erictb    March 31, 2019 

Been writing and thinking a lot about "pain" recently, particularly in light of the notion that man "deserves" or "needs" pain, and how this affects compassion toward the suffering.

This notion is really pervasive in the atmosphere of Western Christianity.
Even Mother Teresa has come under fire for not being as altruistic as seemed, but really operating under a belief that pain was "good".

It’s also the whole premise behind the nearly unbelievable spectacle of the most conservative evangelicals supporting as president, Donald Trump with his nearly "antisocial" behavior: This is "God’s" method of promoting the "truth" through "provocation", which is what man is most in need of, to make things right.

Vulgarity and even womanizing actually becomes good to the Christian who for centuries had decried it and upheld the "modesty" of the past; judging all of modern society by it. Now, it’s the modern society they accuse of being "offended by everything"! What a reversal! They turn to scriptures to try to find similar "wicked" leaders God once "used" in Israel, to prove Trump is similarly "God’s man" for the time.

One writer, Rankin Wilbourne in a Christianity Today review of his book Union with Christ: The Way to Know and Enjoy God, states "Good spiritual teaching is provocative. I think the nature of the flesh is that we don’t like to be provoked. Union with Christ is an enchanted reality that displaces us from the center of our own lives."

So even our resistance to this is blamed on our "sinfulness" (embodied in what’s being called "the flesh"). You don’t even have the right to be "offended" when hurt by something not of your control. If a preacher offends you, it can’t possibly be that maybe he was too heavy-handed. Maybe even put a burden on you that he turns out not to be living up to himself (i.e. "hypocrisy", and what Christ said was something "God’s leaders" did fall into!) With this sort of setup, any unpleasant measure he takes is potentially justified. You’re the sinner; the onus is on you to "respond" to that message and "repent".
However, the ones bringing the "truth" DO have the right to be "offended", and claim to be "persecuted for preaching the Truth", just for as so much as any mere pushback those they are preaching to might give. You criticizing his harsh preaching makes him the genuinely aggrieved party!

We see this on the political side of things, with the conservatives, (the Trump-supporters, basically) tossing around the term "snowflake".  Years before that became popular, it was "whining". (And this frequently used against an entire racial group complaining about centuries of discrimination).
This while themselves being the biggest complainers about the state of things!

Right as I am writing this, Alex Jones is in the news receiving widespread exposure of his justifications for his cold "Sandy Hook truth-ism" where he claimed this horrible event was actually phony!

Just calling this the "truth", in this ultraconservative mindset, justified whatever harshness entailed. The same with openly racist spins on events, seen as "not racist", just because it’s proclaimed as "the truth". It’s really those liberals, playing off of these "hoaxes", in their plots to destroy our society (in this case, to have a reason to "take all our guns"), who are the evil ones trying to oppress us, so "who cares" if some are offended?
(A [fellow-Reformed] blogger responding to Michael Horton’s excellent Beyond Culture Wars, where he cautions Christians about how some of our hostile rhetoric drives away those we are trying to reach, says, "They are wicked and unsaved. So what if the moral law offends them?")

This is pretty much the basis of all the old "in your face" hellfire preaching of old, upheld by many leaders criticizing the modern Church, which had dropped a lot of that. It’s universally agreed among them that the methods of Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon, who had church people clenching their seats in fear from their preaching on Hell —and supposedly leading to great "revivals", are the model we never should have turned from. Early 20th century evangelist Billy Sunday is lauded for standing up in a conference and shouting to a liberal leader (who didn’t believe in a particular "fundamental" doctrine), "You’re going to Hell!"
All the decay of modern society was blamed on "preachers no longer preaching on sin and Hell". This then led everyone to veer off into the influence of Darwin, Marx and Freud, which eroded the faith and morality and good politics of the nation, and were who they spent the most time excoriating in their sermons. But underlying these "secular" sources, were the "preachers" who allowed the grip the Church had to slip in the first place, by eliminating or softening the fear motivation.

As a nonbeliever in adolescence, all of this is the first thing I heard from fundamentalism and evangelicalism, on TV still, (as the "Christian Right" had just reached its pinnacle in politics), and whatever books I may have run across in curiosity.

This project started with reviewing the "Spiritual power" essay (http://www.erictb.info/spiritualpower.html), addressing the near universal teaching where Christians speak of a "power" God "offers" to people, to "convert" and then "live for Him", that is nevertheless non-‘felt’; leaving us with a hard, slow ‘process’ of ‘growth’, rather than making it "easy"; yet we better embark on it to escape the greater permanent pain of Hell. The rationale for this double-bind then becomes a justification of pain.
And I also had just completed this review of the book Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case by Frank Turek (2014), who uses the "pain as good" premise in his arguments against atheism.

This stems from "historic Christianity", particularly its doctrine of sin and Hell.

God telling Adam and Eve certain aspects of their physical existence on earth would be difficult as a result of their taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:16-9) was interpreted as "man deserving pain as punishment for his sin".  It’s like God got mad and struck back, and pain was the punishment. A whole theology was developed on this, with this passage turned to as the final answer to the issue of pain and suffering.
(It even got to the point where all the "destruction" we see in the universe, was apart of this, so when we see a black hole swallow a star, that too is God’s retaliation towards Adam’s sin. It also means life CANNOT exist out there, because they too would be "affected by Adam’s sin" and yet not have a savior! [Though some might put extraterrestrial decay on Satan’s rebellion instead]. Persecution of saints for the faith often got plugged into man’s "deserving" of pain as well, especially via "The Cross" that they had to "bear" with Christ, who had come to die for the sin of man.).

This seen as somehow "glorifying" God, to the point that pain essentially became an end in itself in the Augustinian-Calvinist doctrine of "election" and "reprobation" (and of course, Catholic asceticism).

The teaching of "free will" (eventually embodied in "Arminianism" within Protestantism) sought to soften this down so that man still had "free will cooperation" in salvation and sanctification. But this was still portrayed as a "long, hard walk" of "obedience" and "denying sinful pleasures".
It was almost like a "trade-off", or "deal" God made with us. God gives an "offer" of trading in one gain for the other; one being "primary" and "easy", by "default" (yet leading to eternal punishment), and the other (escape from this) being "secondary", and hence "hard" and requiring the "will". Life is framed as a whole "tug of war" around pleasure, with Satan trying to give us pleasure, God denying it, and man forced to choose, but already inclined toward pleasure, so that changing over requires a lot of effort of the will that most aren’t willing to take.

(By now, it was not realized how the official Protestant premise of "grace alone" was completely compromised. The "pain is good for us because of our sinfulness" premise still held firmly as the answer. The need to "maintain order in society because of our sin" was upheld as the primary practical or temporal purpose of the Law that condemned many of our natural inclinations, and called us to the difficult path of resisting them, to be "right with God". Then, other purposes such as "our relationship with Him" might be added as further support. But the end result is always some difficult "requirement" of man!)

The doctrine of "difficult spirituality" passes down into modern centuries

Here are the main sources of the modern Church’s upholding of "difficulty" as what God wants for us:

•Rejection of pleasure; starting from the ancient Catholic Church, with special emphasis on sexual "morality", to an often overboard extent, and even to the total neglect of many other sins, right up to outright human rights violations. This carried right over into Protestantism, thus coloring all of "Christendom" in general.
The frequent ’80s-90s message from US evangelicals was "For 200 years, this country has stood as righteous and following God, but now is taken over by the ‘godless’ [after the 60s sexual revolution and removal of prayer from schools]"; ignoring colonialism, racism, sexism and other forms of abuse. This is where Trump’s "Make America Great Again" originally came from! Nothing was seen as wrong with these past evils; but if anything, they were "ordained by God", according to many!
"Man is a sinner and deserves much worse!" was the answer. The nation "making life better" for the captured people and everyone else is portrayed as [undeserved] "grace" God gave through the "Christian" conquerors, regardless of the brutal means often employed, so we should only be "thankful" for that. (General Lee believed the "painful discipline" of slavery was for their own good, and its duration "known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence").

•Calvinism. The perennial example of the "right attitude" toward pain is in this internet post (that was an answer to a skeptic’s question of "Why won’t God heal amputees?"), which is what underlies the whole ideology:

The crux of the paradox lies in the claim that Christ "takes" the pain from you, yet they’ll admit that yes, you still feel whatever is ailing you. Notice, the only thing really "changed" is your attitude, and this, by "faith". (Elsewhere, they’ll admit it’s really "an uphill battle for the rest of your life").
Yet, we sensationalize it, making it sound as if Jesus really does take the pain away, as if you wouldn’t feel it anymore! But then, when it doesn’t work like that, we say it is not about feelings.

And eventually, the notion of us "deserving" so much worse pain will come up! This is implicit in the part about the "old man" (also known as the "flesh" that we saw mentioned in the beginning), which is the one that was basically dragging us down into Hell, by default. That’s what the "sovereign grace and mercy" was for. (And the "sovereign" language betraying the person’s Calvinism, which believes that he’s unconditionally "elected", while many others were passed over. If that’s the way God operates, and you manage to wake up as one of His "chosen" instead, then I guess any pain imaginable in this life in light of what everyone else will get, must be the greatest gift in the world!) Also implicit is the notion of pain being "good" for us in our "growth" in this "new life" (while this "old man", apparently, is the part of us so averse to it! Almost like it’s wrong, or apart of our sin, to not like pain!) It’s what "reminds" him of being loved by God and saved from so much worse and permanent pain.

•Wesleyan focus on "holiness" and spiritual "discipline" (the "method" of Christian living, etc.) Initially, all five points of Calvinism were rejected, including the last point, "eternal security". One could be converted and still be in danger of "falling away". So we must be "diligent" in "persevering to the end" (a future "return" of Christ, when this "world" of "difficulty" would finally be brought to an end).
This makes a lot of assumptions regarding the scriptural meanings of things, and doesn’t ask what certain scriptures that seem to contradict "faith alone" (such as "perseverance", "running the race", "drawing back unto perdition" etc.) really mean, from the contexts. The "hard message" would be good for motivating people into the faith.

