DRTIMWHITE.COM

Week  10 Assignment: Read pages 321-329 in MacArthur and Ephesians 6:5-9. Read and comment on the four posts for week ten.

Mark Driscoll said in his sermon on Slaves and Masters, “Slavery is a shameful page in the history of our nation and history of the American church. Many of the framers of our Constitution claimed to be Christians who considered white men to be created by God with inherent rights deserving representation. But, many were also slave owners who claimed black men deserved only 3/5 representation (as if they were less image bearers of God), an atrocity not corrected until the passage of the 13th Amendment.” The Emancipation Proclamation was only an Executive Order from President Lincoln that freed slaves but did not make the institution of slavery illegal. That required the 13th Amendment.

Tim Keller agrees when he writes “a deep stain on Christian history is the African slave trade. Since Christianity was dominant in the nations that bought and sold slaves during that time, the churches must bear responsibility along with their societies for what happened.” This is one of the many arguments that skeptics raise against Christianity that Keller addresses in “The Reason for God.”

It is a tragic fact that not only did our nation split over slavery but major denominations in America split over New World Slavery: The Presbyterians split in 1838 and the Methodists in 1844. The Southern Baptist Convention was established in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia in order to maintain human slavery. This is regrettable. The southern cotton plantations needed cheap labor whereas the more industrialized north did not.

Scriptures on slavery in the Bible were used to justify slavery in America. There is a problem, however, using verses on slavery in the Bible to justify slavery in America because the two are not equal. “Slavery was taken for granted in all of ancient society” (Homer Kent. Treasures of Wisdom . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, 156).

• Slavery in the Old Testament was protected against abuse (Exodus 21:2).
• Slaves maimed by their masters were set free (Exodus 21:26-27).
• The murder of slaves was a capital offense (Exodus 21:12).
• Kidnapping (a major source for the African slave trade) was forbidden (Deuteronomy 24:7).
• Old Testament bond-service and indentured servanthood was only temporary (Exodus 21:2).
• Jews sometimes sold themselves into slavery to raise their standard of living (Leviticus 25:39).
• Slaves were sometimes just like family and a slave could volunteer to remain a slave if he loved his master (Deuteronomy 15:16-17).

In Some Ways Slavery In Paul’s Day Was Like American Slavery.

In Greek writings, slaves were viewed as property or inanimate tools and not complete humans. Slaves were considered stupid and incapable of providing for themselves and therefore slavery was thought to be a benefit (Harold W. Hoehner. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, page 801).

The treatment of slaves depended on the character of the owner and some owners grossly mistreated their slaves. For example, Emperor “Caligula had the hands of a slave cut off for stealing a piece of silver. He hung them around his neck and paraded him around the dining hall with a placard that stated the reason for the punishment” (Hoehner, 803).

In Many Ways Slavery In Paul’s Day Was Different From American Slavery.

In 1st Century Roman Empire there was little difference, in some areas, between slaves and freemen in race, speech or occupations. Homer Kent writes that slaves were clerks, accountants, doctors, nurses, teachers, advisors, musicians, and artists. There was no climate of unrest among slaves in the first century and the institution of slavery was rarely debated. So when Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters it is much like saying today that Christians should be the best employees in their company.

1. Slavery in Paul’s day was not based on race or skin color. Slaves were from different nationalities and in some cases slaves owned slaves. Whereas in America, slavery was a white/black issue. This prejudice led to the Civil Rights Movement.

2. Free persons could sell themselves into slavery for a contracted time period and when the agreement was over, the slave would be free. Therefore slavery was not life-long. This was not the case with the slavery in America. People in the first century would sell themselves into slavery to raise their standard of living. For example, Epictetus, a first century Stolic philosopher who was born in slavery, reports that when he was a slave he was provided with food, clothes, and shelter, and taken care of when sick. These benefits were not provided when he became a freeperson” (Hoehner,  802).

3. Slaves could be educated in the 1st century as tutors which is referred to in Galatians 3:24. Slaves tutored the sons of their masters in morals and manners. Slaves were also professors in higher education, physicans, and philosophers as in the case of Epictetus.

Scripture Does Not Directly Advocate The Abolition Of The Institution Of Slavery.

Scripture does condemn slave owners  in 1 Timothy 1:10 but not the institution of slavery.

1. People became slaves in the 1st century because of infanticide. Children were abandoned and some were rescued by becoming slaves. To abolish the institution of slavery would mean leaving these children abandoned.

2. People became slaves because of debt. Since people in debt could not file “chapter 11″ they would sell themselves into slavery to pay off their debt. To abolish the institution of slavery would leave the creditors unpaid.

3. Paul taught obedience to government in Romans 13 and to propose the abolition of the institution of slavery would defy government.

Scripture Does In Principle Condemn The Institution Of Slavery.

1. The Bible teaches us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). You cannot love your neighbor and own him/her as a piece of property because he is only 60% the human you are.

2. The Bible teaches that we are to treat others the way we would want them to treat us (Matthew 7:12). We would not want to be kidnapped from our homes, families, country, and shipped to another nation to be abused for the rest of our lives.

3. The Bible condemns self-righteousness which is the essence of racism and the slavery of black people. Jesus condemned self-righteousness in Matthew 5:20. An example of self-righteousness is in Luke 18:9-14 where the Pharisee prayed, “I thank you, that I am not as other men are.” The self-righteous racist prays, “I thank you, that I do not have the color of skin as other men.”

4. Paul taught that slaves and masters are equal brothers in Christ (Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 6:2).

5.  Paul instructed slaves to obtain their freedom if possible (1 Corinthians 7: 21), that slaves are free persons in Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22), and for free persons to avoid slavery (1 Corinthians 7:23).

6. Christianity emphasized the transformation of the individual who could change his culture rather than the reformation of society. Paul instructs both slaves and slave owners to be servants of Christ, who was master of both, in treating each other properly in Ephesians 6: 5-9.

In Part 2, I will show modern day examples of slavery and explore Ephesians 6:5-9 in detail.

There are skeptics today who deny the physical resurrection of Christ from the grave. Tim Keller, in his book The Reason For God, examines this skepticism in chapter 13, The Reality of the Resurrection. Luke, in contrast to the skeptics, says in Acts 1:3 that there are “many infallible proofs” of the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead. One of the irrefutable proofs is the empty tomb; but not the empty tomb by itself. The empty tomb along with the many post-resurrection sightings of Christ in His resurrection body.

The critics argue the corpse of Christ could have been stolen to produce an empty tomb. This argument is refutable. Did the friends of Christ steal His body? Is it reasonable to believe that these followers of Christ who were men and women of integrity would lie about Christ being raised from the dead and then die for a hoax? People do not die for a fraud.

If the friends of Christ did not remove the body of Christ then His enemies must have, say the skeptics. If this were the case why did they not simply display the rotting corpse of Christ when the disciples were preaching that Christ was resurrected and end the nonsense? But they not bring forth Christ’s dead body as exhibit “A”.

