Christian Carnival #97 (Parts 1 & 2)
Now Open for Business Below
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Christian Carnival #97, Part 1
Glad you made it! I'm fired up with enthusiasm for this week's - the 97th! - publication of the Christian Carnival. If this is your first time here, relax, have fun, and enjoy the show. To guide you through all the attractions, I've clustered the entries into various "rides" like you might find at a County Fair. This is a carnival, after all. We'll start off with some lighter attractions and progressively work our way down the midway to some more challenging rides. Along the way, I'm sure you'll meet new friends and experience a few adventures. Again, enjoy the day. And tell a friend.
Let's Start Out With a Classic Ride
Next Up, the Famous Ferris Wheel
Now We're Heading Toward the Sky Swings
Are You Brave Enough for the Thriller?
Spaulding Hot Irony: Why Doesn't the ACLU Start a Soup Kitchen?
And Now the Grand Finale Coaster RideWell, if you've made it this far down the midway, you've probably noticed that you or your favorite blogger's post isn't up yet. That's because I got behind getting ready for Thanksgiving. The rest of the entries (there were over 60 I believe) are in part 2 below. So, keep your ticket and come again any time. Oh, and by the way, Happy Thanksgiving!
Christian Carnival #97, Part 2
Welcome back to the 97th edition of the Christian Carnival (part 2!). As you've surmised, I didn't quite finish pointing out all the attractions at our "County Fair" before Thanksgiving Eve. So, pull out your ticket and let's get back to the show. If this is your first time here, relax, have fun, and tell your friends. Like in part 1, we'll start out with some fairly light entertainment and progressively work our way down the midway toward some thrillers.
Let's Start Out With a Classic Ride Next Up, the Famous Ferris Wheel
Now We're Heading Toward the Sky SwingsAre You Brave Enough for the Thriller? And Now the Grand Finale Coaster RideThat's it. We finally made it to the end. Feel free to come again any time and visit the carnival. Oh, and tell your friends to join the fun next week at Cadmusings. Happy Thanksgiving!
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Hell Hath No Fury? Annihilationism Considered
Question: "Do the finally impenitent suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (in body and soul, either literally or metaphorically), or do they go out of existence in the second death?" (Asked by Clark Pinnock in Four Views on Hell
, p 142, part of the Counterpoints Series published by Zondervan, 1996)
Answer: See below. But before you scroll down, let's interact with two practical and preparatory concerns.
1) Why does the question matter?
2) What are the possible theological and scriptural alternatives?
After a brief overview we should then be able to consider the biblical case for conditional immortality.
Why does the question matter?
Hell's been getting a bum wrap. In either of two ways. On one extreme, it is being ignored. For many years now churches and preachers have been shying away from the topic because it is uncomfortable to talk about. After all, who enjoys contemplating and discussing an eternity of pain and suffering? But hell is also often neglected because many sensitive Christians are worried that a steady diet of hellfire and brimstone can make God look like a sadistic ogre. As believers we don't want to unnesessarily push people away from Jesus Christ.
This is a valid concern and is actually the other extreme that is giving hell a bad reputation. Some fundamentalists, who are not shy when it comes to preaching eternal damnation, in their zeal often overstate the case and actually mistakenly proclaim that God takes pleasure in the demise of the wicked. As a result, effective evangelism suffers.
So as to why this question matters: Understanding the nature of hell is important because the effectiveness of evangelism is at stake. On the one hand, we don't want to lose our urgency to witness to lost friends and family by being nonchalant about hell. A person's eternal life is hanging in the balance. Yet on the other hand, we don't want to run the risk of turning people off by misrepresenting a doctrine that is already a sticking point for many.
What are the possible scriptural alternatives?
So what are some possible views on hell? How are we to understand this hard teaching? One response is to abolish it by trying to make a biblical case for universalism. That is, ultimately all will be saved. This is not just a "liberal" attempt at downplaying a distastful teaching. It stems from Origen, an early church father, who viewed hell as "a purging and refining fire that finally deposits all its inhabitants in heaven." (Pinnock, p 141) Hell is a temporary but real condition that takes the offense of sin seriously while affirming God's ultimate victory over it. Scripture texts include John 3:16, Philippians 2:10,11, and 1 Timothy 2:3,4.
