The Border of Stupidity

According to President Obama, Israel should withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders and make room for a Palestinian State. Perhaps he's discovered a viable principle that should be broadly applied any and everywhere with equal validity:

• Germany can go back to its pre-1945 borders
• Mexico can go back to its pre-1848 borders
• For that matter, "Indian Territory" can go back to its pre-1763 borders
• Or Judea could return to its pre-135 borders.

Obama's policy is stupidity, or the abetting of genocide. I have no doubts God will never let it stand. Will voters do the same in 2012? Apparently not, we are truly in the last days!

Why Cessationism Bugs Me

There are many brothers and sisters who don't see the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the same way that I do. That's OK, although I wish for them the experiences I have had in the Holy Spirit, and even better ones. Honest Christians who don't see from the Word the way into such experiences, are acceptable to me. What isn't are smug naysayers who justify in their own minds an experience of Christianity which isn't like that reported in the Word. All the while, ridiculing those who dare to believe that such an experience could be theirs.

Demands are made for proof, for documentation, for willingly undergoing a spiritual colonoscopy to satisfy the lack of belief in the naysayer. Jesus never felt compelled to bend to similar demands from his naysayers, I see no reason for the spiritually experienced to do so today. I say that any explanatory onus is not on the one endeavoring to live experientially in line with what's in the Word, but on the one who isn't experiencing what is described in the Word. In light of the divergence their experience demonstrates from what is reported in the Word, it is the cessationists and spiritually inactive who have some explaining to do!

I understand, there have been all manner of fleshy demonstrations, goofiness, and out and out fraud among charismatics, but how is that record any worse (or even different) from that for cessationist Christianity. The plain truth is that for cessationists God is mutable, and perhaps even disabled. Without warning or explanation he pulled the rug out from under the disciples' mission and changed their assigned techniques for evangelism and practice within the church. What could be the reason for that, did he run out of power?

If anything changed, it was Christians, specifically their faith in God to demonstrate what he said he would demonstrate through them. It is not surprising to me that when and where Christians dare to believe that what is described in the Word can be their experience, it becomes their experience. God has not changed, neither has his mission for the church, nor the power he makes available for them to do what he's commanded. I think what needs to change is us.

What Happens After We Die: Final Thoughts

I think the scriptures are reasonably clear about what happens when people die. The body turns back to dust in death and the soul departs to one of two places. For the believer (or the immature child of a believer) the soul is ushered into the presence of God, where he or she stays until the Rapture. For the unbeliever, their soul is placed into Sheol (in Greek, Hades), under some duress (if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was intended to describe the afterlife factually).

At the end of time God will raise all the dead who had not been raised up to that point. Everyone of them, soul reunited with body, will be brought before God's judgment bench for final disposition. Those written in the Lamb's Book of Life are taken into eternity with Christ, those that are not are judged by their works and thrown into the appropriately heated place in the Lake of Fire. The conditions of all parties is final and eternal.

We cannot be essentially destroyed; we cannot have our wills co-opted and still be what God made us to be; the unrepentant among us cannot be allowed to roam free. What can be done with the likes of man after death and for eternity? Those that repent and embrace Christ can be cleansed and remade and then freed to live in agreement with God. Those that do not repent must be locked forever into an environment that will keep them from expressing their sinfulness.

Annihilation is clearly unscriptural; universalism is as well; inclusivism is and isn't at the same time. For the incapable children of believers, inclusivism is absolutely true. For the incapable among unbelievers there is some reason to be optimistic that it might be true. For what I'll call "noble savage inclusivism," the doctrine can only betray the semi-pelagianism of the one promulgating it, and it is patently untrue.

When we get to eternity, I am sure there will be surprises concerning who made it and who did not. There is no reason not to think that we will find the odd unknown walking the golden streets, who far from the climes of the Levant, was visited by God (like Abram), repented and put trust in him as a result. While I'm satisfied admitting my necessary ignorance in the matter and leaving it to the judge of all the earth to do right, I am certain that there will be no post-mortem grace, nor will any idolater see the kingdom of heaven.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism III

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

If there are any clear biblical grounds for inclusivism concerning children, the best would have to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 (and even that is iffy). A decent case can be made that the verse deals in context merely with the legitimacy (clean vs. unclean) of an existing marriage in the eyes of God when one party comes to faith but the other does not. If that union was considered spiritually unacceptable by God, the children would be the products of fornication and unclean. If the marriage is valid spiritually (clean) in the eyes of God, then the children produced by it are clean too.

