Theology – Page 3 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Getting In Shape for Worship

Much of what passes for worship these days has drifted far from its biblical definition. In the minds of many, worship is the praise-singing portion of a church service and nothing more. It gets compartmentalized into a small part of life and becomes a checklist item… read my bible (check!), said grace at dinner (check!), sang a praise chorus at church (check!). This segmentation extends to the whole of our faith. Rather than faith permeating our life and all things passing through that filter, Christianity becomes simply a part of who we are.

Modern worship has become I shaped. It is still pointed at God but notice how narrow it has become. It is just a portion of our life, perhaps as little as twenty minutes on Sunday morning. We have allowed worship to become associated solely with the praise choruses of the worship. Many of these contribute to our weak worship as they encourage us to express our singular love for the Lord without expressing the magnitude of his being, his creation or his acts. Segmentation also allows for worship to be put aside as the band lays down their instruments. We fail to make it a part of everything in life.

When we decide to get in shape for worshipping God, the first improvements we see are that our worship life begins to look more like an upside-down T. Our worship is focused on our love for God but maturity helps us to see that it is a lifestyle. Being a Christian defines who we are rather than being one of many attributes. We have been reborn and given the Holy Ghost to dwell within and guide all we do. Worship is reflected in right thought and right action as we take all things captive to the will of God. The Apostle Paul spoke of this in Romans 12:1-2 in which he preaches that our (whole) lives should be an act of worship.

We can declare ourselves in shape for worship when we can see the capital I taking root. In addition to expressing worship through all aspects of our life, our worship of God is told through all available channels. We see the musical, prayer, and teaching events of Sunday service as a part of worship in which our hearts and minds are stretched by the glory of all of God’s acts laid out before us. We express awe as the psalmist did and though the seas were not parted for us, we can look to equally momentous changes in our new birth. We are unsatisfied with prom songs for our friend God and we demand depth; we are convinced that All Is Well with our souls despite the crashing waves, that the grace we know truly is amazing. Prayer encompasses the entire body and not just our own wants and desires. The words of the pastor build muscle and strengthen us in areas that we may not have even seen the weakness.

We cannot afford to continue allowing worship to atrophy, even if our intentions in restraining it seem to be good (such as seeker sensitivity.) Whether we face joy or cataclysm, our first attitude should be that of a worshipper. Remember, others are watching.

God and the Biblical Zombieland

To paraphrase the serpent, “Did the Bible truly say that you are dead?”

I recently addressed a challenge issued by a Calvinist brother who wanted to establish his core arguments around the notion of humanity being unable to respond to God due to their deceased condition. Zombies, I thought, we’re all zombies walking around (though not feasting) until the moment we are brought back to life by the grace of God. Are we truly bodies without souls hungrily seeking to satisfy the emptiness but finding no relief? Is this the portrait of humanity that the Bible portrays?

The proof text was, as you probably already guessed, Ephesians 2:1:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

We might as well put up the parallel verse in Colossians (2:13) as well:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

Well, as long as we’re at it, we should include a verse from Romans (5:12) that provides a similar thought:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

Death in these verses is often, either by casual reading or theological filter, interpreted to mean that the soul has died as the body has died. By extension then, the unsaved are bodies walking around with dead souls. Souls that are unable to hear, recognize, or respond to God’s call to repentance and belief. Dead, dark souls. What we need to ask is whether or not spiritual death is the same as physical death in the language of the Bible.

Our answer, found in the pages of the Bible, is that there are three forms of death mentioned. In the scope of all of scripture, death includes a spiritual, physical, and eternal death. The Bible informs us that the common thread among all of them is separation:

Physical death is separation of the soul from the body.
Eternal death is permanent separation from God. (Rev 19:20, 20:10)
Spiritual death is holy separation from God (Isa 59:1-2)

Separation does not mean spiritual annihilation, contrary to a popular theological position. If it did then that destroyed, actually non-existent, soul would not be able to hear and respond to God. Yet,

The “dead” can still perceive the truth of God (Rom 1:20)
Adam and Eve were “dead” but still heard and responded to the voice of God (Gen 3:10)
The “dead” are able to believe (Col 2:12-13 n.b. We should always read verses in context)

Without the demonstration of annihilation and the destruction of the soul, the spiritual death must be seen as portrayed in the scriptures: a soul that is separated spiritually from God but that retains the ability to hear and respond. As demonstrated from the scriptures above, we must agree that the unregenerate soul is able to hear and respond positively to God. The image of God embedded in humankind was not erased by the Fall (Gen 9:6, James 3:9), rather, it has been marred and defaced, separating us from the Father. If it were otherwise (ie: the soul was destroyed/annihilated) then God would not be able to call on His people to believe (John 3:16-18, Acts 16:31;20:21).

