Changing beliefs is not costless

Changing beliefs is not costless…..Eric Raymond

This quote reminds me of something I stumbled across not long ago. In the comment section of an article about what God expects from us when our spouse is wounding our marriage, a woman posted the following:

My husband of almost 20 yrs. decided this past year that he no longer believes in an eternal hell and has left our church.

She goes on to say that he was an elder in their church for 18 years and that that prior to him straying into new age beliefs,they agreed on spiritual things.

He is still committed to me and our 4 kids, but has wandered in new age thinking etc.

Apparently, “godly men from the church tried to reason with him to no avail.” She is depressed, anxious and tired of going to two different churches on Sunday mornings.

This change of heart has not been without cost for husband or wife.

Really? How sad that not believing in an eternal hell is such a game changer in a marriage. Where exactly is that verse in the Bible that declares we have to believe in eternal conscious torment forEVER to fit in at a church? Is that really such a deciding factor in our relationships with other Christians?

‘There are many more peace mongers than warmongers"

According to Rueters on February 21st

More than 1000 Muslims formed a human shield around Oslo's synagogue on Saturday, offering symbolic protection for the city's Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark last weekend.

And this act of solidarity was not a “CYA” kind of thing. The number of Jews is tiny compared to the number of Muslims in Norway.

Norway’s Jewish community is one of the continent’s smallest, numbering only 1000. The Muslim population numbers 150,000 to 200,000 and is growing.  

"There are many more peace mongers than warmongers," Abdullah said as organizers and Jewish community leaders stood side by side. "There's still hope for humanity, for peace and love, across religious differences and backgrounds.

I love stories like this. Perhaps these isolated incidents of peace on earth, goodwill to men could be the leaven that starts to affect the whole lump.

“Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened” (Matthew 13:33).

Check out some of the coverage and photos of the gathering here and here and here and here…..

Musings on ISIS and Hell

I happened upon a short blog post written by Benjamin L. Corey on Patheos this morning.  Why ISIS Should Make Christians Rethink the Doctrine of Hell. It “puts a face with a name” concerning the fiery doctrine of hell...eternal conscious torment.

We’ve all seen the pictures. They’ve been plastered all over Facebook, in the news, on “start pages” like AOL (yes, AOL still exists) and Yahoo. The single, lone pilot, caged, in anguish, as the flames advance toward him. I don’t know if the whole video is available anywhere online but if it is, I could never watch it. I can’t even watch fake torture on shows like 24 and The Blacklist. And now there are sources saying ISIS is threatening to burn 17 Kurdish fighters….and even some claims about burning children alive. Hideous...horrible….soul sucking….heartbreaking evil.

As the article points out, ISIS is not the first to use fire as an instrument of death and torture. Christians were quite fond of using it against their enemies. Even just their theological enemies. Let’s not forget that atrocities were committed by followers of Jesus all down through Christian history. The Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, the Crusades.

For a long list of these atrocities…..“events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity,” check out THIS ARTICLE. If you are skeptical, think of the list as a starting point for further research. I don’t want to see Christianity blackballed NOR whitewashed, it’s sins hidden.  As followers of Jesus, we are obligated to learn from the mistakes of our Christian predecessors. There are many variations of the oft repeated quote, “Learn from history or repeat it.” We are obligated to expose and denounce (and learn from) any and all atrocities committed in the name of Jesus.

I’ve written about topics like this beforeon this blog. Extremism is the problem and, all too often, the extremism is based on religious theology/ideology. Christians are not exempt and, in fact, are some of the worst offenders.

But I digress….

Back to the topic of ISIS, hell and our Heavenly Father.

Corey says this:

But here’s the irony of it all: while we find burning people alive morally repulsive when ISIS does it, most Christians seem to have no moral qualms about believing in a God they think will do precisely that.

And not only does he burn people alive, he uses his “special powers” to keep them conscious and burning (but not consumed) for all eternity. The traditional concept of a hell….eternal conscious torment... orchestrated by God…..is a heinous doctrine that besmirches the character and nature of the God Jesus spoke of and represented. “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.”

For many of us, hell is the bitterest pill to swallow when embracing traditional Christianity. I didn’t….couldn’t….swallow the pill. I researched and prayed and studied until, like William Barclay, I was a “convinced universalist.” Sadly, there are some Christians who seem to revel in the concept of God burning his enemies  (enemies who, coincidentally, look just like their own personal enemies) in hell forEVER. Try to take their hell away and they are pissed. I’ve witnessed it.

One of my favorite stories in the Gospels

51 When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem.54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them 55 But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village. Luke 9:51-56

Jesus rebuked them...and even though some early manuscripts skip the “spirit you are  of” part, I think this passage highlights a question we should all answer. If we derive any kind of satisfaction from the doctrine of hell it is time to take a good long look at what is in our heart to see if it lines up with what Jesus had to say here.

A newer translation, The Voice, sums it up...

Jesus (turning toward them and shaking His head): You just don’t get it.

Is God Equally Judge and Equally Father?

Slowly but surely, I am making my way through the list of questions I think are birthed when we believe in the God of eternal conscious torment that Chan talks about in his book Erasing Hell. 
Throughout the book, Chan emphasizes the legal/courtroom/God as judge concept when he uses phrases such as….

After Jesus looks at the evidence
He gives His verdict: Believers are awarded everlasting life, while unbelievers are awarded everlasting punishment.
But Jesus goes on to say that God’s courtroom will be much worse, for here the Judge has the power to sentence you to the “hell [gehenna] of fire”
The legal context of this statement ensures that Jesus is referring to the consequences of judgment day.
When Jesus uses stock phrases like “gehenna of fire” in legal contexts like this one, He means a literal place of punishment after judgment. He means hell.
The phrase sentenced to hell is once again reminiscent of something you would hear in a courtroom.

