Does Eternal Punishment Fit the Crime?

In the discussion in our Life Group meeting earlier in the week, the question arose: how could crimes committed in a finite period of time justly merit an eternal punishment?

The best explanation that I have come across is from the pen of Jonathan Edwards.  He wrote (it's long and nearly 300 years old, but make the effort to think this through):

A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary. This is self-evident; because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us. So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him. The crime of one being despising and casting contempt on another, is proportionably more or less heinous, as he was under greater or less obligations to honour him. The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty.

Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say any one is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved. Or if we say such a one is more honourable than another, the meaning of the words is, that he is one that we are more obliged to honour. If we say any one has great authority over us, it is the same as to say, that he has great right to our subjection and obedience.

But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.

So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving of infinite punishment.- Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than that sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused; as it is also agreeable to the word of God, I Samuel 2:25. "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him;" (i.e. shall judge him, and inflict a finite punishment, such as finite judges can inflict;) "but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?" This was the aggravation of sin that made Joseph afraid of it. Genesis 39:9. "How shall I commit this great wickedness, and sin against God?" This was the aggravation of David's sin, in comparison of which he esteemed all others as nothing, because they were infinitely exceeded by it. Psalm 51:4. "Against thee, thee only have I sinned."-The eternity of the punishment of ungodly men renders it infinite: and it renders it no more than infinite; and therefore renders no more than proportionable to the heinousness of what they are guilty of.

This man's utter God-centeredness is such a blessing.  For the highly ambitious, here is whole essay from which this quote is taken: The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.

 

The King of kings is not Indifferent to this World

The Church & Social Issues

There's a lot of discussion among church leaders today about "social justice", and what part (if any) this kind of work has to do with the church's mission. Loads and loads of books, conferences, articles, etc are coming out trying to address that complicated issue.

With all the discussion, I find these words from John Piper to be right on. I agree heartily with his point, and love his brevity in making it. Answering the question, "Should the church work on social and political problems?", Piper writes:

Yes . . .

If you mean: Ten million Christians should take 10 hours a week spent watching TV, and give that time to worthy social and political engagement.

No . . .

If you mean: The pastors should leave their Bible study and pulpits and counseling and evangelism, and put that time into politics and social ministries.

DeYoung & Keller on Generous Justice

If I can say this without sounding like the president of his fan club, I really do love Tim Keller. His emphasis on the centrality of the gospel for all of life, for both believers and unbelievers, has been life-changing and ministry-changing. I say that without exaggeration.

Keller's new book, Generous Justice, is due out in the next couple of weeks, and I am eager to read it. Today Kevin DeYoung, another sharp thinker whose ministry has been an encouragement to me, interviewed Keller about the new book. I thought this quote was especially helpful:

I believe that making disciples and doing justice relate (not exactly) but somewhat in the same way that faith and works relate to one another. We would say that faith alone is the basis for salvation, and yet true faith will always result in good works. We must not “load in” works as if they are an equal with faith as a salvation-base, but neither can we “detach” works and say that they are optional for a believer. Similarly, I would say that the first thing I need to tell people when they come to church is “believe in Jesus,” not “do justice.”

Why? Because first, believing in Jesus meets a more radical need and second, because if they don’t believe in Jesus they won’t have that gospel-motivation to do justice that I talk about in the book. So there’s a priority there. On the other hand, for a church to not constantly disciple its people to “do justice” would be utterly wrong, because it is an important part of God’s will. I’m calling for an ‘asymmetrical balance’ here. It seems to me that some churches try to “load in” doing justice as if it is equally important as believing in Jesus, but others, in fear of falling into the social gospel, do not preach or disciple their people to do justice at all. Both are wrong. A Biblical church should be highly evangelistic yet known for its commitment to the poor of the city.

Check out the whole article here.

Jury Duty

A few weeks ago, Michelle received a summons for jury duty. Because she cares for two small children, she was able to opt out of her responsibility in this.

But when we received the summons in the mail, both of us had the same thought: why do people hate jury duty so much? Michelle said that if not for caring for the kids, she would have happily carried out her commitment. Yet I hardly ever hear anyone say anything positive about it. In fact, when I googled "jury duty", the first hit was an article on how to get out of jury duty!

The way I see it, jury duty is a gift of God's common grace. To sit on a jury is to do something God-like, in the sense that we image forth God's justice and righteousness by our pursuit of justice and peace in the court. God has appointed judges, juries and other governing authorities to be ambassadors of His perfect justice in the world.

Yes, because of sin, the system is flawed and frustrating many times. But this does not negate the privilege we have to be a part of the judicial process.

So why do we hate it so?

