Skip to content

Category Archives for Theological Musings

Ah, hell…

It seems everyone’s talking about hell, since the news of Rob Bell’s upcoming book, Love Wins, hit the Reformed crowd. And, it seems that’s like you-know-what hitting the you-know-what. I even wrote about it this morning. (Was there this much hoopla when The Great Divorce came out?)

Apparently hell hasn’t been a very popular subject throughout church history. My neighbor, Randy, is doing research for a book he’s writing about hell at the request of Randy Alcorn, who wrote Heaven. Apparently only 40-some books have ever been written on hell, and that list includes Dante, Lewis’ The Great Divorce, and NT Wright’s recent Surprised by Hope.

I have to admit, hell has never been one of my favorite topics, either—but then neither has Heaven. The problem is, while both are certainly discussed in the Bible, none of the verses are really clear and it’s easy to get confused. As NT Wright pointed out, we assume that Heaven is where we’ll go when we die, and where we’ll live for eternity. But then, what about the New Earth? And where’s Abraham’s bosom? And if Paul visited the 3rd heaven, what about the rest?

And, if the gates of hell can’t prevail against the church, doesn’t that imply that the church will be victorious over it? Why, then, will it be eternal?

Why no one knows…

The reason no one agrees on eschatology is because it’s really not that clear.

Then, when we’re talking about hell, we get confused because along with the little that the Bible actually tells us, we mix in Greek mythology and Dante’s imagery. Most of us really don’t know what the Bible really teaches on the subject.

And, most of us don’t realize that the oldest Christian belief about hell and heaven is that they are both in God’s presence; for those who refuse God’s grace, his grace and light are eternal torment. This is not that far from CS Lewis’ proposal that the gates of hell are locked from the inside—meaning that those in hell are only there because they choose to be.

NT Wright suggests that a lot of Jesus’ references to Gehenna were talking of the immediate future of Jerusalem, which he spoke of in a few places, although he does believe in a place of eternal torment.

And, then there are all those verses which do hint to some sort of universalism, speaking of God “reconciling all creation to himself in Christ,” Christ dying for the sins of the world, and so on.

It’s not clear at all.

You get what you need

I don’t know that any of us can be completely certain about what happens when we die, and I have to admit, it does make me nervous. I mean, I don’t like surprises. When I go somewhere, I like to know what it’ll be like when I get there—for one thing, it helps me pack.

All I know is that if there are two places to go, I won’t be going to the bad place. That much I’m sure of. However, I’d still like to know how I’m gonna get there, and who should I look for when I get there? This made me nervous as a young boy, and to this day, no one’s been able to answer this sufficiently. As the man sang, “you can’t always get what you want.”

Meanwhile, there are many opinions about how the afterlife works. It isn’t clear. I think that the only way someone can claim to have it all figured out is to have left out some of the verses or bring in extra-Biblical concepts. I do have some thoughts, though, and someday I’d like the time to really study the subject further. But, after seeing the many contradictory conclusions reached by those who have studied the subject, I’m not holding on to much hope of every really figuring it out.

But as the saying goes, “I don’t know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future.”

Written on 05 March 2011 by me under Theological Musings with 2 Comments

“Bell” rhymes with “hell”

Everybody probably knows that Rob Bell has a new book coming out. It will probably outsell all of his previous books (and probably sell better than it deserves), because it’s had the best marketing campaign imaginable—controversy. Bell put out a video trailer for the book in which he comments that he doesn’t believe Ghandhi will spend eternity in hell, suggesting that perhaps he’s a universalist (holding the belief that everyone will be saved, whether they are Christians or not).

Everybody seems to care a lot about what Mr. Bell thinks about hell. Justin Taylor (who??) does. (I’m wondering if Mr. Taylor would review my book…)  John Piper apparently does. Many people who should know better have also labelled Bell a universalist—and none of them have read the book. (The only article I’ve read from someone who’s actually read the book says that he’s not a universalist.)

And, everyone and their cat has jumped into the fray with their own opinions of Mr. Bell’s beliefs, all without reading the book.

My opinion of Rob Bell’s theology

I don’t care.