A problem stems from the possibility that all may not want to be saved. That may be God's intent, but can God predestine a person's free response to his grace? That doesn't make sense. While I affirm that God's salvation is by grace alone, it is also through faith alone. And while even faith is a gift, we must respond. If we reject God, God will honor our request. (This issue involving predestination is too broad to be covered here. Suffice it to say that if asked, "Were you pushed or did you jump?" I'd have to answer yes.)
A second possibility is the traditional, or what some may call the literal, view of hell. This teaching was developed by Augustine, another early church theologian, who in The City of God argued that hell was a condition of endless conscious torment in body and soul. The problem: How can one continue to be exposed to burning flames without burning up? Augustine's response was that "God has the power to do miracles which transcend ordinary nature and that he will employ his power to keep sinners alive and conscious in the fire." (Pinnock, p 139)
What? How does Augustine come to a biblical conclusion that God is a God that tortures people forever? His literal reading does an injustice to the plain implications of the words employed. Far be it from me to enter the ring against such a heavyweight theologian, nevertheless, might it be that, like his doctrine of the millennium or the practice of infant baptism, Augustine got this one wrong as well?
A third view is a revision of the traditional position. Instead of physical pain caused by actual flames, the suffering is mental and emotional. Here the fire is simply a metaphor. And although some might want to entertain as more palatable the notion expressed in Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit where hell is other people or the idea expressed in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce where hell is absolute lonliness, these pictures are just that. The committed traditionalist might even accuse those of holding the metaphorical view as softening the severity of hell's punishment. Now I probably wouldn't see it that way, because I'm wondering if this latter position is actually any different in practice than the literal view. Isn't God still a God that tortures the wicked endlessly, albeit emotionally?
More importantly, is this really what the scripture means when it refers to hell?
So now we turn to the biblical case for conditional immortality, or as some refer to it, annihilationism. I want to address two main issues: The clear implications of the words used to describe hell and the biblical understanding of the nature of the soul.
Certainly hell is a real reward for the wicked. As Christians we must engage God's word on the matter. But as to it's exact nature, I agree with Clark Pinnock who writes (far better than I):
Let me briefly address a second issue and wrap this up. And this has to do with why the traditional view is so entrenched as "the" evangelical option today. It has to do with a mistaken understanding of human nature. A hellenistic belief about the immortality of the soul "has dominated Christian thinking about eschatalogy almost from the beginning." (Pinnock, p 147) In other words, the bible does not teach the inherent immortality of the human soul. Rather it points to the resurrection of the body as God's gift to believers. God alone is immortal. We are conditionally so. We acccept eternal life and enter into an eternity with God. Those who reject this offer can not enter into eternal life. Their fate is seperation from God forever. Hell.
Hell does have a fury. It will be unleashed on those who are impenitent. It is a permanent, irreversable state. Hell is a doctrine that is sobering and shocking to contemplate. And one which begs for an urgent response. We can no longer neglect the teaching of hell, nor can we afford to mistakenly assign God's pleasure to the torturing of his creation. Let the message of hope and salvation overcome our hesitancy to proclaim the full gospel of Jesus Christ.
(For more information on Clark Pinnock.)
, p 142, part of the Counterpoints Series published by Zondervan, 1996)Answer: See below. But before you scroll down, let's interact with two practical and preparatory concerns.
1) Why does the question matter?
2) What are the possible theological and scriptural alternatives?
After a brief overview we should then be able to consider the biblical case for conditional immortality.
Why does the question matter?
Hell's been getting a bum wrap. In either of two ways. On one extreme, it is being ignored. For many years now churches and preachers have been shying away from the topic because it is uncomfortable to talk about. After all, who enjoys contemplating and discussing an eternity of pain and suffering? But hell is also often neglected because many sensitive Christians are worried that a steady diet of hellfire and brimstone can make God look like a sadistic ogre. As believers we don't want to unnesessarily push people away from Jesus Christ.
