Thoughts on Ultimate Reconciliation, Part 3
If you haven’t already listened to part 1 and part 2, you should go listen to those first for this episode to make the most sense.
Ray and Steve conclude this three-part discussion on Ultimate Reconciliation. It may seem to some like we have hammered this entire topic well into the ground, and perhaps we have. However, for us, this topic has become more and more relevant and important in our understanding of the big picture of our Father’s love. The strong insistence by many on the certainty of eternal conscious torment in hell for unbelievers raises a lot of questions about the big picture. As we have said somewhere in this discussion, it is almost scary to see some people absolutely determined to make sure hell is populated, and not populated by just a few people.
At any rate, thanks for bearing with us in this lengthy conversation. Your comments/feedback are always welcome, even if it’s to say, “Get on with something else already, guys!” 😉 (seriously!)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 53:36 — 49.1MB) | Embed
April 12th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Gentlemen,
you are definitely pushing my preconceived (pre-taught) notions. Not sure I’m ready to head to the same conclusions, but the discussion has been great. As an “evangelical” I agree that growing up it seemed I was told what to think and warned on who not to read. God has definitely been pushing those arbitrary boundaries that have been built up, and I find this as a breath of fresh air. Of course this has now labeled me in my circles as the guy questioning why is it a box and not a circle.
With that said, I still have to lean on a substitutionary atonement. Why else would Jesus have to die? (I Pet 3:18) While I understand the Love of Jesus I also see the phrases that talk about the wrath of God (see Romans 5:9 for instance) You have stated on several occasions about not knowing what to do with the God of the Old Testament. I would posit that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, and He still abhors sin.
So while we are on this journey of a completely biblical based study of theology I think we need to be intellectually honest to continue to maintain all parts of God’s character. We need to take as complete a picture as we can of our God through His revealed truth from Creation, to being rejected by His creation, through the demonstration of His plan of redemption through His Israelites, to the fulfillment of that plan through Christ’s sacrificial gift, to the present day, and His revealed plan for what is to come.
Wow, looking back at that I guess my dispensational upbringing is showing through. But I think my point still stands that when we try to understand our Creator we need to incorporate all aspects of His character that have been revealed in His written word, Old and New Testaments. Even if some of them are hard to swallow. I also agree with you guys that “we” have become unbalanced in our thinking leaning heavier on the wrathful God and that definitely needs to be rethought.
I think the best point of the whole conversation is that there needs to be the conversation. There should not be any taboo topics, but an honest discussion. We do tend to rely on “experts” and stop thinking for ourselves. (for fear of taking the verse out of context) Come let us reason together Isa 1:18
One last comment regarding the paid off bank loan. If someone asked me if they could pay off my bank loan, I would have the option to refuse. Following is probably another outrageous view, but one that has been bouncing around my head for a while. Is the issue with Hell not that an angry God sends people there, but that a loving God who has given freewill will not force a person who refuses to stay in His presence. And with that the only other game in town though is a place that God has removed his presence from, and we can only imagine what such a place may look like. I know there are no scriptures backing up that idea, just my flawed reason. I am curious your thoughts on this idea.
Keep up the good work, appreciate your conversations and honesty. And based on your conversation, your Love for God and people. Truly putting Jesus’ words into practice to Love God and Love your neighbor.
April 12th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
I enjoyed the whole discussion (I think), even if I got lost a few times along the way. I too value the ability to think & am curious about Rob Bell’s book though I doubt I’ll read it. Good on him for challenging people to think.
I had never heard the phrase ‘eternal conscious torment’ but was taught it & even shared it at times. I no longer have the answers I thought I once had. These days I just don’t know where I stand & am OK with that, I’d rather learn how to best love those around me & walk in grace.
I found it particularly off putting to be told who not to listen to, hang out with etc. and why. I found that so ugly.
Great to have a few podcasts to listen to, thanks!
April 13th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
One of you wondered who had the time to listen to these longer sessions. Well, some of us are chained to desks in front of computers all day and quite enjoy shutting out the sometimes mind-numbing background noise of co-workers for a while with your very thought provoking discussions. I for one was not brought up in a “Hell fire and brimstone” environment so many of the more “boxy” things you talk about are somewhat foreign to me. Thank God for THAT.
These past 5 or so podcasts have just been so deep, I’ve had to follow them up with an episode of “Ask A Ninja” or something to help me snap out of it.
