If my kids asked Rob Bell's questions

Bell's video hit the internet a little more than a week ago, and the book is due out next week - yes, the PR whore is seductive - I ordered my copy. It's sparked a lot of heat, and rightly so. Christians are to be charitable...but, not when wolves enter the sheep pen. Yes, that's how I view Bell - a false teacher in the church who must be to taken to task for his false teaching. The Bible doesn't use nice words for false teachers - they are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9), corrupted in mind (2 Tim. 3:8), dogs (Phi. 3:2), and more. Challies offers a good review of his advanced copy here.

I'm thankful for the many people who are calling Rob Bell to task on this, but I wanted to do something a little different. The video is filled with questions. It's probably a good idea to think about how we'll respond to them when confused Christians ask or genuinely curious nonbelievers. So, I'll ask myself, "How would I respond to them if my sons asked, without the snide tone?" (They already have after they saw the video on my blog). Here's how.

So, dad, is Gandhi in hell? Really. Do we know that for sure?

Well, I don't know for sure because I wasn't there next to Gandhi's deathbed. He may have repented of his sins, including the sin of worshiping false god's. He may have placed his hope and trust in Christ instead of his good deeds or some other god. I don't know, but I doubt it. Here's what I do know. If he continued in his Hinduism, rejecting Jesus or treating him as one-of-many gods to be worshiped, then yes, Gandhi is in hell.

Guys, listen to what the apostle Paul wrote in a letter to the Romans. He said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, for it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith." (Romans 1:16-17). You need to see here what Paul is saying. In the gospel - the good news that Jesus came, died and rose again - there is salvation. Salvation from what? Alienation from God? Yes. Slavery to sin? Yes. Guilt and shame? Yes. Hopelessness? Yes. But what are the ultimate results of alienation from God and slavery to sin and guilt? Punishment! What does Paul say in Romans 6:23? "The wages of sin is death." Death isn't just a natural part of God's creation, it's punishment for sin. And apart from the good news it is an eternal death an eternal punishment in hell (Heb. 6:2; Rev. 20:14-15; 2 Thess. 1:9).

Guys, does Paul say, "the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone?" What does he say? He say's it's the "power of God for salvation to everyone who believes"! Look too at what Peter said when he was preaching in Acts 4, "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12). Who was Peter talking too? He was talking to Jews - and not just that, he was talking to the religious leaders. These people knew religion, knew Moses and the commandments and observed them. You could say they knew the true God more truly than any other people. But, even to these people, their religion and commandment keeping and doing good wasn't enough. What did they really need? Jesus. Right. "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Jesus taught this too. Did Jesus say you can get to God any way you please? Did he say you can get there through the popular religion of your country? Did he say you could get there by your hard work, or by being a nice person? How then? Though him, right! Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

I know Gandhi looks great. His good deeds are humbling to me - and a call to live out my faith better than I do now. But, Gandhi was a sinner. There's no way around that unless you reject clearly what God has told us (Rom. 3:23). Gandhi was not perfect. We aren't perfect (And boys, you aren't - don't ever forget that. Your good kids and we're proud of you, but you aren't perfect. You're well accomplished little sinners!). But God is perfect, and he commands us to be also (Matt. 5:48). Do you see the problem?

How can a good and holy God just ignore sin? Would your mom and me be good parents if we just ignored your rebellion and disobedience? Would a judge be good if he let the criminals go free just because he forgave them? God is forgiving, but he's also holy and just. So what's the solution? How can God save anyone without giving up his justice and his holiness?

Yep, the answer is Jesus again. On the cross, "Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other" (Psalm 85:10). On the cross, Jesus lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11), dying in their place (Rom. 5:8), suffering the punishment they deserve so they don't have to (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). And Jesus' death wasn't a stand alone event - it was the end of a whole life lived in perfect obedience to God. And that's important, because not only are we forgiven, but we're made righteous.

