Universalism and Biblical Salvation: A Study in Brief

Universalism is the name given to a group of people who believe in eventual holiness and happiness of the entire human race, as they believe to be revealed to the world in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They believe that his work on the cross at Calvary signified the end of any danger that any person, no matter how grave their sin and rebellion, would enter eternal damnation. They further believe that the Bible, including the Old Testament, reveals this doctrine as truth and many sources of Universalist doctrine note many Scripture references to back up their claims, as well as a number of ancient church historians who support this belief system, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Nonetheless, there is much evidence in Scripture which refutes Universalism and makes it necessary for the choice to accept or reject Christ as an act of will in order to be saved or eternally lost.

The doctrine of universal salvation is one that even the great theologian Karl Barth had to wrestle with. He writes:

             The proclamation of the Church must make allowance for this freedom of grace. Apokatastasis Panton [i.e.: restoration of all things]? No, for a grace which automatically would ultimately have to embrace each and every one would certainly not be free grace. It surely would not be God's grace. But would it be God's free grace if we could absolutely deny that it could do that? Has Christ been sacrificed only for our sins? Has he not ... been sacrificed for the whole world? ... [Thus] the freedom of grace is preserved on both these sides.[1]

Yet, most Christians know that it is necessary for a person to accept the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as atonement for their personal sin, that those who believe in him may attain salvation and the promise of eternal life.[2] What, then, is the scriptural basis for the Universalist belief? Are all persons truly redeemed and assured of a place in God’s eternal kingdom, or does Scripture tell a different story?

            Universalists far and wide quote a number of Bible verses which seem, at their outset, to support their doctrine. For example, in the Old Testament, Psalm 24:1 gives a statement of God’s ownership of all the earth as Creator and as Lord. Acts 17:26 supports this and Psalm 2:8 tells of how God gave all of the earth and the nations upon it over to Christ’s ownership, which is supported by John 3:35. The argument is made in John 17:2, where Christ is given all flesh in order to bestow eternal life upon it. Further, John 6:37 says that all people given to Christ by the Father will come to him and that he will not cast them out, which Universalists say makes it certain that all people will be reconciled to God.[3] The Prophets Ezekiel and Malachi speak of God as Father.[4] Universalists say that a heavenly Father will not give up souls that are his to the dominion of sin and Satan forever.

The fact is that Jeremiah 18:1-10 says that God has every right to do with his people as he sees fit, and that he will turn from those who rebel, and forgive those who turn back to him. According to Erickson,

The doctrine of an everlasting punishment appears to some to be an outmoded or sub-Christian view. Part of the problem stems from what appears to be a tension between the love of God and his judgment. Yet, however we regard the doctrine of everlasting punishment, it is clearly taught in Scripture.[5]

Romans 9:22-24 applies the principle of the Prophet’s words. Paul says that if a potter can do as he sees fit with his creations, then assuredly God can do as he likes with his own. What then might be at work upon and qualify a person to be “prepared for destruction?”[6]

            The answer, according to Pfeiffer and Harrison, is complex. “It includes his own sinful acts and rebellious nature. It involves his environment, which makes sin enticing, as well as the judicial judgments of God.”[7] They cite Romans 1:24, 26 and 28 as evidence to support this idea. In turning from God, people put themselves in a position to be “turned over to dishonourable passions,” as one example of a preparation for destruction.

Matthew 25:41 is quite clear about how Christ will deal with those who have turned from him and, worse yet, have believed in him yet shown mercilessness to the orphan, widow, hungry, naked and imprisoned. His description of their state is an echo of the eternal punishment of Matthew 8:12 and 25:30, which is cast into “outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 

Romans 5:18-19 once again says that all will be reconciled.  “All” is a term used extensively in the scriptural evidences used by Universalists. Thomas Whittemore, the nineteenth century’s most vocal Universalist, writes:

            Paul also says, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." The same MANY that were made sinners, Paul declares "shall be made righteous." This certainly asserts the salvation of all sinners.[8]

            The nineteenth-century theologian Charles Hodge disagrees. In his commentary on Romans, he says:

            If the all in the latter part of the verse is co-extensive with the all of the former, the passage must teach universal salvation. It is impossible that “to be justified,” “constituted righteous,” can just mean that justification is offered to all men. The all who are justified are saved. If therefore the all means all men, the apostle teaches all men are saved. This is the way in which many Universalists have interpreted the passage. But this interpretation cannot be allowed by anyone who acknowledges the inspiration of the Bible, since the Scriptures in general, and Paul himself specifically, teach that all men will not be saved (see 2 Thessalonians 1:9).[9] 

            The text of 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 tells the reader that those who do not obey the Gospel, which is to say, those who do not believe in Christ as Saviour and Lord, will be sent into a punishment of eternal destruction. Hodge is saying that a holy and true God who inspires such writing cannot be handing out free salvation to every single person. Further, with regard to the text in Romans 5, the all in verse 18 and the many of verse 19 are the same entity. The one representative (Adam-Christ) in verse 19 is set in opposition to the many he represented.  Verse 18 speaks of the representative (Adam-Christ) and the entire human race. In verse 19 it is the redeemed family of man Paul speaks of, and it is “humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered.”[10] Those who remain impenitent and refuse to accept the saving work of Christ are lost to damnation, and are not included in this part of the letter to the Romans, which speaks only of God’s correction in Christ the corruption made in Adam.

Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries, made plain the reality of hell in his book, The City of God. He refers to the Scripture in Mark 9:43-48, where an admonishment is spoken by Jesus to his disciples to sever ties with persons or habits which cause a person to sin, and thus be “thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” Augustine says of this passage:

Now they who would refer both the fire and the worm to the spirit, and not to the body, affirm that the wicked, who are separated from the kingdom of God, shall be burned, as it were, by the anguish of a spirit repenting too late and fruitlessly; and they contend that fire is therefore not inappropriately used to express this burning torment, as when the apostle exclaims "Who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Corinthians 11:29)[11]

It would appear as though the Saviour himself is not a believer in universal salvation.  His words are clear. He warns his followers that they are in danger of hell in Matthew 5:22, simply for calling another person a fool. Christ, as far as Pfeiffer and Harrison conclude, is speaking of the root of murder as anger against one’s fellow man. In verses 27-30, Christ speaks of the root of adultery: lust, after which he plunges into the amputation speech once more. The real source, then, of sin is not the organ subject to amputation, but lies deep in the person’s heart. The commentators say that “a man’s evil heart must be changed if he would escape final ruin in hell.”[12]

            Whittemore also makes mention of two Scriptures that fit tidily together:

            God is love, and love worketh no ill. "God is love". (1 John 4:8) "Love Worketh no ill". (Rom. 13:10) This is a very forcible argument. God's nature is the very essence of benevolence, and benevolence cannot be the origin of endless evil. If love worketh no ill, God can work no ill, and, therefore, God cannot be the author of endless evil.[13]

           

Universalism seems to take this as affirmation that eternal punishment is evil, but unfortunately this is sorely lacking in substance. Where there is love, there must of necessity be wrath and judgment. How can a righteous God love infinitely and not punish those who afflict and persecute those whom he loves, even if it is the person’s own self? To be so aloof is not the mark of a loving God, but of an absentee parent more concerned with his own pleasure than his children’s discipline or welfare. John 3:16 again reinforces the loving aspect of God, but Tenney says this love, translated from Greek, is “an act of the will, rather than an emotion…and its measure is defined in terms of the result. ‘He gave his only begotten Son…’ the breadth of the invitation is revealed by the ‘whosoever…’ ”[14] He continues:

                        Judgment is the logical consequence of unbelief. As the man who turns his back to the sun deepens by his own shadow the darkness in which he walks, so the unbeliever intensifies the darkness of his own soul by his unbelief. His unbelief is in itself an admission of sin, since he will not come to the light to have his deeds made manifest and evaluated.[15]

Thus, as an act of will, God gives the love to his children in the form of himself as Christ, the God-man, upon condition that the children believe that this is so, in effect choosing to receive that love as an act of will which complements God’s. A reciprocal response, then, is what God requires, which flies in the face of Universalist beliefs. Further, the fact that the condition of belief is present in this statement of God’s salvation is evidence that not all persons who hear the Gospel will believe in Christ and his triumph over sin.

            A danger in the exploration of universal salvation is confusing it with universal atonement. 1 Timothy 4:10 and Hebrews 2:9 say that Christ died for all men and is the Saviour of all, “especially those who believe,” or makes an offer of salvation to all. “Those who believe,” according to Erickson, “are still distinguished from the rest of humanity.”[16] In addition, these verses do not actually say that the offer would be accepted, nor salvation received by all. The atonement might be there waiting, but until it is received as an act of choice, salvation cannot be had.

            A great deal of the damage done by Universalist belief is the creeping in of moral relativism.  What point is there in denying one’s own pleasure and comfort, in order to do good to those less fortunate, if one is certain to make it to heaven and eternal life in Christ anyway? This relativism comes on the heels of a simple paradigm: the denial or misunderstanding of truth as an absolute. As Pilate says to Jesus before condemning him to the cross, “What is truth?” This is an excellent question. The fact is that much of the human race has lost sight of what is true, though the ways of righteousness are inherent in our original makeup:

                        For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.[17]

Human beings have a natural propensity to know what is right and, for the most part, are inclined to want to do it, even though it might be contrary to their baser desires. Nonetheless the culture of the twentieth century has moved into a place of self-serving and unmerciful attitudes which makes the Gospel even harder to accept.

