What do CGN leaders believe about things like Critical Race Theory, or how we should relate to those who identify as LGBTQ? Is talking about “spiritual formation” biblical, or does it open people up to unbiblical influences?

In this episode of the CGN Mission & Methods podcast, we answer some questions that you, our listeners, have sent in. I ask Brian Brodersen and Kellen Criswell questions related to some of the most pressing cultural issues of our day, including Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, LGBTQ issues, and more — giving them a chance to respond to your questions and share their thoughts on these matters.

Make sure to listen for a clip from Pastor Chuck Smith, in which he gives his take on racial prejudice and even white supremacy in the church.

The CGN Leadership Statement on Racism can be found here.

New episodes are being released every two weeks! Make sure you subscribe to the podcast, so each episode will be delivered to your device as soon as they come out!

We’d love to hear feedback from you on these episodes. You can email us at cgn@calvarychapel.flywheelsites.com

In this episode of the CGN Mission & Methods podcast, we discuss the future of CGN as a network: What initiatives are currently in the works? How does CGN relate to and work with other groups and churches, while still holding fast to our core convictions, values, and beliefs? What will happen to CGN once Brian Brodersen is no longer leading it?

Those questions and more are answered in our discussion this week, as Nick Cady sits down with Brian Brodersen and Kellen Criswell to take you behind the scenes, and give you some insight into the heart and vision for CGN – especially moving forward, into the future.

Listen for a clip from Pastor Chuck Smith, talking about the need to adjust our message and approach to ministry in an ever-changing culture.

New episodes come out every two weeks, on Wednesday mornings. Make sure to subscribe, and new episodes will be delivered to you as soon as they are released.

I once was having a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness missionary, when he uttered these words:

“Jesus never actually said that he was God.”

Despite the fact that, over the years, I have taught so many people that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God; his words shook me.

If my meeting with the Jehovah’s Witness missionary had been in person, as it would have been before the Covid pandemic, he would likely have seen me flinch slightly at the statement. As I searched my mind for an adequate response, I found myself swimming in too many. I was not sure if any of them might be able to serve as the “silver bullet” people in my position are sometimes tempted to look for when dealing with apologetic issues. I referenced a few scriptures that I knew made a strong case for Jesus’ divinity, but even as I said them, I knew that in the New World Translation, my new friend likely had in front of him, those verses had been changed.

He deflected my rebuttals with a quick change in the direction of the conversation, likely a well-trained reaction that he had been taught to do in the event someone responds the way I did. As we continued talking, and I looked for any opportunity to ask questions that might lead to the truth of the Gospel, I wondered how this conversation might have gone for a Christian that was not well versed in how to have these types of conversations. How would this conversation have gone for most evangelical pastors who are gifted preachers, teachers, and counselors but who might struggle when asked the difficult questions of our faith?

When it gets down to the crux of the matter, can most pastors explain and defend the foundation of our faith, the triune nature of God? It might be easy to pretend that this is not a necessary facet of Christian leadership, but the simplest conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness, or anyone questioning their faith, will bring about an urgent need to be able to explain this mysterious and controversial teaching that the Church has been confessing almost since the time of Christ.

What is the Trinity?

Most often in evangelical circles you will find the Trinity explained as God being “one in essence, three in persons.” This simple explanation comes from hundreds of years of study going back to the creeds formulated at councils like the one that took place in 325 A.D. in Nicaea. Even before this, we have evidence that Jesus was looked at as divine by some of the earliest leaders of the Church. In 2 Clement (c. 140-160 A.D.) we read, “Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the judge of living and dead. And we ought not to belittle our salvation; for when we belittle him, we expect also to receive little.” The words of scripture, as well as the teachings of the early Church fathers led Bishops in 325 A.D. to pen the words of the Nicene Creed which affirm,

“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.”

Later in the same creed, these bishops would include the third person of the Trinity when they proclaimed,

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”

The center of the argument rested in the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were “homoousios,” or of the same essence or substance as one another. Yet while they were of the same essence, they were clearly individual in personage. Through these formulations, the Church began to teach that the triune nature of God was not a contradiction, as some would say, but instead a mystery as the two claims of essence and personage do not contradict each other but instead point to the infinite and unexplainable nature of God in His triune form.

New and Old Heresies

This doctrine, and the teaching that followed it, was certainly not popular with everyone, and at times was popular with few Christians at all. Many instead found it easier to believe doctrine that the Church today recognizes as heresy. The most prevalent of these heretical teachings was that of a bishop named Arius. In a letter to Eusebius, Arius wrote, “Before he was begotten or created or ordained or established, he did not exist.” Passages like Proverbs 8:22-31 led Arius and many others to teach that Christ was not preexistent, radically dissenting against the doctrine that would come as a reaction to this teaching at Nicaea.

In response to this growing heresy, a bishop named Athanasius rose as a now towering figure in Church history. A contemporary of Arius, Athanasius spent much of his life warring against Arianism, ultimately becoming the most important voice in making the argument for Christ’s divinity and trinitarianism as a whole. The Athanasian creed, which was named after Athanasius but was likely not written by him, serves as a dividing line between orthodox Christian belief in regard to the person of God in His triune form, and all other ways of thinking:

“And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.”

Despite the fervor that theologians like Athanasius and many others have taken in contending against Arianism, it and so many other Christological heresies have survived into the 21st century and have taken root in many pseudo-Christian cults and groups. Most notably in American culture are the Jehovah’s Witnesses who, as my new friend explained to me, believe what John 1:1 says in their New World Translation, “…and the Word was a god.” This war over who Christ is, and by association the entirety of who God is, has been waging since shortly after the words of the New Testament were written and have continued thousands of years later despite the best efforts of men and women who have devoted their lives to the truth that God is one in substance and three in persons.

It is with this in mind that every minister of the Gospel should be able to explain what the Church has historically taught in regard to the nature of God, and defend it to those who would question it because to question the true essence of God is to question God himself.

Defense

“The Church has historically taught that God is ‘One in essence, and three in persons.’ What do you think of that?”

My Jehovah’s Witness friend was silent for a moment before he responded by saying, “The Bible never uses the word “Trinity” and never mentions the substance of what God is. Those statements come from Greek philosophy.”

In beginning to respond to his claim that the Bible never discusses the essence of substance of God, I first do need to affirm that the Bible never uses the term “trinity.” However, this does not indicate that the concept is “unbiblical” as that would be argument from silence. Instead, I and anyone looking to keep these types of conversations grounded in truth, must seek to affirm the Trinity biblically and from an appeal to mystery.

Biblical Defense

An explanation and defense of the Trinity should not exclusively rely on logic and philosophy but instead have the testimony of God’s Word as its cornerstone because while the word in question is not found on the pages of scripture, the concept certainly is. The vast amount of scripture that can and should be used in any discussion on the triune nature of God or the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is too much to include here. Instead a few key scriptures will be pointed out that should be ever present on the mind of the Christian seeking to further understand the nature of God.

Deuteronomy 6:4:
Here is the famous passage known as the “shema.” Every Israelite would have known this passage well and recited it every day as it importantly distinguishes that, “…The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Any valid defense of the Trinity must begin with the affirmation that God is in fact essentially one, but any attack on the Trinity will likely begin with this verse as it seems to pick apart the concept from the very beginning of Israel’s understanding of Yahweh.

