"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Monday, June 20, 2005
Thinklings Book Club Discussion Eleven: Chapters 18 and 19
Highlights and Reflections
1. Early on in Chapter 18, Hoekema writes, ?God does not need to conduct an examination of people?s lives to determine who will be saved and who will not? (254).
So why does He then examine? Hoekema writes of the purpose of the final judgment:
?What is therefore central on the day of judgment is not the destinies of individuals but the glory of God? (254).
2. Will we ?help judge??
Herman Bavinck, in commenting on [1 Corinthians 6:2-3], says that we must not weaken this statement to mean a mere approval by the saints of the judgment of Christ, but must understand it as teaching that the saints shall indeed take part in judging the world and the angels. In this connection he calls attention to Matthew 19:28, which records Jesus? words to his disciples, ?Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel? (cf. Luke 22:30). Whether Bavinck is correct in his interpretation or not, it seems clear that glorified saints will indeed have a part in the work of the Judgment Day. (256-257)
3. Hoekema?s view of the examination of the ?things we?ve done? on the last day is that it will be a final pronouncement of forgiveness, not a trial of sorts in which sins are admitted as evidence.
It is sometimes said that the sins of believers, which God has pardoned, blotted out, and cast into the sea of forgetfulness, will not be mentioned on the Day of Judgment. If it be true, however, that there is nothing hidden which will not then be revealed, and that the judgment will concern itself with all our deeds, words, and thoughts, surely the sins of believers will also be revealed on that day. In fact, if it is true that even the best works of believers are polluted with sin (see Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:23; James 3:2), how can any deeds of believers be brought into the open without some recognition of sin and imperfection? Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 that some believers build on the foundation of faith in Christ with inferior materials like wood, hay, and stubble ? these will be saved but yet will suffer loss. The failures and shortcomings of such believers, therefore, will enter into the picture on the Day of Judgment. But ? and this is the important point ? the sins and shortcomings of believers will be revealed in the judgment as forgiven sins, whose guilt has been totally covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore, as was said, believers have nothing to fear from the judgment ? though the realization that they will have to given an account of everything they have done, said, and thought should be for them a constant incentive to diligent fighting against sin, conscientious Christian service, and consecrated living.
(258-259)
4. I?ve been reading about (and believing!) the connection between faith and works ? e.g. As Calvin said, ?Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone.? ? for a long time, but Hoekema?s brief exposition (p.261) of works being the proof of faith in the light of the final judgment is one of the best I?ve ever read. Very clear, very refreshing.
5. Hoekema opens Chapter 19 with some overviews of the positions he critiques. His definition of universalism:
Universalists believe that hell and eternal punishment are inconsistent with the concept of a loving and powerful God. They therefore teach that in the end all men will be saved. Some universalists hold that people who have lived bad lives may have to be punished for a time after death, but all universalists agree that no one will be ultimately lost. (265)
6. Hoekema?s definition of annihilationism:
The other main form which the denial of eternal punishment has assumed is found in the doctrine of annihilationism. This doctrine may take either of two forms. According to one form, man was created immortal, but those who continue in sin are deprived of immortality and are simply annihilated ? that is, reduced to nonexistence. According to the other form, also known as ?conditional immortality,? man was created mortal. Believers receive immortality as a gift of grace, and therefore continue to exist in a state of blessedness after death. Unbelievers, however, do not receive this gift and hence remain mortal, therefore at death they are annihilated. Both forms of annihilationism teach the annihilation of the wicked, and therefore deny the doctrine of eternal punishment. (266)
7. A brief bit from his critique of annihilationism:
Having noted that apollymi does not mean annihilation when it is used in other ways, we would not expect the word to mean annihilation when it is used to describe the final destiny of the wicked. Such an abrupt shift of meaning would have to be clearly attested. But, as we have seen, biblical teachings about the final destiny of the lost completely exclude annihilation. (269)
8. On the conflicting biblical imagery about hell and eternal punishment:
As was said before, the various figures by means of which the punishment of hell is depicted are not to be taken literally. For, when taken literally, these figures tend to contradict each other: how can hell be darkness and fire at the same time? The imagery is to be understood symbolically, but the reality will be worse than the symbols. (273)
9. A bit from Hoekema?s conclusion:
We have now surveyed the biblical evidence. If we take the testimony of Scripture seriously, and if we base our doctrines on its teachings ? as indeed we should ? we are compelled to believe in the eternal punishment of the lost. To be sure, we shrink from this teaching with all that is within us, and do not dare to try to visualize how this eternal punishment might be experienced by someone we know. But the Bible teaches it, and therefore we must accept it. (273)
Questions for Reflection or Discussion
1. What is your take on Hoekema?s view of the glorified saints? participation in the judgment?
2. On p.260, Hoekema writes:
What is very clear, thefore, is that men will be judged on the basis of the light they had, and not on the basis of a revelation they did not receive. Those who had many privileges will have the greater responsibility; those who had fewer privileges will have less responsibility. There will therefore be ?gradations? in the suffering of the lost.