So…is God mainly judge or is God mainly father?
William Barclay, in I Am A Convinced Universalist explained it this way:

Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

And John Gavazzoni, a favorite kingdom minister of mine, says it this way in his article “My Dad, God”:

One thing stands out clearly to me when I compare my father's relationship with his children to the way our Heavenly Father is presented in conventional orthodox theology. It is simply this: Lou Gavazzoni's relationship with me was paternal, not legal. Whatever factors came into play, all was built on a familial, not a forensic foundation. There may at times have been a friendship element, associate-in-business element, fellow-musician element, boss-employee element, even lord-servant element and yes, the element of judgment came up as well. But, I never stood before one who was essentially a judge, who might, after legal matters were settled, then allow himself to be fatherly.
I stood before my father who might, as necessary, act in a firm, unyielding and corrective judgment as part of his love for me. Yet, it seems clear to me, that most of Christianity assumes that a relationship with God is only possible after legal matters are settled. Our minds are so entangled with what we perceive to be legal, judicial and forensic necessities that we miss the Father-heart of God.

So is God really everyone’s father…or does he only become Father when we “pray the sinner’s prayer” and “ask Jesus to come into our heart”?
More on that….in my next post…..

And the third mindset spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell

Psalm 16:11 

You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

You couldn’t prove this verse by the Christians who default to the third mindset I've come across in believers of ECT.

A begrudging acceptance and a keen awareness of everything they are missing to toe the "I don't want to burn in hell" line fuels their beliefs and behavior. There is no joy evident in their lives…other than the “joy” that comes from knowing they are (probably) not bound for hell.  At least not if they continue to toe the line. 

Their quiet anger carries over into everything they do and permeates their entire life style. You will usually find them in very fundamentalist churches....conforming their lives to a strict set of rules and regulations they don't want to follow. But they do...

They totally miss the the pleasures and fullness of joy that can only be found at the right hand of the Father. 

I came across the following excerpt a few years ago on the website of a good, Bible believing, home schooling, King James only, submissive wife and mother. The article is called "Hell is Real." Scientists have proven it after all....yes.....it is in the earths core. Proven fact.

I think this excerpt clearly shows just how much this doctrine is stealing from them.

Do you really believe in Hell?  I should hope that if I walked into any fundamental church and ask the question, “Do you really believe in Hell?" that everyone would say, "Yes."  I mean after all, that is supposed to be a point of our doctrine, that we believe in a Hell that has fire.  That is what good fundamentalists believe.  But do you really believe in Hell?

If you don't believe in Hell, then there is no point. 

Then she poses the rhetorical question…

But if we don't believe in Hell, why then do we go to church?  We could be down at a park where they have a festival going on.  We could be eating Tostitos, burritos and all that other stuff. 

If we didn't believe in Hell, we could sleep in on Sunday mornings.  We could watch football in the afternoon, drink an Old Style, eat lunch, sit back at a pool, and enjoy ourselves.

If you do believe in Hell, you need to go soul winning.  If you do believe in Hell, you need to work on a Sunday school bus, maybe kicking in some money to buy a few more busses.  If you do believe in Hell, you need to find a street corner and preach on the subject of Hell. If you do believe in Hell, you need to find a room somewhere in church and start a Sunday school class and fill it.  Knock on doors, preach on street corners, go to the neighborhood and bring them.  Build a Sunday school class.  Build a bus route.  Build the church.  Get people saved.  Get them baptized.  Get them serving God, so that they can win others. Do you really believe in Hell? Then it is time to get busy.

You tell me….is there even a hint of fullness of joy in what she has to say?

I’m going to close this post with a quote from Derek Flood…from his article How Can a Loving God Sent People To Hell.

 It is often said that without the threat of Hell that no one will repent, and no one will evangelize. I would propose that the opposite is true. If you come to God because you are afraid of going to Hell, or if you evangelize out of a fear of Hell, then your motivation is based on fear and not love, And that is wrong. Fear of punishment is a selfish motivation, and if that is your motivation you need to change it. We do not love God or our neighbor because of what we can get out of it - maximizing our self-interest. We love because it is right. Period. If you find that you no longer love God, or your neighbor after the weight of a motivation of guilt and fear are lifted from over your head, then I would question whether you ever really loved them at all.

What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

Okay...so let's tackle some of those questions I brought up in my last post (quite a while back)discussing Chan's Erasing Hell book.

? What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

I think this twisted belief can affect us in several different (equally disturbing) ways.  One of the ways  is demonstrated in the attitude of those gleeful folks I mentioned in the last post.  They embrace hell with a vengeance.  Hell makes perfect sense to them. They are the "yes, God is love BUT God is also JUST" fan club. 

If hell doesn't exist, then neither does justice.  The Living Church, vol. 130

And not only does it turn the God they serve into a monster, it makes them pretty creepy too. 

“Consider that all these torments of body and soul are without intermission. Be their suffering ever so extreme, be their pain ever so intense, there is no possibility of their fainting away, no, not for one moment … They are all eye, all ear, all sense. Every instant of their duration it may be said of their whole frame that they are ‘Trembling alive all o'er, and smart and agonize at every pore.' And of this duration there is no end … Neither the pain of the body nor of soul is any nearer an end than it was millions of ages ago.” Sermon 73 John Wesley

And Jonathan Edwards was probably the creepiest of them all....

For ever harassed by a dreadful tempest, they shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and broken by the weight of His hand, and transfixed and penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolt of God. So that to sink into any gulf would be more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors.”

"The world will probably be converted into a great lake or liquid globe of fire, in which the wicked shall be overwhelmed, which will always be in tempest, in which they shall be tossed to and fro, having no rest day and night, vast waves and billows of fire continually rolling over their heads, of which they shall forever be full of a quick sense within and without; their heads, their eyes, their tongues, their hands, their feet,their loins and their vitals, shall forever be full of a flowing, melting fire, fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements; and also, they shall eternally be full of the most quick and lively sense to feel the torments; not for one minute, not for one day, not for one age, not for two ages, not for a hundred ages, nor for ten thousand millions of ages, one after another, but forever and ever, without any end at all, and never to be delivered."