John 1:1
In any modern translation, other than the New World Translation, this verse begins John’s gospel by claiming that Jesus was not simply a god, but was instead God. The overall tone of John’s Gospel hinges on this divinity as John recounts his years following a messiah that could have only been God, given all the things He said and did.

John 20:28
Here is Thomas’ declaration of Jesus as his Lord and God. Earlier in this chapter, the same Greek word for God is used when Jesus said to Mary, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John, within a few paragraphs, used the same word to describe the Father as God and then Jesus as God, with no distinguishing remarks. It cannot be lost on us either that Thomas was a faithful Jew who would likely have rejected any sense of polytheism, yet here we have an account of him proclaiming the resurrected Jesus as God.

Matthew 28:19
In the middle of the Great Commission, Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He makes no distinguishing remarks about the three persons which He would have been sure to do in a 1st century Jewish culture unless He was okay with His hearers inferring equality. It should also be noted that there is a seeming personage applied to the Holy Spirit here.

Acts 20:28
Here, Paul charges the elders at the church in Ephesus to serve the church faithfully. After stating that the Holy Spirit is the one that made them overseers, implying personage to the Spirit, he also charges them to remember that God purchased the church “…with his own blood.” Either Paul is referring directly to Jesus as God, or he is identifying God the Father with the blood of Jesus as if it were His own, therefore, promoting to his hearers the idea that Jesus and the Father were equal. While many who antagonistically claim that the doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus were constructs that the Church manufactured much later, here we have evidence of trinitarian claims around 57 A.D., when this chapter of Acts seemingly took place.

Appeal to Mystery

We turn to Deuteronomy 6 again as my Jehovah’s Witness friend is trying to remind me that, earlier in the conversation, I affirmed with him that God is one. Without saying the word, he was trying to accuse me of stating a contradiction when I continually maintained that God was both one and three. Thoughts raced through my mind, thoughts of watching R.C. Sproul more eloquently explain that the Trinity was in fact not a contradiction because the two claims involved in it are not claiming the same thing.

The law of non-contradiction explained in most undergraduate logic classes explains that “A” cannot both be what it is, and what it is not. Put more simply, there can never be a square circle. There can never be a married bachelor. “A” cannot equal “-A.” So the non-Christian might look at this principle and exclaim, “There it is! The Trinity violates the most basic law of logic!” Yet a simple exploration of the concept shows that it, in fact, does not violate the law of non-contradiction, but instead appeals to something that is absolutely necessary when pondering the workings of an Almighty God — mystery.

When a Christian claims that God is one in essence and that God is three in personage, these are two separate claims about two separate truths regarding God. While it would certainly be contradictory for us to make a similar claim about any human, we are not discussing a human, but instead, an infinite being far beyond our comprehension. Therefore, not only is the Trinity not a contradiction, but it is a mystery — a truth that we cannot understand because we do not have all of the necessary information to do so. I would argue that even if we had all of the information, we still might not understand it because our finite brains might not ever be able to comprehend the infinite magnitude of God. This mystery is not an excuse to avoid answering the question, but instead, is a far more impressive answer than man could come up with on his own.

Appealing to the mysterious nature of the Trinity only makes logical sense given the size of the being in question. Too often, theologians, apologists, and pastors are quick to present to the questioner a God that is perfectly explained and managed, leaving nothing to ponder. I assume that if we could see the god of some of our explanations, it would be a god that few people would write songs about.

When faced with the question of the mysterious, we must lean into the unexplainable nature as a strength and evidence that we are in fact still talking about the infinite and unchangeable Yahweh of the Bible. It would only make sense that if the God of the cosmological argument does in fact exist, that there would be plenty that we could not understand about Him, and therefore not explain. The mystery of God’s triune nature should not be avoided by Christian leaders for fear of not being able to explain it well: It should be a centerpiece of any presentation on it. We worship an ultimately unexplainable God, and followers of Christ should never feel ashamed to highlight that as they attempt to explain and defend doctrines like the Trinity.

One of the greatest defenses of the Christian faith is that not all of it is ultimately defensible by Christians themselves. Charles Spurgeon once compared Gospel truth to a lion making the point that the best way to defend a lion is to let it out of its cage. I fully believe that the best way for Christians to truly convince nonbelievers of the Trinity is to let it out of its cage and appeal to the mystery of it all, instead of pretending it is easily understood or avoiding the conversation entirely.

Conclusion

I have not convinced him that Jesus is God, or of anything close to the Trinity yet, but my Jehovah’s Witness friend will continue to hear arguments for it, and questions pointing toward it, as long as he will continue meeting with me. The ultimate aim is not winning him to an idea, or winning an argument. I have a deep desire for him and others who have been tricked into believing false gospels to be won to the true Gospel, and the only way that will happen is if they hear it.

Christian leaders should be on forefront of addressing these questions, but for too long they have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the world and the critiques it has for our good news. If we truly believe that the news is good though, we will learn to communicate it, explain it, and defend it in whatever way necessary for it to be heard.

Sometimes it is as easy as it was for me: when the world knocks on your door and asks you if you have time to talk. What they do not realize is they are actually asking you if you have time to share your good news, the intricacies of an eternal God in triune form who became man to save us from our self-imposed darkness. Do not allow a fear that you cannot explain or defend your belief keep you from saying yes and joining with the likes of Sproul, Athanasius, those at Nicaea, and ultimately, the Lord and His own disciples, who never cowered away from a difficult conversation when truth was at stake.

In this episode of the CGN Mission & Methods Podcast, we open our Bibles to examine the much-debated topic of the role of women in ministry leadership.

As a network, CGN churches are complementarian. In this episode, Nick Cady asks Brian Brodersen and Kellen Criswell to explain the complementarian and egalitarian positions, and why Calvary Global Network is complementarian. Further, they explain what this means for CGN churches, and where there is room for diversity of practice in this area.

Listen toward the end of this episode for a clip of Pastor Chuck Smith giving his perspective on this topic, in a recording from 2008.

Click here to read the CGN statement on Women in Ministry Leadership

New episodes come out every two weeks on Wednesday mornings. Make sure to subscribe, and new episodes will be delivered to you as soon as they are released.

–––

The CGN Mission & Methods Podcast is the official podcast of the Calvary Global Network (CGN). Hosted by CGN Director, Kellen Criswell, the podcast features discussions on theology and ministry practice related to three foundational aspects of Great Commission work: gospel proclamation, disciple making, and church planting. Guests include church and mission leaders, missiologists, and theologians from Calvary Global Network, and friends of CGN of diverse evangelical traditions from around the world.

Kellen Criswell is a pastor, ministry leader, and former missionary who holds and MA in Global Leadership from Western Seminary and is currently working on his doctorate. He is the Executive Director of Calvary Global Network and has a heart for the mission of God and the global church.

In this episode we discuss Missional Ecclesiology, which is a way of understanding the identity, purpose, and function of the church within the Missio Dei (mission of God). Ecclesiology is the discussion of what the Church is called to be and to do – including its nature, purpose, hopes, structures, and practices.

We discuss how this concept works out practically, including a discussion of “foreign missions” and how they fit into this understanding. Furthermore, we discuss what the past nearly two years of pandemic has revealed about ecclesiology, and why there is hope as we move forward.

__

Theology for the People Podcast – Addressing the intersection of theology and culture with Nick Cady, pastor of White Fields Community Church in Longmont, Colorado.

Deconstruction is a growing trend in religious and philosophical circles. While many Christians have begun to address deconstruction, we don’t often engage with deconstructionist ideas directly.

