretched soul cannot bear without being wholly confounded, crushed, and desperate, as both the Scriptures teach us, and experience has taught those whom God has once smitten with his terrors. To begin with Adam, who first received the fatal wages, what do we think his feelings must have been when he heard the dreadful question, “Adam, where art thou?” It is easier to imagine than to express it, though imagination must fall far short of the reality. As the sublime majesty of God cannot be expressed in words, so neither can his dreadful anger on those on whom he inflicts it be expressed. They see the power of the Almighty actually present: to escape it, they would plunge themselves into a thousand abysses; but escape they cannot. Who does not confess that this is very death? (John Calvin, Vol. 3, Selected Works, 416).

May God be praised for His wonderful work in Christ!

What If It Were True That God Is Very Good?

“. . . . Indeed, it would seem very strange that Christianity should have come into the world merely to receive an explanation; as if it had been somewhat bewildered about itself, and hence entered the world to consult that wise man, the speculative philosopher, who can come to its assistance by furnishing the explanation.” -- Sören Kierkegaard

If God is so good, why does it look like he isn’t? It seems that nothing stirs the passions of the atheist more than the fact that Christianity asks the world to believe the impossible about God. Christians might have been able to get away with simply believing that somewhere out there in the abyss of infinity there is some vague disinterested and impotent something that some people have decided to call God. The atheist could have remained dispassionate if only that something would have remained unfamiliar, inexplicable and abstract enough so as not to interfere with the world’s perceptions.

But enough is enough, it seems; Christianity hasn’t simply asked us to believe that this God merely exists. It has asked us to believe that he’s knowable without empirical evidence. If that isn’t enough, it has asked us to believe that he’s more powerful than anything we can imagine; that he can do anything at all! More importantly it has asked us to believe that he has the best interests of this world in mind all the time. And finally, it has asked us to believe that he even cares about people and what happens to them in spite of his repeated failure to utilize his supposed attributes on their behalf.

And now that the world has clearly failed to see the enormity of this Christian proposition, and the travesty of irrationality that has been perpetrated against it by this belief, the atheist has been forced to come to the world’s intellectual rescue. Their antidote for this travesty that has been perpetrated against the world is a rational and logical explanation that can lead to only one conclusion: If there is any kind of God that exists, it certainly cannot be the God of Christianity. Christians have taken their faith too lightly, too illogically, too childishly it seems, and now the speculative philosopher must come to its rescue and furnish it with the only reasonable explanation for this outrageous claim: no such thing exists!

B.C. Johnson, for instance, in The Atheist Debater’s Handbook begins a chapter entitled God and the Problem of Evil with this illustration:

Here is a common situation: a house catches on fire and a six-month-old baby is painfully burned to death. Could we possibly describe as “good” any person who had the power to save this child and yet refused to do so? God undoubtedly has this power and yet in many cases of this sort he has refused to help. Can we call God “good”? Are there adequate excuses for this behavior? ....Certainly not. If we would not consider a mortal human being good under these circumstances, what grounds could we possibly have for continuing to assert the goodness of an all powerful God?[1]

There are two major concerns that will be addressed in this chapter: What constitutes a reasonable proof that God exists? And, if there is any such proof, is it reasonable to assume that the God of Christianity can be that God? If we are assured that there is no empirical proof for the existence of a God, why does the Christian continue to believe in one? Even more astoundingly, assuming there is a reasonable way to hold to a belief in a God without empirical evidence, how can Christians hold to the notion of his goodness in light of the evil he supposedly allows if he does exist?

Interestingly, in order for this debate to take place, both the atheist and the Christian must assume that God does exist, and that He is some kind of real being in the universe who acts deliberately and with power in the world. Both sides must acknowledge that God’s character, which is the basis for the motivation of his actions, can be scrutinized, criticized or defended in human terms. Without both sides making these assumptions first, there would be no on-going debate on the subject of God’s existence or his goodness.