Reactions?
Is Hoekema really saying there will be different ?circles? of hell?
3. How strong do you find Hoekema?s reconciliation of the conflicting biblical imagery about hell? Are the images not to be taken literally, as he suggests, but instead to be symbols that only hint of the torment of eternal punishment? Or is it possible that hell may somehow be an environment of both darkness and fire?
4. Please share any quote or passage you found exceptional, confusing, or just flat-out wrong.
5. Hoekema didn?t really touch on this particular subject with any depth, but what is your view of the eternal destiny of those who will never hear the gospel? Bring to mind the clich? of the island tribe that never hears the Word of God. If they die never having heard, and therefore never having an opportunity to repent, receive, and follow, what will be their fate?
---
Next week's reading for Monday (6/27): Chapter 20 (approx. 13 pages).
This will be the last reading!
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/2201.
Comments on "The Bible and the Future -- Session 11":
2. Kevin
- 06/21/2005 7:06 am CDT
I will shout one more time into the darkness, because I cannot resist. Hoekema makes a common mistake that relates directly to the Scot McKnight post about the 4 Spiritual Laws.
In chapter 18, Heokema talks about I Cor 3:10ff. The wood, hay, and stubble passage.
He says that this is primarily about "teaching", but that it can be extended to include personal holiness. This passage is not merely about teaching. It's about building a church. Paul laid the lives of believers together like a mason lays bricks. He teaches them, but this is not some academic exercise where God grades you in the last judgement on how well you built your systematic theology.
The test of Paul's and Apollos's teaching - the fire - is found when fornication hits the church. It's found when saints begin to feel defrauded by each other. Etc. This is the fire that tests the work of the builder. Does the church stand with grace and love, or do they accept the fornication, do they take each other to court? If they fall, then the saints of God are consumed.
If the church is built on Christ, then she will stand. If it is built on Apollos's reputation, then she will be consumed.
The issue is not individualistic.
The question is not whether Paul will pass some test of building skills. The question is whether the church will survive real fire.
3. Bill
- 06/21/2005 7:16 am CDT
"The issue is not individualistic. "
I disagree.
According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. - 1 Cor 3:10-15 (ESV)What's being built is the Kingdom. Yes, built by the Body, but really by the individual members of the Body working together.
5. Kevin
- 06/21/2005 5:14 pm CDT
This will be interesting. I type with a version of PCShorthand, and it is not installed on this computer. I don't know I can type whole words any more. Judging by how many times I have had to backspace so far, the outlook is not good.
We both picked up Paul's thoughts at verse 10. In verses 1-9, though, Paul works on the fact that Apollos has been watering the church he planted. We know that the church in Corinth was prone to ego problems, and that Apollos was a flowery speaker compared to Paul. We know that Corinth was afflicted with schisms that involved Paul, Apollos, Peter, and Barnabas (and Christ).
That said, I believe the "one" in this passage is Apollos, and that if Apollos keeps building churches with such faulty materials as "knowledge", "gifts", and "glory", that he will suffer loss, and though he will be saved, it shall be so as by fire.
To back this uncommon interpretation, I will back up to verse 9, For we are laborers together with God: you are God's husbandry, you are Gods building.
Paul starts by talking about the church as the thing built upon the foundation. Paul then talks about himself as the masterbuilder, and about how another one builds thereon. Paul is talking about another builder now, not about all the saints in Corinth individually. In verse 12 he talks about "any man build[ing] upon this foundation". He cannot have suddenly switched to the individual building his own life.
I believe this perspective holds for the entire passage. Paul is still extending the fact that he was the masterbuilder who laid the foundation of the church in Corinth, and that it is now receiving more building from another "one". His warning is that one's work is going to be tested. I contend that by the time this letter was written, that work had already failed the test, but Paul was straining to be as polite as possible.
Verse 18 ...If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
I'm still hearing that another worker is building foolishly on a wise foundation, and Apollos has a reputation for thinking himself wise.
Verse 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours.