In this episode, Aaron and Brian are joined by Dominic Done, author of When Faith Fails: Finding God In the Shadow of Doubt and founder of a ministry to skeptics and doubters called Pursuing Faith. Aaron, Brian, and Dominic respond directly to deconstructionists memes to answer questions coming directly from people wrestling with deconstruction.

Throughout this conversation, Aaron, Brian, and Dominic seek to find the valuable elements of deconstruction without it leading to abandoning the fundamentals of Christianity. We hope this episode encourages you to think critically and respond lovingly to deconstructionist concepts.

__

Aaron Salvato and Brian Higgins are here to talk about Jesus, faith, and the Christian Life. A show filled with powerful interviews, fascinating theological deep-dives, and a never ending stream of questions, there’s always something to discover on The Good Lion Podcast.

Ask a Bible-believing Christian, “What happens we die?”, and the answer will probably be something like:

“Well, we go to heaven.”

The rationale for this would likely be something along the lines of:

“Because the Bible says so.”

Let’s see if we can find a fuller answer in the pages of Scripture about personal eschatology, or simply, “What happens when we die?”

Eschatology

Eschatology can be defined as the study of the end times, or final things. The term is rooted in the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last times.” It can be further broken down into two parts: general eschatology and personal eschatology. Thiessen defines these two branches of eschatology as so:

“General eschatology covers the sweep of future events from the return of Jesus Christ on to the creation of the new heavens and new earth.

Personal eschatology relates to the individual from the time of physical death until he receives his resurrection body.”

This paper aims to detail the latter of the distinctions, personal eschatology. This being so, when we talk of death, it will be focused on physical death, rather than spiritual death, or eternal death, which would be better discussed under the banner of general eschatology.

Being finite creations, we will all experience a physical death. Our bodies were not made to live eternally in their current state, simply evidenced by the fact there are no double-centurians in our midst. The oldest recorded and fully authenticated human life in modern times was one 122 years, 164 days. Therefore, personal eschatology is something that will certainly affect every one of us, and is consequently, something of the utmost importance to us. The Bible describes physical death as a judgement, a curse, and the separation of body and soul (Ecclesiastes.12.7; Acts 7.59; Romans 1.32; 5.16). Possibly, the most interesting of these referenced verses is Ecclesiastes 12.7, which says,

“…the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it (ESV).”

Here we read plainly and simply that our bodies have a finite end coming in which they return to the dust of the earth from which the Lord God formed them (Genesis 2.7), and our spirit returns to God.

Physical Death

Our physical death can be brought about by many sources and can happen for a variety of reasons. Clinically and medically, we could proffer the definition of death as the absence of a heartbeat, the absence of brain activity, or the absence of vital signs. Interestingly, all the aforementioned definitions include something missing, rather than the presence of something measurable.

However, to define death from more of a faith-based perspective, rather than a clinical one, we could say that physical death is a separation of body and soul.

Death, for the regenerate Christian who has put their faith in Christ, is simply a part of the process, so to speak. It is an entrance into the presence of our Lord and Saviour. Through His wonderful and all-conquering sacrifice on the cross, we are able to look at death as one more stop our train must take on the journey to our final destination as believers, being with Him forever.

Contrastingly, for the unbeliever, death brings a far less glory-filled experience. Rather than coming into the presence of Jesus Christ, the unbeliever faces condemnation, eternal judgement, and separation from the Lord (John 3.36).

Death…then what?

Following the physical death we all must experience, is the intermediate state. This can be defined as the:

“…condition of humans between their death and the resurrection.”

A clear and simple definition, then: the time between our aforementioned physical death, and the glorious resurrection of believers.

On this intermediate state between physical death and the resurrection of believers John writes about in Revelation 20.4-5, Theologian Millard J. Erickson writes this:

“The doctrine of the intermediate state is an issue that is both very significant and problematic…[because there is a] relative scarcity of biblical references to the intermediate state.”

The soul, being immortal and therefore not subject to the inevitable, physical decline and death our body is, continues to live on. First and foremost, we can say that the soul of the regenerate, Christ-believing, faith-filled person goes to be with our Lord and Saviour, Jesus. This should fill the believer with hope, joy, and peace in equal measure.

In Philippians 1.23 Paul writes,

“I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (ESV).

From his writing, we can see that Paul had no doubt that upon closing his eyes in death, he would open them in the presence of His Lord and Saviour. On this, David Guzik writes:

“Paul probably had many motivations to depart…he would finally be done with sin and temptation…he would see those brothers and sisters who had gone to heaven before him. Most of all, going to heaven meant being with Christ in a closer and better way than ever before.”

From this passage of Scripture, we see that death is not made out to be tremendously better than life, meaning we should not go and seek it out (Philippians 1.21-22), but that when death does happen for us all, we are going to experience something that leads us to Christ (v.23).

Even though the Lord has blessed us with life abundant here on earth (John 10.10), we read that this intermediate state, being in the presence of Christ, “…is a condition to be preferred above the present state.”

This intermediate state is not to be confused with the rapture and glorification that will occur when only He knows, as this will be preferable to the intermediate state, which in turn is, as Paul writes, preferable to the current human condition (2 Corinthians 5.2-3). From this, we can see a clear chronology of events:

. Physical death

. Followed by the intermediate state

. Followed by resurrection and judgement

Writer Sam Storms puts it this way:

“In summary: the intermediate state for the Christian is immediate transition upon death into the presence of Christ during which time we experience holiness (no longer being at war with the flesh, although final glorification awaits the resurrection), happiness, a heightened sense of consciousness, and knowledge of Christ in its fullest. For the non-Christians a heightened sense of consciousness, but one of torment, agony, irreversible separation from Christ (Luke 16).”

Theology

To further support the soul’s conscious survival after the physical death we all will experience, we can gather theological evidence. Both the nature of human beings and the nature of God can be used to substantiate this claim, that the soul lives on after the mortal body has died.

We can confidently state that God is able to maintain the soul after the body cannot; He is creator, sustainer, and omnipotent, therefore surely able. However, as Geisler writes:

“…simply that God can cause the soul to survive does not mean He will – there must be sufficient cause for His doing so. That is rooted in His good will…God wills to keep the soul alive…because of His mercies…”

Further, we can assert that the soul lives on from the words of Genesis 1.27:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (ESV).

This reason is, as Geisler writes, anthropological, and stems from the verse above; we are made in His image. This being so, we are made by God, in God’s image, and therefore, for God to destroy the truly individual part of us that resembles Him the most would be tantamount to God destroying Himself. Logically, this idea simply does not compute.

Clear, then, that the intermediate state is a real, positive, and logically proven stage on the journey of the believer from earthly mother to heavenly Father.

Resurrection

Following on from this intermediate state is the resurrection of the body. The intermediate state will be a joyful experience for the believer, but it is still incomplete. The Bible very clearly teaches that those who believe in the name of Jesus will be resurrected and glorified (John 5.28-29; Romans 8.11; 1 Corinthians 15.12-58; 2 Corinthians 5.1-10).

As a quick note of comparison, Jesus Christ Himself took on a human body and was resurrected in it, contrary to heretical teachings that confuse His two natures in one body, such as docetism, Arianism, and nestorianism, to name but three. The fact that Christ was resurrected in His human body gives credence to the notion that we are to be resurrected in our own earthly bodies, initially.

