Benevolent Hell

Answering a question on Quora:

Is there anything benevolent about hell, no, right?

Yes, wrong.

First, consider the question’s two non sequiturs.

A. Taken literally, the question assigns moral significance to hell. However, hell is merely a place. In itself, it is neutral. Saying, “no, right?” is like saying that the law of gravity is evil because a tourist stood too close to the edge of a waterfall. Any moral significance derives not from the existence of hell, but from how it is used. In other words, whether it is benevolent or not depends on whether it is used justly or unjustly.

B. Whether hell is used at all by a human is like the tourist and the waterfall. The tourist can use the trail to walk away, and the human can use the Way God provided to walk away from a sentence of hell. The Way (John 14:6) is available to all. An intellectually honest person will realize that any fault, any lack of benevolence, must be assigned on the basis of the answer to this question: If there is a lack of benevolence, who is responsible, the One who provides the way of escape, or the one who decides to ignore the law of justice? 

Ignoring the non sequiturs, consider the question itself.

Violating God’s laws insults infinite God and disrespects His plans for us to have relationship with Him. Would God be benevolent to Himself if He ignored such insult and allowed unredeemed sinners to defile His presence?

Let’s take an extreme case: When Hitler’s Dr. Joseph Mengele dissected people alive, would it have been benevolent to Mengele’s victims if God ignored justice?

Now let’s take the case of people who use their judgment about hell as a rationalization for refusing God’s gift of redemption. In essence, they refuse to be rescued from a sentence of punishment for their sins. (Rejecting God and His gift is merely one sin out of many.) They refuse the post-mortem transformation that would allow them to enjoy God’s presence. Would it be benevolent to force them to endure the “unapproachable light” in which God dwells (1 Timothy 6:16)?

Hell was created not for us, but for the devil and the demons. By tempting Adam to revoke his citizenship in heaven, the devil trapped all of us in his own kingdom. He triggered all the suffering and death in history, including the suffering of any human cast into hell. If God did not prepare a hell in which to punish the devil, would God be benevolent to the human race?

My conclusion is that hell is, indeed, benevolent. But by itself, it is a half-truth.

God prepared a way to resolve the tension between justice and love. He provided Himself a sacrifice sufficient to redeem us from our sins and rescue us from the consequences of justice. God the Son paid the price at His own expense. This leads to a final question that returns us to the first question: If God debased the price He paid to rescue us from hell and thus demeaned Himself, would He be benevolent to Himself?

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Jesus: Only Way to God the Father

Answering a question on Quora: 

Where in the Bible does it say the only way to the Father is through the Son?

New Testament

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Acts 4:12

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

Note that approaching the Father requires “being saved.” This means that God must do what we cannot: redeem, regenerate, justify, and sanctify. Since the Son provided the means of redemption, it is not too much to ask that we acknowledge that the Son is whom He is and receive the gift as a free gift.

Old Testament

Psalm 2:11–12

Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Additional Evidence

The relationship between the Son and the Father is defined explicitly in the New Testament. Old Testament clues are there, but relevant passages are better interpreted in hindsight, that is, in light of the New Testament.

The first clue is in the opening lines of the Bible, where God says, let us make…. People who deny that the one God used creative power over space-time to experience it as three Persons frequently explain away “us” as a “royal we.” However, the literal interpretation is reinforced by the plural, “Gods,” in In the beginning Gods created the the heavens and the Earth. And the unity of the plural Gods is reinforced by the singular number of made. The best interpretation is that one God exists in space-time as three Persons in communication with each other.

Another clue, less clear in the Old Testament, is that, while God remains in heaven and unseen by any human, He also walked the earth in the appearance of a human. This can be traced from the Garden of Eden, through Abraham’s entertainment of strangers, to God’s revelation of Himself to Moses. The earthly liaison, so to speak, gave Himself a descriptive name, I AM — as contrasted with all other gods, who are not. He chose this name for our sakes but does not actually need one. No previous god existed with the authority to name Him, and no other god exists from whom He needs to be distinguished.

(The Hebrew word translated I AM and the LORD is YHWH. Note that the word has no vowels and the pronunciation was lost a few centuries before Jesus was born. Anybody who makes a big show about its pronunciation “knows” more than what the facts establish.)

To prevent desecration of God’s “name,” translators began a tradition of translating YHWH as the LORD (in capital letters). This is the God whom all Jews and Christians aspire to know.

In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth reveals Himself to be YHWH, the I AM (John 8:58), the Word who was God, who was in the beginning with God, and through whom all created things were created (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17). In this light, passages such as Isaiah 9:6 make sense:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

If you aspire to know the Lord, that is, God or God the Father, you aspire to know the Son. If you know the Son, you know the Father as well (John 14:7–11), but you cannot know the Father if you reject that the Son is who He says He is (John 8:9).

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due.

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Responding to questions in a thread:

One Core Religion, Progressively Elaborated

Background

Me: The “religion” of Noah and Moses was the same “religion,” handed down from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Jacob’s (“Israel’s”) twelve sons. In Egypt, most of Israel forgot those beliefs and adopted Egyptian practices. Moses merely wrote it down as God restored it and elaborated on it.

Response: Does that mean Jesus modified and changed the eternal religion by deeming everything allowed to be eaten?

Secondly, do you have a proof of your claim that it was the same religion, or is it just a conjecture?

