Monthly Archives: March 2011
Alister McGrath: How Christians Relate to the World
A talk given by Prof. Alister McGrath on Saturday 19 Feb, 2010, for the Oxford Christian Mind Course, oxfordchristianmind.org/conferences/worldview/
Ben Witherington: Hell
Ben Witherington, another conservative evangelical New Testament Theologian, has chimed in on the topic of Hell due to the new book Love Wins by Rob Bell:
“Does the NT teach that 1) there is a Hell, and 2) some folks are going there (not necessarily in a handbasket), and 3) they will experience eternal torment once there? I have put the matter in three parts, because you could answer questions 1) and 2) with an emphatic yes, and in fact say no to 3).”
Witherington goes on to address defining the Hebrew and Greek terms “forever” or “eternal” in relation to the temporal period of divine punishment (He doesn’t seem to give a conclusive position on this, but is open to various perspectives). Then, looks at “Sheol” in the OT, “Hades” in the NT, and “Gehenna”/other NT references to “Hell.” To top it off he also addresses the question: “are [people] consigned to Hell because they have never heard of the existence of Jesus?” You can read his post for yourself if you are interested in his views on these matters.
But, in the end he concludes:
“I don’t think we can debate that the NT says there is a place we today call Hell, and that some people will end up there, because of their own choices and wickedness. Whether they will experience eternal torment is more debatable. My advice however is that we abstain from pronouncing a final judgment on any human soul; that is Jesus’ job at the final judgment. We simply don’t know the outcome of many who are not followers of Christ now….
What I am more sure of than ever, is that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and that in the end ‘every knee will bow and ever knee confess’ even those humans or demons who want to have nothing to do with Jesus thereafter. Salvation in the end is not just a matter of being forced to recognize the truth — it’s about positively embracing and trusting that truth. And there are apparently some who will never ever do that. To them God says “if you insist, have it your way”. Hell is the place you experience the absence of the presence of God for as long as you continue to exist. Whether there is a time when Hell will cease to exist, like the crystal sea of Revelation, equally orthodox persons can debate. Annihilation or destruction of Satan, Hell and its inhabitants is a possible interpretation of the eschatological endgame, but it is also possible Hell will go on ‘olam wu olam wu olam‘….
Hell in the New Testament is a constant reminder that there is a final accountability for our beliefs and behaviors in this life, whatever the particulars and temperature and durability of Hell may be. It is a reminder that this life is basically the time of decision, and the decisions we make now can indeed have eternal consequences in the afterlife. And, frankly, this is not bad news. It is a part of the Good News that in the end justice as well as mercy, righteousness as well as compassion, and holiness as well as love wins. Thanks be to God.”
St. Augustine’s response to Rob Bell
Let me say up front that I’m not defending Rob Bell, or his new book Love Wins. I’m merely letting St. Augustine speak into the situation at hand within American evangelicalism.
With that said, St. Augustine was a loyal proponent of the view that Hell consists of eternal punishment (Enchiridion, XXIX:112-113). Yet, the quote below (two translations of it) from The City of God, XXI:17 is how he might respond to Rob Bell (Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, and all you Gospel Coalitionists take note):
“And now I must turn from the pagans to deal, however gently, with some of our own tender-hearted fellow Christians, who are inclined to feel that there must sooner or later be liberation from hell, if not for all whom the perfect justice of God has judged worthy of its pains, at least for some.”
–The Fathers of the Church, ed. Joseph Deferrari, trans. Gerald G. Walsh, and Daniel J. Honan (The Catholic University of America Press, 1954), 378.
“I am aware that I now have to engage in debate, devoid of rancor, with those compassionate Christians who refuse to believe that the punishment of hell will be everlasting either in the case of all those men whom the completely just Judge accounts deserving of that chastisement, or at least in the case of some of them….”
–Concerning The City of God against the Pagans, ed. David Knowles, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 995.
Apparently, he didn’t believe those he addressed were outside of Christianity (a.k.a., heretical, although these teachings were rejected by “orthodox Christianity”), and he respectfully engaged this dispute as an “in house” debate.
See also:
Craig Blomberg: Hell
Craig Blomberg, a conservative evangelical New Testament theologian, has given his two cents concerning the current hot topic of hell on his blog today. First he quotes 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10a:
“He [Jesus] will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.”
