I was saddened to learn of Rob Bell's decision to affirm Gay marriage.
The blog of George W. Sarris
"A wise man attacks the city of the mighty, and pulls down the strongholds in which they trust."
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Bell & Whistles
I was saddened to learn of Rob Bell's decision to affirm Gay marriage.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Whatever happened To Hell? . . . A Response
I read with interest Jerry Newcombe’s article, Whatever Happened to Hell? posted June 23 in the Opinion section of ChristianPost.com. It was apparently written a day before the Colorado shooting.
. . . a major seller that for all practical purposes denies Hell (or the import of it). What makes this more difficult to stomach is that it was written by "an evangelical pastor."
. . . he denies essentially that any people will go there.
In short, Hell is the ultimate accountability. By Jesus dying for sins, love wins---for those who repent and believe on Him. For those who don't, Hell awaits.
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
“Does Hell have a positive purpose in God’s ultimate plan, and do the punishments in Hell last forever?”
Friday, July 22, 2011
Predestination or Free Will? . . . The Debate Continues
The wagons have circled, and the second round of shots is being fired.
What I am referring to, of course, is the series of books by well-known evangelicals opposing Rob Bell’s Love Wins. Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle, andGod Wins by Mark Galli have recently become available online and in bookstores, with others set to be released soon. Bell shot first, and now the return fire.
Roger Olson, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, made a very perceptive observation in that regard:
After reading Mark Galli’s book God Wins and reviewing it here, I went back and re-read Bell’s Love Wins – looking for the weaknesses and dangers Mark points out. What I find is this: IF I were a Calvinist, I would find Love Wins troubling. But as an Arminian, I find it challenging, but not particularly troubling. . . . The [attacks] I have read and heard ALL arise out of Reformed assumptions about God rather than out of Arminian assumptions about God. And there’s the main difference. Not all Arminians will agree with everything Bell says, but the general thrust of his theology in Love Wins is classically Arminian.
What Is God Like . . . Really?
Volumes have been written down through the centuries about the attributes of God. In fact, a hallmark of every systematic theology is a section on who God is and what He is like. These attributes are divided up and stated in different ways by different theologians, but all mention two specific qualities that scripture points to as the overarching qualities from which all the others are derived.
In Psalm 62:11-12, when King David faced opposition from those who sought to depose him, he found rest for his soul by reminding himself of these two aspects of God’s nature that are at the heart of who He really is.
One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard: that you, O God, are strong, and that you, O Lord, are loving.
Of all the attributes that characterize the God of heaven, His sovereign power and His unfailing love are foundational.
Scripture makes it very clear that God alone has the absolute right and power to do all things according to His good pleasure. He can do anything and everything He wants. There are no limits on God except those that He Himself has imposed because of the goodness of His nature. God cannot do certain things because He will not do them. Which brings us to the second attribute of God that Scripture makes abundantly clear.
God is loving. In fact, Scripture says that He is not simply loving, He is love! And, it even defines love in I Corinthians 13. Two of its central features are that love suffers long, and is kind – it is not vindictive. And love never fails – not in this age or in the ages to come.
Interestingly, these two “attributes” of God relate directly to the distinctions between Calvinists and Arminians that Dr. Olson has referred to. That distinction is even seen in the titles of the two books he mentions at the center of the debate. Rob Bell focused on God’s love and titled his book, Love Wins. Mark Galli focused on God’s sovereignty and titled his book, God Wins.
Calvin vs. Arminius
If you have ever attended a Bible study, Sunday School class, or some other activity where people get together to discuss serious issues of faith, you probably witnessed a debate between those who believe that God predestines certain individuals to be saved and others who believe that mankind has a free will. I have participated in many such discussions over the years, and sometimes the arguments have gotten quite heated.
God’s sovereignty undergirds all of the reformed theology of John Calvin and his followers, and led directly to their belief that God predestines those who are saved. For them, it is God’s sovereign grace alone that results in mankind’s salvation. We were dead in our transgressions and sins, and salvation comes only because God Himself is able, and, in fact, has sovereignly chosen to give life to those who were dead.
