The Gospel is Proof of Hell

Allow me to clear up a few things at the outset:

1. This isn’t about Rob Bell’s yet-to-be-published book, “Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived,” the topic is on my mind because of the book but I haven’t read the book and- let’s be honest- I’m not shocked that he would write a book that challenges the orthodox view of hell.

2. This is a little bit about the aftermath (see here and especially here) of the Justin Taylor post about the book. A lot of things have been said- many of which were said by people I respect- that can’t be unsaid. Personally, I think the “young, restless, reformed” crowd jumped on this so quickly because Bell has been so wishy-washy in the past about his views. He is the master of saying a lot without saying anything at all. I think the hope is that, in this book, Bell will lay his theological cards out on the table so we can label him appropriately. If history is any indication, that won’t happen.


It’s easy to get caught up in the details when debating certain issues. Is there a real literal place called “Hell” to which God sends all of His enemies? Is hell actually just separation from God? Does hell last forever, or is it a temporal punishment that leads to the eventual annihilation of the soul? These are weighty questions that cannot be answered by a mere blog post. However, we can look at one truth of the Bible which explains a lot to us about what kind of “love wins” according to the gospel.

So here are some things we can know about hell in light of the gospel:

1. The fact that God was willing to kill His Son shows that hell really does exist.

If someone said to me, “the boss was really serious when he said he would fire the next person who forgets to put a cover sheet on their TPS reports” I would take them seriously. If they said, “yeah, the boss just fired Bill in accounting for forgetting to put a cover sheet on his TPS report” I would take them more seriously. But if they said, “Did you hear that the VP got fired for forgetting to put a cover sheet on his TPS report?” I would know the boss wasn’t messing around about this cover sheet stuff.

That was a pretty lame example but the point is that the Son of God be crushed for sin means something about God’s feelings toward sin. The fact that God would pour out His wrath on Christ, for whom He has infinite love and affection, shows that no sin will go unpunished.

2. Christ went to hell on the cross, not after the cross.

Those who would say that Jesus went to Hell after dying on the cross in order to take on more punishment seriously misunderstand the gospel. Those who say he went to Hell after dying on the cross to preach are wrong in my opinion, but it’s much more of a gray area. At the cross, Christ endured the full weight of the wrath of God, such that it was sufficient to save every human being who has or will ever live. If Christ went to hell in this sense while having sin imputed to him for those who would trust him as their savior, there will certainly be hell for those who choose to bear the weight of their own sin.

3. The fact that Christ’s saving work is tied to changed lives tells us that there are those who will bear the full weight of their own sin.

In case you are not inclined to believe in hell, please accept this argument on the assumptions that: (a) not everyone in history has trusted in Christ as their savior before their death, and (b) there is no opportunity for salvation given to those who have already died.

The Bible clearly ties Christ’s atoning work to the changed life of a believer. Of course, this would make it impossible for someone to make the claim that people can be saved by Christ without knowing he was their savior. Whether this is the argument that some are saved because of ignorance (which destroys missions), or the argument that a person’s devotion to one religion can be another form of devotion to Christ (which destroys sanctification).

To name a few things the Bible says about the results of Christ’s death:

a. Conformity to the image of Christ (Rom 8:28-29)
b. A new heart which is responsive to God (Ezek. 36:26, Jeremiah 31:31-40, Luke 22:20).
c. Freedom from the slavery to sin that we might live to righteousness (Rev. 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:24)
d. The ability to live by faith in him (Galatians 2:20)

I could say more about this if I need to, but the point is that the gospel tells us that there is a hell, never mind the fact that the doctrine of hell can stand on its own. That is why this is a serious subject. Regardless of what Rob Bell says (or doesn’t say) in his book, this is an important subject to know, and even love, as it drives us to evangelism.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Being Gospel Centered in a Community

Probably my favorite show on TV right now (aside from Sports Center of course) is NBC's community. In the pilot episode Troy, a former star quarterback in high school who is now a freshman in community college, isn't sure whether he should continue wearing his letter-man jacket (helping him relive his glory days) or to stop because it makes him look like he's trying too hard to be popular. The advice he receives from Jeff Winger (former lawyer) is that whether he wears the jacket to feel popular or doesn't wear it because people say it's silly- he's still doing it for them and now himself.