What makes the empty tomb irrefutable proof are the at least ten sightings of Christ during the forty days following His resurrection. Christ appeared to different individuals and groups in various locations for one month.

In addition to the appearances was the total transformation of the individuals to whom Christ revealed Himself. After Jesus was crucified by the Jews and the Romans, His followers feared for their lives and cowered behind bolted doors. But when Jesus appeared to them in His resurrection body, they rushed into the market place witnessing to His resurrection and many of them to their death. They did not die for fraud but for their risen Savior.

One of the followers that I would like to focus on was James, the younger half-bother of Jesus. Jesus was of course Mary’s firstborn and virgin born Son. Mary was Jesus’ mother but Joseph was not His father. God was Jesus’ Father. After the birth of Jesus, however, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage and had other children. The next born was James. We believe this because in the texts that list the brothers of Jesus, James is always first.

I have often thought, perhaps, it was frustrating to grow up as the younger half-brother of Jesus. Any time James misbehaved, I imagine Mary saying, “James why can’t you be like your brother Jesus?” Well, it is obvious why James could not behave like Jesus. Jesus was and is the perfect, sinless Son of God.

Or maybe Jesus would tell James to do something. Perhaps they were working in Joseph’s carpenter shop and Jesus tells James, “James we need some more lumber.” James could have responded, like my three younger brothers sometimes responded to me at home, “I ain’t your slave!” It could have been difficult living with Jesus as your older half-brother.

These two brothers eventually grew up and James listen to Jesus preach, saw Him opened blinded eyes, and also heard Jesus claim to be the Old Testament predicted Messiah, Son of God, and Savior of the world. There is a remarkable statement in John 7:5 about the home life of James and Jesus: “For neither did his brothers believe in him.” The siblings who grew up in the same home with Jesus did not except Him as their Savior while He was in their home.

But then came that dark day when James saw his older half-brother crucified. James saw where the Romans drove nails through the hands and feet of Jesus. James also observed the Roman soldier, whose duty was to ensure the death of the crucified criminal, drive the spear not only through the side of Jesus but into His heart. James painfully watched the soldiers take the dead, limp, and blood soaked body of Jesus off the cross and place him in the tomb.

On the third day, however, Jesus arose from the dead and started appearing to people. Paul records in 1st Corinthians 15 that Jesus in His resurrected body appeared to Peter, the twelve apostles, and five hundred brethren at one time. Then very significantly, Paul records that Jesus appeared to James, His younger half-brother. It seems almost as if Jesus determined to reveal Himself to His younger brother. Then James could pass on the news to the rest of the family. What a revelation that must have been for James when he saw Jesus with the nail prints in His hands and feet. Surely, James exclaimed, “You really are the Messiah, Son of God, and Savior of the world.” It is believed this is time when James trusted his older half-bother as his Savior.

James not only trusted Christ as his Savior but he surrendered as his servant. James was eventually called to preach and pastor the most prominent church in the first century, the church of Jerusalem. He also wrote the Epistle that bears his name.

Remember how we imagined the way James must have responded to Jesus telling him to do something when they younger and at home, “I ain’t your slave!” Listen now to how James opens his Epistle in James 1:1, “James, a bondman or slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Now when James’ older half-brother would tell him to do something, James’ reply was: “I am your slave!” “I am your slave and witness of your resurrection to my death if necessary!” And so he was. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, reports that the enemies of James’ older half-brother threw James from the top of the temple and then beat him to death.

What transformed James from a sibling who refused to believe in Jesus as his Savior when they lived together at home to a follower who died for him? The resurrection of Jesus. James met his older half-brother in His resurrection body.

Have you trusted the resurrected Christ and surrendered to be His slave? You can right now. Paul informs each sinner how to be saved in Romans 10:9, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Respond to the irrefutable evidence and bow before the Resurrected Christ.

Let’s review the first four arguments for annihilation and then discuss the final argument and rebuttal.

1. There are passages (Phil 3:19; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 Thess 5:3 and 2 Thess 1:9) that teach the total destruction of the sinner.

2. “Eternal punishment” (Mt. 25:46) does not refer to eternal conscious suffering but the eternal consequences of no restoration after annihilation.

3. Sinners suffering eternally and consciously conflicts with the love of God.

4. Eternal punishment is not fair.

5. The imagery of fire is total consummation not the infliction of pain.

Annihiliationists argue that the images of Hell favor the cessation of existence in eternity. “The main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction as all the world’s incinerators bear witness” (Stott, 316). The chaff is burned up (Matthew 3:12) and also the garbage in Gehenna. Jesus used the image of Gehenna eleven of the twelve times the word is used. Evangelicals who accuse any person who preaches hell as a place of conscious torment of being sadist and savage and preaching a “doctrine of savagery” condemn Christ for He preached more on hell than heaven (Michael Green. Evangelizing Through the Local Church. Nashville: Nelson, 1992, 73). How did Jesus use the image of Gehenna?

“The word is derived from the ‘valley of Hinnom’ found in the Old Testament (Joshua 15:8; 2 Kings 23:10; Nehemiah 11:30). In that valley outside Jerusalem the Jews gave human sacrifices to pagan deities. There, too, the garbage of the city was thrown, where it bred worms. That explains why Christ referred to hell as the place where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9:44, 46, 48). This picture of an unclean dump where fires and worms never die became to the Jewish mind an appropriate description of the ultimate fate of all idolaters. Thus the word became applied to the ultimate gehenna. The Jews taught, and Christ confirmed, that the wicked would suffer there forever. Body and soul would be in eternal torment” (Lutzer, 110, 111).

Carson admits that “there is a substantial metaphorical element in the Bible’s descriptions of hell….Hell is real; the question is how far the descriptions of it are to be taken literally. Normally, we do not think of unquenchable fire and worms coexisting: the former will devour the latter as easily as they will consume people. It is hard to imagine how a lake of fire coexists with utter darkness. And if one is cast into a lake of fire, what need of chains?” (Carson 524). Stott believes that the inferences of fire and worms or maggots are the total destruction of the sinner in Hell until nothing is left (Stott, 317). Jesus did not say the worm does not die, but “their worm” dies not. This must mean the sinner also does not cease to exist to whom the worm is bound.

If language in the Bible is symbolic then the meaning of the symbol is usually given in the context as in Revelation 1:12-20. The seven golden candle stick and stars are symbols of seven churches and pastor. The context tells us the symbolic meaning the these symbols. This does not occur in reference to images of hell: fire, worms, chains, and darkness.

If fire is not quenched as Jesus preached in Mark 9:44-48, and therefore is eternal, why does the fire not consume the worm whose purpose is complete with the total destruction of wicked. Why does the fire burn eternally, if the fire has destroyed the sinner’s body?

Could chains be literal? Even if the image is not literal that does not take away the literal truth that sinners are confined to Hell for eternity. In Revelation 20:1-3, Satan, an angel, is bound with a chain for 1000 years. Could this be a literal chain binding a spirit being? Angels sometimes acquired physical bodies as in Genesis 18 and 19 whose feet were washed (18:4; 19:2) and who ate food (18:8; 19:3). So is it very possible that Satan and the unsaved will be bound with literal chains.