According to the current Pope, Benedict XVI:

This [relativism] is also the reason why practice is now substituted for truth…we do not know what is true, but we know what we should do: raise up and introduce a better society, the kingdom, as people like to say, using a term taken from the Bible and applied to the profane and utopian sphere.[18]

All religions then, as Benedict sees it, being caught up in this regnocentricity (kingdom-centred philosophy) which replaces the church centred (ecclesiocentric), Christ-centred (christocentric) and God-centred (theocentric) paradigms in today’s culture, are mostly alike in terms of morality and religiosity, but ignore the deeper level, the source of their existence, and instead focus on building the future, in a way that steers Christianity and any other religion away from its true purpose. Relativism has thus been a progenitor of Universalism, in that the mission of the church as God’s ambassadors is perverted from being the bringing of good news to people for whom it was intended to spreading a perceived “superior culture” and imposing beliefs or societal norms upon other cultures for no good reason, and wrestling away their cultural identity and heritage.

            Relativism basically says that objective truth does not really exist, so truth becomes primarily subjective and is defined by the receiver of the information deemed to be truth. For example, what may be a blue balloon to most people may be a red balloon to a few people who choose to receive it as such because of varying levels of personal comfort or indiscriminate intellectualism. Therefore God’s truth is up for interpretation and can be made to say virtually anything, and so the Bible becomes subject to reader-response criticism and truth is subverted in the name of human self-centredness.

            Universalist philosophy then is governed by a relativistic bent. Romans 11:32, for example, is taken by Universalists to mean that people are disobedient by design so that God can show how merciful he is by letting them off the hook! What Paul means, however, is that  Israel has rejected God’s offer and he has offered the same grace to the Gentiles, but that only the people who choose to receive it will profit by it, to paraphrase Erickson.[19] F.F. Bruce says of the statement, “that he may have mercy on all:”

            That is, on all without distinction rather than all without exception. Paul is not here thinking of those who, like Pharaoh in 9:17, persistently reject the divine mercy. He ‘does not intend to make a definite pronouncement about the ultimate destiny of each individual man. But the hope of mankind is more, not less, secure because it is rooted in the truth about God, rather than in a truth about man himself.’[20]

“All without distinction” is a contrasting idea to “all without exception.” The latter simply means all persons, period; every last human being. The former means something different. Where all persons in a particular group are counted, the rest are excluded, such as in the case here, where the all refers to a particular set of persons, distinct from the rest, who are outside the frame of reference. When Jesus says, “you will be hated by all men for my sake,”[21] he is not saying every last person will hate his followers. He is speaking of men without distinction of race, colour, or nationality. However, they are all of them contrary to his teaching and so Jesus means all men whose philosophies run counter to his teaching will hate the disciples. This applies today in the realm of public offices and schools, where philosophies which run counter to the values of biblical teaching and the centrality of Christ as head of the church in essence “hate” disciples of Jesus and seek to edge them out, in a passive-aggressive fashion, as is befitting the times.

Navigating back to the Scriptures in the fourth Gospel, it is seen from a Universalist perspective that John 17:2 means that all men without exception are given to Christ, and John 6:37 means, since all things and all creatures and all persons have been given to Christ by the Father,[22] that he will not cast out anything, or anyone, from his kingdom. Yet, if it is seen through the lens of “all without distinction,” and the verses before and after it (John 6:35-40) are taken into account, Jesus is saying that the responsibility for choosing to come to him is on the individual person. This is not to say that the elect are not drawn first by the Holy Spirit, but it is to say that ultimately, the choice is left to a person to accept or reject the Gospel. Hendrickson notes:

Note that verse 37 also teaches: a. that in working out the plan of redemption, so that salvation is bestowed upon the elect individuals and upon the entire elect race, there is complete harmony and cooperation between the Father and the Son: those whom the Father gives, the Son welcomes, and b. that the work of redemption cannot be frustrated by the unbelief of the Jews of which mention was made in the preceding verse: there is an elect race; a remnant will most certainly be saved.[23]

“All that the Father gives me” then, is a statement that reflects the elect as one body, a singular people, and does not include those whom the Father does not give, thus the ones who are lost.

So, in the analysis of merely some of the available arguments on both sides of this debate, it is clear that the debate is far from resolved. Erickson does point out, though, that “Indeed, simply on the basis of numbers, there appear to be considerably more passages teaching that some will be eternally lost than that all will be saved.”[24] In terms of all Scripture being inspired text, the favourable interpretation then is in opposition to Universalism. In terms of God’s love, there must of necessity be wrath and judgment. More evidence is found to support the traditional and systematic understanding of salvation, and it is by far the more popular belief. More than this, and tragically for the Universalists, it is the correct one.

Bibliography

Augustine, St. The City of God against the Pagans. Edited by R.W. Dyson. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Barth, Karl. God Here and Now. SanFrancisco, CA: Harper-Row, 1964.

Bruce, Frederick F. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.

—. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992.

Hendrickson, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953.

Hodge, Charles. The Crossway Classic Commentaries: Romans. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.

Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, A Division of Good News Publishers, 2003.

