Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Take a Moment...

I might not get to post anything on Thursday, so here are a few additions to the bi-weekly "Take a Moment..."

Evangelicals converting to Catholicism?

I'm done with living like a Christian!

Reading when you can't afford books...

Lust: Not for men only

A book worth your time...

Kevin DeYoung on Mark Driscoll and Effemigate...

Piper and Carson discuss hermeneutics and the use of extra-biblical sources...

Monday, July 25, 2011

An Arrogant Theology

It’s important for people to be right… or, if I’m honest, it’s important for me to be right.

As I’ve studied and taught philosophy and logic, I’ve begun to learn the “art of argumentation”, and the honing of this skill has certainly infiltrated my quest for biblical/theological expertise.

Over these last few months, as I’ve patrolled the blogosphere, I’ve noticed that this is a primary preoccupation amongst bloggers and those commenting.

Whether the conversation is about God…

…or hell…

…or homosexuality…

…or salvation.

We want to be right.

It seems, though, that the two primary camps at the forefront of biblical/theological argumentation (the neo-liberals and the neo-Calvinists [I’m painting broadly here]) have vastly different ways of expressing their claim(s) to accurately interpreting the Bible.

For instance, those within the neo-Calvinist camp (which I would generally place myself within) seem fixated on making propositional statements; whereas, the neo-liberal camp seem fixated on asking questions.

But don’t be fooled; winsome and provocative questions can be just as affirming of truth and accuracy as are propositional statements.  Consider what Kevin DeYoung has to say on the matter:

Don’t think for a second the questions don’t communicate something…Words mean something and words do something. Whether the sentences end in question marks or not…who could think for a moment that I am not teaching something? This is not mere provocation. It is not an expression of searching inquiry or humble wrestling. My questions pack a rhetorical punch. They tell you what I think is foolish and what is wise. They suggest that some beliefs are noble and others are not. They tell you what God is like and what you should believe about him. My questions teach.

Often, those within the neo-Calvinist camp are accused, by those in the neo-liberal camp, of arrogantly claiming their confidence in their biblical exegesis (which is usually demonstrated via propositional statements).  And, although I am willing to admit that I can, at times, struggle with this claimed theological arrogance, can we be sure that a similar form of arrogance is not found in winsomely and provocatively posing questions?  In other words, regardless of which camp we fall in, we ought to be cautious in disparaging someone because of their assumed arrogance, when we might be akin to the same form of arrogance in our assertions of biblical superiority.

Perhaps this is a prefacing post, as my plan for the next few posts is to think through an issue that is becoming heavily discussed in the media and the blogosphere. 

The issue…is homosexuality.

Is it a sin?

Was Paul only talking about man/boy pedophilia?

Is the Bible even clear on this issue?

How are Christians supposed to relate to homosexuals?

Can a homosexual be a Christian?

These are going to be some of the questions that I plan on thinking through over these next few weeks and months.  And, although my intention will be to eventually make propositional statements regarding what I see as biblical truth claims, my hope is that those who would want to disparage me for “arrogantly” stating such-and-such, would instead consider their hearts before disparaging, and, in the end, if an attack is necessary, attack the argument, rather than the arguer.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Take a Moment...

Why you need to pray for your pastor...

Does the word "Evangelical" mean anything anymore?

4 steps to killing sin...

Should the church accountant be the one called the "worship pastor"?

4 things I've learned about God through my baby who was born blind...

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Take a Chill Pill...

So much mayhem has happened recently due to Mark Driscoll’s facebook post regarding effeminate worship pastors…

Rachel Held Evans' blog response has gone viral, and now World Magazine has responded to her response. Although I personally would not have suggested that Driscoll make such a comment public, I also, in partial agreement with World Magazine, don’t think that those, namely Evans and her various supporters, have treated Mark fairly – as concerned as they are with him treating others lovingly and fairly.

