The Judge Who Was a Father - Reconciling the Love and Justice of God

Many people have trouble understanding how God can be so loving and yet so seemingly harsh. Christians too sometimes have these questions and certain passages of the Bible can seem confusing, even contradictory when speaking about the character of God.

In regards to this, I was always taught a certain Biblical principle that shed much light on the topic for me and really clarified things. It is the principle of the Judge and the Father, and the difference between the two.

It is clear from Scripture that mankind, although created innocent, soon chose to rebel against their Creator. They chose the “knowledge of good and evil” over their innocence and their trust and obedience to God. The problem with the knowledge of good and evil is that they did not find in themselves the capacity to do only good or the ability to always resist evil.

So their relationship with their Creator was severed ,  this nature of sin was born in them and they passed down this nature throughout their descendants like spiritual DNA.  To this day, the Bible teaches, each human is born with a sin nature and also (as is quite observable) chooses to sin, to rebel and to do evil (however small it may seem to us)  and we are incapable of restoring that former relationship with God on our own. 

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23

So God made a way to restore it Himself. And just like when man chose to rebel, we must now choose to believe and accept this gift of restoration.

Behold the perfect justice and perfect love of God.

How then does God reconcile His perfect justice and His perfect love? By offering Himself as a sacrifice to bear the punishment, a ransom to pay the debt.  This is what we know as the Gospel – Jesus’ birth, His life, His redeeming death and resurrection.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”  John 3:16-17

Now perhaps we see more clearly the principle of the Judge and the Father. If we have not accepted (or even believed in the need of ) His offer of redemption and restoration then our relationship with Him is still severed, and though we are still made in His image, we are stained and tainted with sin. And , true to His perfect justice, He must judge that sin.

However, if we do believe and accept His offer, this “pardon”, then we are redeemed and justified. Innocent again – though not in deed (the redeemed, of course,  still have the capability of sinning), but in the eyes of God and by His blood-bought forgiveness. The Bible refers to this as being “born again” (John 3:7) into the family of God. The relationship has been restored, He is once again our Father.

“But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13

Prodigal, a wooden vase created by artist Charles Smalligan 

Again, how can God be both just and loving?  A judge and a father ? The same way any human can hold the office of a judge in the courtroom and also be a parent to their own children at home.

In the courtroom the human judge hands out punishment – for the worst sins it may be  life in prison or even the death penalty.

But when that same person goes home to find out that their child has misbehaved he doesn't throw them in prison. He will, however,  discipline the child. He does so in love and for the betterment of the youth and the youth in turn will flourish under proper discipline ( although they may not like it at the time).

In the courtroom there is no personal relationship between the judge and the criminal but in the home the same judge’s relationship with the “criminal” is no less than father and child. And, although this family relationship can be soured, it can never be changed or taken away. The child is his flesh and blood and its that simple.

In the courtroom scenario there is a once and for all “pardon” given by God (the Judge) to the guilty who will receive it. In the home scenario there is ongoing discipline and forgiveness from God ( the Parent ) and  confession of “relapses” (“I’m sorry daddy”)  and growing by the child.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” 1 John 1:9-10

So Christians, when you come upon a difficult verse, remember to look at the context and see if it is speaking of God as a Judge or as a Father.

And to all  -remember the principle of the Judge and the Father and the choice you have to make.

We all need a father.

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Abraham, Genesis 18:25b

"As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love.” Jesus,  John 15:9

"And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.” Parable of the Prodigal Son,  Luke 15:20

A Reminder of Mormon Teaching

A "political saviour" is nothing compared to the Saviour of our hearts and souls....

I do not wish to attack any individual Mormons 

or to stir up any political "pots".  

However, in light of a disturbing trend among some Christian organizations (in the U.S.A. particularly), I am posting this blog, not to attack individual Mormons, but to remind us what the Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints) actually teaches and how that differs radically from the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also noted that the Mormon Church does not have much to rely on in way of outside evidence or archaeology.

The following portion has been taken from gotquestions.org

What is Mormonism? What do Mormons believe?