The thought would have to be Jewish at it's root, developed ultimately from Malachi 2:11-16, as I see it. If legitimacy is the prime concern, then Paul would have to be saying that the principle of Malachi 2:11 cannot be applied to an existing marriage between one who remains an unbeliever and one who becomes a Christian. In these cases, the presence of the believer in the union sets apart the unbeliever so that the union is seen as acceptable by God, and the progeny resulting would be holy. Whereas I see the merit in such an interpretation, I don't think it quite captures the entirety of the thought--more than legitimacy or illegitimacy seems to be at stake to me.

The point of sanctified children is that they would be considered part of the covenant community, benefactors of the covenant blessings. If the marriage was acceptable, then the offspring produced as a result of it are considered part of the Israel. And here is where inclusivism both hits a rock and sets sail for me. If the inclusivist thought is true (i.e. all children are born innocent, and under the blood that was shed for everyone) then why reference the uncleanness or unacceptability of children at all? In what meaningful way could children from a mixed marriage be unsanctified?

Interpretations that refer the thought to being exposed to the gospel or in a better place to come to faith (extrapolated from the spousal argument Paul makes) are unsatisfying. They just don't explain the hullaballoo in the passage. If there is an inclusivist claim that can be made here, the only one that stands up, imo, would be one that says the children of believers are included in salvation until they decide they don't want to be. In fact, I do see the verse substantiating that very thought.

When it comes to children, or even the infirm in general, I cannot say with any certainty what happens after death to those who were born of unbelievers. Good arguments exist to see them as included in Christ: what doesn't exist is a bible verse or verses that say as much. There are, on the other hand, verses that call into question whether or not such is the case. What I can say with some confidence is that children born of believers will be included, and that, at least, is a comfort to me.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism II

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

Even the case of the immature and the infirm being included in salvation is anything but airtight. At best a hopeful biblical principle, rather than an explicit statement, can be derived for their salvation. As I see it, three possible grounds exist for inclusivism concerning the immature and infirm: (1) infants have nothing to repent of and so would be included in Christ's resurrection; (2) the immature and infirm are not able to apprehend creation's witness of God, are not truly able to meet the condition of salvation (faith in Christ), and so would be included in the provision of atonement which was made for everyone; and (3) the children of a believer are included in the the body of Christ unless they decide not to believe.

I do not see how infants could have anything of which to repent. Even though they are born into sin and death, separated from God, they have not sinned personally. They have not even had the opportunity to ignore God's witness in creation, so including them in judgment would seem a travesty of justice. It is a God-given principle that children are not made to pay for the sins of their fathers, so it would appear they must be safe.

We do have some disturbing precedents in scripture, however. I wonder, how many infants died in the Flood, or why infants and children were killed by the invading Israelites under the command of God? It seems evident to me that there are mysteries in understanding how God views the situation of children. I search in vain for that one clear, unequivocal passage of scripture that answers these questions.

To me, inclusivist doctrines purporting to understand what God will do in these instances reflect more what the author would like God to do than they report what God said he would actually do. Given Christ's universal atonement, I see the logic in formulating an exclusion to the condition of faith in Christ for those incapable to express such faith through disability. What I do not see is that clearly demonstrated by scripture.  

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism I

We're continuing on the subject of what happens after we die, specifically discussing whether or not people who did not have an informed faith in Christ while they lived could be included in the benefits of the salvation Christ wrought after they die (inclusivism).

So far I've shared that annihilation of the soul is an impossibility because of the nature of the image of God in which mankind is made. I've also said that manipulation or control of the image of God by fiat would so mar it as to render it no longer the image of God. I've also stated concerning repentance that "through the Gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit we have our opportunity." That, however, raises the question about whether or not the lack of opportunity might negate the need for the Gospel and conviction. Let's explore.

