What Kind of God Would Condemn People to Eternal Torment?

I came across an interesting article by Pastor Tim Challies last week. He deals with what I think is one of the toughest questions that skeptics ask. "How could God send people to hell forever?" Pastor Challies starts off by turning the question on it's head:

"How can you believe in a God who would condemn people to suffer the torments of hell eternally? I reply with a question of my own: 'How can you believe in a God who would not?'

"To ask the first question is to fundamentally misunderstand the very nature of God; it is to re-form God in the image of man, because here’s the thing: If you want a God who is good—truly good—and if you want a God who is just and holy, then you must have this God, this God who condemns people to suffer the eternal torments of hell. You cannot have the God you want unless there is a hell.

"You cannot have a God who is all-knowing and all-powerful and so very good. God’s goodness doesn’t negate eternal punishment in hell; it demands it."

He then goes on to explain why this punishment needs to be eternal, torment and conscious. I don't like his assessment even though I agree theologically with it. The doctrine of Hell is one of the hardest and most disheartening aspects of Christianity. It is probably the first thing that I would change about Christianity if it were up to me. But it is not.

Pastor Challies goes on to explain that we want a God that is good and treats people with justice and grace but that in order to have that type of God we must also have a holy God. God's goodness is an extension of his holiness. And I think that this is not just something that is a theological point but is also intuitive. Could we expect a God that was not holy to be good? Do we expect good things from bad people? No. This means that ultimate goodness can only come from ultimate holiness.

"The holiness of God demands that He remain separate from sin, that those who commit sin must be kept out of His presence. How could such holiness mingle with such impurity? Holiness flees from sin. They are incompatible, irreconcilable. And so sinners must be cast out, and they must be kept out of God’s presence."

The final point that Pastor Challies makes is to explain exactly what we are protesting against when we protest God sending people to hell:

"When you cry out against a God who punishes people in a place like hell, you cry out against the God who has revealed Himself in the pages of Scripture. You cry out against His goodness, holiness, and justice; and all the while you minimize your own sinfulness or the sinfulness of others. Those who understand hell best, those who grasp it most deeply, are those with the greatest sense that they deserve to be there. They marvel at the grace that has called them from that place to a place that is far, far better—infinitely better!

"To wish away eternity in hell is to wish away eternity in heaven. It is not that they exist in some kind of mutual dependence so that one can only exist alongside the other. But sin demands eternal punishment, while grace calls for eternal love and joy, the re-establishment of the good and holy relationship that our Creator intended to enjoy with us forever. How can I believe in a God who condemns people to hell? I must believe in this God, for He poured out the punishment of hell on Jesus Christ through whom I have hope."

The doctrine of Hell is not a pleasant one but it is a necessary one that we cannot avoid thinking about.

The scariest Bible verses?

One of the things that Paul does in the book of Romans is to strip away any excuses that we might try and use to justify our actions. Paul lays out a clear-cut and logical argument that we are all guilty of sinning against God and need the forgiveness only provided by Jesus Christ. The first thing that Paul does is strip away our excuse of ignorance. In Romans 1:18-23 Paul makes it clear that we have enough evidence in nature to recognize that there is a God but we can often times choose to ignore him.

When we choose to ignore God on a regular basis it leads to what I think are two of the scariest verses in the Bible:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

There comes a point in our rebellion against God where he just lets us go. What Paul is saying is that when we choose to live a life of rebellion God actually honors our choice. God allows us to continue living a life of rebellion. What we must remember is that all sin is rebellion against God and whenever we choose to live a life of consistent sin we are in danger of God honoring that request. Paul continues a few verses later to describe some of the characteristics of a rebellious life:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."

I don't know about anyone else but there are a few things on that list that I am guilty of doing. Paul also makes it clear that there is a penalty for such behavior:

"Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Paul is saying that even if we deny the existence of God we still recognize that moral wrongdoing is punishable. Paul also makes it clear that it is not just that we engage in these behaviors but that we also give approval to others when they do them. And that is really just another form of excuse making. Excusing someone else's bad behavior is just as wrong as excusing my own.