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. and Harrison, Everett F., ed. The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1971.

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal (Pope Benedict XVI). Truth and Tolerance. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2004.

Tenney, Merrill C. John: The Gospel of Belief. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

Whittemore, Thomas. "Plain Guide to Universalism." Auburn University. 1840. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univ3.html (accessed December 12, 2010).

                       

             

---

[1] (Barth 1964, 41-42)

[2] (John 3:16)

[3] (Whittemore 1840, 6)

[4] (Ezekiel 18:4, Malachi 2:10)

[5] (Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine 1992, 400)

[6] (Romans 9:22)

[7] (Pfeiffer 1971, 556)

[8] (Whittemore 1840, 68)

[9] (Hodge 1993, 167,168)

[10] (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown 1977, 1152)

[11] (Augustine 1998, 1065)

[12] (Pfeiffer 1971)

[13] (Whittemore 1840, 12)

[14] (Tenney 1976, 89)

[15] (Tenney 1976, 90)

[16] (Erickson, Christian Theology 1988, 1031)

[17] (Romans 2:14-15)

[18] (Ratzinger 2004, 72)

[19] (Erickson, Christian Theology 1988, 1032)

[20] (Bruce 1993, 211)

[21] (Matthew 10:22)

[22] (as in Psalm 2:8 and John 3:35)

[23] (Hendrickson 1953, 234)

[24] (Erickson, Christian Theology 1988, 1030)

A Response to "A Primer On Christian Worship" by William Dyrness

           In his book, A Primer on Christian Worship, William Dyrness presents a historical view of the practices and theology of worship first in the Catholic Church in medieval times, and in the diversified church as it began to split in the sixteenth century following the nailing of Luther’s ninety-five theses to the church door. Then he leaps right into the heart of our worship today as we define it by our practices and presents a bird’s eye view of the postmodern worship paradigm as the post-Christendom church hammers it out. So much in this early 21^st century has slipped away and “cookie-cutter worship” services have become the order of the day for many congregations and denominations, such that it looks like church and sounds like church but does not reflect the worship of a holy people for a holy God who decided, against human sensibilities, to give everything he had and everything he is to save a ragged and rebellious world from the destructive power of its own sin. Dyrness touches on a couple of points to which I would like to give a response.

            First, on page 40, Dyrness tells us that John Calvin, in the sixteenth century as well, stipulated that outside of regular church hours, the building ought to be locked and no one permitted to enter and engage in prayer or reflection. Further, anyone caught doing so would be admonished, and if it were for superstitious reasons, that person would be “chastised,” which involves corporal punishment. Dyrness responds by saying: “Here we wonder what might have been lost...did the elimination of devotional objects and actions reduce the places for the emotional connection with the experience of worship?” I say it did.

            We are human beings. We are created in the image of God. This says a lot to me about images of God in general. Millions upon millions of icons and architectural marvels and stained glass and tapestries and mosaics and paintings and sculptures and symbols have been created by mankind in order to allow us to see an image of the divine, the holy God. There is a serious divergence between the fact that the image created is not in fact God (nor even a true representation of him) and the notion that it is the object itself which is in fact worshiped. I believe the Reformers had it right when they affirmed that “the true image and presence of God is not to be identified with the physical images, but is to be sought in our neighbours.” Yet, I do not find it to be improper for a person to look upon objects or images designed to visually represent God, in conjunction with the study of the truth of God’s person revealed in Scripture, in order to assist them in more fully focusing mind and heart upon him.

            Insofar as created things are not in fact true representations of the sovereign Lord, worshipers need to be careful that they do not become so enamoured of the object before which they pray or reflect that it becomes for them a deity of sorts, the true focus of their devotion, which of course is idolatry. Yet all of nature, being evidence of God’s creative presence and overarching sovereignty, is made by the spoken Word of God, and so can it not be said that gazing upon that which he has created in order to see that evidence and rejoice is not an idolatrous practice but one that seeks to know their God better? While I agree with Calvin’s words that we not look at the evil in our neighbours, “but . . . look upon the image of God in them . . . , with its beauty and dignity [which] allures us to love and embrace them,” I do not accept that human appreciation of divine beauty rests solely within this paradigm. God has made the entire world, and holier men than I have made, with God’s created elements, images and icons in tribute to him. They have written music and songs, poems and litanies, catechisms and liturgies, so that human thought might be oriented to rest upon him. They have given their representation of their understanding of God, both as a gift to him, and as a reminder of him to us.

            Later, in chapter 5, Dyrness writes of the inability of many people to experience God as a real and tangible presence in their lives. He goes on to say that the opposite is true, that God is the being of tangible reality and we here on earth are temporary, insubstantial creatures. Thus worship can be a way to reason out the difficulties we have in fleshing out the reality of the Triune presence of God and how he comes relationally into our lives. He writes on page 97: “God’s presence is uniquely made available to believers through the practices of worship.” I am moved to agree with him here, especially in the area of the contextual issues Dyrness highlights to get the point across: pluralism, materialism, and pace.

