Getting the Balance Right

Spiritual depression is an issue I have certainly struggled with over the years, and something I know I will be writing about again here.

Today however, I don’t want to focus on the issue itself but an area of theology which for me has often been the trigger for hitting a spiritual low.

What I want to discuss are the teachings and books that you come across every so often that for one reason or another, even when read thoughtfully, can feel like they are just too much to take. The subject matter they deal with, or the conclusions they come to, are just so strong that your assurance, and therefore your hope can begin to slide.

One occasion that particularly sticks out in my mind is visiting my friend Matthew in Oxford in about 2006. We were both sitting reading some very strong Puritan paperbacks in his room (An Alarm to the Unconverted by Joseph Alleine was one of them I think). After a period of silent reading and concerned faces all round Matthew eventually said ‘It steals your assurance, doesn’t it?’. Sadly, I had to agree with him.

Now don’t get me wrong I agree totally with the necessity of real repentance (importantly motivated by a correct view of what God has done) and the reality of the cost of discipleship.  And I often lament how much the modern church often ignores these essentials.

But every so often I have come across a book or sermon that has pushed these two ideas so far that in all honesty they lead me to despair.

The first significant occasion I can remember this happening was as an undergraduate I came across George Whitefield’s sermon ‘The Almost Christian’. On the whole I think I managed to grasp and agree with what he was getting at. But at the same time I could find no basis for ever being sure that you weren’t an ‘almost Christian’. The unhelpful application I took from it was simply just try harder because you are probably not saved.

A more extended and no less scary version of this idea is a full length book by Matthew Meade (1630?–99) on the idea of the almost Christian.

John Flavel (1627-91)manages to be scare even more with his 'The Touchstone of Christian Sincerity', which basically leads to the conclusion that none of what you say or do proves that you either are or are not a Christian. Any of the fruit in your life may still lead you to being deceived about your true state before God.

Solomon Stoddard’s (1643-1729) ‘A Guide to Christ’ requires you to pass through so many complicated ‘stages’ of conversion and humiliation that it left me convinced that never mind me being a Christian, no one I even knew could possibly be genuinely converted.

John Bunyan at times moves in a slightly different direction and simply talks about the sheer difficulty and scarcity of salvation. Just have a look at his ‘The Straight Gate, or Great Difficulty of Going to Heaven’ or if you can find it, one of the most extreme books I have ever read – an exposition of Luke 13:24 ‘Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.’

Moving to more Pietist literature we have a book by Daniel Dyke called the ‘Mystery of self-deceiving’. Having read some of it I can certainly agree with the review:

‘This frightening book assumes that in order to be able to deal with man’s religious difficulty one must first understand it fully. It then proceeds to dissect the human heart fibre by fibre and cell by cell. No corner is left unexplored, no crevice forgotten, no raw nerve kept mercifully unexposed.’

Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism p.74

Here is a little taster from its opening pages:

‘Many natural men there are whom God never renewed by his grace, in whom yet he so moderateth and bridleth many corruptions as pride, lust, cruelty, etc. that they break not forth. Hence such men deceitfully imagine that they are framed of purer mold, and are of better nature and disposition, free altogether from such corruptions because free from the annoyance of them…Lest therefore we deceive ourselves in this point, it standeth us in hand, diligently to examine whether the rest and silence of our corruption be from the restraining, or the renewing spirit, from the grace of God suppressing it, or oppressing it, from want of mind disposed, or of an occasion to be proposed for the drawing forth of corruption?’

Mystery of Self-Deceiving p.34

Finally, for a whole bookshop which seems dedicated to the scariest books you can find check out here.

So what am I getting at?

Well very basically I find reading much of this kind of stuff hard. I can’t imagine what it would have been like at the time it was written.

Clearly there are some Christians who find this writing encouraging, otherwise these websites and bookshops wouldn’t exist. But I am afraid it just leads me to be being seriously discouraged.

It is this kind of thinking that probably affects my assurance more than anything. After all there is no clear level to be attained too. How do you know you have repented enough? Counted the cost enough? It feels as if any realistic basis of assurance is taken from you.

