Having Faith with Doubt

Tonight we talked about the relationship of doubt in the Christian life. The main thing we should take away with us is that doubt is a normal experience for a Christian. I would actually be concerned if a young Christian told me they never doubt or question their faith. The reason is because there is a good chance they have been spoon fed their faith by their parents or Sunday school teachers without really considering why they believe what they believe. We need to question and explore the things we are taught about God and Christianity so that we are not believing simply in our parent's faith or our pastor's faith but in our own faith.

I think doubts can actually draws us into a closer relationship with God - granted that we seek out the truth rather than sit back, content not knowing. If the questions push us to know God more, then that is "good" doubt. But if the questions come from a hardening heart of unbelief that prefers to live in sinful ignorance, then that is what we would call "bad" doubt. The difference can sometimes be a fine line so it takes a prayerful and contemplative heart to distinguish the two.

We also talked about the statements:
1) Faith does not equal Feelings. We were cautioned not to let our emotional ups and downs be the gauge of the level of our faith in God. A strong faith in God is not synonymous to a constant positive emotional feeling towards God. But we also warned that a negative (or neutral) emotional stance towards God is not the norm of the Christian experience, and we should never be content to remain in that state. Here is an article that gives some tips on what to do when the "ought to's" of the Christian life don't match up with our "want to's".
2) Faith does not equal Lack of Doubt. I wrote about this in a previous post so read it here.

Questions about Hell

In our last bible study, we talked about hell and its use as an objection against the Christian belief of a good, loving God. The tendency in our modern day is to avoid the topic of hell altogether, or if we do address it, we prefer to soften the concept by either 1) seeing hell only has a natural consequence of bad choices or 2) denying the eternal torment of hell.

In the first case, some people prefer to see hell as simply a result of a cause-effect scenario. If you chose to reject God in this life (cause), then the natural consequence is hell (effect). On one hand this is true. But on the other hand, it is not some impersonal force that oversees this cause-effect situation (ie. karma). According to the scriptures, it is a personal God who holds sinners accountable for their rejection of Him and who personally condemns them to hell. That is the picture we find in Rev 20:11-15 and in many of Jesus' parables where someone is cast out into utter darkness. People don't just naturally find themselves in the darkness. They are sent there by God. Now you may wonder why it is so important to stress the punishment aspect of hell (along with the consequence aspect). The reason is because if you neglect the punishment aspect of hell then you neglect the true nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. He did not die simply to inspire us to live lives of selfless love and sacrifice. His death had an objective effect on our relationship with God. God's holy wrath was removed from sinners and absorbed by the body of Christ in death. Therefore, those who trust in Christ have a reconciled relationship with God where there is no more condemnation or threat of punishment. That aspect of the gospel is gone if we fail to see that hell is a punishment from God.

In the second case, some people think the concept of eternal punishment is too harsh and unfitting in the character of a good, loving God. But if we understood the true nature of sin then the true nature of hell is understandable. If sin is simply an immoral act or a crime against society or another person, then an eternal punishment may not "fit the crime". But if sin is ultimately an insult, a rebellion, and slap-in-the-face to God's worth, sufficiency, goodness, holiness, glory, etc...then an eternal punishment fits. The greatness of the person you sin against determines the greatness of the punishment. No one argues that to slap a king deserves a greater punishment than to slap your sibling. So if we truly see and savor the infinite value and worth of God our King, then the concept of an infinite punishment in hell seems only fitting. This does not mean we cannot still struggle emotionally with the thought of eternal punishment for loved ones, but it does mean we cannot claim eternal punishment as illogical or unjust.

Christianity and Tolerance

Here are some additional thoughts from Monday's lesson from The Case for Faith:

1) How would you respond to claims that Christianity is intolerant because it claims Jesus is the only way to God?
It is important to remember that Christianity is not the only religion to make exclusive truth claims. Islam would say you are wrong if you deny that the Koran as God's word. Hinduism would say you are wrong if you deny karma or reincarnation. Even atheists make exclusive truth claims by claiming that all religions are wrong. So any person or religion that makes any truth claim of any kind is being exclusive because they are implicitly saying that the contrary is wrong. If A is true, then not-A is implicitly false.

