The first article, written by Eric Reitan, is on the controversy surrounding Rob Bell:
Justin Taylor, vice president of editorial at Crossway, quickly posted a fierce condemnation—based solely on advance material. “It is unspeakably sad,” writes Taylor, “when those called to be ministers of the Word distort the gospel and deceive the people of God with false doctrine.”The main point of the article isn't so much whether Bell is right or wrong, as we don't even know his actual argument yet. Rather, it is about how we react to those who disagree with us about admittedly Very Important Things.
One of the more conservative people in the audience (we’ll call him Jim) said rather forcefully that Jesus only saves those who explicitly ask Him to be their Lord and Savior. When I said I disagreed with that view, Jim replied, “Then you disagree with God.”[...]
This disposition of humility does not become fanaticism, however, until it is paired with arrogance: the refusal to recognize that their beliefs about God’s word could be wrong. The fanatic treats a challenge to their own beliefs as if it were a challenge to the word of God.Of course, the article does deal with some of the substance of the rejection of universalism, making a point I tried to in my previous post:
Can you really preach biblical inerrancy and dismiss universalism? What, then, do you do with John 12:32 where Jesus says, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself”? What do you do with Romans 5:18 (“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men”)? What about Romans 11:32 (“For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”)? Or I Corinthians 15:22 (“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”)? Or I Corinthians 15: 28? Or Colossians 1:19-20? Or Lamentations 3:31-32?
Presumably, Piper and Taylor have to say that when the Bible says “all,” it doesn’t really mean “all.” The plain meaning of these passages has to be rejected, some strained interpretation offered, in order to reconcile them with the hell-centric passages they favor (and yes, there is a litany of such passages as well).Which is to say, taking the Bible as Truth is a much more complex process than we care to admit. Either we accept that some passages apparently contradict each other, and our finite minds don't know how to fully reconcile them, or we have to pick and choose which words to take at closer to face value than others. There are better and worse ways to do the latter, but if we are to build a systematic theology out of Scripture, it has to be done.
The second article is by Tim Keller of Redeemer Pres (PCA) in New York City. Keller offers his defense of the centrality of the doctrine of hell to Christianity:
The doctrine of hell is crucial-without it we can't understand our complete dependence on God, the character and danger of even the smallest sins, and the true scope of the costly love of Jesus.[...]
We must come to grips with the fact that Jesus said more about hell than Daniel, Isaiah, Paul, John, Peter put together. Before we dismiss this, we have to realize we are saying to Jesus, the pre-eminent teacher of love and grace in history, "I am less barbaric than you, Jesus--I am more compassionate and wiser than you." Surely that should give us pause! Indeed, upon reflection, it is because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamations of grace and love are so astounding.Now, as I pointed out with reference to universalism of Carlton Pearson, the real argument isn't whether Hell in the sense of a place of divine punishment for sins exists. The meaningful argument is whether or not the duration of a persons existence there is perpetual. To this, Keller says
Hell is therefore a prison in which the doors are first locked from the inside by us and therefore are locked from the outside by God (Luke 16:26.) Every indication is that those doors continue to stay forever barred from the inside.I suppose Keller doesn't see the word "all" in the passages cited in the other article as indications the doors do not stay barred forever. Carlton Pearson disagrees.
The folly of what Eric Reitan calls fanaticism (and most of the world refers to these days as fundamentalism) comes from treating everything we think is true as a fundamental. Scripture is amazingly brief in the specific things it tells us to believe that we might be saved. Yes, I believe there are direct implications of those core beliefs. Most of you know I have no shortage of opinions on spiritual matters. But the point is, what I think is a direct implication is not the same thing as "God said so." "Confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead" is not negotiable. But the more areas where I am willing and able to be wrong without losing faith in that, the more teachable I will be. Doesn't mean I have to be blown about; as I said, I'm not convinced by Pearson or what little I've read of Bell. But it means I listen. To do otherwise is, in my view, a failure to put the true fundamentals in their rightful place. It's to believe in what my campus minister used to call "Jesus Plus" something.