Response

First, the trend of the “religion” of Elohim/YHWH/Jesus as defined in the Bible has a constant thread of depending on God instead of on self-righteousness, and being rewarded with enjoying a personal relationship with God. The doctrines of the “religion” developed through punctuated elaboration. That is, at various times, more details were added so that it forms a continuum, just like the education of any student. The Jewish authorities of Jesus’s time dropped out by rejecting the next layer of elaboration and the corrections that laid its groundwork.

To me, calling that process “modifying and changing” is like saying that conducting a student from sixth grade into seventh grade is “changing” his education. There is a change in the student’s stage, but the stages of the plan have been there all along. So, from the religionist’s perspective, perhaps; from the Planner’s perspective, no.

Just as some schools will put part of their students on a path toward manual vocations and others on a path toward college, God separated the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the world. The purpose of the Abrahamic path became clear when God singled out Jacob’s descendants to become Israel, a nation of priests to the world (they failed miserably) and the path through which the Redeemer would come. A special role required special policies.

The Mosaic Law had a number of purposes, among which was conveying a message about holiness. The need for holiness was symbolized, for example, by dietary regulations. However:

• The dietary regulations were part of the Mosaic Covenant (or “Law” or “contract”) between God and Israel. The Law never had jurisdiction outside of Israel (“gentiles”).
  
  
• Israel abrogated the Law through breach of contract, violating it repeatedly, ultimately by rejecting the promised Messiah.
  
  
• God abrogated the Law by fulfilling it through the Messiah (“Christ”).
  
  
• God supplanted the Law with a new covenant (“New Testament”) with simplified requirements: Trust the sacrifice of Christ for redemption instead of trusting self-righteousness; Love God; love your neighbor; and love fellow believers. The simplification was new, but it continued “the spirit of the Law” that had always existed.

The butterfly is still the same creature that it was when it was a caterpillar. When a child discards the toys of a toddler in favor of the toys of a pre-pubescent, the process of maturation is not “modified or changed.” You aren’t changing the “religion” by moving it into a more mature phase.

Second, the genealogies do not say, “X begat Y and taught him his religion, and Y begat Z and taught him his religion,” etc. However, the whole of the scriptures emphasize that beliefs are passed from generation to generation; that the beliefs God defines should be passed down; and there were generations such as Abel, Seth, and Enoch between Adam and Noah that were specifically said to walk with God. And isn’t it the hope of every parent that their child will follow their religious (or non-religions) belief?

I’m accustomed to people (specifically, atheists) who ask for “proof,” demanding unreasonable, tangible, irrefutable, complete, and constantly available evidence. Since time machines are fantasy, I’m prejudiced to say that, according to their standards, “No, there’s no proof.” But if you’re a reasonable person, I’m sure a time machine won’t be necessary. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated reuse. Please give credit where credit is due.

Everlasting Rage in Hell

Answering a question on Quora:

In Matthew 25:30, what does gnashing of the teeth mean?

The Parable of the Talents begins in Matthew 25:14. The word gnashing appears at the parable's end, verse 30, describing hell as being a place of outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This question brings out a point that most people miss. Most people focus on weeping as a sign of sorrow, regret, or pain. The term, gnashing of teeth, ought to turn that around.

The Bible usually defines its own terms. We can determine the meaning of gnashing from Acts 7. Shortly after the beginning of the Christian church, the religious authorities who ruled Jerusalem put Stephen, a deacon in the church, on trial for preaching that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah. Stephen’s defense demonstrated his innocence and showed that the rulers were the guilty ones who had murdered Jesus.

This infuriated the rulers. It says in Acts 7:54, On hearing this, the members of the Sanhedrin were enraged, and they gnashed their teeth at him. Then they mobbed him, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him to death.

Literally, to gnash your teeth means to make a biting, chewing, or clenched motion with your jaw. My dad did this in his sleep. It was loud! We called it grinding his teeth. The same gesture, done in anger by the Jewish rulers, was probably like a dog baring his teeth, biting at the air, and making hostile growling noises.

So the lesson of this phrase in Matthew 25 is that hell is not merely a place of pain. It is also a place of rage. Those who hate God now will forever consume themselves with the same hate. Even if flames, darkness, or worms are metaphors, being locked into overwhelming grief and rage, consuming you from within without relief or escape, is a horror that should motivate any Christian to pray for, love, and share the gospel with everyone they meet. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Free for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Praying for Wealth

From a question on Quora 

Is there a specific mantra or prayer for financial prosperity and wealth?

I answer from a Christian perspective. If you are considering mantras, my answer is probably irrelevant. Hopefully, it will help other, future readers. I had three points to make in answer to the question.

Jack Richards’ answer made my first point. Christians should concern themselves with what good they can do for others and what sort of persons they are, not with how to be come healthy and wealthy. God chooses to make some wealthy so they can help others, but His heart goes out to the lowly and He rewards those who love serving others.

The standard for what Christians should believe is their Bible. There is a type of Christianity called the Prosperity Gospel that deviates from biblical teachings. It emphasizes health and prosperity instead of emphasizing growth in holiness, service to God and others, and spreading the good news that God redeems people at His own expense if they will only receive it.