The Multi-Faceted View of Atonement

We have looked at three of the major views that Christians have adopted to understand atonement, Christus Victor, Healing, and Penal Substitution. At one time or another during the history of the Church, each of these theories has held the majority position among theologians. The Penal Substitution view is the dominant view now, among the American churches at least. It’s important to recognize the historical shifts in acceptance of the various theories and to question why one would lose favor to another in the minds of Christian thinkers and teachers. Does the Bible change over time? Has the Holy Ghost made contradictory revelations at different moments in time that initiated the shift? What about all of the other atonement views that are subsumed within the larger categories?

Is it possible that the atonement brought about by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ is much too expansive to be understood under the banner of a single, narrow category?

Atonement is Too Large for a Single Theory

Theologians who stand apart from the dominant views of atonement will answer this question by saying yes, there is no model or metaphor that is sufficient to explain the significance of of His sacrifice. The crucifixion and its result are tightly woven into God’s eternal purpose and as spirit-opened eyes continue to pore over the scriptures in the hours remaining until the end of this time, we may never run out of the countless ways of understanding its meaning for our salvation. It should not be alarming to find a number of images that lend themselves to understanding this momentous act. As centuries of eyes search out the truths of God’s word, each with a slightly different perspective on the greatest human need, it is inevitable that a number of categories would arise.

Single Views and the Bible

The New Testament authors generated a number of images in the Gospels and Epistles in order to help readers comprehend the monumental shift in God-Human relationship brought about by crucifixion of Jesus. If the primary rule of hermeneutics is applied—context,context, context—the modern reader places the writing in first century and recognizes the societal influences that are inherent in the texts. Five areas of public life dominate: the court of law (justification), the world of commerce (redemption), personal relationships (reconciliation), worship (sacrifice), and the battleground (triumph over evil).

This plethora of imagery could be differentiated by the loci of the individual authors, their use of language and metaphor and missiological interest. A more effective tool for seeing the wide span of atonement images is to survey the corpus of a single author to see if there is variety or consistency. With his dominant contributions, Paul and his works provides such a platform. The Apostle employs two main themes in discussing the significance of the atonement, the ‘giving up’ of Jesus for human salvation (cf. Rom 8:32, Gal 1:4) and ‘Christ died for our sins’ (cf. 1 Cor 15:3, 1 Thes 5:10). These themes emphasize the saving nature of Jesus’ death but they do so without linking it explicitly to a single methodological theory. With this point established, Paul then utilizes a variety of imagery applicable to particular concerns of his epistle audiences. Reading Paul exposes us to language about substitution, representation, sacrifice, justification, forgiveness, reconciliation, victory over the powers, and redemption.

Conclusion

Rather than being confined within a single theory, the atonement is better viewed as encompassing the fullness of God’s design for the world. The image which finds favor with a theologian will more often than not be a product of his definition of the greatest human need. If people are seen as in bondage to sin, they need liberation. If humanity is spiritually blind, the desperate need is for illumination. If lost, they need to be found. Taking a kaleidoscopic view of atonement provides the freedom necessary to locate all of these needs within a view of the crucifixion.

3 Reasons Christian Blogs Fail

Christian blogs fail, not in attracting readers, but rather, to affect the world for the better. There is a vast difference between a theological blog and a blog whose author is incidentally a Christian. Nothing wrong with either position until one attempts to present themselves as the other. Here are three reasons that Christian blogs fail to connect with the uncountable readership of the interwebs.

