There is a lion roaring, but only the prophet can hear. I said that the opening editorial note in the book of Amos (1:1) already raises an issue for me. The issue is: Who speaks for God? It may not be the person we thought was authorized to do so. Which also brings to mind another question: ‘To Whom (if anyone) does God speak?’” The prophet is the one who sees what others do not. There is an interesting detail in the way Amos 1:1 tells us about this prophecy: Amos spoke what he saw. “The words of Amos… which he saw….” Amos conveyed the sense of what he saw. But, in Amos 1:2 it is more a matter of what he heard:
(more…)Tag: judgement
-
Reflections on the Last Judgment
In the following paragraph from his book Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (1989) Stanley J. Grenz does a good job summarizing some themes in Pannenberg’s view of the final judgment:
On the basis of [the] function of Jesus’ message [as the criterion of God’s judgment] and the New Testament emphasis on the all-encompassing love of God (e.g., Matt. 8:11; John 10:16), Pannenberg asserts that correspondence with the will of God as reflected in Jesus’ proclamation — that is, the command to seek first God’s kingdom and the double command to love — rather than an actual encounter with the Christian message, is the basis of final judgment (Matt. 25:41ff.).
The step in this direction is prepared by a thesis, developed in the Christology and ecclesiology sections, that love for others entails participation in God’s love for the world. This understanding of the criterion for judgment means that persons who live in accordance with Jesus’ message will be included in the divine salvation, whereas nominal Christians may find themselves excluded. To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgment is. Although he emphasizes the universality of the possibility of salvation in this manner and even moves the concept of eternal condemnation to that of a border situation, Pannenberg is unwilling to embrace universalism.
This resonates very well with the sense I remember getting from my initial reading of Volume 3 of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology.
There is so much here to like. This fits very well with the Wesleyan themes that: (1.) “without holiness no one will see the Lord” and that, in turn, (2.) the essence of this holiness is love to God and love for other people. It sets this theology apart from the common variety of evangelicalism which posits salvation either by creed or by a particular religious experience. Faith in Christ is the doorway into holy living. A faith that makes no difference in a person’s life is a dead faith — or, as Wesley would point out the faith of the devil and the demons! This is not saving faith. Faith brings a person’s life into ever-growing continuity with the will of God revealed in Christ.
The proclamation of Jesus was
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:15 NRSV).
This also was the proclamation entrusted to Jesus’ disciples. It is a message which is moral to the core — it calls for a change in attitude and a change in life. It calls us to align ourselves with God’s purposes — for our lives and for our world. We turn. We leave the past behind. We begin anew. We seek God’s will and God’s Reign — however imperfectly we may understand, and however imperfectly we may see it realized. It is a call to change our ways.
We do not have the right to turn it into something else. How can it become merely “change your worldview” or “put a check-mark in this box” — when the call is to repent, and to believe and become a part of the redemptive work of God in the world?
Nevertheless, this understanding of the Last Judgment also calls us to look beyond the church itself — to God’s will and purpose for all the human race. Thus, it resonates well with the New Testament’s inclusive vision.
“For [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Romans 2:6-16 NRSV)
The God proclaimed by Jesus is not a parochial God whose concern is only for a small club or group. God’s purposes have to do with all humanity — and God’s Spirit has been sent upon all flesh. We know there is salvation and new life in the name of Jesus. All who know Christ then proclaim this — and what faith in Christ’s name will mean in the conduct of their lives. But, God’s purposes are greater than we know. And, God’s purposes in Christ are expansive. “… in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself….” (2 Corinthians 5:19 NRSV). “Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’” (Acts 10:34, 35 NRSV.)
The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.
— John Wesley, “A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the People Called Quakers”
So, this is another reason I like the way this is formulated: it expresses an appropriate hope for all people. This is what I keep calling “Hopeful Inclusivism.” It is not necessarily a doctrine of universal salvation, but it is a hopeful doctrine of universal grace.