The problem they face, however, is that the ones whom God has chosen not to save actually represent a dramatically larger portion of the human race than those whom Godhas chosen, which opens them up to the charge of making God into a cruel tyrant. The answer generally given in response to that charge is that God is not only loving, He is also just. For them, what is most important in the end is that God ultimately wins.
Jacob Arminius held most of Calvin’s teaching in very high regard. However, he strongly disagreed with him with regard to predestination and election. Why would God limit the extent of His grace? Is it not God’s will that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? God’s love extends to all. And, because God is love, He has given mankind a free will. The unsaved are those who have freely chosen to resist God’s grace.
The problem the Arminians face is that they have placed a limit on God’s sovereignty, and the ones who ultimately resist God’s grace also represent a dramatically larger portion of the human race than those who accept it. That opens them up to the charge of making God into a defeated sovereign. The answer generally given in response to that charge is that God may not get everything He would like to have gotten, but He has been true to His nature. For them, what is most important in the end is that love ultimately wins.
Internal Conflict?
There are actually strong, Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue. And, there are also weaknesses inherent in both of the positions.
The Scriptures clearly teach that God is both sovereign and loving. However, by choosing to focus on one quality over another, strict Calvinists and Arminians have actually raised a new question that is, at least to me, far more problematic: Is God internally conflicted? Is one of His divine attributes at war with another? Is there a hierarchy within God’s nature that makes one quality – love – grudgingly submit to another quality – sovereign justice?
After reading my last blog post about treading lightly in areas where wise, godly individuals disagree, a friend emailed me to say,
It reminds me of one time when I was talking with another Christian about salvation . . . Is it free will? Is it predestination? My friend said both! That threw me for a mental loop. Then I started asking myself why not? God can do anything! Why should I limit Him with my finite thinking?
God is not conflicted internally. The loving and just elements of His nature are not at war with each other. It was His justice working together with His love that led to Christ dying on the cross for the sins of the world.
So, who is right . . . the Calvinists or the Arminians? Is it predestination or free will?
When faced with two choices, each with some inherently unsatisfactory elements, sometimes the best course of action is to keep on looking.
Calvinists are right about God’s sovereignty. Arminians are right about His love . . . which is why I sometimes call myself a “Calvi-Minian.”
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Will Love Really Win . . . Today?
Jesus made very clear what He thought was the key characteristic of those who are truly His followers. Interestingly, it wasn’t right doctrine.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
That is not to say that right beliefs are unimportant. What we believe is very important. However, those of us who are old enough to remember what we thought to be true and essential twenty or thirty years ago know that our minds have changed in some important ways since then. We are all in a process of spiritual and intellectual growth as God’s Holy Spirit works within us to draw us closer to Him. Jesus makes it clear that He values how we act toward one another more than whether or not we always agree on what we think. It’s the heart that is most important to God, not the brain.
Scripture makes it clear that this sentiment is not limited to an isolated comment by Jesus. The apostle Paul, never one to be accused of being an intellectual slouch, clearly explained his perspective on the issue – if we have all knowledge and can fathom all mysteries, but do not have love, we are nothing.
The apostle John was actually quite blunt when he expressed his views on the subject. He said that anyone who claims to love God whom he has not seen while hating his brother whom he has seen is a liar.
While attending a dinner party at Matthew’s house that included a number of people who clearly did not have their doctrines in line with the “teaching of the elders,” Jesus told a group of critical Pharisees what God really desired – mercy, not sacrifice.
So . . . ?
I mention this because of the angry and very unloving remarks that have been expressed on many occasions from Christian brothers and sisters who have spoken very pejoratively about the views of Rob Bell. His controversial book about Hell and future judgment was soundly condemned by a large percentage of the evangelical community because what he said didn’t fit in with what has become the “teaching of the elders” for us. However, he asked a lot of honest questions that people in both the religious and non-religious communities have been asking for centuries.
The editor at HarperOne who was in charge of Rob Bell’s book posted an article recently addressing this very issue, and asking some questions that we would do well to ponder:
But why such hostility? Why would leaders attack as a threat and an enemy someone who shares their views of Scripture, Jesus, and the Trinity? What prevented leaders from saying, “Thanks, Rob, interesting views, but here is where we disagree”? When did “believing the right things” become equated with determining who is “saved” so that, as some have claimed, affirming Rob’s teachings might jeopardize one’s eternal destiny?. . . What exactly is so threatening about Rob’s expansive vision of God’s love and grace?
