"I Give You Freedom"

A few days ago, a friend on Facebook introduced me to the song "I Give You Freedom," as sung by the Joy Quartet of Pensacola Christian College. Before I continue any further, let me just say that it seems (at least from this) that the Joy Quartet seem to adore God with a sincere heart, and are indeed very talented singers (they certainly sing better than I do!). It was just the content and presentation of the song caused me to raise an eyebrow and led to make a post for what I thought would be good discussion. This post shouldn't be seen as a personal attack against them or questioning their salvation.

Here is the video itself:



Perhaps what first shocked me in this video was what the sister said at the beginning of the video:

Our God is so great, and He is so gracious, that He gives us freedom to make our own choices, and then we become responsible for those choices.

This, of course, is the classic "God is so powerful He gives you the option to say no" soteriology. However, there is a very real danger here: the belief that man is completely free to decide whether or not to follow God, and afterward is completely responsible for that decision, is the same teaching as the heresy known as Pelagianism. To summarize Pelagianism briefly:

At this point we have touched the central and formative principle of Pelagianism. It lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of man; his ability to do all that righteousness can demand, - to work out not only his salvation, but also his own perfection. This is the core of the whole theory... [B.B. Warfield, Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy, I]

Whether or not the sister intended it to come across this way (most likely she didn't), this is how this extreme mode of synergism appears. It at the very least comes across as semi-Pelagianism, which taught that the beginning of faith was not God's gift, but a complete act of man's complete free will (as opposed to, say, the teaching of prevenient grace by Arminians).

Any way, the lyrics of the song itself are as follows:

I set the boundries of the ocean vast,
Carved out the mountains from the distant past,
Moulded a man from the miry clay,
Breathed in him life, but he went astray.

I hold the waters in My mighty hand
Spread out the heavens with a single span,
Make all creation tremble at My voice,
But My own sons come to Me by choice.

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

Even the oxen knows the master’s stall,
And sheep will recognize the shepherd’s call
I could demand your love - I own you twice,
But only willing love is worth the price!

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it "yes" or "no"?

I'd like to now review the lyrics, bit by bit, and examine what is said.

I set the boundries of the ocean vast,
Carved out the mountains from the distant past,
Moulded a man from the miry clay,
Breathed in him life, but he went astray.

This is very true - God made man, and man went astray. Yet what was the result of that going astray? Did Adam just present a bad example for men to follow, and they need Jesus as a better example? Did man become only kind of depraved, but still capable of rejecting or receiving God? What was the state of this fallen man?

Scripture is very clear on the state of fallen man. It teaches that "every intent of the thoughts" of man's heart is "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). It teaches that "there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins" (Ecc 7:20). It teaches that "there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God" (Rom 3:10-11). It teaches that before coming to faith, Christians were "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3). Christ Himself taught: "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). He likewise that: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." (John 6:44); and "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65).

The state of man is one of constant sin and transgression against God. On top of that, it is one wherein man is constantly in rebellion against God, and wants nothing to do with the true God of scripture. He might seek after false gods or a false concept of God to fulfill a "spiritual need," but in regards to the true God with whom salvation can be found, there is absolutely no desire.

I hold the waters in My mighty hand
Spread out the heavens with a single span,
Make all creation tremble at My voice,
But My own sons come to Me by choice.

Do we become sons of God solely by our own independent choice? That is, a complete, absolutely free choice from our own will? Many jump to John 1:12, which reads: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." Aha! the person says, it says "as many received Him" - that means they have to make a free choice!

They forget, however, that John 1:12 is merely half a sentence, and that John continues on in the next verse to say: "...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John makes the distinction clear: they were not born of blood (in other words, they weren't saved simply for being Jews); they weren't born of the flesh (in other words, by their own works), and they weren't born of the will of man (in other words, a libertarian, semi-Pelagian free will), but rather they were born of God. Their regeneration, which led to their acceptance of Christ, was itself the will of God.

Might I also point out that the line "My own sons come to Me by choice" makes it seem as if our status as God's sons is a complete unilateral action from the part of man. However, scripture clearly teaches otherwise:

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. [Eph 1:5-6]

We become sons not by applying for it like we do a job - we come through it by adoption. Does an orphan choose who his adoptive parents will be? Of course not. In like manner, it is said that God predestined us to adoption as sons, and did so through Jesus Christ. God does not swing open the door of His home and say whoever comes in can be a son - God actively adopts His sons.

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

As we've already established that when man fell, man fell completely. It was not a matter of a small mistake. Adam did not make a boo-boo like a kid spilling milk - he transgressed against the one true God. Mankind followed suit, as Seth and all his descendants were not in image and likeness of God, but rather the image and likeness of Adam (Gen 5:3). Mankind, until regeneration, is a slave to sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:17-18).

If we confess that man, before regeneration, is a slave to sin, then we have to ask what he will use that free will of his to do? To put it another way: a brick is capable of going up or down, but if you hold a brick out, say, "You have free will to go up and down", and then let go, chances are, because of the force of gravity, the brick will fall down. In like manner, whether or not man is told to repent or blaspheme, without the work of the Spirit, man will always choose to blaspheme due to the force of sin.

Even the oxen knows the master’s stall,
And sheep will recognize the shepherd’s call
I could demand your love - I own you twice,
But only willing love is worth the price!

The mention of an ox knowing their master's call is a reference to the first chapter of the book of Isaiah, where God laments: "An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand" (Isa 1:3). God is highlighting the sad state of affairs among his people at this time. It is during this that, many verses later, Isaiah himself says: "Unless the LORD of hosts had left us a few survivors, we would be like Sodom, we would be like Gomorrah" (Isa 1:9). Note that in the midst of all this sin, it is said that "the LORD of hosts" has "left us a few survivors." God has actively done something - He has kept a chosen remnant among the people, just as He did during the days of Elijah.

