The idea that Jesus descended into hell after his death on the cross comes from a document titled 'The Apostles Creed'. You have likely read it aloud before during a church service. Here is a Lutheran English translation:
The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
It is thought that the origins of the document are to the Apostles themselves. The idea is that this document summarized what the Apostles believed. And since the Apostles believed this, so should we.
And now, the rest of the story...
There are a number of reasons why we should be careful not to believe that Jesus descended into hell. First, is the appearance of this particular phrase 'He descended into hell.' It is not original. The first time it appears in this document, is in 390 (300+ years after the death of the apostles). And the second time it appears in a manuscript is in the year 650. So, if the Apostles Creed can be traced back to the Apostles, certainly the phrase in question was not part of their statement.
Second, we notice that the Apostles Creed is not part of the Bible. Those who decided which books were scripture and which books were not chose not to include this text. That doesn't mean the document isn't important. It can be a helpful summary of the beliefs of scripture if it correctly summarizes scripture. So does scripture teach that Jesus descended into hell?
Third 'it is finished' are famous words of scripture uttered by Christ on the cross. What is finished? The atonement. What Christ accomplishes dying on the cross as a sinless sacrifice we could not do. We would spend an eternity suffering and still not pay for our sins. Jesus' words 'it is finished' teach us that Jesus does not need to descend into hell and suffer some more because he is different than us - he is perfect. The point of the Bible studies I have been teaching recently are to show how the scriptures point continuously to the suffering and death on the cross to atone for sin. Nothing is mentioned about Jesus having to descend to hell to atone for sin. So if he isn't descending to hell to atone for sin, what is he doing there? Jesus came to suffer a vicarious death not for his sake, but for ours.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Collapse of Evangelicalism
"Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close." - Michael Spencer
I am not quickly swayed by talk of the many crisis' that face our world. At my last trip to the video store I noticed how the new releases section is full of documentaries on the financial crisis, the water crisis, the food crisis and others. The words of Michael Spencer above are admittedly not 'a lock', but they find some affirmation from me. In his full-article he says "we fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith". I agree.
Evangelicals don't know what they believe, or more accurately 'who they believe,' all they know is that they are Christians. My desire in teaching through the New Testament on atonement at both our Bible studies has been to show us what it means to 'be a Christian'. Being people who see ourselves as totally depraved and in need of the saving act of God should not be equated with feelings of affinity toward Christ.
Whatever becomes of the infrastructure established by the evangelical tidal wave of past decades, the church will continue because the future of the church is not in our ability to reach people, but in God's ability to save people.
To check out the full article, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
I am not quickly swayed by talk of the many crisis' that face our world. At my last trip to the video store I noticed how the new releases section is full of documentaries on the financial crisis, the water crisis, the food crisis and others. The words of Michael Spencer above are admittedly not 'a lock', but they find some affirmation from me. In his full-article he says "we fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith". I agree.
Evangelicals don't know what they believe, or more accurately 'who they believe,' all they know is that they are Christians. My desire in teaching through the New Testament on atonement at both our Bible studies has been to show us what it means to 'be a Christian'. Being people who see ourselves as totally depraved and in need of the saving act of God should not be equated with feelings of affinity toward Christ.
Whatever becomes of the infrastructure established by the evangelical tidal wave of past decades, the church will continue because the future of the church is not in our ability to reach people, but in God's ability to save people.
To check out the full article, go to http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Abraham (almost) Sacrifices Isaac
Genesis 22 is troubling for many. It comes up frequently in conversations with my atheist friends. I have heard many helpful readings of this story as you probably have as well. It is a story that is an ultimate example of not holding too close the things that God gives us. It displays how Abraham has become a new man ready to trust in the promises of God no matter how bizarre. It is also a victorious example of how God tests us to mature our faith (as opposed to old Satan who tests us to destroy our faith). Yet, the big question that still haunts is 'why would God ask Abraham to do something that is against his character?' Not to mention issues around child sacrifice.
To this question I respond 'he's not (asking us to do something against his character)'. He's asking us to do something that seems to us to be against his character. When we read this story through the eyes of the original audience we see the story in this light. It is my position that Moses is writing Genesis to the Israelites to encourage them to 'man-up' and enter the promised land, believing that God will give them victory over those who currently inhabit the land.
