Belief, Trust, and Truth

Aside

I recently found a great new blog – Every Thought Captive, authored by Professor Rich Davis and Professor Paul Franks of the Tyndale Philosophy Department.

Here is a mash-up of three great posts they recently published that deal with truth and beliefs. I recommend you hit their blog (links are provided), read them in their entirety, and then start following their blog.

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive – Blaise Pascal

Peter Enns, noted for his rejection of a literal Adam, recently wrote a provocative post stating that he doesn’t believe in God but he trusts Him. For Enns belief is equated with “ideas about God”, “articles of faith”, or “an intellectual construction” that is “in our heads”, while trust is “doing it, risking it” and “is much harder”. If Enns is saying saving faith is much more than head knowledge and getting some facts right about God than I agree.

But Enns seems to be saying more than this. Prof Franks tackles the problem made by Enns implicit assertion – that one can trust God without worrying about what one believes about Him:

First, to “trust God” you must at least “believe that God exists.” If you say to someone, “I trust God at this particular moment” and he responds by saying, “Why are you bothering with trusting in something that doesn’t even exist?” how could you respond without advancing your beliefs about God? It’s not clear that you can. … That is, you’re going to have to respond by not only noting that you believe God exists, but also that you believe certain things about God—namely that he is trustworthy.

Rob Bell, author of Love Wins and a new book exploring God, also seems to expressing the same idea as Enns in a recent HarperOne broadcast. Prof Davis quotes the relevant portion of the broadcast and then captures the problem with Bell’s “a good view of God is one that makes me a better person”:

The strange thing about Bell’s process for dispelling doubt is that it doesn’t appear to be truth-oriented at all. There is no attempt, so far as I can tell, to acquire or assess any reasons for belief. His method for theological belief revision, by his own account, is entirely subjective, pragmatic, and non-truth-conducive …

The “measure of a good view of God” isn’t that there are reasons for thinking there is a God corresponding to that concept. It’s whether it works for you. … In the end, it seems very likely that Bell is operating with a dogma of his own: we should adopt those understandings of God we find most empowering to us personally.

Everyone did what was right in his own eyes – Judges

Which brings us to their post which pulls it all together by tackling the questions – what is objective truth? and does Jesus require us to believe objective truth claims about Himself?

To say that a proposition is objectively true is only to say that its truth obtains apart from what any of us thinks, feels, or believes; it obtains by virtue of the way the world is. …

You can’t rightly believe in (i.e., trust, put your faith in) someone unless you believe that they exist. You have to believe certain objective truths about Jesus; otherwise you can’t be his disciple. … Indeed, it isn’t rational to give your life to someone who either isn’t really there (i.e., lacks objective existence) or is the product of your imagination (i.e., has subjective existence alone). Belief that (i.e., assent to objective truth) is a precondition for belief in.

Hipps on Hell

Posted on November 9, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

In September, Rob Bell announced that he was stepping down from his role at Mars Hill to pursue work on a TV show with one of the producer/writers of Lost. Teaching Pastor Shane Hipps, a Fuller Theological Seminary grad, will take on the lead teaching role. With the swirl surrounding Rob Bell and Love Wins, many might be asking what Hipps thinks about heaven and hell.

Recently Shane Hipps wrote a blog entry discussing that very topic. Hipps post was cross posted on the ChurchLeaders.com site. I came across the entry when I saw Scot McKnight’s tweet which opened up a discussion on the article at his blog the Jesus Creed.

Shane Hipps, on Rob Bell, on hell: ow.ly/7lkSK—
scotmcknight  (@scotmcknight) November 07, 2011

For those with short attention spans Hipps conclusion is that theological positions on heaven and hell are all speculation.

There is a lot of talk these days about heaven and hell. …

It’s strange that so much passion and ink has been spilled over something that is all speculation.

I can only comment on this one piece, I don’t know Shane Hipps and have not read other things he has written. However I have to say I was really surprised by the way that Hipps made the case to support this conclusion. The basis of his case lies in the premise that only Jesus died and rose from the dead and that it is only after His resurrection that Jesus could know for sure what the after-life was all about. Therefore only those teachings after the resurrection should be considered when evaluating the after-life.

Now having said this, I’m only aware of one person who died, and I mean really died, like three days dead, and came back to life again. His name was Jesus. Upon his return from the dead, he didn’t believe anymore; now he knew. So if I wanted some indication about what happens after I die, I should probably pay attention to what he said after he came back from the dead.

Here’s what he said about heaven and hell after his resurrection. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

…

If anyone had the authority and credibility to provide a coherent-once-and-for-all description of exactly what happens after you die, it would be Jesus upon his return from beyond the beyond. But he didn’t.

As the Lord says – “Come now, let us reason together”.

Is certainty only possible through direct experience?