The atheist desires to show that his viewpoint on the existence of a God without empirical evidence is valid.[2] The atheist perceives the world in terms of ‘physical’ reality alone, and then wonders how some other reality that the Christian perceives God to exist in might better account for God’s goodness. “Provided that you can demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume that your God exists, how can you possibly suggest that your God is good when all around us we experience and bear testimony to such horrific atrocities? Doesn’t the existence of these atrocities at least challenge the Christian concept of God’s ‘goodness’ and ‘righteousness’”?
At the outset, the atheist sets the parameters for understanding God by limiting his view of reality to a mere scientific, rational, materialistic physical world which can only be understood through empirical (i.e., physically tangible) means. After all, to him, that is the only real world! [3] The atheist believes that the Christian God can only be understood apart from the concept of faith. He will never be able to come to terms with the existence of the God of the Bible the way that the Christian does, because of his view of reality. In the end, it is perhaps not so much that the atheist doubts the goodness of God in this debate, though he undoubtedly does do that. That is secondary. All of the atheist’s doubts about God arise from his fundamental understanding of reality as “anti-spiritual.” It is this limiting view of ‘reality’ that forces the atheist to deny God’s very existence, and consequently, his supposed goodness.

But the Christian also struggles at a very foundational level in this debate. If he concludes that God is indeed real in an entirely ‘other’ sense than the mere physical reality that the atheist perceives, he must then believe in a God who is not only capable of preventing pain and suffering, but also is one who picks and chooses what He does or doesn’t do about it. While the Christian believes in the literal spiritual reality of the eternal, omnipotent God of the Bible, he is often incapable of debating effectively whether God remains ‘good’ within the perspective of this spiritual reality.

The Christian must understand, ultimately, that his belief in the goodness of God comes from his reliance on the fact that Scripture alone establishes his perception of God’s existence and goodness, and not his experience. Scripture is replete with examples of the apparent thriving of the wicked in their wickedness. “For I was envious of the boastful, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no pangs in their death, but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, nor are they plagued like other men” (Psalm 73:3-5). “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11). The prophet Habakkuk wrote of his confusion about the thriving of the wicked while the righteous God-fearer suffers: “You [God] are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold your tongue when the wicked devours?” (1:13). In Judges 6:13, Gideon complains with wonder that “...if the Lord is with us, why then has all this [hardship] befallen us?”

Furthermore, what serves as fuel for the atheist’s argument is the Christian conviction that even the very faith we rely on to believe in the God of the Bible is from God Himself.[4] Karl Barth wrote in On Christian Faith, that

Faith is a freedom; a permission. It is permitted to be, so -- that the believer in God’s Word may hold on to this Word in everything, in spite of all that contradicts it [in reality]. It is so: we never believe ‘on account of,’ never ‘because of’; we awaken to faith in spite of everything… when we believe, we believe in spite of God’s hiddenness. The hiddenness of God necessarily reminds us of our human limitation. We do not believe out of our personal reason and power.

Christians do not believe that God is good based upon an empirical proof that God necessarily demonstrates on a physical basis. We awaken to faith in spite of everything. We understand that whether or not God is good is not based upon the limited reality of our human comprehension of our particular experiences. Faith does not allow us to determine what ‘the goodness of God’ should look like. It allows us to believe His revelation about His intrinsic goodness in spite of what our experience shows it does look like. Our faith in God and in his goodness cannot be scientifically tested within the bounds of this physical reality because God exists outside of it. It cannot be validated scientifically or empirically, and so, while to the atheist, it is mere nonsense to attempt to answer the questions regarding the existence or the goodness of God through some means other than empiricism, the Christian cannot look to empiricism as establishing its proof.

Yet both the atheist and the Christian attempt to explain the same set of facts. Both can see that there are discrepancies in our experiences that make it difficult to account for God’s goodness, which is why, from the atheist’s perspective it is

…incumbent upon the theist to provide enough reason for his belief that God is the true explanation of the universe and morality. The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist’s explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate that the theist has failed to justify his position.[5]

The atheist does not offer a solution because he has none except his experience and human judgment. In the end, it is the atheist’s own materialistic view of the world that has made it impossible for him to believe in a God, let alone one that is good. And we are not blaming the atheist for making that assumption; he has no other alternative! The Christian insists that this physical reality alone cannot account for our understanding of the goodness of God.

