Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?
We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.
Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.
What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.
Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:
Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.
Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.
Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.
Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.
More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.
It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.
Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Loyalty towards Christ
I think it's safe to say that Jonathan Edwards was neither a universalist nor an inclusivist.
Christ came into the world to engage in a war with God's enemies, sin and Satan; and a great war there is maintained between them; which war is concerning us; and the contest is, who shall have the possession of OUR HEARTS. Now, it is reasonable under these circumstances, that we should declare on whose side we are, whether on Christ's side, or on the side of his enemies. If we would be admitted among Christ's friends and followers, it is reasonable that we should profess we are on the Lord's side, and that we yield OUR HEARTS (which the contest is about) to him, and not to his rivals. And this seems plainly to be the design and nature of a public profession of Christ. If this profession is not made, no profession is made that is worth regarding, or worth the making, in such a case as this is, and to any such purpose as a being admitted among his visible friends. There is no other being on Christ's side, in this case, but a being so with an undivided heart, preferring him to all his rivals, and renouncing them all for his sake. The case admits of no neutrality, or lukewarmness, or a middle sort of persons with a moral sincerity, or such a common faith as is consistent with loving sin and the world better than Christ. He that is not with me (says Christ) is against me. And therefore none do profess to be on Christ's side but they who profess to renounce his rivals. For those who would be called Christians, to profess no higher regard to Christ than what will admit of a superior regard to the world, is more absurd than if a woman pretending to marry a man, and take him for her husband, should profess to take him in some sort, but yet not pretend to take him in such a manner as is inconsistent with her allowing other men a fuller possession of her, and greater intimacy with her than she allows him. The nature of the case, as it stands between us and Jesus Christ, is such, that an open, solemn profession of being entirely for him, and giving him the possession of our hearts, renouncing all competitors, is more requisite in this case, than a like profession in any other case. [from Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Christian Church]
Thursday, August 4, 2011
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.
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:
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:
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).
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?
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:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.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?!"
God could never be x if He did the horrible, terrible, evil, nasty, no good thing of y.
Therefore, God cannot possibly do y.
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Law, Righteousness and Salvation
Perhaps some of the main differences between universalism (everyone goes to heaven), inclusivism (some non-Christians will go to heaven) and exclusivism (salvation in Christ alone) rests both in the place of God's Law and Christ's Righteousness.
I created a diagram to explain this further:
Universalism excludes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. Some universalists might argue that Christ's righteousness covers mankind in toto and for this reason all go to heaven, but this contradicts the teaching of scripture that eternal life is dependent upon belief in Christ (John 3:16). Some universalists will likewise propose some level of God's Law - or at least some social standard for individuals to follow. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) it is no longer a standard of righteousness, but rather a therapeutic moral code of ethics; 2) the idea of a consequence-free afterlife makes any reason for morals in this life absolutely senseless. That is, why avoid being a Heinrich Himmler and shoot for being an Oscar Schindler if both Schindler and Himmler will, in the end, both be in heaven?
Inclusivism might include God's Law, but does not depend on Christ's righteousness. It recognizes that God has a standard and a set rule of morality and ethics, but that nothing else is needed of others to obtain salvation. If a person is "good," then it is possible for them to be considered saved and enter into heaven upon death. Therefore, whereas inclusivists may follow through the works of the Law, they will stop short at the righteousness of Christ. However, this seems to forget that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), and that all our good deeds "are like a filthy garment" (Isa 64:6). The point of the Law is to "shut up everyone under sin," so that none may consider themselves righteous before God, and "so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal 3:22). As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), there is none on earth who is without need of Christ's righteousness. Some inclusivists might argue that God may choose to bestow His righteousness upon unbelievers by His own mercy, but this thinking suffers in a few points:
1) No where in scripture does it say God has any obligation to save anyone outside of faith. Bringing unrepentant sinners into a state of repentance is enough of a sign of His mercy.
2) This ignores the constant teaching of scripture, which states that it is in faith by which we receive our righteousness. Those outside of faith are condemned already because they are outside of faith and still live in their sins (cf. John 3:18), and it is only "those who are in Christ Jesus" who are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). Righteousness is given through faith, and the righteousness of Christ is solely conditional upon faith.
Exclusivism includes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. We are saved by Christ alone for the glory of God alone. This salvation is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is that righteousness "apart from the Law," which is only "through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:21-22). Christ told His followers:
Of course the world, as a whole, does not care for exclusivism, as the very name sounds like something with prejudice or bias. The world at large wants us to believe in universalism, whereas most liberal Christians think only someone with a closed mind would reject inclusivism. Nonetheless, exclusivism is simply another word for the biblical teachings of salvation. Many times in Acts and the epistles, salvation is always conditional upon the words "in Christ." Always, always "in Christ." There is no other way to describe the focal point of salvation except "in Christ."
I created a diagram to explain this further:
Inclusivism might include God's Law, but does not depend on Christ's righteousness. It recognizes that God has a standard and a set rule of morality and ethics, but that nothing else is needed of others to obtain salvation. If a person is "good," then it is possible for them to be considered saved and enter into heaven upon death. Therefore, whereas inclusivists may follow through the works of the Law, they will stop short at the righteousness of Christ. However, this seems to forget that "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" (Rom 3:20), and that all our good deeds "are like a filthy garment" (Isa 64:6). The point of the Law is to "shut up everyone under sin," so that none may consider themselves righteous before God, and "so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal 3:22). As "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23), there is none on earth who is without need of Christ's righteousness. Some inclusivists might argue that God may choose to bestow His righteousness upon unbelievers by His own mercy, but this thinking suffers in a few points:
1) No where in scripture does it say God has any obligation to save anyone outside of faith. Bringing unrepentant sinners into a state of repentance is enough of a sign of His mercy.
2) This ignores the constant teaching of scripture, which states that it is in faith by which we receive our righteousness. Those outside of faith are condemned already because they are outside of faith and still live in their sins (cf. John 3:18), and it is only "those who are in Christ Jesus" who are no longer under condemnation (Rom 8:1). Righteousness is given through faith, and the righteousness of Christ is solely conditional upon faith.
Exclusivism includes both God's Law and Christ's righteousness. We are saved by Christ alone for the glory of God alone. This salvation is based upon the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is that righteousness "apart from the Law," which is only "through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe" (Rom 3:21-22). Christ told His followers:
I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. [John 15:5-6]Man left on his own is helpless without God. No one will be in hell simply because they did not meet a set of beliefs - but rather, they will be in hell for their sins. However, with Christ, the sacrifice for our sins and the only righteous man to ever live, we are able to stand before the Father and be considered sons in adoption.
Of course the world, as a whole, does not care for exclusivism, as the very name sounds like something with prejudice or bias. The world at large wants us to believe in universalism, whereas most liberal Christians think only someone with a closed mind would reject inclusivism. Nonetheless, exclusivism is simply another word for the biblical teachings of salvation. Many times in Acts and the epistles, salvation is always conditional upon the words "in Christ." Always, always "in Christ." There is no other way to describe the focal point of salvation except "in Christ."
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Scriptural Examinations of Inclusivist Proof Texts
Before we begin, it might be best to present some definitions of what we're talking about. Inclusivism might be differentiated from universalism in the sense that whereas universalism teaches that everyone will be saved outside of faith in Christ, inclusivism teaches that at least some might be saved outside of faith in Christ. Admittedly, I have, in the past, been confused over the difference between the two, but recently have come to a better clarification between them (with a special H/T to Kevin over at Wesleyan Arminian).
All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.
This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.
I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.
The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.
The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.
The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:
1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.
2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.
3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.
This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:
...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.
...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.
...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.
In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.
Let's look at the full context:
The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."