Geisler writes on the resurrections,

“There is overwhelming biblical support for the bodily resurrection of all human beings…one [for] the saved…and [one for] the unsaved…”

The resurrection, physically, of believers seems to occur immediately before Jesus returns to reign on earth for one thousand years, His millennial reign. 1 Corinthians 15.21-26 is illuminating on this point:

“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (ESV, emphasis added).

From this, we can infer that those who died in Christ, as fully regenerate believers during their earthly lives, will reign with Him during the millennium, as the chronology present in the passage clearly shows that believers are raised prior to the millennium.

Further strengthening this point is Revelation chapter 20, which states:

“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years” (ESV, emphasis added).

Again, quite clear that those who are raised physically in the first resurrection, having been in the intermediate state with Christ following their physical death, will reign with Him during His millennium.

As with the continuing existence of our souls post-physical death, we can assert theologically that we will be raised bodily. God’s omnipotence allows Him to create life, maintain life, but also resurrect life. This was evidenced through our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the first fruits of resurrection (1 Corinthians 15.23).

However, just as with the prolonging of the soul, just because God can raise the dead does not mean He will. Without a benevolent, all loving, all good Father in heaven, there is no hope for us. On this, and with thanksgiving in heart, Geisler writes:

“Were it not for His mercy, His justice would allow the punishment of death to go unreversed. Thanks be to God’s omnibenevolence, for on its foundation He is moved to redeem us both in soul and body.”

Clear, then, that God is able to raise us from the dead to reign with Christ in His millennium, but also willing.

To again draw from the words of Genesis 1.27, God must certainly resurrect us bodily from our physical death as we are made in His image. To leave us dead and decaying would be to give up on His image, to allow His image to be less than perfect. This idea is simply contrary to the character of God the Bible so clearly details.

Summary

As human beings, we must all endure a physical death. From this point, regenerate believers will go on to be with Christ in the intermediate state, which, as discussed, is preferable to the current human condition. This is, however, not comparable to the next stage of the process, the coming physical and bodily resurrection of believers and the millennial reign of Christ on earth.

The final stage for the regenerate believer and unbeliever alike is the final judgement. As Erickson writes:

“For those who are in Christ, it is something to look forward to, for it will vindicate their lives.”

As with the previous eschatological elements discussed above, the final judgement takes place in the future, and is as certain to come as physical death, the intermediate state and the resurrections. In Matthew 11.24, Jesus Himself referenced the final judgement:

“But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you’” (ESV).

The Apostle Paul also referenced the final judgement in Acts 17.31.

As with many other things that He could accomplish perfectly well without our help, Scripture points us toward thinking that Jesus will share the work of the final judgement with believers. Revelation 20.5 alludes to this, as does 1 Corinthians 6.2-3.

This, however, does not remove us as believers from the judgement itself. As Paul writes in Romans 14.10, we will all stand before God to be judged.

The comfort and confidence-inducing fact here for the fully regenerate believer in Christ is that, even though our sins will be brought before God and as we stand for judgement, those sins will be presented as forgiven due to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf.

As one would expect from something titled “the final judgment,” its finality is assured, and there is no returning from this point. Both sets of people, those judged righteous due to faith in Christ, and those judged unrighteous, will be sent to their respective places (Matthew 25.46).

In conclusion, everything detailed above is certain to come, either due to the explicit teaching of the infallible and inerrant Word of God, or due to the logical and rational corollaries we can draw from the teachings of Scripture. For those who have placed faith and trust in Jesus Christ, the physical death, the intermediate state, the resurrection, and the final judgement should induce no apprehension.

On the contrary, it should steel the resolve for living in the here and now, it should cause the believer to overflow with thankfulness and gratefulness due to the certainty they hold about the future. It should cause the believer to be able to minister to a grieving brother or sister in Christ, and it should light a fire inside for them to reach those around them with the good news of Jesus Christ.

For a final word on the personal eschatology detailed in this paper, Erickson writes:

“In view of the certainty of the [the eschaton], it is imperative that we act in accordance with the will of God.”

For a final word on the response of the fully regenerate believer to the personal eschatology presented in this paper, it is hard to look past the words of Revelation 22.20b:

“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”

In this episode, we dive into some dangerous territory: questions about God’s sovereignty.

The sovereignty of God can be an extremely challenging topic for Christians. A lot of the debate centers on the phrase “God is in control.” What do we mean when we say God is in control? For many, this question leads to an even bigger one: if God is in control, does that mean he causes evil and suffering?

Brian and Aaron contrast two theological views of the issue, one framed by renowned reformed pastor John Piper and the other by seminary professor Dr. Gerry Breshears. They discuss why they prefer one view over the other.

The guys also get into the Biblical story of Joseph, the phrase “what you meant for evil God meant for good,” and what this passage implies (and does not imply) about God’s sovereignty.

Then we take some hard looks at what extreme positions have to be adopted if we embrace Piper’s view of God being the author behind human sins.

Finally, we end with a look at prof. Gerry Breshears’s framework for what it means to be “Calminian”, or rather, a Christian who holds the sovereignty of God and the free will God affords to man in a healthy tension.

To read more about his views, you can check out this document.

––

The GoodLion podcast is a show by Aaron Salvato and Brian Higgins, the founders of CGN’s GoodLion Podcast Network. Each episode, their goal is to ask hard questions, push past easy answers and always look to Jesus, the God who is not safe but is very good.

We find ourselves living at a time of great fear, sorrow and disappointment. Many of us are faced with dilemmas that we never expected, like layoffs, furloughs or closing down our businesses, i.e. burying a dream that you’ve worked so hard for. Some things that are being missed during this time simply can’t be recovered: a wedding day, a family’s first baby shower, a senior year of high school, a mother’s 60th birthday, the list could go on. For these and a thousand other situations, there isn’t a redo; you can’t get back these moments, and that is something to lament!

But there is more to lament than personal disappointment right now. There is the pain and grief that the world is not right. There are the millions who have been laid off, the thousands that have died, and the many living in fear and total social isolation. Our current situation has created and highlighted these and a thousand other issues. What can one do? Lament.

What do I mean by lament?

Lament is a passionate state or expression of grief or sorrow. Lament follows the theme that, at one time, everything was good, but now all is lost. Lament is an intense, almost violent form of grief-stricken prayer. This concept is something almost entirely absent from the western Church, but was and still is very prominent in Jewish life and Eastern cultures.

I do think we’ve seen a culturally relevant example in recent history in one person in particular – Mr. Rogers. That saintly man carried the grief and pain of others in his soul. He acted as a counselor and friend for the children on his show, the children’s families and production crew members. He made deep, personal investment into the lives of those around him, seeking to know their names, their stories, and following up when he’d see them again. And though his daily process involved speaking into children’s lives, all too often, there were no ultimate answers to the issues they were facing. Both the theatrical biopic film and the recent documentary highlight a frequent occurrence that followed the taping of his shows: when filming finished and the studio was empty, Fred Rogers would often bang on his piano. I think in some way, Mr. Rogers was practicing lament (though without words) when he would pound on the keys. You could hear the anger, the pain and the protest in his playing – that’s lament. Lament is the outcry when there is no answer; it’s the pain of the process. Lament is the expression of the pain of the journey without an end in sight.

In our culture, we are very uncomfortable sitting in grief; we want to move to the good and the hopeful quickly. The idea of lament is not a comforting or comfortable idea to us. If we’re ever brave enough to practice it, we do our best to make it brief.