Our desire to solve the problem of the goodness of God, therefore, is at a standstill unless we ask an entirely different question than “How does our perception of reality demonstrate that God is ultimately good?” Perhaps it might be better to arrive at some tenable solutions if we ask, “Are you so entirely dedicated to your materialistic view of reality that you will not allow for any other view of reality in considering the question of God’s existence and goodness?”

How Does Christianity Account for God’s Goodness?

Thomas Warren has written that “it is likely the case that no charge has been made with a greater frequency or with more telling force against the theism of Judeo-Christian (biblical) tradition than the complication of the existence of evil.”[6] Historically, Christian theologians have insisted that God has permitted evil in order to bring about “a greater good” than would have existed had evil not been present in the world. Thomas Aquinas argued on a broad scale that “the permitting of evil tends to the good of the universe.”[7]

The Christian theologian relies on the truthfulness of the Biblical account to inform him of God’s goodness and the existence of evil. The Biblical account suggests that a good God allowed evil and sin in the world in order to bring about an immense advantage to men, in that, God, through the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ, atoned for sin. This atonement for human sin is ultimately an expression of a better “good” than the “goodness” of a world that might have been without the presence of sin because the atonement for human sin is the ultimate expression of His goodness toward mankind. Philosophers have suggested that God gave “to the universe something nobler than anything that ever would have been among creatures except for this sinfulness,”[8] when He allowed sin to come into existence. Therefore, in light of this Biblical theological argument we cannot

…doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil, for He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good [in and of itself]; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, [on the whole] is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For He is not truly called Almighty if He cannot do whatever He pleases, or if the power of His Almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature whatsoever.[9]

It is the Biblical revelation of the person of God and the existence of evil that informs us of God’s goodness in light of that evil, and not merely our human perception of what God’s goodness should look like in the world. Faith is an absolutely necessary requirement to understanding how God can be good in this world; it is not an alternative to answering the difficult question of His goodness, it is the solution to answering the question. Often in speaking with people about the choices God made about the kind of world he supposedly created, they will inevitably ask “Couldn’t God have made a better choice by creating a hedonistic paradise that is free from pain and suffering? Isn’t a world free from pain and suffering better than this world? Because God did not create such a hedonistic paradise, is He not therefore lacking in the qualities of love, goodness and power?”

The remainder of this essay will attempt to address these questions. We recognize that the Christian theistic conception of God not only grants that there is evil in the world which God created, it believes that God has ordained its existence (using this word ordained in the normal dictionary usage of “commanded, ordered, established, or intended”) to demonstrate how good he is. Scripture teaches that not only has God created the whole earth and all that dwells within it, but that He remains good in spite of the choices He made to create it as He did, and to govern it as He does.

B. C. Johnson has written of this formidable and difficult problem, that “throughout history God has allowed numerous atrocities to occur. No one can have justifiable faith in the goodness of such a God.”[10] Yet there are literally millions of people who do have justifiable faith in the goodness of the God of Scripture Who has not only allowed evil atrocities to exist, but has in His sovereignty, decreed that they be so, without impacting their view of God’s goodness.

According to Biblical theology, an infinitely good God demonstrated His goodness in spite of His allowing evil to exist. Romans 8:28 says “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose...” Note, however, that this verse does not teach that all events in life are ‘good’ from the human perspective in spite of the fact that some of them may actually be evil! Nor does this verse teach that the good and evil events alike work together within God’s providence for the benefit of both the Christian and atheist. This verse however, does teach that as Christians, we know that God’s ordaining of all events, regardless of how they appear in this physical reality, work together for an ultimate good to those who love God. Christians must keep in mind this ultimate end in their understanding of God’s goodness. There appears to be nothing in Scripture to indicate that all things also work together for good to those who hate, or deny the existence of God.

Which Kinds of Choices Demonstrate Goodness?