And, it reminds us that that religion per se is not that hope. All people are called to hear and heed the message of Christ — and that includes religious people. The name of Christ is no shield from repentance and faith. The name of Christ does not relax the urgency of God’s call to new life, to discipleship and service. Christ is our way into the life God calls us to live. I don’t think there is anything so obnoxious to God as false, unrepentant, religion.
And, yet, while affirming a universalistic hope, this did not push Pannenberg to complete universalism. It is true that in Christ there is hope for all. It is true that in Christ we know that God is loving and just — and thus, will deal with all people with justice and fairness. But Pannenberg still leaves room for the possibility of eternal damnation as, as Grenz says, “a border situation.”
In fact that’s one of the things that surprised me when I first read the last part of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology. As I read along I thought sure we were about to arrive at universalism — maybe on the next page. But, no! Surely, we can hope for the salvation of all. We would wish for it. But, Pannenberg still felt that there are some who will resist God and God’s will and purpose — however expansively defined — even to the very end.
Certainly David Bentley Hart has made a strong case — formally irrefutable, really — for an ultimate universalism in his book That All Shall Be Saved (2019). I’m not sure what Pannenberg would have said to that. II feel no one should resist the idea. Ultimate salvation is a hope consistent with the character of the God we know through Jesus Christ. Yet, there is much about eternity, the nature of the human consciousness and will, etc. that we do not understand. We do not dare undermine the warnings of proximate moral judgement in the light of ultimate salvation, anyway. The reality of Judgement is clear.
So, as I say, there is much to like (at least from from my admittedly idiosyncratic point of view) in this perspective on the Last Judgement. But, I do have some disagreements, as well. This (again, quoting from Grenz) seems terribly inadequate to me:
To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgement is.
— Stanley J. Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (1989).
There is salvation and life in the name of Christ. There is the growing experiential knowledge of God’s will — discovered through Scripture and prayer and service and worship and interaction with others. Through faith in Christ these things become Means of Grace to lift us higher into the life of faith. Through them The Holy Spirit works in our inner lives to bring us into conformity to Christ.
But, God’s will for the human race is that we come to reflect God’s character. “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And, this is what God is seeking from beginning to end.
-
More Proof I Could Never Be a Calvinist
John Calvin (1509-1564) In this passage John Calvin says that God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so:
“Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated…. This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.”
— John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (translated by Henry Beveridge), Book 3, Chapter 23
You can find the definition of “reprobation” here at thefreedictionary.com: “(Theology) Christianity: condemnation to eternal punishment in hell; rejection by God.”
I find the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination — which Calvin himself says includes the idea of reprobation — i.e. that God sends people to Hell by God’s own choice and design — deeply distasteful.
John Wesley was also horrified by it:
John Wesley (1703-1791) This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing) one might say to our adversary, the devil, “Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men? Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the ‘fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but ‘the smoke of their torment,’ because it is God’s good pleasure, ‘ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ “
I occasionally get push back on this. Like this message, which I received several years ago:
Those who come will be accepted. You cite that like God will exclude any who come. Faith in the finished works of Christ (active and passive obedience) and repentance are the appointed means to salvation. faith and repentance as well as regeneration are the work of the Spirit (God) in us to point us to Christ (God-man), and it’s by grace from Abba Father (God).
I do not mean to deny salvation by grace. This person’s comment tries to put the best foot forward and ignore the chilling realities of Calvin’s doctrine. But, to “reprobate” people means that God has chosen to send them to hell “for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.” They did not come because God had determined beforehand that they could not come.
This next correspondent was much more angry with me, he’s a little inarticulate, but he was probably so angry it was hard to type:
Sir,
God’s holiness, justice and righteousness is beyond anyone’s mind to measure, they did not come because they are determined to walk away and hate God. God left them condemned already in their own weight. Christ (the word who is God became flesh) came to the rescue of many appointed to salvation and the Holy Spirit intervenes, changed their inner being and to enable them to follow Him willingly this was to show His grace, mercy and love beyond measure, and off the chart of anyone’s capacity to comprehend.