The first problem is in how Hipps compares knowing with believing:

I take a position when I know something with certainty. Almost always through direct experience. … But until I’ve experienced it, this is only something I believe– a possibility. And possibilities should be held with an open hand, perhaps with some humility and even humor. Who knows, I could be wrong about what I believe?

Humble? Sure. But if these definitions are universally applied then at best Hipps could only be aware of the possibility that Jesus died and rose again. It can’t be a theological position for Hipps because he was not among the 500 who were visited by Jesus between the resurrection and ascension. So does Hipps think that Jesus’ death and resurrection is only speculation? Can we not have assurance and conviction of things that are not directly experienced based on the trustworthiness of God and His Word (Heb 1:1-2; 11:1)? Assuming he is willing to accept Jesus’ death and resurrection as more than speculation then Hipps has no basis to reject passages on the after-life that are in the Scripture because he has not directly experienced them yet.

Was Jesus only able to teach with certainty about the after-life after He died and rose again?

Hipps case implies that Jesus’ teachings on the after-life before the resurrection are based on speculation and are at best a possibility. Therefore we can only build a theological position on the after-life based on what Jesus says after He rose. However, as the One through Whom all things were created (Col 1:16) and having come from above where the Father is (John 30:36; 8:23), Jesus is more than capable of teaching with absolute certainty and truth on all things including the after-life both before and after His death and resurrection.

Does the limit on Jesus’ ability to teach with certainty after He died and rose again apply only to the after-life?

But if Hipps is right regarding Jesus’ teaching on the after-life with certainly only after He rose from the dead then why should we limit this to the topic of the after-life? If this were true then how can we trust any of Jesus’ teachings on anything? On what authority should we accept Jesus’ teaching on morale behavior or social justice? What do we do with the Old Testament? Or the majority of the teaching and content found in the Gospels? Is all of this teaching less reliable because Jesus had not died and rose from the dead yet?

And what are we going to do with all of the New Testament writings that are penned after Jesus’ death and resurrection? Does the teaching on the after-life found in these texts count? I am sure that is not what Hipps really intended but I am not sure what other conclusion one can draw.

Does this make sense even if we accept all these premises?

But even if we accept the premise Hipps suggests, that we should favor Jesus’ teachings after His death and resurrection then does this support his conclusion that teachings on the after-life prior to that are less certain. Let’s look at two events that occurred after Jesus rose from the dead.

Jesus on the very day that He rose from the dead met two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Interestingly He pointed to the Scriptures to teach them about the Christ.

That very daytwo of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, … And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning withMoses andall the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:13, 25-27)

This would certainly require the Scriptures and teachings that predated the resurrection to be true. And that would include all of the statements made regarding the after-life.

Then there is the Great Commission:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” – Jesus (Matt 28:18-20)

Now, Jesus said this after He died and rose from the dead. So using Hipps logic we need to pay particular attention to what is said here. Jesus tells us to “make disciples”. In the process of making these disciples we are told that we must teach them. What should we teach them you might ask? The answer is “all that Jesus commanded”. The content of our curriculum then must include the teachings made before and after His death and resurrection. And that would include all of the statements Jesus made regarding the after-life.

Even if we tried to wiggle out of these interpretations, Hipps asks why Jesus did not write a book on the after-life after He rose again:

If it were important to him, you’d think he would have written a book about it. Or preached a sermon or two. But he didn’t.

Actually after Jesus rose and ascended He sent angels to give John the visions that comprise the book we call Revelation (Rev 1:1-2). In this book we have teachings regarding the after-life. So even working within the untenable framework setup in Hipps article, the notion that what we can know about the after-life is pure speculation just does not hold up.

This probably should not be surprising given the muddled message found in Love Wins, but the logic (or lack of it) and the arguments made by Hipps in order to defend a speculative and vague theology about heaven and hell are worse than the conclusion.

Burger King Theology

Posted on September 15, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

The “have it your way” meme has hit religion according to a recent article in USAToday. The quote that sums it all up is here:

“We are a designer society. We want everything customized to our personal needs — our clothing, our food, our education,” he says. Now it’s our religion. … Barna laments, “People say, ‘I believe in God. I believe the Bible is a good book. And then I believe whatever I want.’”

Nadine Epstein, editor and publisher of Moment magazine is quoted:

It’s incredibly exciting. We live in an era where you pick and choose the part of the religion that makes sense to you. And you can connect through culture and history in a meaningful way without necessarily religiously practicing,”

I guess this should not be too surprising given our postmodern culture which is enamored with subjectivity and relative truth and which views Oprah as its spiritual adviser. Back in 2008, USA Today reported essentially the same thing:

Religion today in the USA is a salad bar where people heap on upbeat beliefs they like and often leave the veggies — like strict doctrines — behind.

Going on to add:

The impact of Oprah is seen throughout this survey. She uses the language of Bible and Christian traditions and yet includes other traditions to create a hodgepodge personalized faith.