And this takes us back to that first passage in Romans. What did Paul say? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, for it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith." (Romans 1:16-17). The righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ for us. He was righteous and that becomes our righteousness. What's another way of saying "believe"? Right, have faith. Those who have faith are connected to Christ in an awesome way. Some people refer to it as the 'mystical union'. Sounds cool, doesn't it. It means there is some powerful but unexplainable way in which we're connected to Christ - he's in us and we're in him. Because we're connected to Christ through faith, his righteousness becomes ours! So we don't have to work to be saved, Christ worked for us!

Now because we're saved and Christ is in us, we will work. It just natural - Christ's image will work itself out in real ways in our life, but we can't get that backwards. We don't work to get Christ or get saved. Because we're saved and have Christ, we do good things. If you don't have Christ, if you aren't connected to him and his forgiveness and righteousness through faith, then all the good deeds you do, or Gandhi did, don't count for anything. Actually, the prophet Isaiah says their filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Filthy rags don't save. Only Jesus can.

Go think about it and come back if you have more questions...

Ok, that was a little more in depth than my answer to the boys earlier this week (but only a little).

Catechism #80-82

As we've been working through this study, I actually decided to skip Q80 with the boys. It definitely reflects the time it was written.

Question #80: How does the Lord's Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass?

Answer: The Lord's Supper declares to us that our sins have been completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ which he himself finished on the cross once for all. It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ, who with his very body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father where he wants us to worship him.

[But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshiped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry.]

(John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-26; 10:10-18, 1 Cor. 6:17; 10:16-17, Acts 7:55-56; Heb. 1:3; 8:1, Matt. 6:20-21; John 4:21-24; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3)

*Footnote:
Q. and A. 80 was altogether absent from the first German edition of the Heidelberg Catechism (January 1563) but appeared in a shorter form in the second German edition (March 1563). The translation above is of the expanded text of the third German edition (ca. April 1563). Its strong tone reflects the setting in which the Catechism was written.

In response to a mandate from Synod 1998, the Christian Reformed Church’s Interchurch Relations Committee conducted a study of Q. and A. 80 and the Roman Catholic Mass. Based on this study, Synod 2004 declared that “Q. and A. 80 can no longer be held in its current form as part of our confession.” Synod 2006 directed that Q. and A. 80 remain in the CRC’s text of the Heidelberg Catechism but that the last three paragraphs be placed in brackets to indicate that they do not accurately reflect the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church and are no longer confessionally binding on members of the CRC.

Question #81: Who are to come to the Lord's table?

Answer: Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their continuing weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life. Hypocrites and those who are unrepentant, however, eat and drink judgment on themselves (1 Cor. 10:19-22; 11:26-32).

Question #82: Are those to be admitted to the Lord's Supper who show by what they say and do that they are unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No, that would dishonor God's covenant and bring down God's anger upon the entire congregation. Therefore, according to the instruction of Christ and his apostles, the Christian church is duty-bound to exclude such people, by the official use of the keys of the kingdom, until they reform their lives (1 Cor. 11:17-32; Ps. 50:14-16; Isa. 1:11-17).

New Heavens and New Earth

We concluded our eight week series on "Heaven, Hell and Everything In Between" this past week. I tried to answer a few lingering questions, but more importantly, pick up some the pieces (details) and put together the big picture. I used Prezi for the first time. Not sure I'll use it again, but it was fun. I'm embedding the presentation here. I would recommend going full screen (under MORE). Just use the right arrow key to advance, left arrow key to go back.

Song of the Week

I was listening to this song with the boys in the truck today and told them I think this old hymn is one of my favorites because it best captures the debt we owe to God and his grace. Interestingly, the words of this hymn, written by Augustus Toplady as a polemic against Wesleyan/Arminian views of grace and salvation, were altered (neutered) before being put in the Wesleyan hymnal we have at home (stolen, I mean borrowed from Houghton College Chapel some 15 yrs ago).



PS. This is off the new split EP from Sojourn Music, featuring Jamie Barnes and Brooks Ritter. Check it out here.