April 13th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Jeff,
Thanks for listening! I totally understand not coming to the same conclusions as us. Shoot, I don’t even agree with myself sometimes 😉
When it comes to the atonement, I am comfortable using the word “substitutionary”. I think that it is a biblical concept and doesn’t present a problem. When speaking of the atonement, the word I find myself more and more uncomfortable with is “penal”. You can believe in “substitutionary atonement” without believing in “penal substitutionary atonement”; as a matter of fact, I do!
I understand yo-ur statement:
“I would posit that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, and He still abhors sin.”
When we say we don’t know what to do with the God of the Old Testament it is akin to an Arminian saying he doesn’t know what to do with Romans 9-11 or a Calvinist saying he doesn’t know what to do with 1 John 2:2. It’s not that we don’t have ideas or theories of how to incorporate tough Scriptures about God in the Old Testament into our theologies, rather it’s that we recognize that some will look at our conclusions about the “difficult” passages
and see them as “fudging” or just lame. Truth is, no matter how developed our attempts at exegesis are, we all will end up looking past seemingly obvious readings of some passages in order to try to harmonize the whole of Scripture. Let’s face it, it’s a tough book and without the Spirit we will just end up with a log-jam.
You said:
“I think we need to be intellectually honest to continue to maintain all parts of God’s character.”
I understand where you are coming from. My contention is that there really are no “parts” to God’s character. I believe that since God is one (Deut. 6:4), His attributes are really just manifestations of His united character. I think that God’s justice is simply a manifestation of His love. Or that God’s wrath is just the severe side of His mercy; namely His refusal to let us settle for “second-best”. So many people talk about the attributes of God as if they are completely separate entities and I find this problematic.
When it comes to hell, I embraced an idea similar to what you are describing for many years. I didn’t believe that God was sending anyone to hell, but rather that they chose to be there and that God was simply honoring their request to not be with Him. However, the more I have really thought about this the more bothersome it has become for me. First of all, is there any place that God can “withdraw His presence” from? (Psalm 139:7-8) Second, even if there is such a place, why do we imagine that there is no escape from this place? Does God love unbelievers so little that He allows them to make a decision that will affect their eternities based on limited information and “seeing through a glass darkly”, and then refuses them the opportunity to reconsider once the full weight of their choice has been realized?
Jeff, thanks alot for dialoging with us. I so appreciate your willingness to discuss these things with us with such a gentle tone. You are welcome here any time!
April 13th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Karen,
Thanks for listening (even through the “I think?” parts!).
You said:
“I no longer have the answers I thought I once had. These days I just don’t know where I stand & am OK with that, I’d rather learn how to best love those around me & walk in grace.”
Very well said! I too am learning and unlearning, and even arguing with myself. Isn’t it great to know that, at the end of the day, we are safe in Abba’s embrace even when we don’t have it all figured out?!?
Thanks for sticking with us through some thick topics!
April 13th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
JTM,
I’m so glad that you enjoy the discussions; even when they go on for FIVE episodes! It blesses me to think of you guys out there participating and growing with us 🙂
Nothing like a good ninja to relax the brain, huh? Speaking of which, most people would say that you can’t be a Calvinist and an Arminian, a Protestant and a Catholic, or a believer in eternal concious torment and ultimate reconciliation. Obviously these people don’t know about Chuck Norris!
April 14th, 2011 at 2:22 am
Hey, I just want to quickly comment on what you, Jeff and Raborn, were dialoging about: God in the OT and God in the NT.
The way that we see God act in the OT, ordering the killing of people by the thousands and other gruesome feats, in order to bring about his plan of love, just doesn’t make any sense to me if seeing it through the lens of ‘ECT’.
But it makes a lot of sense to me and rings true to my heart, if God never stopped loving these people he ordered to be removed from this earth, knowing that they won’t be lost for eternity, but that they would ultimately be restored to him.
What I’m saying is that the OT started to make more and more sense to me the more I started to embrace Ultimate Reconciliation.
April 14th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Ulf,
Thanks for the insight. Interesting. I can definitely see how you arrived at this conclusion. I’m not sure that I can go there right now. There still seems to be more of a disconnect for me between the OT & NT pictures of God, but your solution could really make sense. I still have a hard time reconciling Jesus’ words about “being sons of your Father in heaven” by loving indiscriminately (“He makes His sun to shine on the just and the unjust“) with things like the OT mandates for genocide. Since Jesus is THE revelation of the Father, how can it be that many of the OT depictions of God sound so incompatible with Jesus’ words and are yet describing the same person? I don’t know if there is an easy answer, but I do feel like I am progressing toward understanding how to harmonize the two.
