Note: This is a continuation of the previous post.
I apologize for how long it has taken to return to the subject of Rob Bell’s book. Quite frankly, I find his work frustrating, because it is essentially a treatise of bad theology.
In support of his position, Bell claims Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught that all would be saved (Bell 107). For the sake of argument, let us grant this to him. (But note that this may not be true.) Need we then believe it on the basis of these two witnesses?
No. We do not then need to conclude the truth of the proposition. We have already concluded that the Bible does not teach that all will be saved. Who else among the Church Fathers could we quote?
“He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him.” (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.)
“And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” (The First Apology of Justin Martyr, Chapter 8. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I.)
“… so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity for repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us.” (The Second Epistle of Clement, Chapter 8. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IX. Note, this is Clement of Rome.)
These are three sufficient to show that not all of the Church Fathers agreed with the idea that all would be saved. Indeed, these three listed all wrote before Clement of Alexandria and Origen. This shows that the clear teaching of Scripture continued even after the death of the Apostles. (I am not making an unguarded affirmation as to the truth of all of their statements. We are all human, and subject to making mistakes.)
Now, let us imagine that the belief that all would be saved was the most prevalent teaching in the first six centuries. To claim that this makes it true is fall prey to the ad populum fallacy. That is, if enough people vote for something, it must be true! But this, of course, is not how truth is determined. Those who believed in “the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God” (Bell 107) did so in opposition to the Scripture. It was for this reason that the teaching of universalism was condemned in the council of Constantinople in 543 AD. (Galli, Kindle Location 1788. He may actually have meant the council in 553 AD, although Justinian did create an edict in 543 or 544 AD against the ideas of Origen.)
“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment doesn’t” (Bell 107 Kindle Edition). As declared by the title of the book, Bell is trying to emphasize God’s love. And who could fault him for that? After all, Scripture does say that “God is love” (1 John 4:16).
But this is not the final word on God’s character. Indeed, just a little further in 1 John we find: “The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life” (1 John 5:12, NET). So, even here in the book that emphasizes God’s love so much, we find that not all will be saved.
So, if God loves us, and is all-powerful, why won’t everyone be saved? God does indeed love us. He is also all-powerful. But these are not the only aspects of God’s character.
God is also Just and Holy. In His Holiness, God cannot abide the presence of Sin. In His Justice, Sin must be judged and punished.
He has made a way for us to escape the penalty of Sin, while still fulfilling His Justice. To merely forgive all Sin, without the penalty being paid would deny God’s Justice. To merely ignore all Sin would deny His Holiness. God will not act in a manner that is contrary to His own character. And, as John 3:18b says, “The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God” (NET). God does not cause/force all people to believe, and those who do not believe are condemned.*
We have looked previously at some aspects of the condemnation of the unbelievers. We need not go over all of that ground again.
"Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, 'Sorry, too late'" (Bell 108)? Let us look at this more closely. First, this assumes that anyone in Hell would be truly willing to repent. Yes, they will acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. However, this is not the same as repenting and ending their rebellion against the Holy God. After all, who is the truly repentant one? The one who turns himself in and throws himself on the mercy of the Court? Or the one who repents only upon facing the Judge and seeing the penalty he must pay? Second, Scripture clearly teaches the time for repentance is limited:
"Seek the Lord while he makes himself available;
call to him while he is nearby!
The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle
and sinful people their plans.
They should return to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them,
and to their God, for he will freely forgive them." (Is. 55:6-7, NET)
Repentance must take place while the LORD allows himself to be found! (This passage in Isaiah is addressed specifically to Israel, but the next chapter extends the invitation to the Gentiles.) We have this life in which to repent, and we have no idea when it will end. Don't bank on having a chance to repent after Judgment has been pronounced upon you!
"Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: 'Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late" (Bell 108 Kindle Edition). However, is this not exactly what we see in the parable of the Ten Virgins? (The parable is found in Matt 25:1-13. I will not quote it all here.) To summarize, five of the virgins were foolish and five were wise. The wise ones were ready for the coming of the bridegroom, but the foolish were not. The five foolish virgins had to go and get more oil for their lamps. While they were out, the bridegroom came. The five wise virgins went in to the wedding feast. "Then the door was shut. Later, the other virgins came too, saying, ‘Lord, lord! Let us in!’ But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I do not know you!’ Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour" (Matt 25:10b-13, NET). Those who reject this scenario have not read the Scriptures!
Now, in all of this, Bell has not been rejecting Hell itself, but that Hell is necessarily Eternal. "Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God's ways for us. We can have all the hell we want" (Bell 113). Very well, but this does not mean that we are free to choose to not have Hell once we are there. The prisoner is not free to leave the prison just because he has decided he has been punished enough.
I will skip the rest of chapter four. It is really more of the same.
* Arminians and Calvinists disagree on how people come to believe, but they will likely all agree with this statement.
Galli, Mark. God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2011.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
No comments:
Post a Comment