James Henley one of the students on CYM had a great reflection as we sat around the dinner table so I asked if he would put it together as a guest post. James blogs here Monster-in-Law move if you want to check it out.
I had some interesting thoughts (mainly questions) during a conversation over lunch at CYM about heaven and hell, and in particular to do with universalism. Although I’m not completely sold on the concept of universalism, I also equally think that our conventional reasoning around heaven and hell needs to be thought out more thoroughly. So here are some of my thoughts…
The conventional Christian understanding of the end times is that God is so perfect that he can’t have sin – evil, bad stuff, imperfection – in his presence. So by accepting him and the cross we are purified of this sin and so as perfect, complete people, we can enter his presence.
But if the major theme across the whole gospel is self-sacrifice – the sacrifice of God sending His son to be confined to a human body, and then the self-sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross for us – then why would the same God not make the sacrifice of allowing sin into His presence? Surely, that wouldn’t be one sacrifice too far? If we believe in an omnipresent God whose presence is all around us in the world – then surely He is already in the presence of sin in the interactions he has with us. Even if God isn’t “walking amongst us†as he did in the garden, in order to be with us – in everything – he also must have to be in the presence of all the bad stuff in the world?
James
Now I really wish I had thought of that and put it on my blog!
Sin is fundamentally ‘separation from God’. If you aren’t separate then you aren’t in sin. Thanks to Christ’s sacrifice we can choose to be either separate or apart. God isn’t going to force us one way or the other.
Is sin really in itself seperation from God though, or is “sin” used as a category for actions taken which seperate us from God – in which case surely we are limiting the power of our God by saying that there are barriers we can create which He can’t cross?
Unless, he can cross them but chooses not to – in which case we land back at my original argument unfortunately…
Hi James, That is a good point. We tend to use the word sin to mean two things. The commonest meaning is “sinful acts” (which is what you mention). The other meaning is the “sinful state”.
Actually it is our state that causes our acts – we act on what is inside us, on our motives. So it isn’t the actions that causes the separation, rather it is the separation that causes us to not know God’s will and therefore commit sinful acts. So it is the motive (the ‘heart’) that is important.
The only limits to God are put on him by the fact that he is love – so he cannot do evil things, even though theoretically he could do if he chose to – there is just no way that he would chose to. Looking at the way Jesus turned power upside down I can only believe that God doesn’t force us to do his will. So he won’t force us to be with him – he allows us to reject him and allows us to choose him. He basically gives us freedom of choice.
So regarding your original argument: remember, the choice is that we don’t want to be around God. Can God “forgive” us for not wanting to be around him – well it doesn’t make much sense to use the term “forgive”. Does Jesus’s sacrifice that can forgive all sins “forgive” us for choosing to be separate from God? Well, it doesn’t really make much sense unless we say that Jesus’s sacrifice forced us to choose to be with God.
I can’t see God forcing anyone to do anything! 🙂