The reader is told at the very start that God is not going to ask Abraham to really murder his son ('God tested Abraham'). The story is read all the way through that Isaac will the be fine and it will be a tremendous example of faith.
This is how the story reads. It reads this way because it identifies with how the Israelites must have felt. The call to enter the promised land would have felt like a call to sacrifice their young men in war. While Genesis 22 doesn't tell us the age of Isaac, he is old enough to carry all the wood for the sacrifice, but young enough to be called a young man (so, a good age to join the army). The story is told then to these fathers, that while it may seem like you are going to lose your son, God will preserve the descendants of Abraham and give victory securely.
At the end of the chapter is some information about Abraham's extended family, from which Isaac's wife Rebekah comes from. This further showing how God is working beyond what we know to ensure his promises are fulfilled.
We too are asked to do things as Christians that seems foolish in the eyes of the others, but the things we do have promises attached to them by God. Our focus here is not on why God is asking us to do (pray, give to the poor, speak against immorality, take communion, etc) but on how he works mightily in what we are doing.
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God" 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
To this question I respond 'he's not (asking us to do something against his character)'. He's asking us to do something that seems to us to be against his character. When we read this story through the eyes of the original audience we see the story in this light. It is my position that Moses is writing Genesis to the Israelites to encourage them to 'man-up' and enter the promised land, believing that God will give them victory over those who currently inhabit the land.
The reader is told at the very start that God is not going to ask Abraham to really murder his son ('God tested Abraham'). The story is read all the way through that Isaac will the be fine and it will be a tremendous example of faith.
This is how the story reads. It reads this way because it identifies with how the Israelites must have felt. The call to enter the promised land would have felt like a call to sacrifice their young men in war. While Genesis 22 doesn't tell us the age of Isaac, he is old enough to carry all the wood for the sacrifice, but young enough to be called a young man (so, a good age to join the army). The story is told then to these fathers, that while it may seem like you are going to lose your son, God will preserve the descendants of Abraham and give victory securely.
At the end of the chapter is some information about Abraham's extended family, from which Isaac's wife Rebekah comes from. This further showing how God is working beyond what we know to ensure his promises are fulfilled.
We too are asked to do things as Christians that seems foolish in the eyes of the others, but the things we do have promises attached to them by God. Our focus here is not on why God is asking us to do (pray, give to the poor, speak against immorality, take communion, etc) but on how he works mightily in what we are doing.
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God" 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Friday, February 13, 2009
Does Abraham 'see' God?
We're dealing with Genesis 18-19 this Sunday which contains numerous passages that create difficulty. I will deal with some of them then, but I won't have time to look at the identity of the three visitors that Abraham meets in Chapter 18. In 18:1 the chapter begins with 'And the LORD appeared to him (Abraham)'. 18:2 goes on to say 'He (Abraham) lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him'. One of the men is identified as 'the LORD', a divine name for God.
The idea of Abraham meeting God in the appearance of a man passing by in the heat of the day causes concern to some. For me, the story is helpful as one of the biggest questions my children ask is 'can we see God'. Telling Bible stories about men who saw God and wrote down what he said is helpful. But did Abraham actually see God? What about Moses who is told that he cannot look upon God's face (Exodus 33:23)? Or Jesus who tells us that no one has seen the father (John 6:46)? Is this a contradiction?
Evangelical Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer reminds us of two theological truths about God regarding our question. One, God promises us his presence and two, God is transcendent, and therefore too much for us to look at (it is simply impossible for humans to fully grasp the divine). The divine visitor that Abraham hosts keeps the balance of these two ideas. God's presence is both with Abraham, but is not the full revelation of who God is. A good comparison would be Moses and the burning bush. The bush is a physical sign of the presence of God, God is speaking, but this is not all there is to God. So our answer is, no Abraham did not see the whole of God, but yes, the man he saw was a physical representation of the presence of God.
This must be included in our explanation to children as well. We need to explain how big God is, yet also teach how God has promised his presence. God will be with his people, never leaving, always near. Matthew 28:20, John 14:18, Galatians 3:14 are helpful here.
