Friday, September 19, 2008

An Illustration Gone Wrong

Sometimes a teacher or a preacher must go to extraordinary lengths in order to make his or her point. I read the story recently of one such occasion. It is the story of Dr. Christianson, a teacher of Christianity. I won't go into the story in depth here, but if you want to read it in full just click here. (This is just one of many websites featuring the story or a version of it.) None of the websites that reproduce this story make any claim as to it's authenticity, or lack thereof. It is just used to make a point; it illustrates the meaning of the death of Jesus.

In short, the teacher came to class one day armed with a big box of doughnuts. He asked each and every member of the class, one by one, if they wanted one. Each time someone said 'yes' the teacher made the best student in the class 'Steve' do 10 pushups in order to 'pay' for the doughnut. As the story continues, Steve gets exhausted, and now some classmates are crying at this powerful demonstration. As the teacher neared the end of the class, one class member said 'No - I don't want a doughnut", but the teacher made Steve do the pushups anyway.

The story concludes like this: As Steve very slowly finished his last push up, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 300 push-ups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor. Dr. Christianson turned to the class and said. "And so it was, that our Saviour, Jesus Christ, on the cross, said to the Father, 'into thy hands I commend my spirit.' With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, he yielded up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten."

* * * * *


Now that’s a terrific and emotive story, the problem being it’s not entirely accurate. You see, Steve did something FOR his classmates, but he didn’t do anything TO his classmates. Jesus Christ has done something TO humanity. Unless each individual member of the class makes a decision to pick up and eat the doughnut, they have not been affected in any way by what Steve has done. But Jesus Christ’s Incarnation, Life, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension has affected every human being who has ever lived – regardless of whether or not they choose to eat their doughnut!

When God took up human existence, lived, died and rose again, human existence was decisively altered, forever changed. Without our knowledge and without our consent. We are always very quick to tell people about Adam. About how, in Adam, the entire human race was plunged into sin and death. We put Adam at the top of the pyramid of human existence and say that the entire landscape of human existence is under Adam’s influence. Every man, woman and child affected by Adam. And the we propose a Jesus Christ that rescues only some. We propose a Jesus Christ that does not undo the mess that Adam made. Everybody went down with Adam, some of us will be saved in Jesus. We are therefore required to conclude that Adam, a mere man, has had a greater influence on the human race than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has. The great early church father Iranaeus would not allow this. In what I consider to be his most profound phrase, he said - What was lost in Adam was restored in Christ.

What was lost in Adam was restored in Christ.

We were not given a choice when Adam plunged us into death, alienation, and corruption. And we were not given a choice when God in Jesus Christ rescued us from that. What Adam did, Jesus Christ has undone. We give ourselves too much credit, and nowhere near enough credit to Jesus Christ. Every man, woman and child that was plunged into ruin and alienation by Adam, has been rescued by the Incarnate Son, for that is why He came. And it was completed on the Cross.

What was lost in Adam was restored in Christ. How could it be any less?

8 comments:

  1. Hi Peter,
    Thanks for your blog.
    I have read your book "Until They are Found" several times and found it helpful.
    I wanted to make some comments on the subject of Universalism.
    I understand and love the concept that in Christ the whole of humanity has been redeemed and will forever be in the bosom of the Father. This was done totally by God and does not depend on any contribution from us.
    However I am not sure about the section in your book (page 55) where you suggest that there will be some who will be in that position but not want to be there, and for them that will be hell. And you quote T.F. Torrance with a similar statement.
    In fact this seems to be the position of most Trinitarian writers/speakers that I have come across, eg. Baxter Kruger, W.Paul Young. And they seem to be very keen to distance themselves from thorough going Universalism as if that would be some heresy.
    But I can't quite understand that, for two reasons:
    1. I can't really imagine anyone maintaining a position of antagonism to the pure love of the Father for eternity. Surely, once a person's eyes were opened (after they have left this world) and they see things as they really are, and discover themselves to be held in God's embrace, they would be won by the love of God? How could anyone continue for eternity to harbour antagonism that would be to their own detriment like that? And I don't see any reason why we would not be able to change our opinion after this life is over. The parable of the Prodigal Son concludes with a standoff between the father and the elder son, but that is because the elder son is not able to see things from the father's perspective. Given the clarity of eternity I am sure he would come into the party.
    2. More importantly, I don't see that the Father would allow such a situation to continue. The determined "No" that was God's response to the fall and his resolve to see his plan of adoption come to fruition regardless of the cost would suggest to me that He would not rest until ALL his children were safe and secure in his love and that the relationship was completely healed. He would not be satisfied with anything less. No human father would, so the Father of all, with eternity at his disposal would surely not leave the job (salvation) half done. It would be a tension within the perichoretic community (Father, Son, Holy Spirit and all the adopted children) that would be crying out to be resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Philip, thanks for your comments. I am glad you have enjoyed "Until They Are Found". Now, onto your comments about page 55 and then the apparent trinitarian theologian's objection to universalism. My statement that some people will be in the presence of the Father but not want to be there and yet be unable to escape does need some qualification. Please bear in mind that this book was never meant to be a discourse on hell - I have saved that for my next book "The Triumph of Grace" which should be out later this year or early next year. I did not mean to imply in my statement that this is a condition that could last forever. Whilst I do see the possibility of some folks not wanting to be in the presence of God, I do not see any possibility of this lasting forever. I have no doubt that all people will come to see the truth and will want eternity in the presence of the Trinity. And therefore I am a universalist - OOPS, I said it!