Dealing With Controversy
Over the years, two underlying principles have governed the way I approach controversial issues within theology.
The first is that, because all systems of theology are written by human beings, I assume that all systems of theology are flawed to one degree or another. John Calvin and his followers were brilliant men. Jacob Arminius and his followers were also brilliant men. Francis Chan, Mark Galli, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, Richard Mouw, John Piper and many others who have opposed or supported Rob Bell are brilliant men who have all done wonderful things for the kingdom of God. But they are all human, so some of their ideas are incorrect.
The second principle I try to follow is that when wise, Godly individuals differ on a theological issue, tread lightly. One of the two groups may be right and the other wrong. But it may also be the case that both are right and both are wrong – that a third alternative that neither is considering may ultimately reconcile the two.
I pointed out in an earlier post that the view that Hell is not forever was a prominent view among many in the Early Church who spoke the language of the New Testament as their mother tongue, and who were closest to the Apostles. Some were actually instrumental in formulating the creeds that undergird our Christian Faith today.
Rob Bell and the early Greek Fathers have suggested a third alternative. Perhaps the best response from us would be to listen to what they have to say, consider it carefully, and then treat them as Christ commanded us to . . . in a loving manner.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Hell, Bell and Heresy - A Caution
You may not have thought about it before, but no matter who you are or what you believe, you are a heretic!
Or, at least you would have been considered one by some group or another at a certain point in the history of the Christian Church, and been subject to beatings, imprisonment, torture and possibly death. That fact alone should caution us to be careful when we call someone a “heretic” or accuse a Christian brother or sister of teaching “heresy” when they hold views we disagree with.
Heresy is a very serious charge. And, it has resulted in very serious consequences – not the least of which is the fact that excesses by some who have sought to stamp out heresy have led to God’s Name being blasphemed among non-believers!
The Eastern and Western Churches each considered the other “heretical” after the Great Schism in AD 1054. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others – were deemed “heretics” by the Roman Catholic Church. Members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were considered “heretics” by the Reformers. And, both groups persecuted as “heretics” the Anabaptists who didn’t believe in infant baptism.
I mention this because the charge of heresy has come up repeatedly in conversations, articles and blog posts about Rob Bell and his position on Hell.
What people usually mean when they say his teaching is “heretical” is that it is wrong teaching. But, that is to use the word much too loosely. A teaching may be wrong without being heresy. For example, most Calvinists believe in predestination while Arminians believe in free-will. Each would say the view the other group holds is wrong. However, it is not heresy.
What is True Christianity?
Many individuals and groups throughout the world today claim to be “Christian,” but differ significantly from others who claim the same thing.
Some who claim the mantle of Christianity meet in large edifices that are beautifully adorned with gold, fine wood, or massive stone work. Others who make the same claim meet in houses or under a tree. Some who claim to be Christians use a variety of electronic and acoustic musical instruments to sing contemporary songs with upraised arms waving in the air. Others who claim the name Christian use no instrumentation at all, sit quietly, and only sing the Psalms. Some who say they are Christians handle snakes as part of their worship practices, or wash one another’s feet, or speak in tongues, or claim to have the gift of healing or prophecy or wisdom. Others do none of these things. Most who claim the name Christian meet together with like minded people on Sunday for a time of worship. Others meet on Saturday, and some on Friday. Some who claim to be Christian baptize infants. Others baptize only adults. Some “have communion” or “share the Eucharist” every time they meet. Others do so only once a month, or once a year.
If you ask an Independent Baptist if he is a Christian, he will say, “yes.” If you ask a Roman Catholic if he is a Christian, he will say, “yes.” If you ask Anglicans, or a members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or people who attends services at a Charismatic, Pentecostal, or Seventh Day Adventist church if they are Christians, they will answer, “yes.” However, many in each of those groups would say that the others are not.
So, who is right? What does it mean to really be “Christian?”