            To begin with, the author highlights the growing paradigm of pluralism in our society, and its growing effects upon Christian worship in regards to the “fear of radical faith and the terrorism that sometimes accompanies it, but also a renewed respect for people of other faiths.” I see not only a fear of radical faith in terms of other religions, such as fundamentalist Islam and Hinduism, but also a fear among Christians of being too radical in their expression of faith, a fear that somehow preaching or evangelizing or proclaiming Jesus too loudly might not only offend others but also make their own lives uncomfortable, because of course in our society it often seems best to remain obscure in the sea of faces rather than stand and be heard. I can see here that the practice of true worship in regards to faithfulness to God would run counter to this societal tendency. Yes, the Gospel is offensive, but only to evil. As the saying goes, often, “the truth hurts.”

            Secondly, Dyrness highlights the “encroaching materialism” prevalent in our North American culture, and worldwide. I shall say that the materialism has encroached, and now overwhelms us. We have become a culture of consumers; consumers of commodities that range from material objects to people. Dyrness relates this to issues of loyalty to suppliers, in that where we are not satisfied with one, we find another, whether these suppliers are manufacturers of things or whether they are employers or spouses or the church. We are focused on our needs, and our desires. I believe this brings us to the concept of how worship makes us feel, rather than how it brings us into relational connection with God. We are sensual creatures. Naturally we want to do what feels good. God is good. Naturally, knowing his goodness feels good. On the other hand, our perceptions can be skewed. After all, there is much secular music and such that can make us feel good, too. Thus we seek after that feeling, and if one church’s worship service or musical style doesn’t “do it for us,” we find another, or seek to change it, which can lead to “worship wars.” How then, can we say we are seeking God?

            Finally, Dyrness focuses the spotlight on the ever-quickening pace of our lives. A human being always engaged in hammering out an existence defined by experiences and sensual pleasures and the wrongful assumption that we must constantly be stimulated and constantly moving will ultimately fall into a state of depression, fatigue and disillusionment. I think it to be very indicative that our enemy Satan is at the heart of this. If he can keep us doing stuff, never having time to “be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10), then our worship will falter and become unimportant to us. Eventually, the lack of worship will actually draw our hearts away from God, and he will become unimportant to us.

This is why our worship is so vital. The practice of worship, not just an expression of our love for God, and not just a means to fill ourselves with God’s goodness, is the practice of connecting relationally with God the Father, through the life and sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit who lives in us and guides us spiritually to the continued practice of worship. The cycle continues to repeat. This seems to be what Dyrness is pointing to, the Trinitarian nature of Christian worship. It will take all three persons of the Godhead to re-orient us back to him.   

Worship, As We Have Come To Know It

           Worship, as Christians understand it, is one of the fundamental practices of the faith according to the Bible, and has taken many forms, both in the biblical account and though the centuries since. Today, a heated controversy exists between several camps as to how we should view worship, how we should practice it and how we should even define it. Is worship even a thing? James Torrance, in his book, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, gives us his answers to questions such as this and several key themes emerge, a few of which I will wrestle with here in order to flesh out my own reaction to the ideas Torrance presents.

            The first theme I want to address is that of evangelical repentance. On page 55, Torrance presents the concept that it is not in fact our own acts of penitence, regardless of the degree of sincerity behind them, that move God to forgive us our sins. Before the sin is even committed, God the Father made the decision to send Christ to make the propitiatory payment that will make us right with him. Christ is the only one who can offer the perfect and proper penance, because his offering is not in the least tainted by sin.

            I have listened to many who believe that their own sins are forgiven simply based on a belief in Jesus Christ based on convincing evidence presented to them, and that there is nothing else required of them. Many of these do not read the Bible, do not pray, and do not even see a personal relationship with God as a priority in their lives. They see salvation as an entitlement that they receive as a result of their opinion that the events chronicling Jesus’ death and resurrection are true accounts. There may have been a legal repentance which took place at conversion, but sometimes the feeling of forgiveness can grow stale and become complacency. I myself, who came to faith a mere three years ago, might very well have fallen into this spiritual sinkhole had it not been for the loving admonishment of the Lord and the leaders in my local church.

            I am blessed that someone took the time to challenge me with Scripture. The apostle James tells us that “faith apart from works is useless.” He challenges his brethren to “be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” The key to these statements is in his command to “be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires” It all stems from humility. It is humility in response to the knowledge that God’s goodness and grace is so wonderful and undeserved by me. Yet before I even repented, he did what was necessary from within himself to atone for my wrongdoing, because there is no way I ever could. There is no dollar value, no fair exchange of time or service or worldly goods that could ever pay for my offenses to a holy God whose love is eternal and whose truth is absolute. It is in recognizing that God knows the dimensions of all my sins, and we who would be holy can do naught right but respond to his grace and the propitiation of Christ humbly and with gratitude, with no room for wilful disobedience. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was too high a price for us to do any less, or to attempt to decide who will receive this gift. All who come to ask forgiveness shall receive it.

