Why I Accept Aspects of Free Grace Theology

Well, there—I said it! And it’s true: I accept some aspects of Free Grace theology. Now before you Google “Free Grace theology” and assume that I affirm everything you read about it, please take the time to read this post and allow me to explain my views.

 Now, why am I writing this post as if it’s some big revelation? Well, because in the circles that I minister in, it potentially is a big revelation. Free Grace theology was a point of some debate at my alma mater, Calvary University, and it has been the subject of heated debate at times within my pastoral fellowship, IFCA International. That means that I have dear friends who will disagree with me on this subject—and who may not yet know the positions that I take.

 To give you some sense of the greater landscape here, the aspects of Free Grace theology that I affirm put me at odds on some issues with a wide swath of very popular Bible teachers—people whom I generally respect greatly, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and basically everyone associated with The Gospel Coalition and the Together for the Gospel Conference. If you’re familiar with some theology and the evangelical landscape, you’ll notice the main thing that the aforementioned teachers universally embrace—Calvinism, either a moderate or strong form of it. As I’ll note later, the root of my disagreement with these men grows from one of the underpinnings of strong Calvinism—namely, a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 Let me sum up the essence of what I want to say before I touch on some details: I hold to a moderately Calvinistic view of justification (becoming born again), but I hold to a Free Grace view of sanctification (growing as a Christian)—particularly on the question of how to find assurance of salvation. Lest anyone think I’m theologically bipolar, the rest of this post will explain what I deny and what I affirm with respect to Free Grace theology and how I think this marriage between moderate Calvinism and Free Grace theology is logically necessary for anyone who does not wish to embrace a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 One more summary statement before I turn to details. This statement will be helpful for anyone who is familiar with the teachers who are on the moderate Calvinist—Free Grace spectrum: I find myself having substantial disagreements with Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, but I find myself in substantial agreement with Charles Ryrie (So Great Salvation), Paul Benware (The Believer’s Payday), Norman Geisler (Chosen But Free; Systematic Theology) and Joseph Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings). I’m certain those men would have some disagreements with each other, but collectively their works have shaped my thinking considerably.

 And now, on to the details.

 What I Deny with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I deny that repentance can be separated from saving faith.

The relationship between repentance and saving faith is a hot-button issue in Free Grace circles, with some Free Grace teachers viewing repentance as something of a Trojan horse that has been used to smuggle works into the Gospel. For my part, I believe repentance IS necessary for a person to be born again. I define repentance as a change of mind about one’s sinfulness and the person and work of Christ. It is simply the recognition and acknowledgement of one’s terrible predicament due to sin, which then serves as a preparation leading to faith in Christ. And yes, I’m comfortable saying that this change of mind will affect how one behaves and lives—though a little later I will criticize the idea that measuring spiritual fruit is a biblically commanded, sure-fire means of proving whether or not a person has truly repented.

 To clarify what some Free Grace teachers have said with respect to repentance, consider this statement from the Grace Evangelical Society (taken from their website at https://faithalone.org/beliefs/): “No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life.” This statement includes baptism, which I’ll just exclude for the sake of this discussion because I think it’s a different issue.

 Excluding baptism, I’m not sure why any of the attitudes mentioned in that statement have to be construed as a work that would earn us merit in the sight of God. I think those attitudes simply arise naturally as one realizes his sinfulness and his danger of going to Hell and then realizes the true nature of the One who died for His sins and offers him forgiveness. I’m not even sure why someone would trust in Christ if he acknowledged his sins but felt no sorrow over them! Even submitting to the lordship of Christ should flow naturally from the recognition that I have been rebelling against my Creator but He now shows me incomprehensible grace and mercy for the sake of Christ.

 As I said before, I think a problem does arise when it is assumed—on the basis of a determinist view of God’s sovereignty—that repentance will unfailingly lead to a consistently observable degree of spiritual maturity in the life of a believer. But more on that later…

 I deny that The Gospel of John is the only book that should be used to establish the Gospel message.

Some Free Grace proponents have argued this point based on the explicitly evangelistic purpose of The Gospel of John. Because of this purpose, they have said, The Gospel of John surely contains all the essential elements of the message that one must know in order to be saved. Furthermore, it is argued, since the word “repentance” is not used in The Gospel of John, then repentance must not be necessary for a person to be saved.

 I won’t belabor this point so that I can get on to some other issues, but I will say that surely the concept of repentance is found in John’s Gospel even if he doesn’t use that specific word. And why can’t we look to Peter’s evangelistic message in Acts 2 to help us define the Gospel? Why must we exclude Paul’s evangelistic message at the Areopagus in Acts 17? If such passages are equally inspired, it seems arbitrary to say that they should be excluded from our efforts to define the content of the Gospel.

 I deny the “Cross-less Gospel.”

The so-called “Cross-less Gospel” arose from a thought experiment offered by Zane Hodges in an issue of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In it, he envisioned a man on an island who knew nothing about Christianity. This man noticed a piece of paper wash ashore on which he could read these words from John 6:43-47—“Jesus answered and said to them…Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Hodges argued that this man could become born again despite knowing nothing more about the “Jesus” who was mentioned on the paper—even knowing nothing about Christ’s death on the cross. Hence the name, “the cross-less Gospel.”

 On the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I have to disagree with Hodges’ conclusion. In light of Paul’s summary of the Gospel message, the man-on-the-island’s knowledge was simply inadequate. He knew nothing about his sinfulness, nothing about Jesus’ status as the Christ and what that means, nothing about the resurrection of Christ. I think Hodges makes a valid point that it can be hard to avoid arbitrariness in announcing what a person must know in order to be saved, but from 1 Cor 15:1-4, I think a knowledge about sin, Christ’s death, and the resurrection can hardly be called arbitrary.