A small moral victory (I guess) from the world but it serves as an example for the lesson I learned from the book Marks of the Mesenger by J. Mack Stiles. In the chapter titles "Messengers in a Troubled World" Stiles discusses the balance between social justice and evangelism in a third-world context. Of course, this is a hotly debated topic. How do we serve physical needs of people while trying to keep our focus on the gospel (assuming we are supposed to keep our focus there)?

Stiles makes the point that once we decide that these people are suffering simply because of their physical need we have already made a wrong turn. We are pitying them because of their material needs, not their gospel needs. He writes, "...to be who we are meant to be we must remember any desire to distance speaking the gospel into pain and deprivation is a result of a whole host of misguided impulses, Western guilt for one...We expose how sold out to materialism we've been when material suffering dashes our faith" (65).

The point isn't that physical needs aren't important or that we shouldn't meet them. Stiles makes that clear later in the chapter. But the point is that we have missed the point as soon as we target those people because of they want of material possessions. Help them with their material needs or don't help them with their material needs, either way your focus is on material possessions rather than the gospel.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

The Role of Christians and Heterosexuals in the Overturning of Proposition 8 Part 2

Last week I discussed how changes in America’s understanding of gender contributed heavily to a federal judges ability to overturn California’s proposition to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This week I want to move to a discussion on how divorce has also contributed.

The word divorce shows up 25 times in the ruling document, which is a little ironic seeing as how it is a ruling on marriage. Some quotes:

“Blankenhorn identified changes [in the institution of marriage] that to him signify the deinstitutionalization of marriage, including an increase in births outside of marriage and an increasing divorce rate.” (14)

“Blankenhorn identified several manifestations of deinstitutionalization: out-of-wedlock childbearing, rising divorce rates, the rise of non-marital cohabitation, increasing use of assistive reproductive technologies and marriage for same-sex couples.” (45)

“The development of no-fault divorce laws made it simpler for spouses to end marriages...” (64)

Before I begin much commentary let me say that divorce is a difficult subject in the Bible. Many Christians have differing views on when it is permissible and whether or not remarriage can occur. But let me be clear, divorce is a horrific but not unpardonable sin. I also realize that there are so many different stories of how divorce occurred, many of which amount to one person having no choice in the matter, I do not place blame on those people for being victimized in this way.

There is no question that divorce is prevalent in our society. It is not merely a fact of life, it is a lucrative business. Some have divorce parties, some go for the “quick and painless” route, while others acknowledge it as a probability by creating a document to protect their things in case they can’t protect their marriage.

As one who is getting married in just under a month, I’m terrified of divorce. I hate everything about it. A 0.1111111% chance that I could end up divorced is too much for me to handle. In my mind it’s not an option, but I have heard enough stories to know that I have to fight for my marriage from the first day.

I think the liberal side of the so-called “homosexual marriage” debate is correct when they say that the institution of marriage is under as much attack by straight people than it is by homosexuals. Homosexuals didn’t create no-fault divorce, they haven’t forced us to divorce, and they certainly aren’t responsible for the fact that those who claim Christianity get divorced at nearly the same rate as everyone else. That’s on us. It doesn’t make so-called “homosexual marriage” right, it just makes their case look better.

So, like last week, allow me to give some biblical points on marriage and divorce to encourage you to hate it as much as our Lord does:

God created the institution of marriage.

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male
and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

Divorce is the enemy of God’s purpose for marriage, namely, the display of the gospel in the relationship between husband and wife.

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for
her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:25-27)

God has very harsh things to say about divorce.

“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD,the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:16)

What do these texts tell us? I believe they tell us that God created marriage with an explicit purpose- one that cannot be fulfilled by so-called “homosexual marriage”- and that the act of divorce works against that purpose. Notice the harshness of the words in the last text I cited from Malachi. Many will look at this as being merely a hatred of an act, but we must accept the complex fact that God sees a man who has just divorced his wife like O.J. Simpson running from a crime scene. It’s not clean, it’s messy, and it’s selfish.