Note too, the lyric "I could demand your love." It is the presupposition by many synergists that if man's coming to Christ is not completely by his autonomous will, then it must be by a tyrannical compulsion. The fallacy in this presumption, however, is that they presume irresistible grace lacks regeneration - in their mind, if the man opposes God before irresistible grace, he will still be opposing God after irresistible grace. This, however, is not the case. Christ said that no man can come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draws the man (John 6:44), and likewise that all given to Him by the Father will come to Him (John 6:37). When a man is drawn by God's grace, it not only compels him to come to Him, but it regenerates him, making him want to come. Irresistible grace is not God putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "You better love me, or else!" It's God transforming the sinner's heart into a repentant's heart and bringing him into the fold.

And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it "yes" or "no"?

This part of the song made me wince upon first hearing. This is a completely semi-Pelagian soteriology. The idea that God has this great plan of salvation but essentially is just leaving it on the table and crossing his arms and waiting for man to just come up and take it...that just simply isn't scriptural, nor is it logical, given what we know scripture teaches about the condition of man.

Might I also ask...what are we really glorifying here? Are we glorifying God, or something we particularly want from God? Are we glorifying God for His supposed granting of freedom, or are we glorifying our belief that we have the freedom to say yes or no, and thus determine our own salvation? Is the glorification here really one of God...or one of man? This is all something that I believe is worth contemplating in our review of what we uphold to be orthodox theology.

Idolatry of the Mind

The following is an excerpt from chapter four of J.I. Packer's Knowing God.

The realization that images and pictures of God affect our thoughts of God points to a further realm in which the prohibition of the second commandment applies. Just as it forbids us to manufacture molten images of God, so it forbids us to dream up mental images of him. Imagining God in our heads can be just as real a breach of the second commandment as imagining him by the work of our hands.

How often do we hear this sort of thing: “I like to think of God as the great Architect (or Mathematician or Artist).” “I don’t think of God as a Judge; I like to think of him simply as a Father.” We know from experience how often remarks of this kind serve as the prelude to a denial of something that the Bible tells us about God. It needs to be said with the greatest possible emphasis that those who hold themselves free to think of God as they like are breaking the second commandment. At best, they can only think of God in the image of man--as an ideal man, perhaps, or a superman. But God is not any sort of man. We were made in his image, but we must not think of him as existing in ours. To think of God in such terms is to be ignorant of him, not to know him.

All speculative theology, which rests on the philosophical reasoning rather than biblical revelation, is at fault here. Paul tells us where this sort of theology ends: “The world by wisdom knew not God” (1 Cor 1:21 KJV). To follow the imagination of one’s heart in the realm of theology is the way to remain ignorant of God, and to become an idol-worshipper--the idol in this case being a false mental image of God, made by one’s own speculation and imagination.

In this light, the positive purpose of the second commandment becomes plain. Negatively, it is a warning against ways of worship and religious practice that lead us to dishonor God and to falsify his truth. Positively, it is a summons to us to recognize that God the Creator is transcendent, mysterious and inscrutable, beyond the range of any imagining or philosophical guesswork of which we are capable--and hence a summons to us to humble ourselves, to listen and learn of him, and to let him teach us what he is like and how we should think of him.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,” God tells us; “neither are your ways my ways,” for “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:8-9). Paul speaks in the same vein: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? (Rom 11:33-34).

God is not the sort of person that we are; his wisdom, his aims, his scale of values, his mode of procedure differ vastly from our own that we cannot possibly guess our way to them by intuition or infer them by analogy from our notion of ideal manhood. We cannot know him unless he speaks and tells us about himself.

But in fact he has spoken. He has spoken to and through his prophets and apostles, and he has spoken in the words and deeds of his own Son. Through this revelation, which is made available to us in holy Scripture, we may form a true notion of God; without it we never can. Thus it appears that the positive force of the second commandment is that it compels us to take our thoughts of God from his own holy Word, and from no other source whatsoever.

The Importance of the Written Word

In the 1957 Stanley Kubrick film Paths of Glory, set during World War I, French military forces launch an attack against German forces entrenched upon a hill. The initial attack fails miserably with heavy losses, and the fire from the Germans is so intense that some units refuse to attack. The French general, viewing the attack from afar, is so upset at the supposed cowardice of the soldiers that he calls the artillery commander and orders him to direct his fire on the French trenches to drive them out. The artillery commander, in response, requests a written order to do so. The general, growing irate, demands the artillery officer open fire any way. Again, a request for a written order is made. Finally, the general hangs up.

The tactic of the battery commander in asking for a written order is a very wise one, and for two obvious reasons: firstly, the general could later deny the order and have the officer court martialed for firing on friendly troops; secondly, the order was an immoral one - the general was demanding the artillery officer shoot at and possibly kill his fellow Frenchmen. If there was a written order, then the situation would change: it would be confirmed that the general had given the order, and the artillery commander could go through with the order with greater sense of accountability.

Christians likewise today have to follow our Lord's command to be "shrewd as serpents" yet "innocent as doves" (Matt 10:16) when it comes to things such as this. From every turn in the pilgrim's trip to the celestial city, they will be attacked by arrows from the enemy in the form of commands from God. Extra-biblical commands and instructions - in the form of divine commission - will assail them. They will demand that they be followed, whether they make such a demand in the tone of a forceful tyrant or a loving mother. They will appeal to our emotions, our ego, our intelligence, our desire for a tradition, and many other facets of our being. They will all, however, say the same thing: "You may have your Bible, but we have something else you need."

Some have often criticized me for always asking, "Where is that in scripture?" I don't say that, however, to be contentious, but because anything we speak of God should comply with the words of God. The model we should follow is that of the prophet Isaiah who, when confronted by those going after mediums and spiritualists for their answers, replied: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). God spoke this word to us first "in the prophets," and finally through His Son (Heb 1:1-2). Anything that strays from these revelations - or attempts to add to these revelations - is outside the frame of God and His special revelation to mankind, and thus should be avoided at all costs.

God, in His wisdom, has permitted His revelation to be written down and preserved, so that the individual believer may have "the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). The scriptures not only have (primarily) the testimony of God, but (secondarily) the historical and intertextual eyewitness attesting to its validity. Nothing else in world religion has this kind of validity. Any extra-biblical authority, while perhaps having some use in individual circumstances, does not have this same kind of validity. Scripture is God-breathed (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) and springs forth from God to give life, rejuvenation and direction to the sons of God. It gives us no real wisdom and no real dawn. It is simply a dead yoke to be placed around our neck and bring us down.

