What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

How do Women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?

How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?

What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? What's the deal with Predestination?

I continue my dissection of Richard Bewes' book: The Top 100 questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions," by trying to respond to the following questions: What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

37. What about those who have never heard? What is the fate of heathen people who have never heard the gospel?

I admit that when I first read this question, I saw red. I absolutely hated how “non-believers” were described as “heathens.” I know that in the olden times, “heathen” was nothing more than a reference to pagans or those who believed in polytheistic beliefs, but now it is regarded as a deeply derogatory insult. I've said it before that Richard Bewes, at times, come off as downright offensive to “non-believers,” and this evidences that claim. Through how he describes “non-believers,” as heathens, all he is doing is confirming the very wrong misconception that all Christians are too close-minded to believe anything other than their monopolies of truths.

Anyway, personal feelings aside, Bewes answers this question by arguing that those who ask it have a “view of sin that is not deep enough.” They believe that they are deserving of salvation just because they believe in God, and anyone who doesn't is automatically a heathen. However, Bewes criticises this by asserting that it is too much of a dualistic way of thinking of things. He thinks that absolutely nobody has an automatic right to be saved by God. It doesn't matter whether we believe or don't, nobody has the right to be saved. I quite like this idea, as it argues against how there are some people who think they're entitled to certain privileges, because of their beliefs. Of course, I'm not exclusively referring to Christians, but to anyone of any belief that fits this idea.

Bewes also argues that those who ask this question don't see the Gospel with enough urgency. If you don't believe, then your only chance of salvation is through sincerity and good deeds. But Bewes responds by saying that this undermines missionary work. It is through the work of missionaries in Europe, India, China and Africa that resulted in the spread of Christianity, not just through their charity work, but also by their faith in Jesus. I would agree with this, as Bewes isn't saying that belief and charity work are mutually exclusive, rather they're deeply interrelated with each other. It is the opposite of the notion of the self-entitled believer who think he'll achieve salvation, through pure belief. It is not enough to do good things, you need to believe in God as well. It is akin to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. 

38. Why does God allow suffering? There is so much suffering in our world. Why does God allow it?

This is yet another age-old question that is asked of Christianity and is quite similar to the earlier questions Why do Evil and Viruses exist? If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why would he condemn his followers to suffer? Bewes' answer to this is similar to how he answers why Evil exists: it teaches us humility. He refers to Luke 13: 1-5, where a tower collapses killing 18 people. Jesus explains that these people died, not because they were “no more 'guilty' than anyone else, but rather as a reminder of our own mortalities. The people that died could have just as easily been one of us and we should take comfort that we are still alive now. I've argued before that this argument could be regarded as cold-hearted, particularly by those suffering or their loved ones, so I won't rehash it here. See my article on “Why Evil and Viruses Exist?”

What I do want to discuss is how Bewes argues that suffering gives us perspective on our own lives. Not in the sense of mortality, but rather how suffering cannot exist without glory. Bewes asserts that:

“its only through the Cross, that we can make sense of our sufferings. (1 Peter 4:12, 13) We learn the paradox that suffering and 'glory' run side by side – you cannot have the kingdom without tribulation (1 Peter 5:10; Revelation 1:9) Affliction can then lead to spiritual growth and our own good.”

Our suffering is fundamental to our own personal growth. We learn and develop from every mistake we make, and from every tragedy we experience. And I think this makes perfect sense. Suffering gives people motivation to change their lives and to make something of themselves. There are infinite stories of business-men who have become billionaires by starting from something. If we spend our lives in comfort, then we will never feel any desire to change. Take for example, the peasantry of the French or Russian Revolutions. If their suffering wasn't as terrible as it had been, would they have felt any desire to overthrow the monarchy? Naomi explained that the suffering that Christians experience is nothing compared to knowing God.  The pain is worth it, if you get to experience the love of God, as well.  Suffering is a testament of our faith as well.  It is easy to believe in God when things are going well, but not so easy, when you're experiencing hardship.  The book of Job discusses this idea in detail where Satan makes a wager with God that he can make Job forsake his faith by making him suffer.  God condones this, as he knows that Job will never betray him, even after his wife dies and his crop fails and Job doesn't.  There are times where he questions what is happening, but he never outright rejects God.

39. Is everything fixed in advance? I'm trying to get Predestination worked out. Were my marriage, my becoming a Christian, my job, my clothing all decided before birth?

As I discussed in my first article on Religion, that I have never been comfortable with the idea of Predestination. I, and I don't think I'm alone, dislike the idea of my destiny and life being in the hands of anyone but myself. I also think that Predestination is a way of encouraging people to escape accountability for their actions. “Oh if I'm going to go to hell when I die, there's no reason for me to do anything good.”

Bewes argues that Predestination has been wrongly confused with Determinism or Fatalism. Although God may have already decided our destinies, he doesn't determine every single aspect of our lives. This idea undermines the notion that God gave us free agency. He acts in some ways as a mysterious guide who works to deliver us all to the same destination, but gives us the freedom to take different routes. In short, no, not everything is fixed in advance. God may have decided where we may finish, but it is our choice how we get there. Predestination works in conjunction with free agency. We are free to make our own choices and own mistakes.

Whilst I still don't like the idea of my destiny being in the hands of God, I can respect Bewes' argument. If God is in control of every aspect of our lives, then why would he guide some people to reject him? Why would he have allowed Judah and Israel to constantly worship other gods? Why would he allow the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf on Mount Sinai? Why would he allow Kaleth, Tor and the 500 Israelites to rebel against him in the Book of Numbers? To me, it doesn't make any sense that he would create somebody whose sole destiny is to deny his existence. The fact that he almost strikes down the Israelites on Mount Sinai, allows the earth to swallow Kaleth and the other rebels, and allows the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires to destroy Israel and Judah, demonstrates how he is willing to punish those who disobey him. To create someone for the sole purpose of rebelling against you and then killing them seems like a petty, violent thing to do, which is also highly contradictory of the notion of an omni-benevolent God. What is more logical is that free agency drove these people to do these things, and not some predetermined plan.  

Naomi had a different idea about predestination.  She believes that God is completely lord of all and only he can decide who's worthy of becoming a Christian.  She argued that God controls destiny in passive and active ways.  He has a plan for all of us and sometimes takes action to ensure we fulfill this plan.  For example, it has been argued that Jesus' death and crucifixion was part of God's divine plan.  This meant that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was nothing more than a pawn, to be possessed to ensure that God's plan was carried out.

Despite having written a few articles about Christianity, I don't claim to be an expert and therefore I welcome all criticisms, comments and contradictions. Just keep it mature, intelligent and respectful.