Maybe that’s because it feels hopeless and dismal to us. Lament doesn’t fit the western ideal of “Happily ever after,” nor does it fit our Systematic theologies of nicely categorizing things. I love what Oswald Bayer has observed: “Systematic theology (in dealing with suffering) in general tends to refer to a happy ending all too hastily and fails to take seriously the fruitless disorientation of the journey in all its uncertainties.” For the follower of Jesus, joy is the final word on the trials and difficulties we experience in life. However, much of that earthly experience will be marked with hardship, suffering, grief and lament.

Doubtless, this is why lament takes up significant space in the Biblical story, recognizing that we are living in a world that was never meant to be – a world filled with dark forces, evil, violence, decay, sickness, disease and death. We live in a world of sin.

Lament bemoans the world that is. But Biblical lament does so because the world is not what it should be (good God, good creation) and not what it shall be (redeeming God, redeemed creation).

“Lament can refer to the mystery of God, ‘his ways are not our ways.’ It can refer to the false absolutism of rationalism, to which postmodernists now react legitimately. It can reflect on distrust of an ordered universe, and on disbelief in the sovereignty of the creator. It can reflect the amount of pain and suffering humans can endure, collapse under, or transcend, resulting in post-traumatic nervous stress or in post-traumatic spiritual growth.” – The Psalms as Christian Lament, Walke, Moore, and Houston.

A basic framework for lament is orientation, disorientation, reorientation. And this can be seen in many Psalms, which can function as a guide for us through lament. The Psalms direct our complaints, our fears, our doubts, our failure, our praise, our needs and our hopes, to God and God alone. Along with this, the Psalms permit us to speak to God in total, raw authenticity and unfiltered honesty. Yet, they never leave us there. The point of scripture is to shape our hearts and minds into the right kind of thoughts and desires, to be and become God’s faithful and righteous people. I desire that by looking together at these very raw and unfiltered Psalms – the Spirit would shape our raw emotions and confessions into the right emotions and confessions.

For our example, let’s look at Psalm 44. In this Psalm, like many others, everything was great. Security, prosperity, victory – Israel was living in covenant faithfulness to Yahweh. Then something went terribly wrong. They lost a great battle, and they’d been bereaved, killed and humiliated. But how can that be? Wasn’t it YHWH, the Most High God, who fought for Israel? Had they lost God? Had God abandoned them? Was God asleep(vs.23)? What was going on? Rather than becoming stoic, nihilist, or cynical, the Psalm will teach us to take our complaint or lament to God, the one who sees, hears and knows (Exodus 3:7).

So let’s break down Psalm 44 into our three-part framework. It might be helpful to grab a notebook and work through this exercise with me so we can apply these principles personally.

1. Orientation.

Verses 1-8 express the idea that “everything was good.” This part of the Psalm helps us identify God’s goodness and faithfulness in times past. That he has been faithful in all seasons and situations. Take a moment to read through this section. Then, write down a brief list of God’s goodness and faithfulness to you in the past.


2. Disorientation.

Verses 9-22 articulate the Psalmist’s observations, a feeling that all was lost and a desire to understand what was happening. This part of the Psalm helps us identify our grief. What is bringing pain, frustration or fear into our lives? Bring these things as complaints to God. Remember, one primary function of the Psalms is to teach us to take our lives – every part of them – to God. Cast your cares upon him. Take a moment and list out (at least) three laments from your current situation.

Now focus on v22, and contrast it with Romans chapter 8:31-39. How does this passage complete the lament of Psalm 44:22?

3. Reorientation.

Psalm 44:23-26 presents the Psalmist’s appeal for redemption. Take this lament and make it your prayer: What is it that you want the Lord to do for you? Be specific, not generic. Be honest. Say what is in you and not what should be in you. Take this prayer with you into your week. Each time you feel those feelings of doubt, fear or abandonment, etc., take it to our Lord who journeys the way with us. Lament can lead us into a fruitful time, leading to a deepening of our love and trust in God.

Ultimately, lament can express a more profound trust in God, or it can wholly reject God. Lament can become either the spiritual experience of trustful humility or the defiance of God in pride.


Biblically, lament is a transitional state like the Exodus: a tempted environment of murmurings and distrust, or joyful anticipation of the promised land.

So Church, as we are traveling through this wilderness season, a long journey of unknowns, of scarcity, of fear on the right and the left; the temptation for us will be like that of the children of Israel – to question God’s goodness, love, faithfulness and promises. The temptation will be to doubt Him. And this is where the Psalms, and especially the Psalms of Lament, can teach us. The Psalms direct our complaints, our fears, our doubts, our failure, and our praise, our needs and our hopes to God and God alone.

Martin Luther, commenting on the richness of the Psalms, said:

“Where do you find deeper, more sorrowful, or pitiful words of sadness than in the Psalms of lamentation? There again, you look into the hearts of the Saints, as into death, yes, as into hell itself… When they speak of fear and hope, they use such words that no painter could so depict for your fear or hope, and no Cicero or other orator has so portrayed them. And that they speak these words to God and with God, this I repeat, is the best thing of all. This gives the words double earnestness and life.” – Martin Luther, Word and Sacrament

My prayer is that, in this strange season, we would engage this ancient practice of bringing our cares, our grief and our anger to God. I pray that the Psalms of Lamentation will teach us how to lament properly, how to bring our laments to God and how to fellowship in the sufferings of Jesus, and through it be more conformed to His image.


One last thought on Lament.

There is one massive difference between the Old Testament context of lament and the Christian’s New Testament context. The Jews of the Old Testament could protest their perceived unjust suffering (though there aren’t many characters who didn’t suffer greatly)because much of the Mosaic Law promised monetary blessing, health and happiness in response to faithfulness to the covenant. But for Christians who are under the New Covenant, inaugurated by Jesus, we cannot protest suffering. Christians are followers of Jesus, and He makes it clear that suffering is a part of the program for the Christian journey. As He suffered innocently, so must His followers, for they are not greater than their master (John 5:1-5; 8:34-39). Consequently, a voiced protest is not heard in Christ or the apostles’ teaching.

As C.S Lewis reminds us, “We were promised sufferings. They were part of the program. We were even told, ‘Blessed are they that mourn,’ and I accept it. I’ve got nothing that I hadn’t bargained for. Of course, it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not imagination.” – C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

Christians can lament, but they cannot protest to the one who, with cracked lips, lacerated back, pierced hands and feet, with labored breaths and beard torn from His face, suffered the death of the cross for our sake.

English Poet George Herbert wrote an incredible poem called The Sacrifice. Stanza after stanza (62 in total), He chronicles the various sufferings and afflictions of the life of Jesus – each one with the refrain “Was ever grief like mine?”

Truly, Jesus, the son of God, was a man of sorrow and one who could say – “darkness is a close friend of mine” (Psalm 88:18).

God has suffered; He knows the difficulty of the journey, for He Himself has traveled it before, and He is journeying with us even now. As Psalm 62 says, “Trust in him at all times, you people; pour out your hearts to him, for God is our refuge.”