 What I Affirm with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I affirm that genuine believers can become fruitless and lead lives that produce little that is of eternal value.

This claim is perhaps the hallmark of Free Grace theology, and I affirm it on the basis of passages such as John 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Peter 1:5-11. Notice that I said “become fruitless” because I believe that all Christians manifest some spiritual fruit upon being born again. If we look at the fruits listed in Galatians 5:22-23, I would say that every believer manifests at least joy and peace upon conversion. Indeed, it seems typical for new converts to manifest spiritual fruit for a time, but as the Lord warned in John 15:1-8, if we do not remain closely connected to Him (abide), then we can become fruitless, for apart from Him we can do nothing of any spiritual value.

 Let me briefly comment on 2 Peter 1:5-11 since it includes a verse that Calvinists often use to encourage people to search for assurance of salvation by examining their lives for spiritual fruit. This text states:

 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (ESV).

 To cut to the chase for the sake of this post, notice that in v. 9, Peter affirms that a person who “was cleansed from his former sins” can, in fact, lack the qualities that he outlined in vv. 5-7—the very qualities that will keep a person from being ineffective or unfruitful according to v. 8. Peter is clearly talking about a saved person in v. 9, so I can only conclude that a saved person might very well lack the qualities of vv. 5-7 and thus become unfruitful for Christ according to v. 8.

 It is very significant that the context includes v. 10, a verse that strong Calvinists interpret as a command for believers to seek assurance of salvation. Strong Calvinists argue furthermore that such a search is to be made by examining one’s life for consistent patterns of and appropriate levels of spiritual fruit. But is this likely to be how Peter would encourage a person to seek assurance of salvation, given what he just wrote in vv. 5-9? He just affirmed that a person who was cleansed from his former sins might lack the qualities that allow him to produce spiritual fruit! If we take that affirmation seriously, it seems that such an examination of one’s life could yield a “false negative”—that is, that a saved person could conclude he is unsaved because he does not see (or at least thinks he does not see) the requisite amount of spiritual fruit in his life (whatever the “requisite” amount is said to be). This observation leads me to my next point regarding the assurance of salvation.

 I affirm that complete assurance of salvation is possible and is to be found through trust in God’s promises in Scripture.

When it comes to assurance of salvation, what Calvinism gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. This reality has often been the punch line of jokes among theology nerds—that Calvinists are sure they can’t lose their salvation but can’t be sure they ever had it in the first place! But this humor brings an unsettling thought to the surface—why does Calvinism find assurance of salvation to be such a difficult hurdle to clear? Does this struggle point to a flaw within the system? I believe it does, and as I’ll explain in a moment, the fault lies in the deterministic engine that drives the Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.

 If becoming born again truly is a free gift, and there is nothing more that I must do to receive it than to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus, then I should be able to know with complete assurance that I am saved. True, a deeper understanding of the Gospel will be extremely beneficial whenever doubts arise, but this deeper understanding can be achieved by looking again at precisely what Jesus has accomplished for me and at what God has promised to me on the basis of Christ’s work. Examining my life for spiritual fruit is necessary for other reasons, but not for establishing the assurance of my salvation. I contend that assurance and spiritual fruit could only be so inextricably joined together if determinism is true, so let me now turn to that subject.

 Why I Affirm What I Do

I reject the determinism that underlies strong Calvinism.

Determinism is the view that God establishes all things in such a way that they could not be different than what they are. Applied to human choices, it means that for any given choice you made yesterday, for example, you could not have chosen to do differently than what you actually did. To be sure, determinists affirm that humans make choices for which they are responsible, but they argue that this is simply a point at which our understanding of God’s ways fades into mystery. That’s fair enough, because even if one takes a different view of God’s sovereignty, we all have to acknowledge a point at which our understanding can go no further.

 My concern is that determinism just seems thoroughly unscriptural. For example, 1 Corinthians 10:13 states that God “will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” According to this verse, anytime a believer gives in to temptation, he could have chosen differently than he actually did. Moreover, determinism would mean that commands in the Bible do not present actual alternative courses of action that a person could take. In a moment of decision, a person’s choice would have already been made for him, and it could not be otherwise. Moreover, I don’t know how determinists hope to offer a plausible explanation of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37--"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” What sense can we make out of this if we have to say that God had determined that they would be unwilling and they could not have possibly been otherwise!?

 Now, what does this have to do with Calvinism and assurance of salvation? The Calvinist’s logic, based as it is on determinism, goes as follows: if God will unfailingly bring the elect to be born again, then He will also unfailingly bring them to spiritual maturity. The implication is clear—if you do not grow to spiritual maturity (given enough time, and as evidenced by sufficient spiritual fruit) then you are not saved.

 But if determinism is false, there does not seem to be a certain degree of spiritual maturity that every believer will unfailingly achieve. That point seems abundantly clear from 1 Corinthians 3:15—there will be believers whose life work will be spiritually worthless, and “he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” If your theological system can’t account for the reality of such believers, then I think there’s just something out of whack with your theological system. For this reason, I think Free Grace theology is superior to Calvinism on these questions of sanctification and assurance of salvation.

Are you dissatisfied with both Calvinism and Arminianism? There's another option you should consider...

            For roughly the last 400 years, Protestants seeking a systematic understanding of the doctrine of salvation have basically had their pick of two options—Calvinism and Arminianism. This dilemma has often been unsatisfactory to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool adherents of each system because no matter which system you chose, you would eventually run across passages of Scripture that your system didn’t explain very well. Despite that fact, we’ve felt like we’ve basically just had to pick one or the other and live with its flaws because there didn’t seem to be any other options.