Now, if we suppose for a moment that Scripture is true in terms of its declaration that God remains infinitely good while permitting the existence of evil, and apparently failing to remedy each instance of it from a human perspective, then does the existence of evil in the world demonstrate God’s goodness, or negate it? In other words, if God is truly good, would He allow evil to exist because He is good, or would He destroy evil because He is good? Furthermore, would there even be an atheist in existence to question the goodness of God, if God were intent upon eliminating every evil?[11] This of course only requires two things. First, the atheist must necessarily admit to the possibility of possessing a single evil thought in his mind for at least one second during his lifetime. We ask that if the atheist would acknowledge the possibility that for one second during his lifetime he has had a thought that was evil, or merely not good, is the fact that God allows him to exist, in spite of his evil thought, a demonstration of God’s goodness? Or would the fact that he did not destroy the atheist the second he had an evil thought demonstrate that God is evil?[12]

The question remains, which action on God’s part demonstrates His goodness? Is God good because He allows evil to exist? Or can His “goodness” only be demonstrated by His elimination of evil as the atheist suggests? Who determines the degree of evil that must be present before God eliminates it? This issue is especially difficult for the atheist. B.C. Johnson states that

A very large disaster could have been avoided simply by producing in Hitler a miraculous heart attack -- and no one would have known it was a miracle ... No one is requesting that God interfere all of the time. He should, however, intervene to prevent especially horrible disasters. Of course, the question arises: where does one draw the line? Well, certainly the line should be drawn somewhere this side of infants burning to death. To argue that we do not know where the line should be drawn is no excuse for failing to interfere in those instances that would be called clear cases of evil.[13]

The atheist must obviously perceive that premeditated murder is a relative ‘goodness,’ which leads to several serious problems. For instance, how does murdering Hitler demonstrate God’s goodness? Furthermore, how do we know that God didn’t interfere in Hitler’s actions, for example, by preventing every Jew from being exterminated? Which is the greater good, allowing only some Jews to live, or murdering Hitler?

Furthermore, how would anyone prove that it was God who gave Hitler a heart attack, were he to have died from one, rather than that his heart naturally stopped beating apart from any intervention by God?[14] Who decides what is ultimately “good”? Should it be the atheist? If so, on what grounds will he suggest that he knows best what is good or not good in every circumstance? He cannot claim eternal omniscience. Perhaps he would claim this knowledge on the grounds of his own goodness? Furthermore, it is intriguing that the atheist is not requesting that God interfere all the time, but just when the atheist says so. Perhaps the atheist imagines that the Christian God should be available to intervene at every beckoning and call that the atheist determines He should?

The atheist apparently knows as well that a line should be drawn in some cases that require the knowledge of “goodness”. Apparently unbeknownst to God, it is before the death of innocent children. But we wonder, if all children are innocent in the atheist’s perspective, wasn’t Hitler once an innocent child as well? How is it that the atheist can label as good the murdering of ‘innocent’ children if they turn out to be like Hitler, and still use God’s failure to rescue innocent children from burning as a demonstration that God is not good? Who knows whether or not one of those children that God allows to burn in a fire will not grow up to be the next Hitler?

Furthermore, on what basis does the atheist determine the ‘innocence’ of children? Certainly not on his understanding of what they will do thirty or forty years after their birth! For even the atheist would have to agree that though Hitler may have been innocent as a child, that innocence certainly left prior to his choosing to murder several million Jews! And if we compare the supposed ‘innocence’ of children to a perfectly holy and just God, what more can we say then of their innocence, than that it is only a relative one? Won’t the atheist agree that even humans allow for degrees of evil when they make “good” choices? Does not a general in the army prefer a slight wound accompanied by great victory, to no wound at all and no victory?

Certainly goodness is relative even in the light of evil choices. Winston Churchill allowed the Nazi bombing of the city of Coventry, England, during World War II, even though he knew ahead of time that the Nazis were preparing to do so and could have prevented the deaths of ‘innocent’ people. Through various spy networks and the obtaining of a Nazi book of codes, Churchill had learned of the Nazi plan to destroy the non-military site of Coventry. Yet he reasoned that if he were to evacuate all of the citizens from Coventry prior to the bombing, (thereby sparing the loss of innocent life), the Nazis would have known the British had broken their secret codes, thereby endangering the future good that would come from being able to determine the war plans of the Nazis more thoroughly, and gain the ultimate victory in the war. The difficult choice was to allow some innocent people to die at Coventry for the greater good of eventually defeating the Nazis once and for all. Did Churchill make a “good” choice? Or would it have been better to save Coventry, yet be defeated by the Nazis in World War II? Perhaps that is a something only God can determine.