I suppose a sensible step forward when looking at all of this is that the context needs to be remembered. These writers obviously did not set out to purposely lead people to despair. As Bunyan says to his readers: 'this book is not prepared to take away true grace from any'. They just wanted to ensure you were definitely converted. When it comes to sincerity of heart they took it very seriously, and they were absolutely right to. They wanted to leave no possibility at all for false conversion. But at the same time I can’t help feeling that perhaps in seeking that end they may have pushed things too far. I get a sense that any sort of actual sanctification is in reality unobtainable, and even if you have experienced something it is more than likely false and simply a trick of your own corrupt bias or indeed the devil. And to begin to think that way is obviously very discouraging.

But at the same time I need to be careful. Three things:

Firstly, I know from experience that quite often I’m too slow to really understand what they are saying at times. I can sometimes focus far too much on just one statement and then miss the bigger picture of what they are trying to convey. Many of these books and sermons are enormous and are very heavy throughout. Just reading a few pages can easily lead you to the wrong conclusions.

Secondly, I need to remember the culture of the time too. A Philip Yancey book would never have reached these hard men of the past.

Thirdly, I love these guys – they are some of the best ever. I know that I will read their books and sermons for the rest of my life. The vast majority of what they say is massively helpful.

And this leads me to the other side of the coin. While many of the Puritans and Pietists and those who followed them have lots of this ridiculously introspective stuff, they also have a wealth of unbelievably encouraging publications too.

Take ‘A lifting up for theDowncast’ by William Bridge, or ‘Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ’ by John Bunyan as just two examples. These are books that in the very strongest of terms encourage you to never give up. They couldn’t fail to warm the heart of even the most despairing Christian. And there are many more like them.

Have a look at Jonathan Edwards ‘The Religious Affections’. I know for sure that plenty of what he has written can be very strong and scary, just look at these sermon titles. But in terms of gaining real biblical assurance, this book cannot be missed. I found it to be a real antidote to getting lost and overwhelmed when trying to gain real biblical assurance.

(It is a massive book, so for a bit of a taster of its main teaching have a look at this amazing sermon. Definitely one of my favourites ever.)

So, my conclusion.

I want finish with a question. I am well aware that so much of today’s post-evangelical church culture pushes easy believism and so much of the wrong thinking that goes with it; but in trying to respond to this is it possible to make the narrow way too narrow?

Thankfully I think I have discovered that I am not the only person to have considered this issue before.

The Scottish preacher James Fraser (1639-98) complained that part of the reason for his lack of assurance during the first three years after his conversion was that the devil was determined to make him doubt ‘by proposing false marks, and making me to imagine grace to be another thing than indeed it was; and by inconsiderate reading of marks of sanctification given in good books, some of which I found afterwards not well cautioned.’

Am I a Christian? p.5-6

John MacArthur talks of ‘A chronic uncertainty that leads to a preoccupation with oneself, one’s fears, and one’s failings. It results in a vacillating, feeble faith. That tendency plagued the church in earlier ages, and sadly there are still whole denominations today where true, settled assurance is almost unheard of.’

and  

‘Some older books make assurance dependent on such high standards of personal holiness that they render real certainty virtually unobtainable.’

Foreword to Donald S. Witney, How can I be sure I am a Christian? p.7-8

Looking back again to Pietism, Mark Talbot helpfully points out that they can sometimes be guilty of an “experientialism” that undermines confidence in salvation by grace alone, individualism that encourages followers to approach the Scriptures in naïve, undisciplined and even dangerous ways, and perfectionism that tempts people to substitute legalism and moralism for the “biblically-authorized . . . means of grace."

Roger E. Olson commenting on the analysis of Mark R.Talbot in Pietism: Myths and Realities p.4

Also at times Pietism ‘exhibited little glow and less humaneness. The Christian way was set forth as the way of rigid and merciless self-analysis in the mirror of the Word and under the glare of the white light of Godly logic.’

F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism p.75

This whole issue is obviously such a difficult balance, but it is vital we get it right. I hope the brief thoughts above in some way begin to make sense of such a difficult area of theology.