This belief so perverts the image of our Heavenly Father that there is rejoicing  when they consider the fate of their friends, their relatives...even their children! 

Martin Luther, when questioned whether the Blessed will not be saddened by seeing their nearest and dearest tortured answers, “Not in the least.”

“…the Blessed will see their friends and relations among the damned as often as they like but without the least of compassion.” Gerhard The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.   Catholic Truth Society

What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God. - Pamphlet from the late 1960s, part of a catechismal teaching [cited in an essay by the English poet, Stevie Smith, "Some Impediments to Christian Commitment"

And we can't just chalk these comments up to a yesteryear mindset. On a popular reformed blog, on a post about hell, I found the following comment...

The fact that my father might be in hell does not cause me grief because God is sovereign. He decides - His justice is absolute. By grace has He rescued me. Whether He chooses some and not others is to His glory. What makes my father special to other who face the same fate? Billions will be condemned, is that sad? In a sense there will be grief but will it last? I cannot see me being grief struck in a new heaven and new earth. This is the position that holding to a Reformed worldview must reach…..DavidM

And I don't disagree.  This is the position that holding to a Reformed worldview(that includes ECT) must reach. Take note that he is pretty sure he is among the few God has chosen.  "By grace He rescued me" and so...quite literally...to hell with the rest of you, including dear old dad. 

This is sicko selfish on so many levels....

So these guys seem to get into this eternal hell stuff.  At the very least, they don't make a fuss about the billions who will be suffering for all eternity. Next post will be about the folks who struggle to see the justice in an eternal hell. 

Could you believe in Chan’s God?

From Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up (p. 22).

Do you want to believe in a God like this? Here’s my gut-level, honest answer: No. No way. I have family and friends who reject Jesus. I do not want to believe in a God who punishes non-Christians. Okay, maybe He should punish extremely wicked people—that makes some sense. But punishment in hell for seemingly good people, or those who simply chose the wrong religion? That feels a bit harsh, at least according to my sense of justice.

But let me ask you another question. Could you? Could you believe in a God who decides to punish people who don’t believe in Jesus? A God who wants to show His power by punishing those who don’t follow His Son? Now that’s a different question, isn’t it?

You may not recognize the difference immediately, but read them again and you’ll see that these two questions—do you want to? versus could you?—are actually miles apart. The problem is that we often respond to the second question because of our response to the first. In other words, because there are things that we don’t want to believe about God, we therefore decide that we can’t believe them.

Chan dismisses the want to aspect of belief in a God who punishes unbelievers....eternally....to display his great power and emphasizes the "COULD you" part.  As if that is somehow an easier question to answer than the "do you want to?"  And he admits that, of course, none of us WANT to believe in this vengeful God filled with retributive wrath for all those who do not believe in his son Jesus Christ.  (although a few Christians come to mind that seem a bit too relieved at the prospect of their enemies burning....and try....just try....to take hell away from them)

So could you?  Could you believe in the God Chan describes? 

But "could you/would you/do you" is not really the most important question for his readers to ponder.  I can think of a much better question.

Could you LOVE this God? 

You know....love him the way Jesus told us we should when he summed up the Law...in two parts...as loving our God and loving our neighbor? 

Matthew 22:36-40 ³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (NIV)

So....could you love this God with all your heart, mind and soul? The way Jesus tells us to.  Or is what we call love for this God merely a survival instinct, a twist on Stockholm Syndrome?

And there are more questions this book brought to mind.  Some of the questions are asked in the text....others piqued in my thoughts as I read. 

? What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

? Is God equally Judge and equally Father?

? What does true justice entail?

? Does He dole out His mercy and His wrath in equal portions?

? Does His mercy and grace end with our last breath?

? Are there levels of hell?  Are some parts of hell "hotter" than other parts?

? What about the Cross....? 

? When the Bible talks about the wicked being obliterated, is it referring to wicked people...or the wicked aspects of our being? You know as in old nature/new nature.  Old Man/ New Man.  Adamic Man/Carnal Man?

? At the end of Revelation when the Spirit and the Bride bid someone....come and drink....who is it they are talking to.  Do the gates of the city really never shut?

? What about the meanings of some of the proof texts in the original language? Is everlasting really forever?  Does all mean all?

I want to deal with some of these questions in upcoming posts.  I've read a lot while pondering this series. I've come upon some quotes and insights that are gems. Too good to tuck away in my quotes file in Evernote.

I didn't need convinced, of course, because I have no doubt that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God.  Every. One. I am one of those folks  Chan refers to as the least cautious of the universalists.  The dogmatics.

It may take a long time....”aions”....but pit God and a naked soul (no matter how rebellious) in a spiritual "stare down" and guess who looks away first.  God is omnicompetent. All will come.  All will bow.  All will joyfully proclaim to the glory of God the Father. 

More to come in this series....slowly but surely.....

The Three Categories of Universalists

Chan divides universalists into categories….

There are the pluralists.

these people believe that Jesus is one of many ways to salvation. Pluralists believe that all religions present equally valid ways of salvation—Christianity is simply one among many.

There are the “hopefuls”

They believe that Christ is the only way, but they hold out hope that God will end up saving everyone through Christ in the end. But they go beyond simply hoping this will happen (don’t we all?). They’re hopeful, and they see strong biblical support for this view, though their view is often tempered with caution.

And then there are those spiritual daredevils…the “dogmatics”….

The least cautious Christian Universalists call themselves dogmatic Universalists. Like the previous group, they believe that Christ is the only way, but they go a bit further and say that the Bible clearly teaches that all will be saved. They find the view not just possible, but the most probable: They believe that the Bible clearly teaches that all will be saved through Jesus in the end.