1. Don’t Hold on to One Sided Arguments

There are many things that mainline Christians accept as settled fact. Google a handful of statements of faith, line them up next to one another and you will see what I mean. Outside of those things however, theology within the centuries old Christian faith ranges far and wide. Writers who fail to avail themselves of the depth and breadth of this theological history usually end up camping on one position without understanding why they are against the other positions that challenge their belief. Take Modalism for example. You read somewhere that it is wrong and your fellow theo-bloggers are not hesitant to throw the heresy flag when mentioning it but, do you know why they consider it a heresy? Simply saying something is wrong is not an argument. Before you go on the offensive or even just take a stand against a particular belief, educate yourself. Understand why the belief arose and why people believe(d) it. Study the proof texts offered in the context of the whole Bible, not just your theological framework. Be able to enter a discussion with something more than “because I said so.”

Oh, and Wikipedia is not to be considered a definitive source.

2. Don’t Be the Possessor of an Uninformed Theology

Discussing Christian theology and ecclesiology are immensely complex undertakings. It is an undertaking that requires study and meditation and no small amount of time seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit before you can be effective in your presentation. When you find yourself simply regurgitating the work of others (who have put in the blood, sweat, and tears to arrive at their conclusions) you are doing little more than diminishing the possible impact your post might have. If each of your posts contains the reference “so and so” says “this or that” as the basis for your theological position, I may as well simply go directly to the original thinker’s/author’s website and read the words directly. Any authority that you hope to embed in your writing comes from the reader’s trust in your knowledge. If, when a comment challenges your theological position, you cannot demonstrate an understanding of the challenger’s position you will lose the trust of not only that reader, but others who survey the whole conversation from a distance.

Oh, and John Piper, John Wesley, and James White are not always right.

3. Don’t be Self Serving

If your entire reason for blogging to promote yourself, do it in a different format. We have all seen blogs that have a thin veneer of Christianity that peels away to find every post being an exposition of how wonderful/altruistic/sacrificial the blogger himself is. Readers will soon discover that the faith is simply a jacket worn to give the blogger a reason to talk about themselves. Ask yourself how this affects the kingdom. Is it glorified or expanded or masked and diminished by the monumental ego that attempts to supersede it? This is not to say that personal entries, off topic asides, and the pride of sharing some accomplishment are out of place. Each is a part of the life we lead while still a part of this world. The ratio that the reader sees between personal and thematic posts will put on full display what is most important in the eyes of the blogger.

There are probably many more topics that could make this list but these are my top three. Then again, I could be wrong.

The Christus Victor View of Atonement

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:45)

It will surprise many readers to discover that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is a more recent development in the history of the Church and her doctrine. The theory that lays claim to being the standard view for many centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation was the Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) theory in which the atonement was seen as victory over Satan and the forces of evil. The central theme of this classic view is that Christ—Christus Victor—fought against and triumphed over the evil powers of the world to which humankind was in bondage. His demise overcame the hostile spiritual powers and, as a result of His sacrifice and victory, captive sinners were freed and given eternal life. This interpretation (known variously as the Classic, dramatic, or ransom theory) was the dominant church view for 1,000 years and remains the view of some contemporary theologians.

Christus Victor is a complex theory as viewed through the Scriptures. The reader must first see the motif of spiritual warfare that winds its way throughout the Bible. If this motif is placed in a primary position, the entire narrative of the Bible is viewed as the story of God’s ongoing battle with spiritual and human agents who oppose Him and threaten harm to His creation and His ultimate victory. The OT view that what occurred in the spiritual realm affected human history is encapsulated in Job 1-2 (Ps 82; Daniel 10). Yahweh is portrayed as continually at war with these forces and it is through his strength alone that chaos is held at bay. There is an acute awareness that the earth is held hostage to these evil forces such that only a radical move by God would be able to overcome them. Jesus spoke to the belief that Satan was the ruler of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). [This should not be understood as Satan higher in order than Jesus. Instead, he is to be viewed as the functional lord of this world.] Satan is portrayed as possessing ‘the kingdoms of the world’ (Luke 4:5-6; 1 John 5:19) and as having authority over them. Paul attributed the fundamental evil of the world’s systems (Gal 1:4) to this rule. Viewing the atonement through this prism logically sees Jesus as overcoming this rule and restoring control to the Trinity.

