Answers to Sunday School Questions, Part 2

-

 Last Summer, we took up questions from our Adult Sunday School Class at First Presbyterian Dyersburg, Tennessee.  I have adapted the answers I gave in articles in the church newsletter, and I wanted to share them here.  I hope you find the short essays helpful. 

 

Is God merciful if he sends someone to hell who has never heard about Jesus Christ?

            The Bible says that God’s existence is ‘as plain as the nose on your face,’ that is God’s existence is easy to see from nature.  When we look at the evidence of nature, we clearly see that God exists.  It’s just that some of us choose to ignore the evidence.  If all humans see the evidence, and some ignore it, then why wouldn’t those who ignore it be responsible for their willful ignorance?  Why is it less awful to reject God as He reveals Himself in nature than it is to reject Jesus as He is presented to us in the gospel? 

            As R. C. Sproul puts it, those who never hear about Jesus Christ see God’s “eternal power and divine nature” in what God has created.  They reject that.  So, they are just as guilty as those who reject Jesus when they hear about him.  There are no innocent people.  There are no innocent people who never hear the gospel.  [Romans 1:18 and following]

            God does not have to be merciful to anyone.  That part of the definition of mercy.  Mercy is unmerited or unearned favor.  It’s getting something we don’t deserve.  No one ‘has mercy coming to them.’  No one must be given mercy.  What everyone must be given is justice, and justice for those who reject God or Jesus is punishment in hell. 

Don’t ever confuse justice and mercy.  The only one of the two we deserve is justice.

That’s why Christians through the ages have spent so much money and effort on missions.  We want those people to hear of Christ.  Are you doing your part?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more