This is a valid concern and is actually the other extreme that is giving hell a bad reputation. Some fundamentalists, who are not shy when it comes to preaching eternal damnation, in their zeal often overstate the case and actually mistakenly proclaim that God takes pleasure in the demise of the wicked. As a result, effective evangelism suffers.
So as to why this question matters: Understanding the nature of hell is important because the effectiveness of evangelism is at stake. On the one hand, we don't want to lose our urgency to witness to lost friends and family by being nonchalant about hell. A person's eternal life is hanging in the balance. Yet on the other hand, we don't want to run the risk of turning people off by misrepresenting a doctrine that is already a sticking point for many.
What are the possible scriptural alternatives?
So what are some possible views on hell? How are we to understand this hard teaching? One response is to abolish it by trying to make a biblical case for universalism. That is, ultimately all will be saved. This is not just a "liberal" attempt at downplaying a distastful teaching. It stems from Origen, an early church father, who viewed hell as "a purging and refining fire that finally deposits all its inhabitants in heaven." (Pinnock, p 141) Hell is a temporary but real condition that takes the offense of sin seriously while affirming God's ultimate victory over it. Scripture texts include John 3:16, Philippians 2:10,11, and 1 Timothy 2:3,4.
A problem stems from the possibility that all may not want to be saved. That may be God's intent, but can God predestine a person's free response to his grace? That doesn't make sense. While I affirm that God's salvation is by grace alone, it is also through faith alone. And while even faith is a gift, we must respond. If we reject God, God will honor our request. (This issue involving predestination is too broad to be covered here. Suffice it to say that if asked, "Were you pushed or did you jump?" I'd have to answer yes.)
A second possibility is the traditional, or what some may call the literal, view of hell. This teaching was developed by Augustine, another early church theologian, who in The City of God
argued that hell was a condition of endless conscious torment in body and soul. The problem: How can one continue to be exposed to burning flames without burning up? Augustine's response was that "God has the power to do miracles which transcend ordinary nature and that he will employ his power to keep sinners alive and conscious in the fire." (Pinnock, p 139)What? How does Augustine come to a biblical conclusion that God is a God that tortures people forever? His literal reading does an injustice to the plain implications of the words employed. Far be it from me to enter the ring against such a heavyweight theologian, nevertheless, might it be that, like his doctrine of the millennium or the practice of infant baptism, Augustine got this one wrong as well?
A third view is a revision of the traditional position. Instead of physical pain caused by actual flames, the suffering is mental and emotional. Here the fire is simply a metaphor. And although some might want to entertain as more palatable the notion expressed in Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit
where hell is other people or the idea expressed in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce where hell is absolute lonliness, these pictures are just that. The committed traditionalist might even accuse those of holding the metaphorical view as softening the severity of hell's punishment. Now I probably wouldn't see it that way, because I'm wondering if this latter position is actually any different in practice than the literal view. Isn't God still a God that tortures the wicked endlessly, albeit emotionally?More importantly, is this really what the scripture means when it refers to hell?
So now we turn to the biblical case for conditional immortality, or as some refer to it, annihilationism. I want to address two main issues: The clear implications of the words used to describe hell and the biblical understanding of the nature of the soul.
Certainly hell is a real reward for the wicked. As Christians we must engage God's word on the matter. But as to it's exact nature, I agree with Clark Pinnock who writes (far better than I):
From the threat of hell, we may not be able to derive precise knowledge about its nature, any more than we can grasp the nature of heaven from the promises God gives us regarding it. Nevertheless, the Bible does leave us a strong general impression in regard to the nature of hell - the impression of final, irreversible destruction, of closure with God. The language and imagery used by Scripture is so powerful in that direction that it is surprising that more theologians have not picked up on it before now. The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that "eternal punishment" refers to a divine judgment whose results cannont be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e., eternal punishing). Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it. Contrary to the loud claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. (p 144)This essay has gone on longer than expected, so I will probably examine some key scriptural texts in the Q & A to follow (if there is any :-) . But a sampling includes Matthew 3:10-12, 13:49,50; Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 6:7,8; Philippians 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; Jude 7; Revelation 20:14,15. A fair reading of these passages can lead to a reasonable conclusion that the bible teaches the final destruction of the wicked. This is not a dumbing down of the scripture but an interpretation that is plausible and has integrity.