Soren Kierkegaard, who reflected much on the life of Job, left his mark in the corner of Copenhagen’s Cathedral. It reads: “We believe that God is great enough to harbor our little lives with all their grievances and that he can lead us from darkness through to the other side.” Amen, and Amen

Contextualization or relevance? Are they the same thing, or is there really a difference? Theologically speaking, there is, but they aren’t in opposition. Maybe they’re like cousins, close like family but not quite siblings. For example, I can contextualize the Gospel without being young or cool, although I might not be relevant (at least in appearance) to a younger generation. The opposite is also true. Someone can be perfectly relevant in their speech, dress and presentation, and yet, not contextualize the Gospel. There has been a lot written and spoken in our movement about being relevant, but what about contextualization?

I recently enjoyed an article about pastoral perspectives¹ when I stumbled across a phrase about contextualization that felt out of step. It’s an idea I’ve heard many times from various sources that doesn’t sit quite right with me. The author wrote, “Perhaps 40 years of trying to ‘contextualize’ the faith to fit the zeitgeist actually transformed, not the social and moral fabric of our society, but the church itself.” I draw attention to the word “try” because I believe he’s speaking of failed attempts, rather than the actual process. So I hardly imagine this author to have espoused the idea, but there is a common thought that the efforts of contextualization have led the church down the path to worldliness. It’s as if the church began to imitate the world and somehow fell under its spell, becoming more like it and less like Jesus. I’d like to concentrate on the subject of contextualization (rather than relevance) because I believe it shouldn’t make the church more worldly in its attempt to share the Gospel.

Many point to Nigerian theologian Byang H. Kato as one of the first to develop the current idea of contextualization in the 1970s. He taught two principals in communicating the Gospel—staying true to its message and finding the right words to communicate in a way that the Word can be received. William Larkin quotes Kato to summarize contextualization as “making concepts or ideas relevant in a given situation…It is an effort to express the never-changing Word of God in ever-changing modes for relevance.”² Kato saw the need for contextualization in his own mission field as well as for others, but he warned against the dangers of syncretization, the mixture of ideas and beliefs into a new system.

To bring it back to Litfin’s article, he warned us of the church becoming too much like the world to the detriment of the Gospel.

Certainly, the case can be made against a worldly church that concentrates more on relevance and appearance more than shepherding the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2). But a deeper question might be: Have we, as the Church, so reached into the culture to share the Gospel, that we’ve become more like the culture than like the Body of Christ? Again we would be hard-pressed to speak definitively because our society has evolved in an unrecognizable way from its 18th-century roots. It would be like entering a time machine and bringing someone back to analyze the church of today from their perspective. They may be shocked; they may not be able to tell the difference from the church and the culture, or they may see the advances we’ve made using the tools of our time like technology, academics and communications, and praise God. In that case, we can take comfort in the Gospel that never changes and look back to Kato’s idea of contextualization—communicating the unchanging Word of God in a way people can understand. We can begin by referring back to Creation as a roadmap to our mission to reach out.

In the beginning, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). There is much debate to exactly what it means to bear the image of God, but one of the views that encourages me the most is to see this in light of the mission. God formed humanity to live on the world He created in a way that would glorify Him. So in giving man dominion, it wasn’t necessary to dominate in the way we take the word to mean today. Our idea of dominating inspires a certain amount of despotic authority, which raises serious questions for the more ecologically conscientious. I believe this view can be corrected in considering how God rules sovereignly today. He’s no despot, but He’s good and so He would give us dominion that we might reflect His ways. Made in the image of God is therefore who we are more than something we possess. Christopher Wright explains:

“In any case, we should not so much think of the image of God as an independent ‘thing’ that we somehow possess. God did not give to human beings the image of God. Rather, it is a dimension of our very creation. The expression ‘in our image’ is adverbial (that is, it describes the way God made us), not adjectival (that is as if it simply described a quality we possess). The image of God is not so much something we possess, as what we are. To be human is to be the image of God.”³

It’s with this idea of being made in the image of God we can also feel the depth of the fall.

The separation of indwelling sin grievously mars the imprint of God’s image in our lives. One of the best scriptures that develops this for us is Romans 1:18-32. Paul describes the wrath of God against humanity, not in fire and brimstone but in a vivid description of the dark side of human society. The cause seems to go back to the image of God, for people have “by their unrighteousness suppress(ed) the truth”(Romans 1:18). What they know to be true, what is formed into their DNA is a knowledge of their Creator. Paul pursues, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:19).

But rejection has its price. The effects of sin so penetrating to the fabric of human society that people are closed to the knowledge of God on anything other than their own terms. This is truly a dilemma as God who has made man in His image, finds man rejecting Him and recreating an image of God in his own image. The response of God is chilling. In harmony with their desire to ignore Him gave them up to “futile thinking” (Romans 1:21), “in the lusts of their hearts” (v24) and finally “dishonorable passions” (v24). He has allowed His image-bearers to fall mind, heart and will, into their own destruction. G. Campbell Morgen puts it this way:

“Man distanced from God has not lost the powers of his original creation; he has lost the true sphere of their exercise. His intelligence is darkened, his emotion is deadened, his will is degraded. The spaciousness of the spiritual condition has ceased and man will look at material things in a semi-blindness, which at once is tragic and pathetic. Deadened emotion, a heaven-born capacity, will attempt to satisfy itself wholly in the realm of the earth and love being set wholly upon things material, will forever be wounded in their loss. Degraded will, ever attempting to be authoritative, masterful, will always be thwarted, beaten, overcome.”⁴

It’s stepping into this wreckage that the born again believer is reunited with her Creator, and He sends her out, restoring her mind, heart and will through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. She is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17); she has even become an “ambassador for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:21). She must speak to a world who is darkened through sin and has rejected truth. So she must find a way to communicate, looking for common ground, a point of contact where the conversation can begin. This is where contextualization should take us. The need for contextualization is not so much in being relevant like quoting films or popular cultural icons, but as speaking God’s unchanging truth in an understandable way to a culture in degeneration.

In my next article, I would like to develop the idea of contextualization in the way we preach the Cross and reflect on some missionary examples. In summary, contextualization is about communicating the Gospel to a given cultural context. Rather than make us worldly, it should make us more like Jesus, who showed us masterfully in the Gospels how He went about the same task.

Notes:

¹ _{Litfin, Bryan. “Why We Need More Pastors Like Augustine.” The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition, June 21, 2019. https://www.thegospelcoalition… it he brings to light the benefits of living simply, giving more attention to holiness than appearance and then reminds us of the need to “focus on our own flock” as opposed to keeping an eye on our global impact before returning to the call of standing with our congregation until the end. I found his observations especially pertinent in the context of social media and globalization.}

² _{Larkin, William. Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003, p 152.}

³ _{Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, p 619. Wright, Christopher J. H. Mission of God: Unlocking the Bibles Grand Narrative. Place of publication not identified: InterVarsity Press, 2018.}

⁴ _{Morgan, G. Campbell, and Winifred M. Howells. The Crises of the Christ. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1903. p. 16.}

Historically, the evangelical tradition has been very supportive of Israel. Yet with the growing resurgence of supersessionism (replacement theology) eroding this support, as well as the alarming increase of global anti-Semitism, it is imperative that evangelicals understand the role of Israel from a biblical perspective. Unfortunately, many people today lack a proper biblical foundation to navigate this issue, and their interpretations are too easily colored by the rhetoric of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Admittedly, the topic is complex and requires examination from both theological and political vantages. However, we as Christians must ensure that we give this issue adequate theological treatment before engaging with the subject on other levels.