2) How is it fair that a pious non-Christian like Gandhi does not go to heaven because he does not believe in Jesus?
Think of it this way, if going to heaven is simply dependent on piety and being a good person, then how is it fair that some people are born into peaceful, stable societies (ie. Canada, USA) that are conducive for living peaceful, stable lives (ie. they wont have to steal to eat or fight to survive) BUT others are born into hostile, impoverished societies (ie. Baghdad or Darfur) where death, violence, and pain are the norms of life? Those growing up in the latter are presented with daily temptations we in the comfortable West cannot even fathom. So even if salvation depended on simply living "good" lives, God could still be accused of unfairness for not starting everyone off on equal grounds with equal opportunities. That is why the Gospel of Jesus Christ says that piety and good works will save no one. All are equally sinners and equally undeserving of salvation BUT God in his grace offers it to those who stop trusting their own piety and start trusting his Son, Jesus Christ.

Here are some more questions to think about:
- What is unique about the Christian faith compared to other world religions?
- Why does secular society have no problem with a scientist being adamant about the 2nd law of thermodynamics but get offended when a Christian is adamant about Jesus being the only way to the Father? Is there a difference in the two claims?

To Die is Gain

Here is a sobering account of martyrdom that recently took place. Just to warn you, parts of the article are a bit graphic.

Phil 1:21 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

Evolution: a step of faith?

Here is an overview of Monday's lesson:

We started by testing ourselves in our memory verse challenge and books of the bible challenge. Everyone did a good job with the verses (keep trying your best to memorize it word-for-word), but some of us struggled with the books challenge. Keep at it and we'll try again next week. Remember the acronym I came up with for the first 7 minor prophets:
Hosea-Joel-Amos-Obadiah-Jonah-Micah-Nahum
(H)osea (J)ust (A)dores (O)range (J)uice (M)orning & (N)ight

The last five just need to be memorized but notice that there is a slight pattern:
Habakkuk-Zephaniah-Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi
Hab-Zeph, Hag-Zech, Malachi

Here are some highlights from our discussion:
- It was significant to note that there is currently no agreement among the scientific community concerning life's origin. It is still an open issue for debate and discussion. Evolution may explain differentiation within species but does not explain life's origin.

- When Darwin was developing his theories, scientists did not realize how complex even a single-celled organism can be. So they assumed the jump from inanimate chemicals to a living organism was not very big. But now we realize that one single cell is far more advanced and stores more information than our most advanced computers.

- The Miller experiment which supposedly re-created the elemental environment of primitive earth and created life (amino acids) from non-life by an electrical charge was successful but had a huge scientific flaw. The elements used in the experiment were not present in primitive earth in any significant amount, but rather the actual elements (inert gases) in primitive earth would not have reacted to form life.

- Some scientists have finally acknowledged that no natural explanation can be given to explain the origin of life on earth, so they have suggested that life spores must have come from outer space - either riding on a meteorite or another civilization actually "seeded" our earth by intentionally sending life here. Okay - if you are willing to turn to little green men to explain life's origin, then why would you not consider the possibility of the supernatural, ie. a Creator God? This goes to show that being a secular, naturalistic scientist can require more faith than being a believer of God.

- The next time you study for a science test, specifically a biology test remember...as you see the detail and beauty inherent in all animals, plants, water, rocks, amebas, viruses, biological processes, and even evolution itself...allow it to lift your heart in worship of our Infinitely Wise and Creative Creator God.


Some interesting questions and links:
- Adrian brought up the huge question about homosexuality and a genetic link. If we found a link how would it impact our theology of God's fairness, of sin, of moral accountability? Here is a response to those question by Dr. Al Mohler.

- Jessica also asked about cloning and its moral implications. Is human cloning and genetic engineering - for the purpose of creating "healthy" babies - a morally or theologically right thing to do? Are we playing God? Mohler strikes again...and again.