I hate the doctrine of Hell... or What the hell is wrong with me?

Dr. C. Michael Patton of Credo House recently wrote over on The Parchment and Pen Blog a brief summery of eight of his biggest beefs with Christianity, or perhaps western evangelical subculture. While I agree with many of his main points, when he comes to his finale he seems to change his post from the quarks often found in evangelicalism to a doctrine of the Christian Faith, that is Hell.

To be fair to Dr. Patton I will quote the relevant text here:

Hell. This is hands down the most difficult doctrine in the Christian faith. We believe in a loving God who sees fit to allow his creation (his children) to suffer in a place we call hell—a place, by the way, that affords more suffering and than anything imaginable. A place, by the way, that is never-ending. It is not as though I don’t believe it. I do. It is not as though I look at God in judgment. I don’t. It is simply something that confuses me. While I completely disagree with any form of “Christian” universalism (i.e. all people are going to make it to heaven), second-chance theories (i.e. unbelievers will experience a second chance to escape hell in the after life), or the idea of annihilation ism (i.e. the belief that hell, along with all its inhabitants, will eventually be annihilated forever), I understand and sympathize with the reason why they go in this direction. If I could find some sort of loop-hole to get out of believing in the doctrine of an eternal hell, I would. If there was such a thing as a Christianity that did not necessitate a belief in hell, I would submit my resume. (And believe me, I have tried). Oh, closely connected to this are the cliché answers Christians give about hell. Many Christians I have encountered act as if hell does not bother them in the least. Of all the things you can be cliché about, don’t do so here.

Dr. Patton states that hell is a difficult doctrine of the Christian faith, even the most difficult doctrine, I agree that it is a very "difficult" and even "confusing" doctrine. I don't think it is good for the Christian to hate any doctrine found in Scripture.

Just for a moment imagine if we applied this to other "difficult" or "confusing" doctrines of Christianity. It would look something like this:

I hate the Trinity, it is a "difficult" and "confusing" doctrine and I don't like it. Oh I'm not looking at God in judgment for being who He is. Far be it from me. I also don't believe that any of the Trinitiarian heresies have any validity not that I haven't tried to prove them.

I don't believe that we as Christians have the right to hate God or what He has chosen to reveal to us about Himself. We ought to turn to Him in faith when something is difficult or confusing instead of hating Him for it. Now I am not saying that we as Christians ought to be anti-intellectual, in that we don't try to work through these difficult and confusing doctrines, rather when we reach the end of the limits of our minds we turn to God in faith. We trust, that while we now don't understand fully, God in His wisdom has a plan and a reason for everything, including Hell, which will result in His glory and our good.

For a much more thorough and philosophical article on the topic of Theodicy or The Problem of Evil by Dr. Bahnsen. While Dr. Bahnsen does not deal directly with the doctrine of Hell in the article his logic concerning the existence of Evil can be used for Hell also.
Grace + Peace.

P.S. I just realized I could have saved a lot of space if I had simply said the doctrine of Hell may make you hate yourself for not understanding God's mind about it but must never make you hate God.

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism

Well they are at it again. "Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism", a tome put out by B&H Academic publishing and edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke, seems to once again mistake historic Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. You may remember that David Alan made this mistake a few years ago at the John 3:16 Conference. Anyways rather that entering the fight I would once again simply like to show the differences between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism also I would like to show the similarities between Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, since they spring from the same philosophy.

Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
First thing that ought to be noted is that both Calvinists and Hyper-Calvinists will both affirm the so called five points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints). Yet this is often where the similarities in the two systems part ways. The Calvinist affirms human responsibility, in that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel where as the Hyper-Calvinist would say that because men are unable of their own accord to turn to Christ they are not under obligation to repent. Furthermore some Hyper-Calvinist's believe that God has no love for the reprobate at all. No Calvinist would say this, no matter how high their theology is. Furthermore some neo-gnostic Hyper-Calvinist's would say that only those who adhere to a Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel are saved. The Calvinist on the other hand can affirm that there are many who are with the Lord that held to Arminianism or Wesleyan theology, though they might say they held to it inconsistently. A final distinction, though there are a few more, would be that Hyper-Calvinists are anti-Evangelistic or anti-Missional. No one can make that claim of Calvinists as many of the greatest Missionaries ever have held to Calvinist Theology, e.g. William Carrey, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, George Whitefield, John Eliot, et cetera.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.
While Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists would differ on a lot of things including the so called five points of Calvinism (see above), the philosophical presupposition behind each of these systems is identical. It stems from the belief that Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility are incompatible. They simply differ on which portion of the premise to reject because of their presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist." The Arminian will see that the bible teaches all men are to repent and believe, saying, given their previously stated presupposition, "See all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel," which is true "therefore all men must be able to do so of their own accord," which is false. The Hyper-Calvinist will see that the Bible teaches that no man has the ability to to repent and believe, and thus say given their previously stated presupposition, "See men are unable to repent and believe the Gospel on of their own accord," which is true, " therefore all men must not be commanded to repent and believe," which is false. This is when the true Calvinist steps in and takes the true portions of their statements and puts them together saying that "All men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel, yet of their own accord they cannot do this." In this the Calvinist rejects the incompatiblism of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility as well as the presupposition that "mans ability and responsibility must coexist," turning from Philosophy to Scripture as the final authority in this matter.

I hope that clears some things up. Grace and Peace.

>

P.S. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism have been confused twice by the Dean of the School of Theology at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary and a Professor of Philosophy and Ethics New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary once in print, once at a conference I cannot recommend anyone attend either of these Seminaries. To be mistaken on a basic area of Historical Theology is lazy at best and outright deceitful at worst.

Some more people who aren't reformed.

Neil Cullan McKinlay over at Show Off The Ben recently posted about what it means to be reformed and why no baptist can be called reformed. (link) In his basic argument he surmises that to be reformed or a Calvinist, (he seems to use the terms interchangeably after the second paragraph) one must be a pedobaptist, presbyterian, and a theonomist. It seems that these are fundamental features of what it is to be reformed in his mind. Rather than enter the debate, which is expanded upon here from R.Scott Clark's version, I would simply like to list a number of folks who are not reformed by these standards.

Johnathon Edwards (Congregationalist), John Owen (Congregationalist), George Whitefield (Methodist), Richard Baxter (Non-Conformist), John Milton (Congregationalist), C.H. Spurgeon (Baptist), John Frame (Non-Theonomist), AW Pink (Baptist), John Flavel (Non-Conformist), John Eliot (Congregationalist), John Piper (Baptist), James R. White (Baptist), Graeme Goldsworthy (Anglican), Henri Blocher (Baptist), Dr. Ligon Duncan (Non-Theonomist), Isaac Watts (Congregationalist), J.I. Packer (Anglican), strangely enough The Presbyterian Church of America (Non-theonomist). and ironically R. Scott Clark (Non-Theonomist since his two kingdoms theology is inconsistent with theonomy as described). Now it is best not to call any of these people reformed... or we could take reformed to mean adherents to Covenant Theology, the doctrines of grace, the concept of "semper reformanda," rather than a specific sect of presbyterian churches. Hey that's just me.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 3

The private aspect of ministry refers to the small group or one on one instruction. While the prevailing portion of ministry is the public ministry, unless this is followed with training in a more intimate sense it will fail to “equip the saints.” This type of teaching not only shows the personal care for the soul of the member or parishioner, but will also lead to more gentle correction, as the Lord’s servant must. (2 Tim 2:24-26) This also allows for the specific tutelage in any area that is personally difficult for the child, guarding them from the snare of the devil. This concept of biblical discipleship is of second importance, only to the proclamation of public ministry of the word.

A pastor must be able to defend the faith as all Christians are called to do so. (1 Pet 3:15) In Acts 6, where we acquire the concept of the ministry of the word, we see that the apostles are not only preaching to the believers but the unbelievers as well. As pastors the primary focus is teaching the congregation, we are also called to evangelism and reasoning from the scriptures in the marketplace. (Acts 17:17) Thus defending the faith and engaging in conversation about it we must “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5)

The apostle puts it simply that if one is to be a pastor he must be above reproach. (1 Tim 3:2) This is plain; we are to practice that which we preach. Without this our teaching will be empty at best and utter hypocrisy. Pastors must be able to echo Paul’s words “be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” (1 Cor 11:1) Furthermore Peter encourages pastors “to be examples to the flock.” (1 Pet 5:3) For this reason pastors teach by their faith (Jas 2:26) and give credence to it.