The prosperity gospel works for its leaders — at the expense of gullible people who love being flattered and whose minds are on materialism. Its mass manipulation and prestidigitation appeal to people who lack knowledge of such matters. It also appeals to people with shallow faith, who need extraordinary proofs before they can trust God for deeper relationships.

Prosperity gospel preachers often teach people to say specific words, such as commanding wealth to come to them. This is not only unbiblical, it is antibiblical. It is so American — and so human. It is a wrong mindset, as described in Marcus Anderson’s answer.

Marcus made my second point by giving an example of a prayer from the Bible about wealth, made with a right mindset. The prayer asks for enough prosperity to meet needs. We need enough wealth to buy food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation. We need enough left over to help others. So asking for income, or, better, ways to earn income, is right.

However, prosperity is a trap for most people. It tempts us to think we are the source of prosperity and forget to thank God for giving us the ability to earn. We become self-sufficient instead of depending on God. Gaining and protecting wealth tempts us into moral compromise and even into treating others unjustly. And every week, we read about how wealth gave some celebrity the means to indulge in self-destructive vices. Whatever we give a higher priority to than we give to God becomes an idol.

My third point is that Christianity is not a religion of magic. Words have power to inform, convince, and motivate people; but they have no power over physical things. Words can deceive or show disrespect. In that sense, they have power to cause a negative reaction. This is especially true when treating labels for God as worthless or usurping His titles. Fortunately, we can also use words in prayer to convince God to do things. But in prayer, there are conditions; primarily:

• God is Spirit, so the thoughts and intents of our spirits are as real to Him as our actions are. Our words are powerless with God if our intents do not correspond.
• God has plans of His own for running the universe. Our prayers must be moral and must fit with God’s plans.
• God loves His family and provides for them. He sometimes demonstrates His presence for the sake of those not yet in His family. But He has no obligation to creatures who owe all their obligation to Him. 

Christianity is not like magic or like other religions in which words have power of their own. Mantras and pre-written “prayers” do not impress God. Jesus of Nazareth said, “When you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard” (Matthew 6:7). The word in the ancient Greek manuscripts was βαττολογέω (battalogeó), which meant to stammer, utter nonsensical repetitions, be long-winded, or use empty, formalistic words. It describes practices from those requiring prayer beads (e.g., Catholic, Buddhist, shamanic), Pentecostal / Charismatic tongues-speaking, formulaic prayers heard in liturgical churches, and bloviating prayers anywhere else.

Christianity is a relationship, and a prayer is one side of a conversation within that relationship. Prayer is simply reasoned asking in humility and dependence. If your heart drives you to repeat yourself, it is not wrong. It is even commendable to think deeply about your request and present reasons as part of your request. The power, there, is in examining your own intentions and opening up your heart to God.

But manipulative repetition is disrespectful, and God will not respect it. Many Christians fall into using pre-written prayers. That is an acceptable method for those who cannot stay focused or who find prayers that express their hearts. They must take care, however, that such prayers do not become shallow formulas, lazy ways to avoid thinking deeply, or evasive ways to avoid opening up their hearts before God.

Copyrighte 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use; and I trust you to give credit where credit is due. 

Another Silly Question about God's Origin

From answering a question on Quora:

Does God know where he came from?

The question assumes that God “came from” somewhere. According to Christian scriptures, theology, and philosophers, God created the universe. Without a universe, no “then,” “there,” “source,” or “cause” existed from which God could come. So the question is broken.

Perhaps the asker meant, “What was the source or origin of God?” Again, without time, sequences such as going from non-existence to cause, to creation, to existence are nonsensical. Nevertheless, many Atheists ask the same question differently, asking, “Who created God?”

If God had a creator, who created him? And who created the Creator’s creator? And who created the Creator’s creator’s creator? Once you insist that the Creator had to have a creator, you create an infinite regression. It doesn’t work. If you started at a time infinitely in the past, and then pass through time, you could never get to our “now” because that would take an infinite length of time. In an infinite length of time, no matter how much time passes, there’s still more time that needs to pass before you can get to our “now.” Similarly, if you start with an infinitely precedent creator, you could never get to the current Creator. The assumption that God had a creator creates a mathematical impossibility.

The above analysis brings us to another problem. If God created the universe, then He created all the attributes and artifacts of the universe, including time, which cosmology and physics tell us had a beginning in the Inflationary period that became the Big Bang. If God created time, then He has an existence outside of time. And if God exists outside of time, then saying that He must have had a beginning and a creator is like saying that the number seven must have a color and a temperature. “Beginning” is meaningless without time, so, again, the assumption that God had a beginning creates a practical impossibility.

The question is in the class of questions such as “Why did God do this?” and “Why didn’t God to that?” It requires knowing the mind of God. Such questions require either God revealing His knowledge or reasoning to us, speculating, or reading god’s mind. I’m not a god, and I don’t believe anybody else who uses Quora is a god, either, so reading the memories in God’s mind is out of the question. That leaves us with either revelation or speculation. According to revelation through the Christian scriptures, God is self-existent and created the universe. From that, we can say that God does not "know" the incorrect assumption that He had an origin. If you reject revelation, then giving an authoritative answer is impossible. And the impossibility of giving an answer can only prove, at best, human limitations.