Sinners are cast into “the outer darkness” in Matthew 25:30 which the annihiliationists see as conflicting with literal fire in Hell. There is no more contradiction between outer darkness and eternal fire than a house going up in flames at midnight or garbage burning in Hinnom in pitch black. We cannot dismiss the images of God’s Word and especially the literal truth the images teach.

There are two passages in Revelation that refute annihiliationism. The first is Revelation 14:10-11. The worshippers of the beast and his image “will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and is image, or for anyone who receives the mark of the name.” Fudge believes that the smoke memorializes the consumed sinner: “Actually torment is meted out according to the mixture of God’s cup. Then, as the next image points out, it is forever memorialized in the smoke that remains” (Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994, 297-298). The problem with that interpretation is that the text says the unsaved have “no rest day or night” and also it is “the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever.”

The other passage in Revelation 20:10-15 which describes the Great White Throne Judgment. Stott believes the beast and false prophet are not real persons but symbols of hostility against God. This scene according to Stott predicts the ultimate destruction of enmity and resistance to God (Stott, 318). The literal hermeneutic of Scripture interprets these individuals as real persons used by Satan in the future Tribulation Period. If a person is not real and intended to be symbolic as with other symbols, then the meaning of symbolic person is given. An example is Revelation 12:1-6 which informs us that the woman symbolizes Israel and the child is Jesus. But no such meaning is given to the false prophet and the antichrist. So we must take these two individuals as real men who are eventually cast into hell. Stott believes Satan is a real person so why not these two men who assist him?

Stott who believes in a personal Devil, does not mention Satan’s suffering. If the person Satan can suffer consciously and eternally so can those who choose to follow him. The reality of at least one person suffering in Hell is proof that others will suffer as well. Stott also does not mention unsaved in verse 15: “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” How can the same fire not consume Satan and consume these followers of him?

I have written polemically concerning Hell trying to hold my emotions in check. It is difficult to write academically about a place where some of our unsaved friends and loved ones are and unless we win them to Christ others will go. We should pray for our unsaved friends and family with Paul: “My heart’s desire and prayer for Israel is that they might be saved.” When we do pray, we pray to a God who said: “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn you, turn you from your evil ways; for why will you die” (Ezekiel 33:11). We should also weep for their souls as Jesus wept over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that killed the prophets, and stoned them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not.” Before you click off this post, stop a minute and intercede for the salvation of that lost person that God brings to your mind (your dad, mom, brother, sister, son or daughter, neighbor, a friend from work). Pray that God will use you to prevent from them going to this place of eternal and conscious suffering. Pray that this soul for whom Christ died and provided an escape will “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.”

“A recent Newsweek article says, ‘Today, hell is theology’s H-word, a subject too trite for serious scholarship’” (Erwin Lutzer. One Minute After You Die. Chicago: Moody Press, 1997, 97). As politically incorrect as this subject is here are evangelical arguments for annihilation and Scriptural refutations.

1. There are passages (Phil 3:19; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 Thess 5:3 and 2 Thess 1:9) that teach the total destruction of the sinner.

Stott says “It would seem strange if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed” (David L. Edwards and John Stott. Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, 316). The original words translated “destruction” do not mean total annihilation. The word in Phil 3:19 and 2 Peter 3:7 is apoleia which is the word in used to describe the lost coin in Luke 15. The lost coin did not cease to exist but it did cease to be usable or valuable to the owner. The sinner in hell has a wasted existence when he could have glorified his creator and owner for eternity. He is lost or out of place but not annihilated.

“In 1 Thess 5:3 and 2 Thess 1:9 another word, olethros, is used of the destruction of the wicked, but again this word does not imply that something will cease to exist, for it is used in 1 Cor 5:5 of delivering a man to Satan (putting him out of the church) for the destruction of the flesh—but certainly his flesh did not cease to exist when he was put out of the church, even though he may have suffered in his body (this would be true whether we take ‘flesh’ to mean his physical body or his sinful nature)” (Grudem, 1150).

2. “Eternal punishment” (Mt. 25:46) does not refer to eternal conscious suffering but the eternal consequences of no restoration after annihilation.

In other words the annihilation is irreversible. This is the position of Edward Fudge in The Fire That Consumes and Basil F. Atkinson: “When the adjective (eternal) is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to the result of the action, not the process. Thus the phrase ‘everlasting punishment’ is comparable to ‘everlasting salvation.’ No one supposes that we are being saved forever. We were saved once and for all by Christ with eternal results” (Atkinson. Life and Immortality Taunton: Goodman, 1962, 101).

Salvation, however, is not limited to past deliverance. In addition to past deliverance (Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5), salvation includes present (Heb. 7:25) and future deliverance (Romans 5:9-10; 8:23).
Most of the conservative annihilationists like Stott believe in a personal Devil. In the Mt. 25 passage, verse 41 says, “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” If a personal Devil will suffer eternally and consciously then certainly will those who choose to follow him?

3. Sinners suffering eternally and consciously conflicts with the love of God.

This is Clark Pinnock’s view, as the following quote reveals.

Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed. How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been. Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself. Does the one who told us to love our enemies intend to wreak vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity? As H. Kung appropriately asks, ‘What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?’ Everlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die” (Clark Pinnock, The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” CThRev 4 Spring 1990, 246-253).

Most conservative annihilationists believe in the justice of God which demands that sin and the sinner be punished. If the conscious suffering of the unrighteous violates God’s love then there has to be instant annihilation of the wicked in hell. If this is the case then there is no punishment nor justice. The Hitlers and Stalins get away with murder and experience the same end as the Ghandis. The Word of God teaches there are degrees of suffering and punishment according to the deeds performed (Luke 12:42-48; Rev. 20:11-12). If there is no conscious suffering in Hell then there is no justice in the universe.

4. Eternal punishment is not fair.

The punishment is not equal to the crime, says the annihiliationist. It is like capital punishment for jaywalking. Our response is, because God is just so will be His punishment. This is the point of Jesus’ parable in Luke 12:42-48. Those who deserve more stripes will receive them. “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (12:48).

Another reason the eternal punishment of the sinner is fair is because of the impenitence of the wicked throughout the endless ages. This scenario is suggested in Revelation 22:10-11: “And he says unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” “If the holy and those who do right continue to be holy and to do right, in anticipation of the perfect holiness and rightness to be lived and practiced throughout all eternity, should we not also conclude that the vile continue their vileness in anticipation of the vileness they live an practice throughout all eternity?” (D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 533).

In Revelation 16:10-11, sinners writhing under God’s punishment, blaspheme the God who is judging them and refuse to repent. Why should we think sinners will act differently in eternity?