We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
This is yet another popular passage to cite for many inclusivists. I'd already touched on this in my review of Rob Bell's book Love Wins (where it was used to support universalism), but I'll touch on it again here.
Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession.
In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.
Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).
John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.
Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.
...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.
...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.
All the same, I cannot say that I could ever consider myself an inclusivist because of the testimony of scripture in this regard. However, I thought, for the sake of discussion, it would be worth touching on some of the passages popularly used to support inclusivism.
"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." [Luke 12:47-48]
This is a popular one to be cited by inclusivists. The argument is that while the slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready (the inference being unrighteous Christians) will get many lashings, the slave who did not know his master's will and was not ready (the inference being righteous non-Christians) will receive but a few.
I personally cannot comprehend why this is used to support inclusivism. Those who argue that the second servant received fewer lashes than the first seem to forget one important thing: both servants still got lashes. They were both punished. To say that one received a few lashes doesn't had the fact he was still lashed. Christ even says that he "committed deeds worthy of a flogging." To say that because one servant received less lashings means there is no eternal punishment for some people is like Rob Bell's argument regarding Capernaum and Sodom.
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." [John 3:17]
The belief here is that this passage is saying that the Son is not here to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. However, those who might say this opens the door for inclusivism forget what follows:
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [John 3:18]When Christ says "God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world," that does not mean there isn't any kind of judgment taking place. The Son does not have to judge - we are all already under condemnation. No one goes to hell because they don't believe in Jesus - they go to hell for the righteous judgment of their sins. It is Christ who saves us from that hell.
Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, "Are we also blind?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." [John 9:40-41]
The idea of using these verses is that Jesus says "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - hence it is perceived by some that those who are spiritually blind are excused.
The problem is that this is placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable. These verses come on the tail end of the story of the man born blind, who was healed by Christ, interrogated by the Pharisees, and eventually kicked out. Christ had just stated: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (v. 39). The Pharisees, who had condemned the man born blind, hear this and ask if they are also blind. Christ states, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt" - meaning the specific guilt of rejecting him as they were - but "now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." That last part is important - the Pharisees claimed that they were the true followers of their day, and therefore they claimed that they had spiritual sight. On the contrary, they were spiritually blind, and so their claims of sight made them guilty. Their guilt was in claiming to know God and yet rejecting Christ as Messiah and Lord (as unbelieving Jews today do), hence proving that they were, in fact, blind. Note too that, in Christ's own words, this blindness is a sign of judgment: the Pharisees claimed to be able to see, and yet were made blind by God; the man born blind was believed by the Pharisees to be blind (both literally and spiritually), and yet Christ made him see (both literally and spiritually), showing he had the mercy and favor of God.
The verses are not saying that a person is exempt simply for being spiritually blind. The apostle Paul makes it clear that everyone has some inner feeling of the truth about God, and hence are left inexcusable for idolatry, false worship, or sin (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." [John 12:32]
I've already touched on this passage in greater detail on my post regarding John 6:44, but will touch on it briefly here. There are, logically, three ways to interpret this passage:
1) The literal evangelical approach: Christ refers to "draw" as in drawing all men to be Christians in this lifetime. Many atheists and non-Christians interpret it this way in an attempt to show a contradiction in the New Testament. Their argument is that Christ is a failed savior since it's obvious that not all men have been drawn to Him, and millions upon millions have died in unbelief.
2) The universalist approach: Christ means He will literally draw all men to Him in salvation, so that all men literally will be saved on the day of judgment.
3) The ethnic approach: Christ refers to "all men" in regards to both Jews and Gentiles. This was (as I mentioned in my John 6:44 post) the opinion even of many past synergistic theologians (John Wesley, Adam Clarke) as well as Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact). More importantly, it comes from the original scripture reading, where Christ is approached by a group of Gentiles desiring to see Christ (v. 20-21) - in the end, Christ never sees them (v. 36). This was because the time of the Gentiles had not yet come. It would be after the resurrection that the gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 28:19), and then would Christ truly draw all men - not just Jews, but Gentiles as well - to Himself.
Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." [Acts 10:34-35]
This is another popular passive for inclusivists. However, saying this teaches inclusivism is problematic with what is said:
...God is not one to show partiality... - The immediate context is in regards to Jews and Gentiles, not personal faith. Peter is saying that God shows no partiality between ethnic groups. Keep in mind this is said in the context of Paul learning of the faith given to Cornelius (v. 3-5), and the vision Peter had regarding the "unclean" animals (v. 9-16). At the time of Christ, many Jews of that time held such a poor opinion of Gentiles that many refused to even pass through their towns or neighborhoods, let alone interact with them. Peter's realization here is that God shows no partiality between a Jew or a Gentile.
...the man who fears Him... - What is the true context of "fearing God"? Is it fearing a vague concept known as "God"? On the contrary, it means - within the context scripture defines it - fearing the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The ancient Israelites were told, "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name" (Deut 10:20), and again, "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him..." (Deut 13:4). It was Him and Him alone that they should fear; they were explicitly told "you shall not fear other gods...but the LORD your God you shall fear" (2 Ki 17:37, 39). As religious as a devout Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shintoist may be, they are not fearing the God whom Peter is referring to here.
...and does what is right... - Many will leap to those part and declare: "Aha! 'Does what is right'! This means a good non-believer will probably be saved!" The problem, however, is that this is said alongside with "the man who fears Him." It is not merely "doing what is right" that will win salvation - that is a drum beat many times throughout scripture. It is faith in God which saves, and the works stem from that faith and show its sincerity.
In fact, the inclusivist use of this passage is contradicted by the fact that immediately after this, Peter peaches the gospel to the Gentiles present. Speaking of Christ, Peter says: "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (v. 43). Salvation is of those who fear the one true God and believe in His Son.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20]
Let's look at the full context:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [Romans 1:18-21]Paul is beginning his attack against the pagan mindset of the world, which will lead into his condemnation of the hypocrisy of devout Jews in chapter two, and eventually the condemnation of everyone in the opening of the third chapter. Paul is not saying, "People see God in everything, so they'll be saved," he's saying, "It's obvious creation has a creator, yet they choose to worship creation instead." This is a statement of condemnation, not inclusivism.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law [Romans 2:12]
The implication to many here is that this passage is teaching two different standards for how a person will be judged in the afterlife: those who have "sinned without the Law" will be judged without the Law (again, the ignorance clause of inclusivism), whereas those who "have sinned under the Law" will be "judged by the Law."
We have already established that Romans 1 dealt mainly with the pagan mindset of the world. Romans 2 deals with the Jewish believers who assumed that, because they had the Law, they were superior over the Gentiles. Hence Pauls stern warning: "Do you suppose, O man - you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself - that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Rom 2:3; ESV) This eventually leads to the passage involving the verse in question:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. [Rom 2:9-13]Paul's point is not that unbelievers will be held to a different standard - Paul's point here (and in the verses that follow) is that those who live by the Law will be judged by the Law, and those who are outside the Law will perish (note that they are not saved - they perish) without the Law. No one will have an excuse. The Gentile unbelievers from Romans 1 will not be able to say, "Well we didn't know the Law!", and the Jewish hypocrites of Romans 2 will not be able to say, "But we're the Jews! The Law belongs to us, so we should get a free pass!"
This is not about inclusivism, but making it clear that all will be held accountable for their deeds. This will lead to Paul's famous conclusion that "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom 3:9).
[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [1 Timothy 2:4]
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]Paul urges that Timothy lead his congregation in "entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" on behalf of all men (v. 1), specifying "kings and all who are in authority" (v. 2). This, Paul says, is "good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (v. 3), who "desires all men to be saved" and "come to a knowledge of the truth" (v. 4). That is, all kinds of men, even those who are kings and those in authority. Christians at that time were living under pagan and unbelieving authorities (as most still do today), and the temptation might be not to pray for them in thanksgiving or petition. Paul's contention is that God desires even such men as these to be saved.