Anytime any one comes to us with a special "something" which they desire to impart on us and demand we follow, and it does not comply with the words of scripture, or it is separate from scripture entirely, let us take heed to our predecessors within scripture itself, who sought after the word of God and persevered in the knowledge of it. Let us pray to God as the Psalmist: "I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word" (Psa 119:16).

The 400,000 Variants

The following is an excerpt from Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus.

Among Ehrman's disclosures that alarmed readers was that there are somewhere between 200,000 and maybe 400,000 variants between New Testament manuscripts - in fact, more variants than the 138,162 words in the published Greek New Testament...

"Tell me about these variants - how are they counted, and how did they come about?" I asked Wallace.

"If there's any manuscript or church father who has a different word in one place, that counts as a textual variant," Wallace explained. "If you have a thousand manuscripts that have, for instance, 'Lord' in John 4:1, and all the rest of the manuscripts have 'Jesus,' that still counts as only one variant. If a single fourteenth-century manuscript misspells a word, that counts as a variant."

"What are the most common variants?" I asked.

"Far and away, the most common are spelling variations, even when the misspelling in Greek makes absolutely no difference in the meaning of the word," he said.

"For example, the most common textual variant involves what's called a 'movable nu.' The Greek letter nu - or 'n' - is used at the end of a word when the next word starts with a vowel. It's like in English, where you have an indefinite article - an apple or a book. It means the same thing. Whether a nu appears in these words or not has absolutely no effect on its meaning. Yet they still record all those as textual variants.

"Another example is that every time you see the name John, it's either spelled with one or two n's. They have to record that as a textual variant - but how it comes out in English is 'John' every time. It doesn't make any difference. The point is, it's not spelled Mary! Somewhere between 70 to 80 percent of all textual variants are spelling differences that can't even be translated into English and have zero impact on meaning."

I did some quick mental math: taking the high estimate of 400,000 New Testament variants, that would mean 280,000 to 320,000 of them would be inconsequential differences in spelling. [pg. 85-86]

Bart's Blackboard Theology

The famous opening gag of The Simpsons as done for...

An Arminian

A Calvinist

A Roman Catholic

An Eastern Orthodox

A Wesleyan

A Charismatic

An Emergent

The Word of Faith Movement

Eugene Peterson

William P. Young

The "Traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Those who support the notion of an infallible or apostolic tradition passed down through the ages, or believe that church tradition should be elevated near scripture in importance, often have the following as their prooftext.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15]

Let's take a moment to examine what Paul is discussing.

First, let's talk simply about the logic behind the use of this passage - namely, that the word "traditions" here is used to support traditions known by some churches as they know those traditions today. It is ironic that many will argue 2 Timothy 3:16, when it says "all scripture," does not refer to Paul's epistle or any other New Testament work, yet they will argue here that Paul's use of the word "traditions" refers to all tradition in toto. Yet many traditions today in most "apostolic" churches can be proven to either have developed over time or to have come at a much, much later date, so that Paul would have had absolutely no idea of them at the time. Many will argue that these traditions are keeping in line with the mentality or spirit Paul would have had, but the problem is that Paul specifies who received these traditions and from whom they came: these are the traditions "which you were taught," and were taught "by word of mouth or by letter from us." These were traditions given to the Thessalonians, and received directly from the apostles. Any traditions outside of this context could not be relevant and, by extension, could not be "apostolic."

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to extend the "you" to the universal church, the context of "traditions" would still be limited to that which the apostles themselves gave directly, and any traditions not given directly by the apostles would be irrelevant to the passage. To use the verse to support post-apostolic traditions or traditions that came hundreds of years later - be it the bodily assumption of Mary or the various liturgies - would be erroneous. One cannot logically expand "traditions" to all traditions after the life of the apostles the way one can expand "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 to the New Testament - God continued writing scripture even after Paul died; Paul did not continue giving traditions after he died.

Second, let's look at the full context within scripture. Paul has just begun a request regarding "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 1), that the Thessalonians should "not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us" (v. 2). After a lengthy discussion of the false teaching that Christ's return is coming soon, the apostle writes:

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:13-15]

The "traditions," within their proper context, have a two-fold definition: they are referring to eschatology specifically, and the Gospel generally. Paul is warning the Thessalonians about false teachings regarding the coming of Christ, hence they are to keep the "traditions" (or "teachings" as the NIV translates) that the apostles gave regarding it, and they are to hold fast to the Gospel, in which those traditions are part. The Gospel the apostles preached was one of repentance and coming to Christ who, through saving faith, would restore us body and soul on the day of resurrection. The latter part was what troubled the Thessalonians, as they were beginning to argue and worry over when the second coming and resurrection would happen. These are the "traditions" which they are told to stand fast in - not a liturgy, not extra-biblical stories, not prayer to the saints - but the Gospel of Christ and the expected day of resurrection and judgment.

In fact, this section has an indirect relation to Paul's words in the first epistle he sent them:

We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. [1 Thess 1:2-7]

Note, again, the focus of this section of scripture: the Gospel. It was the Gospel which was delivered "not...in word only" but also "by word of mouth," the Thessalonians receiving "the Holy Spirit with full conviction." These are the "traditions" which the apostles gave the Thessalonians - and indeed, the universal church - by word of mouth and by letter. There was nothing new or hidden that was given to the Thessalonians - what was given to them was exactly what was given to Paul by Christ, and which Paul proclaimed throughout all of Asia Minor.

To read into the word "traditions" here as any unwritten tradition is not only erroneous (as previously established), but likewise comes close to robbing the Gospel of its glory. It is reading the modern context of a word backwards into an older use, and a use which refers not to the practices of man but the teachings of God. When we are told to "stand firm" in strong language denoting hope and inspiration (not mere remembrance and repetition), what other context could it mean but the Gospel, in which we "may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ"? It was against an attack of these traditions - the Gospel and all it entailed - that Paul warned the Thessalonians to guard against. This is why he warned them not to be shaken in their faith "by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us," just as he warned the Galatians to hold anyone who preaches a Gospel contrary to that which they were likewise taught "by word of mouth or by letter" to be accursed (cf. Gal 1:8-9).