Fortunately this is not the end of the book of Romans. But it is another reminder that I am still a man in need of a savior.

 

And for the record–I skipped verses 26-27 for a reason. It is not to excuse or minimize the behavior found in those verses. Rather I skipped them in order to point out that the behaviors listed in verses 29-31 are just as rebellious.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

I am the king of excuses.

This morning I have had the old DC Talk song In The Light stuck in my head. The first few lines are:

"I keep trying to find a life
On my own, apart from you
I am the king of excuses
I've got one for every selfish thing I do"

It's the "I am the king of excuses; I've got one for every selfish thing I do" that caught my attention. I know that I can be pretty good at justifying my bad behavior. Even when I am not excusing my behavior I am excusing my behavior. The "it's not an excuse; it's a reason" explanation–which I like to use from time to time–is often just an excuse clothed in faux humility or contrition. I would guess that I am not alone in saying that I do have an excuse for every selfish thing I do.

The problem is that all of my reasons and excuses really don't cut it; especially with God. Paul makes that very clear to us at the very beginning of Romans. What Paul is doing in the book of Romans is laying out a clear-cut and logical argument that we are all guilty of sin and need the forgiveness only provided by Jesus Christ. Paul hits the ground running in Romans 1:18-20 by quickly stripping away any excuses that we might have:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

This passage is mainly referring to what we call General Revelation–or that God has partially revealed himself through nature. Paul is saying that there is enough evidence (Christian Apologists use these evidences as arguments for the existence of God) in the created world for us to recognize that there is a God. But Paul's statement goes one step further. He is laying the foundation for his overall argument that systematically strips away any excuses–or justification–for our bad behavior that we might have.

Paul continues:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

Overall Paul is talking about those that we would easily recognize as ungodly people. Paul is speaking about people that do not honor God or give thanks to him. He is speaking about people that worship people, animals and things instead of God. The problem is that when we start to strip away our excuses it becomes pretty clear that we do not honor God the way that we should; we do not thank God the way that we should; and we worship people, animals and things more than God.

Paul is telling us all that–as DC Talk states later in their song:

"This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That I'm still a man in need of a savior."

It is a good reminder that I am the king of excuses and that I still need Jesus as my savior.

 

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

 

How can God send good people to hell?

I came across an interesting tidbit from my favorite Christian apologist Greg Koukl last week. His brief blog post gets at a common objection to Christianity: "How can God send someone to hell that is basically a good person." Or it might be restated as: "How can God send someone to hell simply because they don't believe in Jesus." The objection seems to hold up because there are those people that we can easily understand how God would send them to hell and there are those where we simply cannot understand it. There are those people whom are nice people that live a charitable and loving life. They are people that we would consider to be good people.

Mr. Koukl frames his answer this way:

"If you sinned only ten times a day from your tenth birthday to your sixtieth--and keep in mind we're not just talking about rape, pillage, and murder, but the full range of human moral failing, including heart attitudes and motives--only, ten sins a day, what would your rap sheet look like? You would have amassed 182,500 infractions of the law. What judge in his right mind would turn you loose with a record like that?"

That is quite a criminal record. Fortunately for us we have an advocate on our side. Mr. Koukl concludes by saying:

"Whenever you're tempted to trust in your own ability, take a good look at the standard, God's Law, then look at your own score card. To use Paul's words, the law has each of us "shut up under sin" (Gal. 3:22), it's closed our mouths, and we all have become accountable to God (Romans 3:19). Saved by our own goodness? The Law gives us no hope. Only the Gospel and the righteousness of Jesus Christ can offer us hope of pleasing God."

This is the whole point the Lenten season. It is not just to focus on our need for a savior but also that God has provided that savior for us. God didn't just pile all of our sins on an innocent man. He took them all upon himself. All we need to do is to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is that Savior.

 

Should Christians remain friends with sinners?