The Ancient Church
Most churches, organizations or groups today that call themselves “Christian” have some kind of statement of faith that explains what they consider to be their core beliefs with regard to who God is, who Jesus Christ is, who the Holy Spirit is, what they believe about the Bible, or church polity, or specific worship practices. This is an important tool that distinguishes them from others who they believe do not represent true Christianity.
The ancient Church wrestled with this same issue. As the Church grew during a time of great persecution, it became necessary to clarify what truly represented the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Interestingly, the only official statement of faith that has come down to us from the early Church that put forth what they considered to be the essence of the Christian faith is the Nicene Creed. In fact, the council that issued it specifically prohibited other creeds from being officially formulated and presented as the authoritative teaching of the Christian Church.[1]
In addition to this, the Apostles Creed which preceded it (although not actually written by the Apostles) has generally been accepted by almost all those individuals and groups in the East and West who call themselves Christians.
Most committed Christians today, from a wide variety of theological backgrounds, would have no hesitation whatsoever in declaring that these two creeds contain what they believe is the heart of their faith. In fact, many of these same Christians actually recite them on a regular basis in their Sunday morning worship services as part of their declaration of what “we, as Christians, believe.”
So, what do these ancient statements of faith put forward by the combined Church assembled have to say about after-death punishment? Nothing! Neither creed contains a hint of the belief in the endless punishment of the wicked. The reason, as mentioned in an earlier article[2], is that endless punishment was not considered an important tenet of the faith at that time, and there were a great many believers who did not subscribe to it.
The Apostles Creed
As printed here, the portion in regular type was probably written in the early or middle part of the second century and was in Greek. The portion in italic was added later by the Roman Church, and was in Latin.[3]
I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he arose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
The earlier form of the creed speaks of the “resurrection of the body,” and the later form mentions the “life everlasting.” But, not a word is written about Hell. The belief that the wicked suffered endless, conscious punishment was not included in the creed because it was not universally held and taught by those who were leaders in the church at that time. It was also not considered to be an essential tenet of the faith at a time when Christianity was first being introduced to the pagan world around it, and making its greatest impact.
The Nicene Creed
The next oldest creed, and the only one officially authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene Creed. This creed was originally drafted at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, with later modifications made at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. It is a statement of faith accepted by almost all those who claim to be Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, and almost all of the Protestant churches, including the Anglican Communion, most Baptist and Independent churches, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed churches.
Like the Apostles’ Creed before it, the Nicene Creed says nothing at all about endless punishment. That doctrine was then professed by a portion of the Christian church, but it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average or official belief.
The portion of the creed printed here in regular type is that composed at Nicea in AD 325. The portion in italic was added in AD 381 at the Council of Constantinople.[4]
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (or ages), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father,[5] who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
As with the Apostles’ Creed before it, not a word is written in this clear statement of faith about the nature or duration of after-death punishment. None of the four great Ecumenical Councils held in the first four centuries of the Christian era – those at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon – condemned the belief that God would one day restore all of His creation or even mentioned endless punishment as the consensus belief of the church, although both doctrines were held by various key participants at the time.
Is Rob Bell a heretic or is his belief about Hell heresy? Not according to the giants of the faith in the early Church upon whose shoulders we stand. We should be careful not to use the term heresy too lightly.
[1] Conc. Ephes. Can. VII. “'The holy Synod has determined that no person shall be allowed to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other Creed (ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι), besides that which was settled by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicæa, with the Holy Spirit. But those who shall dare to compose any other Creed, or to exhibit or produce any such, if they are bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed, but if they are of the laity, they shall be anathematized.' The Council of Chalcedon (451), although setting forth a new definition of faith, repeated the same prohibition (after the Defin. Fidei).” Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes, Volume I, The History of Creeds, Harper & Brothers, 1877, p 35, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.v.html
[3] cf. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes, Volume I, The History of Creeds, Harper & Brothers, 1877, p 14, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.ii.html
[4] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. I, Harper & Brothers, 1877, Sixth Edition Revised and Enlarged, by David S. Schaff, 1905, 1919, p. 28-29
[5] In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking Western Church added the words “and the Son” to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit in what the Eastern Church argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicea or that of Constantinople.