•"Fundamentalist" —most embodied in "Independent Fundamental Baptists" [IFB] denunciation of all changes in society or the Church, toward "modernity", with supposedly inordinate "pleasure" always at the root of the condemnations.
As the biggest influence on modern Western Christian "morality" (and why so much time will be spent on them), this colors several doctrines:

Rejection of Hell? Of course, man deserves suffering and we need that to deter him from following pleasure and motivate him to take the "difficult" path of living "the way God wants" (which includes coming under our authority!)
These "modernists" and "liberals" preaching a "love gospel" are trying to remove the "hard" aspects of the faith, or the "offense of the Gospel" or "Cross" (based on Gal.5:11 and a few others, with the "offended" parties in those scriptures actually being those preaching Law, not those preaching "love" in contrast to the Law!)

Music: anything new is too "pleasing to the flesh" (and influenced by those demonic, "sensual" blacks/Africans who we tried to control, but were simultaneously being allowed to integrate and pollute our great society). Even if a song so much as moved you to tap your feet to the rhythm, it was probably no good!
One leader, David Cloud goes as far as to specify that "marching" rhythms (which are pretty much the basis of many of the hymns as they are played in these old Baptist churches) are what’s best and fitting God’s "standards". Another revivalist site, adding "triumphant militancy". (Basically, the same principle of boot camp: more ‘order’).

Psychology: While the main surface objection is that it is from godless "secular humanists" (Freud, etc.), the underlying condemnation when you really look into it is that is is rooted in "victim culture" (how man’s behavior is shaped by his pains, "dependencies", "dysfunctions", etc.), rather than "the Bible’s teaching on who man is [a "sinner", meaning he deserves to "suffer"] and how he is "changed" [to "God’s standards" via hard discipline, basically] as one pair of leaders, Martin and Deidre Bobgan, put it. (The only legitimate "victim" in existence is God [even though they will never use that term on Him], who man "sinned against". And so man, even if suffering something, is really the offender in the grand scheme of things, and so should just learn to accept his [deserved] suffering and focus on "getting right" with and giving back to and "doing things for" God, instead. And notice how this parallels conservative Christians being the only legitimately offended people in the world, as mentioned above!)

So in this teaching, "all man needs" is tough "nouthetic counseling" (which uses "Bible answers only"; following the philosophy of a teacher named Jay Adams), where you just tell him his sin, and get him to "repent" of it and do the "difficult task" of "dying to himself daily" (in addition to doing all the "Christian disciplines"). His "changed life" ("obedience") then will be what will "heal" all of his psychological, mental and emotional problems. So "all one needs" is a "dose" of "the Book, the Blood and the Blessed Hope", as another leader once put it.

What this also means is that people who still have those problems are suffering for their own "sins". The problems of the "soul" as they are called, are all "spiritual"; not "medical" —even though the brain is a physical (i.e. medical) organ affected by physical things.
So they go on to conclude no less than "all mental illness is a ‘choice’"! But of course, this "choice" is not really about a simple one-time occurrence, but rather, again, a "daily" choice (i.e. long "growth process"). And this is [admittedly] "difficult". God allowed it to be this way because we are sinners who deserve the far greater pain of Hell, and so, this reduced discomfort of "sanctification" unto "salvation" will make us appreciate His presence in Heaven so much more. So the discomfort that remains, He has ordained; as what will make us "grow"!

So a person who’s afraid of the dark only needs to be told that "Jesus is the Light" (example of "Biblical Counseling Movement" principle; see http://www.equip.org/PDF/DP220-2.pdf), and then BOOM; problem solved! Just by this spiritual metaphor, now applied to a literal situation! If they "believe" and "trust Him", the problem should be over, and if it doesn’t work, they didn’t really believe or trust Him and are holding on to their "sin" of "fear"; and that's that!
Jesus’ response to Martha (Luke 10:41) likewise proves "God owes us nothing because we’re sinful, so ‘there is only one real need‘" (i.e. our "need" for Jesus means our material concerns don’t matter at all!)
(and notice, the reason He doesn’t owe us is specifically because of "sin", not simply because He’s sovereign! Of course they believe the latter too, but it’s funny how this slipped out this way, showing the "pain in the form of lack of physical needs being met, as punishment for sin" premise, as if just the state of not being a sinner would have as its "reward" being "owed" fulfillment!
CRI, while critiquing the BCM on a few things in the article, nevertheless seems to be agreeing with the overall theology).

Even the term "alcoholic" is frowned upon as too weak and promoting this "victimization" premise, and the term "drunk" is better simply because it sounds harsher! —(Even though "alcoholic" is actually stronger as it covers the person’s problem over time, and not just the generalization of instances of being in an inebriated state!)
Also insinuated by this camp is that all "attention-deficit" children simply weren’t beaten enough.

Part of fundamentalists’ war on "humanism" is the need to PROVE intellectually man’s condemnation. Like if we were to say "That person did that horrible crime because they were psychologically damaged", right away, a [subconsciously controlled] conscientious sense of compassion kicks in, and we in part feel bad for them, and find it harder to condemn them.
So they fear that this would lead to such people being ‘let off the hook’, both now in the world (leading to "the decay of society", which they are always trying to "save"), as well as undermining fear of the afterlife as a deterrent to sin.
So if we instead say "that wicked sinner willfully CHOSE to murder", the feeling is more like "YEAH! He deserves to ROAST!"

Overall, the problem starts because the assumption among much of the Church is that because man "fell" through "sin" (disobedience), then the entirety of Gospel history afterward becomes the process of undoing sin behaviorally. Fear of condemnation ("guilt" borne by the sinner) was then to be the motivator to change their behavior. Any "excuses" will counter this (and ultimately lead to the "destruction of society"); though "new"-evangelicals (trying to emphasize "grace" a bit more) began taking a more ‘compassionate’ approach, and allowed for some guilt-free interpretations of some of people’s problems, and here is where the old-line approach sees them as "compromising" or basically selling out to [a supposedly a-moral] "humanism".
The "old-time" Church had assumed the role of "God’s Prosecutors" basically, and are angry at everyone (especially fellow Christians not as strict as they are), that they have lost this power!

For an example of this "nouthetic" approach and its "pain as good and deserved" premise, one IFB leader, Bill Gothard has a chart for sexual assault victims first asking them whether they brought it on themselves (or "God allowed it to happen") through the "disobedience" of stuff like immodest dress, evil friends, etc. and then asks them to "choose" whether it would be better to have no physical abuse, or to have had the physical abuse, but to have the "spiritual power" God "compensates" it with, and be "mighty in spirit"; citing scriptures of course! 
Can you believe this? What a "choice" that is! How cold and heartless can you get? —And all in the name of Christ and the "Spirit"! The way it is being used here, it becomes the justification for making any physical trauma imaginable basically good! When looking at this chart, just remember, they will condemn all psychology and therapy (and any Christian who so much as even uses a term "associated" with it) in favor of THIS!

While most IFB’s are not Calvinist, the same philosophy (above) is what undergirds their war against "psychoheresy", and they differ simply holding the "choices" required to receive that "grace" as being accessible by "free will".
So what’s a little sexual abuse, compared to the eternal flames of Hell that you really deserve, yet can be spared from, if you make good with God (again, the only truly offended party) now? That this belief system would lead to something like Gothard’s statements right there should show something seriously wrong in this theology! (Despite all of its proof-texting. It also ends up creating an atmosphere where sexual abuse can be fostered; ever so ironic given this movement’s strict "holiness" emphasis. Gothard himself would eventually be accused of some sort of sexual indecency with girls. Are they to follow his counsel and blame themselves and be happy in "God’s power"?)

So we should ask, when God is roasting people in the fires of Hell (or even the temporal pain of now); why? What does He "get" out of it?
They basically come up with this whole philosophy about "His holiness" requiring all this pain and suffering, somehow. Some preaching and tracts even put Christ’s suffering on the Cross as requiring it. He did "All this for thee", so now you especially "OWE" Him (on top of your sins, or just the act of not "giving your life" back to Him that requires such a harsh measure), so you BETTER give Him what He’s due!

The scriptures mention "justice", but does not go into a whole exposition of "pain". They mention "destruction", but then this final destruction has to be reinterpreted as a kind of life [conscious existence], but basically in an infinitude of pain.
So they have to fill it in with a lot of supposition, and when mentioning His "Holiness", you clam up; you can’t possibly argue against that! It brings this natural fear. Yeah, He CAN’T possibly let anyone get away with "offending His Holiness". So the question might generally be dropped. Those who think it’s wrong likely just try to override it with other scriptures on "love", if not abandoning scripture (or its "inerrancy") altogether. But the question that should be asked is what really does that even mean?

Sin is defined in scripture as "transgression of the Law". So then Paul points out how the Law is what brings death (Rom. 4:15, 7:10), and thus what we need to be freed from. But now, it’s been changed to "transgression of His holiness". Of course, they can argue that His holiness is shown through the Law, but they don’t want to acknowledge the Law as the barrier for us, as Paul does (7:8-9), because the goal is to get us to turn to the Law (albeit with "God’s help" this time). So basically, this "Holiness" is something that transcends the Law, as defining sin, and why the Law must be maintained. (i.e. to get us to meet the higher "holiness" standard, despite what Paul says, and even what they themselves say, when confronted by groups preaching more of the Law than they do).

The meaning of "holiness" is actually "set apart". That will of course include "from sin" (God being pure), but it has nothing to do with this assumption regarding pain as His response to it!.

Of course, to the Calvinists, it’s also about His "Glory", which is the entire purpose of creating these "vessels of wrath" made only to be sent to Hell (according to their reading of Romans 9) in the first place. That’s another term, just like "His Holiness", that supposedly trumps everything else, yet just stands on its own without any scriptural support as to what it really means, as they’re using it.

How then is He glorified in pain? Many respected preachers even taught the purpose was to give the redeemed something to be thankful and "praise Him" for. (What He "saved" them from, unconditionally). So both God and the elect will be in some way gratified by the suffering of all the billions in Hell. There is no thought as to how this squares away with love, and even the scriptures they often give to the suffering on how everything bad in this world will be forgotten about in Heaven.