            Could it be that we’ve been caught on the horns of a false dilemma? Is there actually another option to consider—one that can capture the stronger points of Calvinism and Arminianism in a biblically accurate, logically coherent way? I have come to believe that there is, and it is a system known as Molinism.

            Molinism takes its name from the 15th-century Jesuit priest, Luis de Molina. Yes, that’s right—the way through this Protestant impasse may be to rediscover the thinking of a Jesuit priest! The Protestant version of Molinism—to no one’s surprise!—does not embrace every detail of Molina’s theology. It is built upon his unique contribution to the concept of God’s omniscience—namely, the doctrine of middle knowledge. This doctrine asserts that before God ever chose to create this world, He already possessed an accurate and certain knowledge of every decision that every free creature would make in any given circumstance. Molina further asserted that God possessed this knowledge NOT through any process of learning, but simply on the basis of His complete knowledge of His own imagination. Since we are products of God’s imagination, He could know us completely without having to “wait and see” what we would choose, so to speak.

            As you can see, the doctrine of middle knowledge is built upon a prior commitment to the idea that humans possess libertarian human freedom—or in other words, the power of contrary choice. These phrases simply mean that for any choice you make, you could have made a different choice than you actually made. For example, when you made the choice to wear the shirt that you’re wearing today, you could have actually chosen the other shirt that you were also considering. Libertarian human freedom stands at odds with theological determinism (or compatibilism), which asserts that God has ordered all things in such a way that for any choice you make, you could not have made a different choice than you actually made. Theological determinism is the position of logically-consistent Calvinists. I say “logically-consistent” because your average Calvinist in the pulpit or the pew is very inconsistent in his philosophical beliefs. He appreciates Calvinist perspectives on ideas like eternal security and election (as do I), but he would shy away from the full implications of Calvinism’s denial of libertarian human freedom. Yet he does this without realizing he is straining the bonds of logic.

            But let’s get back to Molinism! While Molinism embraces libertarian human freedom, it does not sacrifice a strong view of God’s sovereignty. It affirms that God is in control over all things—even the free choices of humans! This union explains why I’ve come to think Molinism has such promise—it logically and biblically unites libertarian human freedom with a strong view of God’s sovereignty. According to philosopher William Hasker, “If you are committed to a strong view of providence, according to which, down to the smallest detail, things are as they are because God knowingly decided to create such a world, and yet you also wish to maintain a libertarian conception of free will—if this is what you want, then Molinism is the only game in town.” This is precisely what many Christians want after carefully reading the Bible. It seems obvious that God is in control of all things AND that humans make real choices which they could have decided differently. Molinism helps us understand logically the conclusions that so many people have reached biblically.

            Since you might now begin to Google “Molinism,” let me just say that I don’t agree with everything that is promoted under this banner. If you are interested in studying Molinism further, I would recommend Kenneth Keathley’s book Salvation and Sovereignty as a great starting point. If you have mostly understood what I’ve written in this blog post, then you will be able to track with Keathley’s book. Plus, his book is a book, so he goes into more detail to explain ideas than I have in just this one blog post. I may write some additional posts on this topic, but if this post has already piqued your curiosity, you would do well to read Keathley’s book.

The Bible--God's Message to Mankind ("Definite Convictions in a Do-Whatever World" Series)

Note: This sermon is the beginning of a new, occasional series on my church's Statement of Faith. I will be preaching from our Statement of Faith on the Sundays that we celebrate The Lord's Supper together.      

     

Section 1 of our Statement of Faith is entitled, “Verbal Inspiration,” and it states: “We believe that all Scripture of the Old and New Testament is God-Breathed, is inerrant in the original writings and is the supreme and final authority in all matters of life, faith, and practice (2 Tim. 3:16, Matt 4:4, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Rom 15:4).”

            This title, “Verbal Inspiration,” simply means that God’s involvement with the writing of Scripture extended all the way to the very words that the human authors chose to use to express their message. In other words, God didn’t just give the human authors of the Bible some grand and lofty ideas and then leave them on their own to put those ideas down in writing. That would’ve left the writing process vulnerable to all the imperfections of human beings.

            For example, we’ve all experienced the frustration of having an idea in our minds but not being able to find just the right words to express it. In the end, we sometimes have to settle with an imprecise or incomplete expression of what we truly had on our minds.

            So is that what we have with the Bible? Is it just the best attempt of the human authors to communicate all that God had placed in their minds? No – not at all! God’s involvement in the writing led the entire process from beginning to end, so that even the very words the authors chose to use were the words that God desired for them to use.

            The first statement of this section says, “We believe that all Scripture of the Old and New Testament is God-Breathed.” What does this term “God-Breathed” mean? Well, it comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 [READ 2 Tim 3:16-17]. This picture of God breathing out the Scriptures tells us that he is the ultimate source and origin of the Scriptures. Even though it was actually human beings who put pen to paper in order to write the Bible, its message ultimately came from God.

            Think of it like a musician playing a beautiful piece of music on an instrument. Yes, the musician uses the instrument to produce the sound, but the music is ultimately coming from the musician, not the instrument. So it is with the Bible – God used human authors to produce the documents, but the message is ultimately from him.

            The second statement declares that the Scripture “is inerrant in the original writings.” This declaration means that the documents produced by the original authors were free of any mistakes or errors. Therefore, the Bible tells us the truth and nothing but the truth.

            In this statement, though, why do we only focus on the original writings as being free of errors? The reason is that we know mistakes have been made in the copying process that has taken place from that time until now. For example, in 1631, a new edition of the King James Bible was printed in England that became known as "The Wicked Bible" because the printers accidently left out the word "not" in the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery!” Thus, their Bible made it sound like God was commanding everyone to commit adultery!