First I must apologize for my inconsistent posting this week. I am preaching on Sunday and because I don't preach every week I am having a hard time finding the balance between sermon prep and blog writing. It is not that I haven't had the time to blog. The difficulty is separating the blogging from the sermon prep. I was fighting the urge to blog my sermon all week which would not have been good for a number of reasons. (I should be posting a video of my sermon next week.) I think that once I start serving full-time in a church and get into a routine that it won't be an issue.

On to the post.

I came across an interesting article this week from Alan Shlemon of Stand To Reason. He tackles the very thorny and controversial topic of how Christians should relate to Homosexuals. Specifically he looks at the question of whether or not Christians–specifically those that think homosexuality is a sin–should have friends that are homosexual:

"Part of the problem stems from the belief that if you keep your convictions about homosexuality, then you can’t stay in relationship with your friends and family who say they’re gay."

Shlemon notes that this is just not the Biblical way of looking at this issue:

"The New Testament doesn’t prohibit Christians from friending (I know, I know…that’s so Facebook-ish) homosexuals. Paul, writing about a sexually immoral man in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, tells Christians that they are “not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.” Notice how Paul clarifies that we don’t have to avoid relationships with non-believers (who he calls “people of this world”). After all, we can’t influence them if we’re not involved at all."

The idea that you end a relationship with someone because they are living a life that is contrary to what the Bible teaches also goes against the way that Jesus lived his life. Part of the charge that the Pharisees made against Jesus was that he associated with "tax collectors and sinners." This doesn't mean that Jesus approved of their behavior or encouraged them to continue in it. Quite the opposite. Jesus commanded people to stop sinning. It is also good to remember that Jesus tended to be harder on the religious zealots for being hypocritical than he was on the sinner. We have to balance being true to our convictions and not being a jerk.

Mr. Shlemon goes on to explain what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10:

"There is a group of people that Paul warns Christians to avoid. Continuing his discussion on sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 5:11, Paul explains, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of a brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” The people Paul warns us to avoid are Christians who engage in sexual immorality. Why? Because sin left unchecked within a body of believers is like cancer. It spreads and harms those around them (1 Corinthians 5:6-7).

"That doesn’t mean we are to end all relationships with Christians who have committed sexual sin. Paul is talking about unrepentant Christians. People who know the biblical standard but thumb their nose at it and continue in the illicit behavior. That’s the context of 1 Corinthians 5."

What is also included in that list of people are those that are guilty of greed, idolatry, revilers, drunks, or swindlers. Paul is telling us to avoid Christians that are willfully living disobedient lives. As Mr. Shlemon points out, these attitudes can erode our own sense of right and wrong.

Mr. Shlemon concludes by saying:

"In all other circumstances, there’s no reason to choose between your faith and your friends. Keep them both so you have a chance to be a positive influence in your relationships. That’s the point of being an ambassador for Christ."

Face to face with the Lion

The zoo allows us to come face to face with wild animals in a way that we would never be able to do in the wild. The video of this three year old little girl going nose to nose with a lion illustrates this very well.

Of course we call them wild animals for a reason.

1 Peter 5:8 reminds us that we face an adversary that has been compared to a lion.

"Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."

It can be very easy to forget just how dangerous it is to be around evil and sinful things. We might think that we are protected like that little girl but there is no safety glass to keep us from getting mauled. It is best if we just try and steer as clear as possible from these things.

Hypertension in Cats & the Words We Use

The words that we use mean things. We convey our message through them which others can then interpret and understand. It is something that we understand instinctively and the system breaks down when we start using alternative meanings for our words. Just talk to a teenager for a length of time and you will get a pretty good example of how the conversation breaks down.

But it breaks down other times as well.

I had an example of this recently while dealing with our veterinarian. Velvet, who is as best as my wife can remember, is about 20 years old and is quite old for a cat. While she is in good shape for her age–as in breathing with regularity–she is starting to have problems. One of them is high blood pressure. 

I didn't know that cats could have high blood pressure. 