April 15th, 2011 at 3:44 am
I see what you mean Raborn… cool name by the way 😉
Well, God always tried to set up Israel to be a blessing to all the nations. That’s pretty much in line with the Father Jesus portrayed. But why all the killing, hey?
I can only assume that all the ‘casualties’ were worth it, and hope that they will be restored to God, which is so much better than being allowed to live a life distant from God and even going against his purposes. Without connection with Father we’re dead anyway. For us physical death is a pretty big deal. Could it be different for God who knows the bigger picture?
Plus, the God that’s portrayed by the OT prophets comes across to me as a pretty love sick God who longs to be united with his children. That’s like the Father Jesus showed us.
Just some thoughts…but you’re right, there isn’t an easy answer.
April 15th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Raborn,
Could you help me understand something. You say you are okay with “substitutionary”, but if there was not a penalty, or wage, to our sin then what is Jesus substituting for? And why make it so gruesome, unless that is what our penalty truly is?
April 16th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Ulf makes a point that a number of people I know are trying to reconcile, the OT God with the NT God…After listening to a podcast of a Gregory Boyd sermon, he shared some ideas that he’s come up with for the book he’s currently working on, “The Crucifixion of the Warrior God”. His take goes something like this basically: This world is a messy place, but God isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty, so there are times when he comes down to our level to teach us things or to lead us in different directions. Greg Boyd uses the example of the Assyrians, he said, “So there’s a way in which God lifts his hand and Assyria is allowed to do what it wants to Israel and God used that to teach lessons and those sorts of things. But God is not the one who made the Assyrians violent, Assyria was that way and God is now saying how can I work with that. Sometimes God acquiesces to the way people think about Him as in the book of Job, but throughout the Bible God shows more of his true self, confronting man’s false images of Him and ultimately revealing who He really is in Jesus Christ. God condescends to fall into the framework of His covenantal people because that’s what you do to relate to them. then he gradually gows them in a certain direction-a progression of revelation.” I’m looking forward to reading his whole explaination in this book which at this point has no definate availability date. Hope this gives a little food for thought Ulf.
April 17th, 2011 at 6:28 am
Thanx Jerrine, those are some good thoughts.
I particularly liked: “…but throughout the Bible God shows more of his true self, confronting man’s false images of Him and ultimately revealing who He really is in Jesus Christ.”
I think we too often forget that the bible was written by people just like us, who would experience God in a certain way and write that down through their filter (their feelings and perceptions).
Another thing that we forget is that they were ancient Jews/Hebrews, who had a totally different way of describing their experiences than what we have today.
And last but not least we tend to forget that the law that God gave Israel wasn’t his masterpiece, nor was it his first choice, but it was demanded by the people who were afraid to go up the mountain, basically saying no to a personal relationship with their savior (out of Egypt). That kind of relationship was partly seen in a few prophets (Moses, Samuel, Elijah…)and kings (David), but only got revealed to the fullest extend in Jesus. He is the absolute revelation of the Father’s heart towards all his children (all of creation, not just one group or people). I think that might be the mystery that Paul keeps referring to: Everybody is included in the Father’s love. No more us vs. them (a game that alot of Christians (me included) got sucked into playing).
April 17th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Hi Jeff,
You said:
You say you are okay with “substitutionary”, but if there was not a penalty, or wage, to our sin then what is Jesus substituting for? And why make it so gruesome, unless that is what our penalty truly is?
I don’t know if you have listened to our four part series on different atonement theories or not, but if you want to know more about my thoughts on the Atonement I would really recommend them.(I know, a shameless plug;)
Anyway, to try to simply (ha!) your immediate question, there are multiple ways of understanding substitutionary atonement without picturing the Father as pouring out His wrath on or punishing His Son. First of all, let me say that I do believe that there are definintely consequences to our sin (namely, death). I just don’t picture God as having to make sure we experience them. I see Father as earnestly desiring to deliver us from these consequences and having “no delight in the death of the wicked“.
For starters, the Christus Victor view of the atonement, pictures Jesus’ sacrifice as a ransom paid on behalf of humanity. However, the ransom is not seen as being paid by God the Son to God the Father(this would seem odd to me), rather it is seen as the ultimate subversion of evil by God agreeing to give up His Son to evil powers as a substitute for humanity. (see 1 Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 1:13-14) The Christus Victor view pictures humanity as being held hostage by hostile evil forces by our succumbing to temptation and willfully choosing sin and rebellion instead of loving fellowship with God; note that this doesn’t do away with our culpability, but it does go beyond that to picture us as actually bound by evil. It is also interesting to note that, at least from my own research, this view was one of the predominant views of the early believers. From what I understand, the theory of penal substitution did not gain dominance until around the time of the Protestant Reformation, and actually seems to find it’s seeds in the theology of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109AD).