Paul likewise says that there is "one God, and one mediator" between God and men, "the man Christ Jesus," (v. 5), who "gave Himself as a ransom for all," this being "the testimony given at the proper time" (v. 6). "For this," Paul says, he was "appointed a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth" (v. 7). When Paul says "ransom for all," does this mean unbelievers as well? No - for this, Paul says, he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles. As was seen in John 12:32, "all" refers here to both Jews and Gentiles of any profession.
In summary, this passage is inclusivist in the sense that any person - prince or pauper, Jew or Gentile - can be saved by God...but it doesn't mean that those who die in unbelief will not perish in their unbelief.
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 John 2:2]
Ignoring any arguments for particular or general atonement, what is the scriptural basis for the receiving the forgiveness of sins? As we saw with John 3:17, it is saving faith in Christ. It is through this alone that a person is saved. "To the one who does not work," the apostle Paul wrote, "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5).
John Owen once gave this dilemma: if Christ died for all sins of everyone, why aren't all men forgiven; if because of unbelief, are not those sins covered by the cross as well? Many have responded to this by saying that it is scripturally taught that saving faith in Christ is what forgives us our sins, hence our sins are only forgiven at the coming to faith. However, if we open the door for inclusivism, and say that a person is justified despite unbelief, then that is thrown out the window, and John Owen's point still stands. If God can forgive unbelief for subjective reasons (ignorance, being a "righteous heathen", etc.) because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then, following this to its logical conclusion, why aren't all people saved? This kind of argumentation makes inclusivism the camel's nose for universalism.
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands [Revelation 7:9]
Let's review the wording in this passage as we did with the passage from Acts.
...a great multitude which no one could count... - This is merely in reference to the large number of believers. We don't know the number or how many there will be, though God surely knows. This does not mean they believed to other faiths which denied Christ's divinity.
...from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues... - This is inclusive language, though not towards faith. Rather, it is to ethnic heritage, racial distinction and nationality. There will be all kinds of people before the throne of God: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, etc. There is nothing here to suggest religious or spiritual inclusivism.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Martin Luther and Rob Bell
One of the most infamous quotations by Rob Bell, in his book Love Wins, is from Martin Luther regarding his supposed teaching of an after-death repentance.
Below is a video featuring Todd Friel discussing the quote and Rob Bell's use of it in greater detail (H/T to Hell's Bell).
And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of "second chance" for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. In a letter Martin Luther, one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, wrote to Hans von Rechenberg in 1522 about the possibility that people could turn to God after death, asking: "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?"As Bell does throughout the book, he doesn't cite the exact source to the quote, so that people can cross reference for themselves. However, many people familiar with Luther's works did some research into the exact quote and what it was actually saying. What is the full context of the quote from the letter?
Again, a good question. [pg. 106]
It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God's ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that He does do this. It is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. [emphasis mine]Again and again I am further convinced that Rob Bell is not deceived - he is actively deceiving. As I showed in my review of his book, Rob Bell cannot possibly be "accidentally" taking things out of context. How can he "accidentally" have thought that Luther taught universalism when Luther clearly taught otherwise as shown by the following sentence! This isn't just being stubborn in your opinion...this is willingly distorting facts and just flat-out lying to prove your point.
Below is a video featuring Todd Friel discussing the quote and Rob Bell's use of it in greater detail (H/T to Hell's Bell).
Sunday, April 17, 2011
A Simple Review of "Love Wins"
Introduction
In the end, I decided to go out and purchase it. I recognized that, even if I could ignore the book, others would not. During my brief tenure at a Kansas City seminary, I had encountered a great deal of theology sourced to Liberal Christianity and the whole Emergent Church movement. It cannot be ignored that this theology is making inroads in certain circles, and that many have begun to take it seriously.
This post was therefore not only written for the benefit of others, but the benefit of myself as well. We need to be prepared to respond to differing theological opinions in two ways: 1) understanding what that position is and grasp the fullness of its view; 2) being able to confront that position from a biblical, scriptural perspective. It is all too common, when confronted by a position we disagree with, to respond internally with emotion, and then argue in like manner.
Initial Impressions
One thing I should immediately note is that Rob Bell does not write like most people do - that is, he does not write in full paragraphs with consistent indents, sentence structures, etc. James White had said the book was written like a Twitter account, and that's a fairly accurate portrayal: while paragraphs do exist throughout the book, many times Rob Bell will write a series of short sentences with every individual sentence given a line of its own. Some longer sentences are broken up on individual lines as if structured like a poem. Sometimes a series of words will be put in a list that takes up half the page. Keep this in mind whenever I quote from the book itself and it looks like I'm having html issues with Blogger.
Truth be told, this made the book slightly annoying. I've generally found that there are three types of people: those who speak well and write well; those who are poor speakers but good writers; and those who are good speakers but poor writers. Rob Bell seems to fit in the latter group. His writing is obviously supposed to be modeled after his speaking style, but just as that didn't work for Hitler in Mein Kampf (and no, I am not comparing Rob Bell to Hitler) it doesn't work for Rob Bell in Love Wins.
Another annoying habit I noticed, almost right off the bat, was that Rob Bell rarely cites his sources or scripture quotations. An early example is on page 7, where Bell quotes Renee Altson's book Stumbling Toward Faith, but doesn't tell you at all where in the book he gets the quote. An even bigger example comes much later:
In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed God's reconciliation with all people.Ignoring for the fact that he cites two men identified as heretics (Clement and Origen), as well as two men who are not considered heretics but identified to have held erroneous beliefs (Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius), note how he doesn't cite one single source for where he got these quotes or affirmation of their agreement. He pretty much throws it in and says, "Just take my word for it! They agreed with me!" One almost gets the feeling that Rob Bell doesn't want you to cross-reference his sources.
In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well.
In their day, Jerome claimed that "most people," Basil said the "mass of men," and Augustine acknowledged that "very many" believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God. [pg. 107-108]
I had heard from previous reviews before that he tended to did this, but there is nothing like reading the book yourself and taking note of it. He will either drop a Bible quote and never tell you where he got it, or he will simply give you the book and chapter number without the specific verse (for example: Revelation, chap. 20). Initially I started writing in the exact citation whenever I encountered these situations...but this actually became so tedious that I eventually gave up and tried to discern which ones may have been taken out of context or not. As you might gather from this, Love Wins has no scripture index either (and I really didn't have the patience to do what James White did for Chosen But Free and make my own). Again, it almost comes across as if Rob Bell doesn't want you to cross-reference his quotations.
Ironically, the biggest first impression happened as soon as I began the book. That is, I immediately knew what I was getting into on the very first page of the preface. It was there that I encountered this:
First, I believe that Jesus's story is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love, and it is for everybody, everywhere.I couldn't believe it. I hadn't even reached the official part of the book yet, and already I had seen gross eisegesis. Rob Bell quotes the first six words of John 3:16, but he seems to forget everything that comes after it: "...that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." What is translated as "whoever believes" is actually a longer Greek prepositional phrase: πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. It literally translates as "all those believing," signifying that this eternal life is conditional only on belief in Christ. This is followed two verses later with: "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). In using only one third of a verse, Bell attempts to portray a God who loves literally everyone unconditionally, yet completely leaves out everything that follows, in which his argument is entirely contradicted.
That's the story.
"For God so loved the world. . ."
That's why Jesus came.
That's his message.
That's where the life is found. [pg. v]
Keep in mind, once again, this was at the start of the preface...the first page of the book. This was a sign of things to come.