What's Up With Hell

Several weeks ago in the Poiema ACG we discussed four views of hell. Actually, we only discussed three because time ran out. Unfortunately, the one we didn't get to is, in my opinion, the most satisfying. In light of all the buzz surrounding Rob Bell's forthcoming book, Love Wins, I thought I'd post my notes from the discussion, tie it in to Bell's views (as expressed in the video promo's) and outline my understanding.

First, lets start with Bell's [apparent] position - universalism. I say 'apparent' because the video isn't a lot to go on, but it is striking and horribly wrong in what it implies. It seems Bell is advocating an understanding of hell that goes back to Origen (185-254AD), though condemned by the church as heresy. Here's the video:



From this, it could be that Bell is advocating everyone experiences the blessings of God immediately after death, or, more likely, that the while some suffer in hell for a time, God's love overcomes and wins them to himself, at which time they are translated to heaven. Thus, in the end, hell is empty. As I said, this goes all the way back to Origen. For Origen, all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so. Origen believed that God’s love is so powerful it will soften even the hardest heart, and that the human intellect – being the image of God – will never freely choose oblivion over nearness to God." Origen was unable to conceive of a God who would create souls that were capable of dissolving into the "oblivion of evil" (non-being) for all eternity or of being created to suffer the ravages of hell for all eternity. For Origen, hell was a purifying reality - much like purgatory (see also John Hick and the idea of suffering as "soul building"). For support, Origen turned to 1 Cor. 15: 24-28 and argued that for "God to be all in all" meant that all souls would eventually be reunited with God. (Origen also had some bizarre ideas about reincarnation until souls received enough education or healing to accept God.) To say there are major problems with this view is a gross understatement (and I plan on posting more on Bell's video later).

To begin, there is virtually no biblical support for such an idea. On the contrary, there are way too many passages that speak of eternal punishment (see below on the third and fourth view). They simply cannot be ignored or explained away. Also, philosophically, it creates a huge problem for those who believe in a certain type of free will. Calvinists won't have too much of a problem on this point, but Wesleyan Arminians will choke on it. How can God assure that people will ever respond positively to his overtures?

Second, there are some who believe that those who die apart from Christ will be punished in hell for a time, but will pass into nonexistence when the demands of justice have been met. This position is sometimes referred to as annihilationism or a conditional view of hell. The chief (evangelical) advocates have been John Stott and Clark Pinnock. In Four Views on Hell, Pinnock point out that while the Apostles Creed ­­affirms Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, it does not detail what that judgment will look like. Pinnock notes that alongside the many texts that speak of the eternality of punishment are those that speak of the death and destruction of the wicked. For example, Psalm 37 declares the wicked will fade like the grass, be cut off, be no more, perish, and vanish (see also Malachi 4:1-2). Jesus told his listeners to fear the one who could destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28). Other NT authors used similar language (see 1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 3:19; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Peter 3:7; Jude 6-7). On this view, judgment is eternal in that it will never ever be reversed – it is eternally irrevocable (unlike the universalist). The main arguments offered by Pinnock are not, however, exegetical, but instead theological and philosophical. Chiefly, Pinnock finds the idea of eternal torment/punishment irreconcilable with a loving, just, good God. Some have pointed to God’s response to man’s first sin as an indication that God does not want man to live forever suffering the consequences of sin (Gen. 3:22-24). Moreover, he finds hell hard to reconcile with a totally renewed creation. So for Pinnock and those who follow this line, hell is real, punishment is real. It is eternal in that it is irrevocable. In the end, however, hell is also empty because eventually every person once consigned to it will pass into nonexistence.

In the end, Pinnock's position should be deemed sub-biblical for several reasons. For instance, Pinnock's treatment requires us to treat the word eternal (aionios) differently even when it appears in the same context. Jesus says in Matthew 25:46, "and these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” It seems improbable at best that eternal means 'irrevocable' in one instance but 'everlasting' in the other. Moreover, there is a total lack of support for Pinnock's view from the history of the church. In fact, the Council at Constantinople (543AD) condemned exactly this view, declaring "if anyone says hell is temporary and that punishment ceases, he is anathema." Ultimately, the annihilationist view is a bending of revelation to fallen man's reason.