The Mormon Church (also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the LDS Church) was founded less than 200 years ago by Joseph Smith. It began with an alleged vision he claimed to receive telling him all churches and creeds were an abomination and that he was to begin a new church. Through this and other “visions,” Smith’s theology developed into a movement that spread from the northeastern United States to Illinois and eventually to Salt Lake City, Utah, home of the current headquarters of the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church has quickly grown in size and influence. It now reaches more than 200 nations and territories with millions of followers worldwide. Millions of copies of its key book, The Book of Mormon, are distributed each year in multiple languages. Mormons are found in all levels of society and are becoming more prominent in politics. In 2012, the Senate majority leader in the U.S. was a Mormon, as were two Presidential candidates.

While Mormonism shares some beliefs with traditional Christianity, its main teachings depart from biblical truth. For example: 

> Mormonism rejects the idea of a Triune God. Why? Because LDS theology says Jesus was a created being, the result of a “heavenly father” and a “heavenly mother.” 

> In addition, Mormon doctrine says that God has a physical body and was a man like anyone else at one time. 

> Further, the Mormon Church teaches eternal progression, through which a man can himself become a god, be “sealed” to a wife (or wives) in a “celestial marriage,” and produce spirit children to populate another planet. 

> Mormonism is fundamentally a system of multiple gods, not a single, Triune God as held in biblical Christianity.

> Salvation is also much different in Mormon teachings. The Bible presents salvation as a free gift of God obtained by grace through faith. Human works do not contribute to our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). Mormon salvation includes both faith and a series of works. Eternal security (the belief that a person cannot lose his or her salvation) is rejected, since Mormon salvation is based in large part on acts of obedience after an initial faith experience.

> Mormons also view Scripture differently. Mormons accept the Bible as inspired (particularly the King James Version), yet they also claim that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God, along with other writings from early Mormonism such as The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants. These books redefine or contradict key biblical doctrines yet are considered authoritative by Mormons.

> Finally, Mormonism teaches a view of heaven that differs from what the Bible presents. According to LDS theology, three eternal options exist: the celestial, telestial, and terrestrial kingdoms. Two are based on good works, with the top level (the celestial kingdom) reserved for the most faithful Mormons.

Despite the Mormon Church’s rapid growth and influential members, its beliefs are incompatible with historic biblical teaching. As we have seen, Mormonism’s core beliefs are far afield of the orthodox Christian faith. The Mormon error affects their view of God, Jesus, salvation, Scripture, and the afterlife.

> No archaeological evidence has ever been found in America to substantiate Mormon teachings of ancient civilizations being present  robin Schumacher

> Critics say the LDS Church is academically dishonest, because it supports biased research conducted by the church-owned Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). FARMS is a research institute within church-owned Brigham Young University that publishes Mormon scholarship. Critic Matthew Paulsen faults FARMS for limiting peer review to members of the LDS Church. He states that FARMS's primary goal is to defend the LDS faith rather than to promote truthful scholarship.^[97] Molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former LDS bishop and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church said, "I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking.... The explanations of the FARMS researchers stretched the bounds of credibility to breaking point on almost every critical issue".^[98]

^Wikipedia

Imagine: John Lennon, Cee Lo Green & Jesus Christ

John Lennon: "No religion" (Imagine)

Cee Lo Green: "All Religion" (Imagine)

Jesus Christ: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. " (John 17:3)

Is there Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

When I was younger I used to think that as a Christian , I pretty much had to take the resurrection story of Jesus Christ on blind faith... and I guess didn't have a problem with that with all the other evidence I had both intellectual and experiential. 

However as I grew older I realized that this was a big deal and it needed some proper explanation and investigation. I was amazed at what I found. The article below summarizes quite well what I have been learning over the last few years.

God indeed requires faith - but never blind unreasonable irrational faith. 

Let's face it,  we believe in a lot of things with big implications that actually have a lot less evidence than this...

For me,  the rationality and reasonableness of Christianity ( on the Intellectual side) combined with my own personal experiences and those of millions of others makes it a beautifully true thing.

Here is the article:

Question: "Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection?"

Answer: It is a fairly well-established fact that Jesus Christ was publicly executed in Judea in the 1st Century A.D., under Pontius Pilate, by means of crucifixion, at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ.

As for His resurrection, there are several lines of evidence which make for a compelling case. 

The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, 

“I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

The secular community’s response to the same evidence has been predictably apathetic in accordance with their steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. For those unfamiliar with the term, methodological naturalism is the human endeavor of explaining everything in terms of natural causes and natural causes only. If an alleged historical event defies natural explanation (e.g., a miraculous resurrection), secular scholars generally treat it with overwhelming skepticism, regardless of the evidence, no matter how favorable and compelling it may be.

