Reformed and Always Reforming

Once More On “Christ’s Descent Into Hell”

Posted: April 11, 2012 in Hell, Reformed thought, Theology, Tradition

This weekend I posted some of Karl Barth’s thoughts on the creedal phrase concerning Christ’s descent into hell which follows the normal Reformed line on this issue. Today, I came across a post that I found interesting over at the much beloved Internet Monk site dealing with this doctrine as well. He examines the issue from the perspective that some evangelicals want to tinker with the creed and excise this line; I mentioned this briefly in my own post. After sketching the contrary evangelical positions he concludes with the following lines presenting his own view:

Or, more succinctly, hear Luther: “Through Christ, hell has been torn to pieces and the devil’s kingdom and power utterly destroyed…”

Now Luther was completely honest in saying he could not conceive how this actually occurred. However, he encouraged this: “It is appropriate and right that we view it literally, just as it is painted, that He descends with the banner, shattering and destroying the gates of hell; and we should put aside thoughts that are too deep and incomprehensible for us.”“

There is something evocative and powerful about the imaginative construals of many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox thinkers that portray a literal harrowing of hell by Christ (see the link at the top of the Internet Monk’s post; he presents the positions well). For now I’m not ready to abandon my Reformed moorings, but I am open to examining the biblical evidence that undergirds the RCC and EO positions.

How are we to understand the scriptural texts that are utilized by both literalists and non-literalists on this topic? What would the original readers have taken away from the text? Context is key here in understanding the biblical text and as impetus for reexamination of Reformed views; the Reformed must take into account Calvin’s disdain for any speculation whatsoever as well as his corollary use of Ockham’s razor in his theological formulations. Have these latter facets overwhelmed the true intentions of the biblical text?

Where do you land on this issue? What interpretive tradition do you come from? What part does Christ’s “harrowing of hell” play in the biblical narrative for you? What has been the most convincing argument one way or the other for you?

I’m very interested to hear where people fall on this issue…

Barth on Christ’s Descent Into Hell

Posted: April 7, 2012 in Easter, Hell, Karl Barth

Holy Saturday is a reminder of the many interesting views of what the Apostle’s Creed means when it says that, “He [Christ] descended into Hell.” Some believe this phrase should actually be excluded from the creed as it was from some of the earliest versions, while others have worked out elaborate schema of what exactly happened between Christ’s removal from the cross and His resurrection on Sunday. The Reformed tradition following John Calvin interpret this phrase as an extension of Jesus’ suffering on the cross; it is a materially important point about the severity of Christ’s suffering during the crucifixion. Karl Barth follows this Reformed line of interpretation and I’d like to offer some lengthy quotes of his for reflection on the depths of Christ’s work.

This first and longer excursus is from his little work Dogmatics in Outline, which is itself an exposition of the Apostle’s Creed. (This is a a great place to start reading Barth if you’ve always wanted but have hesitated). Barth comments that,

In the Old and New Testaments the picture of hell is somewhat different from what developed out of it later on. Hell, the place of the inferi, Hades in the Old Testament sense, is certainly the place of torment, the place of complete separateness, where man continues to exist only as a non-being, as a shadow. The Israelites thought of this place as a place where men continue to hover around like flitting shadows. And the bad thing about this being in hell in the Old Testament sense is that the dead can no longer praise God, they can no longer see His face, they can no longer take part in the Sabbath services of Israel. It is a state of exclusion from God, and that makes death so fearful, makes hell what it is. That man is separated from God means being in the place of torment. ‘Wailing and gnashing of teeth’ – our imagination is not adequate to this reality, this existence without God. The atheist is not aware of what Godlessness is. Godlessness is existence in hell. What else but this is left as the result of sin? Has not man separated himself from God by his own act? ‘Descended into hell’ is merely confirmation of it, God’s judgment is righteous – that is, gives man what he wanted. God would not be God, the Creator would not be the Creator, the creature would not be the creature, and man would not be man, if this verdict and its execution could be stayed.

