“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
FIVE: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Before I even begin I want to insert an idea I remembered from a philosophy chat room discussion while discussing chapter two with my mom: it is not that God punishes you for all the crap He knew you would do before you were even born – it is that God forgave you for it before you were even born – but He will not force love from you against your will.
Two questions from Penguin, found here:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
“What about the Bible’s portrayal of a God of love who also judges his enemies? In chapter 5, Keller defends belief in a God of love who also is a God of wrath and judgment. If God loves his creation, it’s understandable that God would oppose anything that does harm to his creation (see p. 73). Do you agree that God is big enough to encompass mercy and love, as well as judgment and wrath? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin My thought on the matter is that anyone who claims to love good, but allows evil to go unchecked, is indifferent to evil, is lying. Loving good includes hating evil. Love and hate are not opposites (when the ‘object’ of that hate is ‘evil’ – not that ‘evil’ is an ‘object’ – I still agree with Becky Pippert on page 73). I also think God’s judgment is an expression of love – having experienced it myself. He disciplines those He loves, like any good, loving father should.
“On the question of a loving God sending people to hell, Keller writes that God gives people free choice in the matter. “In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (p. 78). In other words, those who end up in hell chose that destination by rejecting God. How do you respond to such an assertion?” – Penguin
What do you think of this quote: “The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God,” (74)? Does it seem like a double-standard to you? To me, it doesn’t, because I can see that humans can resort to violence for the wrong reasons, and that God will never resort to violence for the wrong reasons. Some consider a case of justified violence to be defense, for example, of one’s country or a country with which one’s country is allied. Is Keller implying we should not defend in any case whatsoever, but let God “eventually put all things right”? I don’t think so. I think the original quote may be referring to a particular type of violence. For example, I don’t think Keller would say “let’s do away with the justice system and let God ‘eventually put all things right.’” I do however think we should definitely slow down and check our motives and seek God’s guidance in every case that triggers a defensive impulse. What do you think about the thought that loss of belief in God’s judgment leads to less inhibition (an opiate) to violence?
What do you think about the fact that the Bible is the only source of a belief in a God of pure love, who forgives everyone and allows those who reject His love to choose hell?
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place,” (72-73). What do you think?