Like when the disciples asked Jesus to rain fire down on an unresponsive city, Jesus didn’t say "oh, don’t worry, I’ll get them after this life"; He told them they [the disciples] didn’t know "of what spirit they were", for He came "not to destroy men’s lives but to save them". (Luke 9:56)
Instead, all the stuff about "love" goes right out the window (and more moderate teachers scoffed at for focusing on it), because "holiness" and "glory" are treated as a set of competing divine attributes that override love.

But still, notice, no actual scriptures are given on why physical pain. (In this hybrid "soul-body" that’s only "made to feel pain forever").
Of course, the old-time Church handled this by silencing the questioner in one way or another. The modern Church doesn’t want to be that "hard", but instead comes up with a lot of meaningless and unsupported lingo, that ultimately "silences" us by appealing to our fears in a more roundabout fashion.

Another approach to "justice" can be seen in "The Morality of Everlasting Punishment" by Mark R. Talbot (http://www.the-highway.com/articleMay05.html), who points out a more "empathetic" side of justice, or making the offender feel the other’s pain. Then, "as Calvin observed, because He has made us in His own image, God takes the violence we do to each other as violence against Himself." (John Calvin, Genesis). Then, "And because His purposes at the Last Judgment and beyond include bringing each of us—repentant and unrepentant alike—to feel and acknowledge the full seriousness of our sins, He must make both the joys of heaven and the pains of hell to be everlasting."
It then goes into the whole "relationship" aspect, which charismatics and others also focus on (even saying if you don’t pray enough, you might be neglecting the "relationship", and thus possibly end up forfeiting salvation).

So it’s the bad "relationship" with God that so "hurts" Him, and must be requited with such eternal pain. Of course, for the "penitent", this is covered by Christ’s sacrifice (and Calvinism believes this is by "unconditional election". So, the impenitent will have "forced upon him", the "full depth of his wrongdoing", which he could not even help: 1) having a nature leading him to commit, nor 2) failing to "repent" of it.
So again, just the "pain" of this "justice" becomes an end in itself in this scheme).

And the question actually extends even to temporal suffering, when they again claim God "uses" it to make people grow, (to "get our attention", they often put it, or "bring them to Him", etc. which is all supposition more than any sound scriptural teaching. It also doesn’t explain the purpose of eternal pain when God has cast a person off, and obviously ceased trying to "bring them to Him", or "getting their attention").

It should be pointed out that all of this is really philosophy, used to fill in scripture (and justify the doctrine in retrospect), moreso than actual pronouncements of scripture itself.
If God is so offended by "violence against those made in His image", then why would He Himself set up a world in which these creatures made in His image "deserves" such violence (and most getting it in the end; and eternal, at that), from Him? If this were true, then He’s committing violence against Himself! This philosophy really doesn’t work!

I was exposed to the IFB side of this when fellowshipping in an "Independent Fundamentalist"-related congregation for a few years. There, the popular literature was the Sword of the Lord magazine, and I saw either in there, or other publications, articles or advertisements for the Bobgans of Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries, Biblical Discernment Ministries (who also focus a lot on "psychologizers") and David Cloud (Way of Life ministries and O Timothy magazine).

I also from there attended a related IFB church’s classes on both "music philosophy" and "psychology" and got the full basis of their "battles" against the "new evangelicals" (on top of the "godless world") in these areas. One of books used in the music class was Johanssen, Discipling Music Ministry, which went as far as to advocate a principle of "asceticism"; arguing that modern music was all based on "instant gratification".
The pastor of the church gave the psychology and biblical counseling class, and while giving the standard "biblical answers" and the "mental illness is a choice" premise, then went as far as to state "Don’t try to help a person God is just not helping"! Him not helping them, because of their own attitudes! Hence, if they retain the problem, and have or develop "mental illness" from it, it was all from their "sin" and "choice" of not giving it up.

The utter irony here is astounding! One of the primary scriptures often given as "comfort" in this "Bible answers" approach is "He will never leave you, nor forsake you" (Heb.1:5), but here they claim He actually does leave you, based solely on your efforts or lack thereof; and popular writer Tim LaHaye in one of his books on temperament (he’s obviously "compromised" there, and is thus among the top of the "psychoheresy" list, but otherwise still holds the same tough "nouthetic" approach) says the same thing, about how not developing the "right attitude" (which "process" is like "pushing a boulder uphill the rest of your life") "grieves" and then "quenches" the Spirit!

The Gospel has been turned on its ear, yet they claim to be the defenders of the true Gospel against "humanism"! (Michael Horton points out, p.233, that this is actually the accusation of the devil, and what the true, God-fashioned "spiritual armor" is crafted against!) This places our trust, basically, in ourselves!

The class material had actually set up a completely fair world where everyone who is suffering stress and emotional problems is only "reaping what they have sown", and suggested that perhaps a person we look at with a stable life must have done things right. This is precisely the assumption of various people in the Bible (which was actually rebuked by God, as we shall see later). On one hand, suffering people are often told not to expect "fairness", in life because of the "Fall" and "sin". But now, out of the other side of their mouths, they’re saying essentially that it is fair; if you follow certain "rules". (And much of the "world" believes this too; the difference is whether the "rules" are "God’s Laws", or "the laws of the universe").
So which is it; fair or unfair?

If all of this weren’t bad enough, suicide becomes the "unpardonable sin" (especially since you won’t be alive to be able to "repent" of it), as it is a total failure to "trust in Christ" and accept the suffering He has willed for your life. I had run across an IFB couple online who argued this, with the husband having several physical disabilities including blindness, and so if he "accepts" it as his "cross", there’s "no excuse" for anyone else. (He may have thought he had the right "attitude", but neither one of them were known as the most joyous, gracious people on the forum we were on, with their critical attitude toward those who disagree with any of their beliefs).

The above ministries spend a lot of time constantly "exposing" just about every well known evangelical leader for their "compromises" in those and other areas, as opposed to what Cloud calls "paddling upstream" in order to keep the Church pure. (This is not even a biblical term or analogy but is preached as if it were; and notice the similarity to LaHaye’s "boulder", showing the theological mindset is still the same, even if LaHaye did "compromise" a bit). It’s important enough that they even call the other leaders’ teachings no less than "other gospels". All because of this "Bible terms only" idea.
(All of this, in addition to their longstanding "conservative Christian" condemnations of liberal "mainline" and "modernist" churches, "cults and religions", Roman Catholicism, evolution and atheism, leftist politics and the coming "One World deception").

One of the "fundamentals" of the faith is supposed to be salvation by "faith alone through grace alone", "not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:9) They, along with the "mainstream" new evangelical apologists certainly level this at the sabbatarian sects, which is the movement I entered Christendom through. Yet in practice, "faith" is reinterpreted as "action" by many, and it ends up being just a new set of [technical, but quite literal] "works" (as compared to the OT sabbaths and rituals), that they end up denouncing everyone for not doing right, enough, or at all.
The whole thrust is the "difficulty" we deserve. I call this the "merit of discomfort".

It was recently editing my treatment of the "spiritual power" and "psychology" issue that then prompted this new treatment as deserving a separate work in itself. Especially, when I ran across a Christian Research Institute (CRI, the leading apologetic ministry of evangelicalism) article that did a review of a book entitled The Theology of Illness, Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet, that claimed:

Here we see the dualism characteristic of "historic Christianity" [i.e. starting with medieval] that regards only the "soul" or "spiritual" as really important, and the body [physical] as less so. From that, pain is basically good, and "used" by God for some purpose.

CRI president Hank Hanegraaf not too long ago made shocking waves, by actually converting from Protestant evangelicalism, to the Eastern Orthodox Church! (Which in a way actually kind of figures, with the great emphasis on "historic Christianity" he has always placed; and the EOC is basically the very definition of "historic Christianity" for its first millennium). So "catholic" (which includes the EOC) spirituality has been receiving a strong reading in his articles and newsletters.

The IFBs themselves are not seen as "aberrant" by the apologists, like the sabbatarians and other groups. They are seen as "within the pale of orthodoxy", and so together, stand against "the world" and its "false" philosophies, ideologies, politics and religions. While the old-line fundamentalists don’t return the solidarity, and instead see the new evangelicals as having "sold out" to "the world", there is a respect the new evangelicals have for their older forbears, as they still look up to the "old paths" even though they have stretched them a bit themselves. So they don’t answer the charges of the old-liners as much. On nearly every doctrine of dissension, save KJVO-ism, (addressed by some evangelical apologists, and I’ve seen one CRI writer who responded to Bobgan’s criticisms of him), the fundamentalist objections have been largely ignored.

(Cloud, who perhaps the leading "old-line fundamentalist" apologist of the day, and has incessantly published volumes of critical articles on everything wrong in new-evangelicalism, retorts "Ockenga and his associates preached against judgmentalism and ‘criticism of the brethren’. They have refused to criticize Modernists and Romanists, but they have bitterly criticized Fundamentalists. They have labeled them Pharisees, Legalists, Hateful, Divisive, Non-intellectual, Mean-spirited, Hurtful to the Body of Christ, and many other things. The fact is that the one great spiritual enemy that New Evangelicals consistently identify and attack are fundamentalist Bible believers. Their judgment of fundamentalists is merciless. This has been a consistent mark of New Evangelicalism for 60 years." "Harold Ockenga and the New Evangelical Movement he Founded", 2009
Is he kidding? Criticisms like Ockenga’s are actually few and far between, especially as time went on, and the new-evangelical movement after him became less drawn to intra-faith doctrinal debates. Hardly anyone ever issued criticism’s of the old-line, but they instead had largely ignored them. The silence has been deafening, and hence, why I have taken up these critiques against old-liners, since I was relatively new to the faith, and was swayed as to what the "true faith" really was, by all the authoritative rhetoric, and had to sort through it and "give reason" for what I believed was the true faith. (1 Pet. 3:15).
Part of this, I realize, is that the new evangelicals still respect the old-line fundamentalists as their "fathers" in the faith, and while turning from or "compromising" on many of their old values, still cannot bring themselves to denounce them but so much. So the denunciations have been pretty much going one way. And the New evangelicals did criticize modernism and Catholicism as well; perhaps just not as obsessively as Cloud. Yet Cloud and others see the few, usually brief criticisms that are made as "merciless" attacks! The broad, general terms such as "legalists", "meanspirited", etc. are still nowhere near the constant barrage of accusations of selling out the faith and preaching "false gospels" the old-liners constantly level).