    Now, onto the next part. There are many theologians (Baxter, Torrance, Barth, etc.) who have a wonderful understanding of God and seemingly every word written or spoken by them is a universal word. Certainly every thing Barth ever said or wrote about salvation screamed out universalism. Yet he denied it. Interestingly, a point many overlook, is that whilst denying he was a universalist, he also denied that he wasn't one!

    But there are other theologians who do not deny universalism - I think primarily of Jurgen Moltmann and also Tom Talbott - there are of course countless others. What most people are afraid of, I think, is not the belief in universalism itself, but the negative impact of being seen as a universalist. For some reason, universalism has a really bad name at this point in time, and by being seen as a universalist can have very negative implications. Many great theologians for example, believe that Barth was a raging universalist but he denied it so as not to alienate himself from his audience - for if that happened, he would have no impact at all. I believe this to be true, and also think that many other people/organisations today are doing the same thing.

    I have been more open with my belief that ultimately all people will be in Heaven, and that has cost me quite dearly. But there came a point when I had to decide for myself and I just couldn't be quiet any longer.

    I will be more explicit with the Heaven/hell thing in my next book.

    Thanks for your comments Philip.

    Blessings in Him, for there aint no other place, Pete

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello again Peter.
    I don’t want to hog the comments or labour the point about Universalism but I do have a couple of further thoughts that might be of interest to you in writing your next book if it is not already finished. At least I might give you an insight into how some people think (well, at least one person).

    I am 65 and, although I became a Christian at 19 and have been both an evangelist (for approx 5 years full time as well as many years voluntary work) and a pastor (for a different 5 years full time and many years part time) both my parents died without any apparent “decision” for Christ.
    Of course I have had to think deeply about what I believe about the fate of those who die without Christ. And I found that I could not honestly, in my thoughts, allow for my Mum and Dad to be in Hell. In fact I have come to the conclusion that nobody really can, if they have a loving relationship with someone who has died, whether it be parents or children or partner. I am not a psychologist, but I think it is impossible to maintain that position, if (and here is the crunch) you are honest about your thoughts. You may “say” that you do, because it is the theological position you have been brought up with or inherited in some way, but in your heart you must hope that it is not so. As you have indicated in your own experience, perhaps it would be an unwise move, politically, to express any doubt about the doctrine.

    So I have come to the conclusion that the easy doctrinal statement that those who die without Christ must perish for eternity in Hell can only be held by young people who really have not experienced the death of a loved one, or older people whose parents were Christians. It would do something to your mental state otherwise.

    I think I can prove that even those who profess to believe it do not really believe it also. If they really believed it they would have to pester their parents, or children or partner or neighbours to the point of absolute nuisance or else give themselves to constant and impassioned prayer. How could anyone sit at home and watch TV or play golf knowing that such a fate awaits their loved ones? Or how could they bring children into the world knowing that there is a good chance that they will not receive Christ and therefore perish? Of course, when you are young and ignorant you think that your children will definitely follow you and follow Christ, however that “dream” only holds until your children start to live their own lives (as you should want them to). Anyone who observes what goes on in the Christian families in their own church will realise that being in a Christian family does not guarantee that the children will become Christians. So you would have to encourage your children not to have children. How could you risk the possibility of producing more fodder for the pit?