Ireaneus interpreted this motif by seeing Adam’s disobedience as placing humanity under the dominion of Satan. Rising from the dead, Christ conquered Satan releasing sinners from his control. This victory was foreseen in the great proto-evangelism of Genesis 3:15: …he will crush your head. Ireaneus wrote “Redeeming us with his blood, Christ gave himself as a ransom for those who had been led into captivity.” (Ireaneus, Against Heresies) Origen followed suit in this belief maintaining that because of sin, human beings were bound by Satan. He said that as a ransom payment for these souls, Satan demanded the blood of Christ. As God handed over Christ, Satan released his hostages. Later patristic writers such as John of Damascus took umbrage with the trade of the precious blood of Christ to Satan suggesting that what the devil received was an empty shell of Christ, tricking him.

The Theological Advantage of the Christus Victor View

Proponents of this view of atonement suggest that it is the superior theory because all of the other views are encompassed within its framework. It further offers that there is no temptation for people to suppose that they are participating in the kingdom when there is no evidence of the kingdom in their lives in contrast to the individual outlook of the western Church. Its focus is on the demonic dimension of fallen social structures. Theologically, the advantage proposed of the Christus Victor view is that it solves multiple problems simultaneously. Through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the All-Wise God was able to:

Defeat Satan and his cohort (Heb 2:14; 1 Jn 3:8)
Reconcile all things to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-19; Col 1:20-22)
Forgive our sins (Acts 13:38; Eph 1:7)
Healed our sin-corrupted nature (1 Pet 2:24)
Poured His Spirit on us and empowered us to live in relation to Himself (Rom 8:2-16)
Gave us an example to follow (Eph 5:1-2; 1 Pet 2:21)

Those who apply this theory of atonement see that it encompasses the variety of atonement views under a single theory where the others tend to emphasize one or two of the above points but not all of them.

Conclusion

Christ releasing humanity from the bondage of sin and Satan lies through His sacrifice is core of the Christus Victor view of atonement. It is a theory that spans the whole of the Bible from Genesis 3 to Revelation 20 and it was the dominant view of the early church. This theory is most often proposed as the framework into which the other narrower views can be organized because it covers such a wide range of theological issues. It also encourages the Christian to take seriously the devil, an idea which has fallen from favor in the modern Church.

Image by Leonard Matthews

The Penal Substitution View of Atonement

The dominant view of the Atonement among modern Evangelicals is the Penal Substitution view. Simply defined, this view says that God the Father, because of His immeasurable love for humanity, sent His Son to die to satisfy the demands of his justice. In doing so, Jesus Christ took the place of sinful humanity and once and for all was the atonement for all our sins. There are several key elements that support this theory but at its core is the notion that sin results in the just penalty of death (Rom 6:23) and that, in love, Christ died in our place (Rom 5:8). His death took the penalty for our sin (Rom 3:25-26) satisfying the demands of the Father’s justice.

Historical Development of the View

Early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Athtanasius included the idea of vicarious sacrifice in their understanding of the atonement but it was Augustine who synthesized the various themes into a comprehensive view of the Atonement. The penal substitution view became fully developed with the Protestant Reformers starting with Luther and then Calvin who formalized the ideas of Augustine into a cohesive whole.

We can use Calvin’s structure to understand the different aspects of vicarious sacrifice as he organized the idea through the use of three key theological concepts. Propitiation portrays Christ’s work in its Godward aspect. Through His sacrifice as our substitute Christ satisfied the demands of a just God: “The meaning, therefore, is, that God, to whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his Son, and made propitious to us.” (Ref Rom 5:11 Calvin, Institutes II, xvii, 3). The idea of redemption encapsulates the humanward focus of Christ’s work on the Cross. (“Death held us under its yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us from it. This the Apostle means when he says, “that he tasted death for every man,”” (Heb. 2:9) ibid, II, xvi, 7). Lastly, to speak of reconciliation is to bring into view both the Godward and humanward aspects of Christ’s work. His death and resurrection serves to reconcile those who were previously separated by enmity and unholiness. (“These words (1 John 4:10) clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ.”, ibid II, xvii, 2).