Perhaps, instead of attacking people (wherein we are often employing the old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black"), regardless of which side you are on, we could, instead, espouse a bit of biblical acumen and leave our attacks to shoddy exegesis and diluted philosophy rather than character?

Remember, we are all fallen.  We all make mistakes.  Some of us just have grander stages for which to make these mistakes.

In other words…

Take a chill pill.

**EDIT: Driscoll has published a short article, perhaps in response to this whole situation.  I wonder if Rachel Held Evans will do the same.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Take a Moment...

Biblical Authority in an Age of Uncertainty...

Erasing Hell and Erasing Bell...

Is it ok to believe in hell and not like it?

How to talk about the afterlife (if you must)...

A word about C.J. Mahaney's leave of absence...

Also, don't forget to check out my post on Hero Admiration v. Hero Worship...

Hero Admiration v. Hero Worship

**Although I was going to wait and publish this post next week, based on some current situations amongst pastors I respect, I thought it might be best to submit it now.**

I love John Piper.  I love Mark Driscoll.  I love Matt Chandler.  I love Kevin DeYoung.

Have I mentioned that I do not have a personal relationship with, nor have I even met, these men?

And yet, I claim that I love them because their ministries have heavily affected my view of God, life and faith.  Or, perhaps a better term to use would be “hero”.  Those four men listed above, amongst others for sure, are, for me, heroes of the faith.  I look at these men; I see their love for God, in Christ; I see their intelligence; I see their successful ministries; I see their blogs, books and articles; and (if I’m honest) I see their popularity (i.e. they are great spiritual/ministry leaders – and who doesn’t want to have followers?).  To me, these men are the epitome of successful pastor/theologians.

However, I have recently found myself thinking through hero admiration v. hero worship; and I am concerned that those of us (including me!) within the New Calvinism community might be prone to hero worship, which is an idolatrous slap-in-the-face to God and His gracious sovereignty in placing these men in their respective ministries. 

Last fall I went to my first Desiring God national conference in Minneapolis; it was a great experience.  First, the conference subject matter: Think; and, secondly, it felt like I was rubbing shoulders with some of New Calvinism’s elite.  Prior to Al Mohler’s session, I went to save seats near the front of the auditorium, wherein I eventually found myself sitting across the aisle from John Piper and several of his staff members.  It was in that moment that I really began to ponder hero admiration v. hero worship, for, as I snuck peeks across the aisle (as if John Piper were that cute girl in your high-school class), I found myself completely star-struck, raising him up ever higher on the pedestal of Theologian Par Excellence.

But why? 

Isn’t there danger in that?

Does it breed a certain type of idolatry?

Does Piper not have sin issues (which, in fact, might have been the reason he took a leave of absence recently)?

Does Piper not argue with his wife?

Does Piper not have hunger pangs?

Does Piper not have the occasional runny nose?

In other words, although I don’t know the four heroes mentioned above, I am confident that they would admit their own sinfulness, normalcy, and memories of early ministry, wherein they might have also dealt with hero worship.  Therefore, let this be a reminder that we all put on one pant leg at a time; we all crave to be admired; we are all still wretched and depraved sinners before a majestically righteous God; and we have all been appointed to do the work God has set before us.

Monday, July 11, 2011

A Concise Theology of Hell

The following is a capstone/summary of some of my previous blog posts (which can be found here and here).  Moreover, the following will be provided as a lecture to my church’s college group this coming Wednesday.  I pray it will be fruitful.

In recent months, the traditional/historical understanding on the doctrine of hell has come under scrutiny. This has been primarily through the release of Rob Bell’s newest book Love Wins.  Although I disagree on most points with this book, our discussions over the next two weeks will not necessarily be a critique of his book, per se, but, rather, will be about hell itself.  If you are interested in a direct critique of Bell’s book, you can read that here.

Now, most people will agree that hell is a nasty subject. 

So why talk about hell at all?