RJRIII

A Tale of Two Theologians

Academic theology can be frustrating. Very frustrating in fact. Strangely I have had the experience of studying at three different Bible Colleges over the years, and if I am honest during that time I have had to listen to a lot of stuff that is at best pointless, and at worst, downright heretical. Don't get me wrong, I have certainly enjoyed many very useful and enjoyable modules and lecturers and continue to do so, but at times the classroom can be a very frustrating and depressing place. If a denomination or movement is going to slide theologically, this is where it will begin.

Recently however, my heart was cheered by the story of someone who studied at the very epicentre of Biblical higher criticism, and yet in God's grace still came away with a lively and sincere faith. Honestly, I almost stood up and applauded when I read this.

In Evangelicalism Divided (a book I can't say enough good about) Iain Murray recounts the story of Eta Linnemann who studied under Rudulf Bultmann. Her liberal training led her to an extremely faulty hermeneutic:

'The undeclared yet working basic principle of Old Testament and New Testament science is: What the text clearly states can, by no means, be true. The exegete's task is to discover and solve 'difficulties' in the text of the Bible. The better the interpreter, the more ingenious this will be.'

After recieving this training she worked as an author and Professor of Theology in West Germany until:

'Bitter personal experience finally convinced me of the truth of the Bible's assertion: 'Whoever finds his life shall lose it' (Matt 10:39). At that point God led me to vibrant Christians who knew Jesus personally as their Lord and Saviour...God took my life into his saving grasp and began to transform it radically. My destructive addictions were replced by a hunger for his Word and for fellowship with Christians...Suddenly it was clear to me that my teaching was a case of the blind leading the blind. I repented of the way I had misled my students. About a month after this, alone in my room and quite apart from any input from others around me, I found myself faced with a momentous decision. Would I continue to control the Bible by my intellect, or would I allow my thinking to be transformed by the Holy Spirit? John 3:16 shed light on this decision, for I had experienced the truth of this verse. My life now consisted of what God had done for me.'

Murray continues:

'The consequence for Linnemann was that she labelled her former teaching 'poison', destroyed her published writings, and became a missionary in Indonesia.'

I think the reason I find this story so encouraging is that I that I have experienced the damage liberal thoelogy can do first hand. Time and again I have seen apparently solid believers drift when they have come across either persuasive and charismatic teachers or they have simply been moral wimps and given up when they have found themselves in the minority.
But here is a tale of the complete opposite. The most unlikely of people finding a vibrant faith. Salvation truly is all of God.

Just one more closing thought. I know it is not the best resource in the world, but Wikipedia had this interesting statement regarding Linnemann:

'In her book "What is credible - the Bible or the Bible criticism" Linnemann claimed in 2007, citing an unnamed ear witness, that Rudolf Bultmann on his death bed had recanted his critical views. A real proof of that assertion, however, so far (as of 2009) remains only an echo in Bultmann's research.'

Perhaps another reminder that there is always hope, even for the most unlikely.

Sacraments, Presumption and Assurance

1 Corinthians 10:1-11: For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

I love this passage in 1 Corinthians, because it teaches us some important things for our understanding of Christian perseverance, as well as our doctrine of the sacraments (surprise, surprise, there is a link between the two). It tells us two things in parallel.

A common mistake  

(1) It is a warning to the Corinthians against presumption—against false assurance on the basis of participating in Christian worship (including the sacraments, see vv. 14-22). That is, there was a danger for the corinthian christians to think that they we "done", that they were "home" spiritually speaking, out of danger. The basis for their presumption was the fact that they were baptized, and that they participated in the Lord's Supper (or so they thought! See 1 Cor. 11:20-22).

The truth of course, was that they were "putting Christ to the test", presumably by the way in which they were behaving (1 Cor. 11:17-32) when they gathered together as a Church.