How does Oprah view spirituality - according to a USA Today article reporting on her appearance on the Piers Morgan show:

In Oprah-vision: We’re all good, we should not judge each other and morality is relative. This is no Jesus-centered, born into sin and in need of salvation God who both loves and judges.

Her message of hope is to believe in yourself, redeem yourself. Very popular but not very Christian.

In that same article a partial transcript reveals:

Oprah: There couldn’t possibly be only one way with millions of people in the world!

When asked how she reconciled her spiritual teachings with Christian beliefs, Oprah essentially replied – I have an open mind.

I reconciled it because I was able to open my mind about the absolute indescribable hugeness of that which we call God,” Oprah said. “I took God out of the box because I grew up in the Baptist church and there were rules and belief systems and doctrine.

“What I believe is that Jesus came to show us Christ-consciousness. Jesus came to show us the way of the heart … Jesus came to say ‘Look, I’m going to live in the human body and I’m going to show you how it’s done. These are some principles and some laws that you can use to live by to know that way’. . . Even as a Christian, I don’t believe that Jesus came to start Christianity.”

Unfortunately an open mind did not include and open Bible.

This “salad bar” view of religion has its supporters even in the evangelical realm. Rob Bell, author of Love Wins wrote in his previous best seller Velvet Elvis that Christianity was like a trampoline and doctrines were the springs.

The springs are statements and beliefs about our faith that help give words to the depth that we are experiencing in our jumping.

Offering up the possibility that the Trinity, virgin birth, and other holdings in Christianity could be questioned and even removed.

We don’t need all the springs to jump. While I understand and respect his view that we need to be able to question our beliefs. Test them and evaluate them. There is a ~~fine line~~ big difference between subjectively dropping springs we don’t like and changing springs based on logical reasoning and a study of the Scriptures.

I guess Solomon was right – there really is nothing new under the sun. This has played out before:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6 ;21:25)

Why is Oprah’s view of spirituality so popular and why does removing the springs we don’t like so popular? I think it is because it is “politically correct”, its “open to anything”, its warm and fuzzy and feeds the “have it your way” culture we live in.

What do you think truth should be based on?

[Continue reading: Where's the Beef]

Anger Management

Posted on September 1, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

Some of you may remember the Hulk TV series, that started with the flashing word “anger”. As the camera pulls back the word is shown to be the word “danger” and is the warning light on the Gamma Ray machine. It also featured the memorable quote from Dr. Banner – “don’t make me angry – you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry”…

The episode introduction would then end with the quest that Banner finds himself on – “finding a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him”. I guess I am showing some of my age but I enjoyed this show as a kid. However in the show is a powerful message that we are all like Dr. Banner, with a monster within us that can be unleashed when we too are angry or under stress. Driving 5 miles in 30 minutes knowing you have to go nearly 20 miles to make your class on time and you are likely to be late because you gave yourself only an hour to get there is certainly a time when we can start to show our inner Hulk.

However Solomon reminds us that:

Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding,but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly. (Prov 14:29)

Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty,and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. (Prov 16:32)

Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools. (Eccles 7:9)

Examining Jonah we can learn a lot about anger and when we are angry we can learn a lot about ourselves.

Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.” (Jonah 1:1-2)

When the Lord came to Jonah what did he do? Jonah ran.

Not to carry out the Lord’s command but like a big kid Jonah runs away and pouts. He was trying to get as far away from Nineveh and the presence of the Lord as he could. Now Jonah lived in Samaria (the Northern Kingdom) in the first half of the 8th century BC during the reign of Jeroboam II. He is recorded as giving prophetic messages to the king regarding victories in battle and reclaiming territories and land for Israel (2 Kings 14:23-27). I doubt that Jonah ran away from the Lord or from delivering these messages.

Well Jonah boards a ship for Tarshish and we all know the rest of the story – after some timeout in a fish to cool off and rethink things Jonah is given another chance:

Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (3:1-4)

Why was Jonah reluctant to deliver the message in the first place? Why didn’t Jonah want to go to Nineveh the capital of Assyria and deliver the message that the Lord would destroy them in 40 days? Certainly the destruction of a strong neighboring nation (one that would take is people into captivity in 722 BC) would have given Israel a chance to continue to expand.

Jonah reluctantly preached to the city – with likely sermons that lacked zeal and total commitment and yet:

And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. (3:5)

which resulted in:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (3:10)

This is likely a summary verse of what happened. But before Jonah knew the results he settled on a hill overlooking the city having completed preaching to wait out the 40 days. As Jonah sits in the hot sun, stubborn and stewing in his anger he is hoping for a good show. He wants to see fire raining down from heaven to destroy the people and the city. As the days went on he likely saw the repentance of the people and this made Jonah even more angry. So mad he would rather die than live (4:3,8,9). Even though Jonah would not have had the book of Jeremiah yet – he was familiar with the concepts expressed in Jeremiah 18:5-11:

But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. And he prayed to the Lord and said,

“O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish;

for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. (4:1-2)

Jonah had great theology. He knew rightly that God was a graceful and loving God. But his application was bad. He was angry because he knew God had given his enemies a chance to repent and be saved. How often are we in the same boat as Jonah – where our beliefs (orthodoxy) are better than our doing (orthopraxy). A pastor once exclaimed that we were “educated beyond our level of obedience”.

