Revolution

I stood, surrounded by stacks of books, in what was the center of the West Coast cultural revolution of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, City Lights Booksellers & Publishers of San Francisco, California. All the beatnik poets haunted these walls and like lead from a cannon they exploded out with ferocious fervor to spread their cry of freedom. They rebelled against the chains of society and religion and any and all who would dare to strangle their longing to breath free. "Let freedom ring!" resounded down brick alleyways and winding boulevards. Joyous cries filled the foggy air of the city by the bay as happiness flooded the streets of San Francisco. Tyranny was banished, freedom took the throne. But that’s not the end of the story. The poetry of freedom met a poetic end in hepatitis and livers rebelling against their users.

Like a patient in the hospital rebelling against the life-support system; like a vacuum rebelling against the power source; like a car rebelling against gasoline, they rebelled against breathing and died with a great howl of “FREEDOM!!!!!!”

And now, as in grief we gaze at the cold corpse on the hospital bed, the useless vacuum gathering dust in the middle of the living room floor, the unmovable rusted-out car on the side of the highway, we have to ask ourselves: maybe they didn’t rebel against tyranny; maybe they rebelled against life.

Why I Cant Believe Calvin

**This is a response to a Calvinist friend of mine in response to his question of how I can reject Calvin in light of Romans 9.**

Well, Romans 9 is actually a challenge against Calvinism more than anyone else if you actually read what it clearly says rather than what Calvin said ABOUT it:

First of all in verse 22, the "prepared for destruction" is in the middle/reflexive voice. Which simply means that the object prepared ITSELF for destruction. If Paul was so intent on making the point that Gods sovereign choice was the "star player" of this argument he would have never used the middle but would have used the passive. He wasnt that weak with his Greek;) He then goes on and says about the "objects of his glory" that "he prepared in advance for glory." So we have a very clear picture in the Greek that one group is prepared for glory BY God and one group is "prepared BY themselves" for destruction. If these people were damned BECAUSE of God's sovereign choice then Paul would have never said they were damned because of their own choices. If God chose for them to be damned then they are damned because of HIS choice and not theirs. In that case they would be prepared for wrath by HIS choice would be in the passive voice in the Greek. The Greek makes Calvin's interpretation impossible.

Second, at the climax of the whole argument in verse 30-33, Paul makes clear what his point was - and its not sovereign choice:

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works."

At the big "WHY?" we expect to see a big "they were not called" but we see nothing of the sort. It says that they failed not because they were not called but because they pursued it in the wrong way: works verses gift. Romans is about works vs gift and not about chosen vs unchosen. The chosen are those to pursue by the gift of grace: the unchosen are those who pursue by the works of the law. If you change your approach, you can change which group you are in.

Paul goes on in Romans 10.12-13 by making his point even clearer that he is NOT trying prove that some are chosen and some are not, but that "there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

He goes on in verse 14 by clearly explaining HOW one is able to call on the name of the Lord. Again, we would expect to hear something about the sovereign choice of God enabling only some to call if we are to believe Calvin. Again, we see nothing of the sort. Here's the progression Paul sets out:

1. How can they call on who they dont believe

2. How can they believe in the one they've never heard of

3. How can they hear unless someone preaches to them

He says nothing about the CHOICE of God but simply talks about the INVITATION of God: to ALL.

He goes on with his argument in Romans 11 by talking about how Israel is not part of the "elect", not part of the "elect chosen by grace." But then he says in verse 11 that they did not stumble beyond recovery but had the possibility of being re-grafted back in. This doesnt work if you view people as being part of two distinct groups: called and uncalled. There is a clear picture of people being able to go from one group to the other...that is not possible if our positions were all decided by God before hand. Romans 11.21-24 says,

"For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again...how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree."

Paul talks over and over about how the Jew's can come back into the "chosen" even though he clearly said in Romans 11.7 that they were "not in." If there were two distinct unchangeable groups, chosen and unchosen, then this would not be a possibility. If we really are not able to be thrown out of the "chosen" or moved from the "unchosen" to the "chosen" then Paul was lying when he warned the people that it WAS a possibility. Perseverance of the Saints teaches us that it is completely impossible for the chosen to be "unchosen" and for the "unchosen" to be "chosen." Romans says that both are clearly possible. You cant believe in perseverance of the saints and accept Romans. I choose Romans over Calvin. Either Paul is lying by saying that it IS a possibility, and is therefore a false prophet, or Calvin was misled when interpreted Paul as saying that it isnt actually a possibility in reality.

Paul reaches a climax in his argument in Romans 11.32:

"For God has bound ALL men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them ALL."

Romans, without reading it through Calvin's eyes or Arminius' eyes, is very clear. ALL are bound in disobedience: ALL are under God's mercy. Any other reading of the text is a twisting of what it clearly says. Calvin tries to say that 'all' means "all who God has chosen." The text doest say that. It says "all." Everyone.