Appealing to Emotion and Straw Men Ad Nauseum
Reading the book, you realize that Rob Bell seems to endlessly repeat two logical fallacies: appeal to emotion and straw man. This is mostly in response to critics or those who hold an opinion contrary to the one Bell upholds. When dealing with such a contrary opinion, Bell will do either one of two things: 1) present a scenario where that opinion does oh-so-terrible things to people, leading one to conclude that the belief itself must be oh-so-terrible as well; 2) present a belief that is a misrepresentation of the true, orthodox Christian opinion, and attack that instead of the real argument.
One example of appealing to emotion, early on in the book:
Several years ago I heard a woman tell about the funeral of her daughter's friend, a high-school student who was killed in a car accident. Her daughter was asked by a Christian if the young man who had died was a Christian. She said that he told people he was an atheist. This person then said to her, "So there's no hope then."Another example:
No hope?
Is that the Christian message?
"No hope"?
Is that what Jesus offers the world? [pg. 3]
And then there are those whose lessons about heaven consist primarily of who will be there and who won't be there. And so there's a woman sitting in a church service with tears streaming down her face, as she imagines being reunited with her sister who was killed in a car accident seventeen years ago. The woman sitting next to her, however, is realizing that if what the pastor is saying about heaven is true, she will be separated from her mother and father, brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends forever, with no chance of any reunion, ever. She in that very same moment has tears steaming down her face too, but they are tears of a different kind. [pg. 25]Of course, the idea of a loved one going to hell is unsettling for anyone. We don't want to think that our mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, aunt, uncle, best friend or even wife or husband will go to hell. That's a perfectly normal sentiment. However, it is another thing to realize how horrible that feels, and then base a judgment on that emotion alone. "That sounds terrible, so it must not be true," is the general train of thought. Yet this makes as much sense as saying, "The death penalty sounds horrible, so it must not be true," and ignoring the fact that some have indeed been sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
Note very quickly something in the second quotation: "if what the pastor is saying..." This is very common throughout much of the initial part of the book, where Rob Bell is laying the foundation to what he's responding. It's always what "a pastor" or "some people" say - never what the Bible says. This is a bit similar to Doug Pagitt's use of "Platonic" in his book A Christianity Worth Believing. It's mainly to assure the reader that the opponents of the writer's opinion have no arguments from scripture or counter-exegesis.
The scriptural arguments of Rob Bell's opponents are never really considered, only a misrepresentation of what they believe. Or, as atheists often do, Bell takes the worst argumentation from the opposing side and chooses instead to respond to that, ignoring the more valid, thought out arguments. Oftentimes, he simply tries to confuse the matter by citing various passages that have nothing to do with one another (let alone conversion/salvation) and present it as if the orthodox position is difficult to understand. For example, after citing various passages that Rob Bell claims portray various modes of salvation, he states:
So is it not only that a person has to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do - but also that someone else has to act, teach, travel, organize, fund-raise, and build so that the person can know what to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do? [pg. 10]This is continued throughout the book. Rob Bell will grab this and that, throw it together as if it all has the same context, then say something similar to, "Oh my, scripture is just so confusing," misleading the reader to assume that certain teachings of scripture are not as clear as they might think they are. One might call this "scriptural acrobatics," but this isn't so much "scriptural acrobatics" as it might be "scriptural meatloaf."
This is all very important to note because Rob Bell's arguments are truly not scriptural by any means. The claim by the inside flap that his presentation is "biblical" is a gross misnomer. Rob Bell is no student of the Charles Hodge school of induction from scripture; rather, Rob Bell presents early on a concept of "what is mean and evil" and "what is better and good," and tries to find relevant passages to what fit into his theology. This will become more apparent as the review progresses on.
Redefining "Heaven" and "Hell"
Rob Bell begins his exposition on what "heaven" and "hell" exactly are in a chapter properly entitled Here is the New There. He puts forward that heaven is actually the present time, and is what we make of it. It is all about what we do here.
In Matthew 20 the mother of two of Jesus's disciples says to Jesus, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and other at your left in your kingdom." She doesn't want bigger mansions or larger piles of gold for them, because static images of wealth and prosperity were not what filled people's heads when they thought of heaven in her day. She understood heaven to be about partnering with God to make a new and better world, one with increasingly complex and expansive expressions of dimensions of shalom, creativity, beauty, and design. [pg. 47]Rob Bell makes reference to Matthew 20:21, with the request by the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. The immediate problem Bell has is whereas he says "She got it right!" Christ would say "She got it wrong." When she asks this, Christ's first response is, "You do not know what you are asking." He follows this with the question to James and John: "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" (Matt 20:22). The cup was the crucifixion He would endure, followed by the pain and suffering that would come in being a believer in Christ. James and John did think Christ's kingdom was an entirely earthly kingdom...but that was an incorrect notion.
Despite this, Rob Bell continues to argue that "heaven" is what we make of the world here and now.
The more you become a person of peace and justice and worship and generosity, the more actively you participate now in ordering and working to bring about God's kind of world, the more ready you will be to assume an even greater role in the age to come. [pg. 40]And likewise:
So when people ask, "What will we do in heaven?" one possible answer is to simply ask: "What do you love to do now that will go on in the world to come?" [pg. 47]And another, clarifying his position:
To summarize, then, sometimes when Jesus used the word "heaven," he was simply referring to God, using the word as a substitute for the name of God.Rob Bell continually reads the idea of heaven as a reshaping of our social and personal atmosphere, "participating" with God on the earth.
Second, sometimes when Jesus spoke of heaven, he was referring to the future coming together of heaven and earth in what he and his contemporaries called life in the age to come.
And then third - and this is where things get really, really interesting - when Jesus talked about heaven, he was talking about our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come. Heaven for Jesus wasn't just "someday"; it was a present reality. Jesus blurs the lines, inviting the rich man, and us, into the merging of heaven and earth, the future and present, here and now.
To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God. [pg. 58-59]
But when Jesus talks with the rich man, he has one thing in mind: he wants the man to experience the life of heaven, eternal life, "aionian" life, now. For that man, his wealth was in the way; for others its worry or stress or pride or envy - the list goes on. We know that list. [pg. 62]Perhaps the most mind-boggingly eisegetical moment in the redefinition of heaven - and one that shows the inherent flaws in his argument - is when Rob Bell talks about the wise thief on the cross.
Jesus is hanging on the cross between two insurgents when one of them says to him, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom."The way Rob Bell writes that the thief wanted "to be a part" of what "God is doing...through Jesus," you'd almost forget that just on the previous page Rob Bell had mentioned that the two were hanging by nails on a cross, being executed in a gruesome fashion. Can you imagine what God could possibly be doing (socially speaking) by nailing a person to the cross? Try to imagine the rationale behind this: you have giant nails through your wrists and feet, you're half-naked on a cross, foreign soldiers are mocking you, your own people jeering you, pain is seething through every inch of your body...would your immediate thought through all this be, "Oh wow, Jesus! I can totally see how God is really doing something through You on this earth, and I wanna be part of it!" Probably not.
Notice that the man doesn't ask to go to heaven. He doesn't ask for his sins to be forgiven. He doesn't invite Jesus into his heart. He doesn't announce that he now believes.
He simply asks to be remembered by Jesus in the age to come.
He wants to be part of it. Of course.