In order to achieve this, the entire subject of the house of Israel needs to be seen for what it is in the biblical corpus—perhaps the largest metanarrative in all of Scripture. The topic of Israel needs to be treated as a biblical theology theme that runs throughout the entire Bible. The scriptures address the past, present and future role of the Jewish people in the plan of God. In setting out a biblical theology of Israel, which will incorporate periods of exile, periods of unbelief, and ultimately, anticipates an eschatological kingdom, we seek to offer a theology that affirms the unique role of Israel in salvation history. We also want to avoid the rather simplistic error of creating a theology that places the modern nation state of Israel on a pedestal above all criticism. To hold a view that acknowledges God’s heart for the Jewish people does not mean one is bound to support every decision of the secular Government of the modern state of Israel.

We must go to the Scriptures first. Although this section of Romans is the final portion of a much larger section of chapters 9-11, which expounds upon the subject of God’s dealings with Israel, verses 25-29 provide us with five salient truths that will shape our biblical theology of Israel. We will start with the first few below.

1. The Gentile church is prone toward ignorance and arrogance regarding the issue of Israel.

“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation …” (Romans 11:25a)

The text states that the church must be careful not to display an attitude of ignorance concerning Israel’s current position of blindness, nor are we to allow this position to produce in us an attitude of superiority or arrogance. Unfortunately, the ugly mixture of ignorance and arrogance is an apt description of the church’s attitude for much of its history, indicating that Paul’s warning has gone largely unheeded. The doctrine of supersessionism, more commonly known as replacement theology, has been the majority view throughout the history of the church. The idea is that the church has replaced Israel in the future plan of God. Those who hold this view believe that the covenantal promises regarding Israel’s future have now been transferred to the church—it has become the new “spiritual Israel.” This position quickly became the dominant stance of the post-Apostolic church. And as the influence of supersessionism grew, it brought with it a shameful legacy of Christian anti-Semitism that persisted, and some would say culminated, in the terrible events of the 20th century.

Although post-Holocaust theology made efforts to redress this imbalance, recently there has been a resurgence of supersessionism in the evangelical church. This resurgence has been inflamed by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the support of those who advocate imposing a social justice narrative onto the Scriptures. This type of narrative portrays the Palestinians as helpless underdogs trying to resist the might of their imperialist overlords—Israel! This movement is known as “The New Supersessionism,” and it fuses together traditional supersessionist doctrines with Palestinian nationalism and quasi-Marxist liberation theology.

Now it is very important to realize that as a democracy, an imperfect democracy, criticism of Israel can be important for positive change. A valid, albeit negative criticism of Israeli policy, should not be considered anti-Semitic. In a government consisting of both religious and secular groups, having those on the left and the right, you will not find fiercer debate about Israeli policies than within Israel itself. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote the following: “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction – out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East – is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”¹

Evangelical theology should be able to stand against any form of anti-Semitism, whether it is directed at Jews individually or against Israel collectively.

2. The hardening of Israel is partial and temporary.

… That a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25b).

This next clause is a theologically rich and important statement. Church history will show that Gentile Christendom has often reacted against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pointing out that the Jewish people rejected Christ and are presently unbelievers. Paul here seems to preempt this response by explaining the reason for Israel’s present hardness.

Paul had previously explained the reason for God allowing Israel to stumble (11:1-15) and here reaffirms his interpretation of Israel’s current position as the result of divine hardening. He emphasizes that the current hardening is only “partial,” and there remains a faithful remnant of believers within the nation; Paul himself being one of them. This remnant is evidence of God’s continued faithfulness to Israel, which proves the nation has not been rejected (11:5). However, the real content of the mystery is not just that a believing remnant in the nation would remain, as this concept is found in the Old Testament. Neither is the mystery of the fact that Israel would one day experience a national revival beyond the locus of a small remnant, as this too is clearly taught in the Old Testament. Rather, the novel aspect of this Pauline mystery is that “the inauguration of the eschatological age would involve setting aside the majority of Jews while Gentiles streamed in to enjoy the blessings of salvation and that only when that stream had been exhausted would Israel as a whole experience these blessings.”²

This period of history is set to continue “until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.” The word “until” in this context indicates a temporal cessation of one situation and the commencement of another. Paul is saying that this present position of hardening will exist until the full number of Gentiles has been reached. The “fullness of the Gentiles” is this present age when God is “taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (Acts 15:14). The phrase is closely related to the expression “times of the Gentiles,” which is used in Luke 21:24. The former seems to have a numerical focus whilst the latter is chronologically focused. The termination of the times of the Gentiles would seem to point to when Jesus returns (cf. Acts 15:14-16; Luke 21:24-27), thus indicating that the “fullness” of the Gentiles in a quantitative sense will coincide with the end of the “times of the Gentiles” when Jesus returns.

Paul’s brief sketch of salvation history then includes unbelieving Israel in the present age, and this crucial aspect must be factored into any biblical theology concerning Israel.

Notes:

¹ Friedman, Thomas. “Campus Hypocrisy”. New York Times, October 16, 2002.
² Moo, Douglas. “The Epistle to the Romans”. NICNT. Grand Rapids. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1996. Pg. 717.

Our culture loves to pigeonhole, label and “straw-man” nearly everything it disagrees with. Which means, if you’re a miracle-believing Christian, then in the eyes of a growing demographic, you are branded a “science denier.” And in 21st century western culture, because of the high value placed upon “science,” that’s among the worst things you could be accused of. But foundational Christian teachings such as the incarnation, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, will earn you the badge faster than just about any transgression.

Acceptance of the Biblical narrative causes many non-theists to view Christians as “irrational.” They conclude that the Christian’s faith “does not align with clearly established science.” The Bible speaks of miraculous events, and miracles are difficult (at best) to support scientifically. Therefore, Christian, you’re a “science denier.” For some Christians, the moniker is (strangely) worn as a badge. But for the larger majority, once labeled, many will back quietly away from the conversation. Why engage when you’re going to be branded and stigmatized?

Science is the new faith and doctrine of many naturalists. For them, Christians (i.e., “science deniers”) probably believe the Earth is flat, and that we didn’t go to the Moon too. In fact, if you listen to some skeptics, in their perspective, Christianity is the greatest of all conspiracy theories to be foisted upon us throughout history. But as you probe a bit deeper, one must ask, do not many naturalistic atheists also deny (certain) science? Do not many that hold to strong “left-of-center” political and social views, and often pride themselves as having progressed beyond “belief,” do this as well?

Non-theist naturalists deny (certain) science too.

Perhaps deny is too strong a word. “Selective,” where science is concerned is probably more appropriate.

Take as a first example a TED talk I watched some time ago called * “The History of the World in 18 Minutes.” In the opening minute of the well-produced talk, presenter David Christian (ironic last name) grips the viewer’s attention with a video of scrambling an egg. But the mind quickly registers an inconsistency. The egg, which at first appeared to be scrambled was actually reconstituting, from scrambled, to a whole egg. As it does, Christian narrates:

“…We all know in our heart of hearts that this is not the way the universe works. A scrambled egg is mush—tasty mush—but it’s mush. An egg is a beautiful, sophisticated thing that can create even more sophisticated things, such as chickens. And we know in our heart of hearts that the universe does not travel from mush to complexity. In fact, this gut instinct is reflected in one of the most fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy. What that says basically is that the general tendency of the universe is to move from order and structure to lack of order, lack of structure—in fact, to mush. And that’s why that video feels a bit strange.”