Here are five reasons why we need a theology of hell:

1.      God’s glory deserves it:

Note that God’s glory does not need it, but deserves it (Acts 17:24-25).  Therefore, although God does not need our help in anything, we owe it to God to live in and declare the truth that has been revealed to us.

2.      The Bible talks about it:

If we affirm that the Bible is revealed, inspired, inerrant and authoritative – then we must be willing to think through every issue, idea, proposition, and story the Bible talks about.

3.      Theology is important:

If we need to think through Biblical topics, then, what necessarily follows is theological thinking. In other words, thinking theologically is important and it helps us as we seek to understand God.

4.      Eternal destinies are at stake:

The Bible, as we shall see, discusses the eternal destinies of all humanity. Although I believe that salvation has present implications, we should not belittle the eschatological (the last things) implications.

5.      Our evangelism needs it:

If, at least partially, salvation is about the eternal destination of human souls, then, this must be one of the motivators behind our evangelism.  Why evangelize if everybody will eventually be saved?

Now that we have addressed the “why”, let’s address the “what”.[1]  And, as a reminder, as we study this doctrine (or any doctrine), we need to affirm that the Bible is true, right and the ultimate authority on all matters of life and faith…especially the hard topics.

Will Everybody Be Saved?
The first issue we need to address is whether or not everyone will, in the end, be saved.

This teaching is known as Universalism.  Universalism teaches that “every human being whom God has created or will create will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now”.[2]

Those that hold to Universalism normally are “prompted partly…by direct compassion for one’s fellow humans, but mainly by the thought that inflicting eternal punishment is unworthy of God, since it would negate his love”.[3]

Some texts that would appear to support this position are: John 12:32; Romans 5:18; 11:32; and 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (amongst others).

And yet, we find that:

[T]he universal terms in these texts (forms of pas, “all,” and kosmos, “world”) are all limited or generalized by their context in such a way that it is nowhere possible to maintain that every human being everywhere, past, present, and future, is being clearly, specifically, and inescapably spoken of as destined for salvation.  The most that standard commentaries find in these passages is that God will…restore his world, and that the summons and invitation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is equally applicable to, and valid for, everyone to whom it comes.[4]

More so, “[m]ost universalists…concede that universalism is not clearly taught in the Bible…”[5]

Therefore, although this teaching empathizes with our compassion, we need to be sure that if Universalism is true, then “[b]loody-handed practitioners of treachery, genocide, and torture, and bloody-minded devotees of personal cruelty and child abuse are included; no one is left out.  Universalism thus asserts the final salvation of, for instance, Judas, Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few.”[6]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Universalism was recognized as heretical since AD 500.[7]

So, if we can agree that the Bible teaches that not everyone will be saved…then what?

Another potential outcome raised by those who do not support the traditional doctrine of hell is a teaching known as Annihilationism.

“Annihilationism is the belief that those who die apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ will be ultimately destroyed.”[8]

Clark Pinnock summarizes why he, and others, affirm Annihilationism:

“Obviously, I am rejecting the traditional view of hell in part out of sense of moral and theological revulsion to it.  The idea that a conscious creature should have to undergo physical and mental torture through unending time is profoundly disturbing, and the thought that this is inflicted upon them by divine decree offends my conviction about God’s love.”[9]

Now, although most of the core tenets regarding Annihilationism will be refuted in our analysis of the traditional doctrine of hell, I want to briefly observe God’s love in relation to Annihilationism, along with observing the following quote:

“[W]e cannot cite one saying that speaks plainly of an end to the punishment of the finally impenitent.  Those who look for a different teaching in the NT must point to possible inferences and alternative interpretations.  But if Jesus wished to teach something other than eternal retribution, it is curious that he has not left one saying that plainly says so.  In the NT there is no indication that the punishment of sin ever ceases.”[10]

Moreover, we should be sure to note that Annihilationism was recognized as heretical as early as the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and, again, by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513).