Jesus assures him that he'll be with him in paradise. . .
that day. The man hadn't asked about today; he had asked about that day. He believes that God is doing something new through Jesus and he wants to be a part of it, whenever it is. [pg. 54-55]
Matthew records that, initially, even the wise thief was mocking Christ (Matt 27:44), but as the events of the crucifixion went on and the time of death drew near, it is then that the incident recorded in Luke 23:39-43 occurred. What other context could the thief be thinking but the afterlife? Keep in mind that the other thief, whom the wise thief rebukes, had demanded Christ free Himself and then them. If the wise thief is seeking to be part of "what God is doing" and that means making the world a better place, why doesn't he likewise demand that Jesus set him free so that he can go give money to the poor or start homeless shelters? Instead, the thief asks for one thing: that Christ remember him when He comes into His kingdom. The time of death was here, but the wise thief understood that there was something beyond death, and he sought it from the one Man who could supply it: Jesus Christ. To turn this into a silly example of a social gospel is to not only mock the faith of the thief, but, more importantly, the saving faith of Christ.
Turning now to hell, it probably won't surprise anyone that - just as he taught heaven is more of a present-day condition than a latter day state of judgment - Bell likewise teaches that hell is merely what we make of it on earth. After recalling a visit to Rwanda in 2002 and seeing the survivors of the genocide, baring missing limbs that had been hacked off, Bell states:
Do I believe in a literal hell?He states a page later:
Of course.
Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs. [pg. 71]
God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it.To Bell, Christ's descriptions of hell are merely "a volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors that describe the very real experiences and consequences of rejecting our God-given goodness and humanity" (pg. 73). Talking about a woman going through a nasty divorce, Bell says: "In that moment Jesus's warnings don't seem that over-the-top or drastic; they seem perfectly spot-on" (ibid).
We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free.
We can use machetes if we want to. [pg. 72]
Here I should quickly note something for those of my readers who may have experienced a harsh life, or have family and friends who have gone through a traumatic experience: I am in no way, shape or form attempting to demean your emotions or feelings regarding what you went through. The people Bell mentions surely went through a kind of "living hell." The problem is that Bell takes the experience of a bad life event and then confuses that for the literal hell. That is the danger in his theology. The belief in a literal hell came first, followed by the phrase "living hell" to give an idea of the pain behind an experience; Bell wants to try to tell us that it was the other way around.
One problem that Rob Bell doesn't seem to realize is that most of those "metaphors" he refers to involve the actions of angels. For example, Matthew 13:41-42 describes the Son of Man sending His angels to gather the stumbling blocks of the kingdom and casting them into the furnace of fire, where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Are angels therefore causing the pain and suffering Bell identifies? Were there angels wandering around Rwanda hacking off limbs? Did an angel convince the woman's husband to divorce her? Keep in mind these are angels of the Lord, not fallen angels, and all I'm asking for here is consistency. Rob Bell's explanation that descriptions of hell are metaphors simply doesn't follow through when looked at logically.
Of course, you can't get away from the passages that clearly speak of an afterlife event or condition. Many readers have probably been thinking, "How would Rob Bell handle the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?" Well, believe it or not...he turns that into a social gospel too.
Notice that the story ends with a reference to the resurrection, something that was going to happen very soon with Jesus himself. This is crucial for understanding the story, because the story is about Jesus's listeners at that moment. The story, for them, moves from then to now. Whatever the meaning was for Jesus's first listeners, it was directly related to what he was doing right there in their midst. [pg. 75]I couldn't help but recall the 1960's Batman series with Adam West, where the Riddler was always coming up with some very vague puzzle that Batman somehow knew how to solve in a roundabout way ("'Sea'? Sea...ah! C, for Catwoman!"). Similarly, Bell takes the tale of the rich man and Lazarus, takes the word "resurrection," loosely connects it to Jesus's own resurrection (which it wasn't about - it regarded possible warnings from the afterlife akin to Mary K. Baxter), then somehow makes it seem as if this is all about what Jesus is doing in their midst. In other words, Rob Bell skirts having to deal with a passage clearly talking about the afterlife and judgment by utilizing a not-so-subtle red herring.
From here, Bell turns the story into one giant "social revolution" metaphor. "The chasm is the rich man's heart," Bell says, because "he's still clinging to the old hierarchy. He still thinks he's better" (ibid). Bell goes on to say:
The gospel Jesus spreads in the book of Luke has as one of its main themes that Jesus brings a social revolution, in which the previous systems and hierarchies of clean and unclean, sinner and saved, and up and down don't mean what they used to. God is doing a new work through Jesus, calling all people to human solidarity. Everybody is a brother, a sister. Equals, children of the God who shows no favoritism. [pg. 75-76]Keep in mind this is what Rob Bell thinks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus means. He states that the parable is telling Christ's listeners "to rethink how they viewed the world, because there would be serious consequences for ignoring the Lazaruses outside their gates" (pg. 76). Before you think the mention of "serious consequences" means Bell is teaching a kind of hell as punishment, read what he writes a few pages later on the same subject:
What we see in Jesus's story about the rich man and Lazarus is an affirmation that there are all kinds of hells, because there are all kinds of ways to resist and reject all that is good and true and beautiful and human now, in this life, and so we can only assume we can do the same in the next. [pg. 79]According to Rob Bell, then, the entire point of the rich man and Lazarus was that we should give to poor people or we make this world hell. The rich man was merely in "one kind of hell," which we all find ourselves in, depending on who we are or what we experience.
If you think the strange connection between the rich man and Lazarus parable with a social revolution is as crazy as it gets, you should see how Rob Bell treats the parable of the prodigal son:
What the father does is retell the older brother's story. Just as he did with the younger brother. The question, then, is the same question that confronted the younger brother - will he trust his version of his story or his father's version of the story?If you're thinking, "You gotta be kidding me, he thinks the parable of the prodigal son is relevant to the topic of the existence of heaven and hell?", you guessed rightly. Again finding a slim connection between a parable and a non-related point, Rob Bell will spend several pages going on about how the relationship between heaven and hell is like the prodigal son and his family. It's as if he seems to forget that the parable was aimed at the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes who disliked Christ seeking repentance from sinners (Luke 15:2), meaning the whole point of the parable was God's acceptance of repentant hearts. It has nothing to do with heaven and hell.
Who will he trust?
What will he believe?
The difference between the two stories is,
after all,
the difference between heaven . . . and hell. [pg. 168-169]
With all this talk of metaphorical hells, most people have probably been thinking, "Wait, doesn't Christ always say that hell is an eternal punishment? Isn't it eternal then?" Actually, Bell has a response to that. While referring to the parable of the final judgment in Matthew 25, Bell makes this case:
The goats are sent, in the Greek language, to an aion of kolazo. Aion, we know, has several meanings. One is "age" or "period of time"; another refers to intensity of experience. The word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish. [pg. 91]Bell argues that "Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever" (pg. 92). The implication here is that what we translate as "eternal punishment" Christ actually means as "temporary pruning," so that eventually the goats will join the sheep. Bell earlier states that "there's always the assurance that it won't be this way forever" (pg. 86). Here is the problem with that interpretation - and it's a great problem for anyone questioning the definition of "eternal" in the New Testament:
"These will go away into eternal punishment [κόλασιν αἰώνιον], but the righteous into eternal life [ζωὴν αἰώνιον]." [Matt 25:46]The goats are going into an aion of kolazo, whereas the sheep are going into an aion of zoe. According to Bell's own logic and definition of aion, the life of the sheep is therefore only temporary. What then happens with this aion of zoe ends? Do the sheep and goats trade places? Are the sheep sent into refinement? If that's the case, why did they need to go into life in the first place? Let's be consistent here (if you review Bell's use of aion with eternal life on pages 58-59, you'll see he isn't). The fact is, kolazo (actually κόλασις) means "chastisement, punishment" and "torment" (source) - Christ is not talking about any kind of refinement here.
Even more mind-bogging is the way Rob Bell seems to completely miss the point of Christ's warning to various Jewish cities, which Bell uses in his interpretation that there's hope for people in the afterlife.