Calvin also made a significant contribution to the understanding of atonement through his exegesis of Christ’s mediatorial work in the three offices of prophet, king, and priest. (cf. Institutes II 15:1-6) As prophet, Jesus proclaimed the grace of God and He assists the Church in her proclamation of the gospel message. Jesus the King rules over, guides, and protects the Church and as Priest, He expiated her sins by His sacrifice and even now intercedes on her behalf. We must remember that Calvin’s use of Church represents the New Testament view of the Church as the whole body of redeemed believers and not the organization itself. To those outside of the Church, he represents these three offices in name only.

The Necessity of Sacrifice

The violence of this view of atonement has been a challenge to theologians through the centuries and many, especially in modern times, have tried to posit alternative theories that move away from the theory. Why sacrifice was needed by God is necessary to understand in order to grasp penal substitution and this section will outline the conditions that form the answer. First, one must accept the sinfulness of humanity and how seriously God considers that sin. All humanity is sinful and in rebellion toward God (Rom 3:23). How seriously does God view our repeated failures, regardless of severity? Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden for one sin because His standard is perfection. James 2:11 reminds us that we are evaluated in the same light; a single sin brands us as a lawbreaker (cf Gal 3:10). Humanity requires atonement because of our sin and the fact that it makes us the enemies of God.

Cannot God simply forget about sin? To answer this question requires that we view sin correctly, as an affront to the very character of God. Our sin is not impersonal. The requirements of holiness are not externally imposed. Rather, the norms of the law express God’s character, the beauty and holiness of His person. Because sin violates God’s law (1 John 3:4) it is so heinous because it is personal rebellion against the person of God. To restate this idea, your sin is a personal attack against the person of God, not just an infraction against an arbitrary set of rules that He composed. The personal nature of sin defiles the holiness of God and it requires retribution. His judgment of sin represents His personal anger at sin (Jer 2:13) and human rejection of His lordship.

Sin, by its personal nature, must be atoned for by sacrifice. Therefore, if humanity is to be redeemed there must be a penal substitute if we are to avoid the punishment our sin invites. Into this world, God sent Jesus Christ to be the sacrifice that would take on our sins (Isa 53, cf. Lev 16:21-22 to view the substitution in practice.) Only the appropriate sacrifice is acceptable to the Holy demands of justice and Christ alone fulfills that requirement (Rom 3:25-26) and removes the curse of sin (Gal 3:10-14). Through His sacrifice believers are redeemed (Mk 10:45).

Conclusion

Penal substitution does not represent all that needs to be said about atonement but it is often seen as the foundation of all other theories of atonement because it focuses its attention Godward. It seeks to explain how human beings are reconciled to God and the reasons for the initial discord. God is holy and righteous and must judge the rebellion of those who sin against His Lordship. His love desires to redeem them but his justice requires payment of the appropriate penalty. Christ is the only appropriate substitute unless we are to stand for judgment on our own merits.

Atonement – The Greatest Human Need

“But how can a mortal be righteous before God?” Job 9:2

“The atonement is the crucial doctrine of the faith. Unless we are right here it matters little, or so it seems to me, what we are like elsewhere.” Leon Morris The Cross in the New Testament

For many, bringing up the doctrine of atonement leads to a discussion of whether or not its scope is limited or unlimited. Atonement as a theological topic often ends there, though occasionally the mention of alternative view leads to a vehement exhortation that penal substitution is the only acceptable view on the matter. For something so critical to the Christian life, there is scant consideration of the depth and breadth of views on how and why Christ performed this sacrificial task on our behalf.

My next set of doctrinal posts are going to explore the wide range of views that the Church has held at various times in its history on the doctrine of atonement. Many people will discover that there numerous ways that Christians have understood atonement beyond the most commonly expressed view of Evangelicals, penal substitution. It is important to keep in mind that the various emphases and approaches to understanding atonement may differ on their constructions they all come to the same conclusion: the work of Jesus Christ on the cross reconciled a sinful people and a holy God.

Atonement, in all of its theories and views, is specifically the reconciliation with God over the problem of sin. 1 John 2:1-2 summarize the idea well:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

As reconciled people we are at peace with God rather than continuing to be His enemies. Christ’s death has removed the enmity between us and has appeased the wrath of God. The propitiation full satisfied every one of the righteous demands of God, a necessary transaction as His holiness does not allow God to simply overlook our sin. As redeemed humans, Christ has purchased us out of bondage to sin and we become His servants. His sacrifice was the act that allowed us to be declared righteous, pardoning us and ending our separation from God. As John Wesley wrote, “Nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of atonement.”