To illustrate this, Paul uses Israel ("according to the flesh", see v. 18) in the Old Testament, during their wanderings in the desert, to illustrate his point. They were all baptized (10:2) and all ate and drank the spiritual food and drink (vv.2-3), that is, the Manna and the water from the rock. Nevertheless, with most of them, the Lord was not pleased.

http://lacedwithgrace.com/

The point for Paul then, is that being baptized, being in the community, and participating with the community in activities and worship (most clearly expressed in the Lord's Supper) is not itself the best indicator of spiritual health. Most of the Israelites in the desert had done the same and died in the wilderness. External participation is not a good way of getting spiritual assurance of one's condition. Paul explicitly says that their case exists for the Corinthians (our) example.

Great. So Paul affirms that we can have a false security the comes from "going through the motions", from participating in the "means of grace" in an external fashion. 

A Better Alternative

(2) However, at the same time, Paul tells us something powerful. In this passage he expresses a systematic truth called "the invisible and visible church". The Visible church is the all in the passage. All were baptized, ate and drank. 

However, there were many "hypocrites", many members of the Old Testament "church" that were not genuine believers. Those are the many. With many God was not pleased, and were overthrown in the desert.

However, none of the takes away from something powerful: something was really going on with the "baptism" and with the eating and drinking.

Paul says that those who ate and drank, ate and drank spiritual food and water (vv.2-3). He says that they drank from the Rock, and that Rock was Christ. That is, there are those (not the many) who by eating and drinking drank from Christ himself, spiritually participated in Christ (cfr. 10:15-21, note how Paul uses "spiritual" in other parts of 1 Corinthians: 2:13-15; 15:43-47).

That is, there was real objective spiritual benefit for those who trust in God and His word by eating and drinking. God had said as much in Deuteronomy 8:3 (emphasis mine): "And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. 

To know that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of the Lord is to trust in His word for life and learn to live in obedience to Him (Deut. 8:6), trusting that He is guiding you to eternal life with Him (Deut. 8:7-8). That is the grace that is imparted when we feed on what He gives us, when we spiritually feed on His word as we physically eat and drink.

Forget going it alone

So Paul warns us about the false, hypocritical and dangerous spiritual presumption the comes from participating in the Christian community and it's worship in a way that builds our assurance on the rituals, activities, and relationships themselves. 

At the same time, Paul tells us how the sacraments as means of grace can give us real assurance: we drink Christ, when we trust in Him who gives us the manna, the one who calls on us to trust Him and His words despite the circumstances (the desert), to obey Him joyfully and trust that He is leading us to the Promised land.

This tells us something important. We need to remember that there is a normal, ordinary way that Christians persevere until the end. Christians persevere, ordinarily, by being preserved by God. And God does this principally by the ordinary means of grace: Word (preached, read, studied, discussed), prayer and sacraments, in the context of the communion of saints. This is not an attempt to limit God nor to obligate Him to act the way we think He ought. It is just a recognition of the fact that this is the way that God has said He will act in the context of church.

The implication is that we must be wary of the idea that Christians can (or are even meant to) "survive" spiritually on their own. It explains why generally those professing christians who we observe begin to neglect to meet with others seem over time to eventually abandon the faith altogether. It has nothing to do with a "roman catholic" view of salvation, where we equate "belonging to a church" with "being saved". The passage above is clear: God ordinarily uses the means of grace within the context of the church community to preserve His saints. I think a common mistake is to assume that He has promised to do so outside of this context, and besides these means, as if the "perseverance of the saints" was something that happened "automatically" and in which our participation was the spiritual equivalent to lying on deck chairs sunbathing alone in the yard.

It seems to be the mistake that A.W. Pink made, and sadly, one that I see too many christians making. Let us be wise in dealing with this pastorally!

Sexy Ministry

I'm very thankful for the development and growth of what has come to be know as the "Young, Restless and Reformed" movement. I know I myself and many others, even outside the United States, have been deeply encouraged, resourced and just generally blessed by many figures and members of this movement. It's exciting and in many ways many churches in other countries (like Chile) dream of seeing a inter-denominational, reformed, dynamic church planting movement in our own cities and countries. Praise God for what is happening!