Let us, therefore, follow the command of Paul and "stand firm and hold to the traditions" of the apostles - not empty ritualistic traditions, but rather the great tradition that Christ died to redeem us from our sins and in us is the hope of the coming resurrection. Of that day no man knows, but one thing is certain: those whom are God's sheep will never be lost, for no man can snatch them out of His hand. Who is greater than God? In these traditions, let us all stand firm. Amen.

Meditations on Human Depravity

As the riots occurred across various cities in the United Kingdom, I watched some conversation going on in various internet circles regarding the real issue behind this. Was it simply crime, or was there something deeper? Were there social issues under the surface which, having been left untreated, resulted in these riots? Is it therefore possible to stop such riots by resolving civil issues? Is the issue of human depravity ultimately one of social condition?

The mentality of many people seems to be that man is inherently good, and therefore any crime that is committed can be resolved through rectifying a social problem - ie., if you give a person a chance to have a real job, they won't resort to crime. The evil that men do is not the result of any innate nature, but circumstances outside their control that affect their overall world view and therefore cause (if not compel) them to commit evil. This of course logically concludes that if one were to raise a child by angels on a desert island and then place into modern society, he would have no capability to commit evil, or at the very least would have the least capacity to commit evil as anyone else in the world.

This Pelagian mindset, of course, only skips across the surface of the water. As much as defenders of this mindset may accuse those who want the London rioters to be arrested as only touching the surface of the problem, they are likewise committing the same error, for they forget the issue goes even deeper than they imagine. To put it another way: whereas those who want the criminals arrested may be cutting off the weed at the top while forgetting the stem, their critics want to cut the weed off at the stem while forgetting the roots.

Those who know me personally know that I have some experience doing graphic design for local news stations, and because of this I've spent much time handling mugshots of individuals accused of various crimes. Two things a person doing this notices: 1) there tend to be patterns in regards to the crimes; 2) all people are capable of committing these crimes to varying degrees. I noticed, for example, that while it was common for minority groups to commit petty robbery or theft, the bigger robberies were committed by Caucasians. Whereas gang-related murder or random murders were committed by minorities, family-related murder and similar crimes were committed by Caucasians. I am, of course, not speaking here of absolutes, and you will find variances across the board. My point, however, is that evil is not limited to one ethnic group nor one social class - middle and high class people are as capable of committing crime as those in the lower classes. Evil, one might say, is an equal opportunity employer. It does not matter what race or social class you are, you will be found out by evil and evil will use you in whatever way possible. It will adapt and exist as it needs to. A black thug mugging someone to steal their wallet is committing evil just as a white CEO who commits fraud is likewise committing evil. That one was in a better social position than the other is irrelevant to the problem - both were acting upon the innate evil tendencies inside them.

If people still contend that evil committed in incidents such as this are to be sourced solely to social or civil issues, then why, in those same communities, does good exist? In the original novel of A Clockwork Orange, Alex briefly ponders to himself why so many people speculate on the sources of evil (video games, movies, social conditions, etc.), yet they never speculate on the sources of good. How many people who grew up in ghettos and low income neighborhoods rife with crime ended up being perfectly normal, functioning members of society? For every teen and young adult who went out and committed crimes in London and various other English cities, how many more stayed at home and continued being law-abiding citizens? Why were they "good" when they were in perfect soil to be "bad"? Or to take it another direction: why do people who grow up in situations where they should be "good" end up being "bad"? Ted Bundy, for all intents and purposes, should have been a moral person, not a serial killer, but let's not ask "What made him evil?", let's instead ask "What made those in worst situations than him good?"

God, of course, has given clear teachings regarding these problems: all men are under sin (Rom 3:9), the intent of every man's heart is to do evil (Gen 6:5), no one continually does good and does not sin (Ecc 7:29), men naturally love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), and men are born children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Man, by his nature, is a depraved, fallen creature. If he cites his social condition as reason for his actions, he is simply attempting to justify his evil nature before society. Likewise, no amount of money thrown at the problem is going to solve what lies under the surface: the depraved heart of a fallen creature.

Many jump to extremes when they hear this teaching. They assume that when we say mankind is depraved, we say all men are Charles Manson, and no one exists who does anything "nice" or "good." That, however, is not the case with total depravity. Even the most "evil" person on earth is capable of performing "good" deeds. The fact of human depravity does not say that we are all as evil as Charles Mansion - only that we are all as guilty as Charles Manson. We are all guilty of sin, and no one can say to themselves that they will get be judged righteous before God. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

So what do we do with this? Do we become like cynics and throw our hands in the hair and decide that nothing good can come of man? On the contrary. We must cry out with a loud voice, as did the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24) Then, when we come to the face of the Lord, upon whom is the righteousness we need to be just before God, we can safely say, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our lord!" (Rom 7:25) God bless.

Why the ESV is pure evil and you shouldn't use it

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come across some startling discoveries regarding the ESV translation. It was originally one of my favorite translations, just under the NASB. Now, however, I have received special revelation via making things up on the spot, and I have come to realize that the ESV is perhaps one of the most evil translations in the world. How evil is it? Well let's review the Official Evil Chart:

So as you can see, it's pretty evil. Maybe not the most evil, but it's pretty high up there. So why is it so evil? How do we know it should be avoided?

First, let's talk about the acronym: ESV. The official sources say that it stands for English Standard Version, but this is merely hiding the truth. You see, ESV backwards is VSE, which stands for Vienna Stock Exchange. It also stands for Vancouver Stock Exchange, as well as Vadodara Stock Exchange and Varaždin Stock Exchange. Why so many stock exchanges related to this acronym? That's because the ESV is a thinly disguised plant by the New World Order of bankers, seeking to take over the world. Don't believe me? Let's use some basic logic: you need money to buy an ESV; banks have money; Q.E.D., the ESV is connected to banks.

