In our study/discussion period before church yesterday, a participant (I never could tell what his major point was; why he even brought this up…) told of a lady he knew whose boys were proving to be rather troubled and difficult. And in her exasperation she stated that if she had to chose between living in heaven with God but without her two boys, or elsewhere with her boys but without God, she would surely chose the later.
And this participant was scandalized! He felt this represented a tragic lack of faith on the part of that woman and he asserted that she was confused and knew not what she said. And the rest of the class seemed to agree with him…
Well! I took it upon myself to defend that lady. I said that much as that mom loves her two boys, the bible seems to suggest that God’s love for them is even more deep and vast. Further, I wondered aloud if this was simply a false choice being presented; either God or the sons. Then I found myself making an assertion which I’m not sure I’ve ever made before and am wondering what you all think of this statement/idea —
So what do you think of this notion? If God has a means of “getting over” the loss of some parts of His creation that suggests to me that God only does this by no longer loving that person. Yet that makes no sense at all. If God continues to love that eternally lost (or burning) person, is it even conceivable that he somehow hides this love and loss within Himself?? No, I’m not suggesting that God somehow needs us to be complete and whole; what I am saying is that the very idea of biblical “justice” involves the great acts of God in restoring all back to the original created order. That what God’s righteousness is. So there simply is no need for God to deal with the eternal loss of those He created and loves because they will not be eternally lost…
Am I correct to see no indication that God has devised a way to deal with His grief for the “Lost” and that this can safely and rightly suggest this is because all are eventually saved?
TotalVictory
Bobx3