By Farther Steps

Reformed and Reforming, semper reformanda to Christ's glory.

Author Archive

iMac Black Screen

The iMac’s screen went black today. I’m really, really hoping that it is just the inverter card in the display unit. That’s about $70 and pretty easy to replace. Otherwise it might be the motherboard and for the price of one of those, I might as well just get a new computer.

I really love my iMac. 20 inches of display, beautiful design. Sigh. Not a good day.

Update: I had to order the VGA video out adapter so I could verify it isn’t the logic board. It isn’t. Now off to find an inverter so I can get that big, beautiful display working again.

Update 2: I noticed that the one stuck pixel was lit up. So I unplugged the external display and rebooted and it is working again. I hate it when electronics do that. Just as well since I can’t find an inverter card right now.

This Just In!

It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on flaring posters that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on flaring posters that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off a scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their posters, “Mr. Wilkinson Still Safe,” or “Mr. Jones, of Worthing, Not Dead Yet.” They cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complete picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual. However democratic they may be, they are only concerned with the minority. – G. K. Chesterton, The Ball and the Cross

Correcting Greater with Lesser is No Gain

I don’t have cable and seldom watch TV so I’m not very familiar with Fox’s Father Jonathan Morris. However, having read his response to Bill Maher’s forthcoming show has not bolstered my estimation of the priest’s theological acumen.

Let me back up and explain. Bill Maher is a funny guy. He is also a skeptic and is supposedly working on a documentary on the absurdity of religion. And by ‘religion’ of course he means Christianity. In steps Father Morris who offers to correct Maher’s misunderstanding of the faith.

At this point it is important that I point out that Father Morris is a Roman Catholic in case you missed it. Theologically, Rome is a mess and I don’t just mean ‘they don’t agree with me.’ I mean that though there is an official catechism and an infallible pope and all that, their housekeeping is no better than Fred Sanford’s. I say this because I don’t know how faithful to official Roman Catholic doctrine the good Father is. My impression is that he is within the pale of current Roman orthodoxy and that means that he can still be wrong and wear a white pull-tab collar on his black shirt.

Okay, so any way, Father Morris offers to correct Maher’s misunderstanding of Christianity. On the error scale of zero to ten, Maher (as reported by Morris) is pegging at about 9.75 and when Father steps in to correct that he’s ranking about 4.3. Arbitrary numbers all. So I’m going to correct Morris’ correction of Maher.

If Christianity really taught that the man in the jungle who has never heard the name of Jesus is going to be damned forever to hell, I, too, would doubt. But Mr. Maher, Christianity doesn’t teach that.

That’s right, people don’t go to hell for living in the jungle. But that isn’t what Father Morris means. Here’s the rest of that paragraph:

We are responsible to God in as much as God reveals himself to us. Christianity teaches that the saving grace of Jesus Christ is bigger than our date or place of birth. Christians believe God gives all of his children, in ways often unknowable to our little brains, the opportunity to accept or reject his love.

The first part of this quote is quite correct. We are responsible to God based on how much he has revealed to us. But what does Paul say about that?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. – Romans 1:19-20

That man in the jungle doesn’t get off because no one has told him about Jesus and therefore he isn’t responsible. Paul says “they are without excuse.” That man in the jungle knows enough about God to be held responsible. By the way, this makes the skeptic Maher responsible too. The fact that he’s (hopefully) researched Christianity for the documentary means that he’s even more responsible than George of the Jungle.

What Father Morris should do is not dismiss the culpability of the theoretical Tarzan but offer to the Maher before him the hope of salvation in Christ. So Bill, if you read this, know that you have been given much more information about God that the man in the jungle. You have much more evidence before you as to the truth of God and you need to trust him the way he is asking you to. Jesus’ died in the place of people who don’t believe in God and don’t live the way he says to. Jesus also came back to life so that we could be made right with God despite what we’ve already done and said and believed. Trust Jesus to make things right between you and God, Bill, and then live like you do.

On to correct Father Morris’ next incorrect correction.

If Christianity really taught that people with homosexual tendencies are all going to hell, or that somehow they are not God’s children, I, too, would doubt. But Mr. Maher, Christianity doesn’t teach that.

This time it isn’t so much what Father Morris says, as what he doesn’t say. He’s right, God doesn’t send people to hell for having homosexual tendencies just like he doesn’t send someone to hell for living in the jungle and not hearing about Jesus. God sends men and women to hell because of what they have done, not what they feel or don’t know.

Post-modernism doesn’t much care for absolutes and therefore sin is a silly, old fashioned idea. And since there are no absolutes and sin doesn’t exist the hell is an abomination. When Bill Maher ridicules the idea of sending any one to hell what he needs is some straight answers about truth and absolutes. I mean the chap has invited such corrections, hasn’t he? He’s making a documentary about the absurdity of religion and an absurdity is “something that is irrational, incongruous, or illogical.” So Maher must be measuring things against some standard of ration and logic. There is an absolute then, isn’t there? And so we could lead Maher down a discussion of how to determine what those absolutes are. If they are merely Maher’s opinion on the matter, why trouble other people about it. Religion is not absurd to me so why bother documenting it?

I don’t know if Maher is even worth answering. His documentary may in the end simply demonstrate his own ignorance on the subject and show his folly to the masses. But if someone does undertake to answer him, I hope they do a better, more thorough job than Father Morris did.

Hey!

Can you believe it! A bunch of strong Biblical scholars went and stole the title of my blog post and turned it into a book!

Kidding aside, this looks like the kind of treatment of the subject that I think is needed. Some good authors were involved and I think an edited volume with multiple writers is the way to do it.

Yea, this one goes on my wish list.

Friday Photo

This is a sight I see from the train on the way to work. The car is always there. This photo came out okay but not as good as I was expecting. Still, enjoy this Saturday edition of Friday Photo.

Blogs and Podcasts

I am considering a podcast.  A friend from seminary usually greets me with one word: podcast. So I’m considering it. I have the first edition scratched out and want to have the first year outlined before I go to step two. It would be fun but it is a lot of work too.

Obviously, I’m a blogger. You’re currently reading my blog.

So why the title of this post? Because I just listened to one of my favorite podcasts and at the end there was a plug for voting for it in some competition. It hit me at that point. Many blogs and podcasts have become commercial enterprises. Voting for a blog or a podcast seems like giving your buddy props (and in some cases it is) but really the big winners are commercial site, not po-dunk ones like mine. Notice that I don’t have any advertisements on this site? Support for this comes out of my pocket.

So what? Or “duh”. Yea, I know, it seems like I’m slow to catch on. But the issue is that what used to be a Web 2.0 kind of thing got taken over by commercial operations. I’m part of the “problem” since I read Gizmodo.com and Lifehacker.com about 50 times a day and listen to the Grammar Girl podcast. So how do we fish through the professional podcast and blogs to get to normal people? Do we want to or need to? Do regular chumps like me simply regurgitate the links promoted on the commercial sites?

I don’t know. I’m not sure. I know that I write on things that I think about. On the left side of the blog I have an “Other Reading” list of links I find interesting. I guess the way to connect to personal sites rather than commercial ones are what could almost jokingly be called the “traditional” method: links from sites you know. I get a lot of hits from my sending church, Steve, and Tom. People sometimes find me by Google searches. I know I’m rather picky about outgoing links.

And to be honest, professional writers should be writers who are good enough to make people want to read them. I have no delusions of being as good a blogger as Doug Wilson or as successful a podcaster as John Piper (not that either one are a problem, just that they’re better than I). But I think we must be aware that there are professional bloggers out there. The very soul of blogging has changed from the early days. 1I’ve been blogging in one form or another since April 12, 2002 and I’m fairly new to it. Blogging used to be a grassroots thing and has grown into a somewhat less regulated media outlet.

AND? And nothing. But just be aware that when you vote for professional podcasts or blogs you’re really helping their bottom line. The more successful they are the more they can charge advertisers. And it isn’t just hit counts that matter, these kinds of ‘awards’ help too. Think of the internet as your mail box. The professional blogs and podcasts are catalogs and the personal ones like mine are a hand written letter from a friend.

Sincerely,
Tim Etherington

↩1 I’ve been blogging in one form or another since April 12, 2002 and I’m fairly new to it.

Friday Photos

We took a LONG walk at McDonald woods. There were a lot of flowers blooming but I thought the Black-Eyed Susans were the most interesting.

Lisa got this one of the three “girls” sitting on the patio.

Hell Under Fire?

INTRODUCTION

The Biblical doctrine of hell is not a popular subject in our postmodern world. The notion of it offends popular sensibilities. Even Christians get a bit uneasy with the subject. And yet, Jesus preached on it often. John, in Revelation didn’t shy away from it. We’ve seen the stereotypes of preachers (typically sweaty Southerners) who appear to preach on little else. But they’re outdated, right? I’m going to spend a bit of time working through the subject to see how outdated hell is.

There have been defections within the evangelical camp on this issue. I’ve commented on Bart Campolo‘s abandonment of the doctrine. This American Life had a show on heretics (11/20/06) and they highlighted Carlton Pearson’s abandonment of the doctrine. Pearson was a popular, Black, charismatic preacher in case you’ve never heard of him. I even came across someone who says he’s a Reformed Baptist who denies the eternality of hell. While not an abandonment of the doctrine, it is an alteration of it. John Stott, an otherwise exceptional evangelical teacher, embraces a similar alteration of the traditional understanding of hell.

When salvation is merely temporal, i.e. no more than “changed lives”, an eternal hell makes little sense. I think that if we had a greater appreciation for what salvation means, we’d have a greater appreciation for what we’ve been saved from.I am not one to defend traditional understandings simply because they are traditional. I believe in the Reformed doctrine of ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est, that is that the church is reformed and always reforming. That doesn’t mean that we’re always changing our doctrine, it means that we need to continually check our doctrine. Are we being as Biblical as we can? I think this question needs to be asked of the doctrine of hell because of the societal pressure away from the notion.

The doctrine of hell is not esoteric, eschatological argument fodder. It has implications here and now as well as in eternity. During the Da Vinci Code hubbub last summer our church had a Sunday school class on the divinity of Jesus and the issue of hell came up. Did Jesus descend into hell? Christians have had different opinions on that question for quite a while and my wife mentioned that perhaps if we understood the doctrine of hell better we might be able to better answer that question. I think she’s very right.

So why all the recent drift on the doctrine? Perhaps there is a cultural influence that is driving the evangelical boat in an odd direction on this. I mean, when salvation is merely temporal, i.e. no more than “changed lives”, an eternal hell makes little sense. It seems that if we had a greater appreciation for what salvation means, we’d have a greater appreciation for what we’ve been saved from. We aren’t saved merely from destructive patterns in our lives, we’re saved from the very wrath of God (Rom 5:9).

Still, dealing directly with all of the positions on hell would be a book-length project. For a simple blogger that’s too much. Let me instead address what I believe is a common misconception of what hell is and hopefully that will at least lead in to some of the objections.

Right off, let me say that I believe that the Bible teaches that hell is a) real, b) eternal and c) horrible beyond what we can imagine. I also believe that all who are born are born under sin and therefore headed to hell unless God intervenes on their behalf. We are saved from hell only by faith in Jesus Christ. There. There, my cards are on the table.

A POPULAR FORMULATION

The sentiment I want to use as a spring board is this, “Hell is separation from God.” First, the Biblical support for this statement. Paul says of those afflicting Christians, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2Th 1:9) Another supporting verse is when Jesus is talking about the final judgment and he explains that some will say to him “Lord, Lord!” and he will answer them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” (Matt 7:23) These two verses would seem to indicate that in the final judgment, the unsaved depart from God’s presence forever.

Why might this concept of hell might be appealing? I have even heard this idea express as “God gives them what they wanted: nothing to do with Him.” This sentiment makes God passive in the damning of lost souls. It would seem to fit well with modern Arminianism which places man as the determining factor of his salvation. The counterpart of that would seem to be man in control of his own damnation as well. It also exonerates God from the horrors of hell.

Yet, this is insufficient because it doesn’t take into account all of what the Bible has to say about the subject. Perhaps, though, you can understand the attraction of this idea. The traditional view of Hell seems horrible and cruel. Eternal punishment, flames that don’t go out, flesh-eating worms that won’t die. An eternity of that for a sin that occurred in a finite period of time. Would our God do something like that? Surely a place like that must be beyond Him, it isn’t anything He would do.

A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION

Now I want to look at the popular conception outlined above in light of a broader Biblical survey of the doctrine of hell. It must, of course include the verses listed above or it falls to the same criticism.

The first scripture that comes to mind when I consider the question of whether hell is being out of God’s presence forever is Psalm 139. David is reflecting on how thoroughly God knows him. He then begins to reflect on where he could go so that the Spirit of God might not see him. In the end he confesses that there is no where that God does not see him: “If I make my bed in Sheol 1An Hebrew word that really denotes not heaven or hell but the abode of the dead. In other words, it encompasses both ideas. Both the righteous and the unrighteous are said to descend to Sheol. I was taught that Sheol was a place with two compartments and when Jesus died he went and released everyone from Sheol so they went to heaven or hell. There really is no Biblical evidence for this. The better way to think about it is to understand Sheol as an umbrella term for both, it is simply where dead people are., you are there!” (Psa 139:8) Even in death David knows that he cannot escape from God’s presence. I suppose it could be argued that David was sure he was going to heaven and so Sheol for him meant salvation. But that really doesn’t work in the Psalm itself. David already mentioned heaven. The parallel line in the second part of the verse encompasses more, it encompasses death in general.

Beyond that, what of the verses that speak of God’s wrath? I cited Romans 5:9 above but there others. Can we legitimately conceive of being subjected to God’s wrath as being simply out of his presence? When I’m angry with my kids I often send them out of the room so they’re not subjected to my (unrighteous) wrath! In other words, both Old Testament and New Testament examples of God’s wrath are active events, not passive. Let me cite one of each and leave it there for right now.

From the Old Testament, consider Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16. When Korah’s clan leads a rebellion against Moses, God responds by opening up the ground beneath them and it swallows them whole “[s]o they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol” (Num 16:33). The next day the congregation grumbles about it and the Lord’s wrath “goes out” and the plague starts (16:46). It is only by Moses’ and Aaron’s intercession that the plague was stayed. These events depict God’s wrath as an active thing.

From the New Testament, consider the winepress from Revelation 14:19-20 and 19:15. This winepress represents God’s wrath against the wicked who are thrown into it and trodden. Their blood flows to the depth of a horse’s bridle for miles. That imagery doesn’t portray God as passive in the punishment. Indeed, in 19:15, it is King Jesus who treads it!

Alright, but what about the “depart from me” language used above? If hell is God’s wrath, how are we supposed to integrate those other texts? The best way is just to read them. In Matthew 7 the people are dismissed from Jesus throne at judgment. In 2 Thessalonians passage, they are punished away from the presence of the Lord, yes, but the verse continues. “[A]nd from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints” (2Th 1:9b-10). This is not speaking of God in the completeness of His Trinity, but of Jesus Christ who is the One to come. They are away from Jesus and the “glory of his might” which is the cross. They are eternally before God but without Jesus Christ as intercessor and savior! What a horrifying place to be. To bear the full brunt of God’s righteous wrath all by yourself. This is horrifying and it really should cause us to be even more eager in evangelism. We need to warn more people of the judgment to come and their only hope for standing in that judgment.

COMMON OBJECTIONS

Is eternal punishment for finite sins just? There are two things that need to be addressed in this question. First, we need to understand who we’ve offended. If I were to take a can of spray paint and deface the sign for the city dump, I might get some jail time. Imagine if I took that same can and somehow got to the original Declaration of Independence! They’d throw me in a federal penitentiary and throw away the key. The magnitude of my punishment is proportional to the significance of the thing offended. When we sin, we offend an infinitely holy, eternally existent God who created us from dirt! How much greater should punishment for that be?

The second issue that needs to be discussed is the notion that once we die we stop doing things. In other words, it is presumed that in hell we won’t sin any more. But hell is “filled with people who, for all eternity, still want to be the center of the universe and who persist in their God-defying rebellion.” 2D. A. Carson quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, 193. Sin continues in hell and it is probably worse there because now the rebellious know that God exists and that Jesus Christ is the Savior and King and they still rebel and still hate him. So even in hell wrath is increased.

What about the innocent savage who never heard of Jesus Christ but tried to be a good person? Is it fair that they are sent to hell? The mistake behind this one is that is no “innocent savage.” I’ll let the Bible speak for itself here:

[A]ll, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:10-18)

The other part of the answer to this question is why we’re sent to hell. We aren’t damned (only) because of our response to the gospel. If it were true that those who don’t get to hear the gospel go to heaven, it would be the end of evangelism! According to Revelations 20, in the end people are judged “according to what they had done” (20:12). The offer of the gospel is totally grace in light of that. It isn’t owed to anyone and it is God’s mercy that it is offered to anyone at all.

Okay, this is quite long enough for a blog entry. Let me wrap this up.

Hell is a reality, not a merely difficult doctrine that some are embarrassed by. It is a place we are all headed, we are all “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph 2:3). But God doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked. He sent his Son to make a way for people to escape eternal punishment and instead enjoy eternity delighting in Him. Jesus Christ was more than a good teacher, though he was that. Though he was sinless, he died a sinners death not because God is unjust but because God is so just that the sins of his people must be punished. They are either punished on the eternal Son of God on the cross, or they are punished in the agony of hell. If you will put your trust in Jesus, acknowledging that He died for sinners and was raised from the dead to make them right with God, then God will not consign you to hell. In Revelation 20 there were two books opened. If your name isn’t in one, the other is opened and you’re judged by your works. If you will trust that Jesus is enough to spare you, you will find your name written in the first book. If not, the second book awaits you. I know that the things I have done in my life include many that I’m not proud of. I don’t want to be judged by them. It would be so much better to be judged by Jesus’ life than by your own. If the idea of hell scares you, it should. Believe that Jesus is sufficient to make you right with God and come follow him.

Re-reading this reminds me of a bunch of other things I have to say. I’m sure there will be further posts.

↩1 An Hebrew word that really denotes not heaven or hell but the abode of the dead. In other words, it encompasses both ideas. Both the righteous and the unrighteous are said to descend to Sheol. I was taught that Sheol was a place with two compartments and when Jesus died he went and released everyone from Sheol so they went to heaven or hell. There really is no Biblical evidence for this. The better way to think about it is to understand Sheol as an umbrella term for both, it is simply where dead people are.
↩2 D. A. Carson quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, 193.

Free Book Again

I don’t hop on every one of these free book give aways, only the ones that I’m interested in. Yea, I’m a bibliophile but I do have my limits! :) This week’s is one of the books I was looking at for teaching evangelism, Questioning Evangelism. Should be an interesting read and so I’m throwing my hat in again.