God does not, I don't know that he can, make a soul (in his image) live in accord with him if that soul doesn't want to in its own right. Adam and Eve were good according to God, without sin within, but they were not willing to submit. Jesus faced serious temptation, especially in Gethsemane, but was willing to submit. In the prototypical models of humanity, it seems, the principle is that the image of God must willingly agree and submit if there is to be agreement and submission at all.

God is not without tools to accomplish his purposes with the image of God: he can convict, he can persuade, he can woo, and he certainly can suggest. Indeed, he must do all that and more if any are to be saved, but putting puppet strings upon the image of God is just something he will not do over the long run. The result would not be the image of God if he did. Therefore, repentance is absolutely essential to living in God's image after death.

It seems to me an open and shut case that anyone who knows enough to repent, must repent, or face hell after death. That repentance cannot be just a simple recognition of one's own sinfulness, but must entail determination to live, going forward, according to God's will. Nature itself is sufficient to convince mankind of God's existence and his basic nature, and is therefore in itself sufficient to render all men everywhere without excuse for denying, disbelieving or ignoring their Maker. With that in mind let's look at a hypothetical example.

Let's say there is a unevangelized pagan somewhere at sometime who looked upon the witness of creation and realized that God was behind it. That pagan reasoned that he must acknowledge his Maker and submit to him. Would not that pagan be like Abram in Ur, or even perhaps even something akin to Naaman? Would that pagan thereby find mercy and grace in God, and be included in Christ? No, he would not for very good reasons.

At very best, and by his own reckoning, he would serve God according to his own devices; would be dependent upon his own works to maintain his status with God; would have to fashion his own religion to serve God (is that not intrinsically idolatrous?). What is unclear about the scriptures' judgment about the efficacy of any of those actions? If works do not justify a Jew, who has the law from God's mouth, how are they going to justify a pagan who has conjured his law through his best intuition? He may get a few things right, but by no means would be justified before the Lord. He may know there's a Creator, what he needs to know is the Savior.

In the case of Abram, and all of the OT patriarchs (Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, even Samuel) what made the difference for them was the visitation of God. Whether by direct appearance, or through the Holy Spirit revealing, or by the word of God being heard (or read), God must make the difference if a person to a have saving faith (which was true for even Naaman and the Ninevites in Jonah's day). This is just not something people come to on their own, even looking at the witness of creation. Some may object saying that's unfair or unloving (subjective), but what's more important is whether or not it's true (objective).

I say, we must trust God to abide by the word Jesus spoke (John 6:37-47 ESV):

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 

Jesus, in this passage, tells us how saving gets done. In a nutshell, salvation is the work of Christ, the benefit of which is bestowed on all who believe in him. That belief is specific and personal, for it results in the saved coming to Christ, looking to Christ, and believing in Christ. To those who grumbled about his claim to be the divine means of salvation, Jesus defended his exclusivity and necessity and dismissed their objections by saying that if a person was learning from God, he would come to Christ.

Where, then, is the hope for the noble savage, if indeed, such a beast exists? I've shown that the development of saving faith requires the visitation of God. If that is so, why would God visit and direct a heathen to someone or something other than Christ? If one postulates there is another path to salvation than saving faith, the burden of proof is upon him. I cannot find any clue of such in the scriptures.

What Happens When We Die: Universalism

I've been exploring what happens after we die, which I continue now by looking into the thought of universalism, which suggests that Christ's salvivic work will be applied to all humans at some point.

Immortality in freedom is impossible for those who are not submitted to God. Can God in his omniscience and omnipotence allow that which is anti-God, that which is evil, to exist and still be God? I don't think so-- minimally, that would be saying that he is not sovereign, ultimately that would make evil intrinsic to him. For evil to remain in what God created would mean that it was reflective of him, that it is one of his attributes.

I've already said the ship has sailed on the possibility of annihilating mankind because we are made in his image, and ensouled by his very breath. I also think the ship has sailed on God enforcing his will on people as if it was their own. We are made like unto God with freedom of will (apart from which there can be no sin or godly love). God could manipulate us, of course, but the cost would be effacing his image in us, which is not his stated will. We are not made of a substance that can be made to do what someone else wants it to and still be in the image in which we were made--God is not of that nature and neither are we.