If a pastor is to be effective in the ministry of the word he must be a pastor that prays. Without the power of prayer no matter how the pastor tries he will fail to properly “equip the saints.” James tells us that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful (Jas 5:16) and as imitators of Christ we must pray for those in the flock under our care that they might not go astray, (Luke 22:32) making intercession for them as Christ does for us, that we might be equipped to equip them. As men we must also inquire the counsel of God in all things that we might properly teach that which He has revealed to us. This is the bedrock of any ministry and especially pastoral ministry.

There are many other things pastors could do at any given church, and this would vary from local body to local body. Pastors are not to do everything in the church as clearly stated in Acts 6. Rather they are to labor teaching the whole counsel of God and taking watch over the church of God, bought with His own blood. Thus we are “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, building up the body of Christ,” for that is the very heart of pastoral ministry.

FIN.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 2

The pastor must “study to show himself approved unto God” that he may “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15) Only when a pastor “searches the scriptures” (John 5:39) can he declare the “whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27) Thus the study of the scriptures is principal in the life of a pastor, (Ezra 7:10) or shall we receive the same rebuke as Job “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2) Therefore let the pastor not be like the Jews with a zeal for God yet not according to knowledge.

This personal ministry of the word leads to the ministry of the word to others, both public and private. Rightly ministering the Word as the Apostle declares, requires us to “not shrink from declaring … the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) holding back nothing that “was profitable, and teaching … in public and from house to house.” (Acts 20:20) As one charged with the ministry of the word a pastor must preach the entire book, as it all testifies to Christ. (John 5:39) Also this teaching must be both in the public arena and the private one. Finally a pastor must live the word that he preaches leading by example. (Acts 20:18)

The public aspect of ministry refers to be the preaching from the pulpit, though it is not limited to pulpits. This is where the pastor teaches the majority of the congregation and parishioners by declaring to them the whole counsel of God. This must be built upon a firm foundation of the study of the word. All preaching from this venue must be linked to Christ, as the scriptures all concern him. (Luke 24:27)

For this reason Pastors are set apart from other Christians as to have the gift of teaching, (1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:9) as this is one of the two tasks in the “equipping the saints.” This is key to the role of a pastor, and for this reason they are will not only be judged more harshly (Jas 3:1) but are worthy of double honor if they “work hard at preaching and teaching.” (1 Tim 5:17) Thus this platform is one of the venues through which we feed the sheep with “knowledge and understanding.” (Jer 3:15)

Good teaching will also protect and guard the souls of those in the body from the treachery of the evil one. The pulpit is a platform for exposing, warning, rebuking, and correcting err and sin. Truth breeds truth, therefore when spoken from the pulpit the truth will guard the little ones in it.

Philosophy of Pastoral Ministry: Part 1 Overview

The purpose of the Christian life is to glorify God in all things. (1 Cor 10:31) To that end the pastorate is no different than the layman. All of the tasks of the pastor must flow from this mindset, lest they all be in vain. Thus the heart of pastoral ministry is “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12) that they might “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by “teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ,” both “in the temple and from house to house.” (Acts 5:42) Therefore the ever-advancing kingdom of God is paramount in pastoral ministry. If anything other than the Glory of God as the center of our pastoral ministry then we are in sin.

Few men should aim to be teachers, as they will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas 3:1) Thus to take up the calling of a pastor one must be sure in God, and qualified. Foremost the pastor should be above reproach. (1 Tim 3:2) The apostle here is clearly stating the pastors are to be morally excellent, that men might see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. Paul also adds the qualification of the husband of one wife. (1 Tim 3:2) This does not mean that a pastor must be married, rather that he must be of marrying age though he may be single as Paul was. (cf. 1 Cor 7:7) However this does mean that if a pastor does marry he is to do so in the biblical fashion, “the two shall become one flesh, ” (Gen 2:24) ergo monogamy.