“In Proverbs we read of the insatiable desires of the netherworld and a man’s lust. ‘Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, nor are the eyes of man satisfied’ (27:20). An alcoholic will thirst for a drop of liquor in hell but will not get it; a drug addict will crave a shot of heroin; the immoral man will burn with sexual desire but will never be gratified. The body will be aflame with lusts, but the fire will never be quenched. It’s as if God is saying, ‘On earth you did not let Me satisfy you but turned to your own lusts; now you will find that those lust can only drive you to despair. Hell, then, is the raw soul joined to an indestructible body, exposed to its own sin for eternity” (Erwin Lutzer, Coming to Grips with Hell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1990, 36). The sinner’s sin is an “eternal sin” according to Mark 3:29 and Matthew 12:32 not to be pardoned nor forsaken in this age nor the age to come which is eternity.

“In his fantasy The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis describes a busload of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell—but they refuse. Lewis’s descriptions of these people are striking because we recognize in them the self-delusion and self-absorption that are ‘writ small’ in our addiction” (Keller, 78). Sinners are in hell because they choose to be there. The Rich Man in Luke 16, while requesting Lazarus go to his brothers’ house, never asked to be released.

Skeptics and evangelicals are man centered in objecting to the eternality of conscious suffering where as the Bible is God centered. The enormity of our sin against an infinite, transcendent, and holy God merits eternal punishment. “What if, from God’s viewpoint, the greatness of sin is determined by the greatness of the One against whom it is committed? Then the guilt of sin is infinite because it is a violation of the character of an infinite Being. What if, in the nature of God, it is deemed that such infinite sins deserve an infinite penalty, a penalty which on one can ever repay?” (Lutzer, One Minute After You Die. 108).

In Part Three, I will discuss the fifth argument and the Scriptural refutation: The imagery of fire is total consummation not the infliction of pain.

“Hell disappeared. And No One Noticed” wrote Martin Marty, American church historian. In his Harvard journal article, Marty recorded some of the preaching on hell long ago by Great Awakening evangelist George Whitefield: “George Whitefield spoke of people cast into hell, lifting up their eyes from the burning fiery Tophet that is kindled by the fury of God’s eternal wrath of this righteous Judge and head of the dreadful tribunal” (Martin Marty. Hell Disappeared. And No One Noticed. A Civic Argument. Harvard Theological Review 78:3-4 1985, 381-89).

Recent surveys confirm Marty’s thesis that preaching on punishment in the afterlife has all but disappeared from our churches. In a survey released this summer by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, just 59 percent of 35,000 respondents said they believe in a hell. That number is down from 71% in a 2001 Gallup survey. Hell has almost burned out.

In the August 14, 2008 edition of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life there was an article entitled “Belief in hell dips, but some say they’ve already been there.”

Charles Honey interviewed Mike Wittmer, professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. “In a pluralistic, post-modern world, students are having a more difficult time with (the idea of) people going to hell forever because they didn’t believe the right thing,” says Mike Wittmer. “That’s the biggest question out there right now: `Would God send someone to hell if they were someone as good as me, but didn’t believe what I believe?’” “It was easier to believe in hell 20 years ago when missionaries tried to convert people in far-flung places….” “In today’s global village, many live next to good, non-Christian neighbors and wonder why an all-powerful, loving God wouldn’t eventually empty out hell….” “I’ve noticed in the last five years how that view is making inroads even in conservative churches, whereas five years ago it wasn’t even uttered or discussed.”

In the same article, Honey wrote about Ernie Long who believes he has been to hell. He can even narrow it down to a particular moment. His mother was dying of cancer. As she lay on her death bed, he swiped her last $5 and the car keys from her purse, went out and got high. When he returned, she was dead. Long goes quiet, thinking about it in the chapel of Guiding Light Mission in Grand Rapids, Mich. When he first moved to the homeless shelter, he recalls, he would wake up in the night haunted by what he’d done. “The shame and guilt engulfed me,” he says quietly. “I couldn’t stop crying.” Today, Long is an intake supervisor for Guiding Light’s recovery program. He believes Jesus saved him from the pit of hell and wants other men to be saved too, here and hereafter. “I think hell is being in the absence of purpose,” says Long, 64, who was addicted to crack cocaine before coming to Guiding Light two years ago. “When I had no purpose, no direction, I actually felt like I was living in hell.”

Evangelicals are increasingly denying the doctrine of hell. There are four defective views held by evangelicals that air condition hell.

The first view is Universalism

“Universalism teaches that since Christ died for all people without exception, it follows that all will eventually be saved.” Early church father, Origen (A. D. 185-254), first taught this doctrine which was later condemned at the Council of Constantinople in A. D. 543 (Erwin W. Lutzer. Coming to Grips with Hell Chicago: Moody, 1990, 11).

A more modern advocate is Madeleine L’Engle in The Irrational Season: “No matter how many eons it takes he (God) will not rest until all of creation, including Satan is reconciled to him, until here is no creature who cannot return his look of love with a joyful response of love” (New York: Seabury Press, 1977, 97). According to Hebrews 2:14, the death of Christ was not for Satan’s redemption but his defeat. Also, John predicts the final and eternal destiny of Satan in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10). Jesus preached that not all are going to heaven: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46).

The second view is Annihilationism

“Those who deny eternal conscious punishment often advocate ‘annihilationism,’ a teaching that, after the wicked have suffered the penalty of God’s wrath for a time, God will ‘annihilate’ them so that they no longer exist” (Wayne Grudem, Sytematic Theology, 1149). Some believe the unrighteous will be resurrected at the final judgment not to be sent to eternal conscious suffering but to be annihilation.

The third view is Conditional Immortality

“A variation of the view that God will eventually annihilate unbelievers (annihilationism proper) is the view called ‘conditional immortality,’ the idea that God has created people so that they only have immortality (the power to live forever) if they accept Christ as Savior. Those who do not become Christians, then, do not have the gift of immortal life and at death or at the time of final judgment they simply cease to exist. This view is very close to that of annihilationism, and I have not discussed it separately in this chapter. (Some versions of conditional immortality deny conscious punishment altogether, even for a brief time.) (Grudem, 1150). This is the view of John R. W. Stott in Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue and Clark Pinnock in The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent.

A fourth view denies the of Literalness of Fire in Hell

“All descriptions and depictions of heaven and hell in the Bible are symbolic and metaphorical. Each metaphor suggests one aspect of the experience of hell. (For example, ‘fire’ tells us of the disintegration, while ‘darkness’ tells us of the isolation.) Having said that does not at all imply that heaven or hell themselves are ‘metaphors.’ They are very much realities. Jesus ascended (with his physical body, mind you) into heaven. The Bible clearly proposes that heaven and hell are actual realities, but also indicates that all language about them is allusive, metaphorical, and partial” (Tim Keller, The Reason for God, New York: Dutton, 2008, 259). Tim Keller advocates this view in chapter Five: “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?”

Since the end result of both Annihilation and Conditional Immortality are the same, the unsaved do not suffer consciously for eternity, I will refer only to Annihilationism. In Part Two, I will give the arguments for annihilation and Scriptural refutations.