The idea of Abraham meeting God in the appearance of a man passing by in the heat of the day causes concern to some. For me, the story is helpful as one of the biggest questions my children ask is 'can we see God'. Telling Bible stories about men who saw God and wrote down what he said is helpful. But did Abraham actually see God? What about Moses who is told that he cannot look upon God's face (Exodus 33:23)? Or Jesus who tells us that no one has seen the father (John 6:46)? Is this a contradiction?
Evangelical Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer reminds us of two theological truths about God regarding our question. One, God promises us his presence and two, God is transcendent, and therefore too much for us to look at (it is simply impossible for humans to fully grasp the divine). The divine visitor that Abraham hosts keeps the balance of these two ideas. God's presence is both with Abraham, but is not the full revelation of who God is. A good comparison would be Moses and the burning bush. The bush is a physical sign of the presence of God, God is speaking, but this is not all there is to God. So our answer is, no Abraham did not see the whole of God, but yes, the man he saw was a physical representation of the presence of God.
This must be included in our explanation to children as well. We need to explain how big God is, yet also teach how God has promised his presence. God will be with his people, never leaving, always near. Matthew 28:20, John 14:18, Galatians 3:14 are helpful here.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
William Wilberforce
If you take a first year history course you won't hear about Jeremiah Burroughs, or many of the others I've been discussing with you. However, you can't talk about world history without discussing the changes that William Wilberforce in 18th century England. He wasn't raised with much Christian influence, rather from a well-to-do family that afforded him the opportunity to slack-off, drink and gamble all while his Cambridge education was paid for. Even though he wasted this opportunity, he was well-spoken, and from a influential family. This led him to be elected to parliament at only 21 years of age. When he turned 25 he became a Christian, though for a few years he struggled between Jesus and the world. Eventually he resigned from his clubs, dealt with his drinking problems and quit gambling when he beat a man who couldn't afford it.
As a politician, he never lost and election and became good friends with William Pitt who would become Prime Minister at only 25 years of age. While Wilberforce was small in size, he was a brilliant public speaker and influenced many in his lifetime. By far the most significant of his influences, and his life's pursuit, was to put an end to the slave trade. During Wilberforces lifetime, England captured between 35000 and 50000 Africans every year, shipping them to America where they were sold at great profit. The economy profited enormously because of it, but the capture and slave ship conditions were horrible. Mark Galli accurately summarizes it this way:
A boat of 100 to 150 tons could carry 300 to 600 slaves. Five feet of space separated the decks. Male slaves were laid on the floor and on shelves, manacled together in pairs, sometimes so closely packed they had to lie on their sides in sultry heat and rank air. Abruptly torn from their homes, wholly unused to the sea, they lay terrified by the mystery of what was to become of them.
They were fed the coarsest food. Numbers fell ill. Dysentery was rife. In fine weather, they would be taken on deck for a time and forced to dance in their chains, for exercise, while their quarters below were cleaned. In rough weather, they had to remain below. Conditions in a severe Atlantic gale of some days' duration would multiply their sufferings. It is a wonder that only up to a quarter of the slaves died on the voyage. But it is not a wonder that sometimes an African, temporarily released from his fetters, would leap into the sea.
Women and children were not chained together or packed so closely. But the women were regularly exposed to sailors' lust and children to sailors' cruelty. John Newton often told about a mate "who threw a child overboard because it moaned at night in its mother's arms and kept him awake."
Wilberforce spent his entire life working to end this. Though he had the support of the people, too many influential people made huge profits from the evil enterprise. Bill after bill was introduced into commons, but was defeated. Yet, days before his death, in the summer of 1833 the emancipation act passed and put an end to to the slave trade.
William Wilberforce, after his conversion struggled with his post in politics. He thought long about becoming a minister, but those around him confirmed his calling to fight against this great evil in the only place it could be defeated - government. Many great evils exist in our culture as well, they are protected by big money. What are these issues and what should the church's involvement be with these things? Is Wilberforce just a great example, or are any believers actually following his example? What does the Bible say about being involved in politics, fighting for reforms? We'll consider these things and more on Wednesday night. And hopefully another video.
*A post-thought about this. I should mention that this is a glaring example of how people have not always made the best moral decisions. The foundation of our morals is critical, and history should prove to us that. Our own decisions about right and wrong can easily be flawed, but God's word about morality is not. This should inform our decisions so we don't repeat the grave evils of those before us. Emancipation is not the great idea Wilberforce came up with, enforcing God's word is.
