IS GOD LOVE?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 74, 6 March 1931, Page 2

IS GOD LOVE?

(To the Editor.) Sir,Firstly let me thank "Optimist" for his reference to my "obtuse mentality," and another correspondent for his description of my arguments as "babble." They would seem to be confirming the experience of my unknown supporter as to "Christian" conduct in controversies. "Optimist" says he cannot get me to see the "obvious." Let me again quote a statement from his first letter: "People often get occasion to think," and ask him how he expects me to grasp anything so original and erudite. As he still clings to his 95 to 5 ratio, I am left to conclude either that he has no adequate conception of what goes on in this world, or having that conception, is not normally endowed with sympathy and pity for his suffering fellow beings. "Optimist" knows perfectly well that I referred to all human suffering, including the earthquake. I spoke of the "sura" of human suffering, and quoted an unremembered scientist to make it clear. It was not the earthquake thai has "shaken me up," it was the unanimous disclaimer by the professional theologians that God had had anything to do with it ("Optimist" says He had), the chorus ■of what can only be called apologies for the Almighty that went up from every pulpit in the land, that caused me to start this controversy, as a glance at my first letter will show. But to "clarify" the matter, "Optimist" assumes it was tne earthquake only, and not the sum total, and then fol- ! lows a learned disquisition ,on so- ! called "acts of God," with "Optimist" j the "soi-disant" judge of whicn are, 1 and which are not, such acts. : "The years of the average man are ,years of good health and enjoy'ment" comes next, and this is, of course, the explanation of "Optimist's" wonderful "ratio"; but is he going to maintain that the average man in this specially favoured land lof ours represents the world average? And is that world average 95 to 5, with all that we know of the poor and distressed, the underfed and underclothed, all over the planet; the millions in* the slums of the big cities; in England with half its entire wealth held by some two hundred men?

No, Sir. Optimism is a very fine thing, but where it is the result of non-comprehension of the trials and tribulations of mankind, it is not going to be very helpful. His assumption that by "Vale of tears" I was alluding to Stratford, is surely somewhat quaint. "Finally, "Optimist" tells me that "we cannot claim absolute knowledge in dealing with this or kindred problems," and yet the knowledge he claims as to "acts of God" wdoes Inot appear to be in the least "relative."

There is again nothing in "P.A.'s" letter relevant to this controversy. "C." and I have evidently something in common, though 1 cannot concede his "Master Hand." "Armor Vincit" quotes a numoer of admittedly great men who believed in the Bible, but unfortunately they are all flong since dead, and the world of thought having moved along considerably since then, many great living men could be mentioned who hold directly opposite views, born of greater learning and knowledge possessed by those illustrious dead. There is surely nothing remarkable about the way in which belief in the •'Holy Scriptures" spread in early Christian times, when we consider the ignorance and credulity of the people of that age. rmadism and Confucianism, originating six hundred years earlier, spread with even greater rapidity, and are still with us to-day.

I ask for proof of a "God of Love," and while some of your correspondents agree that it cannot be given, they say that in their several opinions there must be! that I should believe it, too, because it is so obvious to them, and that if 1 don't I must have an "obtuse menality." Otliers quoted the Bible to prove this God. I then questioned the authenticity and authority of the Scriptures, and was told that they were equally, and in some ways more, reliable than the writings of later historians, to which I have replied, pointing out why, in my opinion, this was not so; and there the matter stands.—l am, etc., "PUZZLED." (To the Editor.) Sir,— Having closely followed the correspondence concerning the Love of God appearing in your paper, I ask for space to answer your correspondent, "Puzzled," in an earnest endeavour to try and help him, if he is

honestly seeking the solution of his question. j It is rather significant that, wiui the exception of one letter, no correspondent has seriously confined himself to the question asked, with a view to explaining the apparent paradox of a God of love in a world of suffering. Several correspondents have felt called to apologise for God, but the effect of that is to bring Bible study into disrepute. Most Christians profess to believe in the sovereignty of God over this universe until a question such as this challenges their preconceived opinions and ideas, and not knowing the answer, nor understanding God's purpose, they adopt the position of apologists for Him. God does not need anyone to apologise for Him. He aione is the Creator and Sustainer of this earth. Although Christianity appears a failure in the world, and evil to have a larger following, we know that there is a God of Love, and many of us can testify to this in our own lives and personal experience. That there is a God of Love is proved by the fact that God gave His only Son to suffer death for the reconciliation of the whole world. This is the way of escape provided for sinners "from the wrath to come" upon this sin-cursed earth, and it behoves each one of us to examine the proofs in anticipation of that day. This is all the more clearly seen when we remember the 200 souls hurried into eternity last month without any Warning. Because God did not in some miraculous manner avert that tragedy does not disprove that He is a God of Love, any more than it proves that He is a God of hate, because He did not prevent what it was in His power to do. Please do not misconstrue my question when I ask: what are 200 people before God and viewed in the light of having had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting God's salvation? If they have availed themselves of our Saviour we know they are safe with God, and shall inherit eternal life. If that is not their position they will suffer the just judgment of God for their unregenerate life. If God is a just Judge He must reward the impenitent as well as reward the righteous. We are inclined to overrate the love of God and forget that He is a '''righteous Judge of all men, and that the Scriptures speak of Him as a God of Judgment. But because we do not see Him publicly punishing the impenitent at the present time, is no proof for saying that He is not a God of Judgment. The scriptural position is that both these Divine attributes are reserved to a large extent until this Day of Grace ends. Herein lies the perplexing and baffling answer to some of our questions. This Day of Grace is described in the Scriptures as being a period of apparent inactivity by God. It is called the period of the "secret dispensation" which has been hidden in God and which is now revealed. The understanding of God's plans (in part) during this secret economy helps considerably to deepen faith in times of trouble. But this same secret administration is a stumbling block to many believers as well as unbelievers. It is not a fact essential to faith, but when believed, clears up many present-day difficulties aud answers many questions. During this short secret economy His Divine prerogative of controlling the forces of evil and of His own laws in the physical world are held in abeyance. We may not fully understand His purpose and we may only see through a glass darkly; but ] we are quite confident of the ulti-; mate result if we have faith and j trust in Him. j

When I look at the wonderful adaptation to ends with which even insects and infusoria are constructed,to fulfil the conditions of their existence, I am constrained Co emphatically answer that God is a God of Love and understanding, despite the sufferings and miseries of human civilisations and sins. This mystery leads to the supposition that something in this creation of which wo are a part is not sis it ought to be. The Love of God is as eternal and secure as the infallibility of the Scriptures. Unbelieving critics have assailed this Living Rock right down through the years, yet it stands today upon a more secure foundation than ever, while the critics and Rationalists have passed away, unloved and unknown.

In conclusion, I would like to assure "Puzzled" that there is no controversy between true science and faith in God. One is supplementary to the other, for both Science and the Word of God were conceived' in the Mind of God before the ages began, for the primary reason of being an instructor to man in God's ways and thoughts. Has "Puzzled" ever considered the possibility of this? Finally,

I would ask him to please read I. Corinthians, 2-14, and try to understand it. Thanking you, Sir, for your valuable space,—l am, etc., V. J. HAMPTON. Te Wera.