The Problem of the Value of Pleasure and Pain


The atheist often supposes that if God is ultimately ‘good’, then He could have demonstrated that goodness more effectively through the creation of a hedonistic-like paradise where only pleasure or pleasant consequences exist. The question of whether human beings[15] might always be capable of only choosing the good in a paradise of pleasure is virtually incapable of being determined in light of our current perspectives of reality. The Christian Biblical perspective is that a perfectly good God allows evil to exist while He Himself remains good. Christians admit that evil is endemic to the world and to those of us who live here because of the presence of sin. The atheist’s argument that all that God needed to do to have made a better choice when He created was to change the environment to one that is hedonistic, is essentially flawed if it does not take into consideration how our present world is affected by sin. For we see that even in our world that now exists, pleasure does not always lead to good. In fact the physical pleasures that we now experience can just as easily lead human beings to jealously, envy, addiction and hatred as they can lead to good, (assuming of course that the atheist would agree that these previous things are not good). I believe it can be demonstrated that injecting heroin into one’s veins, for example, is one of the most pleasurable sensations that humans can experience in the flesh. Yet there are limits to the goodness of these pleasurable sensations. For a little too much heroin can lead to death. And unless the atheist is willing to agree that death is a possible ‘good’ that results from living in a hedonistic paradise of pleasure, we cannot say that the presence of that pleasurable environment alone guarantees ‘good’ results, if human beings, as they now are, were to live there.

Furthermore, we could even question whether we could experience more pleasure in a ‘hedonistic’ world than we are capable of experiencing in the world in which we now live. More importantly, has anyone experienced not only every possible pleasure to its fullest extent in this world, but every possible extent and avenue of every pleasure, in the human body we have in this world that contains evil? It is utter speculation on the part of the atheist to assume that we could experience more pleasure than we are currently able to experience, and then, without negative (evil) consequences, while remaining the human beings that we now are.[16] We grant the atheist his case that he is not necessarily arguing for a world where no pain exists, but perhaps only for a world where less of it exists. B.C. Johnson, for example, does not necessarily require a completely hedonistic world where no suffering of any kind at all might exist, as the only possible alternative to this one. “[The atheist] need only claim that there is suffering which is in excess of that needed for the production of various virtues (which virtues, according to the theist, produce courage, sympathy, etc).”[17] It is interesting isn’t it, that the atheist suggests that suffering might bring virtue to humanity? One would gather by his arguments that suffering would not be considered a relative good, but rather something that God in his goodness would necessarily remedy if indeed he were good. Huston Smith has written that Hinduism, for example, accepts the existence of pain in reality “when it has a purpose, as a person welcomes the return of life and feeling, even painful feeling, to a frozen arm.”[18] Yet, is it not with difficulty that anyone accepts the notion of “purposeless pain”? What function would useless pain have in the physical world? Apparently even the atheist doubts the possibility of the existence of purposeless pain when he suggests that some suffering might be necessary to produce virtue.

Now, we need not look far to see that at least certain kinds of pain do serve a good purpose in this world. Scientists have explained that lepers experience the mangling and deterioration of their flesh because they are no longer able to sense pain in the extremities of their bodies. Because they cannot feel the pain which would normally caution them to be attentive to their own actions, lepers cannot determine whether or not they are incurring any detriment to their flesh. Pain in ones extremities protects the person from incurring more damage to them.

Even the atheist can easily see that pain in the world in which we now exist, is necessary, and that it actually serves a ‘good’ purpose in our world. And even though we agree with the atheist that pain in certain excesses is most often considered to be evil and appears to be of no use to us in this world, God had a purpose and use for it in the world which He created. Does our world not function better in some degrees because of the existence of pain in it?

Though it remains difficult to assimilate the excesses of pain and evil which appear in this world, the Bible teaches further that God uses physical pain and suffering to chastise His own “for their own good,” (rather than plant them into an imaginary world of hedonism and pleasure which is free from pain). King David wrote, “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.... I know, oh Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me (Psalm 119:71, 75, emphasis added). Charles Haddon Spurgeon, London’s greatest preacher, was afflicted with gout for most of his adult life. His response to that affliction demonstrates a Christian conviction that in spite of pain and suffering, God uses it toward our ultimate good.