In our view, such an unwavering allegiance to natural causes regardless of substantive evidence to the contrary is not conducive to an impartial (and therefore adequate) investigation of the evidence. We agree with Dr. Wernher von Braun and numerous others who still believe that forcing a popular philosophical predisposition upon the evidence hinders objectivity. Or in the words of Dr. von Braun, “To be forced to believe only one conclusion… would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”

Having said that, let us now examine the several lines of evidence which favor of the resurrection.

The First Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony. This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part. According to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1-17; Pliny’s Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most Christians could end their suffering simply by renouncing the faith. Instead, it seems that most opted to endure the suffering and proclaim Christ’s resurrection unto death.

Granted, while martyrdom is remarkable, it is not necessarily compelling. It does not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer (by demonstrating his or her sincerity in a tangible way). What makes the earliest Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were professing was true. They either saw Jesus Christ alive-and-well after His death or they did not. This is extraordinary. If it was all just a lie, why would so many perpetuate it given their circumstances? Why would they all knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death?

While the September 11, 2001, suicide hijackers undoubtedly believed what they professed (as evidenced by their willingness to die for it), they could not and did not know if it was true. They put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. In contrast, the early Christian martyrs were the first generation. Either they saw what they claimed to see, or they did not.

Among the most illustrious of the professed eyewitnesses were the Apostles. They collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives.

The Second Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

A second line of evidence concerns the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was of his own admission a violent persecutor of the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul underwent an immediate and drastic change from a vicious persecutor of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Like many early Christians, Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and execution for his steadfast commitment to Christ’s resurrection.

James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection encounter with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer, a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingly suffered and died for his testimony, a fact which attests to the sincerity of his belief (see The Book of Acts and Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews XX, ix, 1).

The Third and Fourth Lines of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

A third line and fourth line of evidence concern enemy attestation to the empty tomb and the fact that faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for faith in His resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and thereby expose the hoax. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance (and therefore an empty tomb). 

How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Here are the three most common explanations:

First, the disciples stole the body. If this were the case, they would have known the resurrection was a hoax. They would not therefore have been so willing to suffer and die for it. (See the first line of evidence concerning demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony.) All of the professed eyewitnesses would have known that they hadn’t really seen Christ and were therefore lying. With so many conspirators, surely someone would have confessed, if not to end his own suffering then at least to end the suffering of his friends and family. The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalized, especially following the conflagration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but which he blamed on the Christians in Rome in an effort to exculpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” (Annals, XV, 44)

Nero illuminated his garden parties with Christians whom he burnt alive. Surely someone would have confessed the truth under the threat of such terrible pain. The fact is, however, we have no record of any early Christian denouncing the faith to end his suffering. Instead, we have multiple accounts of post-resurrection appearances and hundreds of eyewitnesses willing to suffer and die for it.

If the disciples didn’t steal the body, how else do we explain the empty tomb? Some have suggested that Christ faked His death and later escaped from the tomb. This is patently absurd. According to the eyewitness testimony, Christ was beaten, tortured, lacerated, and stabbed. He suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus Christ (or any other man for that matter) could survive such an ordeal, fake His death, sit in a tomb for three days and nights without medical attention, food or water, remove the massive stone which sealed His tomb, escape undetected (without leaving behind a trail of blood), convince hundreds of eyewitnesses that He was resurrected from the death and in good health, and then disappear without a trace. Such a notion is ridiculous.

The Fifth Line of Evidence for Christ's resurrection

Finally, a fifth line of evidence concerns a peculiarity of the eyewitness testimony. In all of the major resurrection narratives, women are credited as the first and primary eyewitnesses. This would be an odd invention since in both the ancient Jewish and Roman cultures women were severely disesteemed. Their testimony was regarded as insubstantial and dismissible. Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that any perpetrators of a hoax in 1st Century Judea would elect women to be their primary witnesses. Of all the male disciples who claimed to see Jesus resurrected, if they all were lying and the resurrection was a scam, why did they pick the most ill-perceived, distrusted witnesses they could find?

