Separating judgement from the Gospel

I’ve often heard it said that, as Christians (for those who read this blog that are), we shouldn’t try and “scare people into heaven” by making threats of hell when we present the message that Jesus is the savior.

I’m not quite sure what this means anymore, to be honest. While I don’t think it is in our place to judge a person (that is God’s place) or to make threats of hell, telling people that they will burn forever in a hell that resembles medieval poetry rather than Biblical truth (in other words, we don’t know enough about hell to know what it’s really like) I don’t know if we can separate the message of Jesus with the fact that God’s judgement is coming. (That’s not the same as telling someone they’re going to hell– it’s simply telling them God’s judgement is coming.)

In fact, in speaking to Gentiles, it seems the judgement is a paramount point in sermons we pick up from the book of Acts.

Take Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10) as the first example. When Peter eventually speaks to Cornelius and all those gathered at his house, look what he says:

vs 34 – “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

What does this mean? Does this mean people that don’t know Jesus but do what is right will enter into heaven? It can…

Peter then talks about how they were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry, what he did – a main point being the warfare He conducted against the devil – and then talks about Jesus’ death and then in vs 40:

“But God raised Him on the third day and made Him to appear… vs 42… and He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that He (Jesus) is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead.”

I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that the resurrection validates Jesus as judge, which is interesting.

When Paul speaks to the Atheneans, he says something similar (Acts 17)

vs 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.“

Very interesting indeed.

I came to be a Christian because someone told me the judgement of God is coming.

You have a choice – choose life (abundant life) or choose death (abundant death). If you feel you don’t owe it to God to choose life that’s cool – it’s okay to choose death. I don’t think God judges you for choosing death, I think he does judge you for inflicting death on others (in otherwords, he will judge us all for the sins we have committed to others). If you decided you wanted death that’s what you get. If you decided you wanted life but just didn’t know how to get it, you will be judged accordingly.

If you think that doing good works might get you to have abundant life, here and now… well, it might. Romans 2: 6 seems to say so:

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (injustice?), there will be wrath and fury.”

But how do you know when you’ve done enough? How can you be assured that your works are enough? Paul seems to follow this argument in Romans 2, asking people who teach against stealing if they steal, do they commit adultery (Rom 2:21, 22)?

You take a huge chance by relying on your own works, which will probably always be tainted with motives of some sort that are impure. Why take the chance, when you can have abundant life and know with certainty you will survive God’s judgement when it comes? How? By simply placing your faith in the Judge Himself, Jesus Christ, the one God raised from the dead and appointed as Judge. Believe in Jesus and you will be saved.

Is this scaring people into heaven? I don’t know – but last night I felt the truth of it. A judgement IS coming. Will you be able to stand in it? I don’t know. Do you know? How can you know for certainty? By believing Jesus.

This doesn’t mean I’m saying someone is going to hell, this simply means that they need to know there’s a judgement coming. I’m not making a call on the outcome of that judgement – simply to say that God WILL judge the living and the dead, and how will you stand? There’s only one way of knowing for certainty how you will stand… otherwise you take your chances and you’re on your own.

I actually became a Christian at 11 years old when someone told me the reality of God’s judgement. From that day on I never feared His judgement in the same way… and I’ve enjoyed abundant life in Him in so many other ways.

Is this scaring people into heaven, though? Or is it giving them three options?

1) Death
2) Take your own chances (works)
3) Life – in Jesus.

Which one will you choose?

Apologetics influences theology

Many of the early church fathers, including Augustine, formed theology through the realm of apologetics. Their apologetics then became accepted theology.

This seems to be the case. You can’t really separate theology and apologetics, because the apologetic wants to present a clear-cut case of theology, but in doing so he can affect theology.

Well, to illustrate my point, let me give you an example. In discussions with an atheist on the Internet we were arguing about the foreknowledge of God. I was saying that just because God has absolute foreknowledge of an event doesn’t mean God purposed for the event to happen, nor does it mean we don’t have choices in life.

He was saying that if an event is “destined” to occur it is predetermined. There’s nothing I can do to change the event. I have the illusion of choice but I don’t really have the ability to change the event – so do we REALLY have free will? We have the illusion of free will, yes.