As a politician, he never lost and election and became good friends with William Pitt who would become Prime Minister at only 25 years of age. While Wilberforce was small in size, he was a brilliant public speaker and influenced many in his lifetime. By far the most significant of his influences, and his life's pursuit, was to put an end to the slave trade. During Wilberforces lifetime, England captured between 35000 and 50000 Africans every year, shipping them to America where they were sold at great profit. The economy profited enormously because of it, but the capture and slave ship conditions were horrible. Mark Galli accurately summarizes it this way:
A boat of 100 to 150 tons could carry 300 to 600 slaves. Five feet of space separated the decks. Male slaves were laid on the floor and on shelves, manacled together in pairs, sometimes so closely packed they had to lie on their sides in sultry heat and rank air. Abruptly torn from their homes, wholly unused to the sea, they lay terrified by the mystery of what was to become of them.
They were fed the coarsest food. Numbers fell ill. Dysentery was rife. In fine weather, they would be taken on deck for a time and forced to dance in their chains, for exercise, while their quarters below were cleaned. In rough weather, they had to remain below. Conditions in a severe Atlantic gale of some days' duration would multiply their sufferings. It is a wonder that only up to a quarter of the slaves died on the voyage. But it is not a wonder that sometimes an African, temporarily released from his fetters, would leap into the sea.
Women and children were not chained together or packed so closely. But the women were regularly exposed to sailors' lust and children to sailors' cruelty. John Newton often told about a mate "who threw a child overboard because it moaned at night in its mother's arms and kept him awake."
Wilberforce spent his entire life working to end this. Though he had the support of the people, too many influential people made huge profits from the evil enterprise. Bill after bill was introduced into commons, but was defeated. Yet, days before his death, in the summer of 1833 the emancipation act passed and put an end to to the slave trade.
William Wilberforce, after his conversion struggled with his post in politics. He thought long about becoming a minister, but those around him confirmed his calling to fight against this great evil in the only place it could be defeated - government. Many great evils exist in our culture as well, they are protected by big money. What are these issues and what should the church's involvement be with these things? Is Wilberforce just a great example, or are any believers actually following his example? What does the Bible say about being involved in politics, fighting for reforms? We'll consider these things and more on Wednesday night. And hopefully another video.
*A post-thought about this. I should mention that this is a glaring example of how people have not always made the best moral decisions. The foundation of our morals is critical, and history should prove to us that. Our own decisions about right and wrong can easily be flawed, but God's word about morality is not. This should inform our decisions so we don't repeat the grave evils of those before us. Emancipation is not the great idea Wilberforce came up with, enforcing God's word is.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Jonathan Edwards
I spent my 20s as the youth pastor of three medium-sized churches (I did other things in my 20's, so don't feel sorry for me). I took groups of these high school students to church rallies, Christian-Rock shows, weekend retreats and the like. By the arena-full I've heard speakers tell the group of students that they were experiencing a 'revival' and that they were a special generation. Now that I'm in my 30's I feel let down by talks of revival that didn't materialize. I don't take groups to 'big events' anymore, but I still desire to see the revival. Facts are that we are seeing a secularization of the church, not a revival. Non-Religious people make up 14% of the earth's population now, a far cry from under 1% at the beginning of the last century. But what disappoints me more than the many statistics that show the declining church is the heart of the church. Churches that are becoming hour-long 'shows' for busy people have lost the purpose of the church to be a vibrant community of faith.
Jonathan Edwards pastored a New-England church in the 18th century that experienced revivals so significant that history now refers to them as 'the great awakening'. Edwards and others with him are helpful to us today in our desire to see a renewal of the church. Here is a helpful summary of their teaching
1. The problem is the church's dullness and deadness toward God. Open sin and 'going through the motions' are what Edwards thought needed be addressed. The problem is not that the church is powerless in society, but that it is bored with itself.
2. Being satisfied with God and his glory is the source of any revival. A revival is not increases attendance, giving or excitement, but the church's gladness in God alone. It can not be human-generated.
3. Heart-stirring preaching and persistent prayer are what we need to do. New techniques that simply 'push the right buttons' are condemned by Revelation 3:17.
4. Avoid any romantic ideas about revival. Edwards saw the enemies of revival as opposition and extremism. Revival will not solve all of our problems.