            Now how do we know that this was an error? It’s because we have thousands upon thousands of other copies of the Bible that say, “thou shalt not commit adultery.” By comparing all of these copies together, we can spot locations in individual copies where mistakes have been made – such as in The Wicked Bible. By this process of comparison, then, we can eliminate those mistakes and know that we have an accurate copy of what the original authors wrote.

            The final statement of this section says that the Bible, “is the supreme and final authority in all matters of life, faith, and practice.” Notice how comprehensive that statement is – the Bible is the final authority for how I live, what I believe, and for how we do things in the church. This respect toward the Bible is simply the logical response to the fact that the Bible is ultimately a message from God. He is our Creator, our Lord, our Savior, and our Master, so whatever he has declared for us is the standard by which we must measure all things.

Monday Matters

            Now at this point you may be thinking, “This is wonderful information, Pastor Tim, and if I ever end up on Jeopardy it may help me to know what verbal inspiration means. But what difference does this make for my life?”

            That is a fair – and very important – question! When we wake up tomorrow morning, we will have to deal with Monday matters all over again. We’ll have to get the kids out the door and get them to school, and perhaps little Johnny is falling behind in a certain subject and will have to wrestle with some complicated decisions about what to do. And perhaps you’ll head off to another day at a job that you don’t really enjoy, and you’ll put in one more day just so you can pay those bills that are breathing down your neck.

            When you have to deal with those realities, what difference does it make that you know these truths about the Bible? In each sermon in this series, we’ll deal with this question, because it is very important to know how doctrine does connect with daily life.

            In today’s case, the great comfort and help we receive can be summarized like this:

In the Bible, we have a source of divine wisdom and food for the soul.

            In life, we have to deal with so many different decisions that can feel so complicated. Sometimes it’s hard just to form your own opinion, and then on top of that, you may have to sort through all kinds of advice from other people. It can all be so confusing, but in the midst of that confusion, we have a source of light, piercing through the fog, showing us the direction to take.

            The Bible gives us a framework for thinking that is not based on the limited understanding and perspective of men. It comes from above the fray, from a vantage point of unlimited knowledge and wisdom, untainted by sinfulness, and unfazed by the passage of time. The Bible helps us to align our priorities in the proper order so that we can accurately weigh the various options that may be available to us in any situation.

            So as we deal with the complexities of life, we don’t have to simply lean on our own understanding, which is so limited and filled with blind spots because of our own sinfulness. Instead, we can have the confidence that we are following a path that has been laid out by divine wisdom and infinite love. Our Statement of Faith references Romans 15:4, which says, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Remember that hope is the biblical optimism that we have through the instruction and promises of God. It is a biblical optimism, which remembers – as the Apostle Paul stated – that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God, but hope is optimistic nonetheless because it is confident in God’s ability to fulfill his promises.

            So we can see how this divine wisdom is also food for our souls. The Bible nourishes us and sustains us spiritually when we grow so weary because of life in this world. Each one of us knows that even after we have fed our bodies, we can still be malnourished if we have not fed our souls. You can feast on the finest cuts of meat and the most delectable desserts and yet still be empty inside because your soul is fatigued and underfed.

            But the Bible provides the nourishment and sustenance for our souls to give us spiritual energy so that we don’t have to feel beat down and worn out as we go through life. As Jesus himself said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” We find these precious words in his holy book, the Bible, and drinking them in will quench the thirst of even the driest soul.           

           

God's Pervasive Presence--Attributes of God Series

            1 Kings 20 records the details of a war between the people of Israel and their northern neighbors, the Syrians. The children of Israel were victorious in the first battle, much to the dismay of the Syrians, and later on, as the Syrian leaders gathered for coffee at the local café, they tried to figure out why they had lost. One of the leaders said, “Aha! Why didn’t we think of this before? They beat us because they had home-field advantage! Their god must be a god of the hills, so next time let’s fight them down in the plains, and our gods will give us the victory.”

            After that conversation, the Lord sent a prophet to the king of Israel, who said, “Because the Syrians think I’m only the god of the hills and not the god of the plains, I’m going to give them all into your hand.” In that moment, God wanted to make a crystal-clear distinction between himself and the so-called “gods” of the other nations—the God of Israel, the God of the Bible, cannot be assigned to one location as if His power were only operative there. Rather, the testimony of Scripture is that our God—the true God—is in all places. He is king in all places and every place at the same time.

            In other words, God’s presence is pervasive—He is in all places at once. This characteristic of God is often called His “omnipresence,” and today, I want to look at this idea so that we can understand our God in better detail, and think about some implications of God’s pervasive presence in His creation.

Where is this idea found in Scripture?

            The clearest expression of this idea is also the most moving and memorable. It is found in Psalm 139:7-12. In this psalm, David had just stated how thoroughly God knows him, and now we read that part of the reason for that knowledge is that God is everywhere. I know in years past, I have read these verses as if David was trying to run away and hide from God—probably because of the word “flee” in v. 7—but upon a closer look, these verses don’t have to be understood that way. In fact, it seems that just the opposite is the case—David sees God’s presence as comforting and reassuring [READ Ps. 139:7-12]. Notice how David considers various factors like distance, speed, and even a condition like darkness and concludes that none of these things can separate us from God. He is with us!

            But how can God be with you in your house and also with me in my house at the same time? It’s important for us to remember that God does not have the limitation of a physical body like we do. John 4:24 states that God is spirit, which means that He doesn’t have flesh and bones like we do. My body can only be in one place at one time, but since God doesn’t have the limitation of a physical body, that is one reason that he can be omnipresent.

“You’ve got some ‘splainin to do!”