Hence, doctrines such this pain concept and its basis in their other pleasure-denying stances were never challenged, scripturally! (So it just appears the IFBs were "scriptural" all along, and everybody else is just "rebelling" against the "truth" they taught, and removing the "landmarks").

On the other hand, apologetics in both camps has been busy going after the "feel good" message of Joel Osteen and others in the larger church, while totally ignoring, at times practically open rejections of the Gospel of Grace right under their own noses. This, because again, it sounds ‘good’ because it’s "tough", and also "traditional", (even if one might think "Well, I wouldn’t say that" to some of the old teachings and methods ourselves. I had recently been shocked at the teachings of popular evangelical teachers John Bevere and John Burton, and there’s also "Lordship Salvation" preachers such as Paul Washer). It’s seen as not as bad as the "feel good" messages, and instead, perhaps the antidote to them.

"Felt needs" and "user friendliness" were also common talking points among modern church critics. HOW DARE someone try to make people feel "good", when they really need to feel "BAD"! (Though the institution of the Church was sure allowed to address the "needs" of the pastor and make sure his accommodations are comfortable, as much as possible!)

Conservative Christian political commentator Matt Walsh exemplifies this sentiment:

This guy, and countless other "old time religion" preachers fail to realize that "shame" was the automatic result and reaction to the Fall (the taking on of the "knowledge of good and evil"); not what saved them from it! They felt that shame which then led them to run and hide themselves from God (rather than being drawn to God), and God then had to move to begin His plan of fixing the problem, by eventually removing the basis of the "separation". It was at that point not about "behavior". It was about the knowledge and "shame".

Yet religion afterward has consistently made "shame" the solution, like we had better punish ourselves with it so that God won’t need to. What Walsh is describing is basically paying for your sin yourself (on a very minuscule level); "giving" God something as "payment" for "offending" Him. (But of course, only Christ is supposed to have offered the "payment" for sin!

So he turns scripture topsy turvy in several places. Satan is the "accuser", not the one trying to bring ‘ease’ (as everyone assumes). He completely contradicts’s Christ’s statement about "rest" with the "no time to relax" statement. (Again, see the similarity to both Cloud and LaHaye’s concepts; and Walsh, BTW, happens to be Catholic!) We see there, that "earthly and materialistic concerns" are not important; only "the fate of our souls".
In the Gospel, it was reverse, as the fate of souls can only be in God’s hand, and what we are not to be "anxious" about. But this is switched around, so that we shouldn’t be "anxious" about bad things happening to us in the world (though conservatives don’t seem to think that way when it comes to politics), but we must instead worry about doing what it takes to get into Heaven! It’s all upside down!

So of course, "rest" is usually redefined as some "attitude" we have in the "difficulties" of this "hard walk", but he doesn’t even say that, here. "Death" in that respect is assumed to be the "death of the ‘old man’", which is the "difficulty" of either giving up sin or feeling the shame for it, rather than "dying to" the notion we can save ourselves. (Which is the product of the real "old man" Paul talks about!)

With most of the IFBs being "Arminian Revivalists", the other side of the Protestant field is Calvinism, with their premise that "God is sovereign in sin, man is held responsible for it". This extends to whether you can even turn from your sin and repent and come to Christ to be saved to begin with.

The conservative Baptist church is pretty much divided between the two camps, and the theologies overlap. This can be seen in what I mentioned above, in the criticism of psychology and the "victimization culture". God is really the only legitimately offended party in life, but man is the one continuously suffering, and is totally helpless, not only in being born into this reality, but even being born into this state of having "offended" God to begin with! This of course is based on the "in Adam" statement of Romans 5. You weren’t consciously there in the Garden, but God charged you as being there "in" Adam, and holds you "responsible" as if you were there*, and thus threatens you with such a severe punishment and a difficult "narrow path" as the only escape, because of this!
Fundamentalist literature thus will often portray man "shaking his fist at God", as if all are consciously "rebelling" like that, and thus naturally deserve as much retaliation as God could ever dish out.

You even have a total hybrid of the two theologies, concentrated in the Southern Baptist Church, and much of it dubbed "Lordship Salvation" (as was mentioned above, and its leader is the well known John MacArthur), where "accepting Christ as ‘Lord'" is "active", meaning to be shown through a "changed life". 2/3rds of professing evangelical Christians (who slack off on doctrine, holiness, etc.) are said to be really lost "tares", and what the Church needs is to return to tough preaching on "the Law", "repentance" and "holy living", with a great emphasis on producing "works" and "persevering" in them; and of course, the incredible "difficulty" of this.
It’s crafted to sound like "free will" (and in fact, often sounds like the most "legalistic" or "perfectionistic" strains of that theology), but the leaders of this movement are actually Calvinists, whose full theology believes whoever does persevere were elected to do so. (Whoever "falls away" then was really never saved (and not truly elected) to begin with, and Calvin had directly included this clause in his Institutes, saying God gives some reprobates a "false faith" He then "takes away", so they fall into "perdition").

This too is considered "within the pale of orthodoxy" in that great divide between  "historic Christianity" and "the cults", who nearly all openly deny the Gospel of "Grace alone through faith alone". But "gospel" means good news, and it seems no one sees how some of these teachings allowed "within the pale" are not "good news" in any stretch of the imagination! They instead, beg for "good news" as a solution!
It’s really the "bad news" (that necessitated the Good News to begin with). So of course, the proponents are saying you must have the bad news before you have the good news, and that many are focusing too much on the good, and ignoring the bad. But they’ve tried to solve this by turning the good news itself into more bad news (because "that’s what man needs" after all), which then collapses the entire Gospel into absolutely nothing more than swapping sabbaths and other rituals, and calling that "freedom from the Law", and yet remaining with the same near impossibility of redemption that was established under that old Law!

Romans 5 is one of the frequent passages the Calvinists use against the Arminians for arguing that God leaving many men in this trapped state without even a real offer of salvation is unfair. Their main chapter is 9, which speaks of "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", and that we don’t even have the right to question this!
Basically, (the way this is read), you deserve pain, so shut up and just hope you’re one of the ones God is sparing from the bulk of it, "thank Him" if [you think] you already are, and keep those "works" up, to continue "proving" you are!

There’s of course also chapter 1, on how God has "shown" everyone the "truth" (through what’s called "general revelation"). This one is used by both Calvinists and Arminians alike, of course.
So no matter how much people struggle with "faith" in a world thousands of years removed from the last biblical instance of special revelation, they can just be told they really "know" the truth, and are "holding it in unrighteousness".
As most of us know we can’t totally deny the subconscious (where a lot of anger, hatreds, lusts, etc. we vehemently deny in ourselves are present), this is almost impossible to prove or disprove. It feels like a trap, to ensure the majority of man ends up in this place of eternal suffering. (It could reasonably be called "godlighting").

Again, it all begs the question of "what is the good news?", rather than it itself being the Good News! (The answer, as will be alluded to again, is to look at the context, and who the passage, and in fact the entire book was actually addressing and/or describing!)

Both theological camps agree that man deserves pain, and that God sets it up so that man gets a lot of it in one way or another, for one reason or another. It’s just that one side makes it look like man has more of a "choice" in whether he can escape the final permanent form. But as the other side points out, either way, it’s essentially rigged for man to fail (some actually put it this way!), and "grace" then, is just God selecting some men to escape (which He "didn’t have to do at all"; and as some of them will even claim, this is so they can watch the others roasting, so they can "glorify God" all the more!)

* From this, one influential early Church father, Origen, just concluded that all souls preexisted birth! Of course, it was Augustine who soon afterward developed the first full theology of "unconditional election", though most of the Catholic-Orthodox church eventually in practice turned back to free-will and works-salvation, and election was finally picked up again by the first mainstream Reformers.

With all of the supposed "softening" on some of the old stances, the new evangelicals retained the premise that man deserves the "pain" of Hell after we die, and the "cursed ground" (general difficulties of life) and "sinfulness of man" (being wronged by others) before we die, and the "daily Crosses" and "trials" of the faith for those who will escape Hell. This undergirds all of their teaching, including million-selling trademark concepts such as "Purpose Driven Life", and even if embellished with the "feel good messages" and "downplaying teaching on sin and Hell" the IFB’s and other "old-liners" constantly criticize them for.

In any case, everyone is getting "some" of what we "deserve". God sent His Son to die to spare us from the "rest" of it, and anyone who does not "give Him" back their life will then suffer the balance, in one way or another.
The "old-liners" stick by the literal "fire", based on biblical references to a place called "Gehenna", and sometimes even its antecedent, Sheol or Hades, which is eventually thrown into Gehenna. This then is infused largely with Dante’s detailed imagery of the different "levels" of this place, to measure different amounts of punishment to the different amounts of sin each individual has committed in his lifetime. Anyone who deviates from this basic view of Hell is denounced as rejecting the "Bible teaching". (One IFB, George Alquist, put out a tract on Hell with Dante-esque intricate detail based on select proof-texts, and includes a lament that leading evangelist Billy Graham "no longer believes the fire is literal").

Many new evangelicals had in fact softened it down to just the "misery" of "eternity without God". It then doesn’t have to be literal "fire" anymore; just the symbolic "burning" of our forever unfulfillable passions, which is how it generally goes. He doesn’t even necessarily "send" you there; you go "willingly" through your own "choosing against Him" in favor of "being the lord of your own life", and it would even be "cruel" of Him to deny your "free will" in that choice. Crueler than you suffering there forever, in fact! (This, the answer to those who reject Hell as being "too cruel for a loving God"). Some might likely even deny us "deserving" pain and then focus on how God’s "rules" are for our own good, and we basically "do it to ourselves" by not choosing Him.
But then you still suffer, and can never get out! You were still defaulted to this fate, and presented with an incredibly difficult process (and not always likely, as for those who’ve never even heard the Gospel, or are just totally unconvinced), of gaining and maintaining "faith", in order to escape it.