Image kb2qqm

Hell and The Fire of Purgatory

The idea of Purgatory is the last of the major doctrinal positions that Christians hold on Hell and the final things. It is almost exclusively held by the Roman Catholic church with very few Protestant theologians finding the position credible. Purgatory refers to a state or condition where souls come to rest between the final destinations of Heaven and Hell. The soul in purgatory endures a purifying suffering necessary to prepare them for the final judgment. After that day, according the the Catholic theology, Purgatory will cease to exist as its mission will be fulfilled.

The idea of an interim state is not unusual in general Christian theology. It answers the question, “what happens when we die?” The popular idea of immediate ascent or descent does not take into account the scriptural references to a day of final judgment in the future in which some are assigned to perdition and others to glory. Purgatory is the Catholic attempt to explain this state, expanded to include the notion of purification.

The symbolism of purgation is not rooted in Christianity but is widespread throughout all religious history. It is bound up in the distance of holiness between gods and men and in the human desire to approach the gods. The perfection of the gods requires that the human affect some measure of holiness themselves in order to stand in the god’s presence. The holiness is gained by a purifying ritual that takes many forms. As it was adopted in Catholic theology, this purifying process included a measure of punishment for the sinner according to their faults in their earthly life. The punishment is sped along by the mortal intercession of the Church and the sinner’s survivors. Catholics understand human nature as not perfect but not perfectly horrible either. Purgatory grants them an extension on their ability to be perfected for the next phase of eternal life.

What do the scriptures say about Purgatory? Very little if anything at all but we need to understand the Roman Catholic approach to the scriptures and theology in order to understand the formulation of the doctrine. In the Apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees contains a passage that supported the historical development of the doctrine. In the context of the text, some of the soldiers of Judas Maccabeus were wearing idolatrous amulets when they were killed in battle. Judas took up a collection as an expiatory sacrifice intended to release the dead from their sin.

They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.

Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. (2 Maccabees 12:41-46)

In the New Testament, some will read in Matthew a similar reference:

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in in this age or in the age to come. (Mt 12:31-32)

The Catholic reading of this passage points to the possibility of being forgiven in the next world. Protestant theologians (cf Eph 1:21) do not generally share this reading. Catholic theologians will admit that the scripture is ambiguous at best and will also readily state that the doctrine is rooted in tradition rather than sola scriptura. Tradition will cause the Catholic reader to understand these and other passages in the light of the Roman Catholic theology of grace and works.

Conclusion

For the Roman Catholic, purgatory is a final opportunity in death to find our love for God. It is a state of His continuing grace and mercy to continue to seek a way in which the human might be restored to holiness and finally to God’s presence. Mortal intercession can aid those who find themselves suffering in a purification process until the day of judgment when Heaven or Hell will be the only choices remaining.

Image Mike_fj40

Total Annihilation or Eternity in Hell

“’Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.” (Luke 16:24)

God is love. (1 John 4:16)

There is a difficult tension that many believers confront when the doctrine of eternal punitive condemnation in Hell is contrasted to the pure love and holiness of God. How could a God of such love and mercy create such a place as the torturous horror of the chambers of Hell? Not only that, how would he condemn his creations to this painful punishment forever? In the course of answering these questions and responding to a call for the reconsideration of the doctrine of Hell, the concept of Annihilationism has been created. This school of thought believes that although not everyone will be saved (cf: universalism), those who are not saved will not face unending punishment. Instead, those not saved will simply cease to exist; they will be destroyed or annihilated. The core belief that supports this modified doctrine is that no one, regardless of the enormity of their sin, deserves eternal suffering.

A form of annihilationism known as conditional immortality states that the human being in his nature is mortal. Those who die unredeemed will be allowed by God to pass out of existence while the believer is granted immortality so that they survive death. A more developed form of this doctrine sees the unredeemed participating in the resurrection but that they will again pass out of existence while the saved enjoy the new heavens and new earth. Another form of annihilation envisions a period of punishment but that it is not eternal. After some measure of time has passed, perhaps in proportion to the sinfulness of the person, the soul finally ceases to exist.