Having said all that, the short time I have spent thus far in full time ministry has begun to help notice some serious problems that can result from looking to these sorts of movements. There seems to be a tendency that seeks to be hip (maybe even hipster), cool, culturally astute, etc. Now, these things are not necessarily bad in of themselves —well, maybe being a hipster is bad, probably bordering on sinful. Except that I'm being ironic... Any way, where was I?

Ah yes! These things are not necessarily wrong in themselves. I'm more than happy for Christians to avoid creating a reactionary subculture in their local churches, and acting in peculiar ways that have more to do with human tradition, legalism, or simply a detachment from everyday real life that make them unable (nevermind unwilling) to even have a conversation with a normal non-christian person. And related to this, I'm certainly happy for Christian Ministers (evangelists, pastor-teachers, and the like) to be thoughtful about knowing how to "engage" non-christians and to be clever—in the good sense of the word—in their interactions. Jesus himself tells the Twelve to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Mat. 10:16). So there you have it!

That's one thing. However, as tends to happen with our sinful hearts, there is a tendency to move towards a desire to be—dare I say!—sexy. Because we covet approval, we covet acceptance, we covet comfort: the comfort of not being the weird, awkward one who actually has that opinion about marriage, sex, drugs, and so on.

Hmm... is it me, or do skinny jeans and converse sneakers seem to be key in all of this?

Not only are we tempted to play it cool from a "world" perspective, to be more "missional", but we find ourselves pressured to be more trendy "from within" so to speak. There are other, though similar pressures. Pressures to entertain and draw a crowd. Pressures to be like "that ministry". Pressures to more charismatic and lead people into deeper experiences in the worship service. Pressures to be more "practical" and offer people the "10 steps to something", and knock-off all the theology and have a little less Bible reading. 

And this is a challenge, particularly from a Reformed perspective of ministry. If you're a reformed guy in christian ministry, you probably take your ministry cues (I hope) from the Apostle Paul. He laid down the ground rules himself, when he left the Presbyters at Ephesus. He says in Acts 20:18-21; 26-27:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

I want to point out just a few things from this passage:

1) Paul reminds the elders about what he taught them: "the whole counsel of God" (anything that was profitable, v.20, 27), "testifying [...] of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ". That is, He taught the Scriptures centered on the Gospel and the call the Gospel makes to repent and trust in Jesus the King.

2) Paul reminds them of how he taught them: "with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me [...]  I did not shrink". That is, at great personal cost, with much suffering and sacrifice, as well as courage.

3) Paul reminds them of the way he taught them: "declaring [...] teaching you in public and from house to house". Paul's "ministry philosophy" was (a) public declaring and teaching, and (b) personal, home-centered teaching. On top of this he reminds them about how he lived among them (v.18). He invites them to remember and observe his lifestyle, and it seems obvious that his desire is that they imitate him! (Cfr. 2 Tim. 3:10-12; Heb. 13:7).

So Paul's ministry was one in which he taught and declared the Scriptures day in and day out, calling people to repentance and faith in the Gospel. He taught with humility, with tears and with a lot of sacrifice and suffering. He taught publicly and he taught at a more personal, maybe familial level. He lived his life out in the open and sought to be followed and imitated (presumably, including his own constant need to repent for his own sins!).

He loved people and His Lord deeply, dedicated himself continually and tirelessly to teaching and preaching, with a consecrated life, willing to courageously suffer for Jesus and the Church He had bought with his own blood (v. 28).

But suffering, teaching, loving, life. That's not as cool or sexy as having a great band, with a good lighting system and tattoos. 

But hey, maybe that's so old school that some hipsters will take it up, even if it's just to be ironic, right?

Thinking about Pink

A.W. Pink, hmmmm…

He is a hero to many, and for lots of reasons probably should be. His impact on the Evangelical Church is enormous.

But man, what a strange character.

If I am totally honest with myself he is one of those ‘greats’ who I have been told I should like, but deep down after reading some of what he says I am just not sure what to think.

'The Sovereignty of God' is brilliant (strangely I once went to a conference totally dedicated to its teaching) and some other stuff I have read has been massively helpful.