As Jonah sits in the hot sun God causes a plant to shade him and ease his misery. When the plant dies and Jonah is left to sit in the scorching sun again he rages and becomes a Hulk (maybe that is why he is a green vegetable in the VeggieTales movie). He tells God he is “angry enough to die”. Blind with rage he misses the fact that he could have left the hill and headed home or even into the city to join the revival. As the Lord questions him he exposes the fact that Jonah is stubborn, his anger is making him difficult to reason with, and that he cares more for his own comfort than the lives of those around him. Why? Digging deep. Jonah is proud, stubborn, and selfish. And if we are honest most of the time we are angry for the same reasons.

Jonah might make a good stand in for the way evangelicals are generally portrayed in Love Wins as captured in this USA Today article:

But Richard Mouw, president of the world’s largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary based in Pasadena, Calif., calls Love Wins “a great book, well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus.

The real hellacious fight, says Mouw, a friend of Bell, a Fuller graduate, is between “generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people.”

While most people are not eagerly awaiting the destruction of other people or hoping they “go to hell”, we all (if we are honest) can be more interested in our comforts and the loss of them then in reaching the lost upon whom destruction is coming. And we can certainly be like Jonah and let our own form of stubborn and selfishness distract from the good works and fruit that would glorify God (Matt 5:16). When we feel that Hulk growing inside we would do well to heed Solomon and slow down and think about the question God asked Jonah:

Do you do well to be angry?

And while I don’t want to read to much into “after-life” theology it should not be missed that repentance spared the city from destruction. The expression of love and compassion in the case of both Nineveh and Jonah can be seen in the fact that each was given warnings, a chance to repent and turn to God, and forgiven based on a positive response. We should also not miss the fact that God was willing to destroy and punish in both cases as well.

The Few, the Humble, the Reborn

Posted on August 5, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

In a prior post we explored the gospel according to Love Wins and the two questions it asks:

What is the gospel?

And does how I live my life now matter?

After reading through the book I concluded that the gospel according to Rob Bell and Love Wins is muddled and confusing. I understand that Bell is committed to Jesus being the means of salvation but at the end of the book the question how do you become one of the few (or many) is still left unanswered. Is the best we can say regarding the fate of every person who ever lived is – “how exactly that pans out? That’s God’s job“. This post explores these questions.

Is the gospel a message that can’t be known?

And if that is true, why does John write so that you may believe and have eternal life (John 20:30-31) and that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13)? How can you know you have eternal life if we don’t even know how that pans out?

How could Paul expect anyone to test or examine themselves to see if they are in the faith if we don’t know how it all pans out (2 Cor 13:5)?

What gospel were the Galatians distorting and against what gospel were they to compare “other gospels” too (Gal 1:6-9)?

What was the gospel preached and received in Corinth (1 Cor 15:1-5)?

What gospel did Jesus teach and preach with authority (Luke 20:1-2; Mark 1:4-15)?

What gospel did Jesus want proclaimed to the nations (Mark 13:10, 16:15)?

What is the good news that the beautiful feet bring and that must be obeyed (Rom 10:14-16)?

What gospel is Paul unashamed of (Rom 1:16)?

How do I become one of the few?

How do I become one of the few? What must I do to be saved? How can I inherit eternal life? How do I enter the kingdom? No matter how it is asked – it is a question asked over and over again in the pages of Scripture. Here is a table of them:

Passage with Question	Summary of Answer
Acts 2:37	Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
Acts 16:30	Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household … and he was baptized at once, he and all his family
Acts 22:10	Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name (22:15)
Luke 10:25	You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself. And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.
John 6:28	This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent
John 3:3	Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:16	whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
John 3:18(also 3:36)	Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God

The answer is trusting Jesus. Trusting is expressed using terms like repenting (changing your mind about who Jesus is (which in the Acts 2 context was between a blaspheming criminal or the Messiah)), believing (faith), and calling. The result is being reborn (or born from above).

At the heart of the gospel message is Jesus. He is the object of our faith – the One in whom we place our trust.

We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth, (Colossians 1:3-6 ESV)

The gospel is a message of grace and truth which must be taught. Those who respond and accept the message have faith in Jesus that results in love for others and is based on a future hope in heaven.

Is faith a verb and does that contradict the notion of grace?

According to Bell in Love Wins [page 11]:

If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him – a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds – and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs?