The result of [being in the melting pot of pain] is that we arrive at a true valuation of things [and] we are poured out into a new and better fashion. And, oh, we may almost wish for the melting-pot if we may but get rid of the dross, if we may be but pure, if we may but be fashioned more completely like our Lord.[19]

The response of the greatest apostle in the New Testament to God’s goodness and the struggle he had as God formed him towards the pattern of Christ through pain and suffering, is clearly laid out for us in 2 Corinthians 12:9b, 10. “Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

Does God Demonstrate the Greatest Good by Allowing the Greatest Evil?


Is it possible that in our desire to answer these difficult questions regarding the place of good and evil in this world that we have failed to ask the most important question of all: Could God have demonstrated the greatest good by allowing the greatest evil? Our tendency to question whether God should have made a world other than He did is worth serious reconsideration. After all, though it is fun to speculate, this is the world we live in.[20] We all experience both good and evil here, some of us to a greater or lesser degree than others. Yet if God did not create this world with the intention of it being a hedonistic paradise, but rather created it to be, as one man suggests, a “scene of history in which human personality may be formed toward the pattern of Christ,” how shall we go about reaching that end while we live in a world that is evil?

First, the Christian theist must acknowledge his own responsibility for his own evil, and cannot fault the world’s Creator for it because he believes that Scripture is true when it says that God is perfect. The Westminster Confession of Faith has stated the Biblical truth that “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.....” (WCF 3:1). But what Christians often fail to understand is that in His perfection there exists a mysterious element that defies human comprehension. God being perfect does not mean that his choices are perfectly understandable. From our finite perceptions of reality, we humans are too willing to challenge the concept of whether God is entirely good. We critique His wondrous ways, faulting Him for what appears to us to be haphazard carelessness in His creation, without any trepidation. We so arrogantly dispute His power and ability by suggesting that He could have done it better ....“If only”. We see murder, rape, greed, and death all around us, and do not hesitate to shake our fists in the air and say, “Why have You allowed this!” Why do we remain so thoroughly blind to the extent of His goodness in light of our own evil? Would any of us be alive for a second longer if God were to eliminate all evil because of His goodness?

This issue is at the heart of the mystery of the Gospel: This God Who is good, who created human beings with a huge propensity toward evil, chose the greatest good for them, by experiencing the greatest evil for them. This God, in demonstrating His goodness, by His grace alone, saves believing men from their evil rather than destroying them for it. In doing this, God demonstrated for those who believe, that though they are worthy of nothing more than to pay for their own wickedness with their own lives, He paid the price for their evil for them with the life of His only begotten perfect Son.

Perhaps rather than challenging God’s goodness, we might become inclined to see how it can be, that Scripture explains to us that while God is free from any evil in and of Himself, and would remain holy and just even if He held us accountable for each of our sins, He has chosen rather to demonstrate His goodness toward mankind in that “…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them…” (2 Corinthians 5:19). He chose the greater good of allowing the world to become what it is, so that we could experience the greatest demonstration of His goodness toward us who are evil. And that greatest good was to reconcile wicked sinners to Himself, not at the cost of our lives, but at the cost of Christ’s life.

This mystery is the gospel that defies human comprehension. The mystery lies in the fact that God’s goodness is demonstrated to us through the explanation in Scripture that instead of a perfectly holy God obliterating humanity because of its sin, God did the most inhumanly incomprehensible thing to remedy that situation. This remedy is a mystery precisely because His solution is, at the same time, a horrible demonstration of the extent our own evil and an incomprehensible demonstration of His goodness toward us. Even the goodness of God’s solution for our wickedness is incomprehensible in that God poured out His wrath against evil upon His own Son, Who was the only Person to have ever existed who was free from any evil whatsoever, so that he wouldn’t pour it out on us!