So, then, what about God’s love?

God’s Love
God is love (1 John 4:8).  I, in no way, want to discount this fact.  It is God’s love that draws, saves, reconciles and keeps believers; however, that fact does not negate that God is also many other things: patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc.  And, what we must reconcile is that God’s attributes work together in perfect unity.  In other words, although God is love, his love is patient, merciful, just, holy, righteous, kind, creative, wrathful, etc.  What this indicates is that God’s love cannot be separated from his holiness; God’s love cannot be separated from his righteousness; and God’s love cannot be separated from his wrath.

Tradition, Tradition
One traditional definition of hell is “a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked”.[11]  It will be this definition that we will stick with and attempt to explain.

Michael “Squints” Palledorous, one of the characters in The Sandlot, always knew he was going to marry Wendy Peffercorn.  However, some time before they had their first kiss on the side of the community pool, “Squints” made his famous quote about the Beast’s sentence to its backyard fortress as he uttered, “For-ev-er”.

Rob Bell, in Love Wins, aptly describes the feeling of The Beast’s owner upon learning of its sentence:

“Remember sitting in class, and it was so excruciatingly boring that you found yourself staring at the clock?  Tick.  Tick.  Tick.  What happened to time in those moments?  It slowed down.  We even say, ‘It felt like it was taking forever.’  Now when we use the word ‘forever’ in this way, we are not talking about a 365-day year followed by a 365-day year followed by another 365-day year, and so on. What we are referring to is the intensity of feeling in that moment.  That agonized boredom caused time to appear to bend and twist and warp.”[12]

Bell also states that, “[w]hen we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or a year, and more to a period or era of time.  This is crucial to our understanding of the word aion, because it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever.”[13]

To begin, we ought to note that there are two different words (and their many derivatives) used to address “an age” or “eternity”: aion and aionios.  With that said, we ought to next look at how these terms are defined.

Aion has four definitions: (1) a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end (of time gone by/the past/earliest times, or of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity); (2) a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age (the present age or the age to come); (3) the world as a spatial concept; and (4) the Aeon as a person.[14]

Aionios has three definitions: (1) pertaining to a long period of time, long ago; (2) pertaining to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal; and (3) pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end.[15]

With those definitions in place, it would certainly seem absurd to attempt to persuade someone that aion never has a temporal sense, as the following texts demonstrate: Luke 20:34-35; John 9:32; Acts 15:18; Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:8; et al.  All of these texts (and many more) certainly point toward a temporal or historic sense when using the word aion.

However, the issue at hand is whether, at times, aion, aionios, and their derivatives can have a non-temporal meaning (i.e. specifically, contextually and correctly defining the term as eternal, eternity or everlasting).  For instance, consider the following texts:

Rom. 9:5 – will God’s praise be only temporary?

Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20 – will God’s glory be only for an age?

2 Cor. 9:9 – is God’s righteousness momentary?

Based on this evidence, is anyone really willing to continue arguing that aion, aionios, and their derivatives do not, at times, convey a non-temporal sense?

Therefore, if we are willing to concede that there might be instances where the sense is non-temporal, then, what should follow is a reminder that we ought to read, interpret and understand Scripture in its context.  In other words, we ought to translate aion, aionios, and their derivatives as temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. Luke 20:34-35), and as non-temporal when it fits contextually (e.g. 2 Cor. 9:9).

Moving now to two specific New Testament texts:

In Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:31ff, the term aionion is used, which Jesus uses both to point to the eternal life of the righteous and eternal punishment of the cursed (Matt. 25:41, 46).  Therefore, if we are to read this portion of Scripture in context, unless we are going to conclude that the eternal life of the righteous is also temporal, we must conclude, rather, that the eternal life of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the cursed are, in fact, eternal.  Moreover, Jesus uses the same word aionion to address the “eternal fire” reserved for the “cursed”.