Calvin was obsessed with the secret will of God. But if it is secret then doesnt he misstep by even worrying about it? If God has kept it a mystery and a secret then how is Calvin building a whole theology on this "unknowable" thing? I am more concerned with the revealed will of God I suppose, since there is no speculation there.

God says that it is His revealed will that "all be saved" according to 1 Timothy 2.3-6:

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

We dont have to guess...here's God's will right here: All be saved: None be damned.

Matthew 23.37 says,

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me."

It doesnt say "you werent empowered or chosen by me" but simply "you wouldnt let me."

Now, we know that ALL will not be saved in the end so we are forced to reconcile these two Biblical ideas that seem to be in conflict.

I see two options, and Calvinism in not even one of the choices available if you are going to remain true to what the text actually says:

Choice 1: God is too weak to get what he wants since he has clearly said what he wants but then reveals that it will not take place exactly as he wants it to in the end since there will be people in the fires of hell.

Choice 2: God is NOT too weak to get what he wants but, in his sovereign will has given us the ability to "tap out" of his love death grip he has latched onto this entire world.

I chose number 2.

Its like in wrestling. The guy who taps out does not somehow violate the strength of the guy who has pined him. The stronger one honors the choice of the weaker to choose defeat not because he is overpowered by the tap. God is not made weaker by sovereignly allowing us to reject his death grip. He proves that in doing so that HE IS LOVE.

Love, by very nature, requires at a surrender of some sort.

Forced love = rape.

I believe that "GOD IS LOVE." God is truly all-powerful but the Bible doesnt spend much time on that idea...it doesnt seem as important to God as the fact that HE IS LOVE.

Love necessitates a choice - the ability to choose is given as a gift and achieves no merit but it has to be there or the love is rape and not love at all.

GOD IS LOVE = I cannot accept Calvin.

Love Wins - A Book Review

Well, Rob Bell isnt an annihilationist -ie sinners are destroyed by the fires of Hell in the end rather than tortured for eternity - like us Adventists were "hoping" he would be. He does, however, ask many of the same questions which led many of us Adventists to accept said belief: if God is love and just, how could He turn and torture humans for eternity in payment of the evil they did in their short lifespan? Destroy? yes. Eternal torture? No. He also doesnt come out and support a clear Universalist teaching as many outspoken Neo-Calvinists like John Piper said he would - he does, however, clearly open the door for the possibility of universal salvation. Their accusations did boost his books sales drastically from what I have seen. Did God predestine that?

One of the most beneficial things I think Bell does in his book is to challenge the oversimplification reductionist mentality with which many modern Christians approach the biblical teachings of Salvation and Jesus. There are so many different metaphors that are used in scripture and churches tend to choose one, to the exclusion of the others, dig trenches and start shooting at other churches who are doing the same with one of the other metaphors. He quotes a ton of texts which present different pictures of conversion and asks on page 16:

"Is it what you say,

or who you are,

or what you do,

or what you say you're going to do,

or who your friends are,

or who you're married to,

or whether you give birth to children?

Or is it what questions you're asked?

Or is it what questions you ask in return?

Or is it whether you do what you're told and go into the city?"

Each of these statements represents a biblical story where someone was confronted with Jesus and experienced salvation. Scripture, it turns out, isnt as "black/white" as we often attempt to make it appear with our proof-texting, or as it is called in academia, Systematic Theology. Bell attempts to engage the entire text of Scripture rather than "proving" his point by quoting a few random texts. He comes across as an honest seeker of understanding rather than a bombastic defender of his version of orthodoxy...it is refreshing.

In his chapter "Here is the New There" Bell presents his idea of heaven. It is basically the idea that heaven is not just some future destination for which we need to secure a ticket and then simply bide our time until boarding time on the glory train. Heaven starts now. We bring the reality of the future into the present when we allow God to bring healing and justice through our lives into our present broken reality. It is a very biblical and needed corrective for many Evangelical Christians who think that because they said the magic voodoo word "Jesus" they now have their ticket and can just wait around for boarding time. It is also a needed corrective for often-fatalistic Adventists who think that since the end is so imminent we can just check out of any kind of healing here on Earth since "its all gonna burn anyway." He says on page 46-47, "If you believe that you're going to leave and evacuate to somewhere else, then why do anything about this world? A proper view of heaven leads not to escape from this world, but to full engagement with it, all with the anticipation of a coming day when things are on earth as they currently are in heaven."

He responds to the aversion many people have to a God who judges on page 37-38:

"Its important to remember this next time we hear people say they can't believe in a 'God of judgment.' Yes they can. Often, we can think of little else. Every oil spill, every report of another woman sexually assaulted, every news report that another political has silenced the opposition through torture, imprisonment, and execution...we shake our fists and cry out, 'Will somebody please do something about this?'"

He then moves onto hell.