Yes, the words accept, confess, and believe are verbs. But the question as posed above suggests that this contradicts that gracious gift of eternal life. I assume that Bell is trying to cloud things a bit so that the door can be opened to a more inclusive gospel that does not require a response of faith. However, even though faith is a verb and is an action that a person must do to be saved it does not contradict a message of grace. In fact in Romans Paul clearly states that in order for salvation to be by grace it must be through faith.

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. ⁵And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness … That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Rom 4:4-5,16 ESV)

Did you catch that. Being declared righteous (forgiven) depends on faith so that the promise is by grace and not works. The same contrast between grace, faith, and works is found in Ephesians 2:8-9. It is by grace through faith and not by works.

What’s the least I can believe and still be a Christian?

That is actually the title of another book (which I have not read). But it is an interesting question. And how we answer it matters because it will shape how and what we present to others as the good news. What is it that we must understand about Jesus when we repent and place our faith in Him?

We must believe that Jesus is the Messiah whom God sent (John 3:16; 6:29). Since Jesus was sent the implication is we must also believe in God the Father who sent Him (Heb 11:6).

Here is a basic outline of the core gospel message:

Passage	Summary
Heb 11:6; Deut 6:4-5; Acts 13:26	There is One God
Acts 17:24-28; Rom 1:20	God is Creator
Acts 10:42, 17:31; Matt 25:31-32; John 5:22,27; 2 Cor 5:10	Judgment
Rom 3:23; 5:8; 6:23a	Sinner and wages of sin is death
Acts 2:23-24, 32-33; 10:39-40;13:23,28-33; 1 Cor 15:1-5; Rom 10:9-10	Christ died for our sins that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
Eph 2:8-9	Saved by grace through faith (not works)
2 Cor 5:21	Sinless Jesus

We find many of these elements in the creeds captured in Scripture (Col 1:15-20 and Heb 1:1-4) as well as the Apostles’ Creed.

The Few, the Humble, the Reborn

Despite this claim in Love Wins (page 154)

What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him.

It is clear that God does say how, when, and in what manner people can get to God through Jesus.

²² He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. ²³And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, ²⁴ “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. ²⁵ When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ ²⁶Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ ²⁷But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ ²⁸ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. ²⁹And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. ³⁰And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” (Luke 13:22-30)

Those that enter through the narrow door shall enter the kingdom of God.

Those that call on Jesus are saved.

Those that trust (believe, have faith) in Jesus are given eternal life and do not perish, are not condemned, and God’s wrath is not still upon them.

Those that set aside pride and humbly admit the need for a Savior are reborn.

God is looking for The Few, the Humble, the Reborn!

[How we live our life will have to wait for another post.]

History of Hell (Christian History)

Posted on August 3, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

Saw this tweet from Mark Driscoll and thought I would share since I have blogged and taught on Love Wins a bit.

If you've been keeping up on the recent debates on hell, here's a great resource http://ow.ly/5TfRf—
Mark Driscoll (@PastorMark) August 03, 2011

The link refered to is from Christian History Magazine which has put out a resource (pdf) on various views of hell.

A quick summary of some of the early writers based on the article (italics are my additions):

Justin Martyr – potential father of inclusivism – writings inspired later thinkers to speculate on fate of unbelievers who did not have access to gospel.
Irenaeus - eternal punishment awaited those who rejected Jesus
Tertullian - eternal punishment awaited unbelievers
Origen - father of universalism / postmortem evangelism – writings speculate on fires of hell as purifying
Athanasius – potential father of annilationism
Augustine – eternal punishment awaited unbelievers

and a summary on some of the reformers:

Huldrych Zwingli – reformed inclusivism - those elect by God are saved (even if they don’t hear the gospel)
Martin Luther – eternal separation awaited unbelievers
John Calvin – eternal separation awaited unbelievers (unelect)

The article contains many more as well as a list of books that have added to the discussion on the after-life.

The Gospel according to Love Wins

Posted on July 29, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

Will only a few – select – people make it to heaven?

Will billions and billions of people burn forever in Hell?

How do you become one of the few?

How do I become one of the few? What must I do to be saved? How can I inherit eternal life? No matter how it is asked – it is a question asked over and over again in the pages of Scripture (Acts 2:37; 16:30; 22:10; Luke 3:10,12,14; 10:25; 18:18; John 6:28). Bell opens the book Love Wins dealing with how to become one of the few by jumping through passages and asking questions that challenge how salvation is worked out in each story.

So is it what you say that saves you? (Luke 7, 18, 23)

is it what you are? (John 3, Luke 20)

is it who you forgive? (Matthew 6)

is it doing the will of God? (Matthew 7)

is it standing firm? (Matthew 10)

This leaves the reader with the impression and nagging thoughts:

What is the gospel? And does how I live my life now matter?