            The second theme I want to explore is that of Trinity, particularly the way Torrance speaks of the Trinity on pages 75-77 in the context of Baptism and Communion. Where he tells the reader of the conversion experience of the evangelist Kohlbrugge, I am moved to interact with this concept in that as the church, as the body of Christ we all, in one moment all those years ago, were baptized in the waters of the Jordan, drawn and filled with God’s Spirit, and blessed by the Father. Thus, it would seem it is not by our decision that we are now saved by his grace, but by the decision made by God the Son to obey God the Father and be led by the Spirit. For most people I would imagine this would raise a few hackles and bring into focus the question of free will, however it is the very concept of Trinity that is necessary for freedom in its purest form. The Trinity is not, as some mistaken notions would have him, a set of three “pieces of God,” in my understanding. As such, because of the unity of the Godhead, there is no chance that any one single person of the Trinity ever acted without implicit knowledge, assent and omnipresence of the other two. In essence, one God, in three distinct but not separate persons decided as one being to set humanity free to return to the right and good way of life in his own footsteps, and regardless of our musings and speculation, even our rebellion and denial, he made the only right decision for us and for him, and thus is entitled to our sincere worship.

            The third theme I present here is that of gender equality in worship and in life. Torrance links it to the theme of Trinity on page 107. He touches on the recent tide of radical feminism and its railings against the seemingly male names of God the Father and God the Son. He reminds us that in Scripture, these are names God has given himself as he reveals himself to mankind. I believe that male and female were created both in the image of the one God, and that the two together form a clearer image, though hardly a complete one. The interaction of the two genders, both relationally and sexually, mirror the relational aspects of the Godhead, when we factor in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as part of our being, resultant from our salvation by his power through the Son, returning without spot or wrinkle to the Father. In such a paradigm, there can be no inequality, because the three persons of the Trinity are absolutely equal one to another, and have differing roles and purviews which do not conflict nor bear any greater importance than those of the others.

            Together, these three themes interact with one another at a very basic level. God has set us free from the sins of our ancestors, from the iniquities of society, and from the curse of spiritual oppression. We are as believers one in Spirit, one in Christ, reconciled to our Father equally and loved equally and given the gracious gift of opportunity to worship equally.

Is there a Doctor in the house?

What is it about certain entertainments that just hook us, wrap us up and leave us almost panting for more? We are dazzled by spectacle, enraptured by clever stories and enslaved by tales of things that could not possibly be true, at least not yet. See, I simply have a weakness for really decent science fiction. Films like The Matrix and Star Wars just suck me in every time. I have been a long-standing fan of TV’s Star Trek, and have forgiven Paramount Studios for the few very cheesy Trek films with which they have milked our wallets while emptying our souls.

But there is another. It is the single longest-running science fiction television series extant, and it is admittedly a ridiculous romp through space and time about a self-appointed “mad man with a box.” I am speaking of course of the one and only Dr. Who. This crazy British series, difficult to follow and infuriating to understand at best, is silly, fun, exciting, chaotic, and totally impossible and I love it. It centers on a man known only as The Doctor, who has had many incarnations since the 1960s. He is of an extinct race known as Time Lords from a now non-existent planet, travelling through time and space with various human companions in a time machine (known as the TARDIS, short for Time And Relative Dimension In Space) disguised as a 1950s-era London Police call box, which is much larger on the inside than the outside. I know, what’s the point?

On Saturday night, yet another new Doctor took over the series and it looks as though yet another incarnation is going to be hugely entertaining and absolutely captivating in the intricate storylines woven by the writers. However, today I read something disturbing on Wikipedia about Doctor Who. It would seem that with each new incarnation, an argument ensues among fans - especially with regard to the spin-off literature and other tripe that accompanies a cult hit – over issues of canonicity.

What was that? Canonicity, as in, on the same level as the Bible? Whoa, here, now hold on just a second. Maybe the writer of the article used the wrong word, but I don’t really think so. The concern is always whether or not the new character or the novel based on the show or the new merchandise or the newest fan magazine fits seamlessly into the mould of the original design; whether or not the spirit of the original theme remains intact. The arguments can get ugly, too, and people end up accusing the others of not being “real fans,” and it got me to thinking about something Paul said in his letter to the Galatians when a new gospel had begun to be preached in that region. He said,

⁶I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! ⁹As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-9)

All around us, people are going along inventing new ways of understanding the spiritual while purporting to follow Christ, going so far as to create new visions of Christ himself, ones more palatable to their post-modern sensibilities. As we float along, not wanting to offend anyone, we see a whole myriad of the lost actively preaching these ‘new gospels’ to whomever will listen, all the while saying to anyone who dares breathe a word of the true Word that their worldview is ‘archaic, unenlightened, sexist, and arrogant.’ We dare not say they aren’t ‘true Christians,’ so we pray, which is a really great start! After all, according to the true gospel, Holy Spirit is the one who will prepare hearts to receive Christ! Yet, we need to go further. These new ‘gospels’ tend to be poorly thought out, and worse, can be adapted whenever their integrity is threatened. Nowadays a person’s beliefs are sacred only to them, and they are encouraged by worldly society to be as original and creative about them as possible. Basically, they can be made up as one goes along, and changed to fit new paradigms.