But now the Confession tells us that the execution of this verdict is carried out by God in this way, that He, God Himself, in Jesus Christ His Son, at once true God and true man, takes the place of condemned man. God’s judgment is executed, God’s law takes its course, but in such a way that what man had to suffer is suffered by this One, who as God’s Son stands for all others. Such is the lordship of Jesus Christ, who stands for us before God, by taking upon Himself what belongs to us. In Him God makes Himself liable, at the point at which we are accursed and guilty and lost. He it is in His Son, who in the person of this crucified man bears on Golgotha all that ought to be laid on us. And in this way He makes an end of the curse. It is not God’s will that man should perish; it is not God’s will that man should pay what he was bound to pay; in other words, God extirpates the sin. And God does this, not in spite of His righteousness, but it is God’s very righteousness that He, the holy One, steps in for us the unholy, that He wills to save and does save us.” (118-119)

Again, more succinctly from Barth’s Church Dogmatics II.2:

It is a serious matter to be threatened by hell, sentenced to hell, worthy of hell, and already on the road to hell. On the other hand, we must not minimize the fact that we actually know of only one certain triumph of hell- the handing over of Jesus- and that this triumph of hell took place in order that it would never again be able to triumph over anyone. We must not deny that Jesus gave Himself up into the depths of hell not only with many others but on their behalf, in their place, in the place of all who believe in Him (496).”

Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron? (part three)

Posted: March 16, 2012 in Evangelicalism, Robin Parry, universalism

Robin Parry, author of the book The Evangelical Universalist, (written under the pseudonym of Gregory MacDonald) was a participant at a recent conference at Spurgeon’s College on the topic of universalism as a viable evangelical option. This series of posts has aimed at explicating his paper entitled “Evangelical Universalism: oxymoron?” through summary and further elucidation on the topic at hand. Parry offers ten reasons why many evangelicals see universalism as less than “evangelical” and in this post I want to examine two of these rejoinders.

After responding to the query of the biblical validity of universalism from many evangelicals, Parry moves on to discuss an interrelated cluster of topics that focus on the effects of universalism on other primary Christian doctrines. The first of these is sin. If everyone will be saved in the end are sin and its effects still taken seriously? Personally I find this a rather weak rebuttal to the notion of universal salvation because any serious Christian universalist will posit that God takes sin serious enough to deal with it on the cross of Christ. If the universalist takes sin lightly then so do countless number of other Christian groups who believe that sin is dealt with through the cross. Parry says it this way:

You can come up with the most extreme assessment of the depravity of sin as you like and there is no reason why a universalist could not hold it so long as they also believed that God’s love was deeper, his grace wider, and the cross more powerful: ‘Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more’…to somewhat cheekily turn the tables, perhaps the problem is not that universalists have too weak a view of sin but that mainstream evangelicals have too narrow (Calvinists) or too weak (Arminians) a view of grace.( 6-7).”

Moving on from this rather weak objection, Parry highlights a far more important notion: that universalism may undermine the justice and wrath of God. Diminishing God’s justice and wrath supposedly comes from a sentimental version of God’s love that usurps the later into the all-encompassing attribute of God at the expense of the others. However Parry astutely notes that evangelical universalists would instead follow the same contours of scriptural revelation as other Christian scholars in determining the shape of God’s love. Parry believes that it is not universalists that have misunderstood God’s love, but “it is traditional evangelicals who have underestimated the implications of the biblical claim that ‘God is [in his very nature] love’ (1 John 4:8, 16) and that it is they, and not universalists, who have the theological problem (8).”

With such a strong view of love, how do Parry and fellow universalists hold this in tension with God’s justice and wrath? This would seem to be an insurmountable problem for some who are fixated on the fulfillment of God’s justice through damnation and wrath. It is unfortunate that many unproblematically and unsympatheically believe that God condemns those outside of Christ at death to eternal conscious torment. The question for this group of people is what part of hell and damnation involves the love of God? How is God loving towards those in hell?