I have said before that Universalism should be the logical conclusion of Calvinism (insofar as one abides by the meanings of words, that is). To my reckoning, universalism, inclusivism and Calvinism make the error of positing that God will by fiat transform the lost. Though the lost did not want what God wanted nor do as God would have them do, they will because God will make them do so. If Adam and Eve did not live that way in Eden, that is not the way those in God's image live at all. It never has been true on earth and never will be true in the heavenlies!

Granted, some Universalists envision the flames of hell as producing the most beneficial change (repentance) in the those being toasted--God as the ultimate Skinnerian, I suppose; an evangelical approach to purgatory, perhaps. Not only is there not so much as a peep about such a conception in the scriptures, the Apocalypse seems to render the difference between those inside the New Jerusalem and those outside with finality. We have this life until we die to change our minds about God, through the Gospel and the conviction of the Holy Spirit we have our opportunity.

What Happens After We Die: Annihilation

When it comes to the subject of what happens after we die, humans do not bring a lot to the table. It really is outside of any experience we have or can gain, at least in the land of the living. Logic, intuition and discovery are out the window. No matter how long we think about it, no matter how we try to resolve our feelings, no matter how deeply we delve into the nature of things, we really are left without a clue about what happens after people die. Even near death experiences don't answer the questions, because unlike in horseshoes, nearness doesn't count.

All we have that is authoritative in these matters is what revelation God has seen fit to give us. We can make some suppositions on the basis of that little bit of information, even speculate a bit trying to extrapolate from that data set, but we are beggars when it come to this subject. We have no means in ourselves to get the goods we seek. We can only receive that which the able and seeing has deigned to drop upon us as he's passed our way.

It seems to me, that at its core this issue comes down to properly understanding what it means to be made in the image of God. According to his word, we are the only thing created in the material world for which that description can be made. I think an argument could be made for at least some kind of angelic being fitting the description as well, since they are referred to as the "sons of God" in Job. So, humans and some angelic beings are made akin, reflective of the Father of spirits. What does that mean?

We are made with a sense of self, or personhood, along the line that the Lord God Almighty possesses. We will, choose, want, and create. It is what we've been made for. We're wisps of God's very breath, most assuredly, but that also means we are as indestructible in essence as is he. Can God destroy some aspect of himself? No, I do not believe he can--it would make him less God. Can God destroy some aspect of himself that he's leant to other creatures to live and be as they are? I don't think he can, and hence scriptures consistent testimony that the souls of mankind are eternal.

Annihilation is impossible because at our cores, we are not made of destructible stuff. The possibility of destruction disappeared when God decided to make us in his image and breathed into us the breath of life. Our living soul is made of the indestructible breath of God. We last forever, and God could no more destroy us now than he could destroy himself--that ship sailed at the creation. Even if our bodies disappeared in an instant, our souls would continue forever.

All that can be done with us for eternity is to immobilize us, segregate us, and then expose us to an environment that is so overwhelming that we have no ability to fill the spaces, all of which God is omnisciently aware of, with rebellious and evil thoughts. Generally, we refer to that reality as Hell. Now, some might question whether or not God could be that impotent in the face of his creatures. I mean, couldn't he make them be something else by fiat? Something more agreeable? After all, he is the sovereign Lord.

If God could have created something in his image that was that controllable, it wouldn't have been his image! In the end, whether or not something could be done another way by God is a silly question. The perfect God did what he did. Could it have been done differently? Perhaps. Could it have been better? Absolutely not! If there were some other way, some better way, for God to accomplish his ultimate aims, he would have done it that way. 

Second-guessing God

What happens when some tenet of the Bible grates against our sensibilities? In those circumstances, we have a choice of faith: trust in God and go with the self-disclosure of his word, or tap into human intellect, get out an eraser, and blur the distinctive line drawn in the sand. Christians have faced this test over and over, and, IMHO, failed over and over again in that test of faith. We always come up with a reason to stay in Haran.

How so? You may ask. Let me list some of the areas of doctrine where I see the problem...

Inclusivism
Universalism
Annihilationism
Cessationism
Perseverance of Salvation
The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
Infallibility of the Word
Inspiration of the Word
Holiness
Social Gospel
Liberation Gospel
Deliverance

If you'd like me to expound, leave a comment (I probably will at some point even if you don't  ;-o ).