Seriously—I don’t care. I read a blog post this morning that explained why we should care, and how “countless lives” are at stake (seriously?), and I still don’t care.

On a certain level, of course, I do care whether or not he’s a heretic, for the sake of those people in his church and the dozens of youth groups who watch his videos without any supplemental teaching by their own pastors. But, whether or not he believes non-Christians will spend eternity in hell is perhaps not as important as his view of grace, which, by the way, I know nothing about. I’ve never read his books or listened to his videos. By the way, throughout the history of the Church there have been—and still are—many views of hell, and so far the gates of hell haven’t prevailed against the church.

Rob Bell is a trend, and possibly a short-term trend, just like Brian McLaren (who’s probably a heretic) and the whole “emergent ” thing. Yes, it’s dead—though they may not know it yet.  A few decades from now, I doubt many people will remember Bell or McLaren, but they’ll still read CS Lewis, and probably folks like NT Wright, JI Packer, and John Stott.

What does concern me

What does concern me are the people who jump to judgment about what people may or may not believe about things that don’t really change anything.

I do get concerned about people teaching other gospels, and I’ve always thought that hell was a terrible motivator for evangelism.

All I know

All I know about Rob Bell is that Bell rhymes with hell. And, that’s good enough for me.

 

 

Written on 05 March 2011 by me under Theological Musings with 2 Comments

George MacDonald: Truth is too good to believe

George MacDonald (who greatly influenced C.S. Lewis) opposed what is referred to as the “penal substitution” theory of the atonement, something with which I’ve struggled myself. This common evangelical doctrine depicts God as so full of wrath that he just has to punish someone for sin, so he takes it out on Jesus. This view, I believe, derives mainly from Augustine’s view of original sin and the total depravity of man (not to mention Augustine’s view of a primarily wrathful God).  This view was rather unique to Augustine at the time; while it was eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic Church as well as Calvin, the Eastern church has always disagreed with penal substitution.

One aspect of this issue is the tension between God as wrathful judge and God as merciful father. MacDonald argues that God is not in conflict with himself, full of wrath one day and merciful the next. Rather, there is no contradiction between mercy and judgment, when understood properly. If God is merciful, he must always be merciful, even when punishing and forgiving sin. God’s forgiveness and mercy, it seems, is simply too good to be true.

In discussing this issue, MacDonald wrote:

Truth is indeed too good for men to believe; they must dilute it before they can take it; they must dilute it before they dare give it. They must make it less true before they can believe it enough to get any good of it…Unable to believe in the forgivingness of their father in heaven, they invented a way to be forgiven that should not demand of him so much; which might make it right for him to forgive; which should save them from having to believe downright in the tenderness of his fatherheart, for that they found impossible.

I am still up in the air on the issue of penal substitutionary atonement—I don’t currently understand enough of the nuances of various theories to form a solid opinion. However, I do lean toward what is known as the Christus Victor theory, the view held by the Orthodox as well as folks like N.T. Wright, Gregory Boyd and hinted at by Martin Luther. Christus victor simply means “Christ the victor,” taking the position that Christ’s death was not punishment for sin, but victory over sin.

In any event, I do agree with MacDonald that the truth of God’s great forgiveness indeed seems too good to be true.

For more on MacDonald’s thoughts, visit Richard Beck’s post at Experimental Theology.

Written on 30 November 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 3 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Blessings

There’s one thing I need to clear up before I actually post what I’m about to post.  Although I currently use a drawing of Martin Luther as my Facebook photo and tend to quote Luther on occasion, I am not a Missouri Synod Lutheran (a more conservative Lutheran branch, which some have even called fundamentalist), or currently a Lutheran of any stripe.  This is not that Lutherans are bad, by any means. I was one (Lutheran Church in America) for my first 20 or so years.

For several years I have referred to myself as a Lutheran expatriate, and more recently as Episco-Lutheran.  I am not obsessed with Lutheran theology, but I do read it at times, because I really like to understand what different churches believe.  There are some things about Lutheran theology (Missouri Synod, at least) that I question, and a lot about the liberal Lutheran church that I question. Still, I think traditional Lutherans have a lot of things right; more than not right, actually.