Mark Driscoll said in his sermon on Slaves and Masters, “Slavery is a shameful page in the history of our nation and history of the American church. Many of the framers of our Constitution claimed to be Christians who considered white men to be created by God with inherent rights deserving representation. But, many were also slave owners who claimed black men deserved only 3/5 representation (as if they were less image bearers of God), an atrocity not corrected until the passage of the 13th Amendment.”

Tim Keller agrees when he writes “a deep stain on Christian history is the African slave trade. Since Christianity was dominant in the nations that bought and sold slaves during that time, the churches must bear responsibility along with their societies for what happened.” This is one of the many arguments that skeptics raise against Christianity that Keller addresses in “The Reason for God.”

It is a tragic fact that not only did our nation split over slavery but major denominations in America split over New World Slavery: The Presbyterians split in 1838 and the Methodists in 1844. The Southern Baptist Convention was established in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia in order to maintain human slavery. This is regrettable. The southern cotton plantations needed cheap labor whereas the more industrialized north did not.

Scriptures on slavery in the Bible were used to justify slavery in America. There is a problem using verses on slavery in the Bible to justify slavery in America because the two are not equal. “Slavery was taken for granted in all of ancient society” (Homer Kent. Treasures of Wisdom. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, 156).

• Slavery in the Old Testament was protected against abuse (Exodus 21:2).
• Slaves maimed by their masters were set free (Exodus 21:26-27).
• The murder of slaves was a capital offense (Exodus 21:12).
• Kidnapping (a major source for the African slave trade) was forbidden (Deuteronomy 24:7).
• Old Testament bond-service and indentured servanthood was only temporary (Exodus 21:2).
• Jews sometimes sold themselves into slavery to raise their standard of living (Leviticus 25:39).
• Slaves were sometimes just like family and a slave could volunteer to remain a slave if he loved his master (Deuteronomy 15:16-17).

In some ways slavery in Paul’s day was like American slavery.

In Greek writings, slaves were viewed as properity or inanimate tools and not complete humans. Slaves were considered stupid and incapable of providing for themselves and therefore slavery was thought to be a benefit (Harold W. Hoehner. Ephesians. page 801).

The treatment of slaves depended on the character of the owner and some owners mistreated their slaves. For example Emperior “Caligula had the hands of a slave cut off for stealing a piece of silver. He hung them around his neck and paraded him around the dinnig hall with a placard that stated the reason for the punishment” (Hoehner, 803).

In many ways slavery in Paul’s day was different from American slavery.

In 1st Century Roman Empire there was little difference, in some areas, between slaves and freemen in race, speech or occupations. Homer Kent writes that slaves were clerks, accountants, doctors, nurses, teachers, advisors, musicians, and artists. There was no climate of unrest among slaves in the first century and the institution of slavery was rarely debated. So when Paul admonishes slaves to obey their masters it is much like saying today that Christians should be the best employees in their company.

1. Slavery in Paul’s day was not based on race or skin color. Slaves were from different nationalities and in some cases slaves owned slaves. Whereas in America, slavery was a white/black issue.

2. Free persons could sell themselves into slavery for a contracted time period and when the agreement was over, the slave would be free. Therefore slavery was not lifelong. This was not the case with the slavery in America. People in the first century would sell themselves into slavery to raise their standerd of living. For example, Epictetus reports that when he was a slave he was provided with food, clothes, and shetter, and taken care of when sick. These benefits were not provided when he became a freeperson” (Hoehner,  802).

3. Slave could be educated in the 1st century as tutors which is referred to in Galatians 3:24. Slaves tutored the sons of their masters in morals and manners. Slaves were also professors in higher education, physicans, and philosophers as in the case of Epictetus.

Scripture does not directly advocate the abolition of the institution of slavery.

Scripture does condemn slave owners  in 1 Timothy 1:10 but not the institution of slavery.

1. People became slaves in the 1st century because of infanticide. Children were abandoned and some were rescued by becoming slaves. To abolish the institution of slavery would mean leaving these children abandoned.

2. People became slaves because of debt. Since people in debt could not file “chapter 11″ they would sell themselves into slavery to pay off there debt. To abolish the institution of slavery would leave the creditors unpaid.

3. Paul taught obedience to government in Romans 13 and to propose the abolition of the institution of slavery would defy government.

Scripture does in principle condemn the institution of slavery.

1. The Bible teaches us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). You can not love your neighbor and own him/her as a piece of property because he is only 60% the human you are.

2. The Bible teaches that we are to treat others the way we would want them to treat us (Matthew 7:12). We would not want to be kidnapped from our homes, families, country, and shipped to another nation to be abused for the rest of our lives.

3. The Bible condemns self-righteosness which is the essence of racialism and the slavery of black people. Jesus condemned self-righteousness in Matthew 5:20. An example of self-righteousness is in Luke 18:9-14 where the Pharisee prayed, “I thank you, that I am not as other men are.” The self-righteous racialist prays, “I thank you, that I do not have the color of skin as other men.”

4. Paul taught that  slaves and masters are equal brothers in Christ (Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 6:2).

5.  Paul instructed slaves to obtain their freedom if possible (1 Corinthians 7: 21), that slaves are free persons in Christ (1 Corinthinas 7:22), and for free persons to avoid slavery (1 Corinthians 7:23).

6. Christianity emphasized the transformation of the individual who could change his culture rather than the reformation of society. Paul instructs both slaves and slave owners to be servants of Christ, who was master of both, in treating each other properly in Ephesians 6: 5-9.

Keller in chapter four, “The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice,” responds to skeptics who throw up slavery in the Bible as evidence of injustice by saying, “Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries, it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong.” Christian abolitionist, such as William Wilberforce, helped abolish slavery in the British Empire.

Albert Mohler reports what is unknown to many is that slavery is still a world-wide problem. Free The Slaves reports there are 27 million slaves today who are forced to work without pay. In Haiti, there are 300,000 slaves.

Journalist, Dan Harris wrote for ABC news on July 8, 2008, “How to Buy a Child in 10 Hours.” That is how long it took Harris to drive 45 minutes to Kennedy Airport, fly 3 1/2 hours to Port-au-Prince, Haiti and complete a transaction. Harris continues, “by the time my team and I have collected our luggage, gone through immigration and customs, and are loaded into our vehicles, it’s about 3:15 p.m….By 4:45 p.m., I’m poolside at one of the city’s few upscale hotels. I’m wearing a hidden camera built into the strap of a bike messenger-style bag that’s around my neck. There’s another hidden camera in a leather satchel on the table, right next to the fruit plate and Evian water. My colleagues are manning cameras in hotel rooms overlooking the pool. Our security guards are sitting discretely nearby. That’s when the man with whom I’ve arranged a meeting shows up. He says he’s a former member of parliament and that he has connections. In broad daylight, with hotel waiters walking by, he doesn’t even flinch when I make a horrific request. ‘If I would like to get a child to live with me and take care of me,’ I ask. ‘Could you do that?’

‘Yes,’ he says, ‘I can.’

The trafficker assures me he’s done this sort of transaction many times before.

‘A girl or a boy?’ he asks.

‘A girl probably,’ I say.

‘How old?’