The difficulty with annihilation is that there is little direct support in the Scriptures for the doctrine. The typical annihilationist reads the passages that refer to the final states, specifically those referring to destruction, literally. For example, Matthew 7:13 says:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

The word destruction is interpreted literally as matter being destroyed, fulfilling the annihilationist’s view of the end state. The Greek word apoleian does not support this literal interpretation but English readers have continued to do so. The annihilationist must also explain the number of passages that support the eternal measure of perdition. Many complex scriptural structures have been constructed to perform this task but the majority of the Church has not been convinced.

Image formerthings

Hell, Metaphorically Speaking

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mt 14:40-41)

Could a God whose primary characteristic is His love truly condemn sinners to an everlasting punishment of fiery pain and unending agony? This is one of the first questions that must be answered in a theological examination of the doctrine of Hell. Could such a thing be literally true? In the previous post, the literal view says that there is a Hell and that it is as described in the Bible, a place of eternal punishment.

A second approach to Hell is known as the metaphorical view which denies that the Bible does not support a literal picture of a burning abyss. Some say that this has become the dominant evangelical view and that it best aligns with the revelation of Scripture. At the heart of this position is the exegetical understanding that the images of Hellfire and brimstone are not meant to be interpreted as literal depictions of hell. Instead, they are to be read as figurative language intended to warn the sinful of their impending doom. Jean Calvin was a supporter of the metaphorical view saying that the ‘eternal fire’ in passages such as Matthew 3:12 are better understood metaphorically. Luther also dismissed the horrific images of Hell portrayed by the artist, saying they held no value in the discussion. Proponents of the metaphorical view are careful to limit discussion of the description of Hell to only what is revealed in the scriptures. It is noted by this camp that many of the impressions of Hell that we hold today have come from the fanciful imaginations of authors outside of the Bible.

Is there an adequate foundation for this approach to Scripture? The first assurance that the metaphorical camp issues is that they in no way intend to do away with the doctrine of Hell. There will be a judgment of all people to perdition or peace. With this point established, the question of how to approach the texts on this matter must be answered. The metaphorical view states that it was common practice to use hyperbolic language (rabbinic hyperbole, which would include Jesus) to emphasize their points. A pair of texts from different contexts give examples of this type of language:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” (Lk 14:26)

“If your right eye causes you to do, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Mt 5:29)

Do we take these statements literally and gouge our eyes out or hate our beloved? No, and nor did Jesus intend for these statements to be taken literally. In the portrait of Hell that the Scriptures provided, especially in the NT, hyperbole is utilized in order to emphasize the end that awaits those who do not follow Christ into a positive judgment. It was common in Jewish literature to use vivid pictures in order to demonstrate that God has ordained an end to wickedness.

The image and use of fire in Jewish literature is often non-literal. It is used to portray the gravity or seriousness of a situation and not necessarily an intense heat or consuming flame. [ In the NT, examples of this usage include Rev 1:14, Luke 12:49, 1 Cor 3:15, James 3:5-6. ] The use of fire in conjunction with Hell is understood to be a convenient image portraying the intensity of the burning wrath of God. The imagery that is provided is meant to convey the seriousness of the final judgment and it was to included to bring gravity to the entire message of the gospel. The decision to ignore the message is at your own peril, it is not a decision to be dismissed without thought.

Proponents of the metaphorical view support their understanding of the figurative language by examining the language used to describe Heaven. If the scriptural images of Heaven are examined the reader discovers a thoroughly first century picture of the place of eternal rest. It is portrayed as a magnificent city built of gold and jewels and surrounded by high walls, something that is unseen in the modern world. We must ask why the image doesn’t portray a Los Angeles or Paris, modern day magnificent cities. The metaphorical camp challenges the hermeneutic used to interpret the imagery, asking, doesn’t God use images appropriate to the time to help readers of a specific era comprehend His message?

Conclusion

The metaphorical view of Hell interprets the imagery used to described the place/condition of the wicked following the final judgment as figurative. The images of fire and sulfuric smoke are not to be taken literally. They are hyperbolic vignettes meant to convey the serious nature of the judgment and the need to align one’s life appropriately. The metaphorical view does not deny the reality of Hell, it simply challenges the horrific punitive imagery that has developed over the years from the snippets of revelation in the Bible.

Image Jan Hoogendoorn