So, Without Further Ado…

Occasionally I will watch short videos by a Missouri Synod Luther pastor, Jonathan Fisk, who is teaching through the Gospel texts used by the LCMS (some churches actually plan these things out many years in advance… go figure).  He’s entertaining, and pretty smart.

This week he goes off schedule to teach on the Beatitudes (you know, “blessed are the meek,” etc.).  He makes the point that these are not meant to be curses (“be poor, so I can bless you”) but actually blessings.  Furthermore, he introduces a concept that I think makes a lot of sense, based on a Hebrew poetic style, which would infer that Jesus was either really good, or that he actually thought out what he was saying ahead of time (again, go figure).

If you don’t actually want to watch 14 minutes of good Bible teaching, you can simply read what John H posts at the Confessing Evangelical blog. He summarize the content well.

Written on 04 November 2010 by me under Theological Musings with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , , ,

A Simple Faith

Christianity can seem pretty complicated, especially if you try to pay attention. There are way too many voices out there clamoring for your attention, each with their own intricately nuanced theology (even if they avoid using the word). Raise your hands if you’ve ever tried to figure out the four or five points of Calvinism, the modes of baptism, the differences between the “tribs” and “mills,” predestination vs free-will, or what the heck “emerging” means. It seems like it’s much easier to grasp the principles of quantum mechanics than justification or the trinity.

Sometimes it can be quite confusing just trying to figure out if you’re really saved. Were you baptized the right way? Did you pray the right prayer? Do you really have “saving” faith? And, are you saved forever, or just until you mess up again?

Is Christianity really that complex? Do we need a degree to be able to grasp the Gospel? Is intellectualism next to Godliness? Thankfully, Jesus did not say, “Unless you become a Ph.D., you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Not once.

What Jesus did say was, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 18:3)” Earlier in Matthew, we read Jesus pray, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. (Matt. 11:25)”

I first remember these verses from listening to sermons as a young child, and they stuck with me. “Let the little children come to me. (Luke 18:16)” In a world where information was given to children on a “need to know” basis, here was Jesus putting children first, and telling the adults that children understand the Kingdom of God better than adults.

In the movie Hook, Robin Williams plays an older, wiser, Peter Pan, who has become so grown-up that he has forgotten who he is, and that the stories of his childhood he takes for fairy tales are really true. To save his children, and himself, he must “become as a little child,” remembering who he was, believing what he once believed.

In the adult world, skepticism is the key to knowledge; never accept anything at face value, question authority, look before you leap. Children haven’t yet learned to doubt; they simply understand that Jesus loves me, this I know.  I think that it’s not so much that children know something about God’s love that adults don’t. Rather, I think for children, God’s love is simply enough. When has God’s love simply been enough for us?

Certainly, it’s important to know a few things, like that Jesus is God’s son, and that he died and rose again to defeat sin and death forever. But, I’m not sure that the thief on the cross understood this — he definitely didn’t know about the resurrection — yet we know he made it to paradise. What did the woman at the well know about Jesus? Or what about all the people that Jesus healed?

The Bible is full of theology; that’s where theology comes from. Jesus taught theology, as did Paul and the other disciples. I’m all in favor of learning the Bible and theology. But if we lose what we had as children, we lose sight of the Kingdom.

Learn all you can. But let “Jesus loves me” be enough.

Questions:

  1. If you can, try to recall what you were like as a child of five or six. Thinking of the Gospel, what would have been enough for you?
  2. In growing and maturing, what have you lost?