5. The essence of true revival is an awakened heart. Edwards put it this way: It's not that we know in our heads that honey is sweet, but that we have a sense of its sweetness.
6. The outcome of the above is evangelism. Therefore, we should not start with evangelism, but with the dullness that you and I experience in the church.
Whether we agree with Edwards and how we apply this will be our discussion. I also mentioned that I will show a video clip that may help us understand whether one church in particular has understood Edwards' work and is experiencing true revival.
Jonathan Edwards pastored a New-England church in the 18th century that experienced revivals so significant that history now refers to them as 'the great awakening'. Edwards and others with him are helpful to us today in our desire to see a renewal of the church. Here is a helpful summary of their teaching
1. The problem is the church's dullness and deadness toward God. Open sin and 'going through the motions' are what Edwards thought needed be addressed. The problem is not that the church is powerless in society, but that it is bored with itself.
2. Being satisfied with God and his glory is the source of any revival. A revival is not increases attendance, giving or excitement, but the church's gladness in God alone. It can not be human-generated.
3. Heart-stirring preaching and persistent prayer are what we need to do. New techniques that simply 'push the right buttons' are condemned by Revelation 3:17.
4. Avoid any romantic ideas about revival. Edwards saw the enemies of revival as opposition and extremism. Revival will not solve all of our problems.
5. The essence of true revival is an awakened heart. Edwards put it this way: It's not that we know in our heads that honey is sweet, but that we have a sense of its sweetness.
6. The outcome of the above is evangelism. Therefore, we should not start with evangelism, but with the dullness that you and I experience in the church.
Whether we agree with Edwards and how we apply this will be our discussion. I also mentioned that I will show a video clip that may help us understand whether one church in particular has understood Edwards' work and is experiencing true revival.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Ulrich Zwingli
Ulrich Zwingli is considered to be the father of the Baptist tradition. During the 16th century reformation, people like Luther and Zwingli were correcting the errors that had crept into the church. They didn't all agree, in fact a disagreement between Luther and Zwingli over one of their 15 points caused Luther to say Zwingli was 'of the devil and nothing more than a wormy nut', and Zwingli to resent Luther for treating him 'like an ass'. While today Lutherans and Baptists have nicer things to say to each other, we will discuss what being baptist is all about. Here are some of Zwingli's key points and distinguishable characteristics. While not all of these are true across the board today, nor are they all 'essential' baptist belief, they should cause us to consider how we worship and what we believe about key issues.
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Priests should be able to marry - Zwingli always struggled with the church doctrine that priests had to remain celibate. As a young priest he had an affair, he secretly married at 38, making it public two years later.
Fasting is not crucial - periods of fasting were prescribed by the church in Zwingli's day. He opposed the church having such involvement. He wrote against fasting and made a statement by eating a sausage in public during Lent.
Images - Zwingli worked to rid the church of images of Jesus, Mary and the saints believing that the Bible should have priority.
Communion - taking bread and wine was not to be seen as literally taking the body and blood of Jesus, nor was Jesus any more present during this time, rather it was a symbolic memorial.
Military - Zwingli was involved in the Swiss military and ended up dying in battle fighting for his country. However, he also worked to change the swiss economy away from being militant to engaging in more agriculture and trade.
Music - Zwingli was musically gifted, played six instruments, however in the church service he did away with the organ so people could 'give ear to the word of God alone'. As a result, baptists preach longer and place less value in music.
*note: Zwingli did not support believer's baptism ironically, this came about from an offshoot of his supporters who thought he didn't go far enough. This is called the 'Radical Reformation' and is a part of baptist heritage as well.
Some questions to consider
'If you were to give the church sanctuary a makeover, what would you like to see?'
'Should a Christian be in the military?'
'Should the pastor have the authority to ask the whole church to fast, give to a cause, volunteer for something, etc?'
'How is music meaningful at church, and how is it a distraction from the word of God?'
'How is the pastor any different than you? Does he have a higher standard? Should he have a higher standard?'
'Do you own any 'crosses/crucifixes' - why or why not?'
"For God's sake, do not put yourself at odds with the Word of God. For truly it will persist as surely as the Rhine follows its course. One can perhaps dam it up for awhile, but it is impossible to stop it." - Ulrich Zwingli
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)