I argued my point thoroughly that foreknowledge of an event does not necessarily mean the event is predetermined only to realise he was right and I was wrong. The event IS predetermined.

Then I stumbled upon this intriguing and excellently written essay on the topic: http://www.cresourcei.org/freedom.html

To quote the writer, Dennis Bratcher:

The biggest problem for the foreknowledge of God is the relation of foreknowledge to human freedom. If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen. That is, if God knows the event to be a historical reality, then that event must occur; it is predestined. If it does not occur than God did not know.

If you have time to read the article, you should. Basically, Bratcher advocates that the absolute foreknowledge or omniscient model is not exactly wrong, just perhaps not the whole story. A better model would be incarnation, and he attaches this to the realm of prophecy, referring to certain prophecies in the Bible that didn’t come true the way the prophet initially prophesied it, but it did come true in just a different way (a different nation etc.).

I’m aware of Gregory Boyd’s work into the concept that God, in his sovereignty, actually chooses not to know the future absolutely but rather the infinite possibilities of every choice. This means the future is not determined, and not even God really knows which choice I’m really going to make. He knows all of the infinite possibilities and has a plan for all of them, but ultimately my freedom is my freedom.

I find it fascinating and intriguing, and some of the apologetics on Boyd’s site and Bratcher’s are incredibly compelling.

The problem is that this presents theology that is unconventional and sometimes seen as heretical. In an earlier post I mentioned that we’re all going to be a heretic to someone, eventually, so I guess we have to accept that. The issue is what do we DO – if an apologetic presents a compelling case, based on the Scriptures and reason, that goes slightly against (or even opposite) to the “accepted” theology on the topic, what do we do? If the case is so compelling it may bring skeptics to faith in Christ, what do we do? What do I do in my own apologetics? When am using “heresy” to bring people to Christ, and is that wrong? Right? Are we not making a big deal out of periphery stuff?

This is a conundrum. Should I defend certain theology just because it’s the “accepted” theology, but doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny of the day? Or should we be forming new theologies based on new apologetics and intellectual discoveries? Why is it so difficult to say that Augustine may have been wrong, or he wasn’t necessarily wrong he just didn’t have the whole picture – or the questions been asked were entirely different?

One thing that Bratcher mentions is how the new generation asks different questions, but we attempt to answer it with the answers to older questions.

Yet, in the process of answering the new questions – new because the new generation is mainly post-modern or existential in its outlook – how much does this affect theology? And what should theologians, pastors, etc. do about it? What should writers do about it?

You’re always a heretic to someone

As a writer I’m faced with the constant tension of not wanting to add to all the endless information and absolute junk out there, both on the Internet and the bookstores. And the tension of wanting to publish the real TRUTH of a matter.

I mean, there is a LOT of opinion out there, and everyone has their opinion.

When it comes to writing Christian stuff a lot of things are emotionally charged. You’re always a heretic to someone and I have found myself needing to accept this more and more.

Everyone has their opinion and at some stage I’m going to have one that may not even line up to the “tried and true” doctrines of the church. Actually, when you listen to what people preach and say, in general, I think there are a great deal more “heretics” out there than we would like to think. Most people don’t walk the straight and narrow to doctrine – they kind of interpret doctrine in their own way and live it out in their own way.

Take the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God. Even those who believe God determines everything that happens (I am not one of them) speak as if He doesn’t (that we have free will). The fact of the matter is that no one really sits and thinks about the conclusions of their own thoughts or what they say – their thoughts sit very much in their own subjective world.

Not that I think everyone should be philosophical about everything. As a writer, I have to be, especially if I’m going to publish something; but it often gets me in dangerous ground. I’m in the public limelight and easily labeled a heretic – just because I’m in the public limelight. I can write exactly what everyone else SAYS in their conversations or preaching, but since I have to be more philosophical about this everyone may be surprised where the conclusions of their thought actually goes – quite often into what many staunch theologians call “heresy”.

Heresy has become such a subjective thing. Is it heresy to believe that God allows people to choose Him or not? To some, yes, because they believe in predestination. But is it REALLY heresy, or just a difference in opinion? Who the heck knows?

I guess I have to suck it in and publish my opinions anyway. We’re all a heretic to someone, especially if we have a different opinion. If mine have helped me, hopefully they’ll help someone out there as well.