There’s a common practice of posing rhetorical questions as a substitute for actual arguments. Rhetorical questions can be used to hide false assumptions and faulty logic. The person answering the question has to restate the question as a claim and then detect the assumptions and logic and their flaws. So, if the intent is to discourage belief in God, the question is more specious than logical. (I don’t assume that the asker had that intent. I’m just pointing it out because others do use such flawed rhetoric.)

To sum up, the question is a non sequitur, meaning that it assumes facts not in evidence. And the concise answer is, no, God would not “know” something that is impossible and meaningless.

For further background:

• https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please give credit where credit is due.

Another Child of God like Jesus

Asked on Quora: Would God ever have another child and let him come to Earth like Jesus?

Summary Answer

No. It's a silly question to any Christian, but the reasons behind the answer are an instructive exercise.

Background

The Bible makes three claims about the nature of God.

• Exactly one God has existed, exists, and will ever exist.
• Modern physics shows that mass, energy, space, and even time are intimately intertwined. If God created the heavens and Earth, then God created time and space. Having creative power over time and space, God is able to exist in and experience time and space as three identical Persons.
• The three Persons voluntarily adopt separate and complementary roles, self-identifying as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the roles.

Many people, instead of following a model that reconciles the three claims, reject one or more of the claims. They can argue that the following explanation is incorrect, but they cannot argue that it is a spurious or held by a minority.

God existed outside of time (which I will call “eternity”) and space as a Unity and exists within His creation as a Trinity of Persons (not a trinity of gods).

Accepted doctrine stops there. Many believe God exists only within time, but science says that time had a beginning. That leaves unanswered the question of how the three Persons could have the same essence and be one God.

I counter that the choice is not either eternal or temporal. I believe God exists both outside time as a Unity of substance and a Trinity of personhood and inside time as a Trinity. For me, accepting that God’s creative power enables Him to be both One God yet three Persons fits all the evidence in the Bible. And it is consistent with science. It also explains how God can be omnipresent and omniscient (including knowing the future).

How the Son became the Son is unclear. There are a passages that say Jesus and the Holy Spirit “proceed from” the Father. However, this could be interpreted either as a duplication of essence or as a sending forth, like a soldier who is sent on a task by an officer.

The sending meaning is far more likely. First, we know that the Father has assigned duties to Son and the Spirit. Second, sending implies sequence, and sequence must occur within time. Since the Son and the Spirit took part in creating time, the Father could not have duplicated Himself within time. “Proceed from” must mean that the Son and the Spirit were sent.

Detailed Answer

Having a child and letting him/her/it come to Earth reflects an image of God like that of humans creating children within time. Human children and parents are separate entities. In contrast, if God is a Unity outside of time, and God created time, then the Son did not come into being during time’s existence. That is, God could not “have” a child like the Son because the Son has always been.

Suppose God “had another child.” Since the new child comes into being within time, he/she/it cannot be eternal like the Son is. The child would also have limited experience, knowledge, and power. Moreover, the term “child” implies a need to mature, which the Son did not need to do. The Jesus body had to mature, but the divine Person, God the Son, did not. Since the new child would have an inferior nature, he/she/it might be similar to a great angel but could not be God. Since “another” implies of the same kind, the new child would not be “another.”

Here’s another reason why God could not “have another child.” God calls the second Person the Son primarily because that label fits the role. Consistent with that label, John 3:16 calls Jesus only-begotten. Many translations dilute the term. “One and only” is only half wrong because it conveys the metaphorical meaning of only-begotten. However, it fails to convey the literal meaning.

Here, a bit of language definition helps. Beget and conceive are counterpart words. Whereas a female conceives and births a child, a male begets a child. The accounts of the witnesses say that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, turned one of Mary’s eggs into an embryo. While the Son already existed, He clothed himself with that body and subjected Himself to all the burdens and infirmities that we experience.

Only-begotten, then implies three things.

• God begot the Jesus body through creative power.
• The Son has the same nature that the Father has (that is, He is God).
• Jesus, Son of God, is one-of-a-kind.

If God “had” another “child,” then Jesus would not be the only-begotten. By calling Jesus “only-begotten” in the scriptures, God would be a liar. Since God is Truth, lying would make Him not God. God cannot be both Truth and liar or both God and not God.

Let’s forget God’s honesty for a moment. God could beget another body, but the same Son would have to inhabit it. However, upon His resurrection, God re-vivified and transformed Jesus’ body into a transcendent body. Jesus still has that transcendent body in heaven and would have to discard it in order to inhabit the newly begotten body. If the Son took on a new body, we couldn’t recognize Him either in heaven when we die or on earth when He returns. 

Even worse, if the Son discarded His Jesus body to inhabit the new one, the Jesus body would die again. That contradicts explicit statements that the transcendent body is immortal.

So the terms have (meaning, the verbs create, beget, or birth), child, and another all reflect ideas that conflict with what we can learn about God from the Bible. For multiple logical reasons, God could not “have another child” or “let him come to Earth.”

Since this answer was posted on Quora, a copyright would have no force. However, I can ask that if you use it, please give credit where credit is due.

God Judges Whose Sins?

Bible contradictions usually depend on a misunderstanding of one or the other side of the seeming paradox. A Quoran asked,

Why do we continue to blame Adam and Eve for us being sinners and remaining in our sinful ways when God judges each of us personally? Why are we able to blame Adam and Eve for our sins? Why do we blame others [Adam and Eve] for our own sins?