In defining “Hell” he says:
“One certainly doesn’t have to believe that the biblical imagery of outer darkness and unquenchable fire are literal descriptions of the afterlife for those who have rejected Christ; after all they’d cancel each other out if they were, as many throughout church history have pointed out. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10a, quoted above, is an awful enough, more literal depiction—separation from God and all things good.”
Also, he appears to make room for the possibility of taking positions of Inclusivism, Annihilationism, and a certain type of Universalism (see quote below) as valid Christian positions and possible interpretations of biblical teaching. Although, he himself does not hold to these theories (However, I can’t tell his views on inclusivism from his blog alone).
Since, the Rob Bell controversy is up and running (Love Wins), I thought I’d particularly quote Blomberg on how he addresses universalism:
“Some see hell more like the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory, in which unbelievers suffer for a period of time, perhaps commensurate with the amount and severity of their sin on earth, but ultimately are permitted to leave and go to heaven. Others simply see God acquitting everyone on Judgment Day. The second of these options faces insurmountable biblical texts to the contrary; the former might just barely be exegetically possible but it seems highly unlikely.”
And, here’s his answer to the question, “Does a person have to believe in hell to be saved?”
“Without wanting to be dogmatic, I think my answer would be no. Suppose I am shopping in a used car lot and am told by an eager salesman that no matter which car I buy, I will be able to drive cross-country without anything breaking down. Every car will get me to my desired destination. As it turns out, only one car in the whole lot is in good enough condition for that to be a true statement but I don’t know that. Fortunately, I purchase that one good car and my cross-country drive is successful. I think the analogy holds in the spiritual realm as well. I may believe someone who tells me that all roads lead to heaven, and therefore that there is no hell. Even if only one road actually does so—following Jesus—as long as that is the road I pursue I will arrive at my desired destination, even if those in other cars or on other roads wind up in hell.
Of course, if I seriously believe that all paths in life will take me to heaven, I may have substantially reduced reason for choosing the Christian road. I may opt for it simply because it’s what I was raised in or know best. But it will still work, so long as I really have followed it, and continue to do so, when the going gets tough and I might be tempted to opt out for something more comfortable.”
James D. G. Dunn: NT Pneumatology
“That the Spirit, and particularly the gift of the Spirit, was a fact of experience in the lives of the earliest Christians has been too obvious to require elaboration (eg., Acts 2.4; 4.31; 9.31; 10.44-46; 13.52; 19.6; Rom. 5.5; 8.1-16; 1 Cor. 12.7, 13; 2 Cor. 3.6; 5.5; Gal. 4.6; 5.16-18, 25; 1 Thess. 1.5f.; Titus 3.6; John 3.8; 4.14; 7.38f.; 16.7–the presence of the Spirit was to be better than the presence of Jesus). It is a sad commentary on the poverty of our own immediate experience of the Spirit that when we come across language in which the NT writers refer directly to the gift of the Spirit and to their experience of it, either we automatically refer it to the sacraments and can only give it meaning when we do so (1 Cor. 6.11; 12.13; 2 Cor. 1.21f.; Eph. 1.13f.; Titus 3.5-7; John 3.5; 6.51-58, 63; 1 John 2.2o, 27; 5.6-8; Heb. 6.4), or else we discount the experience described as too subjective and mystical in favour of a faith which is essentially an affirmation of biblical propositions, or else we in effect psychologize the Spirit of existence.”
-James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970), 225-226.
Miroslav Volf: Allah and the Trinity
Miroslav Volf has written a new article in Christian Century titled, “Allah and the Trinity: A Christian response to Muslims” (coming out March 8, 2011). This article was adapted from his book, Allah: A Christian Response, which is hot of the press (Feb, 15, 2011). Personally, I’m puzzled by the big hoopla over Rob Bell’s new book (which is not even out yet), and the relative silence over this book by one of the world’s most influential Christian theologians alive today with proposes such a controversial claim that, “Muslims and Christians worship the same God” (Press Release).
As one who is not well versed in Islamic theology, I humbly offer my initial thoughts, on Volf’s article, “Allah and the Trinity.” The objective of his article, which is actually revealed at the end of his article is twofold:
1. “to demonstrate that the rejection of the Trinity in the Qur’an does not refer to normative Christian understanding of God’s threeness, and that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not call into question God’s oneness….”