At 20, I was struggling with my place in "the world", after growing up as a "high functioning autistic", which none of us knew, so I was expected by the world —and myself, to be "normal", but was judged by people as either weird or willfully obtuse, and then came to resent "the world" for this. I had long despised the Church with its teaching that man was "sinful" rather than "good", as many other "secular" people did.
But in my utter disillusionment, the teaching was starting to make some sense. Especially as I came into contact with the prophetic interpretations of sabbatarian sect "Armstrongism", via the Plain Truth magazines my Baptist maternal grandmother nevertheless had in her house. He softened things by eliminating Hell, in favor of "soul sleep" before the resurrection and judgment, and "annihilation" afterward (which made sense, since as I quickly read, the Bible did clearly set forth Resurrection as the hope for life after death, and not floating straight to Heaven or Hell immediately after death as commonly portrayed in both traditional preaching, as well as secular cartoons).

He also took a rather oddly modified version of electionism, in saying those not "called" now are not condemned at all, but will have their first true "chance" to accept Christ and be saved, in that Resurrection to judgment, which is only to the "second death" for those who had been called now, but rejected it. (So here was a nice alternative to what was obviously the most "offensive" doctrine of Christendom, and which completely took down the wall I had toward it. This of course, is all anathema to "orthodox Christianity" as I quickly saw in CRI’s Kingdom of the Cults and other apologetic publications).

As time went on, the pressing issue became my becoming this college dropout, stuck in my agnostic parents’ home, in an increasingly hostile economy and seemingly impossible job market, landing at minimum wage jobs, complaining about my lack of social success or any sort of relationship with the opposite sex, and yet becoming "religious", which was seen as the "white man’s trick" to "keep blacks down" by preventing us from "doing whatever it takes to survive" (while the white man himself used it for the opposite reason, to survive at everyone else’s expense).

I was seen as using it as an "excuse" or "crutch" to "hide from life". At the same time, an alcohol problem my father had was escalating to almost dangerous levels as the full weight of "midlife crisis" was hitting him as he approached and entered his 50’s.

So I was constantly being harassed, for both my work status, my overall lifetime personality flaws in the world, and now, this new religious faith, which I as it is, was struggling with believing, and of course was not living perfectly, like in the way I reacted to him.

I was in a rather precarious position ecclesiastically, with absolutely no fellowship; having rejected "mainstream Christianity", yet not feeling comfortable with Armstrongism either, because of its "closed" nature (weekly meetings were private, and I was only able to catch one "public lecture". You otherwise had to join, and it seemed to be ruled with an iron fist by its founder, in his last year of life at the time. I knew it fit all the classic definitions of a "cult", even apart from the doctrines —which are what Christians apologetics focus on in using the term; and some of the doctrines, I couldn’t believe in as well).

In Plain Truth, its sister magazine Good News, and numerous booklets on just about every biblical topic, I would see their teachings on the subject of pain and suffering. Numerous scriptures would be cited on how suffering was "good" for us, because we would get a big "reward" for it after we die, plus it "makes us become more like Christ", who had suffered for us. At first, I was able to at times gain some solace from this, especially in my "rebelling against the cold, unfair world" mindset, but as the harassment got worse, and I increasingly lost tolerance for it, I got increasingly annoyed that well-paid ministers (off of the financial pressure the organization put on its members), far removed from these circumstances, would be writing so glibly about how to endure "suffering" (including the sexual frustration of singleness, given the strict rules on premarital sex and seeking only other "believers", I was following). I was so desperate, I even made appointments to speak to two of its ministers in their office in One Penn Plaza, and they (even being black in this lily white organization) basically couldn’t relate at all. One seemed to get impatient and just told me to change my attitude to life and bring "positive vibes".
This is basically the same message I had been getting from "the world"; particularly my father (even as he piled on much of the very pressure and negativity I was reacting to! "Power of Positive Thinking" is also, of course, the hallmark of the then increasingly popular watered down "worldly" religion of Norman Vincent Peale. Yet, I found the term used by even doctrinally "conservative" groups!)

The next closest thing to Armstrongism that wasn’t as "closed" was the Seventh Day Adventist church, who had a reading room and bookstore right next to the main NY Public Library. There, I met a street evangelist, who was an evangelical charismatic, and would debate the church speakers on the doctrinal differences, and I began debating him on the side of sabbatarianism, but he eventually convinced me of the error of the whole movement, and became sort of a mentor; the only one who would even listen to me and have long conversations on the phone.

He started off by pointing out that in a real sense, I was being "persecuted for the faith". This again, gave me some solace, but then as no kind of actual relief came, his answer increasingly became to "just pray about it", "trust God; seek His strength, focus on serving Him"; occasionally even the "you really deserve more, in Hell", etc.; citing all the scriptures, —basically that whole "nouthetic" approach. He too eventually got impatient when it didn’t change my attitude, and I started becoming deeply disillusioned with the whole teaching on "suffering", which I noticed was identical in these otherwise completely different and opposed movements. (Armstrong explained this in his final book Mystery of the Ages, p.251; that in areas of agreement such as "Christian living", "Satan is willing to allow the deceived to have parts of the truth". The evangelicals would of course say the same thing, in return!)

As I read the scriptures on the suffering of the New Testament Church, I felt a total "disconnect". What I was going through was not the same as their experience of being burned at the stake, sawn in half, crucified, appearing before leaders and told at the point of a sword "Christ or Caesar?" etc. They were only a generation removed from Christ, and still had the supernaturally appointed and endowed Apostles leading them. Not the utter confusion of thousands of years of corrupt institutional Christianity, that had by now fractured into hundreds of competing "groups", all claiming to be "changed" and "taught" by the Spirit, and yet believing so differently, and most denouncing each other, as the rest of the world looks at this and then turns away altogether, to science and other beliefs.

I started reading evangelical books, but found the same trite "pat answers" as they were even called. (Even those who claimed "no pat answers" still ultimately gave them!) It was maddening! The only writer who stood out was Philip Yancey, whose Disappointment With God immediately caught my attention in a Christian bookstore, after having recently been published. It offered no magical solutions (and of course concluded with the same "hope of better things in Heaven" as everyone else), but at least he acknowledged the difficulty of faith and dealing with suffering, and didn’t blame the sufferers, offer "tough" talk, or rub in the "pain is good" part (though it’s "benefits" are mentioned, and he was also known for his work with the surgeon Dr. Paul Brand on that subject). People like him were so incredibly few and far between.

However, as time went on, in the final decade of the 20th century, it seemed many other leaders profited more and more off of the standard teaching. It basically copied the secular "self help" movement, which itself had become a fad. My mother, sometime in the post-college period, at least once mentioned the "Erhard Seminar" or "Landmark Forum" (see https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/landmark-42-hours-500-65-breakdowns), which was this "motivational" seminar were they would "tell you about yourself", and which my parents thought might be good for me. (With what I was already getting from them? Not on your life!)
By the new millennium, the likes of Dr. Phil and the brutally caustic Judge Judy became TV sensations with their "tough talking" approach. Even the trashy Jerry Springer show spun off his bouncer Steve Wilkos into his own show, who had a similar approach! The shows also regularly featured "boot camp" for wayward kids. Everyone got a kick out of it!

The "Law of Attraction" is an almost religious-like theory of getting your attitude and actions in order, so that "life" will begin favoring you, when "the energy you put out there comes back to you". (Have heard little versions of this from my family at times, as well). Just like spirituality; you can’t readily prove or disprove it; just "believe" and DO it, and you’ll see the "results".

All of this is obviously the inspiration for everything I was addressing here, including the Cracked article (first comment), where even to dispute the cutting approach garners the response of you being a "narcissis[t] confronted with a greater power" and who "view[s] yourself as being ‘above’ the lesson" and will "never be willing to learn it".(" Go achieve some humility, bro. No one needs an a*****e!") As I note, it is based on an assumption that talking like that is the only way to motivate someone!
It even holds up as its model the line of Alec Baldwin’ character in the movie "Glengarry Glenn Ross" addressing a room full of workers:
"Nice guy? I don’t give a s___. Good father? F___ you! Go home and play with your kids. If you want to work here, close." [i.e. the sales they’ve been assigned] This is even compared to Jesus’ statement  "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire".

Clearly, as much as the "world" rejects the Christian’s notion of man being an "evil sinner", who deserves "Hell", this is what is paralleled here, in a similar attitude underlying these approaches. It’s the basis of "boot camp". Man is by nature screwed up and lazy, and needs to be "broken down and put back together again" through "being torn a new one". (The advocates of these kinds of seminars loudly advertise that they are something "everyone" needs!)
Contrary to the common Christian charge that "nonbelievers" follow no rules and just do "whatever feels good", while "overcoming" and gaining "victory" over bad behaviors is "only possible with the power of Christ", they do speak of "delaying gratification", and taking "difficult paths" in "growing". My father certainly taught this! So do the "capitalists" (who conservative Christians hail as good examples of character). All they have done is strip "life-change" motivation of the transcendent "sin" premise of "God" and "guilt" before "divine Law", and depersonalize Him down to "the universe" and its one "command" of "survive or die".

And as much as the Church claims to reject "the world’s philosophy", they (from the IFB "fundamentalists" on down) have copied it lock, stock and barrel in these methods, which they associate with "godly preachers" of old, but are really driven by the same assumptions of the power of human "choice", and the common thread of "rugged individualism". (The fundamentalists only differ in rejecting modern "terms" and "techniques").

In both the world and the Church, the common motivation is that it SELLS! (So both the "world" and "[people of] God" are "stealing from" each other; to address the one-sided premise of Turek’s book! Both use the language of  "personal responsibility" and "delayed gratification" as determining who has moved up to a status of "earning" a bit less discomfort than what’s proscribed for most others).