The answer to this question has led Parry to posit an answer that holds God’s love and justice (holiness) together even in his understanding of hell. To do so, God’s justice must be loving and his love must be just. This means a radical reconstitution of both ideas, particularly that of justice. If God’s justice is at the same time loving this would mean that it is purposive beyond purely punishment and that is not just retributive but restorative as well. For Parry, when applied to the idea of hell, it is no longer seen as eternal punishment without further ground. Hell acts in a corrective, purifying way that ultimately will lead all to embrace Jesus Christ as not only Lord, but Saviour as well. Included in this vision are retributive elements, but these are not the primary purpose of hell. Hell is a temporary medicinal place or state that leads beyond itself as God enacts his justice and love together.

[Note: this view of hell has ample substantiation in the tradition. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa both held something akin to it. For Nyssa if one was not purified through baptism, they would be purified through the fires of hell. This purification readies one to receive Christ, but is not in and of itself salvific.]

Relating Theology and Exegesis

Posted: March 6, 2012 in Evangelicalism, Hermeneutics, Kevin DeYoung, Stephen Holmes

Dr. Steve Holmes, lecturer in systematic theology at St. Andrews and a Baptist minister, has responded to Kevin DeYoung’s recent post on exegesis and theology with his usual incisiveness. While DeYoung’s post is a good beginning of the understanding the relation, Holmes necessarily complexifies the issue in response, particularly DeYoung’s understanding of the theological task as it relates to Scripture. These are important issues to consider and as such I’ll sketch briefly the gist of what Holmes is on about and offer a few thoughts of my own.

DeYoung opens his post, “Systematic theology looks at the whole Bible and tries to understand all that God says on a given subject (e.g., sin, heaven, angels, justification).” This is fine as far as it goes, but as Holmes notes theology is a much more robust task than DeYoung gives credit. Holmes offers that,

Theology is not primarily an exercise in collating Scriptures, although good theology is certainly attentive to that. In a sense, real theology is what you do after the Scriptures have been collated. On all interesting matters, the witness of the Bible is complex – on many it can appear contradictory. God is sovereign, but human beings are free to chose as they will; Jesus is one with the Father, but says ‘the Father is greater than I’; God created all things good, but the world is broken by the power of evil; a final judgement and separation will come, but God will be all-in-all, and every knee will bow; the list could go on and on…

Theology is the task of coping with such complexity, and with the apparent contradictions. It is about the construction of conceptual schemes which enable all, not just some, of the texts to be taken seriously. The Trinitarian and Christological debates of the early centuries are deeply exegetical, in the sense that they turn on differing attempts to make sense of a (fairly quickly defined) set of apparently-contradictory texts. All the significant contributions to the arguments are essentially lists of proposed exegeses of texts, indeed. In each case, however, there is also the development of a conceptuality which will shape the exegesis, and offer exegetical possibilities that were not available before.”

Holmes response doesn’t demean DeYoung’s thought in the least but expands the category of theology to more holistically encompass what happens in the process of relating theology and exegesis. I want to offer some comment that is related but in a different direction than Holmes. I believe there are some underlying misconceptions about Scripture and exegesis that cause DeYoung to posit his particualr theological methodology. Read the rest of this entry »

Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron? (part two)

Posted: February 15, 2012 in Evangelicalism, Robin Parry, universalism

Robin Parry, author of the book The Evangelical Universalist, presented a paper last year at Spurgeon’s College on the topic of universalism as a viable evangelical option that was entitled “Evangelical Universalism: oxymoron?” I want to continue to summarize and discuss his arguments here, keeping in mind that he is not arguing for the validity of universalism per se, but of universalism as acceptable amongst evangelicals. In the first section of the paper, he describes evangelical universalism briefly and I have recounted that here; today, I want to cover his reaction to the first of a series of common objections to universalism from evangelicals.