‘Mayby 10 or 11.’

In the 21st Century, it is possible to buy a child for sex or cheap labor in just 10 hours. Does the church have a responsibility to address issues such as child slavery? If so, how should the church respond?

Is life fair?” “Are all men created equal?” “Is every one born with a silver spoon in his mouth?” “Does every cloud have a silver lining?” “Is all pain equally distributed throughout the earth?” I asked my friends on Facebook to give me examples of innocent people who suffered because of the sins of others. Here are some of the unedited examples they sent me.

“Kids who have been abused, kids in Africa that have contracted AIDS through their mothers who were mistreated.”

“A drunk driver who kills someone-the family suffers.”

“Divorce. Just because the husband and wife refuse to work things out, the child suffers greatly. He or She is constantly being moved from home to home, not having a constant father figure while seeing no love between their parents. Selfishness in marriage which leads to divorce is devastating not only to the child but to everyone else who is around the couple.”

“The Holocaust”

Elie Wiesel is a Nobel Prize winner, author, and Jewish survivor of Holocaust at Auschwitz. In the picture, Elie is the seventh man on the second row of beds.  ”In the concentration camp, he was compelled to witness the hanging of two Jewish men and one Jewish boy. The two men died almost instantly, but the lad struggled for about a half-hour on the gallows. Someone behind Wiesel muttered, ‘Where is God? Where is He?’ Then a voice within him seemed to say, ‘He is hanging there on the gallows.’”[1] “Where is God?” He is here! God is not remote, untouched, or uninvolved but in the fiery furnace with us. He is not only exaltedly transcendent but intimately immanent.

The skeptics have several arguments with the problem of evil and the existence of God.

First Argument of the Skeptic: How can God and Suffering Co-exist?

David_Hume, the eighteenth century philosopher, is often quoted as articulating the problem of evil and the existence of God: “Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”[2]

Does this argument solve the dilemma? Those who reject God say evolution is the alternative to the existence of God juxtaposed with suffering, rejection, hunger, and death. But is evolution problem free? Tim Keller exposes the weakness of that logic: “The evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak-these things are all perfectly natural.”[3] If only the strong survive in evolution then the innocent suffer. So the elimination of God has not eradicated the suffering of the innocence.

Paul wrote that “All things (which has to include the evil of child molestation, death by drunk drivers, divorce, rape, murder, etc.) work together for good” in Romans 8:28. Paul did not say all these evils are good but that God can use evil for good. One preacher, R. A. Torrey, said Romans 8:28 was a soft pillow for a tried heart. During World War II, another prominent preacher called Romans 8:28 “the hardest verse in the Bible.” So which is it? I recently visited the emergency room at Forsyth Hospital and meet a wife who had just been dealt the devastating blow that her 44 year husband had died and her 13 year old son who sat by her side was visibly in shock. The mother-in-law said to me out in the hall of the hospital, “I see no purpose in this.” Is Romans 8:28 a soft pillow or the hardest verse in the Bible for this family? Which is it to you?

This strategic verse must be interpreted in the context of the entire book of Romans. The overarching theme of Romans is the Righteousness of God through the Gospel. In chapters 1-8, Paul develops this truth doctrinally.

• In chapters 1:18-3:20, Paul argues like a defense attorney that all people are guilty sinners. Evil is not just in the world, evil is in each of us. The skeptic is hypocritical when he points out the evil of God allowing innocent people to suffer and die as if the skeptic has never cause an innocent person to suffer, like his parent, or his child or his spouse. Besides there are no innocent victims as Paul states in his concluding argument: “There is none righteous, no, not one” (3:10). C. S. Lewis said, “Natural disasters do not increase deaths, all of us will die.”
• In chapters 3:21-5:21, Paul gives hope for the sinner in the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
• In chapters 6-8, Paul demonstrates that the doctrine of sanctification is the result of justification by faith.

In chapter 6, Paul outlines the steps of sanctification
In chapter 7, Paul admits there are struggles in sanctification
In chapter 8, Paul rejoices in the security of sanctification

Chapter eight begins with “no condemnation” and ends with “no separation” for those who “walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (8:4). If you have been justified you will have a changed life which gives assurance. You and I can and must have this assurance in the midst of evil and suffering. In Romans 8:1-25, the whole planet is “groaning” and suffering under the curse. Sometimes when the earth groans there is an earthquake, or a hurricane, or a mudslide, or a tornado. That suffering gets closer home for the believer in Romans 8:26-27, where we come to such a low point of weakness we do not know how to pray.

In Romans 8:28-30, Paul declares that God has determined from eternity past our likeness to Christ (perfect sanctification) in eternity future and is presently using daily circumstances to painfully fashion that likeness.

Scripture’s Argument: God and Suffering must Co-exist.

What is the greatest example of suffering in human history? The Holocaust where six million Jews were massacred? The tsunami in December of 2004 which killed 250,000 people? The terrorist attack on 911 in which 2740 died? As horrific as all of these tragedies were, there is one example that is in a class all by itself. That example is found in our chapter: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3).

The skeptic says that God and suffering cannot coexist, but Scriptures affirm they have to co-exist for there to be salvation from present sin and all future suffering.

Was God at the cross? The God/Man was on the cross: “God sending his own Son.”

Was suffering at the cross? Christ “in the likeness of sinful flesh” died for our sins.

Was evil at the cross? God “condemned sin in the flesh” of His Son.

God and suffering also co-exist in our lives. These daily circumstances include the “all things” of evil and suffering. The neuter plural adjective παντα “all things” has no restrictions. The Skeptic in you might be saying, “I wish Paul would have used the masculine. My masculine knight in shining armor just dumped me for another damsel in distress. Others of you are thinking, “I wish Paul would have used the feminine. There is this feminine doll on campus, and I am in love with her, but she doesn’t even know my name.” When Paul used the neuter he included “all things” including your masculine and feminine problems. God is in your suffering accomplishing His will. Maybe you were dumped so God can lead Mr. Right into your life. Maybe see doesn’t know your name now but when it is God’s time she will bear your name. Maybe, don’t take that statement as a prophecy or an absolute.

Second Argument of the Skeptic: Why did God make His Son Suffer?

Some today are accusing God of Divine child abuse. Instead of Sola Scriptura (only Scripture), their view is Sola Cultura (only culture). Just because there is injustice in society you cannot force that reality on the meaning of the cross. Did only the Son suffer at the cross. No! Did God drop his Son off on the doorstep of earth and abandon him?

Scriptures’ Argument: God suffered at the Cross. 2 Cor 5:19 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” Can deity suffer? Yes! Those who teach that God cannot suffer teach the impassibility of God, that is, He is incapable of feeling pain. God is not only deity but personality. God the Spirit (who has no human body or nature like Christ) can be grieved. “Grieve” is a love word. Who can grieve a parent? The neighbor? The fellow employee? No! Only a child. We are made in the image of God who has intellect, will, and emotions. Romans 8:32 gives us a unique look at the suffering (not redemptive) of the Father at the cross.