If you still don't believe me, you should know that the government, who is run by the banks, is responsible for the ESV as well, and is attempting to sneak sin and vice into our bibles by using the ESV translation. Let's take a look at this acrostic algebra, which is exactly the same methodology Christ and the apostles used when handling scripture:

Some of you are probably wondering, "Why the heck am I still reading this blog post?" Some of you might also be wondering, "What does 'SSN' stand for?" It's short for Social Security Number. You know, the number you need to provide for your job and basic forms of identity. The number every person needs to get along in life. You know...the mark of the beast.

Do you want to see something truly horrifying? Compare the logo of the ESV with the symbol of the Hindu faith. The truth may shock you, but if you look carefully...you'll see that the ESV logo is a thinly disguised version of the Hindu symbol. Don't believe me? Observe:

The ESV logo reveals that this entire translation is just a thinly disguised attempt to introduce eastern religions into Christianity. The fact that John Piper, a well known Hindu swami, is part of the advisory council for the translation board, makes this pretty obvious. They even got RC Sproul, a famous Shinto priest, to contribute. If you still aren't convinced, look at this passage from the ESV translation which I totally did not edit from the original wording:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but get reincarnated a lot, possibly into a snail, or a cow if he's lucky." [John 3:16]

Heed my words: avoid the ESV - it is the devil's translation. Still don't believe me? Look at this other verse from the ESV, which I totally did not edit to leave out certain words to thus prove my point:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD...Satan... [Job 1:6]

See! It calls Satan "lord"! What kind of Bible translation calls Satan lord?! That's completely counterproductive to the whole purpose of the book! I bet Satan was on the advisory board. Hey wait a minute...look at this excerpt from a page listing those who had a hand in the ESV translation...

Dr. Luder G. Whitlock. President, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS.
Dr. Tetsunao Yamamori. President, Food for the Hungry, Scottsdale, AZ.
Dr. Robert W. Yarbrough. Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.
Rev. John W. Yates II. Rector, The Falls Church, Falls Church, VA.
Satan, Prince of Darkness, Hell, MI.

HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU PEOPLE NEED?!

As I close my post, let me just say that this post is 100% serious and I love Akira Kurosawa films. One of those statements is true.

The Body of Christ, the Church

The following is a presentation by Dr. James White regarding Harold Camping and his teaching that Christians should leave the church. It's old (2002) and predates the hype of Harold Camping's second end time revelation, but I found it to be an edifying listen because it touches on the importance of the church and why it is important for Christians to not leave the local church.

Do Calvinists worship a monster?

Recently I had an online exchange with a gentleman who was offering protests against the doctrines of Reformed theology. Many of these contentions are based on simple misconceptions that are fairly commonplace, but I thought it would be worth going over for the benefit of those who perhaps have never seen this arguments addressed or perhaps have never experienced them used. I'm going to post the entire thing just to give the full context, and then respond to it piecemeal:

And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.

I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!"

the truth is, they have free will. All 30 I plan for 100% success. I plan for every single kid to pass and thrive. The kids make the decision to care, work hard, and excel. Realistically about 6 of them won't give a damn, about 15 of them will be part-timers with caring and up and down in the middle, and about 9 will kick total butt and perform like champs. But my plan is all thirty being winners!

Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.

If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!

God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer. To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!

Now let's answer this in individual parts:

And I still feel that the only conclusion, based on Reformed thinking, is that God is not only unfair but somewhat monstrous. He creates a massive planet of millions of people concocting a pre-determined list of people he wants to save and others he plans on casting to the fires of hell making it so some CANNOT receive His love, and some who CANNOT HELP it!? Can you fathom doing that to someone? It flies in the face of common sense.

This contention contains a few presuppositions we should quickly identify and address:

1) God created a planet to send people to hell. The goal of God in creation was not to send people to hell, and no Reformed church believes this, as everything from the Reformers to the 1689 London Baptist Confession will demonstrate. Likewise, God does not send anyone to hell for an arbitrary reason. What we should establish early on is this: men are sent to hell for no other reason but their sins. Hell is judgment upon them. There is no one in hell who does not deserve to be there...and there is only one person in heaven who deserves to be there.

2) God will make it so some cannot receive His love. This forgets that man, by his nature, does not desire God's love. Paul, quoting from the psalms, said: "There is none who seeks after God" (Rom 3:11). Our Lord, in one of the greatest expositions of salvation, said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). God has not "made it" so that man cannot receive His love...it already is that way. This biblical fact is something that most synergists recognize as well, and so Calvinists are not alone in their belief of this.

The gentleman who sent me this message had earlier made the question: "Is humanity so depraved that it cannot with free will accept God and change?" The idea that man is able, by his individual nature, to freely choose salvation or damnation - and then change on his own accord - breaks away from the opinions of most monergists or orthodox synergists, as well as the general teachings of scripture. In fact, it draws closer to Pelagianism (man is able to save himself) and semi-Pelagianism (man is able to save himself with a little help from God), both of which are considered heresies. When Christ says "no one can come to Me...", the original Greek literally translates into: "no one has the power" or "no one is able." Man cannot, by any power of his own with no help from God, come to know and believe in God.

3) God will make some who cannot help whether or not they receive His love. Again, this forgets that man by his nature does not want to have God's love. Likewise, logically speaking, this situation is not exclusive to monergism. In a synergistic world, you still have people (isolated tribes in the Amazon, etc.) who are in a situation where they cannot help whether or not they receive God's love. This is why inclusivists have to come up with the extra-biblical beliefs they do regarding how one is saved by circumventing the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

So when it's said that this scenario that "flies in the face of common sense," I fully agree. The problem is, no Reformed church believes in such a scenario.

I'm a sixth grade teacher, as you know. In about 3 weeks, 30 kids are going to enter my room. Imagine if, before meeting all 30, I look at their pictures on their pink and blue cards, read their names, and think, "I'm going to make sure, double sure, that 22 of them fail my class. I'll pick on them, make them hate learning, ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students, and generally not teach them well. I'll make sure this other 8 kids are treated with royalty, given the full treatment, paired right, given extra help, favored and adored. They WILL pass!" 