Weekend Reading: Evangelism and Social Action

There is a lot being said and written about today in the evangelical world concerning the connection between evangelism and "social action."

Almost two years ago, Tony Payne wrote three posts on this subject which I found insightful and biblically faithful (though we may have some slight disagreement on 2 Peter 3, I agree with his conclusions in point #3 of post 2). If you have some time on this rainy weekend, check them out and let me know what you think:

Part 1: What is the relationship between evangelism and social action?
Part 2: How does social action relate to the Last Day and the new creation?
Part 3: What does social action look like for the Christian?

MLK's Dream was a Religiously Rooted Dream

There are many in our society who want to see religious rhetoric banned from the public square. This of course, is very self-contradictory, but I won't get into that now. Besides that, if we strip the public square of religious rhetoric, we lose this:



This is all incredibly relevant to the abortion issue, which I will address in church this Sunday. Please pray for me, that I would speak humbly and graciously and faithfully lift up the glorious hope that is found in Jesus Christ.

Cold Comfort

A few weeks back I wrote about the Manhattan Declaration, and the discussion that was being engaged in throughout evangelicalism about how much cooperation Christians should have with those of other faiths in taking action about social issues like abortion. You can read that post if you want a bit more of the background and the current discussion.

When I read this quote today from Gregg Cunningham, I thought it was a pretty simple, yet compelling, argument to get involved with Catholics, Muslims, Jews or Atheists who also care about the unborn. Cunningham writes:

"It is cold comfort to a dead baby that we allowed him to die to avoid working with Catholics."

I'm not sure how those who opposed the Manhattan Declaration would respond, but I'd be interested to hear what they would say.

The Manhattan Declaration

Last week in a comment Matt asked me to weigh in with some thoughts on a document recently released called the Manhattan Declaration. To my fault, I did not get back to him, so I thought I'd make a post about it (sorry Matt!).

Essentially, the Manhattan Declaration is a document written by evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders affirming their support of the pro-life cause, traditional marriage and the right to freedom of religion. What has made the document somewhat controversial is in Evangelical circles is the question of whether it is right for an Evangelical to work for these causes by signing off on a document with other branches of Christianity that have a fundamental disagreement about the Gospel.

To read both sides of this debate, you can read this post from Al Mohler (who happily signed the document) and this one from Alistair Begg (pictured at right, who declined to sign, though he is supportive of the three causes that the document defends).

Of his not signing the document, Begg writes:

In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel.

However, Mohler writes:

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues -- the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

I have deep respect for both of these men, but based on what I know of the document, I would probably side with Mohler (pictured left) on this one. My personal conviction is that signing a document with others whose view of the gospel is heretical does not necessarily affirm or give approval to their false gospel. I think the issues are significant enough that co-laboring with others whose view of the gospel is deficient is worth our effort, and need not compromise our passion for the gospel.

That said, I haven't actually read the document myself, so maybe if/when I do, I will see certain statements pertaining to the gospel that so alarm me that I would be unable to sign it. But I'm thinking if Mohler was willing to sign it, I don't think I would find any of those.

If you've made it this far in the post, you probably have an opinion too. What do you think? Is the Manhattan Declaration a compromise of our esteem for the biblical gospel? Or is it an opportunity to work with others whom we disagree with for the sake of the common good of our nation?

Let me know what you think...

Good Deeds

John Piper:

Over and over in the New Testament the writers stress that we were created and converted to be engaged relentlessly in a life of public good deeds. Indeed, Titus 1:14 says that Christ died to "purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." The term "good deeds" does not mean sitting at home watching wholesome videos instead of going out and watching dirty movies. Good deeds means designing ministries for caring for AIDS orphans in Africa, and feeding the malnourished, and housing the homeless, and teaching the illiterate and ignorant, and freeing the addicted and fighting crime and visiting the prisoner and befriending the lonely, laboring in the cause of protecting the unborn and relieving the crisis of unexpected pregnancies, and a thousand other visible ways of doing good to others in the name of Jesus (see Titus 2:7-8; 3:8; Hebrews 10:22; Matthew 5:16).

Mohler on the future of Down Syndrome

Whenever I read or listen to Al Mohler, I am reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew 16:

"When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times."

One of the things I love about Mohler is that not only he is a great interpreter of the Scriptures, but he is an excellent interpreter of the times. In this article, he powerfully expresses his concern about the decrease in the number of babies being born with Down Syndrome.

Mohler's conclusion:

The fact that 92 percent of women who are told that their unborn child carries the high risk of Down syndrome choose to abort the baby should shock us all. What does that say about our devaluation of human life and human dignity? This can only mean that these women see a child with Down syndrome as not worth having — and the baby as a life not worth living.