But when I look to some other books and articles of his, and indeed to the man himself, I can’t help but feel just a little off.

Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs put it so well a while back:

‘For my part, I've never been a huge fan. I've tried reading him, and generally been defeated by his verbosity or his fanciful exegesis. I've other books that do a better job of what he tries to do, so they take up my time instead of Pink’.

Pink was born in Nottingham in April 1886 and was converted at age 22. Sometime after he emigrated to the US to study at Moody Bible Institute, but stuck it out for only two months instead desiring to do his own thing.

He then made an attempt to pastor, but ended up moving from place to place after short periods of time. He soon realised that he preferred to teach people through writing rather than face to face, and ended up in complete isolation on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland doing just that until the end of his life.  

Gary Benfold points out that ‘though he travelled the world, living on three continents, he could not find a single church that was worth joining – and this at a time when, for example, Lloyd-Jones was ministering in Westminster’.

Tom Chantry helpfully hightlights the good in this very imbalanced ministry:

‘He insisted that the Bible was the Word of God and therefore true in all its particulars. He taught the gospel of personal salvation from sin by the blood of Jesus, not societal salvation by the example of Jesus. and he insisted on the sovereignty of God in salvation and in all of life. The people to whom Pink ministered had never heard such things before. There were no biblical churches in their areas, and there was no Christian publishing industry to speak of. This was before P&R - before Banner of Truth even.

The thing about Pink was that for all of his imperfections and in spite of the sins which became so obvious in his life, he was a voice. It wasn’t that he was the best voice or the strongest voice or the most uncompromised voice - it’s just that he was it. He was the only voice - at least among the people to whom he ministered’.

But he also cannot ignore the bad:

‘Pink on the Isle of Lewis was living in rebellion against God's word. There is no getting around it, and the people who were his friends in America sort of thought he was and eventually became convinced that he was.

It's why Pink had no influence there, and relatively little in the South, where he lived for some years. His lasting influence was in rural Pennsylvania and New York - places which hadn't seen anyone with Pink's (good) convictions in a century’.

Dan Phillips notes the very real extremity of his self-imposed separation from the Church of Christ:

‘a private correspondence from someone who (unlike me) is an authority on church history…noted that the Isle of Lewis, where Pink ended up, was very doctrinally orthodox and Presbyterian in the best sense. Pink wouldn't have anything to do with them’.

I think one of the main reasons I find him discouraging in some ways is that he was clearly so dedicated to Christ, almost fanatical. You can see this so strongly in his writings. But what is so disappointing is that this dedication led him towards such a strange life. The isolation he chose is certainly unbiblical and therefore not Gods will for him. But there he was for 18 years, writing and praying and feeling he was faithfully serving the Lord.

I suppose a life like this can perhaps inadvertently put you off being so dedicated yourself. You can end up telling yourself: ‘I don’t want to end up like him, maybe I should cool off my spiritual fervour a bit’.

I have certainly come across many Christians who are ridiculously dedicated and sincere. But this same dedication for some reason has also led them into some ways and practices which I find very unattractive. Extreme separation, obsessiveness, stereotypical language etc etc

But we need to be careful not to let these kinds of people to put us off.

Gary Benfold closes his analysis of Pink with a very strong warning:

‘But let it be faced about professed Bible teachers who dismiss all of evangelicalism that does not agree with them on every jot and tittle. Such men are not to be followed. They are not to be supported.  They are not to be admired. Their souls are in danger’.

This is a very good important point to make. Especially in light of todays many extreme so called ‘discernment’ ministries. But I’m not so sure that it should definitely be applied to A.W. Pink.

Iain Murray reminds us in his biography of Pink that ‘the widespread circulation of his writings after his death made him one of the most influential evangelical authors in the second half of the twentieth century’. And for that I for one am extremely thankful.

So here is a closing point for encouragement. If we only learn one thing from this man’s life, it is that God can certainly still use us, even with our many imperfections.

And that is a real reason for hope.

The One Book Meme

Rather late in the game, I thought I’d try this one myself. If you’d like to participate, just post your own responses to these questions and tag five people. Welcome to the One Book Meme!