This isn't the scenario in Reformed theology. Permit me to present an alternative:

You, a teacher, have thirty children. They all hate education. They all hate learning. Most of all, they all hate you. They want nothing to do with their lessons. You don't need to "ignore their questions, make things unclear to them, pair them up with the worst students," etc. - left on their own, they will fail on their own accord. Some of them might be kinda funny, and some of them might be kinda cute, but when it comes to education, they'd sooner tear up their textbooks and throw them at you. You could try to be nice and offer them education, but they would just laugh at you, and encourage those who laugh with them. They deserve to fail, and you would have every right to fail them. If you failed the entire class, you would be acting rightly and the fault for failure would be on them. All of this which I have described is the situation of the world seen in Romans 1:18-32.

Now imagine if, by some power on your part, you could change the hearts of an unknown number of students so that instead of hating learning...they will love it. They will love learning and love you. In the end, they will pass and all glory will go to you, and those whom you fail will have failed for proper reasons. You have no reason to help any of them pass, and indeed anyone should be shocked you helped any pass. This scenario is far closer to the Reformed (and biblical) interpretation of the situation between God and man, and how by grace we are saved.

Same with my own kids. I have 3 kids. Imagine me planning on loving one and screwing the other 2? Weird.

Again, this is a misunderstanding of the real scenario. God's choice and purpose is not based on some arbitrary cruelness. God does not line up a bunch of photographs and throw darts, and whichever dart lands on whichever picture, that person gets saved. It also again presupposes that God causes the destruction of some when they are already on their own path to destruction.

If I'm this caring and loving toward my home and school children, what MORE care and love has Almighty God for us as his children!

What is the definition of "God's children"? It's popular in our modern world to say "We are all God's children!", but what does scripture teach? As Luke 20:36, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:26 and many other verses demonstrate, God's children are those who are in Christ. They are believers. God indeed has love for His children, but it is those in Christ for whom God will truly care and nurture.

God does indeed "know" who will be saved and who will perish. If He didn't, then He wouldn't be sovereign and almighty and omnipotent. But that doesn't mean He doesn't desire and give us every lifeline to be saved. 

If God knows who will be saved and who will perish, why would He bother to "give us every lifeline to be saved"? That is, if God knows that Person A will accept the gospel and Person B will not, why bother giving Person B "every lifeline"? Evangelists - Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike - do not know who will be saved and who will not, and so can give their 110% and not worry about the results, knowing it is in God's will. However, the line of reasoning presented in this section turns God into an evangelist who gives 110% for an effort that He knows ahead of time will end in failure.

Many might say that the rejection of God's "lifeline" is given to all in that part of a person's judgment will be the fact they rejected it. Here we must make two points, however:

1) The danger in this argument. Many might interpret that this argument says this is the only reason someone will be sent to hell. Hence many inclusivists will say that if a person hasn't rejected the "lifeline" because it has not been offered to them, then they will get a free pass and be allowed into the company of the Lord.

2) Reformed Christians believe this as well. Reformed Christians believe that God gives a general call through evangelism, but gives an effectual call for His sheep. This is the key behind "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14) - the "called" used here (κλητός) is not the same Greek word used for "called" in Romans 8:30 (καλέω). κλητός is simply an invitation, whereas the word translated in the same verse as "chosen" (ἐκλεκτός) means a much more effectual calling, and is translated by some to mean "the called of the called."

Jesus died for the sins of the world, not just a chosen little clan. But will the whole world accept His love? Will the whole world react positively to the Gospel? Will the whole world embrace the cross? No way. Just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer.

Did Jesus die for literally everyone? Reformed theology of course disagrees, pointing instead from general atonement to limited atonement. Scripture says that He saves His people from their sins (Matt 1:21), that He laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:11), that His blood purchased the church (Acts 20:28), that He was delivered for His elect and justifies them (Rom 8:32-33), and that He gave Himself up for the church (Eph 5:25). This is just a sampling of examples that many go to in regards to limited atonement.

I might ask the person who posed these contentions a question in regards to their statement that "just because Jesus died for us all doesn't mean all will take up His offer." What, then, did Christ's death do? Was it just an example? Was it just a beginning phase of salvation? Was it just a minor thing in God's plan? When Christ, bleeding profusely on the cross, said to the Father "It is finished" and gave up His spirit, what did that mean?

To not offer it to all his children would make God a monster. That is not a God I can worship. I don't believe in that God. Our God is a God of second chances, a fisher of men who goes after lost sheep. Jesus talks a lot about lost sheep and the stray and "other sheep not of this fold," and I'm not talking Mormon thinking here!

Here we have the reason that Calvinists worship a God who is a monster: because He does not "offer" His love to "all His children." Yet we've already established that God's "children" are believers. We've also established that if God simply threw out an "offer" to mankind with no grace involved, mankind in toto would reject it. We are calling God a monster based on faulty definitions and expecting God to do something that would ensure absolute failure.

It's common for people to believe Reformed Christians "worship a monster" when they have false presuppositions that are based on misunderstandings or a poor knowledge of the topic. This is not a fault on themselves, as many who teach comparative theology fail in accurately defining or representing another side, and so misunderstandings multiply. That is why these discussions are good - for the edification of all parties involved: one party understanding where the other side is coming from, and the other learning what their brothers really believe. The important thing from this is that the brethren are edified and lessons are learned. If we continue to teach error after that error has been addressed, and do not even attempt to give an address to this error, then we are simply committing willful ignorance. Men cannot be held guilty for ignorance - they can be held guilty for willful ignorance.

A Scriptural Review of Universalist Concepts

The following are just some thoughts regarding some common objections made by universalists in regards to hell, eternal punishment, etc. This is neither meant to be a complete nor ultimate review of universalist beliefs, only a brief review of what I've encountered in the past year or so.

Concept #1: A loving God would never send anyone to hell

Of course, whenever someone brings this up, my first question is: are you therefore saying that Ted Bundy, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and even Adolf Hitler are in heaven right now? That Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate are in the company of the same Lord whom they betrayed and executed? That any unrepentant murderer, rapist, or insane dictator is with the Son in all His glory? That the sinner who went to his deathbed cursing the very name of the Lord is in the same company as the martyr who died to uphold the Lord's name? The sensible person has to immediately backtrack and admit that perhaps not everyone goes to heaven, or at the very least some people receive some kind of punishment in the afterlife. Still, many believe that, after some time, even the worst of us will have a chance to enter the company of the Lord.