If you visit the question on Quora, please read the answer by Brian S. Holmes for a thorough and accurate answer. Also read the final paragraph in Barbara LeMaster’s answer for a great illustration. (Skip the first part, though.) Here, I answer the question in my own words to make sure the point gets across.

Prologue

Since Adam was the head of his family, let’s simplify “Adam and Eve” to just Adam. As the older, more experienced spouse, and as the one God had spoken to, Adam had a responsibility to fully inform Eve and guard her against error. And although Eve was deceived into sinning, Adam knew what he was doing. So his share of the responsibility was far greater.

Answer

The question assumes that God judges us for what Adam did. He does not. What we do judges us now, and He will one day pass sentence. Notice the distinction between creating guilt and passing sentence.

God’s holiness and glory are unbearable. God, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). When that glory is revealed, we cannot bear it. “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11).

It is our guilt, not our heritage, that disqualifies us from defiling God’s presence. Unless redemption intervenes, we will stand before Him for sentencing in accordance with our own thoughts and actions. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne…; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds” (Revelation 20:12–13).

“Deeds” includes both deeds of thought and deeds of action. You should be able to complete this quote from 1 Samuel 16:7: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord….” That is why Jesus said that if we so much as hate someone without just cause, we are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) and if we look at a non-spouse with sexual desire, we are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28); and coveting is listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17).

Adam needed redemption from the sin that gave us our tendencies, but we need redemption from how we act out out those tendencies. For our sins, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Postscript

The text above is very bad news. It gets much, much worse if you look it up and read it in context. It would be incomplete without the good news that complements it. The bad news gives context to, value to, motivation for the good news.

In the midst of the quotes from Revelation above is a reference to the Book of Life. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life will not be subject to that awful judgment. The label “dead” does not apply to them, and their judgment, a separate occasion, results in reward instead of in sentencing.

(The judgment in Revelation 20 is called the Great White Throne Judgment. The judgment of the redeemed is called the Bema Seat Judgment. It is comparable to the judgment of winners at the Olympics in which they receive medals as rewards.)

Redemption is held out as a gift, ready to be applied to all who receive it. The conditions include changing our minds about our sins and trusting Christ for his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

Our worst sins include preferring a false image or mental model of God (or worse, rejecting Him outright), rationalizing our sins, trusting in self-righteousness, and prioritizing earthly desires above relationship with God. Violating do’s and don’ts like the Ten Commandments merely enacts those sins. A responsible sinner admits, “I am guilty, my guilt condemns me, and I cannot justify myself in any way.” That is the repentance side of the coin.

The reverse side of the coin is faith toward God. Not just any God that we imagine, but God as He has revealed Himself to be: namely, God as Creator (whether via Creationism or Theistic Evolution is irrelevant); and as Creator of time and space, existing in His creation as three equal Persons who voluntarily fulfill distinct roles. “Christians” with limited imaginations create idols by rejecting God’s triune nature, but the “Trinity” is the only model of God that fits all the revealed evidence.

Faith toward God excludes faith toward heritage, church membership, and self. Redemption is a gift received, not wages deserved. Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive, as are faith and works. Because of our pride, many, if not most, Christian churches try to mix faith and works. They add various do’s and don’ts such as ceremonies, deeds, and refraining from sins. Some sneak the do’s and don’ts into repentance by saying that it includes changing our behaviors. Some sneak them in by saying you need the do’s and don’ts in order to hang on to the gift. They fail to recognize that changed behaviors results from receiving the gift rather than causing or securing it. Refusing to receive the gift as a free gift insults the Giver.

Within God’s character lies a tension between His attributes. God is love, but he is also holy and just. Justice drives judgment, but Love drives redemption. Love does not mean simple forgiveness. Justice must be served. That is why God the Son took our place in judgment. Being God, He bore a sentence that would have destroyed us. And being God, he could not be held by death. The resurrection is proof, not only of His identity, but also of the new life that God offers as a gift.

The question applies to all of us: Do I, knowing my condemnation, receive the gift as a free gift from the God Who is?

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I cannot copyright it. However, I hope that if you copy it, you will give credit where credit is due.

Two Ways to Heaven

There are two ways to heaven: the impossible and the possible.

1.  Be perfect throughout your entire life.

That makes you superior to the rest of us. In fact, it must make you God, since only God is perfect. 

Proud people think they can earn heaven, but the Ten Commandments (and the over 600 more) do not show a way to heaven for us real people. Instead, they show us that we are condemned before God.

• Have you had anything in your life that was more important than God? The scriptures call that idolatry.
• Have you had any incorrect idea of whom God is and what he's like? Have you prayed through a statue? That's idolatry, too.
• Have you worked on the Sabbath (Saturday)? That's putting other things ahead of God, so it's idolatry, too.
• Have you used the Lord's name in vain? That's a personal insult to God!
• Have you ever spread gossip that turned out to be untrue? That's lying and murdering somebody's reputation.
• Have you hated somebody without just cause? That's murder in your heart.
• Have you looked with sexual desire at somebody other than your spouse? That's adultery.
• Have you wanted something that belonged to somebody else? That's stealing in your heart.

And God looks on the hearts, not just the actions. 

Remember, the Law is One Law with many points. You don't have to break all the points. Break just one point, and you've broken the Law and lost your place in heaven. If you think you've never sinned, just wait. You will.