1. One book that changed your life: 
Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom
2. One book that you’ve read more than once: 
Dr. Seuss, Green Eggs and Ham
3. One book you’d want on a desert island: 
The Bible. I know it's the answer I'm "supposed" to give, but I'm being sincere. If I could have a second one, it'd definitely be Calvin's Institutes.

4. One book that made you laugh: 
Bill Meyers, My Life as a smashed burrito with extra hot sauce.

5. One book that made you cry: 
Patricia Verdugo, Los Zarpazos del Puma

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Towards a recovery of Reformed Catholicity

7. One book that you wish had never been written: 
Brian McClaren, A Generous Orthodoxy

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith to the Head (fantastic!).

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read: 
Mike Wilkerson, Redemption: Freed by Jesus from the Idols we worship and the wounds we carry.

Now I tag the two Robbie's. It's your turn!

A few thoughts (and lots of quotes) on hell

I’m sure this is a subject we will return to a few times on this blog, but I thought these few thoughts would be a good place to start a discussion on a very difficult subject.

I want to start by first of all making it clear that I do hold to the traditional view. I did have an era where annihilationism had me pretty much convinced, but further study (particularly Carson’s chapter on the subject in The Gagging of God) drew me away from it again.

Generally when discussing this subject with others I find that most Christians don’t really think about it that much or they simply choose to do one of two things:

Either soften it by just loosely talking about God’s wrath or being away from his presence (which isn’t too bad I suppose),

Or they just flat out deny it exists (which is).

However, every now and again I come across another group of people. Those who seem to take to the doctrine very easily for some reason. They very simply see the righteous justice of it, or they take it as a great motivation for evangelism.

I must admit, however, that I have nearly always been somewhat troubled by it to a certain extent.

I have found it extremely difficult to feel a real peace about it despite years of pondering and study.

(again note that this lack of peace has not stopped me believing in it).

When I first became a Christian I suppose I managed to keep the idea at a certain distance, but when I was about 18 I read How Can a God of Love Send People to Hell? by John Benton.

It’s a great book, but I have to say it did lead me into a long period of struggle and depression as I faced such a difficult truth for the first time.

And every now and again since then these periods come back.

This may just be down to my temperament or nature or whatever, but then I came across this little nugget from my favourite apologist James R White. Discussing ‘True Conversion’ he refers to Jonathan Edwards (someone who seemed to talk an awful lot about hell):

‘Edwards, in essence, had suggested that the greatest evidence of true regeneration is not the common religious affections that many possess, even in false religions: the greatest evidence of true regeneration in the heart is whether we love those very aspects of God's nature and character that are the most reprehensible to the natural man.’

Not really a very comforting sentence.

But then another view point comes to mind. John Stott (who appeared to hold very cautiously to some sort of annihilationism) said this:

‘Emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it. As a committed Evangelical, my question must be—and is—not what my heart tells me, but what does God’s word say? And in order to answer this question, we need to survey the Biblical material afresh and to open our minds (not just our hearts) to the possibility that Scripture points in the direction of annihilationism, and that ‘eternal conscious torment’ is a tradition which has to yield to the supreme authority of Scripture.’ (Essentials, p.314)

If I am honest with myself  I have to say that I am closer emotionally to what Stott seems to feel about hell, than I am to what Edwards appears to be saying (although I don’t hold to annihilationism).

C. S. Lewis is quite balanced too:

‘There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.’ (The Problem of Pain p.118)

Turning back to Jonathan Edwards for a moment again. He is someone I love and admire. I have gained so much from him for many years.

But when he gets onto the subject of hell he is seriously tough:

‘The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire…. You hang by a slender thread, with flames of divine wrath flashing about it and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder…. Consider this, you that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity…you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb…. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery…. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.’ (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God)

‘When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state, so exceedingly different from it! When they shall see how miserable others of their fellow creatures are, who were naturally in the same circumstances with themselves; when they shall see the smoke of their torment, and the raging of the flames of their burning, and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the meantime are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how they will rejoice!’