The Skeptic in you might be asking, “Why is God making me suffer?” God is also with you in your suffering. God did not save you and drop you off on the doorstep of life and abandon you. God is mentioned twice in 8:28. Once “God” is an implied subject in 8:28. Here is how Paul wrote Romans 8:28 “and we know that to those who are loving God all things (“He” implied) works together for good.” We don’t have to guess as to why God is making us suffering or what is the “good” is in verse 28. The answer is in verse 29: So that we can be conformed to the image of God’s Son.

Someone defined “Providence as the Hand of God in the glove of my circumstance.” Just as God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, God in is you conforming you to the likeness of Christ.” Your pain, sufferings, troubles are not in vain.

Third Argument of the Skeptic: Why did God not create us where we could only choose Good?

Because He wants us to choose to “love” Him just as He chose to love us. You who are married, would you want to be married to Star Wars C-3PO? Maybe sometimes?

My wife and I are doing the 40 day Love Dare. We watched Fireproof and I bought two Love Dare books. I especially liked day three which was a Wednesday where we were to buy our spouse something during the day that told them that we were thinking of them. I bought my wife a Craftsman 3/8 socked wrench and told her that on Saturday we could take her new socket wrench and together change the oil and bound. Actually, I bought her a rose. She put the rose in a vase on the dining room table and bragged on its beauty everyday and it set there until the peddles wilted, turned black, and dropped off. Would it have meant as much if I were C-3PO and before I left for work that Wednesday she commanded me. “Bring home a rose for me?”

Dr. J. Robertson McQuilkin was formerly the president of Columbia Bible College and Seminary….He is a conference speaker and author of note. But none of those credentials exceed his exemplary and heart-gripping love for his ailing wife, Muriel. She has walked down the grim and lonely world of Alzheimer’s disease for the last twenty years. Dr. McQuilkin gave up his presidency and numerous other responsibilities to care for her and to love her. He has penned his emotional journey in one of the most magnificent little books ever written. At one point in the book he recounts this incident:

Once our flight was delayed in Atlanta, and we had to wait a couple of hours. Now that’s a challenge. Every few minutes, the same questions, the same answers about what we’re doing here, when are we going home? And every few minutes we’d take a fast pace walk down the terminal in earnest search of-what? Muriel had always been a speed walker. I had to jog to keep up with her!

An attractive woman sat across from us, working diligently on her computer. Once, when we returned from an excursion, she said something, without looking up from her papers. Since no one spoke to me or at least mumbled in protest of our constant activity, “Pardon?” I asked.

“Oh,” she said, “I was just asking myself, ‘Will I ever find a man to love me like that?’”[4] When I read this love story the thought hit me: Is God asking, “Will I ever find a believer to love me like that?”

The Scriptures say God created us to choose to love Him voluntarily, willfully, and sacrificially. Do we? There are answers for the skeptic in the world and in you in Romans 8:28. Let God encourage you and strengthen your faith through this powerful verse.

First book review The Reason For God
Second book review part 1
Second book review part 2 “Exclusivity”

[1] Erwin W. Lutzer. Ten Lies About God (Nashville:Nelson, 2000) 75.

[2] Timothy Keller. Reason For God (New York: Dutton, 2008) 249.

[3] Ibid., 26.

[4] Ravi Zacharias. Jesus Among Other Gods (Nashville: Nelson, 2000) 129.

Tim Keller rejects the view of Richard Dawkins who “argues that you cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.” But Keller believes the view of a six twenty-four-hour day creation is “fortunately…losing credibility with a growing number of scholars.” In both Dawkins’ and Keller’s view, science has undermined the interpretation of Scripture. Keller even says, “There is no necessary disjunction between science and devout faith.” Keller repudiates the literal interpretation of Genesis one and two in order to believe in theistic evolution: “it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t be taken literally then none of it can be.” The theologians who hold to the different forms of theistic evolution contradict themselves in rejecting the creation of the universe in six twenty-four-hour days in order to accommodate the science of atheistic evolution.

The reigning Baptist theologian from the late 1800’s to Millard Erickson was Augustus Strong. He was a staunch conservative for the fundamentals of the faith. Strong, however, had his problems. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture nor in a six twenty-four day creation.

Millard Erickson, who replaced Strong as the reigning Baptist theologian, is a progressive creationist. Both Strong and Erickson believe God used the process of evolution to varying degrees. Strong believed that God used evolution to a greater degree than Erickson: “Evolution is only the method of God.” In Strong’s view, evolution brought brute beast to a certain development and then God miraculously intervened and created a soul in Adam, the first man. “We are compelled, then, to believe that God’s ‘breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7), though it was a mediate creation as presupposing existing material in the shape of animal forms, was yet an immediate creation in the sense that only a divine reinforcement of the process of life turned the animal into man” (Systematic Theology, pages 466-467).  So, according to Strong, evolution provided the body and God the soul.

As a progressive creationist, Erickson, believes that “between these special acts of creation, development took place through the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God created the first member of the horse family.” In regard to man, unlike theistic evolutionists, Erickson believes that “when the time came for man to be brought into existence, God made him directly and completely, God did not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God.” 

Erickson argues against the theistic evolutionary view that the “dust” of Gen. 2:7 cannot be literal dust but must be symbolic for already existing creatures. Here is how Strong explains “dust” in Gen. 2:7: “The ‘dust’ before the breathing of the spirit into it, may have been animated dust” (page 465). Also from other statements of Strong the dust must have been evolved animals before God breathed into them and the animal became the first man. Erickson presents a good argument against this allegorical interpretation of Scripture. “The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19, ‘You are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the reference to dust in 3:19 (the clearer) interpret that in 2:7 (the less clear)” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 483).

And yet, Erickson does not hold to a literal interpretation of “dust.” “The Bible tells us that God made man from the ‘dust’ of the ground. This dust need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial representation which was intelligible to the first readers” (Christian Theology, Vol. 2 page 482). To use Erickson’s logic against theistic evolution’s rejection of the literal meaning of “dust” then at death we do not return to actual physical soil but to some pictorial representation of death. Why cannot we just read the Word of God in the normal sense of language and except what it says? It is this refusal to take God’s Word at face value that has led to theistic evolution, progressive creationism and the age/day theory.

Gleason Archer, who believes in theistic evolution, in his discussion of Genesis has a section entitled Genesis 1 and Modern Scientific Evidence. In this section, he writes “From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author (a questionable deduction, as will be presently shown), this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, page 181). Just because modern science contradicts the plain sense of Scripture, the literal interpretation of God’s Word is abandoned.       

Science at times has been wrong, as Wayne Grudem reminds us: “For example, when the Italian astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) began to teach that the earth was not the center of the universe but that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun (following the theories of the Polish astronomer Copernicus (1472-1543), he was criticized, and eventually his writings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church….Galileo was forced to recant his teachings and had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life” (Systematic Theology, page 273).