It’s a whole "Ice Age" mode we’re in. Financially, we’re operating on a premise of "scarcity" (and also hypervigilant in other areas, especially where litigation is feared) and this is also plugged into man’s default sentence of "suffering", while there’s really an "abundance" all around, that is kept out of reach to most people who feel an increasingly tightening belt, and special skill and "diligence", etc. is required, to climb to the "top", to "earn" some of it. Even the Christians go along with this philosophy when defending capitalism.

In those early years of the faith, and particularly in Yancey’s book, I ran across the biblical story of Job, who suffered a series of serious setbacks, and was "comforted" by a trio of "friends", who only made the matter worse. In fact, he started out with the "positive attitude" often cited, that "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" (2:10). However, as the pains wore on and became more unbearable, he began complaining, and it got to the point of "I’m righteous, and I don’t deserve this". The friends began countering that he must have "sinned", in order for this to happen.
Both sides essentially were in agreement that pain is the "punishment" for sin, and therefore, by implication, comfort must be the "reward" for righteousness. You see the same thing in some assumptions Christ’s disciples and others He spoke to made, regarding calamities befalling people (Luke 13:1-5, John 9:42). Some have noted that Job might be a "type" of Israel, with both entities suffering, and protesting they are righteous and don’t deserve it.
They differed in Job concluding God was not "just", and the friends maintaining God was "just", and therefore, it had to be Job’s own "sin". (Both are ultimately types of Christ, who was the One who WAS "just" and had no sin, and yet still suffered).

I had quickly begun noting how much of the Church’s answers (in the books, and to me personally) resembled "Job’s friends". I’ve seen people go as far as to interpret "encouragement" as basically tough motivation, rather than making the person feel better. Even people interpreting God’s answer to Job, such as Frederick Buechner (Wishful Thinking), cited by Yancey (p190): "God doesn’t explain. He explodes. He asks Job who he thinks he is anyway. God doesn’t reveal his grand design; he reveals himself". Because God’s the one who runs the universe and Job isn’t, then the message when interpreted this way sounds like "just shut up and suffer", like "suffering" itself is the natural consequence of "not being God". Teachers such as Joyce Myers seem to sometimes associate aversion to disappointment with "trying to be God".
(In actuality, God wasn’t chastising him over "running the universe"; it was specifically because Job "was righteous in his own eyes" (32:1) by claiming to be more just than God). But this seems to be the most that most Christians can offer.

And more recently, looking back over the "counsel" I my whole life got from "the world"; including very recently from my mother and brother during a series of difficult problems on the job and in life in general, realized that in fairness, the "world" is like "Job’s friends" as well!

I’m now seeing "Job’s friends" as perhaps representing mankind as a whole, whether Christian or non Christian, in their approach to pain and suffering. My family, now, and in the past, thought they were doing some good, in giving me tough advice all those years. Christians believe they are doing even more good, in showing a person how to get "right with God", and not only escape far worse suffering in eternity, but also perhaps, enjoy whatever "blessings" that might come from "obedience to God" now.

It’s what I began to realize (in light of those difficulties at the beginning of this year); all of man, from Job’s friends to modern religion and secular "self help" are essentially unable to help the suffering. All of their "counsel" boils down to one thing, in one form or another: if you’re hurting, it’s your own fault. There are "laws" in the universe you have broken (whether "God’s" laws, or "natural" ones). You have not done enough to improve yourself. You have not produced enough "value" to be liked or respected by others. You need to "love yourself" (which implies your pain is your own fault for not loving yourself). It’s a simple "choice" (so there’s "no excuse"), yet it’s really a long "process" (So it’s not easy, and never really ends; its just endless "effort", and through the other platitudes such as the "lesson", this is what’s good and must be taught). How much can you blame all of them, when this does seem to be how the universe works, and how best to adapt to it?

It parallels the entire theme of the New Testament, regarding "works-righteousness". And it completely eliminates any sort of compassion, as counselors only get frustrated when the person doesn’t "change their attitude" toward their pain, for "it works", but only if your heart is in the right place. (And for those making a career off of the teachings behind this, if it’s shown to really "not work" for everybody, then that potentially puts their livelihood in jeopardy).

Many Christians have told themselves (in their preaching) for years, that only they practice the "hard" path of "self-denial", while "the world" does "everything they want", that "feels good", and thus making life too "easy". One radical sabbatarian group I used to read mocked both the Gospel of Grace and the deity of Christ by associating them with "pagan" religions, where "a ‘savior god’ came and ‘did everything for you’". That is a common assumption among legalists. But it’s actually more the opposite! Do we forget all the grievous sacrifices, including human, those religions often used, to appease the gods? How about sacrificing the children to Molech, as recorded in the Bible, and God expressed great feeling about it when Israel began copying it?
So the pagans were actually quite diligent in "the merit of discomfort", even if the sexual mores may have been looser than ours; and so "works-righteousness" is the common theme of "the world", and thus is "the broad path". ("Broad path" is assumed to mean "easy path", but as things like the secular "fitness" craze should show us, what’s "broad" often isn’t what’s "easy").

The entire lesson of Job might be that we can’t rely on humans to comfort us, for all they really know is "do this to help yourself", (and that if you still suffer, at least past a certain point, it’s all your own fault for not doing enough. This then ties right into our common "fallen" need to claim good things in life by the merit of our efforts. For if we’re doing well, then we must have done right, and if were doing right, then we continue to deserve to do well).
Of course, on the religious side, this realization may lead right back to "trust God [not man]" as the whole point, in fact.  The secular world just repeats "trust yourself". But both are inner work that is still difficult in an outer world that for one thing, is constantly telling us our "subjective" perspective doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.
So that just remains a dilemma that seems unsolvable.

Turek concludes this chapter on evil, on a justification of the allowance evil in the world, that God did not create us to be "happy all the time" (p131f) and live to be 80 (p128), but rather "His plans for eternity are the ultimate point of this life anyway". So, as usual, dismissing our aversion to pain as just a desire for "happiness" (the big catchword in Christian teaching on suffering and problems), and then pointing to Heaven.

This leads to the "pain is good" premise, where he has to posit a "reason" for God "allowing problems to interfere with our desires in this period of ‘testing’". (p132)
That’s of course another big catchword, culled from several scriptures encouraging the NT Church in the persecution for the faith they were suffering. This is usually extended to all Christians for all times, which as it is, was stretching it beyond its original intention (so that it now applies to someone losing their house, their health or their loved one —he has the typical anecdotal examples of this in the chapter, as the "right" way to feel). And they better have the right attitude and "trust God" in it, or else; and we’ll just pray for them, but not have any other help to offer.
It suggests that everything we don’t like in life is some deliberate act of God (like in citing Heb.12:7), though if you put it like that, they tend to deny and put it on the Devil, the Fall, or just "human free will". (The "chastening" in that passage isn’t painful situations; it’s "conviction", when you look up the translated word).

p135 cites CS Lewis in saying we want a "grandfather in Heaven" (a "senile benevolence who likes to see young people enjoying themselves") rather than a "Father in Heaven" (who cares about "character" rather than "comfort").
This now is attributing pain to God, when they usually try to dissociate it from Him.

"Therefore, God allows us to do evil and allows natural laws to run their course, knowing that, although there will be pain along the way, good will come from it".
This makes God totally passive in the playing out of life. "Natural laws running their course" is exactly what we see, yet we are supposed to be praying for Him to "intervene" in this "course", and then interpret good things that happen as Him intervening (interrupting or changing this "course"), and bad things as either others’ "evil", or Him trying to develop character in us.
Nobody thinks of the implications of using these passages the way they do.

p.139 He cites former Notre Dame pastor "If God would concede me his omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are".

This essentially puts a divine stamp on everything in the world; good and evil (and most of these leaders getting more of the "good", being their position usually is well accommodated).
If the unknown "Plan" is what’s most important to God, then it implies a part of Him smiling down on our suffering (even as this other part suffers "with" us).

"A good God knows that comfort is temporary but character is eternal. As any parent knows, character growth is almost impossible in our fallen state without some pain and suffering. Certain virtues seem to require it. As the Scriptures teach [Heb./James] and experience proves, it’s difficult to develop courage without danger, perseverance without obstacles, patience without tribulation, compassion without suffering, character without adversity, and faith (trust) without need. Soul-making is indeed painful." (p.134) This sounds almost like some sort of military training program!
He denies that this is "the end justifies the means", because we’re the ones doing evil, not God; "We’re the rebels". (p.139)

So God is actively "soul-making" through pain, but it’s really us doing it to ourselves.
On one hand, they acknowledge that we can never become perfect in this life, and so teach that we are instantly perfected upon death, rapture or resurrection. Yet here it makes it sound like all of this heavenly perfection is created here, now through our suffering.
But really, when you think of it, what will all of this "courage", "perseverance", and "patience" be needed for in this perfect Heavenly bliss in the presence of God? (I often would ask to myself, "if we have to be so ‘toughened up’ like this, then what are we being ‘prepared’ for; Heaven or Hell"?)

In the original scriptural contexts, the early Church needed those things to help endure the suffering they were already going through, in the form of persecution for the faith. The persecution wasn’t sent to them to develop their "character" for something else; it was all about the fulfillment of a particular calling they had, and its "testimony".
Many will then hypothesize that perhaps it is for some purpose in this life, but now you’ve become completely speculatory, as we don’t even know if we’ll have tomorrow. Plus, he (and everyone else who teaches this) emphasizes it’s for eternity: "discovering and accepting the ultimate happiness in knowing God" (p.141). This is now so vague. It brings us right back to the question of what developing courage through danger, perseverance through obstacles, etc. has to do with it.