‘The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saint for ever. . . .’ (The Eternity of Hell Torments [Sermon, April 1739])

‘Can the believing husband in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving wife in Hell? Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? Can the loving wife in Heaven be happy with her unbelieving husband in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be their sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish their bliss.’ (Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738.)

‘They [the saints] shall not be grieved, but rather rejoice at the glorious manifestations… of God's justice, holiness, and majesty in their [the damned's] dreadful perdition, and shall triumph with Christ; Rev. 18:20; and 19 at the beginning. They [the damned] shall be made Christ's footstool, and so they shall be the footstool of the saints. Ps. 68:23. “That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Remarks on Important Theological Controversies, chapter 2, "Concerning the Endless Punishment of Those Who Die Impenitent" (reprinted in The Works of President Edwards, vol. 8 p. 339)

And just in case we make the mistake that only Edwards speaks like this:

Thomas Aquinas

‘In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned … So that they may be urged the more to praise God … The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens … to the damned.’ (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, “Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned,” First Article)

Isaac Watts

‘What bliss will fill the ransomed souls, when they in glory dwell, to see the sinner as he rolls, in quenchless flames of hell.’

Having read through those it is no wonder that C. S. Lewis noticed that the traditional doctrine of hell ‘is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned.’ (The Problem of Pain, “Hell”)

Todays ‘New Atheists’ attempt to do just that:

John Loftus

‘Just in case there was any doubt about watching your own children being tortured in fire forever might not fill you with pleasure and joy, Jonathan Edwards assures you: It will.’

Edward T. Babinski

‘I exchanged some debate letters with James White in the 1980s when "Alpha and Omega" was just starting out, and I hadn't been outside the fold for very long. We discussed a great many matters, starting with his hero, Jonathan Edwards. It was my debate with White that led me to study Edwards' original writings, especially on original sin and hell. Some of the things I discovered were that Edwards believed in infant damnation--he compared young children to vipers. Edwards also taught that the sight of seeing others tormented for eternity would just make the righteous praise God more. All hail being lucky enough to enjoy God's eternal snuff film!’

And the ‘Old Atheists’ try just the same:

Robert Ingersoll

‘I do not believe this doctrine: neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.’

Charles Darwin

‘As disbelief gradually crept over Darwin, he could "hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’

(Darwin, Charles (1958), in Barlow, Nora, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882)

Bertrand Russell

‘There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.’

(Why I Am Not a Christian p.17)

And some ‘Theologians’:

Hans Kung

‘What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?’ (Eternal Life p.136)

Nels Ferre

‘If this were true’ (i.e., the traditional view) it would make Hitler ‘a third degree saint, and the concentration camps…a picnic ground.’ (Christian Understanding of God p. 540)

Uta Ranke-Heinemann

‘As the Church’s threat against all sinners and all its enemies, hell serves the holy purpose of cradle to grave intimidation.’ (Putting Away Childish Things, “Hell”)

This post has been much longer than I originally intended, but in order to finish properly I want to give one more quote from Edwards. It is clear that lots of his sermons focussed on judgement and hell, and as a result the only thing most people seem to know about him is that he once preached a sermon called ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’.

He clearly felt it was his duty to warn people, and he obviously handled that task well. But note this too:

‘I know of but one case, wherein the truth ought to be withheld from sinners in distress of conscience, and that is the case of melancholy; and it is not to be withheld from them, as if the truth tends to do them hurt; but because, if we speak the truth to them, sometimes they will be deceived, and led into error by it, through that strange disposition there is in them to take things wrong'. (Works Vol 1 p.392)

It is great to see that he noticed and cared about people who were prone to ‘melancholy’.

As Martyn Lloyd Jones says:

‘No man was further removed from the violence of a ranting travelling evangelist than Jonathan Edwards. That is the defence which one should make when one hears people referring to him as that terrible man who preached the sermon ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’. (The Puritans p.354)

And so my very quick final thoughts on hell:

It is true

It is Biblical

It is just

But none of these things make it instantly easy to think about.