Dr. William Lane Craig explains, “When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

In Summary

These lines of evidence: the demonstrable sincerity of the eyewitnesses (and in the Apostles’ case, compelling, inexplicable change), the conversion and demonstrable sincerity of key antagonists- and skeptics-turned-martyrs, the fact of the empty tomb, enemy attestation to the empty tomb, the fact that all of this took place in Jerusalem where faith in the resurrection began and thrived, the testimony of the women, the significance of such testimony given the historical context; all of these strongly attest to the historicity of the resurrection. We encourage our readers to thoughtfully consider these evidences. What do they suggest to you? Having pondered them ourselves, we resolutely affirm Sir Lionel’s declaration:

“The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

Recommended Resource: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas.

Apologetics Is Not Apologizing - Re-Post from Justin Holcomb

"Apologetics is something that you engage in every time you share your beliefs and convictions with your fellow Christians, with your children, and with non-believers. It is not an irrelevant or formal discipline reserved for intellectuals. Apologetics is a tool for mission."

 Re-posting from Justin Holcomb and The Resurgence:

 

Apologetics on Mission

Justin Holcomb » Mission Worldviews Evangelism Apologetics

What Is Apologetics?

The word “apologetics” is from the Greek word apologia, which means “the act of making a defense.” This word is used several times in the New Testament, but its usage in two passages is particularly relevant. In Philippians 1:7 &16, apologia refers to a defense of the gospel, and in 1 Peter 3:15 it refers to a defense of the Christian hope.
Apologetics is “an activity of the Christian mind which attempts to show that the gospel message is true in what it affirms. An apologist is one who is prepared to defend the message against criticism and distortion, and to give evidences of its credibility.

Defensive Apologetics

One form of apologetics is to defend the gospel from challenges. Defensive apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith by showing that the objections to the true claims of Christianity cannot and do not stand. Defensive apologetics addresses objections to the concept of God’s Triunity, to the problem of evil, to the Resurrection, to biblical criticism, and so forth.
For example, negative apologetics is used to rebut the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity “is an Error in counting or numbering; which, when stood in, is of all others the most brutal and inexcusable.” Negative apologetics will show that the doctrine of the Trinity is at least possibly true.
Another example is to defend against the charge that the bible contains errors, contradictions, or inconsistencies. To give answers to the challenges that Jesus rose from the dead is also defensive apologetics.

Positive Apologetics

Another form of apologetics is to offer reasons to believe the gospel. Positive apologetics is the use of Christian evidences to demonstrate the viability of the Christian faith. Apologetics intends to “show”, in a positive manner, that the claims of the Christian faith are indeed intellectually defensible and rationally justifiable.
This is the method of making a positive case for the validity and truth of the claims made in Christian Scripture such as the resurrection of Christ, the existence of God, and the historical reliability of the Bible.

Critiquing Unbelief

Another use of apologetics is critiquing unbelief, which combines both the positive and negative forms. Some streams of apologetics seek to show that unbelief is irrational and that holding to views such as relativism will lead one to undesirable and irrational conclusions.
For example, holding to relativism entails that no universal ethical norm can be present since there is no objective truth to ground morality. This type of apologetics moves from the critique to a positive construction that shows how the Christian faith provides an alternative and logical worldview that best makes sense of the reality in which we live.

“ Apologetics is something that you engage in every time you share your beliefs and convictions with your fellow Christians, with your children, and with non-believers.
”

Explaining how karma is a cruel and devastating belief is another form of critiquing unbelief. Karma claims that if someone is suffering or in pain, they deserve it and to help them is to go against the cosmic law (dharma) at play.
Another example is that atheism leads to moral chaos. On what basis can an atheist say anything (genocide, sexual assault, child abuse, etc) is bad or wrong? If ethics is based on opinion or consensus, then morality is determined by whoever has the most power. If nature is “red in tooth and claw” and survival of the fittest is true and good, then domination of one animal over another in any form can’t be called bad or wrong in a naturalistic worldview but rather celebrated as the outworking of the principles of the atheist worldview.

Apologetics on Mission

Apologetics is something that you engage in every time you share your beliefs and convictions with your fellow Christians, with your children, and with non-believers. It is not an irrelevant or formal discipline reserved for intellectuals. Apologetics is a tool for mission.
For more, check out this video about Apologetics of the Mission.

  From Joe - On the topic of "faith and intellect" you may want to read this post about a defining principle from Dr. William Lane Craig:   The Thinking and Faithful Christian