I am sure that the stresses of her life don't help. She has really big decisions to make such as whether to eat, sleep, meow, or one of the three "p's." If you've owned a cat or dog (or raised a baby for that matter), you know the three "p's." Each of those tasks present further stressful situations. For example, should she sleep on the bed, couch, cat tower or one of two office chairs? Should she let loose the hairball in Mike's shoe, sandal or slipper?

In the quest to treat her high blood pressure our vet wants to have her blood pressure regularly. I wasn't sure exactly how they would do that. I figured that a people sized blood pressure cuff would just make her head swell up like a balloon. I would guess having a super-sized head that wouldn't be very helpful to the situation. But the technological and logistical issues that would come with a cat sized cuff and stethoscope seem almost insurmountable. Besides cats usually don't like to have their paws messed with and come equipped with razor sharp claws and teeth. 

They also don't have a real big problem with using said claws and teeth when someone wearing a white lab coat starts poking and prodding. Just ask our previous vet. Velvet bit a couple of his tongue depressors in half. 

When the vet checked Velvet's blood pressure and it was in the "I have no idea how this cat is still alive" category. We were given a one month supply of medication to control her blood pressure. The vet told us that we should not stop giving the medication to her because she could have a stroke without it. It was then "recommended" to me that we might want to have Velvet's blood pressure rechecked in about a month. When I went in to the office to refill her medication I was told that they would not refill it without her being scheduled for another blood pressure test.

It was at this point that I realized that the vet's meaning of the word "recommended" was very different from what I understood the meaning to be. I understood it to mean that the vet was recommending that the test be taken while the vet meant that the test had to be taken. I was not planning on having the test done again partly because of the expense but mostly because the visit to the vet is the single biggest source of stress for the little fur-ball. But I understand that giving medication to lower blood pressure without monitoring the blood pressure can be just as dangerous.

The problem lie in the fact that what was communicated was not what I understood as being communicated. And that problem goes far beyond just this particular incident with the vet. I too can say things where I try to "soften the blow." It is very easy to obscure our meaning behind the words that we choose and that is not fair to our listener. Jesus said:

"Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil."

I am not saying that on the part of my veterinarian there was any intentional miscommunication with me; upon reflection it does strike me as the way that a doctor would use the word "recommend." But I know there are times when I have been intentional about being vague or deceptive in the way that I communicated with others. When we are intentionally vague or even deceptive with how we say things, it is wrong. It is in fact a type of lie. We can and should do better than that.

Now if I can just get Velvet to lay off the deep fried tuna with a side of chili cheese fries...

Does Matthew 25:31-46 teach us anything about salvation?

Does the parable of the Sheep and the Goats found in Matthew 25:31-46 teach that our salvation is based upon the good works that we do? It is one of those scripture passages that on its face value seems to be promoting either a works based salvation or a social justice gospel. In his article on this passage Kevin DeYoung notes that Dr. James Davidson Hunter claims that the passage is about how we treat strangers. Pastor DeYoung then sets out to refute Dr. Hunter's claim.

DeYoung's contention is that  the meaning of this passage hinges on verse 40 when Christ says, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." The term "brother" is a familial term and Christ is actually referring to how we treat fellow Christians. He concludes by saying:

Jesus says if we are too embarrassed, too lazy, or too cowardly to support our fellow Christians who depend on our assistance and are suffering for the sake of the gospel, we will go to hell.

Is it actually saying that?

I don't know Kevin DeYoung personally. All I know about him is what I have read on his blog and what I have heard anecdotally from others that do know him. (As a disclosure I attended to the same seminary that he went to and know people that were his classmates.)* Based on what I have read from DeYoung I am going to go out on a limb and say that this is not his nuanced view of salvation. 

And that leaves us with the question of whether or not Matthew 25:31-46 is saying that we will go to hell based upon how we treat others?

Yes and no.