Thankfully there is another thing that God has to say to those who are divorced:

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may
not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins…” (1 John
2:1-2a)

These things should encourage us to hate divorce but if you have been divorced you are still not beyond the reach of Christ’s love and grace. As unrighteous as we are Christ is still more righteous. So trust him, love his gospel, and love the display of the gospel that is biblical marriage.

Grace and Peace…

Cordially,
Stephen A. Bean

The Role of Christians and Heterosexuals in the Overturning of Proposition 8 Part 1

“PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING)REASON”

This was the decision passed down by a federal judge in California on August 4th, 2010 which overturned the voters’ decision to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. When the law was initially passed there was a huge backlash from many social liberals, most prominently coming from Hollywood. Back in December of ’08 I wrote a response to the tone that was coming back at those who believe in a biblical view of marriage. (see Part 1, Part 2)

As I read the judges official statement I was surprised to find how easily I followed his logic (though I disagree with him on fundamental things that led to that logic). Setting aside the fact that he clearly has a bias that should have caused him to recuse himself from the decision, I felt like he has a good eye for how society has changed and he put together a very well written document. I would summarize the judges conclusion in this way:

Society has evolved in such a way that the only real difference between the genders is anatomical. Because marriage has never required the two parties to have the capacity of bearing children, and there is no difference in the roles of men and women in marriage, there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from partaking in the institution.

Some quotes:

“The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.” (113)

“As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices… that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage.” (112)

“Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” (113)

“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
(113)

It is easy to see what the judge describes in American society. Complimentarianism- the view that men and women are equal in value but different in role- is now considered sexism. Egalitarianism- the view that men and women are equal in all things save some anatomical differences- is the norm. The latter view has infiltrated all areas of society including the home and the church.

In light of this let’s take a quick look at some important biblical truths:

Men and women are of equal worth in the sight of God.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)

Men and women differ in their roles…

…in marriage
“…the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.” (Eph. 5:23-24)

…in the church
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior…and so train the young women to love their husbands and children…and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled…so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” (Titus 2:3-8)

The attempt by men and women to reverse or exaggerate their roles is a result of the Fall.
“To the woman he said…Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Gen. 3:16)

Next week I will discuss the role of divorce in this attempt to redefine marriage.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Weird Science

The following is the conclusion (a fairly long conclusion) I wrote to a paper on evolution vs. creationism. I was re-reading it and thought it might be helpful to some.


It is often said that debating an issue doesn’t really open minds to new possibilities as much as it creates more staunch believers on both sides. This seems to be the case (though I hope not for the wrong reasons) in my own study of evolution. As a Christian with a firm understanding of the gospel I have my own convictions about what could or could not have happened at the beginning of life if I am to be consistent. I will briefly summarize these with the understanding that they are based on theology rather than science.

A “normal” reading of the first chapter of Genesis seems to indicate that the Earth was created in six consecutive literal days. There have indeed been many attempts to explain how this account of creation and evolution can coexist but I don’t find them adequate. The only possible interpretation that I can imagine holding which does not teach a young Earth is the “framework” view. This is the view that the Bible does not attempt to give an account of creation that is precise at any level. Rather, the first two chapters of Genesis are attempts to teach that God is the Creator in ways that man would have understood. I do not accept this view for reasons that will become clear in succeeding points but I do find it to be a more honest interpretation than other “old Earth” attempts.

Throughout Scripture Genesis is treated as a historical narrative writing which was inspired by God, therefore its account of creation should be taken literally. Probably the best example of this is when Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 and attributes the narration not to Moses but to the Creator.

The central Biblical themes (creation, fall, redemption, and restoration) all find root in the idea that God created life before death entered the world. The framework of biblical theology seems to be that God created a world that was good, Adam’s fall brought the curse (including death) into the world, Christ died to save his people from the eternal curse of the wrath of God, and in the end all of creation will be restored to being good. If death was actually in the world before the fall it turns many biblical arguments on their head.