So I’m guessing that someone who writes an essay and calls it “I Am a Convinced Universalist” would fit in the dogmatic category?  The guy who wrote those words….in his autobiography… in a chapter entitled just that ….I Am a Convinced Universalist…was William Barclay.

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University and the author of many Biblical commentaries and books, including a translation of the New Testament, "Barclay New Testament," and "The Daily Study Bible Series."

Very. Mainstream. When I typed his name into the search engine at Christianbook.com, about 90 or so results came up.  He was a prolific writer and his books line the book cases of many mainstream Christians worldwide.  Many (most?) aren’t aware of his pronouncement of a “dogmatic” belief in universalism since many of them….no way/no how would read the writings of a universalist. Universalism is one of the biggest, fattest heresies there is…

Brian McLaren said:

In my theological circles, universalism is one small step removed from atheism.  It is probably more feared than committing adultery, and to be labeled universalist ends one’s career.  Decisively. 

But William Barclay declared it…flat out.  He didn’t skirt the issue or talk around it….or make vague references to it.  He wasn’t coy about it.

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God.

And he gave several reasons for his beliefs….

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief.

Coming from a New Testament scholar/Bible translator/Professor of Divinity…that should carry some weight. 

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.

And to be fair…Chan did include this quote in his book.  Okay…so it was in the footnotes….but it was there if one was inclined to dig a bit.  But he never mentioned Barclay’s popularity, or prolific writings…or the…you know…Convinced Universalist part. 

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

There is of course the verse that (in my mind) definitively declares that death cannot separate us from God….

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And the fourth reason…

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone.

Then Barclay goes on to muse about God as Father…and how it might be considered a triumph to wipe out His enemies or to torture them in hell forever if God were simply a judge or a king but God is also a Father

..he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

So will God be able to pull this off? 

Chan describes this belief in his book:

At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God

So….will God be able to turn the hardest heart back to Himself?  To bend the stubbornest knee…and loosen the most reluctant tongue?  Will all mankind bow and joyously proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord?  It says so….three times no less…in scripture.  (And…it is a joyous proclamation that is implied in the original language.  Not a grudging concession before being cast into hell or obliterated…but a joyous proclamation)

And surely God has ways that I cannot even begin to fathom. Is anything too hard for Him?  Is His arm to short to save?

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27

Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Isaiah 59:1

I don’t know how he will accomplish it but as I ponder, I am reminded of a quote by Anne Lamott. I saved it in my files a few years ago when I read through all of her books, one right after the other.

The quote was in a book (name escapes me) that was written after 9-11.  She was very upset with the war and the political atmosphere.  She was very angry.

My Jesuit friend Tom once told me that this is a good exercise because in truth, everyone is loved and chosen, even Dick Cheney, even Saddam Hussein. That God loves them because God loves.

This-- more than anything does not make sense to me,” I said.

“Because you are a little angry,” Tom explained. “But when people die, they are forgiven and welcomed home. Then God will help them figure out how to clean up the disgusting messes they have made. God has skills and ideas on how to do this.”

So God has skills and ideas on how to do this. Is that just too simple?  Somehow it seems that there will be at least an era of ”weeping and gnashing of teeth” for some of us.. as God works on us and in us and makes us willing to clean up the disgusting messes we’ve made in this life. 

Or perhaps after we die and leave these fleshly bodies behind…when death has taken off the mask (William Penn) we will be able to see clearly.  It won’t be the same playing field we find ourselves in here, in this life. 

More on God as Father (not Judge) in an upcoming post.  And more thoughts on whether our last breath is indeed our last chance. 

More about the churches-1600 years ago to present

So…the majority of the (very) early churches were universalists. 

The Early Churches:

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa) The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

What about now a days. Ahhhh….not so much.  There are, of course, exceptions, but the overwhelming majority buy into the big lie…(ECT) or the smaller lie (Annihilation)

There are some exceptions…but the vast majority of churches do not believe in universalism.  And…the stakes for a belief in UR are usually high. There are some mighty big consequences.

Witness Carlton Pearson’s ousting….and the Rob Bell controversy….and other lesser known folks who were shunned or fired when they came to believe the “heresy” of universalism.  

At one time…for over 90 years…there was a whole denomination…The Christian Universalist Church of America. Their blending into the melting pot of the Unitarian Church was their demise. 

From Wiki:

The Universalist Church of America was a Christian Universalist religious denomination in the United States (plus affiliated churches in other parts of the world). Known from 1866 as the Universalist General Convention, the name was changed to the Universalist Church of America in 1942. In 1961, it consolidated with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.

There is a fairly new organization called The Christian Universalist Association that has been on the scene five years or so.  There is a lot of info on their website.  There is a list of some churches that openly proclaim a belief in UR on their site…the process for ordination and history/facts/opinions about universalism.  Check them out HERE.

I’ve also been to some universalist churches for conferences…small…Pentecostal feel to them.  Bob Torango’s House of the Lord Fellowship in Dickson, TN…Shalom in Ontario….and others that, while not overwhelmingly Universalist see it as a valid belief option. I’ve been in home bible studies…and met some of the well known universalist preachers/teachers.  Bob Torango….Gary Amariult, Gary Sigler…and other lesser known folks who preach that God will reconcile all of his creation. 

Mainstream denominations?  I find it interesting that the United Methodist Church’s official stand…though not well known…is “dunno.”  On the official website…now relegated to the archives, their official statement is this:

The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church echoes the beliefs stated in the doctrinal statements of The Methodist Church (see particularly Articles VIII, IX, XI, and XII).

While these statements of doctrine state that salvation is AVAILABLE to all persons, they stop short of saying that salvation is GUARANTEED to all persons. There is the stated or implied condition that, while God's grace is necessary for salvation and that humankind cannot in any way attain salvation without God, that there is certainly an element of awareness and cooperation on our part to order our lives after the image of Christ if we have the capacity to do so.