These first two views should be rejected as unorthodox and unbiblical. The next two views are orthodox, biblical, evangelical, though the last I'll present is, in my opinion, the best.

The third view to consider is that of a literal fire and brimstone hell. On this view, those who have suffered in the intermediate state in Hades will after the final judgment be cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna) and suffer consciously in all eternity (Rev 20:13-14). The word eternal is taken literally to mean forever and ever without end. Proponents of this position point out that the word used in reference to eternal judgment is the same word used in reference to eternal blessing (John 3:36, 2 Cor. 4:17)and to God's eternality (Romans 16:26). In Four Views on Hell, Walvoord quotes Buis, "“Aionios is used in the New Testament sixty-five times: fifty-one times of the happiness of righteous, two times of the duration of God’s glory, six other times where there is no doubt as to its meaning being endless, and seven times of the punishment of the wicked” (24). The conclusion, "aionios in every instance refers to eternity...no sound Greek scholar can pretend that aionios means anything less than eternal" (24). So, eternal is literally eternal as in unending. And, on this view, fire is literally fire. Walvoord comments, "the frequent mention of fire in connection with eternal punishment supports the conclusion that this is what the Scriptures mean (cf. Matt. 5:22; Matt. 18:8-9; Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:43; Luke 16:24; James 3:6; Jude 7; Rev. 20:14-15)" (28). Additionally, he points to the story of Lazarus in Luke 16 for support. The rich man complained "I am in agony in this fire.". The strongest argument in favor of this literal rendering of hell, honestly, is from church history. This was the understanding of hell in the early church, the church throughout the middle ages, and into today. Though, it must be admitted, that the 'literal view' often degenerated in the church to wild and fanciful imaginative stuff too.

While I agree more substantially with the literal view than any of the others so far, I think Walvoord and others push the literalness of fire too far - though not of eternal, and that is important. Critique of this position will actually come as I outline my understanding, which is often referred to as a metaphorical view of hell.

The fourth position, which I claim as my own, hold that the language used to describe hell is metaphorical, as is the language to describe heaven. Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying hell is a metaphor. Hell is real. Hell is horrible. So horrible it surpassed the limits of human language to adequately describe; therefore, we are given metaphors - word pictures to describe the horrors of hell (and the blessedness of heaven). A few considerations lead me to accept that when the Bible describes hell it is using metaphorical language and not literal language. To begin, we should recognized the frequent use of rabbinic hyperbole throughout Scripture - "picturesque speech to bring home the urgency of the situation" (30). So we're told to gouge out our eye if it causes us to sin, to lop of a hand, to hate our parents, let the dead bury themselves, etc. I think the language of fire and worms never dying are meant to point to the direness of the situation, not the "furniture of hell". In addition, we're told that the lake of fire was created for Satan and the fallen angels (Matt. 25:41) - spiritual beings without physical bodies. How is literal fire to affect being without nerve endings? Walvoord counters that it is a spiritual fire as well as a physical fire, but how is that not metaphorical? Also, when you try to put a composite picture of hell together using all the data given in Scripture, you end up with some quite incompatible details - like utter darkness (Jude 13) and a lake of fire (Rev. 19:20). Matthew uses both fire and darkness to describe hell (Matt. 3:10-12; Matt. 25:41; Matt. 8:12; Matt. 22:13; Matt. 25:30).

What these images are meant to portray is life under the wrath of God, apart from his goodness, apart from his grace or mercy. I don't think it necessary to think of God's wrath in an active way - God pouring out punishment. Instead, I think it best to think of God's wrath in hell in a more passive manner - the withdraw of all good, especially the withdraw of himself and the handing over to wickedness and evil (parallel to Romans 1:18,24,26,28).

The one point I don't think can be taken metaphorically is the eternality, as in everlasting nature of hell. Unless you are prepared to give up on the eternal nature of divine blessing, and there's no good theological or exegetical reasons to do that, you can't neglect what the Bible says regarding the eternal duration of hell for the wicked.