Another interesting theory that can be seen as substitutionary is something called the Mimetic Theory of the Atonement, developed by contemporary philosopher, Rene Girard. This is a rather complex theory, but basically looks at Jesus as “the sacrifice to end all sacrifices”, and as God’s “No” to the entire sacrificial system that had perpetuated throughout human history. Maybe we will do a podcast on this sometime, but for now you might want to read the book “Saved From Sacrifice” by S. Mark Heim.
As to the gruesome nature of Jesus’ death, I think this is to be laid at the feet of His executioners, not God. I have grown more and more uncomfortable with the idea of Penal Substitution over the last few years. For me, it seems to beg several questions:
1. How can God be said to forgive sin if He requires a payment first? Would’nt this undermine the idea of grace as being a free gift? Isn’t forgiveness about letting debts go unpaid while sinners go free?
2. How can God punish God? This seems vulnerable to producing a schizophrenic view of God.
3. Is sin something that is actually transferrable? To quote Greg Boyd:
are sin and guilt the kind of things that can literally be transferred from one party (us) to another (Jesus)? Where is the justice in God killing his innocent Son because of what we humans did? Does Jesus reveal God’s love for us, or placate God’s wrath towards us? And doesn’t this way of thinking presuppose that you can attain a good, loving result through violence? Does the end justify the violent means? Isn’t this the sort of thinking that has fueled the endless cycle of violence that’s characterized human history?
Anyway, I hope this helps to answer your question. If you would like to find out more I highly recommend the books:
The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views edited by Paul R. Eddy, James Beilby. This book presents four of the major views of the Atonement by four different authors who hold to each different view.
Stricken by God edited by Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin. This book is a collection of essays on non-violent views of the atonement by a bunch of different authors.
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Joel B. Green & Mark D. Baker.
Thanks alot for talking about this with me Jeff. I love being able to talk about these things and spur each other on to grow in Christ!
April 17th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Jerrine,
Great to see you on here 🙂 Great summary of Greg Boyd’s thought on the subject. I appreciate you throwing this into the discussion. I am feeling more and more that the Bible is a progressive revelation with Jesus as the culmination/apex of all revelation about who God is. He has to become the interpretive lens through which we view all of Scripture. Otherwise, we are left elevating someone’s words about God (Scripture) over God’s own self-disclosure (Jesus).
Ulf,
I wanna say a big “Amen” to your last comment! You said:
we tend to forget that the law that God gave Israel wasn’t his masterpiece, nor was it his first choice, but it was demanded by the people who were afraid to go up the mountain, basically saying no to a personal relationship with their savior (out of Egypt).
Well said! We forget that the Law, the kings, and I think, possibly even the entire sacrificial system were concessions granted to us by God in an effort to “meet us where we are”. So many times we have viewed God through these filters rather than accepting the revelation of God revealed to us in Jesus.
This is a very stimulating discussion everybody! Thanks to all of you for taking the time to talk these things through!
April 22nd, 2011 at 1:53 am
I just found this article called “Why did Christ die?” by A.P. Adams (http://savior-of-all.com/Why%20Did%20Christ%20Die.pdf).
In it Adams comments on the ‘substitution’ theory.
Here are two excerpts, showing what he reckons:
“The physician prescribes a remedy for his
patient, but not instead of him. Christ “died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15: 3), but not instead of them. He died “the just for the unjust,” but it does not necessarily follow from this statement, as many think, that he died instead of the unjust. “He bore our sins,” but in what capacity? as an associate, or as a substitute? So far as the simple statement is concerned it might be either, but from other scripture, as we have seen, we know that Christ was NOT our substitute, but our companion and Elder Brother, the Sharer of our woes.”
“Now then, if Christ died as our substitute he must have died some death that we do not die. What death was it? Man is already dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1); he must die physically, (Heb. 9:27) and of course Christ did not die the second death. Even if there
were “a death that never dies,” as the churches say, Christ died no such death as our substitute or otherwise. In what death then was Christ our substitute? “He tasted death for every man” (Heb.2:9), but it could not have been as a substitute for every man, for the simple reason that man must himself die; we can very readily see how Christ died for man as his associate, “made in all points
like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest” (Heb. 2:17), we can readily see how he was the first to pass through the whole process of God’s way of life through death, as our Forerunner, and the Captain of our salvation, in order to deliver man, not from a death to which they were exposed, but out of a death in which they were already involved.”
Interesting…