Written on 16 October 2010 by me under Theological Musings, This I know with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

The Geek Gospel

Today over at one of my favorite Lutheran blogs, Pastoral Meanderings, Pastor Peters presents the Gospel as told by one of the youth in his church (the image is his, too):

You see it’s like your computer.  Everything works fine at first.  Then a virus hits you and nothing works right.  It’s slow.  You get error messages.  So you  kill it with an anti-virus and it is fixed but it is not like it was.  It won’t be perfect until you reformat the hard drive.  God made everything and it worked.  Then the Satan virus infected us.  It was our fault because we clicked “yes” when the pop-up appeared.  But we could not fix it.  Jesus is the anti-virus who God sent to clean it up.  But we won’t be perfect until we are reformated in the resurrection…

This is actually one of the best analogies I think I have heard.  Of course, you Mac people will claim you can’t relate, being geek Pelagians…

Written on 14 October 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with No Comments
Tagged with , , , , , ,

An analysis of the “new” Calvinism

From Chaplain Mike at the Internet Monk blog, a look at the recent resurgence of Calvinism, especially among young adults:

Like many previous incarnations of Calvinism, and despite its use of contemporary methods and inclusion of theological commitments previously considered suspect (such as charismatic gifts), TNC maintains a firm commitment to being “right,” to standing for “truth,” and to attacking those they think are “compromisers.” As Mark Driscoll said, it’s about authority. This makes TNC’s just as vulnerable to becoming Pharisaic, divisive, angry, power-hungry, and controlling as any fundamentalist group. If they succumb to the temptations of being dogmatic, doctrinaire, and dismissive of those who disagree with them, this will not serve TNC well in the long term. Many who are now fleeing to them for refuge from a failed evangelicalism will become disillusioned and seek other paths.

To me, Calvinism, whether old or new, misrepresents both the nature of God and the nature of man. Calvinism was seen as “more protestant” than Luther, because it tossed out Roman Catholic forms. However, in my opinion it was Luther who was more protestant, as he embraced the reality of God’s love as His prime motivator. Calvinism kept and locked on to some of the worst aspects of Augustinian philosophy and theology. I still don’t get what makes Calvinism so attractive to people.

Written on 31 August 2010 by me under Theological Musings with 1 Comment

A different gospel?

From a local church’s website, under “Beliefs:”

It is the will of God that each believer should be filled with the Holy Spirit and be sanctified wholly, being separated from sin and the world and fully dedicated to the will of God, thereby receiving power for holy living and effective service. This is both a crisis and a progressive experience wrought in the life of the believer subsequent to conversion.

I have a couple of questions about this.  First, what exactly does this statement mean? Do any of the members—or the leadership, for that matter—of this church really understand this?

Second, and more importantly, what exactly is wrong—or right—with this statement?

I checked, and this statement of faith comes directly from the denomination. I had hoped, then, that the local church ignored this point of faith (it’s been known to happen), but unfortunately this does not appear to be the case; it seems there are even people in leadership who are suffering under some pretty heavy burdens. It is truly sad.

I found it quite interesting that the denomination’s version includes footnotes with Bible references, specifically 1 Thessalonians 5:23,  Acts 1:8, and Romans 6:1–14, which must be twisted in order to support how this particular point of faith reads. I, at least, agree with the verses, but don’t agree at all with this item of belief. According to Paul, adding any attempt at human effort to the work of Christ totally eradicates the Gospel (I am finishing work on a book which should be out this summer that explains this in detail). Paul felt very strongly about protecting the simple truth of the gospel; I wonder how he’d respond to this church, seeing what he wrote to the Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)

So, what is your opinion of this point of faith?  How would you react?

Written on 11 April 2010 by me under The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings with 10 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

The New Judaizers

This morning I was flipping around the AM dial as I drove home from church. It’s kind of a sick practice of mine, wanting to hear what local pastors are preaching.  Often it just irritates me (but I have to point out that I always enjoy the sermons from a certain pastor named Randy).

Today on the way to church I had stopped on a certain station that I was not familiar with, so when I got back in the car this station was still on, and I caught this pastor (I’m assuming – there was no identification of either the speaker or church when it was over) in mid-sentence.

The speaker was going on about the pagan origins of Easter, which is nothing I haven’t heard before, and which I am still not impressed by.  He went on to criticize the early church (Eastern Orthodox), the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists.  He then went on to say that Yeshua did not have a people; there were hundreds of denominations, but no “one people.”