To that point, the theist is tracking perfectly with Christian. But he continues:

“So here’s a great puzzle: In a universe ruled by the second law of thermodynamics, how is it possible to generate the sort of complexity I’ve described, the sort of complexity represented by you and me and the convention center? Well, the answer seems to be, the universe can create complexity, but with great difficulty.”

Entropy. It’s “one of the most fundamental laws of physics.” Miracle. “A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.” David Christian’s presentation doesn’t jive with one of the most fundamental laws of physics. It doesn’t align with “science.” It sounds a lot like a miracle. But that doesn’t change his naturalistic conviction. Is he a science denier?

A second example. The science is becoming clearer every day. Life begins at conception. Call it a fetus all you want. It is not—as was wrongly assumed 50 years ago—just a “clump of tissue.” As ultrasound technology has refined, and the ability to study in utero child development has advanced, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude that a fetus is not a human life.

To this reality, many non-theist naturalists have chosen to call the fetus a “potential human being.” But they refuse to ascribe “personhood” to the unborn child. Some sociologists even argue for extending non-personhood beyond birth! Apparently, it’s legitimate to deny clear medical and biological science when it fits with a social position. This seems like scientific malpractice for the sake of strongly held personal or political convictions. Or perhaps social science is higher on the hierarchy of value than biological or medical science? It appears that grant dollars and media space think so.

Consider a third example. Gender studies departments, in the humanities sector (again, within the social sciences) of the modern western “church”—the university—have promulgated theories that are in outright, and even hostile opposition, to extensively researched and peer-reviewed biological science regarding sex. What becomes very clear when you begin reading the publications from these institutions is that they love to attach the word “science,” or better yet “established science” to anything that has received grant dollars and has been researched according to a scientific method. Then, if anyone speaks up with counterfactuals, even scientifically researched ones, they are lambasted and labeled “junk science.”

For most people, ideology and political persuasion trumps science.

Let’s be very clear, politics is the new religion of the West. In the United States there are two state denominations (i.e.parties), and within those denominations, many factions and networks. And although a large segment of theistically minded individuals (who often lean right politically) are accused of science denial as a result of their beliefs, those that adhere to the religion of Leftism, fight ardently for worldview positions that, also, do not align with many of the sciences. They too do so because of ideology. Generally, this ideology has been birthed and has grown through the evangelical and discipleship efforts of higher education. Especially the humanities. So why the pejorative labeling?

Agreeing to disagree, agreeably.

I suggest that neither the theistically minded Christian or the atheistically minded naturalist are necessarily science deniers. Science isn’t a worldview to deny. It’s a methodology of hypothesis, observation and experimentation, to discover the legitimacy of our worldview. But such scientific endeavor is always biased by preliminary assumptions. In other words, you can use “science” to “prove” a lot of different things. Just like wrongly interpreted, or out-of-context Biblical study can be used to approve all kinds of abhorrent positions.

To my leftist and non-believing friends—and I do have them—let’s dispense with the nonsensical ad-hominem attacks, labeling people “science deniers.” As if that somehow ends the debate. Let’s agree that in the hierarchy of values you (and we) have elevated, or the convictions (be they religious, ideological or political) we maintain, that they are more ideological and religious than scientific. Which means that we need to return to a rigorous debate of ideas, evidenced by logic and science-based rationale. Let’s acknowledge that conversations that descend toward character assault and bluster rarely produce anything worthwhile and are typically employed when one has no further winning argument.

^{* CalvaryChapel.com does not necessarily endorse or agree with every outside source attached amongst these diverse pieces of content. By providing these sources, we hope to help you stay informed of important events, conversations and ideas taking place in the world that are relevant to the Christian faith.}

Does Hell Really Exist?

Many people blatantly deny the existence of hell. I could easily fill pages of quotes from people known and unknown who adamantly reject that there is such a place as hell. Yet that there is a place was clearly taught both by Jesus and His apostles. Here are a few quotes along with other Scripture references, affirming hell’s existence:

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut if off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched” (Mark 9:42-48).

“And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matthew 8:11-12). (See also Matthew 13:40-42; Matthew 25: 31-33, 41, 46).

Each one of these quotations from the gospels came directly from the lips of Jesus. As we move further into the New Testament, we come to statements by the apostles affirming the reality of a place of eternal punishment. Let’s start with Paul’s words to suffering Christians in Thessolonica:

“It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thessalonians 1:5-9).

In his brief epistle, Jude referred to false teachers with these words:

“These are spots in your love feast, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever” (Jude 12-13).

And the apostle John, from his vision in the book of Revelation, said this:

“Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’” (Revelation 14:9-11)

“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire with fire and brimstone, which is the second death”(Revelation 21:8) (See also Revelation 20:10, 15)

So we have statements from Jesus as well as the apostles concerning the existence of hell. In fact, Jesus spoke about hell more than any other person in the Bible.

What is Hell Like?

Since Jesus and the apostles affirmed the reality of hell, the question naturally arises: What is hell like? The Scriptures quoted earlier used three images to describe the horrors of hell. First, there was the image of unquenchable fire. Theologians have been asking for ages whether or not there is a literal fire in hell. That’s difficult to answer. But I don’t think we need to bother ourselves with whether the fire is literal or figurative, for the point is clear: Hell is a place of immeasurable suffering. It could be that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. But the idea of unquenchable fire is speaking metaphorically about pain. Hell is a place of pain.

Second, hell is referred to as outer darkness. The implication given by the term “outer darkness” is that hell is separated from the light. A consistent picture in Scripture of God is that He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. So to be cast into outer darkness is the equivalent of being set entirely outside of God’s presence.

The third image referring to hell is that of wailing and gnashing of teeth. This is a vivid description of acute anguish. So through these pictures, whether they are literal or metaphorical, the Scripture is communicating that hell is a place of intense pain, total separation from God, and acute anguish. If the descriptions of hell are figurative or symbolic, the conditions they represent are more intense and real than even the figures of speech communicate. In other words, it’s not an exaggeration to use these three terms to describe hell. This terminology probably doesn’t sufficiently describe the horror of hell. Hell is worse than unquenchable fire, it’s worse than outer darkness, it’s worse than wailing and gnashing of teeth. So we see from both Jesus and the apostles that hell is a literal place of conscious torment. It is a place where those who have rejected God live in a state of torment because they have been forever cast from His presence. The words used to describe the condition of the lost speak of being grievously and continually vexed.

As we can see, the Scriptures set forth hell as a horrific place, a place so terrifying that a man ought to do everything in his power to avoid going there. That’s the point Jesus was making in the text we began with. Jesus fully intended to strike fear in the hearts of men and women about a future judgment so that that fear might lead them to reconsider their life and turn to Him in repentance. Jesus was not at all like many preachers today who don’t want to offend their listeners by talking about negative subjects like judgment. These days, some would even accuse those who bring up the doctrine of eternal judgment of trying to scare people into God’s kingdom.

My response is that Jesus didn’t have a problem with mentioning eternal judgment. There’s nothing wrong with scaring people into the kingdom of God, because that is the only way some people are ever going to be moved to repentance. Moving people by fear is only wrong if you’re threatening them with things that don’t exist. But if hell is a reality, the fact that judgment is coming should be an incentive to unbelievers to turn from their sin. If people are actually going to hell, then we ought to warn them. And that, of course, is what the church is supposed to have been doing–warning the world about a judgment to come, not downplaying or dismissing the idea.