These two questions are raised in the opening pages of Love Wins (page 6, 11) and determine the “fate of every person who ever lived”:

Some Christians believe and often repeat that all that matters is whether or not a person is going to heaven. Is that the message? Is that what life is about? Going somewhere else? If that’s the good news – if what Jesus does is get people somewhere else - then the central message of the Christian faith has very little to do with this life other than getting you what you need for the next one. …

Which leads to the far more disturbing question. So is it true that the kind of person you are doesn’t ultimately matter, as long as you’ve said or prayed or believed the right things? …

If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him – a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds – and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs?

And aren’t verbs actions?

Accepting, confessing, believing – those are things we do.

In an interview with Lisa Miller, Bell is given an opportunity to answer these questions:

[Lisa Miller] So, if I’m an atheist who gives to the poor, helps little ladies across the street, spends all my free time in charitable works. Am I going to heaven?

[Rob Bell] Well, the essence of grace is Jesus saying, “Left to your own, we are all in deep trouble. We have made a mess of this place. We are all sinners. No one has clean hands.” So, the essence of his gospel was, Trust me, I’ll take care of it. Just trust me.

Now, how exactly does that work out? Because he [Jesus] is unbelievably exclusive. He says these things like, “I’m the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.” He says things like, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen God.” He’s very exclusive. He’s also fantastically inclusive; he says things like, “I have other sheep.” He says “there will be a renewal of all things — I’ll be lifted up and draw all people to myself.” So he’s like in-ex-clusive. That’s a word I just made up. … And how exactly that pans out? That’s God’s job.

Bell expands on that theme in the book (page 154-155):

[Jesus said] “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

This is a 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 exclusively coming 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.

At this point, if I were not a Christian but was interested in what Bell or Love Wins had to say because of the popularity and the controversy I would be left in a very confused state. How do I become one of the few? What is the gospel? Does how I live matter? Is something as important as a person’s eternal destiny and after-life left to the notion (and Marine/Special Forces quote) - “Let God sort em out”?

Does the choice to accept or reject God really matter?

Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want. [page 113]

If the mechanism is not defined that gets people to God then how do we know that we have a choice?

Maybe we don’t and the universalists are right – God lovingly takes us into heaven (after all all things are reconciled and renewed right?).

And if we do have a choice – to accept or reject God’s ways for us – then how do I choose?

implicitly (but if I don’t even know I am choosing to accept God is that really a choice?)
explicitly (but then I must understand my options and what the gospel message is?)

And when I choose to accept God’s ways what determines that I have made that choice?

Is it to trust God has already taken care of it (but then trust is an action and now I am doing something right?)
Is it having a personal relationship with God (the relationship that isn’t in the Bible (page 10) but is the whole point of love (page 178)?)
Is it to do good for others (but then how does an atheist who helps little old ladies across the street accept a God they reject exists?)

When do I have to choose?

now or in the after-life (and if I get eternal choices why worry about it now – God will sort it out later right?)

And if the “only thing left to do is trust” because “Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it” and “not because of anything we’ve done” (page 188-190) then why do I have to choose again?

Oh, because trust is an action and a choice.

I understand that Bell is in many cases trying to provoke people to think and to generate discussion but in the end, a reader has to ask – just what is the gospel according to Love Wins?

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 4] Is Origen Orthodox?

Posted on July 26, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

In the book Love Wins, Rob Bell speculates on what happens in the after-life opening up the door on various ideas claiming in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:

I think that the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition is this vast, diverse, conversation that’s been going on for thousands of years and I think Jesus can handle the discussion. It think he can handle the debate.

Based on these comments we have looked at the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition – or the Rule of Faith – in a series of posts exploring whether it is something that should be considered wide (vast/diverse) or narrow.

Now to this discussion I would like to look at Origen. Why? Because, Origen is considered one of the earliest writers who speculated on the after-life suggesting many ideas found in Love Wins. Origen (185-254) lived primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. His writings are later than the previous two apologists that we have examined and unlike Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen is not writing against heresies. One might argue that rather he is creating them. In First Principles he is laying out a systematic theology of sorts.

Origen: On the After-Life

In this book Origen speculates on the after life. Before recording his ideas on this topic he writes:

But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching—viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners—let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. [2.10.1]

From this two observations regarding the judgment and the punishment of sinners can be made – according to Origen:

they are according to Scripture.
they are according to the Church’s teaching.

Rather than jump into his opinions on the after-life, Origen next establishes that there is an after-life and a resurrection of the body:

there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works [other treaties he has composed], especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, … [2.10.1]

From this two more observations can be – according to Origen:

a creed documenting the Church’s doctrine is in existence.
those who reject it are heretics.

Having established the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul, Origen states that after we die God will raise out of up the natural body “a spiritual one capable of inheriting the heavens” for those that deserve it, while those that are “destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments” are given a body that “cannot be corrupted or dissolved”. Based on this, Origen would certainly reject the annihilationist view of the after-life. Having established that the church teaches that there is an “everlasting fire”, he moves on to to “see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire” [2.10.3].