The beginning of the Rob Bell fiasco showed quite stunningly how unwilling evangelicals were and are to examine Scripture afresh on these topics. As Parry notes, “By far the main reason for thinking that a universal salvation is incompatible with evangelicalism is that it is ‘obviously unbiblical’. Given that evangelicals affirm the teachings of Scripture and that universalism is believed to run counter to those teachings then the matter is a no-brainer: ‘evangelical universalism’ is obviously an oxymoron (6).” Parry goes on to explain that only if an evangelical universalist is contradicting something of the core of what it means to be an evangelical can they be considered to be outside of the camp, but that is hardly the case; rather, evangelical universalists are interpreting Scripture (with a high view in hand) in a different way than other evangelicals. He likens it to the debate between evangelical Calvinists and Arminians: neither camp can fairly expunge the other from claiming the moniker evangelical but can only claim that the other group is wrong in their interpretation of Scripture. Thus, the issue is

a hermeneutical one. How do we hold together those texts that seem universalist (e.g., Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:22; Col 1:20; Phil 2:11) with those texts which seem to contradict universalism (e.g., Matt 25:45; 2 Thess 1:6–9; Rev 14:11; 20:10–15)? The answer to that question is not straightforward and differences of opinion are hardly surprising (6).”

Here Parry has revealed the nerve running underneath a whole host of issues including soteriological beliefs, gender roles, and baptism. Simply holding to a high view of Scripture doesn’t guarantee that everyone will understand the text of Scripture in the same way. This has never been the case. Beyond the core creedal beliefs (Nicene and Apostle’s Creed) there are and have always been a multiplicity of secondary issues on which Christians and even those who call themselves evangelicals differ. One implication of understanding the issue in this way is that it is not enough for fellow evangelicals to posit that someone with an opposing view is not adhering to a high view of Scripture. It may be that their view of Scripture is exactly the same, but that their conclusions are vastly different. When this move is made as it was amongst many neo-Reformed thinkers it reveals their unwillingness to examine the narrative of Scripture again to see if their “sacred” conclusions were in fact the best reading of Scripture. Tradition in fact trumps Scripture within this later way of acting and thinking.

If the issue is allowed to move to reading and interpreting Scripture it becomes extremely different: there can be seen two strands of texts running side by side. Some passages points towards a restrictivist view of salvation while others seem to point towards the ultimate salvation of all. As I’ve mentioned here before one must then determine how to resolve this issue or if a resolution is warranted at all. But this is much different than claiming from the beginning that universalism is unbiblical. I’d argue that this conversation is actually part of what it means to be evangelical, to be Protestant, to prayerfully examine our sacred book again for deeper understanding. If that is the case why are so many evangelicals unwilling to have this conversation?

The next post in this series will be a brief interlude of sorts to cover more in-depth the hermeneutical issues involved in evangelical universalism and some thoughts on whether or not it is even profitable to discuss evangelical universalism at the meta-evangelical level.

Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron? (part one)

Posted: February 8, 2012 in Evangelicalism, Robin Parry, universalism

Robin Parry, author of the book The Evangelical Universalist, (written under the pseudonym of Gregory MacDonald) was a participant at a recent conference at Spurgeon’s College on the topic of universalism as a viable evangelical option. While I was unable to attend, I was excited to see that the papers have recently been published in the latest issue of the Evangelical Quarterly (EQ 84.1, 2012). Parry’s paper is entitled “Evangelical Universalism: oxymoron?” and extends arguments he has presented previously in short form on the same topic; both of these are primers for those who want an introduction and defense of universalism from an evangelical perspective. I want to offer a summary and some brief thoughts on Parry’s more extended arguments over the next few posts to encourage continued conversation on this topic amongst evangelicals.

Parry opens his paper with a brief summary of the Rob Bell kerfuffle from earlier this year as a way to exhibit the strong, anti-universalist sentiment within evangelicalism. In light of this Parry declares his aim in the paper is not to defend universalism per se, but to defend it as a live option for those who would consider themselves evangelicals as defined by something akin to David Bebbington’s quadrilateral (he doesn’t make this explicit in the paper, but in a past talk he’s given he used this defintion openly). He also notes that he is writing of those who hold to the orthodox Christian faith as adhered to in the Rule of Faith and the ecumenical Christian creeds. Beyond these an evangelical universalist would further hold two further beliefs:

EU1: ‘In the end, God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ’s atoning work.’