Dr. Skotko points to the new tests just around the corner and sees a collision coming. Given his important research, we had better see a moral crisis looming. The Culture of Death is gaining momentum before our eyes. Who will be next in line to be considered unworthy of life?

The Gospel & The Poor

Here's a 73-minute talk that Tim Keller gave a few weeks ago on the theme The Gospel and the Poor (If you can't see the video, click here). Keller's address is the first 45 minutes of the video, with the rest being Q & A.

I was deeply stirred and convicted as I watched Keller fly through the Bible's storyline to show the importance of caring for the physical needs of the poor and the oppressed. If anyone watches it (and I hope you will!!), let me know what you think.

Tim Keller: The Gospel and the Poor: A Case for Compassion from Here's Life Inner City on Vimeo.

Not the way it's supposed to be

Last night Michelle and I watched a movie called Lars and the Real Girl. As we were getting ready to watch the movie and Michelle was reading the box, she made an interesting, and sad, observation.

If you burn a copy of this onto a blank DVD and give it to a friend, you are subject to five years imprisonment:


But if you get pregnant and 8 months later you decide that you don't want this, you can pay someone to kill it and be celebrated for your bravery in exercising your freedom to choose:



What does this say about what we value as a nation? And how long can a nation whose values are so grossly out of whack continue to thrive?

I've heard about Watergate, but this sickens me more than that

"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape."

Then-president Richard Nixon, on previously unreleased White House tapes, reacting to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

I'm not sure which is more offensive: Nixon's disregard for the preciousness of human life, or his racism. I suppose they're both equally saddening.

Hungry

O God, to those who have hunger, give bread;
and to us who have bread
give the hunger for justice.

-- A Latin American prayer

So the Government Can't Intrude in Private Family Matters?

A preface: President Barack Obama is quite a bit smarter than I am. Actually, a lot smarter.

Which makes this statement all the more baffling to me; on the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision back in January, Obama said this of the Supreme Court's Decision:

“We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."

For the moment let's overlook the fact that abortion does not protect women's health; it destroys the health of 500,000 little women every year. Instead, consider the 'broad principle' that Obama says Roe v. Wade upholds.

If my 21 month-old daughter gets on my nerves tonight, I believe Obama's position is that the government can and should intrude on my right to throw my daughter in the dumpster and leave her for dead. It is a 'private family matter'. Yet the government intrudes on that right of mine, and I am sure glad they do.

Or what if a man chooses to sexually abuse his 3 year-old son every night before bed...isn't that a private family matter? Yes, but it's evil. And so the government rightly chooses to intrude upon a man's right to take part in that kind of wickedness, no matter how private it is.

I understand we live in a society in which my beliefs on abortion are in the minority. I do not regard supporters of abortion as my enemies, nor do I think they're any worse sinners than myself. After all, my Lord and King says that to be angry toward another person is to commit murder in my heart. So I do not regard myself as morally better than President Obama or a woman who killed her unborn child this morning. To condemn them would be to condemn myself. In the eyes of Jesus, I am am murderer. Who am I to condemn another murderer?

But I do wish that those whose views on this issue differed from mine would have the intellectual integrity to explain their convictions more compellingly than simply reciting tired cliches that even a journalism major from Penn State can see through.

Our government does not regard it a 'private family matter' to kill this:

So why is it a private family matter to kill this:

The top picture is my 7 month-old daughter, Felicity. The second picture is an 8 week-old baby in its mother's womb. The picture makes it pretty clear that the only thing that distinguishes my daughter from this fetus is time. So why is killing the baby in the second picture called a 'private family matter,' when killing the baby in the top picture is called 'murder'?

I don't want to demonize those who disagree with me about this; I just want an answer to that simple question.

Why Bother with Stem-Cells?

So why should Christians bother themselves with a social issue like stem cells? Won't this distract us from the Lord's work of preaching the Gospel and saving souls?

I want to look at these questions in some detail tomorrow, but for now here is an insightful quote from Richard Mouw in his excellent book, When the Kings Come Marching In:

"Recently I heard a very pious man say, 'I don't mean to suggest that it is wrong to pay attention to some of these social issues -- but I do wish we would spend more time talking about the things of the Lord!'

"Of course it is of the utmost importance that we talk about the things of the Lord. But the important question is this: what are the Lord's things? Doesn't Jesus agonize over attacks on the dignity of those persons for whom He spilled His blood? Doesn't He grieve over men and women who have been imprisoned because they witnessed for justice and righteousness? Isn't the Son of God angered by the oppression of widows and orphans [and unborn babies, I might add!], and by the schemes of those who plot destruction of all that the Creator has called good?

"If so, then many so-called 'social issues' are 'the things of the Lord'."

Thoughts?