In Matthew 10 [actually Matt 11:23-24], he warns the people living in Capernaum, "It will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for you."I literally could not believe this. Did Rob Bell just completely miss the point Christ was trying to make? When Christ says "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you," He's not saying that Sodom and Gomorrah have been forgiven, or that there was hope for Sodom and Gomorrah after death...He's conveying that it will be worse for those who reject Him, the Incarnate Word. How can you seriously miss that?
More bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah?
He tells highly committed, pious, religious people that it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than them on judgment day?
There's still hope? [pg. 84]
Rob Bell's response to eternal punishment is ultimately an emotional one:
Have billions of people been created only to spend eternity in conscious punishment and torment, suffering infinitely for the finite sins they committed in the few years they spent on earth? [pg. 102]May I pose a question in response to Rob Bell's logic here: does it really matter how long it took to commit a crime to judge the severity of a crime? Suppose a man murdered his daughter, was arrested and brought to trial, but the judge said, "Well, it only took you a second to commit the murder, so I'll just put you in jail for a few minutes." We would call such things injustice. In the same manner, it is not a matter of how long a person sinned or lived a sinful life - it is the crime committed, and against whom. The sum of all sins are equal, and transgressing one of God's commands is the same as transgressing them all (cf. Jam 2:10). There is likewise not a righteous person who has ever lived, Jew or Gentile (Rom 3:9-10). As someone once said, there will be nobody in hell who won't deserve to be there, and only one Person in heaven who will deserve to be there.
To summarize all this, how does Rob Bell define heaven and hell?
- To Rob Bell, heaven is: "that realm where things are as God intends them to be" (pg. 42).
- To Rob Bell, hell is: "the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way" (pg. 93).
The Afterlife - So...What Is It?
With the line distorted between then and now, one wonders: does Rob Bell teach any kind of afterlife? Well, in a way, yes. The immediate follow-up question might then be, "Is it true that Rob Bell is a universalist?" To put it briefly, yes. In his section specifically dealing with God's judgment and the afterlife, Rob Bell begins his argumentation with:
I point out these parallel claims:Yes, that's right - Rob Bell pulled the 1 Timothy 2:4 card.
that God is mighty, powerful, and "in control"
and that billions of people will spend forever apart from this God, who is their creator,
even though it's written in the Bible that
"God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2).
So does God get what God wants? [pg. 97]
Now, most Arminians or Synergists (at least those who try to be biblically consistent) recognize that even if God "wants all people to be saved," that isn't what's going to happen. Yet 1 Timothy 2:4 becomes the battle cry for Rob Bell's universalism, asking the reader: "Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants?" (pg. 98) Therefore, it might appropriate here to quickly analyze 1 Timothy 2:4 (hopefully avoiding any Synergist/Monergist debate that might spring up):
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. [1 Tim 2:1-8]Let's note first the context: to pray for all kinds of men, including those who are kings or in authority. All Christians, at this time, were living under pagan authorities, yet Paul commands that they pray even for these men, since God desires that even men such as they would come to repentance. It is not man who saves, of course, but God who saves - we are not to forget that. Man is likewise not to forget that even the worst of us (as Paul himself experienced) could be saved by our Lord.
Note also verse 7: "for this," Paul says, "I was appointed a preacher and an apostle...as a teacher of the Gentiles." What does Paul mean when he says "all men"? Does he mean literally all men everywhere will soon be believers in heaven? Not at all. This would contradict Paul's point in his epistle to the Romans that while God makes "one vessel for honorable use," He likewise from the same lump creates "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:21-22). The other problem is that the word Rob Bell translates as "wants" (θέλω in the original Greek) is likewise translated as "desires" (such as in the ESV and NASB), and refers to an implication or wish rather than an edict (that is, something set in stone). Some examples of its use as a wish or implication include Luke 8:20, Luke 23:8, 1 Corinthians 7:7 and 1 Corinthians 14:5. All in all, the apostle Paul is trying to tell Timothy that we should pray for everyone because there is no limit or restriction on what type of person God will save. He is not telling Timothy that God wants literally everybody in the whole world to be saved.
Returning to the topic, Rob Bell beats his mantra of "God has to get what God wants!", going to a discussion regarding the end times and final judgment. This leads to a rather humorous moment that shows Rob Bell's lack of understanding of scripture:
Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, "Sorry, too late"? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: "Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late." [pg. 108]When I first read this, I realized this scenario sounded familiar...then I realized that this is what Christ says will happen!
"Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the prudent answered, 'No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.' And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, 'Lord, lord, open up for us.' But he answered, 'Truly I say to you, I do not know you.' Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. [Matthew 25:1-13]Rob Bell tells us, "Gosh, it would be so mean to think God would shut the door and not let in people who were sorry, even telling them it was too late!" Yet Christ tells us that's exactly what it will be like. This is exactly why Christ is continually warning His followers to always be ready - because you don't know when the Master will come and the door be locked. Once it's locked, there's no chance of getting in. Yes, Mr. Bell, that's it. Christ Himself says so. In fact, Christ doesn't even say, "I'm sorry, it's too late," He simply says, "I don't know you."
This brings us to Rob Bell's infamous treatment of the last two chapters of Revelation and the final judgment. He notes first the absence of any kind of sin, and the barring of people who have committed such sin...and then a stunning fact regarding the gates of the New Jerusalem:
Second, we read in these last chapters of revelation that the gates of that city in that new world will "never shut." That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process. But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go.The implication here is that a person, seeing the glory of the better world, drops all the "major" sins they cling to and enter heaven. This is how Rob Bell introduces universal reconciliation, although in the end he leaves it up for question:
Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions - and the people who do them - from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people? Keeping the gates, in essence, open? Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting upon their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom? [pg. 115]
Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are leave to free fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires. [ibid]This is how Rob Bell gets around being labeled a universalist. The problem is a hopeful universalist is still a universalist, and Bell has completely misused text to get to this absurd "maybe." The fact is there are no tensions present, because Bell has in fact forgotten a rather important part about those open gates:
In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. [Revelation 21:25-27; emphasis mine]Note the part in bold: the only people who can go through those gates are those in the book of life. What already happened to those whose names were not written in the book of life? They were thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15), where it is said their part in this new world will be (Rev 21:8). This completely debunks Rob Bell's notion that the gates are open to let anyone in the lake of fire in. And before anyone tries to say, "Oh, well, they can be written in later!", keep in mind that these names were written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). The judgment has come. They are in their place. The gates are open only for those who deserve to be there.
Might I now propose a philosophical problem with Rob Bell's eschatology? If in the end even the hardest of hearts are melted and everyone embraces God (because sending people to hell would be so gosh darn mean)...then why do anything good in this life? Why should I join Jesus's "social revolution" when Jesus will be letting me into the New Jerusalem any way? Rob Bell might argue, "Oh! But that sinning still has to be overcome in the next life!" True, but he believes that we mature in the afterlife, and that I'll be so wowed by the party going on in heaven that I'll be willing to abandon hell altogether.
The love of God will melt every wild heart, and even the most "depraved sinners" will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God. [pg. 107]Why then should I be good when I'll eventually be able to overcome my bad? Why fear afterlife punishment when it's only to convince me how good I should be? Why be a Schindler when you can be a Himmler and still have a chance to change your mind afterward? What's so bad about the Rwanda murderers who defaced the people Rob Bell met when eventually both groups will be together in heaven? I know nothing bad is going to happen to me no matter how evil or cruel I am, because, after all, it would be mean of God to punish me.
Rob Bell argues that the idea of an afterlife with punishment makes this life senseless. What he seems to fail to realize is that, following his own logic through to its conclusion, making an afterlife with no punishment likewise makes this life senseless.