So what can we do? Well, again, we can pray, not only for the lost but for a keener understanding of the Scriptures we hold dear, and even a keener desire to walk closely with the One of whom they speak, our Lord Jesus Christ, who “is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). We can study the gospel in a more dedicated fashion than we ever have before, learning and absorbing what God tells us in the Bible. I believe that only through a solid knowledge of the Word that we even stand a chance of resisting the onslaught of all the new religions popping up seemingly everywhere and every hour. More importantly, we can trust that his Word is true. His is the only gospel that is trustworthy 100% of the time. You know it. You’ve read it, haven’t you?

Certainly if people are willing to shout insults and e-mail nasty jargon at each other for a slight variance or two in the theme of a silly TV serial from the UK, then certainly we can stand up and politely tell people, those who would alter the precious gospel for their own purposes, that such alterations will not stand up to the power of sin in the world. Only the true gospel will. You believe it. I believe it. Let’s make sure we know it. And for goodness sake, let us speak the truth in love.

Free!

¹³And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. ¹⁴But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ¹⁵Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. ¹⁶And he took them up in his

arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16 KJV)

            I have a short message for you. You know, the other night after Good Friday service, I had the distinct pleasure of watching an old film from 1973, The Gospel Road. The legendary country singer Johnny Cash and his wife June put this piece together with very few special effects and a cast of unknown actors. The story of Jesus was narrated by Johnny Cash himself and there was very little dialogue, except a line or two from a few very important characters, like John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene (who was portrayed by none other than June Carter Cash herself).

The movie was old and very dated. The wardrobe people had not spent a lot of time making sure the costumes were perfect and some of the imagery was out of line with how we read the gospels today. The actor portraying Jesus was a blond-haired and blue-eyed Scandinavian, for goodness sake! Many of the actors were white Caucasians and the depictions of the miracles were quite unimpressive visually. The score was purely old country gospel sung by the man in black, and the Scripture read by Mr. Cash was from the old-style King James version with all the ‘thou’ and ‘shouldst’ and ‘shalt’ permeating the syntax. In short, a movie audience these days might have come out of the theatre shaking their heads and laughing, if any were left by the end of the movie.

Now it comes to it. This little film was quite possibly the single most beautiful film rendition of the gospel story I have ever witnessed. I can’t remember when I have shed so many tears for so long a time in my life. The scene that touched me the deepest was near the middle, where Jesus played along the seashore with a group of happy children, clapping his hands and smiling kindly, and even shedding a few tears as he surveyed the clean and trusting hearts of God’s most beautiful creatures. Johnny narrated the above Scripture and then sang while in the background as Jesus and the kids splashed and ran in the water with such joy. I found this scene on YouTube, so you can see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3RNg_YdDkw

As I write this, it is Easter Sunday and I can’t help but stay choked up, playing that scene over and over in my mind. The hope of Easter, which has hit me harder this year than ever, is for me that Jesus suffered and died on a cross two thousand years ago and then came out of the tomb on the third day, destroying the power of sin and death so that we would be free to become as children once again, and again, and again if necessary, with clean and trusting hearts, that Jesus would joyfully receive unto himself with a tear in his eye and a loving, fatherly smile, saying, “Welcome home.” So go forth as little children and receive the kingdom of God, because Jesus has set you free. See you next time.

An Analysis of Psalm 32

Psalm 32 is a piece of Hebrew poetry that, for me, demonstrates the high quality of literature produced by the ancient Jewish people in addition to the sheer selfless devotion to God’s whole being for which David and the people of Israel are widely known. As I examined the text of the psalm, I began by analyzing the structure of each verse, noting their parallelisms, and the chiasmic structure of the whole of the piece. Yet, upon taking in the entire poem as a singular document and contemplating the psalmist’s emotional state, I began to see something more than just a poem.


First, let’s look at the structural and poetical analysis. This psalm is one of a grouping called the Penitential psalms, which are characterized by a crying out to God in confession, repentance and submission, followed by a plea for forgiveness, either as an individual or as a group of worshippers, or as a whole people group. The feeling evoked by such a psalm is akin to: “O God, I have made a mess, and I did it intentionally. Please don’t hold it against me. Please forgive me and fix our relationship, because nothing I can do in my own power will be sufficient to merit your grace.”