If I am right, then this verse ties a nice little bow around my interpretation as Paul brings the other workers back into focus. I don't believe that the subject in this passage ever changed. The book is about Paul trying to prove to Corinth that the gospel they received from him is gold, and that the gospel they are currently espousing is killing them. Remember that a prime theme throughout the book is Paul's establishment of his credentials as an apostle.
Paul continues in Chapter 4 to talk about ministers of Christ, and what defines a faithful minister, including bringing Apollos back up again in verse 6. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Paul never comes out and says that Apollos (and maybe Peter) is the cause of the schisms and the puffing up that Corinth is experiencing, but that is certainly the elephant in the living room of this letter.
So, lots of typing (and backspacing) to set out my reasons for believing that the "one" is Apollos, not every saint.
To restate why that matters to me, it is the building of the church that is at issue here and Hoekema completely missed it.
I don't know anything about the emergent church, so I will not claim to agree with anything they say. I do believe that the Kingdom of God is the goal and focus of Christ on earth, more than the salvation of individual saints. You must cut a massive collection of stones before you can build the temple, and cutting stones requires focus. That doesn't change the goal. The goal is the temple. Saving individuals is a focus, but not the focus. (That was for Debra, but I don't think she reads the book club. Oh well.)
The body of Christ can be much more than glorified saints listening to the same overworked, glorified saint behind a pulpit week after week.
(I hope you will take the long post as a statement of respect for your position. Thanks for debating, Bill.)
6. Bill
- 06/21/2005 5:32 pm CDT
And thank you as well!
"He cannot have suddenly switched to the individual building his own life. "
Well, keep in mind that I never said the individual was "building his own life". I said he is building the Kingdom.
But I, respectfully, think your claim that the "one" in this passage is Apollos is a real stretch. I think you're interpreting it this way just because you're averse to acknowledging the individual nature of judgement.
7. Kevin
- 06/22/2005 1:26 am CDT
Hmmmm. Fair enough.
Yes, you did say that each person was building the kingdom. I guess I kind of forgot that because it didn't compute for me. I will give that more thought.
As for my lack of belief in individual judgement. I assume you are referring to my claim for annihilationism. I can understand that connection.
I believe that I will stand before the Lord and answer for what I did and didn't do in the final judgement. Nobody will answer for me, and I will answer for no one. If I have deceived myself, and never known Christ, then I will face the horror of the living God judging me and condemning me for each of my crimes. I will then be forced to depart from him into the lake of fire with unknown punishments awaiting me. I just don't think they will last eternally.
If I have known Christ, I believe there will be a difference of reward based upon how I have used the talents God commited to me. The reward will primarily be more responsibility, and I already envy the lucky dogs who earn such work. Salvation is not earned, but it seems pretty clear that responsibility in the new earth is.
I believe in individual judgement. I just don't think this passage is about that judgement. There is nothing in the preceding or following verses that indicates this passage is eschatological, and plenty that indicates that it is about the church.
Like I said, I will try to understand how the passage could be referring to building the kingdom individually.
Great questions, Jared!
1) Why examine?
Hoekema hit this right on.
2) Will we judge the world?
That requires some thought! The quote is that we will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. That's us judging us. I have never been able to understand that whole comment line outside of a dispensational point of view in which the church and the 12 tribes are different groups.
Hoekema doesn't supply an answer that moves me. It only makes sense to me that we will judge the 12 tribes after the new world starts if Christ is implying that there will be conflict to resolve in the new earth, which is a cool thing to believe. There can be conflict without sin, so maybe judges will be needed? I like to think that the new earth will be at least as complex as this one. Of course, some being judges implies some not being judges - maybe. Weird stuff.
3) Does Hoekema reconcile the images of hell:
Oh, I guess so. More on this later.
4) Interesting quotes
Later
5) What about those who never heard?
We've all had this one thrown at us by doubters. It's cool to have it thrown out by a believer. Hopefully someone will start a real discussion on this one.
My answer is still built on Irresistible Grace and the parable of the wheat and the tares. If God sowed a wheat seed on that remote island, no number of tares, no lack of revelation, no lack of tradition will keep God from using the means available to Him to bring glory to Himself by bringing that seed to Himself. Whether He has sown any seeds so far afield is a question for Him.
As for the inhabitants of that poor little island whom God does not call, I believe the Judge is going to be very lenient on them. That's easy for me to say as an annihilationist, though.
I wrote a 4-page analysis of why Hoekema really solidified my annihilationist position with his arguments against it. I'm hesitant to post it because it is so long, but analyzing Hoekema's arguments probably took me from 80% to 90% convinced. All my interesting quotes from Hoekema and comments about hell are in that post.