There are persuasive arguments that include the faithful, thoughtful, and respectful use of Scripture on both sides-- affirming and denying universal salvation. The Book of Discipline, which is the only official printed voice of the UMC, does not make a statement specifically about universal salvation. This places the question in a possible gray area, but the Discipline says what it says. One must read the doctrine there and attempt to understand it as well as possible.

Rev. Dr. Diana Hynson
Director of Learning and Teaching Ministries in the Congregation
General Board of Discipleship

And any UM readers here on this blog are going…nuh-uh.  Does it really say that?  Yes, it does indeed say that.  And it didn’t used to be in the archives.

Another denomination proclaims their belief in the name of their denomination…a (small) group of Primitive Baptists known as the No-Hellers.  Although that is kind of misleading because they do, indeed, believe in a hell.  They think hell is where we find ourselves right now.  In THIS life. Official name -- The Primitive Baptist Universalists.  A down home, no nonsense group of people from Appalachia.

And there were three seminaries that were universalist. 

Crane Theological School in Medford, MA.  1869 to 1968

Theological School of St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY.  1856 to 1965

They Ryder School of Divinity at Lombard College in Galesburg, IL.  1853 to 1930. 

So…while far from the status quo belief of most Christians…to dismiss it with a statement like “almost no major theologians for the past 1600 years” is quite misleading. 

More in my next post about preachers/teachers and authors who, in varying degrees, believe in and teach universalism. 

The Creeds, the Churches and the Catacombs

In my last post I said that I would be taking a look at the time period BEFORE the 1600 years Chan referred to in his “almost no major theologian” statement.

A look at the creeds, the churches and the Catacombs of very early Christianity show that universalism was an accepted…perhaps the most accepted…belief of the very early Christians. 

The Creeds:

An examination of the earliest Christian creeds and declarations of Christian opinion discloses the fact that no formulary of Christian belief for several centuries after Christ contained anything incompatible with the broad faith of the Gospel--the universal redemption of mankind from sin. Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church its First Five Hundred Years

None of the earliest creeds…the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed…contain any statements that would eliminate the possibility of universal reconciliation.  ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment) cannot be found in any of the early creeds.

Thus the credal declarations of the Christian church for almost four hundred years are entirely void of the lurid doctrine with which they afterwards blazed for more than a thousand years. The early creeds contain no hint of it, and no whisper of condemnation of the doctrine of universal restoration as taught by Clement, Origen, the Gregories, Basil the Great, and multitudes besides…... Neither the Concilium Nicæum, A.D. 325, nor the Concilium Constantinopolitanum, A.D. 381, nor the Concilium Chalcedonenese, A.D. 451, lisped a syllable of the doctrine of man's final woe.  Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church its First Five Hundred Years

The Early Churches:

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa) The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

The Catacombs:

It seems I’ve written about the Catacombs before…HERE. 

There were eighty years between Paul's latest epistle and the first of the writings of the Christian fathers. Besides the writings of Tacitus and Pliny, the long hiatus is filled only by the emblems and inscriptions of the Catacombs. What an eloquent story they tell of the cheerfulness of primitive Christianity!

I came upon several (free ) Google books about the Catacombs.  The following quote came from a book called The Catacombs of Rome and Their Testimony Relative to Primitive Christianity. It appears in a section of the book that deals with the many drawings of the Good Shepherd throughout the Catacombs…

Sometime the shepherd is represented as leading or bearing on his shoulders a kid or goat instead of a sheep or lamb.  This apparent solecism has been thought a careless imitation of pagan figures of the sylvan deity Pan, who frequently appears in art in this manner.  It is more probable, however, that it was an intentional departure from the usual type, as if to illustrate the words of Our Lord, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” and to indicate his tenderness toward the fallen, rejoicing more over the lost sheep that was found than over the ninety and nine that went not astray. 

Tertullian is believed to be the first person to write about an eternal hell.  Then, influenced by Augustine in AD 430(ish) the concept of eternal conscious torment in hell became an accepted belief in the Catholic Church in the west.  And it was all downhill from there.  This is roughly…give or take a decade or two… the beginning of the period of time Chan alluded to….the past 1600 years. 

He should have gone back a bit farther.

Following are links to some of the books I’ve mentioned in this article…and a few others that take a closer look at the beliefs of the very early Christian. 

Hosea Ballou II's Ancient History of Universalism (1842)

Edward Beecher's History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution (1878)

John Wesley Hanson's Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Church for its First 500 Years  (1899)

How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

No Major Theologian for 1600 Years?

In fact, for over 1,600 years, hardly any major theologians argued that everyone will be saved.

Perhaps this statement, more than any other in Chan’s book, is a blatant sales pitch. It galls “the hell out of me.” And I have so much to say about it, I’m not sure where to even start in my rebuttal.

The last 1600 years sounds pretty impressive, yes?  “Hardly any” major theologians have argued that everyone will be saved. 

Wow…universalism must not be true then. 

But let’s think about this for a bit. The last 1600 years? Why pull that figure out of the “there is an eternal hell” hat? How many years is that after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Four hundred-ish?  So why start 1600 years ago? Why not go back closer to the beginning? You know…closer to the actual life…and death…of Jesus.

Wouldn’t there be less chance for errors and inaccuracies in the storyline?

The time period immediately following the birth of Christianity…the spread of Christianity…the early church days..wouldn’t that be the place to start looking?

And what coincides with the 1600 year thing?  Roughly around the time Constantine got the ball rolling and Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.  The Edict of Thessalonica made Christianity the official religion and started the perversion that led to the Christian persecution of the pagans.  The Dark Ages.  And the Inquisition.  And the Witch Hunts.  And the Crusades.  Major theologians burning other theologians at the stake over theological disagreements…..using green wood, no less.  All in the name of Jesus. 