On the one hand the passage is not saying our salvation is based upon anything that we can do. It doesn't matter how many good things that we do, we cannot earn our way into heaven. Paul makes it clear in Romans 4:4 that works–the things that we do–earn wages and are not considered a gift. It is not a gift when your boss gives you your paycheck at the end of the week. Throughout the book of Romans Paul makes the case that salvation is by faith and not by works. Paul states: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Clearly the Matthew passage is not teaching that we will go to heaven because we treated others well. Of course that isn't exactly the question that I posed above and it isn't exactly what Kevin DeYoung stated.

On the other hand the passage is saying that we will go to hell because of how we treat each other.

As I stated above, Paul makes it clear in Romans that the paycheck we earn when we sin is death. When we treat people poorly that is a sin and each sin that we commit earns us that paycheck. The problem is that we cannot ever "unearn" death. Once you are dead, you are dead. We cannot make ourselves undead by doing a bunch of good things. We are only made alive again by the free gift from God that comes when we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. 

But putting our faith and trust in Jesus does not mean merely making some sort of statement to that fact. Rather it is more than that. It means that we will start to treat others as Christ has demanded we treat others. It means that we will start becoming more and more sensitive to the sin in our lives and wanting to change our behavior. The sheep in the parable are not saved because they treat others well. They treat others well because they are saved. This parable is a warning against the difference between claiming to be a Christian and actually acting in a way that is consistent with that claim.

This parable is not a prescription of how to be saved. It is descriptive of how the saved will act.

*My mistake. I assumed the people that I knew went to seminary with him but they were fellow undergrad students with him. Well you know what they say about when you assume...

Albert Mohler on Penn State

Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an excellent post on how the Penn State scandal should change the way that Christians and Christian organizations look at suspected child abuse.

Sometimes Christians are reluctant to report suspected sexual abuse because they do not feel that they know enough about the situation. They are afraid of making a false accusation. This is the wrong instinct. We do not have the ability to conduct the kind of investigation that is needed, nor is this assigned to the church. This is the function of government as instituted by God (Romans 13). Waiting for further information allows a predator to continue and puts children at risk. This is itself an immoral act that needs to be seen for what it is.

A Christian hearing a report of sexual abuse within a church, Christian organization, or Christian school, needs to act in exactly the same manner called for if the abuse is reported in any other context. The church and Christian organizations must not become safe places for abusers. These must be safe places for children, and for all. Any report of sexual abuse must lead immediately to action. That action cannot fall short of contacting law enforcement authorities. A clear lesson of the Penn State scandal is this: Internal reporting is simply not enough.

After law enforcement authorities have been notified, the church must conduct its own work of pastoral ministry, care, and church discipline. This is the church’s responsibility and charge. But these essential Christian ministries and responsibilities are not substitutes for the proper function of law enforcement authorities and the legal system. As Christians, we respect those authorities because we are commanded to do so.

We as Christians must remember that turning a blind eye to sin is itself a sin. And it is also part of the reason that I feel that we as Christians should take a proactive role in shaping the morality of the nation. While we may do this politically at times, we must do this as our natural way of living life.

Dr. Mohler's article is an excellent read.

See my previous post on Penn State: But what about the children?

Source: Justin Taylor

#Occupy Zimbabwe

The irony of the Occupy Wall Street (and other iterations) has been well documented. They decry Wall Street and Corporations yet are more than willing to film and promote their actions using iPhones (made by the biggest corporation in the world), computers and other forms of technology. Up to now I have hesitated to tackle this topic but I just read an excellent blog post by Frank Turk of the Pyromaniacs blog.

Mr. Turk writes an "Open Letter" to the Occupy movement that does a great job of pointing out just how inconsistent–and silly–the movement is when you consider the wealth of the poorest parts of America with the rest of the world. He even uses data and graphs to back up his point. This one is particularly good:

The circles show the income levels and life expectancy of different countries. America is way up on the far upper right of the graph which means that we are rich and healthy compared to the rest of the world. The black line is our "poverty" line. 80% of all Americans live above that black line. Compared to the rest of the world we are rich...really rich.

Mr. Turk goes on to call this movement exactly what it is. It is not about any injustice. It is about greed.