In any case, the fallacious nature of this concept is two-fold:

1) It takes one attribute of God (love) and extends it beyond its appropriate boundaries. While many leap to the words of the apostle John and declare "God is love" (1 John 4:8), they err in making it interchangeable. That is, they make it out so that "God is love" is equal to "love is God." The problem is that John is not describing what God is, but merely one attribute of God which he is expounding upon in this section of his epistle. To explain further:

The author proclaims in 4:8 ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (ho theos agapē estin), but from a grammatical standpoint this is not a proposition in which subject and predicate nominative are interchangeable (“God is love” does not equal “love is God”). The predicate noun is anarthrous, as it is in two other Johannine formulas describing God, “God is light” in 1 John 1:5 and “God is Spirit” in John 4:24. The anarthrous predicate suggests a qualitative force, not a mere abstraction, so that a quality of God’s character is what is described here. [from the NET notes for 1 John 4:8]

Throughout the text of scripture, we find that God has many more attributes than simply love: He is likewise judge (Psalm 7:11, 50:6), an avenger of evil deeds (Psalm 99:8), holy above all things (1 Sam 2:2), jealous (Exo 34:14, Deu 4:24) and avenging and wrathful (Nah 1:2). He is much more than just a squishy concept known as "love," and for many people, on that day of judgment, they will realize that God is not a grinning bearded man in the sky. On that day, when every knee on earth bows before Christ (Phi 2:10), there will be some to whom Christ will say, "Get up, and do not be afraid" (Matt 17:7), and many others to whom Christ will declare, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt 7:23). Matthew Henry once put it best in his commentaries: "It is a fearful thing to be thus turned over to the Lord Jesus, when the Lamb shall become the Lion."

2) This universalist argument is based entirely on the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. That is, it is meant to work on the emotional reactions of the reader, thereby leading them to the desired conclusion from empty feelings alone. To demonstrate the thinking behind this:

God must be x.
God could never be x if He did the horrible, terrible, evil, nasty, no good thing of y.
Therefore, God cannot possibly do y.

Let me give an example to explain why this thinking is fallacious. Imagine you have a veteran police officer. He is overall a decent guy; a fairly nice and humble man. He is kind to his wife and is always there for his children. To his fellow officers he is courteous and understanding, and to his superiors he is honorable and respectful. Now imagine if, in responding to a bank robbery, the policeman saw one of the robbers aim a gun right at a fellow officer. Seeing his comrade in danger, the policeman pulls out his own gun and fires, killing the bank robber. A liberal reporter hears wind of the story and, in a scathing article, writes: "What kind of an officer would shoot someone in cold blood like that? I've heard this man is loving, but what kind of a loving person would do such a thing?!"

Immediately the reader will recognize some errors in the reporter's argument. For one, the policeman obviously is a "loving man," but the circumstances called for drastic measures. For another, the policeman didn't shoot someone "in cold blood," he shot them to defend another officer. There was reason behind his actions. Yet the reporter's line of thinking is the same as the universalist who appeals to emotion to argue against hell: a loving person would never shoot anyone, and the officer shot someone, therefore, Q.E.D., the officer must not be a loving person.

The biggest fault in the reporter's thinking is that they invented standards isolated from the true circumstances; in a similar manner, the person who supports this universalist concept throws out all the factors in place regarding man, God and judgment, and invents an emotional standard to be adhered to. They ignore, for example, that scripture teaches "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (Rom 1:18), and that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9). They ignore the lament of King David who, speaking of his transgression against fellow men, said to God: "Against You, You only, I have sinned...so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Psalm 51:4). They ignore the prophecy of Daniel that "many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt" (Dan 12:2). They forget the words of John the Baptist, when he said: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Likewise, it is foretold in scripture that men will be judged for their deeds, and that some will experience "disgrace" and "everlasting contempt." This is not even covering the passages in Revelation which speak of the final judgment and those who will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).

The judgment of God is against the sin of man, of which all men are guilty in the eyes of the Lord. This is not a "new theology" that speaks of an "evil God," but the very teaching of scripture itself. Therefore, those who wish to appeal to emotion and argue in this manner are committing the same error as the reporter and are attempting to pass judgment on the Biblical God with standards separate from the Biblical text in toto.

We should not preach that a loving God would never send anyone to hell because (as we've shown) this is both logically and scripturally unsound. Instead, we should recognize that God has shown His love, and this love is visible in the fact that "while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom 5:10). We know God is a loving God because of the grace bestowed upon us while we were undeserving of it. As the apostle Paul put it: "God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess 5:9).

Concept #2: Hell is a redemptive state where people are eventually reconciled to be with God

This is a popular belief among Christian universalists (and one promoted in William P. Young's book The Shack), but like the previous concept it is simply unscriptural.

Scripture continually attests that those in hell will be there for eternity. Christ warns us that "it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire" (Matt 18:8). In regards to the goats of the church, Christ says they "will go away into eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46). Christ likewise said: ""If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched'" (Mark 9:47-48; reference to Isa 66:24). The apostle Jude writes that God has kept fallen angels "in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day" (Jude 1:6). The devil, beast and false prophet of Revelation are described by John as being thrown into the lake of fire where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10).

I am aware that many argue the use of "eternal" in the original Greek does not actually mean eternal in the perpetual sense. However, even while playing the "lexicon game" (where one goes to the lexicon and finds their favorite alternate definition for a word) even the context clearly makes it plain that this is an eternal punishment. How else, for example, can we say the "worm does not die" and "fire is not quenched" unless it is to be said in a perpetual context? Furthermore, those who use this argument are inconsistent with how they treat the word "eternal": they will butcher the language to make "eternal torment" not really eternal, yet they will not do the same for "eternal life." If the torment of the damned is not eternal, then it leads one to conclude that our eternal life is not eternal as well - what then becomes of the afterlife?