Satan said, "I will be like God." Adam and Eve said, "We will know good and evil like God." And the self-righteous says in his heart, "I will be perfect." 

Yes, Jesus said, "Be perfect," but He was using the Law to break people's pride, to show that earning heaven by your own merit is impossible. The point of His instruction was not, "Attempt the impossible." His message used irony to show that we are condemned. Salvation comes another way, and only to the humble. 

2. God prepared a gift

The gift that can save us if we accept it as a gift instead of as something we deserve.

The Creator of time and space entered into His creation as three Persons, each fulfilling a distinct role, yet united as One God in eternity.  One of those Persons, God the Son, added a human nature called Jesus to His own nature (without changing in His essence). 

Jesus lived a perfect life. If He had not, He would have died for His own sins, not for ours. But He was God, so He could live a perfect life. And because of that, when He gave Himself on the cross, God could credit our guilt to Jesus  (like a big brother taking the punishment for his little brother) and credit Jesus' righteousness to us. And to demonstrate His approval of what Jesus did, God raised Him from the dead.

God offers that gift to those who (a) recognize God the Son and (b) in desperate need and humility, receive the gift as what it is, a free gift.

Many cling to the impossible way by mixing it with God's provision. They mix faith and works, and corrupt grace (which means "gift") by turning it at least partly into wages. They seek credit for themselves instead of glorifying the Giver alone.

The mixture takes two forms. The first form says you have to do ceremonies, or good works, or clean up your life; and then you receive some or all of the gift. The second form says God gives you the gift, but then you have to earn the right to keep the gift through works or perseverance. Both of these insult God's generosity.

The second (you have to work to retain the gift) also recognizes only half the relationship. Salvation becomes yours, but also you become God's. You become God's child and Jesus' "sheep." (People often lie about the following part because they don't understand it.)

You can't do whatever you want for three reasons (at least!).

• When you became a Christian, you hated your sins because they were evil and they condemned you. Since you hated your sins, and as a new Christian, God begins changing you to free you from those sins, you will try not to repeat those sins.
• God will chastise you, even to the point of killing your body if that's what it takes to keep your soul safe.
• The "whatever you want" will change because God works within you, making you want to do what pleases Him.
• If you do "whatever you want" and get away with it, your conversion was not genuine. Beware false conversions due to.
• Pride in self merit
• Knowledge without heart conviction
• Being carried along by emotion with only partial understanding or with misunderstanding
• Knowledge and emotion, but without prioritizing conversion over everything else

In the gospels, Jesus says, "Be perfect."

The sinner says, "I cannot. I have sinned."

Jesus says, "Be perfect, or be condemned."

The sinner says, "Woe to me, for I am a sinner, condemned!"

Jesus says, "Now you are ready to receive the gift."

The self-righteous man says, "Let me do ceremonies, chant repetitious prayers, and do good works for the gift."

Jesus says, "Go away and do not insult me by trying to earn my gift."

The misled man says, "I receive the gift" but thinks "and I will do good works and persevere so that I don't lose it."

Jesus says, "Come back when you are ready to stop insulting my faithfulness."

The humble man says, "I deserve condemnation. I can do nothing to earn or to keep the gift. I surrender. I trust You to have mercy upon my sins and grace upon my need."

Jesus says, "I give you the gift. Now you are mine and I am yours, and I keep my promises. Welcome to my kingdom, little brother! Now, let's get to work!"

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler -- Permission granted for personal or non-profit, non-published use. Please give credit where credit is due.

The Perfect Peace Promised in Isaiah 26:3

What is the background to, and meaning of, Isaiah 26:3?

I first published this commentary on Quara on 28 Janury 2019.

For my answer, I quote extensively from my answer to a similar Quora question about Isaiah 12:4. 

Quotes below are from the New American Standard translation.

Short Answer

3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
 Because he trusts in You.”

The verse promises complete security to people of a future age who will have placed their trust entirely in God and His works. Although the verse does not apply to this age, the principle behind it is universal. In this age, those who place their trust entirely in God and His works are promised emotional peace, but not the physical victories indicated by the context of Isaiah 26:3. To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Background

During Isaiah’s time, Israel had been split in two. The northern segment, “Israel,” had been conquered, and its survivors had been carried off to other lands. The southern segment, “Judah,” remained but was overtaken with other religions and corruption. Followers of God not only received mistreatment from their own neighbors, but also saw the same thing that had happened to Israel threatening to happen to Judah.

Those who listened to the prophets knew that God’s punishment was coming if the kingdom did not return to God. At this time, prophets such as Isaiah not only foretold about the punishment, but also foretold that God would later restore their people to Judea. Such promises were accompanied by other details. Such details described a savior who would save not only their people, but all who would turn to Him.

So the prophesies not only warned of judgment, but also promised hope.

Since these prophesied events were future, they were like mountain tops lined up in the distance. The hearers could not tell them apart. That is one reason the Jews rejected Christ. They wanted the Second Coming to establish their national independence and dominance. They did not accept that the spiritual redemption and the political redemption could be two different events.

From our position between peaks, it’s easy to see the difference. One mountain top was the restoration of Israel as a nation that was a territory of Greece and then of Rome. The second mountain top was the incarnation of God the Son. The third was a Second Coming. During the incarnation, Messiah would provide redemption through faith in His suffering; whereas during the second coming, He would assert His authority, judge the wicked, and establish peace on earth.