Next, within Revelation 20:10, John uses the phrase tous aionos ton aionon (translated “for ever and ever”), to describe the eternal torment received within “the lake of fire and brimstone”.  Now, those who wish to argue for a temporal meaning of this phrase must also consider Revelation 22:5, which describes the eternal, or unending, reign of God’s servants.  Therefore, if an argument is made for the temporal nature of the torments of hell in Revelation 20:10, then we must conclude that the reign of God’s servants in Revelation 22:5 is also temporal.  Surely, no one is willing to contend for that part of the argument.

Conscious Punishment
Conscious can be described as “aware of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.”

Punishment can be described as “a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.”[16]

Before we look at the consciousness of hell, let’s take a moment to consider punishment.

An argument rejecting the traditional/historic understanding of God’s wrath answers the question, “how we would respond if an earthly father did to his children what God will eventually do to part of humanity?”, with “we would throw that father in jail for life” (i.e. surely a loving, kind and merciful God could not be involved in something this heinous).  However, if this is the criteria by which we judge God, then should we not have already thrown God in jail for “murdering” Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1-11), or Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11)?  Of course not, because we know that God, in his holiness, justice and righteousness, must respond to sin (Habakkuk 1:13).  Therefore, the critical error in this reasoning is that our eternal fate ought to rest on the (often) triteness of our sin, rather than the majesty of the One sinned against.  For instance, if I attempted to attack a regular “Joe”, I might end up in prison for a short while; however, if I attempted to attack the President of the United States, I would, most likely, remain in prison for the remainder of my life.  This is because the crime, although the same, has a different consequence when committed against someone of greater renown.  Therefore, we surely ought to not place Almighty God on the same level as our earthly fathers.

Matthew 13:49-50 – note that the evil will be thrown into fiery furnace, where they will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:47ff – note that sinners will be thrown into hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.[17]

Luke 16:19ff – note that the rich man is experiencing torment (vs. 23).

Revelation 14:9ff – note that those who worship the Beast will be tormented with fire and sulfur (vs. 10).

So, I’m still convinced that hell is a nasty subject; but, I’m also still convinced that hell is something we need to consider (see introduction).

Something else to consider: don’t let your philosophy trump your exegesis.  Now, please note that I am pro-philosophy (in fact, I teach several philosophy classes at a local community college), and I am well aware that philosophy and exegesis are linked; however, my concern is when we allow our philosophies (appropriately compassionate as they may be) to trump proper exegesis of hard texts.

Lastly, remember that the Bible is true, hell is for real, and God is good in all things.

[1] Please note that a theological study on hell could take many weeks; I have two.  With that said, I want to focus on some of the key biblical ideas, propositions and objections towards the historic version of this doctrine.
[2] Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 170.
[3] Ibid., 172.
[4] Ibid., 187.
[5] Ibid., 171.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Origen and his doctrine of apokatastasis (the universal return to God and restoration of all souls) were anathematized (deemed as heretics) at the Second Council of Constantinople (553).
[8] Morgan and Peterson, Hell Under Fire, 196.
[9] William V. Crockett, Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 164.
[10] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 395.
[11] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 499.
[12] Rob Bell, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 31.
[13] Ibid., 57.
[14] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 32-33.  It should also be noted that BDAG is arguably one of the premier language resources.  With that said, one must be willing to grapple with the evidence provided therein in order to claim reputable scholarship.
[15] Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 33.
[16] Both definitions found at www.dictionary.com
[17] Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:24.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Take a Moment...

A brief review of Francis Chan's Erasing Hell...

C.J. Mahaney is taking a leave of absence...

Michael Bird on the Church and Israel...

Eternal and Temporal Goals of the Gospel...

Is Church Membership Biblical?

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Take a Moment...

Robert Schuller ousted from Crystal Cathedral...or was he...

How to disagree while being both faithful and winsome...

Getting to know our Muslim Neighbors...

Preaching and Preparation...

Glorifying God for the greater thing...