"Thus, God allows evil to respect our free choices, to bring people to Himself, and to refine and grow people so they may enjoy Him more fully. As Peter Kreeft put it, ‘Sin has made us stupid, so that we can only learn the hard way’. This world isn’t a good resort, but it’s a great gymnasium".
(This here sounds like the typical basis for abusive parenting or leadership; just be brutally tough as possible, to force the bad child or stupid sheep to do what’s right. Instead, what we are doing is projecting our dysfunctional parenting (and other leadership) skills onto God, assuming the way we raise children is the way he raises us. Our societies have to deter crime through fear of discomfort, so this must be what God does to us. It negates Grace, and that "His ways are not our ways"! (Isaiah 55:8-9)

And it can never be repeated too often that this "growth through pain" concept is not exclusive to born again Christians! That will probably be taken as another example of something "stolen from God", but in light of the "nature running its course" statement, it seems nothing was actually "stolen" from Him, but rather He has basically "conceded" all of it, in this view!)

So what we continue to see here is this tangled web of pain as punishment for sin, God is doing it for good, to perfect us, but He’s not really doing it, it’s just nature and free will being allowed to run its course, etc.

So this "purpose" that would be "frustrated" by having us "happy all the time" is "knowing Him" (this is the almost unanimous answer among all organized Christian groups). "In our fallen state, communing with God and becoming more like Jesus often requires pain. Pain awakens us to God and then refines us for God". (ibid.)
Scriptures don’t actually say all of this, at least not on a broad, general fashion (though there are a couple mentioning some good results from it, but still, this has a particular context and is not necessarily for everyone, for all times). This is basically creating a specific definition of God, that is all tied up with PAIN. Why is that?

Pain is a neurological signal that something is wrong, and needs to be changed. That’s whether directly physical (where the body may be in danger), or emotional (where our relationship with others has problems).
This may seem to go along with "well, in our fallen state, sin is what’s ‘wrong’, and that’s what the pain is for".

If we were only speaking about guilt, shame, addictions and their results, unfulfilled overindulged desires, etc. you might have a point. But a lot of pain has nothing to do with [our own] sin (e.g. natural disasters, etc.), and even more that might not be the suffering person’s own sin. In those cases, pain, again, is the neurological signal that something is wrong in a circumstance, such as being physically or emotionally abused. It has nothing to do with the person’s own fallen state and need to be drawn to God. Christ Himself suffered and had neither condition.

To suggest this, then comes close to Job’s friends and their accusations of "sin". Suffering is for your sins (even if you generalize it to the whole "fallen" state of the world). God had said that those men "had not spoken of Me what is right"! (Job 42:7,8) It is ultimately the accusation of the Devil!

It also then suggests that people suffering more must have more sin (and thus need more "character development"), and those with more success must have more "character", that they don’t need the growth as much. (They’ve already "proven themselves", apparently, or already more "perfected" than others). Most don’t say this now (at least not directly, though the pastor mentioned before came pretty close), but it was the basis of the Puritan Calvinist view of the founding of the nation by conquest (which still bears influence in much of American evangelicalism. But most will be embarrassed by this, and deny it when spat back to them this way.  In actuality, who suffers more or less is basically the process of nature running its course, but here it’s turned into a potential judgment).
And worse than anything else, it provides a quick answer people (usually suffering less, and thus not able to relate) shoot at the suffering, rather than showing the compassion and patience pain was supposed to teach us, according to part of the common teaching. Instead, it has the opposite effect, as we demand "good attitude", and then begin judging the poor suffering person on this.

The teaching that God uses pain for some good purpose (or, inflicts people with it for eternity because they didn’t make the right choices in this life), again, makes pain an end in itself. This clearly sounds like a human attempt at explaining what he can’t understand (and also quashing grieving and complaining we don’t want to hear, and thus CONTROLling people’s emotions and attitudes).

And as we see, it takes many scriptures out of their original first century persecution contexts in trying to apply them to our pains today. This is treated in full, here). So it turns us into cold "Job’s friends" who negate that we are all creatures with feelings that we teach our children matter when dealing with others (and especially when we feel we are not being treated right), and telling sufferers that on one hand, God "cares", but in practice, He’s really more concerned with His own supposed offense at your "bad attitude", which then is taken as a virtual rejection of His redemption and love!

Here’s an outline of what causes suffering:

•The energy of the universe pushes matter to be constantly changing.

•Living beings need the matter they depend on (bodies, shelter, etc.), to stay the same, to sustain the living state (i.e. “survival")

•This is what makes the universe what we call “violent”, and life “difficult”, as we are essentially going against nature in trying to maintain these temporary forms as they are tugged on by forces such as gravity and oxidation.

•Within this context, instincts (both survival and reproductive) drive us and every other living creature to act “by any means necessary”, and far outshine conscience, and especially “revelation”.

•As part of this, nature “rewards” those who master fulfilling the instinctual demands the best. The reward is "survival" (and flourishment) itself!
°(Even conservative Christians acknowledge this whenever they promote “rugged individualism” and defend systems like capitalism, and appeal to concepts like “bootstraps” and “delayed gratification”).

Summary:

•Pain and suffering come from the randomness of the universe and man’s part of it comes from the survival instinct not mixed with higher standards of integrity [hence, "sin"; i.e. "falling short"].

•So much of the stuff men do to each other is simply the principle of “power“; systems vs individuals, (“united we stand, divided we fall”), and between systems or individuals, relative “size” or “weight”.
°This is the nature of the universe.

So, it is more accurate to just say pain is due to need of survival within the laws of the universe [physical] and life not meeting expectations [mental]).

The biggest casualty of all; what "pain" is supposed to teach us: "Love"

Quite clearly, we see that the result of this teaching is not going to make very compassionate people! It goes right along with the "rugged individualism" that has marked the coldness of conservative political theory, and hence, why Trump would be a hero to them, despite all of his moral lapses. In both the Church and the "world", "life is difficult" is often used to brush off people’s complaining.

Since the Gospel is believed to be that the "death" man "deserves" is really consciousness of physical "suffering", then as has been mentioned earlier, the big "deception" often becomes "feel good" messages, or any "softening down" of a fearful message, that men "need" as it supposedly aims to spare them from that fate. This is often said to be leading to the "end times one world religion"; supposedly an amalgam of all the different religions. What they would be united under would likely be a common theme.
And the world has already said, "the purpose of all religion is ‘love’". (I heard this even from my father, when we would debate). So that is the conservative assumption.

This is what Cloud and other IFBs’ constant "warnings" are all framed upon. Everyone else, even other "fundamentalists" now, are sliding away to this "endtimes apostasy", where everything is "easy" and God’s "hard paths" are skirted in favor of indulgence of "the flesh".
But in opposing any movement that focuses on "love" as leading toward the "end times apostasy", they actually end up condemning "love"!

It’s hypothetically true that if Satan wants to sway "the world" to some final future showdown with God, he could use something that sounds nice to everyone, such as "love". But what’s totally missed, is that in the Bible, the true role of Satan is an accuser, who opposes Christ’s work on the Cross, and the GRACE it brought, and he does this not by leading men to sinful "fun" or sentiments such as "love", "peace", etc. but by focusing on LAW. The total reverse of what mainstream "conservative" Christianity has preached, but can be immediately seen just by looking at who was actually opposing Christ and the Apostles and the NT Church. Romans 1 leads directly into Romans 2, telling you directly who Paul was talking about in the previous chapter (including even the sexual deviancy!)

People need to remember, Satan appears as an "angel of light" (2 Cor.11:14), meaning he doesn’t [directly] look like "darkness", as we seem to expect (like in all the cartoon portrayals of him you can find in Chick tracts). We don’t think the "fun" of all the "pleasures" we believe he leads people into, as looking like "light", do we? It looks like the opposite, to us! (Though we may try to appeal to the world’s sentiment of "love" as being what looks like "light" to them. But it’s the "elect" whom he is trying to deceive). What those claiming to be elect think looks like "light" is stuff done in God’s name, such as preaching of His Law, and all the "difficulty" it entails (in total contrast to the rest of the "world" we often look down on as doing nothing but indulging in pleasure). So, continuing in the next verse, "his ministers [are] also transformed as the ministers of righteousness". In the original context, this was those preaching the Law (of Israel and the Temple), and afterward, the Church followed suit, "emulating" (Gal.5:20) the Old Covenant system. They changed some of the laws, but maintained the notion of human effort as "necessary" for justification. And of course, the "difficulty" of it all!

It’s through the divine Law that man thinks he can get to Heaven on his own efforts. (This aim is what we see in the Bible from cover to cover: from Nimrod to the "Man of sin"; from Adam’s fig leaves to the "mark of the Beast" on the hand and forehead). It totally negates all Christ did and stood for; reducing it to some "help" in doing works that "prove", if not procure salvation, as often preached.

"One world religion" is never mentioned in scripture. When we look at the prophecies this is extracted from, we see a "woman riding the Beast", which everyone recognizes as a symbol of a corrupt religious body that bears rule over "the world" in the "end times".
Where they’ve been mistaken, is in what that "world" that was ending was, and therefore, what the "end" actually was.* Since they think it’s the end of the physical world, then they had to assume this "harlot Church" ruled over the entire physical world. From there, it was figured the only way it could accomplish that was from integrating all other religions.

The Roman Catholic Church had initially fit the bill, growing to control and influence much of the Western world, and often adopting native religious practices along the way, to make conversion of the people easier.
When American Protestantism began losing much of its power to liberal religion and even other faiths and increasing syncretization (as some tried to harmonize them all), they became very reactive in their use of prophecy. And so this led to the forecast that the merger of all religions, around the common theme of "peace, love and acceptance", would be the "One World end-times deception", with the leftist principles of "equality" forced by a "globalist totalitarian government" being the political "Beast" (or "Antichrist") power the bad woman rides on. This actually became the excuse of one fundamentalist school to maintain a segregated dating policy until the year 2000: "the one world Babel builders are pushing integration". So just by that, what they were doing was totally justified. It didn’t even matter how ethical, let alone scriptural it was! It was opposing the real evil forces in the world; so God is behind it!