So he picks as his starting point, the darkest era of Christianity…possibly the darkest eras of human history to cherry pick theologians’ opinions about hell. 

Does that seem like a Kirby Sweeper sales pitch to you?  Does it seem disingenuous? 

I think he picked 1600 years ago as his starting point because, before that, the farther back you go, the closer to the actual life of Jesus and the early church, the more accepted and the more prevalent the doctrine of universalism was. 

Which will be the subject of my next post….

What about the scary stuff Jesus said?

So…even though Jesus never used (and apparently avoided) the common phrases that described unending, retributive punishment….he did issue some pretty stern warnings and “if this then that’s” in his earthly ministry.  So what’s up with that?

I’m not sure.   

Perhaps he was talking to the Jews…the Jews in Jerusalem…about the coming destruction in 70AD. He did state that his ministry was to the Jews…the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Of course, he expanded that ministry and included “other sheep in other pastures” and gave the disciples the command to go and preach the gospel to all nations.  But initially, his ministry was to the Jews. 

Could his warnings about destruction and judgment have been to them about upcoming events? Many (most) Christians relegate the events to some future time (even though Jesus stated this (THAT) generation would by no means pass away until all the doom and gloom stuff he talked about happened.  THAT generation…not a generation 2000 years plus and still waiting)  So some believe that way. 

Richard Wayne Garganta does a great job of explaining this position in his rewrite of “Bible Threatenings Explained”  It was originally part of a book containing four essays…written in the 1800's by J.W. Hanson…in that flowery…wordy style of that time period.  Kind of off-putting to those of us who live in the twitter generation.  Check it out HERE… It addresses many (all?) of the “threats” Jesus issued…and most of the other “but what about” passages in scripture that are oft used to “disprove” universalism.

And check out his other “oh my God is this universalism” writings HERE.

And another way of explaining the dire warnings of Jesus…

Some believe he is talking about a most unpleasant place of “remedial chastisement.”  Origen believed that. William Barclay believed that. George MacDonald believed that.  Williams Barclay said it this way….

Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

George MacDonald said it this way:

I believe that no hell will be lacking which would help the just mercy of God to redeem his children

I have more to say about Barclay and MacDonald…in response to Chan’s statement…

In fact, for over 1,600 years, hardly any major theologians argued that everyone will be saved.

Barclay and MacDonald are two of the “hardly any.”

Tell me again…what Jesus said about Hell? (cont)

I love the story Luke tells about Jesus, his two trigger happy disciples and the Samaritan village who would not receive them. 

Luke 9:51 51 Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, 52 and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.”

So the two disciples, James and John….got all pissy because the Samaritan village wanted nothing to do with Jesus…or with them.  None of this…”If they don’t receive you, shake the dust off your feet” and keep going.  No…they wanted to call down fire on the village….like Elijah did in 2 Kings. To refresh your memory….

Three times the king sent a group of 50 soldiers and their leaders to bring Elijah in.  Twice Elijah said,

"If I am a man of God, then let fire come down
from heaven and consume you and your fifty men."

And fire came down from heaven and consumed them. 

Then the third guy, realizing he needed a different plan…..fell on his knees and begged Elijah to have compassion on him and his men. And the Lord told Elijah to go with this humble captain to meet the king.

So that’s the storyline running through the minds of the two disciples.  Fire from heaven.  Effective and dramatic. 

And Jesus said…”Hey, that’s a great idea!” “Why didn’t I think of that?”

No….

he turned, and rebuked them, and said, You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.

I love that passage….!

The disciples wanted to fry the occupants of a small Samaritan village and Jesus refused….scolded them…and reminded them who they were…WHOSE they were.  Yet, this same Jesus is going to consign unbelievers to never ending fire and brimstone. Eternal Conscious Torment.  Really? 

If you believe that….perhaps, like those two disciples, you do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 

Tell me again…what Jesus said about Hell?

Jesus did speak out boldly against the teachings of the Pharisees.....Chan points that out...and I agree.  Jesus did not hesitate to go toe to toe with them.  He called them snakes and vipers...compared them to whitewashed tombs and cups that were clean on the outside but dirty on the inside. 

Matthew 16:6 And Jesus said to them, Take care to have nothing to do with the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (BBE)

Mark 8:15 And he said to them, Take care to be on the watch against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. (BBE)

Luke 12:1 At that time, when thousands of the people had come together, in such numbers that they were crushing one another, he said first to his disciples, Have nothing to do with the leaven of the Pharisees, which is deceit. (BBE)

Leaven equals teaching. 

 Matthew 16:12 Then they saw that it was not the leaven of bread which he had in mind, but the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (BBE)

So beware of their teachings....except, of course, they've got the hell part right?

No....he never said that. 

And I agree with Chan's assessment that most of the Pharisees did believe in hell.  They had several terms for it too….phrases that could mean nothing other than unending punishment....forever torture....with no hope of escape. 

There are words, in the original language of scripture, that truly mean eternal. The word aidios denotes a period of time that is truly never ending. The Pharisees believed in a doctrine of endless punishment. Jesus was well aware of this. The term was aidios timoria. They believed wicked spirits were kept in eternal imprisonment...eirgmon aidion. The Essenes also  believed in a place of never ceasing torment. Their phrase was timoria adialeipton. 

And these are the terms Jesus used when he warned his listeners about hell....right?  In Matthew 25:46 when he said 

"These shall go away into everlasting punishment "

he used one of these well known, oft repeated  phrases denoting forever and ever and ever in never ceasing torment?  

Well...no.  Jesus used the phrase aionion kolasin, which is more accurately translated as “age abiding correction.”  As in remedial punishment...not vindictive vengeance. Punishment, perhaps.....but corrective punishment, meant to restore not to torture.

If Jesus was truly trying to warn his listeners about an eternal hell....if he meant to side with the Pharisees on at least this one point of doctrine, there WERE phrases he could have used. But he NEVER did. No where in the entire Bible.  And that was one of the key pieces of "evidence" that convinced me of the truth of Universalism.