Let me briefly address a second issue and wrap this up. And this has to do with why the traditional view is so entrenched as "the" evangelical option today. It has to do with a mistaken understanding of human nature. A hellenistic belief about the immortality of the soul "has dominated Christian thinking about eschatalogy almost from the beginning." (Pinnock, p 147) In other words, the bible does not teach the inherent immortality of the human soul. Rather it points to the resurrection of the body as God's gift to believers. God alone is immortal. We are conditionally so. We acccept eternal life and enter into an eternity with God. Those who reject this offer can not enter into eternal life. Their fate is seperation from God forever. Hell.
Hell does have a fury. It will be unleashed on those who are impenitent. It is a permanent, irreversable state. Hell is a doctrine that is sobering and shocking to contemplate. And one which begs for an urgent response. We can no longer neglect the teaching of hell, nor can we afford to mistakenly assign God's pleasure to the torturing of his creation. Let the message of hope and salvation overcome our hesitancy to proclaim the full gospel of Jesus Christ.
(For more information on Clark Pinnock.)
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Hell? Yes. - A Reply and Rebuttal
Runalong with Pastor Mark has posted 10 Foundational Principles on the topic of Hell - a much needed reflection to guide our thinking on this touchy subject. I'd like to add a few comments and posit an alternative to his second point (the word rebuttal is used to snag readers who are looking for controversy :-)
First, I agree with Mark that we need to take the whole of scripture as a message from its Author and work to understand it, rather than simply pick and choose the parts we're comfortable with. The topic of hell fits within this framework.
And to rightly understand hell, we need to be clear that God is not capricious with regards to punishment of wrongdoing. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), not humans. It is part of his overall plan for justice and mercy, but God first and foremost wants to save us (grace); although he will not force us into heaven (our response to his grace). We can choose to "go to the devil."
Which leads to another good point that Mark makes on why hell and damn are swear words. These words have a reality behind them! That's also why people don't say "Oh, Buddha" but instead use the name of Jesus in a curse - it's because there is no reality in Buddha. Same with the English phrase "bloody" - it's a swear word because we're talking about the power of Christ's blood to save us.
Now to the rebuttal. One point where Pastor Mark might want to rethink his position a bit would be his rejection of an "expiration clause." He writes: "2. Hell, like heaven, has no expiration clause. The same words are used to describe the duration of torment in hell as are used to describe the duration of bliss in heaven. Eternal, everlasting, never-ending, you get the point. Matthew 25:46 is typical."
While words like eternal and everlasting are used, it is also clear from a plain reading of these texts and others (eg 2 Thess 4:9) that those who rebel against God are destroyed. The terrible reality is that people will be cut off from God forever. It's eternal punishment in that it is a permanent judgment, not an ongoing physical punishment that lasts forever.
To hold that humans will suffer consciously for an eternity is to assume the indestructability of the soul and most likely reads into the scripture a worldview or philosophy that isn't there. That is, the immortality of the soul is not a biblical concept.
A fairly plain reading of scripture indicates that eternal life is a gift - not an ontologically inherent state of being. Adam and Eve were potentially immortal, not necessarily so. (See God's concern that they would eat of the Tree of Life after eating of the Tree of Knowledge - Gen 3:22)
So, while believers are granted eternal life with God (note that we can enter eternal life today!), the wicked are destroyed and will be cut off from God for eternity. Hell is indeed a terrible fate. One that needs to be preached and proclaimed. And joyfully declared defeated in Jesus Christ for those who respond to his salvation.
Thanks for your thoughts, comments, and reflections/rebuttals.
Lyndon
First, I agree with Mark that we need to take the whole of scripture as a message from its Author and work to understand it, rather than simply pick and choose the parts we're comfortable with. The topic of hell fits within this framework.