            We should clarify at this point just what we are claiming when we say that God is “omnipresent.” As much as it pains me to say this, since I love these movies, the Star Wars movies have popularized some ideas that some people have wrongly associated with God. People have been tempted to draw parallels between God and “The Force” in the Star Wars movies, but we really don’t want to make that connection.

            In Star Wars, The Force is a kind of power that flows through humans and rocks and trees and spaceships and everything that exists. That idea is actually based on a religious belief called “pantheism,” which comes from religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. But when we say that God is omnipresent, we should not be thinking that God is somehow inside the wood that makes up my pulpit, or that He is somehow inside the pew that you’re sitting on.

            What we are actually claiming is that God is aware of all that is happening in every corner of creation and that He is active in every corner of creation—all at the same time. When we say that God is omnipresent, that should be the idea that we have in mind, rather than some notion that God is inside the carpet or the drywall or the lightbulbs.

Unique Reminders of God’s Presence

            Now, God does, at times, give unique reminders of His presence to specific people in specific places. One familiar example of this kind of act of God is the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night that accompanied the people of Israel during the Exodus, when they fled from their slavery in Egypt. That pillar wasn’t visible from every place on the planet! It was in a specific location, and from time to time it would move to a new location to show the people where to go.

            In such moments, when God offers a unique reminder of His presence, He does so to teach people important lessons. Think about what the children of Israel should have learned from that pillar of cloud and fire. God wanted to teach them lessons like:

·         “I am here to guide you”

·         “I am here to protect you” (like when Pharaoh chased after them)

·         “I am here to provide for you” (giving them light and warmth by night).

            Of course, the greatest example of God making His presence known in order to teach us was the Incarnation, when Jesus added a human nature to His person. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known (NET Bible).”

Some Implications of God’s Omnipresence

1. His knowledge about me is first-hand knowledge

            I am repeating this thought from my sermon on God’s omniscience, but I think it bears repeating here. Since God is personally aware of everything that is going on in creation, then He personally knows everything that is going on with me. I think this observation is comforting, because so many of our problems with each other are either created or exaggerated by misinformation—for example, someone hears a piece of gossip about you and they start to act differently around you. Perhaps they’re less friendly or less open with you—all because they heard something about you that didn’t reflect the truth.

            But we don’t have to worry about any such issues with God! He doesn’t have to seek information about us from some other source—He sees us, so He has direct knowledge about us. This thought is also the second implication.

2. God always sees what is happening to us and what we are up to

            Many situations in life can move us to think, “God, where are you?” Though it may not feel like God is always with us, that is only an appearance; it is not the reality. God sees all that is happening to us. He sees when people sin against us; He sees when people are kind to us. He sees it all!

            He also sees what we are up to, and this thought should be a powerful reminder for us as we make choices in life. The temptations we face always look more appealing when we think that no one will see what we’re doing and no one will find out about what we’ve done. We can hide things from each other, can’t we? And when we’re only thinking on that level, our temptations look far more appealing. But when we remember that God is always with us and He sees us at all times, we are reminded that we can’t hide anything from Him.

            You may remember a children’s song that tried to teach us this lesson when we were young. It goes like this: “Oh be careful little eyes what you see, oh be careful little eyes what you see, for the Father up above is looking down in love, so be careful little eyes what you see.” That little song reminds us that God is watching us, and it contains such an important reminder when it says that God is “looking down in love.” God is watching, yes, but He’s watching in love! He is not like some grumpy piano teacher who’s waiting to slap you on the hand any time you play a wrong note. Remembering that God watches us in love will help us think accurate thoughts about God, and it still leaves us with the awesome realization that we will one day answer to God for everything that He has seen us do.

3. I am never alone—God is always with me!

            When God asked His people to carry out some task in Scripture, He always reminded them that they would not be alone—He would be with them. When Moses was preparing to lead the people of Israel toward their first attempt to conquer the Promised Land, God said to him, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest (Exodus 33:14).”

            When the people rebelled before their first attempt, and God prepared Joshua to lead the second attempt, the Lord told him to remember what he had been promised, to remember God’s commands, and he wrapped it all up by saying this: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Joshua 1:9).”

            When the Lord Jesus was on the earth, and He told His disciples on the night before He died that He would be going away, He said, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you (John 14:18).” And when He gave those men the Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations, He said, “behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).”

            We are not alone as we seek to carry out the tasks that God has for us. When you’re going around town and you see that person that you know you should forgive, you are not alone. When you walk into the office to co-workers who do not share your faith, you are not alone. When you are facing down the temptation that has tripped you up a hundred times, you are not alone. The Lord your God is with you wherever you go!

Re-interpreting Hell?--Hell Series

            Words can be slippery things, and its not always easy to get a grip on what someone may be trying to communicate. I’m sure we’ve all been shocked at times when people have totally misunderstood what we were trying to say. We were trying to communicate one thing, and somehow a totally different message came through!

Words have to be interpreted if we’re going to understand them correctly. That is true of spoken words and written words, which means this principle is true for the Bible as well. The Bible has to be interpreted if we’re going to understand it correctly, and during the last couple of centuries in particular, some people have argued that Christianity has misinterpreted what the Bible has to say about Hell. They would say that the traditional picture of Hell as being a place of everlasting punishment for those who reject God is actually based on a misunderstanding of the Bible.

Today, we’re going to take a look at two alternatives that have been offered in place of the traditional Christian understanding of Hell. Some of the words and ideas that you’ll hear about today may be new to you, but they are more popular than you might think. Last week, I mentioned a pastor named Rob Bell who wrote a book in 2011 that endorsed some of the ideas we’re about to discuss. His book became a best-seller, so if you haven’t heard about some of these ideas before, chances are that you will sooner rather than later. Sadly, however, I must say that these ideas do not give us an accurate interpretation of Scripture, and thus we must not embrace them.