Oh….and Paul never used the term either….except when he speaks about God’s eternal power and Godhead in Romans 1:20.  Just sayin’ ……

Some very good resources to learn more about this subject….

Bible Threatenings Explained

Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years

Both books are written by JW Hanson….

and about the term aonian, a word very important in universalist beliefs….

An Analytical Study of Words by Louis Abbott

Erasing Hell – What Did Jesus Preach?

In Chapter 3, Chan talks about what Jesus said/believed about hell. In the preceding chapter, he takes a look at the commonly held beliefs of first century Jews concerning the afterlife.  His conclusion

In the last chapter, we took a tour of Jesus’ world and saw that, without a doubt, first-century Jews believed in hell. They believed that hell was a place of punishment for the wicked after they faced God’s judgment. They used various images to describe this hell, such as fire, darkness, and lamentation. Some Jews believed that the wicked would be annihilated after being cast into hell, while others described hell as a place of never-ending torment.

He only mentions the Sadducees in the footnotes. They did not believe in any afterlife....and thus, they did not believe in hell.  Some info about the Sadducees.....

"The Sadducees were a small party of very wealthy and influential aristocrats. Most Sadducees were priests, and the high priestly families (those families from whom the high priests traditionally came) controlled the sect and its membership.(Robinson, The Gospels, pp. 24

The only two solidly established traits of the Sadducees are that they were members of the ruling class, and that they did not believe in resurrection" (Murphy, The Religious World of Jesus, pp. 239).

So it is is a bit misleading to simply say that “without a doubt, first-century Jews believed in hell." Let’s just edit that statement a bit....

"without a doubt SOME/MOST first century Jews believed in hell....

But it was definitely not unanimous....yes?

And then he goes on to say that.....

Jesus grew up in the world of beliefs described in the last chapter. He would be expected to believe the same stuff about hell that most Jews did. And if He didn’t—if Jesus rejected the widespread Jewish belief in hell—then He would certainly need to be clear about this.

Says who? Frances Chan?  Because the Bible...and Jesus....are crystal clear on everything? There is no ambiguity? There is only one way to interpret, understand, comprehend the words and actions of Jesus?  Uh-huh.  That's why there are so many different interpretations....leading to so many different denominations and creeds and "this is what we believe" statements.  Because the Bible....and Jesus.....are totally clear on everything.  Yep.....God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Perhaps we all read the same written words in scripture but we all interpret what God mean through our own particular filter.

Then he says....

That last line is very important. Better read it again.

Okay then...let's read it again:

if Jesus rejected the widespread Jewish belief in hell—then He would certainly need to be clear about this.

Okay....we read it again....go on.....

In other words, if Jesus did not agree with the view of hell presented in the last chapter, then He would have had to deliberately and clearly argue against it.

Really?  Says who? Frances Chan?  But wait a minute.  Jesus = God, right?  And God can do whatever he wants.....right?  Earlier in the book (in a section that I will talk about later) Chan declares.....

God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases

And so....since we aren't "the boss of Jesus" he didn't HAVE to do anything. 

I don't think Jesus believed in hell...at least not as in ETC...Eternal Conscious Torment.  And I certainly don't believe he preached it. 

Many preachers/teacher smarter than me believe that his warnings of destruction were to the folks living and breathing during that generation, the first century Jews.   (as in "...this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled") Maybe Jesus was warning THAT generation about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD if they (THAT generation) did not straighten up, fly right and heed his warnings..

So the Pharisees and the Essences....Jewish sects in the time of Jesus....believed in a hell like place of unending torment. Did Jesus endorse those beliefs? I don't think so....and I think Jesus articulated his beliefs in a way that was very clear to his contemporaries.  More on that tomorrow/soon......

Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell….2

LONG. TIME. NO. SEE.  I have been AWOL for a few weeks now.  What can I say….a big chunk of those days were spent getting ready for….and going on….my first cruise.  Reluctantly, and with much trepidation, I went.  And I loved it. 

We sailed out of New York….two days at sea…stop offs at Grand Turk, Half Moon Cay and then Nassau.  I drank pina coladas on the beach….on a lounge chair….nestled under the shade of a coconut tree…looking out at cream colored beaches and water that was several shades of aqua.  Beautiful….lovely…..amazing.  Then two more days at sea on the way back to New York.  I waved to the statue of liberty on my way to Pier 90 last Sunday morning at 8 am…told her I would be seeing her again sometime…and then four hours later…. home and back to real life. 

I had planned to spend so much time reading and writing blog post drafts.  But alas…the only thing I read was a Christian novel(surprisingly not hokey) Very unusual for me to read fiction. I did next to no “blog” reading or research. 

But now it’s a week and then some since we arrived back home…and this Erasing Hell nonsense has been on my mind since I read the book….time to put cyber pen to cyber paper. 

I was kind of spurred on by a blog post I read last night….a post that showed up on my FB feed…..from a blog called “What God Does.”  While I was goofing off, the author of the What God Does blog was writing….a series no less….presenting long, well thought out counter arguments to Chan’s conclusions about hell.  Check out the series HERE.

Perhaps one of the reasons I’ve been lolly gagging and putting off getting on with this series is because there is so much to say about the subject. I don’t know where to begin. As I mentioned in the first post about Erasing Hell, Chan comes across as disingenuous and manipulative.  Like he’s selling me a Kirby vacuum for goodness sakes!!! Important pieces to the puzzle are left out, skimmed over or hidden in the appendix in the back of the book.  He’s not playing fair….and he seems to have a severe case of confirmation bias. 

He says so many things I disagree with….not sure where to throw my two cents worth first. 