Origen suggests that there are two possibilities [2.10.5]:

psychological/emotional – the conscience torments the soul because it accuses/convicts the person of all the sin committed.
physical – the pains of general punishment.

However it is his “opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist”. Here the pain is likened to the body being torn apart since the soul recognizes it is not connected to God and is in a disordered condition. This state when it has “been tested by the application of fire” will result in “restoration”. Here Origen is advocating the post-mortem evangelistic view.

He bases the restoration on:

“God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls” will like a doctor take extreme measures to cure us and restore us. [2.10.6]
“Nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of restoration to its Creator” so the “destruction of the last enemy” is when the soul/body ceases to be an enemy and to be dead, but is rather restored. [3.6.5]

What should we make of these ideas in regard to orthodoxy?

Does that fact that Origen wrote out his ideas make them part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith? Or are they one man’s ideas on what the after-life could be like. More importantly can the speculations withstand the teaching of the Scriptures and the church which even Origen acknowledged were to be the source of truth in his preface to First Principle:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance [...] it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [areas that are in disagreement].

…

seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [preface]

Then he goes on to list what he considers plain and explicit doctrine clearly communicated by the apostles. Here is how they line up with the Apostles’ Creed.

Apostle’s Creed	De Principiis (Preface)
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth	there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being [...]
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord	This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [...]
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary	He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirity
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried	[...] that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die;
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead	that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples,
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty	and was taken up (into heaven).
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead	the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments
I believe in the Holy Ghost	the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son.
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints	[clearly acknowledges the teaching of the Church as the basis of truth]
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting.	that there is a time of resurrection from the dead [...]
Amen.

When Origen writes about his opinions on the after-life he shows that he is familiar with teachings that some will be raised to “eternal fire and punishments”. He then speculates that these punishments are restorative in nature. Even thought he attempts to support his ideas with Scripture he does not claim that these speculations are part of the Rule of Faith/creed. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that even Origen would not have considered his ideas or conclusions regarding “restorative punishment” as orthodox but rather his explanation to things that were (in his view) outside of the clear and plain teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Is orthodoxy narrow or wide?

Is Origen’s list of clear teachings a good basis for orthodoxy? Can they be supported with Scripture?

Is there anything you agree with or disagree with in his list?

Is Rob Bell a Universalist? (or what does Love Wins actually teach)

Posted on July 19, 2011 by MikeB (@g1antfan)

Rob Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids, MI. He has written a book – “Love Wins – A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived” that has been a NY Times bestseller due in large part to the debate that ensued (most of it before the book came out) around whether Rob Bell is a universalist. The first to respond (to the promo video) was Justin Taylor and the Resurgence has a good overview (with links) of the early responses to the promo video and the book. Since then there has been a lively discussion on hell and Bell has been interviewed several times – with Lisa Miller of Newsweek, Martin Bashir of MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Morning Joe of MSNBC, and Josh Loveless of Relevant Magazine. Bell has also been featured on the cover of Time Magazine and a site has been set up to track what is now known as Hell’s Gate.

Is Rob Bell a universalist?

I guess to answer that question we first have to know what universalism is. In an interview with Lisa Miller, Bell was asked that question.

[Miller] Let’s get right to it. You have been accused in a lot of the coverage of your book of being a universalist. A universalist, in theological terms, means that everybody gets to go to heaven – everybody is allowed to go to heaven. That means Buddhists, Hindus – you can reinterpret my definition when I’m done – Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, all get to go to heaven. Are you a universalist?

[Bell] No – if by universalist we mean there’s a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point, whether you want to be there or not. [...] So, if by universalist we mean that love doesn’t win, and God sort of co-opts the human heart and says, “You’re coming here and you’re going to like it,” that violates the laws of love. Love is about freedom, it’s about choice. It’s about, “Do you want to be here?” Because that’s what would make it heaven.

The definition used by Miller and Bell generally agrees with the definitions on several other sites:

Christian Universalism denies pluralism and balder forms of universalism by contending that all can or will be saved, but only through the saving work of Jesus Christ. [Jesus Creed: Scott McKnight]

Yes, everyone will ultimately be saved. Historically known as “universalism,” this view exists in multiple forms, but in each the outcome is the same: Every human being whom God has created will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now. [the Gospel Coalition: Collin Hansen]

[Universalism] is the doctrine that states all people of all time will be saved by being reconciled to God and go to heaven, whether or not faith is professed in Jesus Christ in this life. [the Credo House]

Based on these definitions, the answer is no – Rob Bell is correct in claiming that he is not a universalist. That said, much of what he writes in Love Wins, can be seen as opening door wide on this view for others to accept – even if Bell does not.