Jesus the Universalist
Similar to the treatment of Christ in The Shack, Rob Bell would have us believe that Jesus Christ taught universalism. Quoting Paul's reference to Moses hitting the rock in Exodus (1 Cor 10:4), Bell explains how Jesus is nowhere in that passage, yet Paul finds Him there. He states this is because "Paul finds Jesus everywhere" (pg. 144). Rob Bell's ultimate point is that if Paul found Jesus in a rock, why can't we find Jesus in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
Might I stop for a moment? What had Paul said a few verses later? "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were" (1 Cor 10:7). He says several verses even further: "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14) - no, not idolatry as in a silly metaphor that Rob Bell uses in regards to our personal sins, but actual, pagan idolatry. Paul likewise states, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21). Paul's point in this tenth chapter is that they should seek after God and avoid the past errors of the Old Testament Jews, one of which was going after other gods. Rob Bell is grabbing a text and saying, "Oh look! Paul found Jesus in a rock, which means we can find Jesus in the Tibetan Book of the Dead!" No, Mr. Bell - Paul found an early Messianic foreshadow which He used to highlight that we have only one Rock, and that we should not seek after anything other than this Rock. It is simply amazing what a little review of context can do to a theological belief.
In continuing his argument that Jesus believes He is saving literally everyone, Rob Bell turns to the famous Good Shepherd chapter:
As Jesus says in John 10, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen." [pg. 152]Yet here (John 10:16) Christ is talking about the Gentiles, who will be brought into the new covenant after the crucifixion (the point of John 12:32, which Rob Bell, like he did with 1 Timothy 2:4, also misrepresents as being universalism on page 151). In the exact same chapter, Christ tells the Jewish leaders, "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (John 10:26; ESV), and that it is for His sheep that He gives eternal life so that they never perish (John 10:28). Therefore, Christ clearly differentiates those who are not His sheep and those who are, and that there are benefits for one and disaster for the other. Again, simply astounding how much can be done to a theological belief when a little context is reviewed.
Some of my readers might be thinking, "Wait a minute, how would Rob Bell handle John 14:6? That's as exclusivist as they come." Well, Rob Bell does handle John 14:6, but how he handles it is simply evidence that someone can read a clear teaching of scripture and still see only what they want to see.
John remembers Jesus saying, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (chap. 14).Reading this, certain words come to mind, as spoken by a certain reptile in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say...?" In a similar fashion, Rob Bell takes a passage that clearly repudiates his entire argument and says, "Well, did God really say He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one can come to the Father except through the Son...?"
This is as wide and expansive a claim as a person can make.
What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him. [pg. 154]
To Rob Bell, Jesus is not the way, the truth, or the life, He is simply a vague "life source of the universe" (pg. 156) that supplies help to everyone, which "in many traditions...is understood to be impersonal" (pg. 145). If you want to know how serious Rob Bell takes this subject, he even compares Jesus to the Force in Star Wars (ibid). To those who argue that this makes the cross - and indeed, Christ Himself - completely irrelevant, Bell assures them that this is "absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true," as Jesus "is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe" (pg. 155). To be perfectly frank, that comment makes little sense, as if Rob Bell believes a "beautiful contradiction" is better than a Divine Truth. Given what we've seen already, it probably shouldn't surprise us that consistency isn't a serious standard at this point.
The Willful Mishandling of Scripture
Obviously we've already seen some examples of how Rob Bell plays games either with the original language and certain passages of scripture. There were a few unique examples, however, in which I couldn't help but notice that Rob Bell had to have been willingly distorting the original meaning.One example is found in Rob Bell's handling of the encounter between Christ and the rich young ruler. Read this following quote very carefully, and see if you can spot the mishandling:
Jesus then tells him, "Go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," which causes the man to walk away sad, "because he had great wealth." [pg. 29]Did you catch it? What did Rob Bell leave out? Let's see the original verse in its entirety:
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." [Matthew 19:21]Rob Bell left out Christ's final command: "come, follow Me." That was the climax of the command - that was where everything hinged upon.
This becomes even more apparent a few pages on:
When the wealthy man walks away from Jesus, Jesus turns to his disciples and says to them, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life" (Luke 18). [pg. 31]Did you note that he again ignored something? Rob Bell quotes Luke 18:29-30...but he completely left out verses 24 to 28, which is what Jesus actually said when He turned to his disciples. Verses 26 and 27 are especially important: the disciples lament "Then who can be saved?" and Christ responds "The things that are impossible with people are possible with God." Rob Bell will say elsewhere that the rich young ruler's problem was he couldn't "trust God to liberate him from his greed" (pg. 41), but that wasn't at all why he had to trust in God - he had to trust in God for his salvation. Anyone who reads the fullness of the rich young ruler's story understands that.
Yet another example, taken from the section dealing with heaven:
(By the way, when the writer John in the book of Revelation gets a current glimpse of the heavens, one detail he mentions about crowns is that people are taking them off [chap. 4]. Apparently, in the unvarnished presence of the divine a lot of things we consider significant turn out to be, much like wearing a crown, quite absurd). [pg. 44]He's referring to Revelation 4:10, but completely misquotes it: the "twenty-four elders" (whom he fails to identify) are not simply "taking them off," but rather it is written that they "will cast their crowns before the throne." Who is on the throne? The most high God. It is likewise written that they will say: "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created" (Rev 4:11). The crowns were a sign of glory given to them by God, but the elders recognize that even their own glory cannot be attributed to anyone other than God, and hence by casting their crowns before the thrown they are returning that glory given to them that is owed to God. The point of this passage is Soli Deo Gloria, not class warfare.
Another, even bigger example, is seen in the section attempting to prove universal reconciliation from scripture:
This God's anger, in Psalm 30, "lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime." [pg. 101]He's referring to Psalm 30:5. Let's back up a verse to see the entire context of what the psalmist is talking about.
Sing praise to the LORD, you His godly ones, and give thanks to His holy name. For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for a lifetime; weeping may last for the night, but a shout of joy comes in the morning. [Psalm 30:4-5; emphasis mine]The psalm is a psalm of praise, and is directed towards God's "godly ones" (the ESV translates it as "saints"). Yes, God's favor lasts a lifetime, but this is in reference to His people, not everyone in the whole world.
Granted, when I see someone misuse a text, I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they're doing so on purpose. I try to assume one of four things: 1) they're going from memory, and have just forgotten how it originally went; 2) they honestly just simply don't understand what the text is saying; 3) they're going from a second-hand source, and haven't double checked what the original text said; 4) they're doing it on purpose, knowing they're mishandling the text. The mistakes Rob Bell continues to make could only lead me to conclude that he was doing the fourth error. Perhaps the biggest proof of this is seen in his treatment of Ezekiel 16:55. After speaking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Bell writes:
But this isn't the last we read of Sodom and Gomorrah.Let's review the original context. First, Ezekiel 16 is God speaking through Ezekiel to Jerusalem regarding her idolatry and disobedience before God. God likewise makes reference both to Sodom and...Samaria. No, not Gomorrah, but Samaria. Gomorrah is nowhere mentioned in this chapter. God is making reference to contemporary locations committing contemporary transgressions. The full reading of the passage Rob Bell cites is:
The prophet Ezekiel had a series of visions in which God shows him what's coming, including the promise that God will "restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters" and they will "return to what they were before" (chap. 16).
Restore the fortunes of Sodom?
The story isn't over for Sodom and Gomorrah.
What appeared to be a final, forever, smoldering, smoking verdict regarding their destiny . . . wasn't?
What appeared to be over, isn't.
Ezekiel says that where there was destruction there will be restoration. [pg. 83-84]
Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state. [Eze 16:55]God is not speaking about the Sodom and Gomorrah that was destroyed - He is talking about a contemporary Sodom along with Samaria and Jerusalem, and saying he will restore their nationhood. This has nothing to do with restoration in the afterlife.