So what are these alternative interpretations?

1. ANNIHILATIONISM

            Now that’s a big, fancy word that just stands for the belief that those who reject God will go into Hell for a period of time, but then they will cease to exist. They will not remain in Hell forever; they will be annihilated, which is where the big, fancy label for this idea comes from.

            So where has this idea come from? Well, those who hold this idea say that the biblical picture of Hell as a fiery place has been misunderstood. They say that since fire consumes and destroys things, it is illogical to think of something existing forever in a fiery place. They also point out that many Bible verses speak of “destruction” for those who reject God. For example, we can think of the well-known words from the Sermon on the Mount: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many (Matthew 7:13).” Or we can think of statements from John the Baptist like this one: “…he who is coming after me is mightier than I…His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:11-12).”

            We have also read about Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds over the last few weeks. Jesus said that the weeds represent “the sons of the evil one” and that they will be thrown into the fiery furnace” (Matthew 13:38-42). Now, we all know what happens when you throw weeds into a fire. If you look into the fire after just a few minutes, you won’t see the weeds there anymore. Because of observations like that, annihilationists say its illogical to think of a person living forever in a fiery place.

            Annihilationists also emphasize verses that talk about God’s final victory over all things, and they interpret those verses to mean that those who reject God must no longer exist when God achieves His final victory. For example, Philippians 2:10-11 says in the New American Standard, “at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” They would read those verses and say, “Well, if every knee is going to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, then that must mean that those who reject God will no longer exist at that point because people in Hell wouldn’t bow the knee to God or confess that Jesus is Lord.”

            Another example like this would be 1 Corinthians 15:28, which says, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” Annihilationists would have the same response to this verse—“How can all things be subjected to God if there are people in Hell who have never accepted Him?” And so, they would say that such people must no longer exist at that point in time.

            Let’s think, now, about these two claims. First—the claim that the fire of Hell will put the people there out of existence. Though annihilationists would say the same thing about me, I think their claim misunderstands the imagery of fire. Fire doesn’t actually put anything out of existence; it simply breaks down the structure and order of things. If a house burns down, for example, the structure of the house is lost, but the atoms that make up the wood and the carpet and the drywall don’t cease to exist—they simply become smoke and ashes.

            Now someone might say, “Come on, Tim. People in Bible times didn’t know about atoms! They just knew that if you threw weeds in a fire, you had no more weeds!” Well, they may not have known about atoms, but they certainly knew about ashes, and they were also well aware of using fire to refine metals, so they certainly could have known that fire simply breaks down the structure of things.

            Most importantly, we have plain statements in Scripture—like Matthew 25:46—that those who reject God are sentenced to eternal punishment in the same way that those who accept God are given eternal life.

            Now what about those verses that describe God’s final victory? Can God really have “all things in subjection to Him” if there are people in Hell who don’t worship Him? Well, if we want to understand the details of God’s ultimate victory, we need to allow the Bible to tell us what those details are. Those details are most clearly expressed in precisely the place you would expect to find them—at the end of the Bible, in the final chapters of the book of Revelation.

            In chapters 19-21 of Revelation, we read about the devil being cast into the lake of fire, where he will be tormented day and night forever and ever, according to Revelation 20:10. We also read about those whose names are not written in the book of life meeting the same fate. These chapters also tell us about Christ’s future kingdom on Earth and our eternal home with God in the New Heaven and New Earth, so if we are going to allow the Bible to shape our understanding of God’s final victory, that means that His final victory includes an everlasting punishment for His enemies.

            I think the best understanding of God’s final victory is to say that it means there will no longer be any active rebellion against God in any corner of creation. All of His enemies will be subdued and sentenced to their final fate, with no opportunity to foster a rebellion ever again. God’s children, of course, will enjoy life in His presence under His reign, so everything will truly be in subjection to God.

Now, in thinking about God’s final victory, some people have come to a very different conclusion about it, and we can call that conclusion…

2. UNIVERSALISM

            Universalism is the belief that all people will eventually be saved, either by accepting Christ in this life before they die or by accepting Him after they die. Most universalists, I believe, accept the idea that some people will go to Hell, but it is seen as a place of correction that will eventually lead all people to accept Christ. This interpretation is based on the idea that people will continue to have the opportunity to accept Christ after they die, and that God’s discipline will lead all people to do so, even if they continue to resist for a while.

            So how do universalists draw their belief from Scripture? First, they appeal to some verses which they interpret to say that people will have a “second chance” to accept Christ after death. We’ll look at one of those verses in just a moment.

Second, they point to clear statements in Scripture which declare that God desires all people to be saved, such as 1 Timothy 2:4, which says God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” So, if God desires that it will happen, then it must be that it will happen.

Third, they also point to the “final victory” passages and interpret them to say that all people will eventually be saved. “After all,” they would say, “if every knee is going to bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, then that must mean all people will be saved at that point.” As you can see, they reach a very different conclusion than annihilationists do from the same passages.

            What are we to make of these interpretations? First, let’s consider a verse which they claim would refer to a “second chance” to accept Christ. For the sake of time, I’m only going to mention the verse that has the best chance of supporting their claim, though I don’t believe it does. That verse is 1 Peter 4:6, which the English Standard Version translates like this: “For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.”

            At first glance, that may sound like it is referring to people hearing the gospel after they have died, but this is when the Bible study practice of comparing multiple translations becomes very helpful. Notice how another well-known translation—the NIV—translates the first phrase: “for this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” That translation emphasizes something very important—the tense of the first verb. It is in the past tense—“the gospel was preached.” Thus, the verse could be saying that these people heard the gospel in the past before they had died—and I think that’s exactly what the verse is saying.