That's right: the problem is not that "they" are greedy - whoever "they" are (the bankers, the capitalists, the stock traders, but apparently not the movie moguls, the actors, the politicians and pop stars) -- but that we are greedy. We want things we didn't earn, and we can't imagine that we might have to live on less than we think we are entitled to. We certainly couldn't live on what the average Englishman lived on in1800, and may God forbid we have to live on what the average Russian or South African lives on today. There was a time when we would say it isn't "fair", but today we say it's actually an injustice -- as if "justice" has anything to do with us getting something we didn't actually earn.

The one thing that Mr. Turk does at this point of the letter is to subtly change from writing to the protesters (using the language of "I" and "you") to writing to all of us in America (using the language of "we"). The greed isn't just a problem for those protestors. It is not just that they don't have all that the Jones have; the problem is for all of us.

We are all greedy. And that is sin.

We all have things that we think that we need that we really don't need. Having things and luxuries are not sinful in and of themselves.

Rather the problem is when we start to define poverty and need based upon how many luxuries one can or cannot afford.

Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Can an Atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim be a moral person? Do Christians have a monopoly on being moral? Are Christians more moral than people of other faith (or non-faith) beliefs?

There is quite the debate between Atheists and Theists over morality and how it is grounded. I do not mean to rehash those arguments. Rather, the idea that I would like to explore is if, as Christians, we believe that ultimately right and wrong comes from God then can those that do not believe in God be considered moral people? We need to start by defining our terms. The two that are important for this discussion are sin and morality.

Sin is when we do things against God’s Law. But there is more to it than that. Both the New Testament and the Old Testament convey the idea that sin is like missing the bulls-eye. Sin is what has lead to the corruption of our very nature and separates us from God. While sin may have entered the world through Adam and Eve, we are responsible for our own sins.

I find it helpful to imagine a glass of water and a vial of extremely strong poison. The poison is so powerful that a single drop in the water is enough to cause death. The water is considered corrupt as soon as that drop is added. Now that glass of water misses the bulls-eye of being pure water. In the same way, as soon as we commit a single sin we are no longer considered pure.

Morality is holding to what is right and wrong. It means following the rules. It can pertain to following the “religious” rules of Christianity as well as to the “societal” rules. If we take the Ten Commandments as a quick example we can see that the first 4 commandments pertain to the “religious” aspect of Christianity (and Judaism) and the last 6 pertain to “society” as a whole. As a matter of fact all societies regardless of their basis will usually contain laws regarding murder, stealing and bearing false witness. In those societies people who follow the rules are considered moral and those that consistently do not are considered immoral.

Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and any other non-Christian can be moral people. In the way that we usually use the term morality, being a moral person does not require one to have a certain belief in God. Christians are not more moral simply because they are Christians. Christians are not even moral simply because they are Christians. And that is important for all Christians to remember – we are only moral when we are following the rules.

So how do we as Christians make sense of someone that does not believe in God, the ultimate source of what is right, being able to be a moral person?

The first thing that we need to remember is that from God’s perspective a single sin causes us to be corrupt. That glass of water with the single drop of poison causes the water to be immoral in terms of being pure water. We are the same way. We are all, from God’s perspective, immoral. We normally think of someone as being moral in terms of our standards. It is understandable for us to think this way in order to have a functioning society but we all fall short of perfection.

The next thing that we need to remember is that God has placed his law in every person’s heart. We as Christians believe that Atheists can be moral because they – by the very nature of being human – have the basic laws of right and wrong within them. It doesn’t matter why they think they are moral. So remember that whenever – as Christians – we are dealing with someone with different beliefs. They can be just as or even more moral than we are. And this means that we as Christians need to do a better job of being moral.

Does God hold children responsible for their parents' sins?

“You shall have no other gods before me.”

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

These are commandments "One" and "Two" in what we commonly call the “Ten Commandments” as found in Exodus 20. (Although there are more than ten commands that are given to Moses on Mt. Sinai and these are not actually called "The Ten Commandments" in the text.) On their face the two commandments are pretty straight forward. But what about the second part of that second commandment?