Tomorrow….yes…TOMORROW…or at least soon…I’ll address one of his arguments proving hell….a biggie….since it came “right from the horses mouth” From Jesus no less.  And since we all know that “Jesus talked more about hell than he did about heaven.” How can you argue with Jesus?

 

Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell….

Everyday I check the kindle freebies.  I’ve downloaded quite a few books that way…totally free of charge…all neatly stored on my kindle.  I probably tote around close to 500 books in my purse every day.  500 and counting. 

And sometimes the free books are written by popular mainstream spiritual authors. I have books by Gary Smalley, Deepak Chopra, Beverly Lewis, Adam Hamilton, Brennan Manning, Lee Strobel, Paramhansa Yogananda….free Bibles (love the HCSB) and devotionals….and a couple Qurans.  All free.

Last week there were three free books by Francis Chan.  All on the same day. I know he’s had several books on the New York Times Bestseller List….and is a well known pastor.  A while back, I happened upon a You Tube video of him promoting his latest book…Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up. The book is written as a rebuttal to Rob Bell’s very popular, very controversial book, Love Wins. I watched a few of Chan’s other short videos. Not bad…interesting…witty.  But that was it…the extent of my exposure to Francis Chan. And that probably would have been it….but then I saw his three free books on amazon. 

I read most of Erasing Hell at the gym.  On the treadmill.  Walking fast.  Even forgetting to keep an eye on the timer.  30 minutes came and went. I lost track of time.  So many “yes, buts” to so many of his points.  And I am no scholar…and I am certainly not a well known Christian pastor/author….but I can (and will) shoot holes in many of his arguments. Or at least present another possible explanation to so much of his theology.  The book pretty much…ahhhhh… pissed me off.

It wasn’t so much that he believes in hell. Some of my favorite preacher/teachers believe in hell (or lean in that direction) It was his “buddy buddy, I know how you feel….and oh, man, I don’t want to believe in hell either.  Who does!!??”  It felt like he was trying to schmooze his readers.  Pull the wool over our eyes by leaving out important facts and information.  Manipulative is the word that keeps popping into my head. He said he was approaching the whole thing with an open mind and really taking a look at the scriptures….but his mind was anything but open.

To set the tone he cites the following experience early on in the book.  First chapter….first few pages. 

For some, this discussion will open up old wounds. It certainly does for me. The saddest day of my life was the day I watched my grandmother die. When that EKG monitor flatlined, I freaked out. I absolutely lost it! According to what I knew of the Bible, she was headed for a life of never-ending suffering. I thought I would go crazy. I have never cried harder, and I don’t ever want to feel like that again. Since that day, I have tried not to think about it. It has been over twenty years. Even as I write that paragraph, I feel sick. I would love to erase hell from the pages of Scripture.

Good news Francis….you don’t have to erase it because it’s not there….not the way you envision it….or explain it….or encourage your readers to embrace it.  Your grandmother knows the truth….and someday…you are gonna’ know the truth too. 

More to follow….

Wurmbrand on Truth, Burning Hearts and Finite Crimes

I’ve been listening to Wayne Jacobsen’s multi part series, The Jesus Lens.  Today, while hoofing it around the neighborhood, on a perfectly gorgeous, sunny Easter Sunday, I took note of a quote he used to illustrate his point….a quote by Richard Wurmbrand. 

I know who Richard Wurmbrand was. He came up a time or two in discussions with Keith during my five or so year stint of wrestling with theodicy and the suffering that abounds all around us. The, if there is a good God, how can there be starving children question. Wurmbrand’s book, Tortured For Christ, moved here with Keith ten years ago and is in the bookcase…along with a few other books he authored.

The short version of his life story can be found on the Voice of the Martyrs website….an organization he founded after he was finally released from prison….the second time. He spent years in a Communist prison…enduring tortures that defy the imagination.

So when I got home from my walk…and settled down on the couch with my I Pad, I looked up the quote on Google.  I came across several other quotes that struck me…and I am sharing them in this blog post…..

On Truth…the one Wayne used:

The Bible is a wonderful book. It is the truth about the Truth. It is not the Truth. A sermon taken from the Bible can be a wonderful thing to hear. It is the truth about the truth about the truth. But it is not the truth. There have been many books written about the things contained in the Bible. I have written some myself. They can be quite wonderful to read. They are the truth about the truth about truth about the Truth. But they are NOT the Truth. Only Jesus Christ is the Truth. Sometimes the Truth can be drowned in a multitude of words.

On the flame in his heart:

"In solitary confinement, we could not pray as before. We were unimaginably hungry; we had been drugged until we acted like idiots. We were as weak as skeletons. The Lord’s Prayer was much too long for us—we could not concentrate enough to say it. My only prayer repeated again and again was, 'Jesus, I love You.' And then, one glorious day I got the answer from Jesus: 'You love me? Now I will show you how I love you.' At once, I felt a flame in my heart, which burned like the coronal streamers of the sun. The disciples on the way to Emmaus said that their hearts burned when Jesus spoke with them. So it was with me. I knew the love of the One who gave His life on the cross for us all." Tortured For Christ

And how all crimes….no matter how horrendous….are crimes of a finite nature.  Sheds a bit of light…perhaps… on the age old, “What about Hitler” question.

"God sees things differently than we see them, just as we see differently than an ant. From the human point of view, to be tied to a cross and smeared with excrement is a horrible thing. Nonetheless, the Bible calls the sufferings of martyrs light afflictions. To be in prison for fourteen years is a long period to us. The Bible calls it 'but for a moment,' and tells us that these things are working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (2Co 4:17). This gives us the right to suppose that the fierce crimes of the Communists, which are inexcusable to us, are lighter in the eyes of God than they are in our eyes. Their tyranny, which has lasted almost an entire century, may be before God, for whom a thousand years are like one day, only a moment of erring astray. They still have the possibility of being saved." Tortured For Christ

Lots to ponder in those three quotes.  More quotes can be found HERE.  Some of his books can be found HERE and HERE