Now, it began to get interesting.  He explained that the only way for there to be “one people” was for everyone to start following the Torah.  And, just to make sure that I hadn’t misheard him or misinterpreted what he said, he made sure that this was understood; Christianity was a Jewish religion, and following the Jewish Law confirms that we are indeed followers of Yeshua.  This also sets us apart from “the world.”  Indeed.  He rattled off a list of feasts and holy days we should be observing, but failed to mention where to find spotted goats or sheep for sacrifices…

When I got home I did a bit of research, trying to find out more about this guy. I figured he was some sort of Messianic Jew, due to his continued use of Hebrew names, etc.  The station turned out to be an “all Christian” station based here, whose purpose is “to network people, resources, needs, news, events, fellowships and ministries and  businesses in order to combine and multiply our resources, efforts and prayers.”

Or so they say.  Reading further, the website states,

We especially want to welcome those who are still fellowshiping in Christian churches who are seeking a deeper walk with Yahweh, the God of the Bible. Our theme verse is Rev. 12:17 – those who keep the commandments of Yah and the testimony of Yahshua/Jesus.

Alrighty, then.  I should mention that a number of non-Hebrew-oriented churches and ministries have shows on the station, or have placed ads on the site, or are otherwise mentioned somewhere on this site.  (It’s a really bad website design, too… but that’s another issue.)

I wonder, do they realize that this group’s (I still don’t know who they really are) goal is to Judaize Christian churches?  That is, they mean to convert grace-believing Christians into followers of the Torah. Or, at least those seeking “a deeper walk with Yahweh, the God of the Bible” (as opposed to the God of where?).

I wonder if these new Judaizers have ever read Galatians, or any of Paul’s other letters.  Let me quote from Galatians 1:

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

So what do we say then about these very helpful, well-meaning folks?  What about “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort (Gal 3:3)”?  Or, “All who rely on the Law are under a curse (v 10)?”  Paul challenges us to take a stand on the Gospel, and send false teachers packing down the road to Perdition.  It really bugs me that Christians think they are so holy when they quote, “don’t judge,” but they’ll stand by and watch the Gospel being flushed down the toilet.

You foolish Galatians!

Here’s the bottom line that Paul drew in his letter to the Galatians: If you add anything to Jesus – that is, any laws or traditions or eating kosher – you haven’t just missed the Gospel, you’ve trashed it completely! There is no middle ground, no “tolerance” when it comes to grace.

Now, you can going ahead and do all kinds of good works, because they’re good things to so.  Just don’t think you’re earning grace because of them. You are “good Christians” because Jesus was good, not because you are.  Think of it this way: Grace produces good works, works do not produce grace.

This little sermon today is the most blatant attack on the Gospel that I can recall hearing, and it makes me angry.  I’ve got a book about to be published (sometime this summer), tentatively called Free, that explains all this in far greater detail.  Check back in a month or two for more information on the book.

In the meantime, read Galatians, and be Free.

Written on 14 March 2010 by me under Church, Theological Musings with 4 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

What do you believe about the Bible?

Faithful readers of this blog will know that I occasionally post articles about why you can believe and rely on the Bible, as well as criticize people like Bart Ehrman for making really stupid arguments to the contrary.   That being said, I also believe that there are serious issues with those who claim that the Bible is inerrant, or “without error in any way.”

Believers in inerrancy, I think, find themselves putting more faith in inerrancy than they do in the Gospel; however, the 1st Century Christians didn’t, for the most part, even have the Bible. Yet, it is clear from Paul’s epistles that they had “the Word of God.”  I suspect that the real issue underlying inerrancy is that these Christians have become trapped in modernistic thinking, where propositions must meet certain criteria in order to be “true.”  In this way, it seems that those requiring that the Bible be inerrant actually suffer from a lack of faith – one of the unfortunate consequences of modernism – rather than having a greater faith, as they would have us believe.

Yesterday Stephen at Undeception posted The Bible and the need for proof, makes some good points about why we don’t need to believe in “inerrancy” in order to believe the Gospel.  He asks at the conclusion, “why is it logically necessary, rather than merely preferable for one reason or another, that the Bible be entirely true through and through?”

My question, just because I’m curious, is “What do you believe about the Bible, and why?”

Written on 25 January 2010 by me under Random Thoughts, Theological Musings with 3 Comments
Tagged with , , ,