We can't say Rob Bell is going from memory, because he's speaking from a book and has had plenty of time to proof text before going to publication. We can't say Rob Bell simply misunderstands the passage because the context is abundantly clear. We can't say Rob Bell is guilty of using a second-hand source, because his argument is contradicted by the very text he quotes. There is only one option left for us to conclude: Rob Bell has mishandled scripture, and has done so knowingly.
If you still have doubts, here is but one final example.
Jesus meets and redeems us in all the ways we have it together and in all the ways we don't, in all the times we proudly display for the world our goodness, greatness, and rightness, and in all the ways we fall flat on our faces.Did that sound familiar at the end? That's because he's referring to Christ's words in Matthew's gospel...except he's completely ripped them from their context. Let's see what Christ originally said:
It's only when you lose your life that you can find it, Jesus says. [pg. 190]
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." [Matt 10:38-39]Christ is talking about martyrdom and personal sacrifice in His name. This isn't a squishy kind of "well sometimes you have to lose to win," this is Christ saying, "You have to be willing even to stare death in the eye and refuse to renounce My name, because it is in My name alone that you have life." Of course, to Rob Bell this is completely inconsequential, because to Rob Bell's theology Jesus Christ is not a name worthy to die for, it is a vague concept of goodness that one doesn't need to die over.
Questionable Theology
A wise man once said, "Some theology is taught, and some theology is caught." While reading through this book, there were a few moments where I couldn't help but think something deeper was lying under the surface, and I've decided to record a few of those instances.
Most curious is Rob Bell's questionable stance regarding the existence of the devil. Making reference to 1 Timothy 1:20, where Paul speaks of handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan, Bell puts Satan in quotation marks and begins his discussion with "whoever and whatever he means by that word Satan..." (pg. 89). The very next page Bell puts both Satan and sinful nature in quotation marks, as if not only Satan is simply a metaphor, but so is our sinful nature. He even goes on to say that turning someone over to Satan simply means "to allow them to live with the full consequences of their choices" (pg. 90). Bell appears to have the same opinion of Swedeborginists, who uphold that Satan and demons are simply metaphors for evil, and not literal spiritual entities. In this regard, Islam has a lot more in common with Christianity than Rob Bell's supposedly "Christian" theology does. I would encourage anyone who thinks Satan and the demons are simply metaphors to carefully read the tale of the man possessed by Legion (Mark 5:1-20). Ask yourselves: what jumped from the demoniac into the herd of swine? It certainly wasn't a metaphor.
Perhaps the biggest hint at an underlying problem was Rob Bell's understanding of scripture. As we've seen, Rob Bell quotes scripture throughout the book, but he often mishandles it or completely distorts it. A big question in such a situation: what does scripture mean for such a person? What does scripture mean to Rob Bell? To him, scripture is...a nice story. For example, he refers to the first few chapters of Genesis as a "poem" (pg. 44), as if it is simply a poem and not the literal story of creation. He does this again later on, twice, on page 133, and yet again on page 145. Throughout the book he refers to parables and gospel accounts alike as "stories," and theological beliefs as "stories."
In this vein, he often talks of the conflict between bad stories, good stories, or better stories. One big example of this in the book:
Second, it's important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn't a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn't do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn't a very good story. [pg. 110]The problem is most Christians recognize the Bible as a historical account as well as theological. What Paul writes was what Paul wrote, what Christ says is what Christ said, etc. It doesn't matter what we think would make a "better" story, the fact is this is the story given to us.
I could take the story of the Battle of Pearl Harbor and make it so that, shortly before reaching the harbor itself, the Japanese planes are given the order to cancel the attack. They immediately turn around, preventing the death of 3000 American servicemen and the future deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese. That would be a much better story than what unfolded that day. However...that's not how the story of the Battle of Pearl Harbor went. Whether or not we think another route would make a "better story," the fact remains that what happened happened. Likewise, what Christ and His apostles said were said, and what they taught were taught. Whether we like what they said or not, we have to repeat it.
Christ warned us that those who would be ashamed of His words, He would be ashamed of them when He comes in His glory (Luke 9:26). We don't need a "better story." What we need is the story given to us by Christ, which is found in Holy Writ. I will gladly take that over any "better story" the human mind can concoct.
Conclusion
I'll just come out and say it: Rob Bell is a heretic.
A cruel term? Perhaps to some, but it has meaning, and while I'm all for overlooking theological differences between brothers and sisters, Bell's differences are so grand that he invents a new religion. His version of Christianity is about as close to the Bible's definition of it as Gnosticism was for the apostle John, Arianism for Athanasius, Monothelitism for Maximos the Confessor, and medieval Roman Catholicism for Martin Luther.
I don't take any personal joy in calling anyone a heretic or any teachings heresy, but we need to call a spade a spade. After reading this and seeing the gross errors in citing scripture or exegeting passages, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob Bell's not misled...he's actively misleading. I recognize that God sends such men as Rob Bell to essentially wave the winnowing fork in the church and separate the wheat from the chaff (cf. 2 The 2:11-12). All the same, I feel only pity for those who would read this book and not cross-reference the scripture or review Bell's logic in a critical manner.
Should the book be read at all? If you want to see how Rob Bell's mind works and what his teachings really are, then I would suggest you do so. As I said at the beginning of this post, this kind of teaching - fallacious as it is - is infesting many parts of the church and so-called Christian academia. Whether we want to close our eyes and ears and pretend the Emergent movement does not exist...it exists. Just as whether or not Rob Bell wants to pretend a real hell of punishment doesn't exist...it exists.
What do I think of the book? It comes close to being the most heretical book I've ever read (just getting up near The Shack). There was barely a passage used in context in the entire book, and if Rob Bell did cite or quote a passage in context, it was most likely by accident. Furthermore, whereas Rob Bell promises early on that "this isn't just a book of questions," but "a book of responses to these questions" (pg. 19), it seems that he never intended to give precise responses. Vague answers like, "There's heaven now, somewhere else. There's heaven here, sometime else" (pg. 62) abound throughout the entire book. It might sound nice when said softly in a NOOMA video, but when read from a book where you can analyze it and ponder what it means, it just comes out sounding silly.
Rob Bell would like us to think that what he believes is valid Christian theology and therefore we should be open to discussion, not criticism.
We can be honest about the warped nature of the human heart, the freedom that love requires, and the destructive choices people make, and still envision God's love to be bigger, stronger, and more compelling than all of that put together. To shun, censor, or ostracize someone for holding this belief is to fail to extend grace to each other in a discussion that has had plenty of room for varied perspective for hundreds of years now. [pg. 111]The fact is, we've seen in this book what his idea of discussion is. He neither respects the opposing side nor attempts to understand where they are coming from. In the end he even subtly suggests those who hold an orthodox view of heaven and hell are "brain-washed."
As we experience this love, there is a temptation at times to become hostile to our earlier understandings, feeling embarrassed that we were so "simple" or "naive," or "brainwashed" or whatever terms arise when we haven't come to terms with our own story. [pg. 194]Yet as we've seen, Rob Bell treats the words of men with the same dignity he treats the word of God. If he indeed held the word of God with any respect, he might have noticed how Paul's epistle to the Galatians was written entirely to respond to a grave heresy, and that Paul gave the grave warning that, should any one attempt to teach another gospel than that given to the people, let them be anathema (Gal 1:8-9). Paul understood that Christ was the truth, the way, and the life, and there was salvation under no other name. This wasn't a topic for discussion - this was the gospel he had been given, and the gospel for which he would die. Any one who would deprive us of that gospel is only a wolf attempting to lead us astray.
And Mr. Bell...may you be anathema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)