Now, who is responsible for the damnation of the reprobates: is it God? Yes, because he is just to punish them, is God responsible for their committed crimes? no, it is not He who created sin in them, He did not. He made the decree of man’s disobedience but allowed it to happen because of man’s independent rebellion.
God is just to send all humanity to hell but by His sovereign electing grace chose a definite people for Himself and set them apart to express His mercy and love. This is the revelation of His attributes and He cannot abandon one attribute for the sake another and that’s what Christ did to satisfy justice and appeased wrath through His death on the cross and can now be still holy, just, righteous, gracious, merciful, and loving. You should have considered this.
Let me also explain this quote “God sends people to Hell for no other reason than that God wishes to do so” He has all the reason and God wishes to do so because of their sin, yet He is willing to save some for the praise of His glorious grace and that’s good news! Calvin simply wanted to refute the error of those who admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobate which is illogical. reprobate is a ‘sinner’ who is not of the elect and is predestined to damnation and again, God did not predestined them to commit sin nor predestined anyone to commit suicide yet allowed it to happen anyway out of their own weight and predestined them into condemnation and there’s no need the power of God to make them reprobate but only out of their own weight. He is not surprised because He upholds everything from eternity past to eternal future.
Again God did not manipulate sin to enter but simply allows it to take place for a greater purpose and that includes the revelation of Himself to His creation through His redemptive acts recorded is Scripture.Well, while I appreciate his rushing to the defense of Mr. Calvin, this is all gobbledygook to me. While this is not well written, the writer has stated the Calvinistic line pretty well (from what I know of it). But, it still doesn’t make any sense to me.
However, the “love” and “justice” of the Creator he describes is not either “love” or “justice” in any really meaningful sense. The love and justice of the Creator that he posits are contrary to love and justice as we would understand them.
Since we are spiritually shaped by the God we serve, this type of theology seems to me to be morally and spiritually toxic. It undermines the meaning of both love and justice. I know many very good Christians — and there have been many throughout Christian history — who subscribe to this type of theology but whose lives rise above it and I am thankful for that — and for them. Certainly God is faithful and sometimes overlooks our faults and misconceptions. Certainly there are many things about God that we will never understand fully because our minds are incapable of conceiving of God as God truly is. I believe all forms of determinism — this would include the Calvinistic theology to which this correspondent subscribes, but would also include naive forms of universalism, and atheistic forms of determinism — undermine the notion of moral responsibility and trivialize human action.
It does not exalt the sovereignty of God to make God a deterministic monster. I believe that the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ is a God of universal grace and love. I believe of Christ that: “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.” (John 1:4 NRSV).
I believe that salvation is offered to all — not as a ruse, but as a reality.
John Wesley (1703-1791). “I appeal to every impartial mind… whether the mercy of God would not be far less gloriously displayed, in saving a few by his irresistible power, and leaving all the rest without help, without hope, to perish everlastingly, than in offering salvation to every creature, actually saving all that consent thereto, and doing for the rest all that infinite wisdom, almighty power, and boundless love can do, without forcing them to be saved.”
— John Wesley, “Predestination Calmly Considered.”
P. S. Actually, there are some forms of Reformed theology to which I have little or no real substantive objection. And, while I often quote Calvin unflatteringly, he said and taught many good things — and at times, seems less strict in his “Calvinism” than many of his followers are.
-
On Loving Enemies – Luke 6:27-38
This passage is from a section of the Gospel of Luke often called “The Sermon on the Plain.” This begins at Luke 6:17 and extends to the end of the chapter. There are many similarities to the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew. This passage in Luke, in particular, has several parallels to passages in the Gospel of Matthew and a parallel to the Gospel of Mark.
Here is what I mean:
(more…)