    So I found that my heart had a different theology to my head. And I decided that I would confess what was in my heart. And, in fact, I had decided that I would look into this Universalism teaching to see what the foundation of it was, and then someone gave me a set of CDs of Baxter speaking in Adelaide (in 2003 I think the recordings were made but I didn’t hear them until earlier this year). This was the first time I had heard anyone seriously proposing a different theological position to the usual evangelical one, and when I got about half way through the second CD I shouted “I knew it!”
    He wasn’t speaking about Universalism at all, although he said that people often accuse him of it. But that was enough for me. I have been reading up on Trinitarian theology like my life depended on it, (Hey, it does!)
    Well, that’s enough from me for now. Thanks, Pete, for your blog and providing the opportunity to have a say.
    Philip

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi again Philip, and many thanks for your contribution to the blog.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your comments here. I cannot see how anybody can believe in their souls in the traditional doctrine of hell and remain sane. If folks really believed what they say, most assuredly their actions would be very different indeed.

    Oh what a waste of time church would be. Every hour, every minute, spent in church singing songs of praise to our God, should be spent on the street corner saving people from hell. People are dying and going to hell to be tormented forever while we sing of our gracious God and drink cups of tea - something just isn't right. And like you, I am convinced it is that people do not truly believe with every fibre of their being, the doctrine of hell that they profess with their mouths. (And God bless them for that!)

    Charles Slagle, now a universalist, went through severe depression and attempted suicide over the doctrine of hell. If you are interested, you can read his story
    here.



    Bless you, Pete

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Peter and Philip

    Pete - you know me from another name (at the monthly u.r group)

    Just came across your blog and noticed these really good comments by both you and Philip

    Philip, like you and have lost both my parents - my dad over a month ago - despite all my prayers etc i did not 'see a salvation experience' in his life - nor my mum's from 10 yrs ago - despite my prayers over many yrs etc....

    Right now, although i am in my head a universalistist, years of Ariminiast thinking are tormententing me in my soul - alot at times, and if not for a revelation like Charles Slagle's i could end up going crazy myself.

    I cannot keep my sanity if i can't know that my parents are loved and in the embrace of the Father right now...
    What astounds me is that most people in churches keep quiet about this kind of subject and situation.

    Anyway, i am too tired to type anymore now, but i really appreciate your comments philip and peter!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you Dwell - and God bless you and your family :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Guys,

    I have enjoyed reading the comments this morning. I am a "hopeful universalist." I think the great George MacDonald is right when he asserts that, given ten thousand years of exposure to the Father's love, even the most recalcitrant among us will come around. I would like to think so.

    I find it strange that even "great" Christiana thinkers like Thomas Aquinas would argue that the joy of the saved in heaven will be increased as we listen to the moans of the damned. Somehow, that is supposed to make us appreciate more the Father's love and forgiveness for us (not them). I can only cut Aquinas some slack when I remember that he is a medieval man with a medieval mindset.

    Again, how can we reconcile eternal punishment in hell with any kind of justice. I know the argument, of course. Sin against an infinite God merits infinite punishment, but I think that is hogwash. What kind of crime would one have to commit to merit punishment for a billion billion years, only to start all over? Even the most egregious criminal among us are sentenced to death only once. Is God less just than we? To the contrary, the idea that the punishment should fit the crime is biblical. If I knock out your eye, you get to knock out my eye; you don't get to kill me.

    My experience has been that those who are enamored of hell usually tend to be younger men filled with their own self-righteouness. They have not lived long enough to sin enough to realize how much they too are in need of mercy.

    I recall TF Torrance's wonderful statement that the voice of dvine judgement and the voice of divine forgiveness are one and the same. In other the words, the one who cried from the cross, "Father forgive them," is the one who will judge the world. I take great comfort in that. I want no other judge than Jesus.

    Martin M. Davis
    www.martinmdavis.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comments Martin. I too, will never understand the mentality of Aquinas and others. Looking at people being tortured for even a few moments is impossible to watch - but to watch for ever and ever? This is not heaven - it would be damaging and traumatic to all who could see.

    I love the quote from TF :)

    ReplyDelete