At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God. [page 109]

[Note: I have written a few posts regarding whether the orthodox, Christian tradition has such claims at its center for those interested.]

What does Love Wins actually teach regarding the after-life?

Before attempting to answer that, here is a chart that lists the major theological views of the after-life. Within each of these major views there are of course multiple variations, however I have tried to summarize them in general terms as I understand them.

pluralism	All will be saved. All religions are equally valid and lead to heaven. Jesus is not (necessarily) the means of salvation.
universalism (christian)	All will be saved. Jesus is the means of salvation and everyone is saved through His sacrifice regardless of what they believe (or want). In this view there is no possibility for people to reject God.
inclusivism	Jesus is the means of salvation but some (unevangelized, young children) will be saved through His sacrifice even if they have not heard or responded to the gospel message. In this view it is possible that some people will eternally reject God.
postmortem evangelism	A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift. If people do not accept the gift in their lifetime they will be given another chance to choose to accept Christ after they have died. In this view it is possible that some people will eternally reject God.
annilationism	A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift in this lifetime. Those who have not accepted Christ are thrown into hell at the judgment. They are destroyed in hell rather than being eternally tormented and punished in hell.
traditional view of hell	A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift in this lifetime. Those who have not accepted Christ are thrown into hell at the judgment. They suffer eternal torment and punishment in hell.

Determining which of these views Love Wins is affirming is a tough question to answer because Love Wins does not advocate or defend any position regarding the after-life. Instead it poses questions and possibilities and reports on what others ask or claim. Rob Bell seems much more interested in generating discussion and stirring up debate than settling any theological questions. Referring to the traditional view of hell (page 110), Bell claims:

Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives.

In fact on page 115, Bell asserts that we can’t know which perspective or view is right:

Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t …

That said there are four strong points that the book does make regarding the after-life:

God is love and love involves the freedom given to us to choose or reject God. Our fate in the after-life is based on this choice.
God is not limited to giving us a choice only in this lifetime but can provide one or more chances after death (postmortem evangelism).
God is not limited to someone hearing the gospel and choosing only in this lifetime but can accept a person’s implicit acceptance of Jesus because they responded to what they had available (inclusivism).
There is a strong reaction against (if not a denial of) the traditional view of hell.

On love, hell, and choices Love Wins does make some clear assertions (points I agree with):

Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want. [page 113]

That’s how love works. It can’t be forced, manipulated, or coerced. … God says yes, we can have what we want because love wins. [page 119]

It is based on these statements (and similar ones in interviews) that I don’t think Rob Bell is a christian universalist (even if he leaves that door open for others).

The rejection of the traditional view of hell in Love Wins is based on the provocative questions more than any clear statements. Here is a sampling:

Can God do this or even allow this [send millions of people to spend eternity in anguish], and still claim to be a loving God? Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life? This doesn’t just raise disturbing questions about God; it raises disturbing questions about the beliefs themselves. [page 2]

Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? [page 98]

Is God our friend, our provider, our protector, our father – or if God the kind of judge who may in the end declare that we deserve to spend forever separated from our Father? [page 102]

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. [page 110]

After reading through this that there is not much room for the traditional view of hell. And one could certainly see universalism in some of these statements.

The postmortem evangelism view is explored in Love Wins. However, the view is presented through what others ask or others claimed – opening up the possibility for the view without advocating for it directly.

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. [...] And then there are others who ask, if you get another chance after you die, why limit that chance to a one-off immediately after death? [...] At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. [page 106-107]

The inclusivism view is explored in Love Wins. Based on the texts in Exodus 17 and 1 Cor 10, Bell draws the conclusion that since Jesus was the rock Moses struck and He was not identified then the possibility exists that others can come to Jesus without identifying Him or placing faith in Him directly too:

People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways. [...] Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t. [page 158]

[Jesus said] “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

This is a 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 exclusively coming 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.

And so the passage is exclusive, deeply so, insisting on Jesus alone as the way to God. But it is an exclusivity on the other side on inclusivity. [page 154-155]

And this may be the biggest problem in the book – one is left with a muddled and incoherent gospel message. But more on that later.

This quote from the Relevant Magazine interview may explain why it is hard to label Love Wins (or Rob Bell) with any particular view – he does not have one:

Serious, faithful, devout followers of Jesus have wrestled with these questions and have entered into the speculation and have all sorts of ways they thought about this and talked about this. I’m not interested in dying on any one of those hills, I’m interested in dying on the hill that says, “There’s lots of hills, and there’s lots of space here.” That’s what interesting to me.

So while Bell is saying there are a lot of hills, he seems to be far more open to the hills of universalism then he is to the traditional view on hell.

Have you read the book? What do you think, is Bell a universalist?

What view of the after-life does Love Wins teach?

Dead Heroes Don't Save

A place to explore theology…

Tag Archives: Love Wins