This is a conversation from I had with an old friend from high school on FB.

Brian Walker:

Please don’t take offense, but this article is crap. Sin is not a “thing”, it is the absence of God. The only way that God could of prevented this, is by taking away our freewill, which during Creation was his act of love, revealed throughout Genesis. I could go on and on, to prove this point, but it would get kinda lengthy. You can probably connect the dots from here…

Bryon Harvey:

Brian -
I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part.

First, I agree that making humans free moral agents and therefore having the ability to freely choose was God’s gracious gift. I also agree that God could have prevented sin entering the world by not creating us a free moral agents. God, therefore, could have prevented sin but that was not the most loving gracious choice he could have made. I discussed this further in my post “Is God Responsible for Sin?”

Yet, I disagree with your statements regarding the nature of sin. You made two statements. I’ll address them in reverse order.

Sin is not the absence of God. This would deny God’s omnipresence. There is nothing that exists that exists outside of God. This is attested throughout Scripture (I can post references if you like). You could adapt your statement perhaps to say that sin is the absense of God’s influence, but that messes with God’s sovereignty. Either say sin is something other than the absence of God which is a logical impossibility, if you presume the existence of the Christian God.

Now let’s try to define sin. Sin has two elements. There are the sins that we commit. And there is the influence of sin in our lives. Paul makes references to sin living in him and the sinful nature or the flesh. When reading these passage it is clear that there is something that leads individuals to sin which is outside themselves. This historical Christianity has called sin.

Brian Walker:

Thanks for the response. I’ll write more later at home. but I have a question for you. “Did God create Hell?” and/or when Christ “descended into the dead”, where did he go?

Bryon Harvey:

Yes, God did create hell. Revelation says it it is the place prepared for the devil and his angels. The phrase descended into the dead is found in the Apostles Creed not in the Bible. I, therefore, don’t build doctrine off of it. It could mean that Jesus descended into hell. Another option is that it means that Jesus died completely to counteract the heresy that he merely fell asleep. I’ve not studied the creed well enough to have a strong opinion on it.

First, at some point we’re going to have to admit that we’re not going to agree on everything because of the presuppositions we have based on our church backgrounds. Yet, we can still love and respect each other in Christ, in spite of that.

With that said your comparison of hell as a real location to the logical inconsistency of God creating a rock he can’t lift is non sequitur and a logical fallacy. You argue that God creating hell is inconsistent with his goodness. I argue that the creation of hell is completely consistent with his goodness. Hell is no more inherently evil than a prison. It would be inconsistent with God’s goodness if he did not punish sin. Hence, he had to create a way for sin to be punished. Revelation 20 describes it as a lake of fire. Moreover, as believers we have a foretaste of the infinite goodness of heaven when we receive salvation. We live now partially experiencing the Kingdom of God and anticipate the full experience when Jesus returns. Without Christ, people experience a foretaste of hell. That’s a book that I plan on writing later though.

In summary, I agree with you that without Christ people do experience hell on earth but that does not necessitate that hell not be a real place. Nor is hell in consistent with God’s goodness because it is consistent with God’s goodness that he punish sin.

With regard to God’s ability to revoke free will. We know that he could. We know that if he had not granted us free choice then sin would not be in the world. We do not know what that world would be like. As I said in another comment I believe that God allowed sin because the redeemed relationship with God is ontologically better than the pre-fall relationship. This is speculative. God has chosen not to reveal this to us. It is not something that is essential to Christian faith.

With regard to the Creed. You are certainly more familiar with it than I. My academic focus is New Testament studies. Based on what you’ve just shared it confirms, however, what I said earlier it is an expression that Jesus was truly dead for three days and is not a reference to hell in any respect. Which is what the Scripture references say as well.

As to the nature of the Creed, it is an expression of the doctrine of the early church. While the Bible is the source of the doctrine that the Creed communicates. This is an area that you and I are not going to agree on because of our presuppositions. I am convinced that the only source of direct revelation from God is the Bible. Creeds and other documents of the church are all reflections on God’s revelation that help us to understand it. The only source of doctrine, however for me, is Holy Scripture.

I could expand on each of these points if you like but this comment has already gotten much longer than I’d like.

Thank you for the conversation. I appreciate open debate. Ultimately we’re not likely to convince each other but this sort of debate helps us to clarify our thoughts. One of us is certainly wrong and the other right. One day we will know the Truth clearly. Until then we should continue to disagree agreeably and demonstrate how Christians from different traditions can disagree yet still love each other.