Meaning

To appreciate Isaiah 26:3, we first have ask about which age the verse directly applies to. Let’s start by connecting it to the preceding verses.

1 In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah:
“We have a strong city;
He [God] sets up walls and ramparts for security.
2“Open the gates, that the righteous nation may enter,
The one that remains faithful.
3“The steadfast of mind You [God] will keep in perfect peace,
Because he trusts in You.”

The “that day” in verse 1 refers to the age resulting from second coming of Christ. We could re-read chapters 10 through 25 to point out the evidence, but I’ll go back just to verse 8 of chapter 25 to illustrate one of the characteristics of “that day.”

8 He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces….

Compare verse 8 to 1 Corinthians 15:54

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

Revelation 21:3-4
And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

1 Corinthians 15:54 refers to the beginning of the age marked by Christ’s return, and Revelation 21 refers to the end of that age, which culminates in the reward of the justified, the judgment of the unconverted, and the commencement of a re-created heaven and earth. The direct interpretation of Isaiah 26:3, then, must recognize that it applies to age which is, to us, in the future. 

That does not mean that the principle stated in the verse cannot apply in our age. The promise of both emotional and physical perfect peace applies to that future age, but the promise of emotional perfect peace applies to all times. Verse 4 continues,

4“Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.

Compare Psalm 62, written centuries before Isaiah’s day

6 He [God] only is my rock and my salvation,
My stronghold; I shall not be shaken.7 On God my salvation and my glory rest;
The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God.8 Trust in Him at all times, O people;
Pour out your heart before Him;
God is a refuge for us. 

and in Isaiah chapter 12, concerning the age following the incarnation

2“Behold, God is my salvation,
I will trust and not be afraid;
For the LORD GOD
is my strength and song,
And He has become my salvation.”

Trust in God and having emotional peace — the opposite of fear — is a universal promise throughout the scriptures. For example, in Ephesians 2:11–22, Paul writes of a peace between Jews and non-Jews, and between man and God, that Christ established. He established this peace by providing redemption from the condemnation that the Old Testament commandments make us aware of and joining Jews and non-Jews into a single body, the church. 

Conclusion

Do not believe the lie of many highly visible, false, evangelical leaders who teach that the promise is for peaceful circumstances today. Jesus said in John 16:33, These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world. In the close to his letter, 2 Thessalonians, Paul writes

16 Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all!

For this age, the perfect peace means emotional peace in every circumstance. The promise is conditional, it is for The steadfast of mind who trusts in You [God].  To teach the promise of peace to people of our times, careful teachers will use other verses.

Person vs. Being vs. Human Being

Person vs. Being vs. Human Being vs. God

What is the difference between a person, a human being and a being?

 Being

A being is a conscious entity that has self awareness. A tree does not have consciousness, so it cannot be a being. A fly has consciousness, but it lacks self awareness, so it is not a being. Some higher animals such as apes appear to have self awareness, so they may or may not be beings. Humans and God are beings. Imaginary aliens that drive interplanetary flying ships would be beings, provided they are not programmed drones.

Human Being

A human being is any individual that belongs to the homo sapiens species. A human being that loses consciousness or has not yet achieved consciousness does not cease to be a being because the organ, the brain, that performs the function of consciousness can heal or develop so that consciousness can be achieved or restored. Otherwise, we would cease to be beings every time we fall asleep!

Person

Person has more meanings.

• It can refer to the whole of the being. A human person has a body, mind, and if you accept it, a spirit.
• It can refer to the body. If I say "he assaulted my person," I mean that he attacked my body.
• It can emphasize the individuality of one being among many. "He didn't just attack the group, he singled out one person."
• It can refer to a collective entity such as a business, union, or political party. This one drives "liberals" nuts. Organizations must have legal rights and obligations, or else they could not sign contracts, own property, or be held accountable for their actions.
• In Trinitarian teaching, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. They have identical natures (characteristics) and one shared substance (the spirit-stuff that God consists of). Within that substance, three conscious personalities have unique roles, perspectives, and memories.

God and Person -- but avoid Being

God is a being because He has consciousness and self awareness.As Creator of the universe, God exists in more dimensions than we do. There is an eternal dimension like time, but it existed before God created time. There are other spiritual dimensions like space that spirit exists in. Some existed before God created time and space, and some, God created along with time and space. We cannot observe the spiritual dimensions, so we cannot fully imagine who and what God is. However, God has revealed that He exists as three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Those three persons share the same nature (spirit) and the same substance (God), yet each has a separate, unique consciousness.

We try to think of God in terms of what we experience, but God transcends even our wildest imagining. Because we impose our perception of being, it is best to avoid using the term to describe God. It is best to stick with the terms God and Person.

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Raymond, a Oneness Pentecostal, challenges the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are One in nature and One in substance, how can we tell them apart? If there's no difference, the Trinity must be pointless and a Unitarian God makes more sense.

Oneness refers to the Unitarian belief that God exists as only one Person. Some Unitarians believe that God is a quick-change artist who switches costumes to appear as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe the Father is God, the Son was just a man, and the Spirit is an impersonal force.

Raymond says no Trinitarian has ever answered his question, How can we distinguish between the Persons or personalities of the Persons of the Trinity? With that claim he implies that the Trinity does not make sense.