Does God punish children for the sins of their parents? Does he reward future generations for the good things that people do?

On the one hand this is actually not that hard to understand. Both my brother and I have some of the very same habits of our dad. Everything from the way we think to the way we sit. Choices that my dad made before we were born shaped how we were raised. There is a whole theory of psychology based on how the family system operates and affects decisions and reactions for generations.

There is no question that when a parent commits a crime and is sent to jail that it has a direct effect on their child. The opposite effect of “blessings” through the money that is inherited can be seen when you consider families like the Rockefellers or the Kennedys.  (The sins of the parents continuing on in the children are also apparent when looking at these families.) These examples show how both the good and the bad move down through the generations.

But does God actively punish future generations? If my dad were to commit a sin would God hold me responsible and punish me?

No.

The system that God set up for this world places great importance and an influence of parents on their children. And this works both for good and bad. It is through this system that we see these things happen but God does not hold me personally responsible for my parent’s sins. In the same way, no one else will ever be held responsible for my sins.

What I believe God is communicating through this verse (and the same message also found directly and indirectly in Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Psalms 79:8, 109:14, Isaiah 65:6-7 and Jeremiah 32:18) is the contrast between God’s desire to punish sin verse his desire to be merciful to sinners. Yes God is a God of righteousness and of justice that demands punishment for sins but he desires to show his mercy and grace even more.

Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 when he said, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” It is helpful for us to remember this when we approach God in regards to our sin. Yes we have committed a great offense against God but he desires to show us an even greater mercy.


Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Are there different levels of sin?

Written by me but originally posted here.

This question came from the youth group pickle box. Yes I know that pickles don’t come in boxes but we didn’t have a jar so we had to substitute a box, therefore we have a pickle box. This is one of those questions that have a yes and no answer. Let me start with a bit of simplified background.

The Catholic tradition teaches that there are two different types of sin, venial and mortal. Venial sins are those sins that can be forgiven and do not prevent someone from entering heaven. Mortal sins cannot be forgiven and there are three conditions that must be met in order for a sin to be considered a mortal sin. The conditions are: full knowledge of wrong doing; deliberate consent of the action; and the sin must be of grave matter. These mortal sins separate us from the saving grace of God. This separation is why we need the saving power of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However, as Protestants, what do we believe the Bible teaches about sin?
Romans 3:23 states “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 6:23 states “for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” So at this point I think that we agree with the Catholic tradition, we have all sinned and when we commit a sin we are separated from God. But if we back up in Romans a couple of chapters we read in 2:12 that “all who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.” Paul is stating that even if we do not know God’s law that we are still guilty when we break the law. Compare it to driving down a road at 55 mph not knowing that the speed limit is 45 mph. If you get pulled over by a police officer he can still write you a ticket even though you could honestly say that you did not know the speed limit and did not intend to break the law.

Paul goes even further in Romans 2:14 & 15 and takes away our ignorance argument. He states, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” Paul is stating that we know when we are doing something wrong even when we may not necessarily have heard that doing it is wrong. James 2:10 states that “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” He goes on to say in 3:2 that “We all stumble in many ways.” Between Paul and James, I think that they sufficiently state that we all commit sin and that just telling a small white lie is the same as committing murder.
Well, they are the same at least as far as separating us from God. No matter what we do wrong, it is enough to separate us from a perfect God. So from this perspective the answer to the original question is no, there are not different levels of sin.

Now, that does not mean that different sins do not have different consequences here on earth. If you tell that little white lie (“Yes I did all of my homework”) is not going to get you into nearly as much trouble if you do commit murder. We even have different levels of punishment for murder based upon a number of different circumstances. So from the earthly consequences perspective the answer to the original question is yes, there are different levels of sin.

I think that we should not over worry about trying to remember each and every sin that we commit. The ones that we can remember will keep us busy enough. What is important is to realize that each and every sin is enough to separate us from God and should not be treated too lightly.