The Greatest Earthly Tragedy, Pt. 2

(continued from last entry)

First, Christians start their worldview from who God is and work backwards, not the other way around.  So, we say first that God is just.  We base this on the Bible and on the definitions of justice we find fleshed out there.  After that, we reconcile everything back to that fact.  This is a distinction to the secular view that there must first be evidence before you can claim someone or something is just.  It seems rational enough, from that worldview, but you can’t undertake a study of Christianity in the right way without first understanding the Christian worldview you’re critiquing.  Plainly stated, then, this critique is a derision towards people of faith, who believe God is just without having acceptable evidence that this is so.  I could at this point go into a discussion of this issue, but I’ve already attempted to do so unsuccessfully, and I have no reason to believe I would be more acceptable if I attempted it now.  Let me just say this.  Understanding faith when you don’t have any yourself is a futile pursuit.  Mocking people who have it for their lack of logic is silly.it is logical, just on a different system, with different terminology and an explicitly different goal.

At any rate, starting with the fact that God is just, Christians must then figure out how God can be just if this seeming injustice occurs.  This is where the work gets done.  Let’s assume a scenario, shall we?  We have a 5 year old girl with cystic fibrosis.  The girl suffers terribly for her short life before passing on at age 6.  We will assume that as a six year old, she is not capable of consciously choosing to follow the Christian worldview/doctrine/faith.  What happens to her, if God is just?  The Christian solution to this problem is really quite simple.  The idea that I’ve best heard to describe this is that of accountability, or the age of accountability.  In the plainest sense, this basically is a belief that God only holds people accountable for choosing or not choosing him on the basis of how free they are to choose him.  So then, the six year old with cf who cannot choose God, cannot be held accountable to God for a choice she could not have made.  This rule would apply to any variety of instances where innocents (be it children, mentally challenged, etc) die without coming to a direct acceptance of the Christian claims of who Jesus was.  So the argument that little children go to Hell is nonsensical from the Christian view, if you take this argument, as most who have done any studying would.  This fully fits the view that God wishes that none should perish (which is all throughout the Bible), but also that God is just and judges people according to their deeds (which I as a Christian must also account for.)

How does the argument fall for those who have not heard about Christian doctrine-say a person who does not believe because they live in a remote part of the world to which Christianity has never reached?  It is very much the same, only with a couple of more uncomfortable, but necessary points.  First, God holds people accountable up to the level of revelation they have received.  Someone who has only a perfunctory knowledge of Christian doctrine cannot be held responsible for understanding and responding to the full doctrine of Christian living, that would be ridiculous.  Second, there are cases where remote tribes, when approached by Christian missionaries, have already come to faith in a Christian system, with fully developed doctrines, etc, only without the proper names for the figures.  God/Son/Spirit as opposed to YHWH/Jesus/Holy Spirit.  In that way, there is at least SOME level of accountability, even for those who do not ever receive formal training in Christian doctrine.  This is where the sticky part comes in.  Those who would argue that it is unjust that God would allow some to fall to eternal damnation who have never heard the message of Christ, assume that God will use infinite means to reach people, citing the claim Christians make that God is omnipotent.  In other words, these folks would say that since God is all powerful, he could just show himself to people and get it over with if he didn’t want them to go to Hell.  But there is a problem with this argument, namely this:  The church is the primary means God has chosen to carry His message to the world.  Christians believe that we are responsible to carry that message to every tribe and nation.  God could use any means at His disposal, that’s true, but in 99.5% of the cases, he chooses to use people rather than to just show someplace to bring people to faith.  He uses humans to plant the seeds of His message.  He will water the seed, but more than likely, he will use a human to harvest the crops of faith in that person.  This diagram is clearly Biblical, and springs from a number of texts.  That leads us to a difficulty however.what if God calls someone to take a message to a remote tribe who refuses to carry that message?  The ramifications are obvious:  people suffering eternal damnation for one person’s disobedience.  And it would be unjust if God didn’t hold His people (read: Christians) accountable for their obedience or disobedience.  Christians are responsible for how much and how faithfully they carry the message of salvation, don’t kid yourself.  What form does that accountability take?  That is the subject of another entry.  But realize that people are the means God chooses to use, and that not everyone has been reached is more than likely a result of some disobedience, however well perceived by the person disobeying, that will eventually come with a price tag they will be forced to pay on whatever level.  In addition, in closing, it is possible that God provides a means of salvation for those who don’t find the message as a result of one person’s disobedience.the plain fact is, we just don’t know.

(continued, next entry)