Differences in Person

The question has two answers because it has two parts. By Person, we mean all that makes up the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. There is no reason to expect any difference in nature (the characteristics) or substance (whatever spiritual stuff they are made of. If there are differences, no mortal mind could grasp them.

We except from that statement the body of Christ Jesus. God translated the body of Jesus from physical form into spiritual form when Jesus ascended to Heaven. So the Son may have that additional "substance."

I'm sorry, but I have to hedge even on the exception. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:11). Also, after His baptism by John, Jesus "returned from the Jordan [river], full of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 4:1). Therefore, the Father and the Spirit may share the the body of Jesus in Heaven. That brings us back to the Three having identical substance, even during and after the Son inhabited a physical body!

More than one in one

How does one program in a computer differ from another? They share the same hardware. They share access to all the power, interfaces, and data within the computer. Since a computer's existence is limited to the physical universe, the programs have to take turns checking the keyboard buffer, executing instructions in the CPU, storing data to or retrieving data from RAM, displaying information on the monitor, and so forth.

They differ not in substance, but in information. Each contains instructions and data that correspond to their roles. You cannot look at a computer and see the programs. Even if you examined the magnetic states on the hard drive, the logic states in the CPU, or the electrostatic states in the RAM, you would need yet more information to know where to look and to decode it. 

One, but more than One

Since God is spirit in nature, omnipresent, and eternal, it would be unrealistic to think we could "look" with our mind's eye at God or at the three Persons of God, let alone have the ability to recognize differences in what we see. It's not like the Father would have flowing white hair and a bald spot, the Son would wear gold chains and would have his pants hanging down below His butt, or the Holy Spirit would wear a butler's uniform.

The difference until the incarnation would appear to have been strictly informational. The three Persons have self awareness and, although we could not tell them apart, they know each other. Even if there were no differences in nature between the three in their transcendent reality, each would still be able to distinguish the other two because, to the extent that they exercise such knowledge, they know each others' minds (for example, Romans 8:27, "He [the Father] who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit"). 

As a result of accepting different roles and executing the functions of those roles, the three Persons accumulate differentiation in "their" memories. Yet even in that I must again hedge because, since the Trinity shares a common substance, the three Persons can share in each other's experiences.

Differences in Personalities

I would define personality as the aggregate of inward and outward attributes. Inward attributes would stem from one's nature. Having the same nature and shared substance, the three Persons of the Trinity would have identical inward attributes.

Outward attributes would result from the combination of the inward attributes and the Person's role. Whereas inward attributes express the nature, outward attributes put the role into action consistent with the inward attributes.

Listing the personality differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rockets past my pay grade (if I had one). Having just enough knowledge to be a danger to myself, though, I'll attempt to name at least one unique outward attribute for each Person.

Personality of God the Father

• Christ said that not even He knew the day or hour of the end of the age; only the Father knew, so the Father is the Planner.
• The Father deploys the Son and the Spirit to execute His plan, so the Father is the Coordinator.
• The Father receives Change Requests from the Son and Spirit and issues Change Orders, so He presides over the Change Control Board.

These tell me that the Father is the Manager among the Three. Although the Father delegates certain judgments, He takes responsibility for the divine plan and its execution. Would He be better than the other two at those roles? No, His leadership does not indicate a difference in nature; but we perceive a recognizable outward attribute that ensues from a difference in role.

Personality of God the Son

• Since the Father fulfills a role of Leader, the Son and the Spirit fulfill roles as Followers. 
• Following requires obedience. While the Spirit obeys, the Spirit does not need to obey sacrificially. For a time, the Son forsook the glory of Deity and the comfort of Heaven. He took on the weakness and vulnerability of a child and a man, took upon Himself the weight of the guilt of the world, and suffered torture and physical death. He "learned obedience," not just as a matter of being obedient by nature, as all three Persons are, but by experience.
• As a follower of the Father, the Son demonstrates humility by representing and obeying the Father.
• As one who experienced the discomforts, risks, temptations, and agonies of earthly life and death, the Son understands our experience, so He has empathy.

This tells me that, although the nature of any of the three persons would have led to identical behavior, the Son acts with humility and grace in ways that the other two members do not have opportunity to express. Moreover, all three Persons can sympathize, but only the Son can empathize with us because He shared the human experience. As we consider the Son's sacrifice and see His humanity and brotherhood, which presents God as accessible, relateable, and an object of affection.

Personality of God the Holy Spirit

• The Spirit enlightens man that he might see and births believers into life.
• What the Son demonstrated, the Spirit enables. The Spirit imbues and empowers spiritual gifts in accordance with the Father's plan.
• The Spirit glorifies not Himself, but the Son and the Father by teaching, through the Sword of the Spirit, the written Word of God, all spiritual knowledge that we need.

This tells me that the Spirit enacts the quiet humility of a servant, teaching and equipping the saints for their own role in the spiritual economy that they might enjoy the benefits of God's love and glorify their Father and Brother.

The difference is also intuitive

It should be obvious to anyone that, although the Trinity is one in substance and its members are equal in nature, if we relate to the Father as our Father, to the Son as our Big Brother, and to the Holy Spirit as our Teacher, Quartermaster, and King's Messenger, we innately recognize differences of personality, even if we fail to consciously recognize them.