The mission of "true people of God" therefore ended up being to resist and oppose everyone else (governments, "globalists", "secularists", other religions, other "cultures" and immigrants who won’t "assimilate", and the political leaders who supposedly promote this) and defend their own lives and power. (Even as they still believe man "deserves" suffering; and should thus "fear not" and accept whatever difficulty comes their way as from God. They take themselves out of the equation of "who man is", in their claim to be "changed", and so don’t hold themselves to the same burdens they place on others. And also, equally ironic, most believing they would be "raptured" away before any of this happened, because "God wouldn’t put His children through the Tribulation". Yet they continue to fight all the developments in the world they feel threatened by).
Hence, the ironic love for Trump, all framed up in "God, guns, guts and glory". Also to jump scriptural promises of imminent "judgment" to us today, to try to control by fear.

This is why we see the backward focus, where love is the "endtime deception", and Law and all the strife it brings (including outright meanspiritedness), is the "truth", of God’s "gospel". (In reality, Love, and The "Golden Rule" was said in scripture to be the fulfillment of the Law).*

And it like everything else, goes right along with and is basically founded upon the premise that man deserves pain and discomfort (the "unregenerate" man, that is; not those here "standing up for the Word of God", with the light resistance they face counted as fulfilling their portion of "suffering"). Any attempt to ameliorate suffering is taken as an evil plot against "God and His people" (and any negative drawbacks or corruptions of those efforts used to completely invalidate the problems they were designed to address).

Meanwhile, who in fact the "harlot" was, was the established, conservative, originally God-ordained, but corrupted institution trying to hold on to its previous power. This is what we are seeing again today. (The people in this same position in NT times were described in 1 Thess.2:15 as being "contrary to all men", which fits today as well).

The Bible doesn’t speak of "deserving pain". (At least not in any broad, general sense for all of mankind). This was an assumption derived from various warnings (in both testaments) about fiery destruction, and since we know fire causes intense pain when we come in contact with it, the punishment it represented came to be assumed to be about pain. (One may think of "Man is born unto trouble" in Job 5:7, but this is not speaking of "deserve").
The Lazarus and the Rich Man story’s mention of a dead man in "torment" in fire, and asking to have "the tip of his tongue cooled" with "a drop of water" added to that assumption. Groups that deny the immortality of the soul will interpret the details other ways. Like he’s about to be annihilated in the lake of fire, and wants the water only on the tongue because it was so dry, out of terror, or something like that. Sounds kind of weak, but I’m not sure.

It should be more obvious the Rich Man (like several other figures Christ used in His sermons, —as well as in Romans, to spell out that earlier discussion, and also, as mentioned, Job) represented the carnal Israelites (who trusted in their "inheritance"), and Lazarus was those rejected under their paradigm. They end up in "Abraham’s bosom" (as his "children"), while "the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness" (Matt.8:12). This was finalized in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, three decades later (when some of them standing there were still alive to see it; 16:28). "Fire" was for the destruction of what man trusted in in place of God’s provisions. That was man’s punishment: death (after all; Rom.6:23); not simply "pain".
So this is not about everyone in the world (Jew or Gentile, and for all times in history) receiving physical torture in Hell that they "deserve" because they were sinners.*

*The New Testament still contains the language of works and judgment (leading to much dispute regarding "faith vs works" and "perseverance vs eternal security" among the different groups), because it is actually a transition period between the covenants. One covenant was "passing away", but yet still held some authority over the people. The other covenant was "promised", or the true "Blessed Hope", but not fully in effect, until God removed the system embodying the old covenant, which was the Jerusalem Temple. So they only had an "earnest" or "downpayment" (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5, Eph.1:14) on the promise, and were "running the race" to it and thus had to persevere. Failure to understand this is why we have so much confusion, and doctrines such as man deserving pain, and using this to control by fear.

God revealed in Jesus

In the Calvinist literature, you essentially hear more about "God" than Jesus, and of course, with the Trinity doctrine their founder burned someone at the stake over, Christ is supposed to be God. Still, to reflect back on the discussions with them, they seem to spend very little time looking at the character of Jesus as revealed in His time on earth, but instead spend a lot of time dwelling on "God", and His "decrees", "glory", "holiness", "justice", "unsearchable counsel" and how these things are as important or maybe even moreso, than "love" and "grace". All of these things that (as they always admit as a last resort) are "above our comprehension". Yet part of the whole point of Jesus' descent to earth was to reveal the character of this "God" everyone talked about, but didn't really know. One of the big proofs of His deity (the common divine essence) was the statement "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). There is no need to look at that, and continue to say "OK, that's Jesus, He said that then, but 'God', over here, is really more like this [like, in his pure form], and it's above our comprehension anyway, so just believe what we say".

What you saw when Jesus walked the earth (and recorded in the gospels), is the fullness of the divine revelation. If it looks different than that perpetually "angry God" in the Old Testament, or even His reprisal in Revelation and other New Testament prophetic passages, then apparently, God was working out different parts of a Plan, with different people.

Also, the purpose of the Law is that man fell into trouble, and God held them up to their attempts at justifying themselves, but at the appointed time, switched to grace. (And again, the only ones that "wrath" afterward was reserved for, were those rejecting Him and persecuting His followers, [ever so ironically in the name of the Law] then, and this would end shortly. This rather than the opposite (common assumption), that Jesus only represented God trying to be "patient" with man for a bit, but soon, God would revert to His "real" nature, of perpetual wrath).

People have traditionally seen the Father as the “angry” God of “hate” (toward anything that “offends His holiness”, which is not even a biblical term) and the Son as the “loving” one. So even after the Son "loves" men and dies to free them from condemnation; the angry Father is still there, and must always have subjects to exercise His “justice” on. So that’s why we have this ongoing confusion of grace and condemnation. (We have Augustine of Hippo to thank for the rationalizations of both doctrines).

Conclusion

So this "man deserves pain" concept diminishes Christ’s work on the Cross by saying it was not enough, without man still having to pay God back, through suffering, in one way/reason or another (the "give and take" motif of our "knowledge of good and evil"). It turns the Gospel into a competing therapy (and this includes those who vehemently reject the term and concept of "therapy") of self-improvement, used to try to control people’s behavior. The purpose of this doctrine was ultimately to justify inflicting pain on others for one’s own benefit. You’re a sinner, and if you suffer in this [political or religious] system, well, it’s your own fault; you deserve it anyway. If I benefit, it’s because I’m "converted" ("regenerated"), and am right in all my beliefs and actions (and if I’m ever wrong [like falling into a sin I can’t possibly deny], well, then, I’m really justified by my regeneration, evidenced by the rest of my life, so don’t try to use that against me!)

While no one can ever solve the problem of pain, in this "imperfect world", removing this false philosophy can perhaps help moderate the "rugged individualism" that prevents many from seeing the need to try to figure out how to help comfort others better.

A general outline of "traditional Christian" in practice beliefs

1) God got mad at man for disobeying a commandment in the garden and then retaliated

2) From then on, man deserves pain (starting with the temporal pain of the “cursed” ground, and culminating with eternal fire after death). This curse gave him a “fallen nature”, which was about deliberate intentions of defiance toward God.

3) God gave the Law to try to fix man's behavior, but because of the fallen nature, he couldn't keep it, so God sent Christ to die to forgive man's sins, (creating a “blank slate”, initially).

4) But since God's ultimate goal was behavioral order (called “holiness”), He still had to fix that problem, so He then also sent the Spirit to reverse the deliberate antagonism toward God and “impart” an ability to keep the Law better.

5) Since man still deserves pain, God did not make this easy. This power cannot be felt, only "believed" in, while the pull of our "old nature" is left fully in place, and so you still have to will yourself to better behavior through the motivation of preaching, Bible study and the conscience. The power then gradually makes you not want to sin as much, "proving" your regeneration, but you still have to struggle "uphill". This is done deliberately, because it also makes man "grow" into behaving better.

6) Though some laws were changed or dropped, the overall standards have become higher, creating a “hard walk” on a “narrow path” most won't make. At the same time, all special revelation has been withdrawn, and so “faith” must be “pre-supposed”, against any evidence that may seem to go against it (unless you're following a group that claims science really proves the pre-supposed doctrine), making it all the more harder. Yet God will still judge us harshly as He "showed" us the truth, even though the only thing shown is conscience or "general revelation" (ambiguous evidence from nature).

7) Those who manage to convert and live right and persist and "grow" then have their sins removed (both forgiven, and virtually ceased), with the “nature” greatly diminished in character. They thus do not deserve pain in the way other sinners do, (though God still gives them some through “tests” of faith via some general difficulties in life). Any person or political system that offends them or criticizes them for any reason is therefore wrong, and an attack of the Devil.

8) Because of this, God calls preachers among them to shake up the sinners of the world by preaching at their sin, threatening Hell, and also guarding against other Christians softening the message or having too much ‘fun’ themselves. These preachers are to reflect God's utter hatred of man and his sins, and uphold the “righteousness” of the past, when God raised their forefathers to create an “exceptional” Anglo-American civilization. Only those who conform are to be shown God's love.

9) They are called to rule over it, and “take it back” if they lose power.
“Sinners” hatred toward God leads them to oppose His culture and its leaders So just this opposition constitutes “persecution” against “God's people”. But since the sinners deserve pain, their concerns are to be disregarded. Even stuff like slavery and other oppression can be ultimately justified, and the victims should be "thankful", because they really deserve worse! (And their "sins" probably brought some of it on them anyway!) The “rugged” godly men's complaints, on the other hand, are different; it's the “truth", and demanding their God-given “rights”.

10) Naturally, relatively few will convert and then remain committed to the faith. Basically (to be really honest), it's set up for most men to fail. This can only be explained by some “secret counsel”, where God is more “glorified” by men burning in Hell (whether via Calvinistic “sovereignty of God in reprobation/preterition" or Arminian “sovereignty of man's free will”)

The True Gospel

1) Man took the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which instilled in him a sense of shame and the need for covering

2) God held man up to his new knowledge, and added the Law and its punitive and atonement system to address man's problem.

3) Man as a whole could not keep this Law, but only became self-righteous about it, while his sin was still present.

4) God sent His Son to keep the Law and die to represent the propitiation of the requirement of the Law and gain the pardon man needed and then removed the Law system

ETB © 2019