Because of these convictions I was already predisposed to disbelief in evolution and belief in creationism before I began a scientific study of evolution. However, I believe that this predisposition to disbelief in evolution has mostly had a freeing effect which allows me to examine the “evidence” without already adhering to the system. After reading the most rigid of proponents for both sides of the argument I do not see compelling evidence that can be examined and give us a history of life. Instead it seems that much of the evidence finds meaning only when it is combined with presuppositions about its origin and purpose. For evolutionists all living things have descended from a common cell, for creationists all things were created with a specific purpose to glorify the Creator. If I may make one more theological point, I do not think this is a problem. From a biblical perspective the evidence from creation can be interpreted but not so much in the way we would like to think. Creation is meant to declare the glory of God, show us something of His attributes, and ultimately it will be full of those who know and love Him. We do not find any biblical evidence that the Earth is able to point us to a perfect account of its own beginning.

From a scientific perspective I don’t find evolution as compelling as the secular world because I don’t find their arguments to be as solid as the world seems to. Vestigial organs are far too convenient an argument for evolution as they are a claim from non-knowledge. DNA similarities between species should be expected in the same way that an analysis of the blueprints for several different types of home should have varying levels of similarity. Two-level houses will be more similar to each other than a trailer and an apartment complex. This doesn’t prove that the homes have any more of a relationship to each other than the same school of thought behind the design. Finally, the fossil record, which is admittedly incomplete, seems to be used to fit every theory in existence. What it has not shown, however, is compelling evidence that species have evolved across the boundaries of species or the biblical “kinds”.


What makes creationism vastly more appealing than evolution is that it holds to things which can be proven scientifically (such as microevolution) without the need for experiments that contradict any naturalistic presuppositions. Because they believe in a Creator they do not fret over the gaps in their knowledge, rather, they assume that those gaps are filled in by scientifically explainable systems that have been put into place by a grand Creator. Finally, they are able to hold firmly to their beliefs despite being treated as the outcasts of science by virtually the entire field. It is surely an important thing to study evolution and come to personal conclusions, however, I do not find that the evidence leads to such a sad, impossible faith.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five- Sola Gratia

This is a continuation of a series on the five “solas” of the reformation. Feel free to check out last week's post: Sola Scriptura and the introduction.

Sola Gratia

Salvation is by grace alone.

This week I want to take a look at Sola Gratia; that is, salvation is by grace alone. This idea comes straight out of Ephesians 2:8-9:

…by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it
is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Because of clear passages like this no confessing Christian of any stripe (whether orthodox or not) claims that salvation is not by grace alone (pardon the double negative). The real question comes down to what grace really is and how God really saves. Does grace alone mean that God has provided a sacramental system by which one works their way to heaven as Roman Catholics claim? Does it make all men merely savable as some evangelicals claim? Or does it mean that salvation is 100% of God as the reformed tradition claims?

In order to understand where the reformers were coming from it is important to know something of what they were up against. Martin Luther famously opposed the Catholic concept of indulgences by which a person could buy a loved one’s way out of purgatory. The saying of Johann Tetzel went like this “when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” a phrase as poetical as it is heretical. Many Roman Catholics would now say that it was right for Martin Luther to oppose this act. Perhaps the medieval church went too far in allowing people to buy their way out of purgatory.

What I want to point out, however, is that the assumption of the concept of indulgences is actually one of the proofs that the Roman Catholic works-righteousness system is not sola gratia, namely, purgatory. To say that one must go to a place before heaven to atone for their own remaining sin is the opposite of what Ephesians 2 teaches. The grace taught here is apparently that Christ’s death achieved very little (especially when considering the concept of the Eucharist which considered a continual sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ).

Unfortunately the debate on this issue doesn’t stop at Catholic vs. Protestant. Within Protestantism are synergists and monergists. Synergists believe that salvation involves the cooperation of two wills: God and man for salvation. Even if you believe this is 99% God and 1% man you are a synergist. Monergists, on the other hand, believe that only one agent, God, is at work in salvation and the exercise of man’s will is an outworking of what God has done in them. When discounting the extremes of these two views they are both considered orthodox, though only one of them can be correct.