            It is also very important to note that there is no mention of a “second chance” in the passage where it would most logically be found, which is the description of the final judgment of mankind in Revelation 20. Let’s read this important passage [READ Rev. 20:12-15; p. 672]. This passage says nothing about a second chance being offered at that moment, and it gives us no hint that a second chance will ever be offered again. Rather, it seems that the Bible sums up the reality very succinctly in Hebrews 9:27, which says, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.”

            Now what about God’s desire that all people would be saved? It is certainly true that God desires for all people to be saved, but it is also very clear from the record of Scripture that God does not enforce everything that He desires. Surely God desired that Adam and Eve would obey Him, but He did not enforce that. He created them with a will and allowed them to choose. Surely God desires that we would always obey Him, but He doesn’t enforce that, either. We have a will, too, and He allows us to make choices. If we were to say that God enforces everything He desires, then we would have to say that everything that happens is something that God desired to happen, including all acts of evil, and that conclusion does not line up with Scripture.

            Moreover, the Bible does not give us reason to think that all people would surely repent eventually once they realize that they are under the judgment of God. In fact, a chapter like Revelation 16 gives us the opposite impression Let’s read verses 8-11 [READ Rev. 16:8-11; 669]. Notice that these people clearly understood that God was behind these plagues, yet they did not repent. Even if we gave them an eternity to repent, there is no guarantee that they ever would.

            Finally, we should remember that the passages which speak of God’s final victory over all things do not require us to conclude that all people will eventually repent and accept Christ. The closing chapters of Scripture give us the real picture—God will have the victory over all who oppose Him, but not all people will gladly welcome that victory. Every man and woman will receive one of two fates, according to Matthew 25:46—either eternal punishment, or eternal life.

            “But God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).” You can know today that you have eternal life if you will understand your need for it and repent of your sins to God, and receive the gift of forgiveness that He offers to you through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You need not fear eternal punishment ever again, for Jesus said, “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life (John 5:24).”

Objections Against the Doctrine of Hell--Hell Series

            I don’t know much about the details of a courtroom trial, but whenever I’ve seen one portrayed on TV, there always seems to be a dramatic moment when one lawyer stands up and says, “I OBJECT!!” They always say it with total disgust, too, as if their mom had just been insulted. I don’t know how accurate that is, but it does make for good TV.

            Well, as the doctrine of Hell has been tried in the court of public opinion over the years, many people have stood up to say, “I object!” Some of these objections have come from people who want to discredit Christianity, and some of them have come from people who embrace it but believe that the Church’s traditional understanding of Hell needs to be modified.

            Last week, I presented the traditional Christian understanding of Hell—that it is a place of punishment for those who have rejected God, and that those who wind up there will remain there forever. Today, we’ll start to discuss some objections that have been raised at various times against that idea. Then, in the next sermon, we’ll talk about two alternatives to the traditional view of Hell that have had the most influence within Christianity.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF HELL

1. IT IS A GROSSLY UNFAIR PUNISHMENT FOR SIN

            I think we can all agree that at first glance, Hell really does look like an over-reaction. Is it really fair for people to suffer forever for the sins they’ve committed? Maybe we’d say “yes” for Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, but what about Bob down the street? Could Hell really be a fair punishment for people who just commit “plain old” sins? I think the answer is yes, and let me make a couple of observations to tell you why.

            a. Since we are guilty of sin, we are not in a trustworthy position to decide what a fair punishment for it should be

            Think of it like this—if we allowed a group of convicted thieves to determine the punishment for robbery, don’t you think they would be more lenient than people who had never committed robbery? Of course they would, because we all have a natural tendency to downplay the severity of our choices. Even after we admit we’ve done wrong, we still try to come up with excuses about why our behavior really wasn’t that bad.

            We’re really just like the group of convicted thieves! We want to minimize the severity of sin because we are guilty of it, and when we talk about a punishment for it, we know that we’re talking about a punishment that we deserve. So naturally, we want to make that punishment less and less severe.

            Since we have this bias from the fact that we’re guilty of sin, we should acknowledge that and follow the lead of someone who is not guilty of sin—God Himself! He is the true judge of mankind, and if He says that Hell is a fitting punishment for sin, we should take His word for it, because our own opinion about it is not reliable.

            b. The fair punishment for a crime is relative to the kind of being against whom the crime is committed

            We follow this principle in our own laws in this country. Let me explain what I mean. If I torture and kill a bug, that’s not a crime; I wouldn’t face any punishment for that. However, if I torture and kill an animal, that’s a crime because we place animals on a higher level than bugs. But even the punishment for that crime isn’t as severe as if I would torture and kill a human being, because—once again—we’ve moved up another level. A human being is on a higher level than an animal.

            So as we move up from one level to another, the punishment becomes more severe each time. That principle would lead us to this conclusion—since God is the greatest of all beings, a crime against Him would deserve the most severe of all punishments. I think this principle reminds us how serious it is to sin against God, since He is a much greater kind of being than we are. A sin against Him deserves a very serious punishment, indeed, and if He—as an unbiased voice—says that Hell is that punishment, we should take His word for it.

2. IT VIOLATES THE IDEA OF GOD’S LOVE

            This is perhaps the most common objection today to the concept of Hell, and we usually hear it raised in the form of a question: “How could a loving God send someone to Hell?” To the modern American mind, putting those two ideas together just does not compute.

            Perhaps the reality we should remember at this point is that God is not only a loving God. He certainly is that, but His character has a perfect balance between traits like love, justice, holiness, mercy, and grace. We can see this perfect balance in the way that He has responded to our sin. God punishes sin—which reveals His justice—yet He has also made a way for us to avoid that punishment—which reveals His love, mercy, and grace.