EU2: ‘EU1 is a biblical belief (4).’”

Parry then further differentiates an evangelical universalist by noting their belief that “people can be be redeemed from hell” and mentioning again that God will in fact redeem all people from hell as part of God’s final victory (5). The first differentiation may not seem controversial on a weak reading, for example he could simply be saying that God redeems people from hell through their salvific experience through Christ. This is not what Parry means. Instead, he means for this statement to be read in a strong and controversial way: people can, after death and entering into hell, be redeemed and reconciled to Christ. This means the opportunity for salvation is extended beyond this lifetime through and by God’s gracious and loving nature. Parry astutely notes that there are various versions of Christian universalism and further variations even within those who would call themselves evangelicals and universalists; there is no monolithic view and only these limited factors mentioned above tie them together as universalists.

The important thing to note from this introductory material is that evangelical universalism is based on Scripture and not on a philosophical or sociological or anthropological starting point. A particular reading of Scripture, albeit one against the grain of the majority tradition has proffered this doctrine. Again, it is important to note that Christ and his atoning death is central for this view, differentiating it from those non-Christian universalist who believe that all religions lead to God inevitably with no consideration of Christ. Finally, conversion is still a large part for many adherents. With these brief notes I’m getting ahead of Parry; after this introductory material, he moves on to defend evangelical universalism against the most common criticisms and that’s where we’ll continue in the next post.

I’d love to hear your response to the following:

Do you think universalism is defensible from an evangelical standpoint? Why or why not? If you are an evangelical, what would be your major objections to this position? Does universalism even need to be defended from an evangelical standpoint due to the fractured nature of the broader movement or should it be defended on an ad hoc and contextual basis with specific detractors in the movement?

John Webster’s Sermons (Part Two)

Posted: January 26, 2012 in Books, John Webster, Scripture, University of Aberdeen

Webster

John Webster, who has been called “one of the most prominent representatives of of Protestant theology of our time,” has recently released a compilation of sermons entitled The Grace of Truth that were preached mostly during his time as canon of Christ Church at Oxford University. The compilation was edited by former students Brannon Ellis (who has recently been released from exile in Albany, Georgia) and Daniel Bush. I want to offer some snippets here to encourage you to pick up the book yourself; these sermons are not only intellectually challenging, but more importantly spiritually stimulating. The first sermon in the collection is “The Lie of Self-Sufficiency” and is based on the text Matthew 21:33-39. Here’s Webster’s introduction:

One way of coming to understand the events of Holy Week is to think of them as the trump of falsehood. Beginning on Palm Sunday with the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerasulem and over the next few days moving inexorably to its climax, the drams of the passion unfolds as one thing: as a consistent, willful, institutionally orchestrated rejection of the truth- as the acting out of a lie.

What unites the cast of characters which are assembling before us as we read through the narrative of the passion of Christ is this: all together- religious leaders, the disciples, the governing authorities in the person of Pilate, and the chorus of minor players- in their various ways conspire to deny the truth. They all choose darkness rather than light; they all fail to acknowledge what above all they ought to acknowledge, that in the man Jesus they are faced with the presence of God himself. And the events in which they are caught up, the putting to death of the Son of God, are as a whole and in all their detail the embodiment of the great lie, the ultimate untruth.

Why do we tell lies? We lie to evade reality; we lie because the truth is too painful or too shameful for us to face…And the false reality which we invent, the world we make up by our lying, has one great advantage for us: it makes no claims on us (17-18).”

The rest of the sermon works these ideas out in some detail, concluding with these wonderful thoughts:

What is the only hope? That the face of God may shine upon us. That God may so present us with the truth that our falsehood is put away. That God may restore us by interposing himself between us and our destruction. That God will intercept our death-dealing ways and give us life (23).”