And to rightly understand hell, we need to be clear that God is not capricious with regards to punishment of wrongdoing. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), not humans. It is part of his overall plan for justice and mercy, but God first and foremost wants to save us (grace); although he will not force us into heaven (our response to his grace). We can choose to "go to the devil."
Which leads to another good point that Mark makes on why hell and damn are swear words. These words have a reality behind them! That's also why people don't say "Oh, Buddha" but instead use the name of Jesus in a curse - it's because there is no reality in Buddha. Same with the English phrase "bloody" - it's a swear word because we're talking about the power of Christ's blood to save us.
Now to the rebuttal. One point where Pastor Mark might want to rethink his position a bit would be his rejection of an "expiration clause." He writes: "2. Hell, like heaven, has no expiration clause. The same words are used to describe the duration of torment in hell as are used to describe the duration of bliss in heaven. Eternal, everlasting, never-ending, you get the point. Matthew 25:46 is typical."
While words like eternal and everlasting are used, it is also clear from a plain reading of these texts and others (eg 2 Thess 4:9) that those who rebel against God are destroyed. The terrible reality is that people will be cut off from God forever. It's eternal punishment in that it is a permanent judgment, not an ongoing physical punishment that lasts forever.
To hold that humans will suffer consciously for an eternity is to assume the indestructability of the soul and most likely reads into the scripture a worldview or philosophy that isn't there. That is, the immortality of the soul is not a biblical concept.
A fairly plain reading of scripture indicates that eternal life is a gift - not an ontologically inherent state of being. Adam and Eve were potentially immortal, not necessarily so. (See God's concern that they would eat of the Tree of Life after eating of the Tree of Knowledge - Gen 3:22)
So, while believers are granted eternal life with God (note that we can enter eternal life today!), the wicked are destroyed and will be cut off from God for eternity. Hell is indeed a terrible fate. One that needs to be preached and proclaimed. And joyfully declared defeated in Jesus Christ for those who respond to his salvation.
Thanks for your thoughts, comments, and reflections/rebuttals.
Lyndon
Some 'Nocturnal Theology' by poetic subversion too
T. M. Gagnon has some early morning musings at his blog on the various "causes" of suffering and concludes that some forms of suffering (a la discipline) is from God and should be endured, like Christ, because of the joy set before us - the resurrection life!
While some make a necessary connection between suffering and evil, T.M. points out that that is not always the case, as evil produces no real pleasure (if I'm reading him right), while chastisement does.
Mr. Gagnon doesn't address another mistaken connection Christians make...and that is that discipline and punishment are NOT the same. We know that Christ took the penalty for our sin once and for all on the cross. Thus, while discipline can be severe and from the Lord, it is not penal in nature. We might well remember this in light of the various musings about natural disasters and God's wrath. I do not believe we are seeing God's direct punishment on our nation, despite all the talk from the "radical right wing conspiracy" (joke).
Thanks, Tyler, for either waking up early or staying up late to give us your nocturnal theological reflections. For a good read, visit the link.
While some make a necessary connection between suffering and evil, T.M. points out that that is not always the case, as evil produces no real pleasure (if I'm reading him right), while chastisement does.
Mr. Gagnon doesn't address another mistaken connection Christians make...and that is that discipline and punishment are NOT the same. We know that Christ took the penalty for our sin once and for all on the cross. Thus, while discipline can be severe and from the Lord, it is not penal in nature. We might well remember this in light of the various musings about natural disasters and God's wrath. I do not believe we are seeing God's direct punishment on our nation, despite all the talk from the "radical right wing conspiracy" (joke).
Thanks, Tyler, for either waking up early or staying up late to give us your nocturnal theological reflections. For a good read, visit the link.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Papercut Theology: Drive-By Evangelism: Halloween Edition!
Papercut Theology: Drive-By Evangelism: Halloween Edition!
Discussion on this is probably passed due now that we're into November, but what do you think about dressing up secular holidays in Christian garb? Is that what's happening with Thanksgiving?
Discussion on this is probably passed due now that we're into November, but what do you think about dressing up secular holidays in Christian garb? Is that what's happening with Thanksgiving?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)