Concept #3: Christ is able to save in the afterlife, and therefore even unbelievers, after death, may have a chance to repent and go to heaven

This is another common concept among Christian universalists and inclusivists, and is especially popular in trying to deal with the issue of those who have died never knowing of Christ. It essentially teaches a kind of "post-mortem repentance," in which a person, after death, is either: a) given one more chance to respond to the Gospel; b) is informed of the Gospel, and thus allowed to make a decision.

A common verse used to prove this "post-mortem repentance" is found in Matthew's gospel:

"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matt 12:32]

However, the error here is both grammatical and contextual:

Grammatical: The person arguing that this passage supports post-mortem repentance makes the error of taking the first part and including it with the conclusion of the second part, so that they read this passage as: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him...either in this age or in the age to come." However, that is not how the sentence is structured. The first part deals with "a word against the Son of Man," whereas the second part is about "whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit." It is this latter part wherein the addition "it shall not be forgiven him" is emphasized with "either in this age or in the age to come." This leads us to the next part:

Contextual: Christ is talking about the unpardonable sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. People had become amazed after Christ healed a possessed man (v. 22-23), but the Pharisees shrugged this off as Christ casting out demons by working with them (v. 24). Christ responds first by pointing out the illogical nature of the argument (v. 25-26), then its hypocrisy (v. 27), and then declares that this is a sign that the Kingdom of God has come upon the Jewish nation (v. 28-29). This is followed by a strong address from Christ, declaring "He who is not with Me is against Me" (v. 30), followed by the statement: "any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (v. 31). Then comes verse 32, cited above. It is plain from this that Christ's address is regarding the severity of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Contextually speaking, the "in this age or in the age to come" is not addressed to what will be forgiven, but what will not be forgiven. This is further shown in the parallel verses in Mark 3:28-30, where Mark focuses solely on the blasphemy against the Spirit, saying one who does so is "guilty of an eternal sin." He also adds afterward that it was "because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.'"

Another popular passage  is found in Peter's epistles:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. [1 Peter 3:18-20; NASB]

Part of the problem is in simple context: if this is to prove that Christ preaches to the dead, why then does Peter isolate this only to the people who died during the days of Noah? It would then lead one to conclude that this reference is for a specific purpose, namely the preaching of repentance during Noah's time. Some explanations regarding this:

1) The clarification of how it was delivered: "in spirit; in which also He went..." (v. 18) - That is, in spirit, through the preaching of Noah, who during his entire time building the ark was warning others about the oncoming danger. It was the preincarnate Christ preaching words of repentance in an event that would foreshadow the coming judgment.

2) The current state of the spirits: "now in prison" (v. 19) - That is, those spirits were not in prison before Christ preached. If Christ had preached to the spirits and they had come to repent, or some of them had come to repent, why would they still be in prison? The reason is because the people were preached to during Noah's time to repent, they did not, and therefore they perished in the flood and were then sent into the prisons to await the oncoming judgment through Christ.

The fact is, nowhere in scripture is a kind of "post-mortem repentance" taught. We are told by the author of Hebrews that "it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" (Heb 9:27) - that is, men die once, and afterward comes judgment. There is no second chance - that is why the result of this life is so important. Whenever judgment is spoken of in scripture, it is always in the context of what occurred during the person's life, not what they did after dying.

We should not strive to tell others that there is no judgment, or to downplay judgment - eternity is a long time. The chances of a person getting a last minute chance after death are very, very slim, even with supposed scriptural references. Do we really want to risk the souls of others on such a slim chance?

Concept #4: Heaven and Hell are descriptions for the here and now, and what we make of it

This is a popular concept among Emergent Church (such as Rob Bell) and Social Gospel groups, who attempt to focus more on the here and now rather than the soon to be. It essentially teaches that whenever the Bible speaks of heaven or hell, it is not speaking of an afterlife but a condition or state-of-mind that we create either through good deeds or bad. One might say this is the result of muddled eschatology: the belief by many that the kingdom of heaven is already here and the belief in a later day of judgment are mixed together in an unhealthy fashion, so that the end time events are made conditions for the present time.

The problem is that Christ always speaks of a future date of judgment, where punishment and glory in heaven and hell will be given. The parable of the wheat and tare is said to happen "at the end of the age" (Matt 13:40). The parable of the dragnet is said to take place "at the end of the age" (Matt 13:49). The example of the unready servant (Matt 24:45-51) takes place when the Master returns - an obvious allegory to the second coming of Christ.


I'd also like to pose the same conundrum I posed to Rob Bell when in regards to hell descriptions being contemporary metaphors: are angels behind them? Why do I pose this? Because in most of the parables Christ uses where hell is described, angels are active parties in the throwing of individuals into hell. Rob Bell had attempted to say that the Rwandan genocide, where people had arms and legs hacked off, was an example of a contemporary "weeping and gnashing of teeth" - so were there angels going around Rwanda hacking off limbs? I say this not to make light of the genocide, but to demonstrate how, when reviewed to its full application with the verses, these arguments simply do not make sense.

Concept #5: We should just leave it in the hands of God and not worry about it

We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20), and the role of an ambassador is to deliver the message of his king in toto. This means that, even if we personally don't like the message, we still deliver it in toto. In ancient times an ambassador was liable to be executed for delivering his king's message if it was displeasing to the receiver. However, the ambassador also knew that if he changed the wording to save his own life, then his own king would execute him once he returned home.

This is why Christ warned us: "Whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory" (Luke 9:26). We should not be ashamed by that part of the message which involves hell and eternal punishment, for Christ Himself spoke on it and taught it. As such, we likewise should not feel ashamed to discuss it with others or warn them about it. If we are displeased with the topic of hell, then we are displeased with He who taught on it. Or to put it this way: Christ Himself was not afraid to warn people of hell...why should we?

Of course, as with any topic, there are certainly wrong ways to present it to others (the Westboro cult or "Street Screachers" being examples). However, this extreme does not permit us to head towards the opposite extreme. The scriptural matter is that Hell is a real place, Christ Himself warned people about it, and it influenced the theology of the apostolic era church. We cannot pick and choose what teachings from scripture to leave out - our Lord's theology is not a buffet.

Let us all, universalist or otherwise, remember that our mission is not to give what we think would best help humanity, but what the Lord gave to humanity according to His will and purpose. God bless.