Paul further exhorts the good behavior and character of pastors; that they might not be drunkards nor quarrelsome, nor violent, nor full of greed, for such are the deeds of the flesh. Rather a pastor is to display the fruit of the spirit, and manage his household well for how can one that is unable to keep his own house keep the Church of God? Finally they must be able to teach sound doctrine. Far too often today this quality is neglected or overlooked in a church’s search for a pastor. If they cannot teach then they are not qualified to be a pastor. This cannot be pressed enough, lest men who by their smooth words and blessings deceive the naïve. (Rom 16:18) Sound doctrine must be taught.

The New Testament is very clear about the plurality of pastors in the Church, following the pattern Christ set when he sent the disciples out two by two, (Luke 10:1) as two can withstand the adversary and three are not easily broken. (Ecc 4:12) Furthermore a reading of Titus 1:5 draws this picture as crystal. This also helps keep heresy from the pastorate, as two cannot walk together lest they agree. (Amos 3:3) This provides the much needed accountability in an age when the “Christian Church” is so plagued with sin.

A pastor is likened to a shepherd (Eph 4:11, 1 Pet 5:2) in the New Testament, giving an image of guarding and feeding sheep. Therefore the two main aspects of “equipping the saints” are the oversight of souls (Acts 20:28, Heb 13:17) and teaching with knowledge and understanding. (Jer 3:15, Titus 1:9) These two aspects flow from a healthy ministry of the Word and prayer life as the Apostles stated in Acts 6:4.

What, an Update? Blog Review.

What a new post... yes, I know your feed readers are burning...

Anyways The Seeking Disciple over at Arminian Today posted a blog about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism entitled "Discipleship: Where Arminianism and Calvinism Clash." This is my response.

In paragraph 3 He says: "Calvinists would insist that the person was saved by irresistible grace whereas the Arminian would say that the sinner was saved by surrendering to the grace of God that they could have resisted but instead surrendered to (Acts 16:14-15, 30-34)." Actually a Calvinist would agree with both of those statements. A member of the elect can resist God's saving grace it is just God's saving grace can over come all resistance. Furthermore a Calvinist will say that all the elect will surrender to God's saving grace, though the reason for this would differ from that which Arminianism gives.

In paragraph 4 he says that "the Calvinist would encourage the person to abandon a life of sin (at least I hope they would and feel confident many would do so)" but wouldn't by definition "stress that true repentance is not just feeling sorry for our sins but actually leaving a life of sin and pressing toward the higher calling of Christ Jesus". It seems that he is creating a strawman, I hope unknowingly. I agree that the issue of the mortification of sin in the believer is different between the Calvinist and the Arminian, but not at this point. The Calvinist will say that this side of heaven no sin will ever be slain completely but must continually be mortified. There will never be a day when anyone wakes up and says, "Yes! I mortified all my sins completely so now I do not have to continue to fight sin." For more on this from the Calvinistic Prospective see The Mortification of Sin in the Believer by John Owen.

In paragraph 5 he states that: "Jesus didn't die to preserve sinners in sin but He died to make saints out of sinners". This seems to be a complete misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. A brief summery of the doctrine would state that "when we speak of “once saved, always saved,” we are not taking into account the full scope of salvation. We have been saved (justification), was are being saved (sanctified), and we will one day be saved (glorified). You cannot claim to have been “saved” (justified) unless you are being sanctified. Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord." (Michael Horton, Putting the Amazing Back into Grace, 171) Thus according to the Calvinistic position God continuely works in the lives of those who are elect that they might grow in holiness.

Finally in paragraph 1 he assumes Calvinism to prove his Arminianism. Allow me to explain. He stated that part of the Gospel is that a person places their "personal faith in the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6)." However wouldn't this coming to faith be an act that pleased God? How is it that the carnal minded unbeliever pleases God by coming to have faith without first having faith? You must either assume Calvinism, that God is the one who gives the faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), or deny Romans 8:7-8 and ironically Hebrews 11:6, not to mention the words of Jesus in John 6:35-51,8:39-47,10:25-29,17:9ff.

Just one more thought. Antinominism is a problem that has plagued both Arminianism and Calvinisim in the past and that both theologies must fight it and it's brother legalism in order to remain within the Faith.