2. “to remind Christians that Muslim objections to the doctrine of the Trinity and the uncompromising affirmation of God’s oneness from which these objections stem are not in themselves good enough reasons for Christians to think that they have a radically different understanding of God than Muslims.” (p. 24).
Does Volf succeed in his objectives?
Volf does helpfully clear up several misunderstandings and miscommunication between Muslims and Christians. He addresses the perception of Muslims: “that Christians are not really monotheists.” Volf defends and upholds the orthodox Christian doctrine that God is One. He states,
“A basic rule for Christians as they speak about God is this: ‘Never divide divine essence’…. A positive way to make the same point would be to say that Christians affirm ‘numerical identity of the divine essence.’”
Furthermore, Volf explains that the unity of “the divine three who are indivisibly one” is to be properly understood in both God’s act and being. He states, “God’s acts are undivided and inseparable,” which is due to the perichoretic unity of the divine persons (p. 22). In expounding upon the theological term “perichoresis,” Volf approvingly uses Augustine’s language: “‘they are always in each other’ and never ‘alone’” (p. 23). Overall, Volf gives a clear presentation to both his Muslim and Christian readers that they really do hold monotheism in common.
In an effort to highlight this commonality and overcome Muslim perceptions that Christians are tritheists or polytheist, Volf points out that the Muslim’s suspicion is largely due to a number of texts in the Qur’an which seem to object to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Volf specifically addresses five texts from the Qur’an and argues that “the Qur’an’s objections do not address normative Christian beliefs about God” (p. 23). Some of Volf’s response to the Qur’an’s objections are helpful and constructively move the dialogue forward (I won’t rehash the whole article for you, so you’ll have to read it yourself!).
However, I would like to note that two of Volf’s responses seem to fail at supporting his objectives. First, Volf responds to the following objection, “God cannot be ‘Christ, the son of Mary,’ because then God would be a creature, in need of food and shelter, not the sovereign creator of heaven and earth, beyond all needs,” by saying:
“Christians generally do not say that God was Christ; I know of no significant classical theologian who makes that claim. Instead, Christians say that ‘Christ was God’—or, to use New Testament phrases, that ‘God was in Christ’ (see 2 Cor. 5:19) or that the eternal ‘Word became flesh’ (John 1:14). The two claims—that God was Christ, and Christ was God—seem similar but are in fact very different. Christians believe that Christ was fully human and therefore in need of food and shelter, as well as fully divine and therefore of one undivided essence with God” (p. 22).
Here, the foundational issue with this objection of the Qur’an is the deity of Jesus of Nazareth. Even with Volf’s distinction between the phrases “God was Christ” vs. “Christ is God,” Volf still doesn’t overcome the objection. The whole point of the objection is that no human being can be God, since this would limit God and make him dependent on other things. Volf seems to simply assert the Christian belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God. Therefore, the objection remains.
Second, Volf responds to the next objection, “Christians worship persons they associate with God in denigration of the one true God,” by saying:
“Christians agree that anyone who worships a human being does so in denigration of God; that person is an idolater. Christians reject worship of Christ or anyone else in place of God. In worshiping Christ, whom they consider to be fully divine, they are worshiping the one and undivided divine essence” (p. 22).
Again, the foundational issue is in Christology. Christians do in fact worship Jesus who is a human being. But he is not merely a human being, he is at the same time fully God. And, this is what Islam rejects (to my knowledge)–the One True God became a human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, the objection remains.
I would have to say that the essential difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians follow Jesus Christ and consider him to be fully God, while Islam follows Jesus as one prophet among others (less than Muhammad) and consider him to only be a human being. The heart of the disagreement between Muslims and Christians, might in fact be over the Trinity. Yet, the heart of the dispute over the Trinity is orthodox Christianity’s Christology.
In 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon, Christians established the orthodox view of Jesus:
“truly God and truly man…consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in manhood…made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one person and one hypostasis, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 231-232).
In his effort to break down the theological obstacles between Allah and the Trinity and bring Muslims and Christians to the common table of monotheism, Volf appears to be side stepping the issue of Christology. So, I remain unconvinced by the arguments that he makes to support his two objections (stated at the beginning). I’m sure he will be addressing this issue further in his book (which I haven’t read yet), in which case I await to be convinced by his more complete arguments!