Bell's Hell - haha, makes me think of Hell's Bells...if you saw it you know what Im talkin' bout - it turns out sounds almost exactly like the "hell" of the early church father Origen. Bell makes a valid point illustrating that "hell" in the Bible is not as cut and dry as many modern Christians would have us believe. There are basically no verses in the OT that talk about any wrath of God or punishment that is not linked to redemption. This is true. Even in the NT it can be argued - rather weakly in my opinion however - that hell is "redemptive." Bell talks on page 91 about the parable of the sheep and goats and how the goats are sent to "aion kolazo" which is interpreted into English as "eternal punishment." It is true that this is a bad translation. "Aion" is shown - correctly from what I know - to be a Hebrew conception of time that actually has a ending in sight, not something that has no end as is assumed in the English word "forever." Jonah was in the belly of the whale forever - "aion" - according to Jonah, or three days according to us. "Kolazo" is a term from horticulture meaning to prune and trim in order to make a plant flourish. So these people are sent to a place for "a time of trimming" according to Bell. This infers that they will be "saved" once they have been "trimmed." Hell is not for punishment as most Evangelical Christians would have us believe; or for destruction of evil and sinners as Adventist Christians would have us believe; but hell is actually for redemption. Everyone can be saved...there's no time when the "gates of heaven are closed" according to Bell. He doesnt teach that God will bring evil into heaven but that when confronted with the love of God - before or after death - sinners will be unable to be unchanged.

"Does God Get What God Wants?" asks his chapter on the will of God. God "wills that all be saved" Bell reminds us the Bible proclaims. Does God get what God wants? Bell says "yes" in the closest he comes to an outright proclamation of universal salvation.

This is basically the exact same thing that Origen taught back in the 2nd/3rd century CE. According to him, everyone will be purged and renovated to be what they were intended to be in the beginning, even the devil, aka "death." The following quotes are from Origen. If you are not interested in this side-trip just skip down past the following quotes:

---------------------------------->

De Principiis Book I Chapter X.7

"By which certainly it is understood that the fury of God's vengeance

is profitable for the purgation of souls. That the punishment, also,

which is said to be applied by fire, is understood to be applied with

the object of healing, is taught by Isaiah...'Thou hast the coals of

fire; sit upon them: they will be to thee a help.' And in other

passages he says, 'The Lord will sanctify in a burning fire."

De Principiis Book III Chapter VI.3

"I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be 'all

in all,' means that He is 'all' in each individual person. Now He

will be 'all' in each individual in this way: when all which any

rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice,

and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either

feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God...So then, when the

end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things

compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be

re-established in which rational nature was placed...so that when all

feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been

purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him

"all" and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a

considerable number, be He Himself is 'all in all."

De Principiis Book III Chapter VI.5

"The last enemy, moreover, who is called death, is said on this

account to be destroyed, that there may not be anything left of a

mournful kind when death does not exist, nor anything that is adverse

when there is no enemy...Its destruction, therefore, will not be its

non-existence, but its ceasing to be an enemy, and (do be) death. For

nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of

restoration to its Creator: for he made all things that they might

exist, and those things which were made for existence cannot cease to

be."

De Principiis Book III Chapter VI.6

"And thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive

beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the

last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also

may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all

rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind,

then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the

glory of a spiritual body."

Against Celsus Book V Chapter XV

"But that we say that God brings fire upon the world, not like a cook,

but like a God, who is the benefactor of them who stand in need of the

discipline of fire, will be testified by the prophet Isaiah, is whose

writings it is related that a sinful nation was thus addressed:

'Because thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall be to thee

a help.'"

Against Celsus Book V Chapter XVI

"Those of a different nature - those, viz., who, according to their

deserts, require the administration of punishment by fire - will be

involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which it is

suitable for God to bring upon those who have been created in His

image, but who have lived in opposition to the will of that nature

which is according to His image."

----------------------------------->

Bell doesnt come out and say that all humans will in fact be saved at any point - so I dont think its fair to accuse him of actual universalism. He does certainly leave the option open for redemption to occur even after death at some point and for salvaged sinners to enter through the "ever-open gates" of heaven. On page 106 he quotes Martin Luther's words in reference to the possibility of people turning to God after death, "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?" It is strikingly similar to CS Lewis' idea in The Great Divorce where buses transport people from "hell" to heaven to give them an after-death second chance at redemption. I am not imagining these connections. Bell gives a shout out to both church father Origen and Lewis' book The Great Divorce.

He further deals with the ideas of the Cross and the "availability" of Christ but I have already created a monster note as it stands so Ill leave the rest alone and let you check the book out if you're interested. Heaven and Hell are all you really wanted to know about anyway...admit it;)

I was disappointed in the way Bell just rushed over the texts that reference "hell" and didnt engage in much real exegesis. His book is written for mass market however so I cant be too picky I guess.

Love Wins asks a lot of great questions that Christianity at large doesnt seem interested in asking or even allowing to be asked - as illustrated by the outcry of the Neo-Calvinist community before the book was even released, or read by any of the criers - I appreciate that. I dont agree with a lot of his conclusions but I do agree with most of his questions. My final "verdict" on the book would be: great but incomplete.

But - as good ol' Reading Rainbow would remind us - dont take my word for it...