            Think of the cross of Jesus as being like a set of scales that perfectly balance God’s justice and His love. God’s justice demands that sin be punished. That’s why Jesus had to die if we were to be forgiven; God couldn’t just pretend to look the other way while we scampered into Heaven. The price for sin had to be paid, but God’s love moved Him to pay the price Himself so that we could receive a pardon.

            The moral of the story is this—we cannot focus solely on God’s love in a discussion about something like Hell. The fact that we are tempted to reveals an imbalance within us. Think about it—how many people would get outraged over the idea that God’s holiness might be violated? Hardly anyone, and that’s because we have an imbalance within us that comes from our sin nature. Again, we want to minimize the severity of our sin and the reality of God’s justice because we are guilty.

3. IT VIOLATES THE CONCEPT OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD

            Some people have argued that Christianity’s traditional understanding of Hell portrays God as being a horrific child abuser. The reasoning goes something like this: “I could never enforce a punishment like Hell on one of my children, and God is even more merciful than I am, so surely God could not send one of His children to Hell.”

            I think this objection often comes from a sincere motivation to protect the character of God, but it overlooks one vital fact—according to the Bible, people who have not accepted Christ by faith do not have a father/child relationship with God. Only those who are born again can claim that kind of relationship with God. As John 1:11-12 says, [READ John 1:11-12; p. 576]. To whom did Jesus give the right to become children of God? Only to those who received Him by believing in His name.

            Those who do not accept Christ are considered to be children of Satan. We read this last week when we discussed the parable of the wheat and the tares (or weeds). When Jesus explained this parable in Matthew 13:38, he said, “the weeds are the sons of the evil one.” And in John 8, when Jesus was speaking to some people who had rejected Him, He said, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires (8:44).”

            Now don’t think of unbelieving people as being willing followers of Satan, because they’re not—they are deceived, just as you and I were before God opened our eyes. But from God’s point of view, those who do not accept Christ are not part of His family. They are part of Satan’s family, and thus they are in danger of facing the same fate as Satan.

4. IT VIOLATES THE IDEA THAT GOD’S DISCIPLINE IS MEANT FOR CORRECTION

            Some have said that the idea of everlasting punishment in Hell is a misunderstanding of the purpose behind God’s punishment or discipline. They would not deny that some people will go to Hell, but their time there will not be everlasting. They will be reformed by God’s discipline and will eventually accept Christ.

            It is true that some passages in the Bible describe God’s discipline as being designed to correct and reform those who receive it. Hebrews 12 is probably the classic passage on this subject, but that passage also makes it clear that this corrective discipline is directed toward those who are children of God, and as we just learned, not everyone has a parent/child relationship with God.

            I think the Bible definitely teaches that God does carry out punishments that are final and that do not leave a possibility for correction afterward. That’s why God is waiting so patiently today before He wraps up His plan for this world. If God intends to give people in Hell a second chance to accept Him, why is He waiting to wrap up His plan for this world? By conservative estimates, scores of Christians are killed every day around the world because of their faith. Why does God allow this to continue? Why does God allow His people to continue to suffer? Why doesn’t He just wrap up His plan today and then give people in Hell their second chance? I think its because there will not be a second chance, and so God is patiently waiting today, to give people more and more time to repent before it is too late.

5. CERTAIN PEOPLE IN CHURCH HISTORY HAVE DEFENDED DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT HELL; THEREFORE, IT IS LEGITIMATE TO HOLD TO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN THE TRADITIONAL ONE

            It is true that different people in church history have held to different perspectives about Hell than the traditional one. The most famous person to do so in the early church was a man named Origen, who was an influential teacher in Egypt during the early 200’s AD. More recently, a pastor in Michigan named Rob Bell wrote a book in 2011 entitled Love Wins, in which he defended a different perspective than the traditional Christian perspective on Hell.

            Those who agree with these teachers often try to say that there has never been universal agreement among Christians about Hell. I suppose that’s true if “universal” means “every person who has ever called themselves a Christian!” But there can be no doubt that the vast majority of people in every era who have worn the label “Christian” have believed in the traditional understanding of Hell—that it is a place of everlasting suffering for those who reject God.

            But the most important question is not, “What have people taught in the name of Christianity?” All kinds of ideas have been taught in the name of Christianity that we would never want to believe! For example, some people in the early days of Christianity called themselves Christians, but taught that Jesus wasn’t even a real human being—He was like a ghost who only looked like a real human being. We certainly don’t want to believe something like that!

            The most important question, of course, is, “What does the Bible teach?”  THAT is where we must take our stand, and I think we got a good snapshot of the Bible’s teaching on Hell last week. Next week, we will consider some different interpretations that have been suggested for some of the verses we have read, and I believe we will see that Christianity’s traditional understanding of Hell has become traditional because it is the correct interpretation of Scripture.

            For today, I hope you can see the importance of thinking clearly and deeply about what you believe. The spirit of our times calls for our feelings to govern our faith, and clear, deep thinking like what we’ve just done today is often pushed to the side. But there is a reason that the Bible repeatedly commands us to have discernment, which is the ability to make clear and accurate distinctions in your mind. Romans 12:2 simply states that this is the way to be transformed spiritually—“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

            Have you ever wondered if there’s a simple standard that could tell you whether you’re mature as a Christian? Not perfect, of course, but “grown-up”—no longer a baby in Christ? Well in fact, there is, and we find it in Heb. 5:14—“But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

            To grow in Christ, we must put out some mental energy. That doesn’t mean you need to have a shelf full of books. The best plan is to make sure you read one book and think about it—the word of God! God’s Word teaches us how to distinguish between right and wrong, true and false, and we must let it train our minds.

Follow your heart? No. Exercise your mind instead.