My personal belief is that Scripture teaches a monergistic salvation. I believe that when I was saved I put my trust in Christ because the Holy Spirit opened my heart to believe the gospel. This seems to be what Ephesians 2:1-7 teaches. Man is dead in sin which is defined as following our own desires led by Satan. But God saves us out of this by making us alive in Christ. Then in 2:8 Paul says that “this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” The question is, “what is the gift of God?” A synergist would say that Paul is simply speaking of salvation. This is because the way the sentence is constructed “this” can not point specifically to what we might consider the most natural word, “faith”. However, those with much more knowledge of Greek than myself (that’s not hard to do) point to this as an example of a word being used to sum up the entirety of the preceding phrase. In other words, when Paul says “this…is the gift of God” he means grace, salvation, and faith. If that is the way Paul meant his words there is very little doubt left that the monergist understanding of salvation is correct.

I don’t go into this much depth to confuse people or to be overly technical but to show that (1) the fact that there is this much to debate between the two protestant sides shows just how far off the Roman Catholic understanding is. (2) It seems clear that salvation by grace alone means that God saves man rather than merely making man savable. (3) How great is this grace which we encounter daily, mostly without realizing it or being thankful for it.

Salvation by grace alone is surely a wonderful doctrine which we should seek to understand at greater depths. Next week we will look at sola fide, the understanding that justification is by faith alone (Galatians 2:16). Or is it? (James 2:24)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five: Sola Scriptura

Just in way of reminder, the purpose of this post is to put the ideas expressed in the 5 solas of the reformation in front of us in way of reminder of just how important these truths are. To read my introduction from last week click the link here.

Sola Scriptura

Scripture Alone is the sole standard for doctrine and the Christian life.

The primary text referred to on this point is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
competent, equipped for every good work.

The most important thing to note here is that Scripture is “breathed out by God.” When you think of the inspiration of Scripture be careful not think of it as coming from men who were merely enlightened or motivated. Though the Bible certainly reflects the personality, writing style, and motives of the human author it is ultimately from the Holy Spirit. This should be all we need to know about Scripture to understand the concept of Sola Scriptura. Because God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and cannot lie (Titus 1:2) His word is trustworthy.

Of course we should note some things in way of qualification that many people don’t understand when it comes to the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.

1. The Bible is sufficient in all that it teaches.
You will not find a direct answer to the question “Does my Islamic friend truly know God?” in the Bible. This is mostly due to the fact that Islam came about after the canon of Scripture was closed. But there are plenty of biblical principles to guide you answering important questions.

2. The Bible does not claim 100% scientific precision.
The Bible is written to communicate to people in the way that people communicate. So when you read about the Sun rising you don’t have to assume that God doesn’t understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun anymore than when your local weatherman talks about the Sun rising. This also means that biblical measurements will not give you the exact number for pi and that round numbers are often used. (Ever notice that Jesus never spoke to a crowd of 4,322 people?)

3. Claims of sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy are in specific reference to the original manuscripts of Scripture, not necessarily your version.
Whether or not we can trust that we posses an accurate witness to what was originally written is another subject (I believe we do). But we have to remember that behind the English words in your NIV, NASB, ESV, and even KJV are translators, textual critics, and scribes who have worked hard to make what you read the most accurate reflection of what was originally written. These are imperfect sciences helping you access a perfect document.

The good news about this text is that it doesn’t stop at telling us that Scripture is “breathed out by God.” It continues to help us understand that Scripture is for the full equipping of the saints. We read that Scripture does all of this “that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” When I played baseball I went to a Sport’s shop to get my glove and cleats, a uniform shop for my jersey, and my cap was special ordered somewhere. Not only that but I had coaches to help me play better and none of them were located at those places where I bought my equipment, I had to go to various fields to practice. The baseball player knows nothing of one stop shopping if they want to be both equipped and competent for their trade. The man of God is able to go to the word of God in order to be equipped.

The point might be made, however, that this point diminishes the role of the church in the life of the believer. Does this not contradict Hebrews 10:24-25 “And let us consider how to stir up one another love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another…”? Perhaps it would contradict the biblical role of the church in the life of the believer if Paul did not continue by showing the powerful role of the word in the church through preaching.

Just a few verses later in 4:2 Paul encourages Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” So the word of God is sufficient to equip a person in their daily individual life as well as the life of the corporate assembly of believers.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen