Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: hell

  • Psalm 119:167 – Keeping

    Psalm 119:167 – Keeping

    I keep your testimonies,
    I love them greatly.

    The first line here is formally “my soul keeps,” which is a way to refer to oneself. I does have the added connotation of keeping them from the heart out. That goes with the second line that says this comes from the love that the Psalmist has for God’s law.

    I couldn’t help today thinking about the difference in the way the various laws are presented here by the Psalmist. In Christian churches you rarely have positive references to the law as something to love and appreciate. We’ve taken pieces of Paul and used them to build the attitude that the law is very negative, so we want to avoid it.

    We have a major problem, however, in that we want to trot the law out to make other people behave the way we want them to. That again presents the law in a negative way, as we keep saying that salvation is by grace, meaning that “getting into heaven” is by grace, and then detaching that from Christian life.

    As a result we act as though God will take you to heaven, but we still need something to control things on earth before we get to heaven, so we have laws, and we enforce them. That tends to result in a loose and capricious application of standards of behavior, and soon the fires of hell will start sneaking in the other way.

    But both the law and grace come from a loving God. It’s not that grace is a way around the law. It’s more of a way through it. Ultimately, sanctifying grace says that God is going to get you in the end, which does not mean that God is going to discipline you into formal good behavior, but rather God is going to make you holy, and that “holy, just, and good” law will be part of you as well.

    Grace is the gift that keeps on giving. Even in Romans 7, which is often viewed as a “downer” chapter, Paul notes that he’d like to do God’s law, but he finds himself in a battle with the flesh which definitely does not want to keep the law.

    The answer is to live by the Spirit, at which point you do, in fact, love God’s law. You may (and should) still realize how much you fall short, and how much your flesh (to use Paul’s term) is at war with it, but it’s something that tells you where God is going to take you.

    As even the very next verse, which we’ll discuss tomorrow, the only reason anyone goes anywhere with any of this is that God is at work.

    Having trouble with keeping God’s law? Let God’s Spirit do the work.

    (Featured image from Adobe Stock. Licensed, not public domain.)

  • Populating Hell

    … is not really my business. I recall one of my college professors who said that it was very liberating for him when he realized that it was not his responsibility to figure out who was going to be saved and who wasn’t. That’s basically my position. I tend to apply 1 Corinthians 2:9 (eye has not seen, etc) to the other side as well. We don’t really know. I suspect that when we do know what God has done, we will understand that to be just.

    But raising the questions is a good thing, in my view. I’m not going to comment on Rob Bell’s forthcoming book which I haven’t seen. I just don’t find the advertising for it offensive. If you can’t discuss the questions it raising openly and reasonably, it’s time to learn.

    I  want to link to two friends who have made intelligent and challenging comments on this issue, Bob Cornwall and Allan Bevere. Both are thoughtful and challenging.

    I’ll also link to a story I wrote that I hope challenges some thinking about hell, Hell Fire and Damnation. Yes, I’m using a popular story to plug something I wrote. 🙂

     

     

  • N. T. Wright on Hell

    An interesting short discussion.

  • Apes, Lies, and Chick Tracts

    There’s a propaganda piece that has been showing up in Florida, possibly as part of the fight against evolution in new proposed educational standards. It comes from a site with which I’m fairly well acquainted–Chick Publications. One sickening piece of propaganda from that organization is titled Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn.

    It is obvious that the intention of the publishers is that we see evolution, and particularly the idea that, as the tract says, people “come from monkeys,” but the real lie is in the tract itself. And as we will see, this is not the only such publication produced by this same organization.

    Dirty politicians could learn lessons from this material, though they would probably endanger their own careers if they used too many of these techniques. There’s a line beyond which politicians are seen as negative, and I’m afraid these would qualify.

    Look at these elements:

    We start with a substitute teacher. Did you notice that “Mrs. Tucker is replaced by “Ms. Henn.” In this way one sweeps various elements of modern life, such as women’s liberation, along with the teaching. Of course, Ms. Henn looks like everyone’s notion of a witch–demonic even–which is clearly not accidental. We’re supposed to see her as the embodiment of evil.

    There is no actual teaching of evolutionary theory portrayed, and all questioning is shut down. This is, of course, what a control freak like Ms. Henn would want to do, and is, of course connected to evolution. The tie-in is quite intentional, of course. Propaganda against the theory of evolution frequently suggests not merely that there is insufficient evidence, but rather that there is no evidence. In their view, the only reason people accept the theory of evolution is that they are desperate to find a way to avoid God. Scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller or Dr. Francis Collins don’t fit into their universe. A Bible teacher who accepts the theory of evolution, such as myself, would certainly be beyond their grasp.

    There’s the standard misuse of the word “prove/proof” when Ms. Henn claims that “scientists have proven it.” She shouts this, of course. Now there’s little point in vetting this whole propaganda piece for facts–there really are none there. It’s not intended to convince anybody of such mundane things as facts; rather, its purpose is to smear those who teach evolution at the same time as one tries to scare people with the fires of hell.

    Yes, as you continue to read, this gets worse. As a Christian Bible teacher, I am appalled to see this go forward into what apparently is intended as a gospel message. Lie first, then threaten, then pretend to be preaching good news. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of the facts will actually be impacted by this kind of thing, except, perhaps, for some nausea. But people who are uncertain of what they believe will be threatened by the fires of hell, because, you see, people who believe in evolution are definitely going to hell. In fact, Susy informs her little classmate that “most people are going to hell.” You have to close your eyes and your mind, or you’re headed for the hot place.

    Frankly, I must tell you that the first part of this was standard. I grew up with jokes and smears about “evolutionists” who ignore God, ignore all facts and evidence, because they are just so determined to believe evolution. As I studied actual data, I found that this picture was completely false, so blatantly false that I have a hard time believing that people teach it honestly.
    But to tack onto that a supposed teaching of the Christian gospel message made it even worse. The intent is to impact young and impressionable minds with the idea that the vast majority of scientists, and even most Christians are part of an evil conspiracy, are lying to themselves and everyone else, and are therefore going to hell. Which is, of course, precisely what these people believe. It almost makes me wish I took hell a bit more literally myself. There would surely be a special level of hell for liars of this caliber.

    But let’s go forward. The folks at Chick are not satisfied merely to tell us that all those who accept the theory of evolution are going to hell. They’re careful to make sure that folks read just the right Bible. Notice at the end that you are advised to “read your Bible (KJV) every day.” They have a number of pages filled with misinformation in support of their position on the KJV. In fact, if you read this, you might get the idea that all those who use any other Bible version are preaching “another gospel.” Probably they’re all headed straight for hell too. (For more information on Bible versions, see the tract What’s in a Version? and my Bible Version Selection Tool.)

    Then we can try this tract in which a Catholic dies and finds out he’s in hell, because he wasn’t a real Christian, at least as defined by the folks at Chick publications. He’s part of “most people” who go to hell. Unfortunately for him, he believe his priest, and you know that won’t do. In fact, he is even depicted tearing up a Chick Tract. (One could almost suspect that’s the unpardonable sin!)

    We find out here that the American Bible Society is also corrupted because they produce the CEV, which, in the twisted logic that applies in the very special world of Chick Tracts, turns out to be much more favorable to the Catholic Church. So an organization of dedicated people who have spread the Bible far and wide are, in fact, not serving God at all, but that other guy.

    There are very few Christian ministries that I will attack outright as I have done here. I try simply to go for statements and not the group as a whole. Doubtless, even at Chick publications, there are people who sincerely believe they are defending the faith. But this type of publication is not a blessing to the church, it is not the right way to reach people for Jesus, and it is not sound doctrine. It needs to be exposed as precisely what it is.

    I do not permit the use of Chick tracts, even the less offensive ones, at any ministry event in which I am involved, and that will continue to be my policy. There is simply too much danger that someone will go further, and be turned aside in their spiritual journey by hate-filled propaganda. That would be a tragedy.

  • A Lab for Parables

    I like to use Luke 16 as a training ground in interpreting parables, because so many of the possible problems are presented within a few verses. On Monday, I wrote a devotional, Outside the Box, in which I use what I believe is the primary focus of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9) in challenging Christians to think outside the box.

    In my essay Interpreting Parables I state that the primary key to interpreting a parable is to discover what the single point of that parable is. This could be stated in a different way by asking just what question is the parable intended to answer.

    In the case of the Unjust Steward, try reading the parable as an answer to two different questions. 1) What is proper behavior for a steward? or 2) How diligent and creative should a follower of Jesus be in building the kingdom? If the parable were intended to answer the first question it would give an answer that is contradictory to much of the moral basis of scripture. If taken as an answer to the second question, the parable tells us to exercise great diligence and to be willing to think outside of our normal parameters–outside the box–in order to build the kingdom. (Note here that I believe verses 10-13 are not part of the parable itself, but are a collection of sayings that Luke placed here because of the theme.)

    An additional issue that a Bible student should address is the difference between an allegory and a parable. In simplified terms, a parable is intended to make a single point, and that other elements of the story need not have specific meaning. An allegory attaches meaning to many elements of the story.

    The first response of new students is to believe that the idea is to achieve high accuracy in identifying which is which. But in fact, the boundary is not nearly so clear. The question is important because it gets the student to consider just what is and is not part of the purpose of the story.

    And that is where the next parable comes in, The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-30. Often it is interpreted more as an allegory, and arguments can be made in favor of that interpretation. In order to examine this issue, let’s ask just what it is that Jesus is trying to teach, or what question he is answering.

    Let me suggest some questions:

    1. What is the fate of those who die?
    2. Can people in hell communicate with those in [tag]heaven[/tag] (or paradise as the case may be)?
    3. Is a reading of the Torah (Pentateuch) equal to the presence of someone raised from the dead in convincing someone to believe?
    4. Do riches show that one is especially blessed by God?
    5. Is indifference to the poor a sin?

    Now I would suggest that Jesus is answering something between questions four and five. You can look through the parable at other elements and decide whether the parable should be regarded as the final answer on those particular points. I personally would not use this parable as a proof of heaven, hell, or any communication between them. I would say that judgment and final reward and punishment are strongly implied, but the details should be found elsewhere.

    I have, however, heard this parable preached as the one final proof of an eternally burning hell. But you will not find people who make that argument arguing equally forcefully that people in heaven can communicate with those in hell. If you make one argument and not the other you should ask why one element is has meaning while the other doesn’t.

    But a more interesting point is the meaning of verse 30: What is it that the brothers will not believe? Apparently the testimony of of the law and the prophets should make them believe something they will not believe even should someone rise from the dead. What is this?

    It’s easy to think something like “believe in Jesus” or even “belief in God” but those do not fit with the question. How about acceptance of the truth that caring for one’s neighbor is the basis on which one will be rewarded or punished?

    This is just a suggestion and hopefully a pointer toward how to work it out.