There are many idols out there for us to follow. One of them says that divine punishment doesn't exist, or doesn't ultimately matter. It ignores the long history of God's people, and the teachings of wise leaders of the Church. Another says my view of divine punishment is the only one that could ever be true, and everyone else is trying to trick you out of God's arms. It adheres to the words of wise humans as tightly as it adheres to the words of the Creator of the Universe.
I hope we can all do our best to avoid "Jesus Plus."
 |
| Keep those comments coming, everyone, I'm totally listening! |
Posts
6 comments:
Just a quick snipe, as opposed to the longer comment this probably deserves. Your (putative) argument seems to progress as follows.
1. The Bible says some things about Hell (eternal, unpleasant, etc.).
2. The Bible also says some ambiguous things (metaphors, all/all).
3. Therefore, some of those things it says about Hell may well be ambiguous.
What I fail to see is the biblical case against Hell being final. We have two possibly contradictory statements: I desire all men to be saved; the fire is not quenched. The orthodox position considers the context of the first (Jesus was talking to Greeks) and still respects the basic sense of the word: All means many different things, and there is nothing funny or underhanded about it meaning "without distinction." If, on the other hand, we turn to the other passages, not only am I not sure where we would start, but I've never even heard an attempted re-reading of the text that made any sense.
I do agree that on less-obvious doctrines we oughtn't to idolize our own interpretations. I just think that Hell is a pretty poor test-case.
"I just think that Hell is a pretty poor test-case."
I tend to agree, which is why I feel conflicted about the whole debate. At the end of the day, though, I'll defend any position against the argument "It's obvious/long since decided and you must be rejecting Jesus if you don't get it the way I do," even when on the substance of the issue I agree with those making the argument. At the end of the day, I think if those arguing for both positions acknowledge the supremacy of Christ and turn to Scriptures for our understanding, then we should be as patient with the debate as possible.
I do think there are some mental gymnastics involved when we say "'all men' means all kinds/sorts/categories of men" but deny "'eternal punishment' refers primarily to extent, not duration." I've actually heard Mike Biggs say precisely that about the phrase "eternal life," but I suspect they would reread the word when talking about hell. Now, when we get to the use of words like "everlasting" I think it gets tougher to think of it differently.
I'll also add that we must be careful when making claims about the "orthodox position," as the inclusion of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism (which is to say, most of Christianity throughout history) includes a great many interpretations that we reformed protestants are none too comfortable with.
just on the last point: the antecedent of "we" may certainly do as it likes, but, speaking purely from my own perspective, I say that I have no hesitation excluding those groups on the points where their dogma seems to me to disagree with actual orthodoxy. No denomination has a copyright on Truth.
"No denomination has a copyright on Truth."
Absolutely, and no individual for that matter. Hence my rejection of 'it's obvious to me' as a reason to believe anything.
Really? You don't believe the things that are obvious to you, and disbelieve the things that seem patently fallacious? I mean, sure, there are certain cases where you could say that the truth of a matter is super-rational or something like that, but most of the time... what else do have to go on?
You might be making an appeal to authority, I suppose, but you don't accept every authority on the block.
I'm not sure I follow. Can you explain a little further?
Perhaps I should have said 'it's obvious to me' isn't a reason to believe any *argument.* If someone else thinks a claim is obvious, but I don't, the fact that they think it's obvious doesn't give me anything to use for updating my beliefs. "It's obvious" has zero persuasive power.
Taken from another angle, I think that "it's obvious," even for things I think are in fact obvious, isn't a *reason* to believe it. It's no different than saying "I feel like" or "my personal bias is." If that's the only source for my belief in something, it doesn't mean I don't believe it, but it does mean that my belief is an a-rational one. Now, plenty of a-rational beliefs are actually true, but the fact that they are a-rational means I'm in no position to represent them to doubters in any useful way.
Post a Comment