The psalm begins with a synonymous parallelism in verses 1 and 2. The blessing denoted here is one of joy, the kind of joy that is more than just a feeling, because it results from an open and trusting relationship with God. These verses suggest that the joy here stems from God’s forgiveness, which can cover all sins, regardless of their nature or severity, which is of no importance when compared to the abundant grace that God gives.

The second synonymous parallelism in verses 3 and 4 signifies the hopelessness that we experience when sin separates us from God. More than simply an “Oops,” we are adrift in a sea of despair and wonder if we can even be forgiven, let alone welcomed back into relational synchronicity with the Father. The silence David writes of here is a denial, a refusal to accept one’s wrongdoing, and the resultant consequences we can find ourselves experiencing. We can only lie to ourselves for so long before we are enslaved by the lie, which begins to eat away at our strength and reveal our weakness before God’s righteousness. After all, the key to a successful deception is complete secrecy, and the strength of the deception crumbles when someone, anyone, knows the truth. Since God always knows the truth, there is no power in deception.

Verse 5 combines the synonymous parallelism with the synthetic. Here, David gives a model for our own confessions, and emphasizes it by repeating the confession in three different ways: acknowledgement, not covering it up, and confession. He also identifies sin with three different words: sin, iniquity, and transgressions. This again suggests that there is no degree of sin that cannot be covered by God’s infinite grace, if we will but come to him and be honest with God and with ourselves. The psalmist understands that God is fully aware of all of the things David has done, and acknowledges that his transgressions have offended God, and yet he is brazen enough to expect that the supreme Creator will forgive him. He has good reason for this confidence. This is an example to all who seek to deny their iniquity, an example that there is no point in trying.

Verses 6 and 7 team up here, as two synthetic parallels placed back-to-back. They speak of God’s consistency and the assuredness of his presence, in different ways but with the same expectation as God’s child. Verse 6 speaks to the fact that God is always present and available, and that we should always bring our whole selves to him, not only when troubles arise. David teaches here that God may discipline us by allowing crises to befall us when we do not acknowledge his sovereignty when times are peaceful and smooth. Verse 7 also speaks to this assurance, saying that God’s constant presence makes him available to us for protection if we will acknowledge that he is such and remain close to him. I believe this to be the central, pivotal piece of instruction of the entire psalm.

Verse 8 finds David writing as the voice of God, assuring his people that he is with them, and parallels verse 5 with three words that we need to accept to live a life free of sin: God’s instruction, his teaching, and his counsel. All of these things he offers as free gifts to his children, in order that they might be free. This shows that God’s wisdom is ever so valuable in removing the flaws in our character, and in learning more about his, that we might walk in holiness.

Verses 9 and 10 present antithetical parallelisms and contrast discipline from stubbornness and wisdom from foolishness. By discipline, I mean as a human response to God’s aforementioned instruction. By wisdom I mean trusting in the one who is most wise to know which the best road to take in life is. David tells us that just as we accept God’s protection, so we also should accept his instruction and trust that he is not only willing, but capable of taking care of us through any storm of life, and even further that his way will keep often keep us from unnecessary troubles.

Verse 11 concludes the psalm with an exhortation for the righteous to rejoice, the righteous being all those who accept God’s wisdom, discipline and protection; those who will open their hearts and allow God to reveal the truth in them and to them. The synonymous parallelism here once again emphasizes the joy that we find when we give our all over to the Lord and hold back nothing; no secrets or lies or stubborn self-centredness. Those who are upright in heart are those who bow and surrender.

The structure of psalm 32 is evident in the form of a chiasm, with parallelisms appearing from the ends to the middle. The joy of the blessing in verses 1 and 2 is synonymous with the joy of verse 11. This joy is the result of the grace that God has shown to sinners. The negative effects of rebellion in verses 3 and 4 are antithetical to God’s discipline resulting from it in verses 9 and 10, as the psalmist gives his readers a piece of advice for avoiding such a situation. The open admission of guilt in verse 5 is reconciled with God’s unfailing teaching in verse 8. In the very center of the psalm come verses 6 and 7, which represent the shielding protection of God as he offers shelter to those who do not rebel, but who become humble and therefore strong in his power.

Using these techniques of poetic analysis allowed me to see a different dimension to this psalm. Unlike some Western poetry, which can be chaotic and unstructured, this piece gives us a pattern to follow which will in fact teach us something about the nature of God, the deceitfulness of the human heart, and the rewards of laying aside a sinful nature to follow a wiser, more powerful way of life as a child of God. This interpretation basically offers a road map to a godly life of obedience and holiness, which will result in our sin being covered and our hearts overflowing with gladness. That makes this psalm very personally significant to me, as one who often struggles with the burning question, “when will I be good enough?” The answer I get from Psalm 32 is that I won’t, but if I accept that and offer all of what I do have over to the Lord’s instruction, that he will refine me, protect me, and forgive me abundantly. This, for me, is cause for joyous singing. The psalm encourages me to be humbly obedient, and ultimately to seek a deeper understanding of God.