Ken Ham, who is with Answers in Genesis, in a taped lecture, tells about two Sunday school girls who were discussing the six days of creation and one asked the other, “Why did God take so long?” How would you answer that Sunday schooler? Six days were a long time for our all powerful God of the universe to create everything. Could not God have created the universe in six seconds, or six minutes, or in six hours? Why did God take six days? The answer is in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-18. These two passages argue for six literal 24 hours days of creation and not ages. Just as God took six literal solar days to create the universe and then rested on the seventh, he has commanded us to labor six days and rest one. If God interprets Genesis one and two literally, why cannot we?

Have you ever been witnessing or just discussing religion with someone who responded with these objections to your view that salvation is exclusively through Christ? (These objections are from part one on chapter one in Keller).

 “All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing.”  

“Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.”

“Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth.’”

“It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it.”

 The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported in December that 52% of American Christians surveyed believe that people from some non-Christian faith can be saved.

 A staggering one out two does not believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ.

In an interview with USA Today, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, said “that much of this confusion can be traced to the superficiality that marks far too many evangelical pulpits. The disappearance of doctrinal understanding and evangelical demonstration can be traced directly to the decline in expository preaching and doctrinal instruction. A loss of evangelistic and missionary commitment can be fully expected as a direct result of this confusion or repudiation of the Gospel.”

There are several versions of this rejection of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. The first version is pluralism which teaches that every person is going to heaven no matter what he believes. Pluralism says there are many paths to God who may be called either Buddha, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus. An example of pluralism is Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah grew up in a Baptist church where she developed her speaking abilities. She now holds five one hour long services a week with an audience of 10 million. What is her message? Jesus Christ is not the only way to Heaven. One clip in The Church of Oprah video shows Oprah blatantly denying Jesus as the only way to God.

“How can there be only one way to heaven or to God?” Oprah asked her audience in a previously taped show.

One woman in the audience asked, “What about Jesus?”

Oprah defiantly answered, “What about Jesus?…There couldn’t possibly be one way.”

That may be the gospel of Oprah, but that is not the Gospel of John. Jesus said that there is only one path to heaven in John 14:6 and he is that path: “I am the (not a) way, the (not a) truth, and the (not a) life no man comes to the Father, but by me.” This statement in the Gospel of John is significant since John wrote the Gospel to tell people that Jesus is the Son of God and believing in him you can be saved(20:31). Either Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of salvation as he said in John14:6 or he is a liar.

The apostles followed the example of Christ in preached exclusivity: Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [not Buddha, Mohammed, nor Moses] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

In addition to pluralism there is inclusivism which is not as board as pluralism. Inclusivism teaches that people are saved because of the death and grace of Christ, but people from other religions will be saved who never heard of Jesus “through no fault of their own.”

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded: “Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic concerning the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Exclusivism is the clear teaching of Scripture. There is only one way of salvation, and that is exclusively through faith in Christ. Does this mean that the person who has never heard the gospel is without hope?

While general revelation is insufficient to save it does point to God as Psalm 19:1 says: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” If a person responds to the light in nature, because God is just, He will give more light or make sure the gospel gets to that person.

Cornelius is an example in Acts 10. Inclusivists believe that Cornelius was a believer before Peter preached the gospel to him. They say that 10:2 describes him as “devout.” Also, inclusivism is heard in 10:34-35, when Peter preached that “God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.” This is John Sanders view: “Cornelius was already a saved believer before Peter arrived but he was not a Christian believer” (John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1992, 254).

This conclusion is incorrect for several reasons. First, in Acts 2:5, Luke describes the Dispersion Jews who were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost as “devout.” After Peter preached, 3000 of them got saved. “Devout” as used by Luke only means a person is religious. Also, after Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and the Gentiles were saved, Peter returned to Jerusalem and related this ground breaking event to the Jewish leaders. He recounted how the angel told Cornelius that a man named Peter would come to his house and he “shall tell you words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved” (11:14). The angel used the future tense concerning Cornelius’ salvation. When Peter arrived at Cornelius’ house, Cornelius was not saved; when Peter left, Cornelius was. So Cornelius was not saved apart from or before he heard the gospel.

When Peter preached that God is no respecter of persons and that “in every nation” God accepts persons, Peter was referring to examples like Cornelius. Peter did not mean every person in every nation is accepted by God no matter which religion he was in. In Acts 4:12, Peter said Jesus is the only way. Cornelius is an example of a person who responded to the light he had in general revelation and God in His justice and fairness gave him more light (the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ). There is hope for those who have never heard. God providently leads missionaries or believers here in America to those responding to the insufficient light of general revelation to give them the sufficient light of the special revelation of the gospel.

God is not only just and fair but God is love. God’s concern for the lost has been demonstrated when He gave His Son to die for the sins of all people, including those who have not heard. “It is not His will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). The love of God and the death of Christ are inclusive of all sinners. His salvation is exclusive for only those who receive Christ as Savior.

Keller entitled chapter one “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion.”

If you have ever been stumped in witnessing to a skeptic, then this chapter will load your gun with armor piercing bullets.

Keller addresses the first of seven objections, defearter beliefs, which skeptics fire at Christianity. Remember from last week’s review how Keller defined “defeater belief” from his website:  “a set of ‘common-sense’ consensus beliefs that automatically make Christianity seem implausible to people. These are what philosophers call ‘defeater beliefs.’  A defeater belief is Belief-A that, if true, means Belief-B can’t be true.”

Exclusivity is the first defeater belief. This objection has been thrown at me when discussing religion with unbelievers. The objectors usually say, with rising blood pressure, something like: “You are arrogant and intolerant to think you are right and all other religions are wrong,” or “Your superior thinking about your religious views is dangerous and detrimental to world peace.”

Keller discusses “three approaches civil and cultural leaders around the world are using to address the divisiveness of religion.”

The first approach is to outlaw religion. This has been futilely attempted by countries like Communist China, who “expelled Western missionaries after World War II,” only to see the number of Christians explode.

The second approach to the divisiveness of exclusivity is to condemn religion. This strategy is more efficient than the first and goes like this: Create an environment that makes religions which claim exclusivity look unenlightened and outrageous. This brainwashing is accomplished by drilling certain axioms into the public’s thinking which gain the status of common sense. Keller analyzes four of these axioms. Perhaps you have been baffled by them in previous skirmishes with skeptics.

“All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing.”  

“Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth.”

“Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be ‘truth.’”

“It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it.”

The proponents of these views are holding to an exclusive view of religion. They have their own alternate view and articles of faith. They arrogantly condemn other religions (Exclusivism) which do not hold to their view. They are guilty of the very charge leveled against exclusivists plus hypocrisy.

The third approach is to keep religion completely private. This view states that a person can privately practice his religion and even evangelize but must keep religious beliefs out of the public. The reason given for this view is that religious views interjected into any moral debate are “conversation stoppers.” Keller argues any opposing view interjected into the argument over moral issues stops the conversation.  The political debate over abortion polarizes even when argued strictly from secular views concerning choice. Again, as in the other views, the opponents of Christianity’s exclusivity are guilty of that which they are accusing us. To point out this hypocrisy is a strategy to disarming skeptics.

What think ye?