I urge the reader to consider 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. The gospel message of God pouring out His wrath upon His own Son is a message that is absolutely foolish to those who are perishing in their unbelief! (1 Corinthians 1:18). Yet that very same message has the power to save those who believe it. God, in His mysterious wisdom, has made what the world believes to be true about ‘goodness’ foolish. The gospel is foolish because the world can never understand God’s goodness unless it understands God through faith and the wisdom of the cross of Christ. In fact, not only can the world not know God through its own kind of wisdom, it was pleasing to God to save those who believe the very same message that the rest of the world rejects as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Scripture records that, “it pleased the LORD to bruise Him [Christ]; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the travail of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:10-11)”. That message of forgiveness of sin by the pouring out of God’s holy wrath against His perfect sinless Son is a message that cannot be understood apart from faith.

The very idea of God putting His own sinless Son on a cross to pay the penalty of sin for every person who would ever believe that message is impossible for the human mind to accept as logical or rational. The unbelieving world asks, “How can that message demonstrate God’s goodness, when, for all intents and purposes, that message describes one of the most horrific absurdities capable of being conceived?” And even to begin to grasp that message in faith, requires of the believer that he acknowledge that the greatest good could only come about through what appears to us to be nothing short of an atrocity. God’s gracious forgiveness speaks volumes not only of our inability to save ourselves, but begs the question: “What if God demonstrated the supremacy of his goodness by allowing the greatest evil to occur?”


[i] B.C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, (Amherst: New York), 1983, 99-100.
[ii] On what basis does the atheist come to the conclusion that there is no spiritual reality? On what basis does he come to the conclusion that empiricism is the only valid source for determining all that is real?
[iii] One cannot prove what does not exist through any means, empirical (see, hear, touch, taste, smell) or otherwise. Using empirical means as a scientific proof can only prove what does exist. If atheism is certain that God does not exist, there would be no empirical proofs available to prove it. So why make any effort to do the impossible?
[iv] This short paper cannot consider all of the implications about faith. We are only considering here that it does not arise within ourselves.
[v] The Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 12.
[vi] Thomas B. Warren, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1972), vii; quoted in The Blue Banner, vol. 8, Issue 11-12, First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, Dallas, Texas, 1999, 7.
[vii] John A. Mourant, Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, sv. “The Best of all Possible Worlds,” Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1954), 384.
[viii] Leibniz, Readings, 384
[ix] St. Augustine, Readings, s.v. “Evil as Privation of the Good”, 391. The reference is to the Apostle’s Creed, which begins with the words, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth....”
[x] Handbook, 106.
[xi] A friend of mine made a good point here. We are not suggesting that questioning God’s goodness is an evil in and of itself. Nor are we suggesting that having a single evil thought makes the whole person evil. What we are suggesting however, is that all humans have at times thoughts that are essentially evil, and we are assuming that evil thoughts arise from an innate evilness. That God does not destroy us for this innate evil is a good thing.
[xii] Perhaps at this juncture, the atheist might consider it a ‘good’ compromise if God were to only erase the evil thought that came to the mind of the atheist the second that he had it, rather than eliminate the atheist altogether.
[xiii] Handbook, 104.
[xiv] It is curious that the atheist suddenly and conveniently argues for a God produced miracle in his belief system. We wonder if a miracle certainly would be the atheist’s contention were he to discover that had God actually produced a heart attack in Hitler.
[xv] By this we mean human beings as they now are. Neither the Christian nor the atheist can speak reasonably or explain what might be involved in speaking of some other kind of human being that exists in a different kind of world. In this imaginary utopia of pleasure, where the divinity apparently demonstrates His love and goodness by providing nothing but pleasure to human beings, yet no evil consequences to any of those pleasures whatsoever, do humans have the same bodies they have now? Are they still sinful? Would all other things in the world be equal? How would they need to be different to live in that world and experience more pleasure?
[xvi] It might be reasonable to ask here whether or not the evil consequences can be deemed good in that they might restrain the participant from a complete abandonment to utter hedonism to the neglect of other necessary considerations in life.
[xvii] Handbook, 102-103.
[xviii] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 22.
[xix] Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House, 1993), 266.
[xx] On what basis does the atheist make the assumption that a ‘safe and peaceful world’ is a better world than this one? Certainly it is not on the basis of his omniscience. On what basis does the atheist make the assumption that he knows what would make this world a better world? If this is the only world he has experienced, how could he know?