By Pastor Stephen Feinstein
Hello everyone. I do apologize for not posting in quite some
time. I became too busy to keep up with certain things, and this blog was among
the expendable things I have put on my plate. Truly, I left you all hanging
since my last post was about the dilemma of man. I pointed out what humanity’s
problem is, but I gave no solution. As I have said previously, I am summarizing
the works of Francis Schaeffer, an amazing Christian mind of the 20th
Century. His work is so relevant for our day, and that is why I am doing this.
Thus, after Schaeffer discussed the dilemma of man, he then moved onto God’s
solution. So now I do the same. Before I begin, I would like to let people know
that an atheist had a problem with the content in the last post, and it led to
a somewhat lengthy exchange that is worth reading. If you are interested, you
can simply go back to that post and read the comments.
Schaeffer begins this chapter by reminding us that moral
absolutes exist. However, something that atheists seem to not get is that these
absolutes are not a law that is behind God. As Schaeffer points out, “There is
no law behind God, because the furthest thing back is God. The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character.” These
absolutes are what they are because God is what He is. Thus, when He originally
created the universe, it was in accordance with his nature and character.
Hence, in Genesis 1:31 He declared everything to be “very good.” Men were
created in God’s image to live by choice on the basis of what conforms itself
to God’s image. The standards of morality that do not conform to God’s
character are immoral, whereas the ones that do conform to His character are
moral.
God can know everything that is both actualized (exists) and
non-actualized (has the potential to exist). This is necessary since He is
omniscient. Therefore, even before sin was actualized, God knew of it, and
according to the purposes of His will, He allowed Adam and Eve to make the
choice of sin that brought upon them true moral guilt. Such guilt is not subjective,
meaning it is not something that we feel.
No, instead moral guilt is something that we are. It is objective and absolute. Serial killer Jeffery Dahmer
felt no guilt at all when he was declared guilty by a jury, but this does not
change the fact that he was objectively guilty. Guilty is what he was, not
something that he felt. If people have a stronger conscience than someone like
Dahmer, then they often will have feelings that agree with the objective
reality of their guilt. In this sense, they would feel guilty. But whether
someone feels it or not is irrelevant as to whether or not they are guilty. So
Adam and Eve were guilty, and they knew it. All of their descendents (that’s
all of us), inherited this desire to break God’s moral laws, and therefore, we
also have sinned and have become guilty. It matters not that we were born with
a sin nature. We still volitionally choose to break God’s moral standards, and
our own consciences bear witness against us.
Both modern and postmodern men have attempted to do away
with this by denying the moral cause of man’s problem. As I said in the last
post, they limit it to merely being a metaphysical problem. They claim that our
problem is finitude, and therefore the world is as it always was, and man is as
he always was. Thus, there is no moral law that binds us and no such thing as
objective guilt that condemns us. For this reason, most unbelievers do not feel
guilty, even though they are guilty. Interestingly enough, Dahmer credited the theory of evolution with his murderous rampage. In an interview with Stone
Phillips on Dateline NBC on November
29,1994, Dahmer said:
If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable
to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it
within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the
theory of evolution as truth,
that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was
it, there is nothing…
Any theory that denies the existence of God, His absolute
moral standard, and man’s culpability to that standard can lead to this kind of
thinking if applied consistently. In the argument with the atheist in the last
post, he refused to come to terms with this. If he were consistent with this
thoughts, he would have to agree with Dahmer. Instead, he arbitrarily held to absolute
standards that he could not justify. Schaeffer makes the cogent point that
thinking like modern and postmodern man actually makes humanity less than it
is. If wrong actions do not lead to
moral guilt, then all actions (even Dahmer’s) become morally meaningless. Even
the worst kinds of sins would have no moral meaning. Schaeffer says,
“Ultimately, “good” and “bad” actions alike are zero. This is an important
factor in modern man also being seen as zero.” In other words, if we are not
made in the image of God, and if meaningful categories of good and evil do not
exist, then even our existence (which would be accidental) is ultimately meaningless.
It amounts to zero.
So the Christian answer for the dilemma of man begins by
first reminding people that our problem is moral rather than metaphysical.
There is a law in the universe that when broken makes man culpable to God. This
view makes man morally significant rather than meaningless. I believe atheists
miss this nuance. Guilty man is a significant man precisely because his guilty
status shows that he is not meaningless. There is a God who created mankind for
a purpose. We relate to that God by bearing His image and either living
according to His standards, or rejecting His standards. This in and of itself
shows us to have meaning, purpose, and significance. In contrast, if the
universe is a self-existent accident, and all life is simply the product of
random processes, then there is no meaning. Humanity is nothing more than
randomly organized matter that happens to be sentient. Right and wrong would
not exist, and ultimately humanity would be meaningless. Yet, all humanity acts
as though absolutes do exist, they ascribe meaning to things in both a regular
and an ultimate sense, and they live as though certain things are wrong and
certain things are right. This simply proves that the biblical worldview is
true, and mankind exists as guilty man living in God’s world. However, rather
than submitting to the God in whom they owe allegiance, they rebel. One way
they do this is by denying guilt, thereby denying humanity’s meaningfulness and
significance. But then they live as though meaning and significance are still
real. This simply proves that guilty man’s lies about himself do not allow him
an escape from whom and what he really is.
Schaeffer points out that when guilty man removes the moral
cause, he then removes a solution to the dilemma. But when we recognize our
problem is moral as caused by the Fall, then a solution is possible. Since
there is true guilt on our part before a personal God, perhaps since He is the
offended party there is a solution that He offers to fix the problem. God is holy
and God is love, and these two attributes make sense out of the solution. His
holiness requires that the infinite sin debt be paid. If God simply pardoned
our sin, then He would be unjust, unrighteous, and therefore unholy. If He
condemned us all for our sin, then He would be just, righteous, and holy, but
it could be argued that He is unloving toward us. So the only way that any
solution could ever unfold would be if there were a way that God could be both
the just and the justifier. But how can this happen since we are guilty of sin?
The answer was that God Himself became a man in real history
so that He Himself could take the guilty burden of man upon Himself and bear it
for our sake. God exists as one God, but three persons. The second person of
the Trinity, added humanity to His divinity just over 2,000 years ago, and then
lived a perfect life of obedience succeeding to meet God’s standards at every
point. So now you had the perfect man. However, if He were only a man, He could
not possibly endure the punishment. In order for a person to be saved, every
sin would have to be paid for. For me to be saved, my sin debt needed to be
paid by this perfect substitute. If my sin would lead to some level of torment
for all eternity (which is just, since I sinned against the eternal God), then
that exact amount of torment had to be condensed into that three hours on the
cross when the sky went dark. And not just the amount of torment for me, but
also for every single person who would ever be forgiven. All of our eternal
punishments were concentrated into three hours of Hell where the Father poured
out that wrath on the Son. Since Jesus was not just a perfect man, but the
invincible God of the universe, He was able to endure on His human body and His
human soul the full weight of the wrath of God for our sins.
If a person comes to Jesus Christ and repents of their sins,
then their debt is wiped clean since it was paid in full. In turn, they receive
credit for all of the righteous deeds that Jesus did during His earthly ministry.
Thus, they stand before God justified. This is how God is the just and the
justifier Romans 3:26). Truly, this is amazing grace. What a wonderful and
gracious solution provided by God for our dilemma!
No comments:
Post a Comment