This is an interesting question joining God’s love with murder. Did a friend ask this question of you? I hope you don’t mind if I break down the thoughts a little?
So this person is suggesting that the best thing for people is to not live at all and go straight to heaven? Is there a reason we can’t carry this logic to all future people on the planet? Why not enact this as a new policy now, so that all babies to go straight to heaven to avoid the possibility of not accepting Christ as Saviour.
My understanding of this person’s train of logic is
- God is loving
- therefore, existing humans should terminate all new human life to eliminate possible people that may not come to God
we’ve forgotten one thing in the middle of our train of thought; God’s command to not murder. And as Sean mentioned humanity is made in God’s image.
Perhaps a section of a book shared a while ago might speak to this area? I thought the second paragraph was quite interesting. Sean shared it from Phillip Yancey’s book when we were doing a book study on ‘Determined to Believe’ by John Lennox.
I have a book on my desk titled The Encyclopedia of Ignorance . Its author explains that whereas most encyclopedias compile information that we know, he will attempt to outline the areas of science that we cannot yet explain: questions of cosmology, curved space, the riddles of gravitation, the interior of the sun, human consciousness. I wonder if God has perhaps fenced of an area of knowledge, The Encyclopedia of Theological Ignorance for very good reasons. These answers remain in God’s domain, and God has not seen fit to reveal them.
Consider infant salvation. Most theologians have found enough Biblical clues to convince them that God welcomes all infants “under the age of accountability,” though the Biblical evidence is scant. What if God had made a clear pronouncement: “Thus saith the Lord, I will welcome every child under the age of ten into Heaven.” I can easily envision Crusaders of the eleventh century mounting a campaign to slaughter every child of nine or younger in order to guarantee their eternal salvation - which of course would mean that none of us would be around a millennium later to contemplate such questions. Similarly, the zealous conquistadors in Latin America might have finished off the native peoples for good if the Bible had clearly stated that God’s overlooking “the times of ignorance” applied to all who had not heard the name of Jesus.
Reading church history, not to mention reflecting on my own life, is a humbling exercise indeed. In view of the mess we have made of crystal-clear commands - the unity of the Church, love as a mark of Christians, racial and economic justice, the importance of personal purity, the dangers of wealth - I tremble to think what we would do if some of the ambiguous doctrines were less ambiguous.
Our approach to difficult issues should befit our status as finite creatures. Take the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, taught in the Bible in such a way that it stands in unresolved tension with human freedom. God’s perspective as an all-powerful being who sees all of history at once, rather than unfolding second by second, has baffled theologians and will always baffle theologians simply because that point of view is unattainable to us, even unimaginable by us. The best physicists in the world struggle to explain the multi-directional arrows of time. A humble approach accepts that differences in perspective and worships a God who transcends our limitations.
Hyper-Calvinist show what happens when we seize prerogatives that no human can bear. Thus Malthusians opposed vaccination for smallpox because, they said, it interfered with God’s sovereign will. Calvinist churches discouraged early missionaries: “Young man…when God pleases to convert the heathen, He’ll do it without your help or mine,” they told William Carey, ignoring the obvious fact that we are the ones chosen by God to carry the good news worldwide. After Calvin drew a solid line between the elect and the reprobate, his followers then inferred that we humans can discern who falls on which side of that line. The Book of Life belongs in the category of “theological ignorance,” something we cannot know and for which (thankfully) we must trust God. …More and more, I am grateful for that ignorance, and grateful that the God who revealed Himself in Jesus is the one who determines the answers.
this statement has forgotten that human’s were created with free will. To quote Ravi Zacharius here.
I position the sequence of fact and deduction in the following way: Love is the supreme ethic. Where there is the possibility of love, there must be the reality of free will. Where there is the reality of free will, there will inevitably be the possibility of sin. Where there is sin, there is the need for a Savior. Where there is a Savior, there is the hope for redemption. Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview does this sequence find its total expression and answer. The story from sin to redemption is only in the gospel with the ultimate provision of a loving God.
My understanding is that Christ did not die on the cross for a handful of people. He died for the whole world; including those that reject Him. John 3:16
Hmm, good question; I guess we need to separate natural consequences from the legal issue of sin. Consider if I commit a serious crime against another person; say murder as an example. The natural consequences of this would be the pain and suffering of the family of the victim; and my guilt and shame. Through Christ, God has forgiven us the legal debt owed between us and God because of our sin; but we still have to deal with the consequences of our actions. Not sure I’ve addressed this question properly…
so, a person that rejects God their whole life, should be forced against their will to reside in Heaven with God for eternity? if a person reject’s God and wants nothing to do with Him; God will honor a person’s free will choice to reject Him and gives them what they want ; existence without God.
hopefully some helpful thoughts… ? are you in conversation with a fellow believer with these questions, or a person who is/has rejected God, or a person who is seeking answers to difficult questions?