Jason

The Way Of Escape (part 2)

       In part 1, I mentioned that Scripture memory is a helpful method for a Christian to escape addictive temptation. This is not intended to suggest that Scripture can just be said over and over until temptation leaves, but because Scripture teaches the truth; it teaches the Christian the way reality really is, and that falling to addiction is not a must although in the midst of temptation falling may feel like it is a must. Scripture boldly and truthfully declares that if the Son sets us free, we will be free indeed (John 8:36). Scripture memory is a good devotional method for escaping temptation. 

       More broadly, I suggest that studying theology is THE main way of escape from temptation. Now, learning “theology” for the sake of academic pursuits will never help a smoker quit smoking, a drinker quit drinking, or a luster to stop lusting. But, theology defined biblically, gaining knowledge and understanding of the One true God, is very helpful. It is on this basis that a relationship with God is established and maintained. For how can they believe if they don’t hear, and how can they hear if someone does not preach (Romans 10:14)? I think 2 Peter 1 is the best way of understanding the importance of real life theology. In 2 Peter 1 beginning at verse two Peter says “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (ESV)” Now, I am not a trained exegete of Scripture, but in my own struggles with addiction, these verses immediately became quite important when a pastor showed them to me. Notice some obvious features of what this verse says. His divine power (God’s power) has granted us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness (staying sober does pertain to life and godliness). Therefore, God has granted me everything I need for life and godliness, one aspect of which is staying sober. How? Through the knowledge of Him who called me by His own glory and excellence. My knowledge of Him (real life theology) is how (through which) He has granted me ALL things pertaining to life and godliness. That is my argument for suggesting that theology, rightly understood and applied, is the main way of escape from addiction or any other sin. This is the idea that I was saved (justified and declared innocent) through what Christ has done by dying on the cross and rising again. I am also changed and conformed into the image of Christ through this knowledge of Christ. Christ saved me, and Christ changes me. Possibly the easiest way to fall to sin is to look away from Christ. Our (that is, Christians) knowledge of the resurrected Lord Jesus, His promises, and the truth about human history understood through the books Genesis to Revelation,is the way through which God has granted us all things pertaining to life and godliness. The pastor I spoke of earlier kept teaching me to repent and believe in Christ. To continue looking to Jesus in repentance in faith. My salvation depended on Him and so does my sanctification. But this doesn’t mean I have no responsibility or need not put in any effort in staying sober, this only means that I am dependent on Christ in order to do so.

      Because God has granted us all things pertaining to life and godliness, and because of our knowledge of God and His promises, we must make every effort to supplement our faith with virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love (verses 5-7). We must make an effort to be everyday what God has made us in Christ. Again, this is not to suggest that one can just make a decision to not fall to addiction, this is to suggest that we MUST depend on the grace and love of Christ through our knowledge of Him because of the fact that we can’t just make a decision to not fall to sin. There is a big difference between determining to look steadfastly at the risen Christ and trying to determine to give a sin up and never do it again. I determined many times to stop many sins including addictive substances. I have determined many times not to be lazy. I have determined many times not to lust. Through all these determinations, I proudly relied on the strength of my own will. The Christian ought to, in the middle of temptation and quite literally, fall onto his or her knees. Determine to not fight sin with his or her own strength, and immediately recall the gospel. Recall the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ and the freedom afforded, as well as the future glory to come. If I become shortsighted and forget that I have been cleansed from my past sins, I will quit growing. This is why theology, or studying the truth about God, is important. I need to know to make every effort to supplement my faith with virtue, self control, love…etc. I need to know that God has granted me all things pertaining to life and godliness. I need to know that Jesus has been tempted in every way that I have been yet He did not sin; He can empathize with me and will help me. I need to know He voluntarily bore the sins of the world on the cross, died, and rose again offering life to whosoever will. I need to know He is at the right hand of God making intercession for me. I need to know that one day He will wipe away every tear from my eye. I need to know how to suffer, for instance, that I am commanded to rejoice in suffering because it produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope which will not put me to shame. I need to know that my purpose in life is to glorify and enjoy God forever, and to make disciples of nations. I need to know that I was created by and for Christ. 

     This is how I currently understand the message of 2 Peter 1. It is by no means infallible, so don’t take what I have written for granted; be a Berean and check out the Scriptures to see if I am right, if I am not please correct me. This I am sure of, Christ is sufficient and a healer of the broken hearted.

The Way Of Escape For A Substance Tempted Christian.

Secular models of recovery are not necessary, and often not helpful, for a Christian who had previously been an addict or substance abuser. Nevertheless, temptation still strikes, and it is very important that a former addict or substance abuser does not fall to this temptation. But, a Christian need not ever fall to addiction again after coming to Christ. There are many Scriptures dealing with temptation and what we are to do in such a scenario. In my own life, I have found this verse particularly helpful and hard to believe: 1 Corinthians 10:13.

This verse, 1 Corinthians 10:13, say’s “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (ESV). In the midst of temptation, this verse can be hard to believe. It is true, however, whether one believes this verse or not. God provides the way of escape. He does not leave us to our own devices; He transforms us into the image of Christ.

It seems to me that biblical counselors should not suggest that Christians attend secular or pluralistic recovery groups or programs. Christian discipleship is a profound and sufficient means of living life without falling to the temptation of a previous addiction. I do not mean to suggest that counselors should find addicts and get them to utter the sinners prayer and tell them all of their worries are now over. I mean to suggest that if a person has been saved, following after Christ does not lead back to a life of active addiction. The modus operandi for Christians that are now free or becoming free from an addiction is following Christ with other believers. The modus operandi for such people ought not be going to church twice a week, and attending 12 step meetings 5 times a week. There should be no divide between the “road to recovery” and living daily life as a Christian. If one is walking on the narrow path, as in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, there are sure to be trials for a Christian that is living life free from a previous addiction. Temptations are likely, and probably will be very strong. But the Christian can be sure that the narrow path leads away from addiction. In the end, it is the only path that leads to freedom. Any programs that suggest pluralism, as the large majority of 12 step programs do, are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

I suggest that there are several aspects of the Christian life that can keep one from falling to substance abuse or addiction. I also suggest that secular and pluralist 12 step groups and treatment programs need not be integrated into the Christians life. The Christian lacks no resource for enjoying his or her new life free from addiction. The aspects of the Christian life that are especially helpful ways of escape are- spiritual disciplines such as Scripture memory and prayer, meeting weekly with a pastor (or counselor) to discuss what is going on the persons life, involvement in a small group or Bible study, and service in a local church.

Scripture memory and prayer are vitally important because they are how we communicate with God Almighty Himself. A Christian who is a former addict or substance abuser has an entitlement that those who pick their own “higher powers” will never have. A Christian has access, because of Christ, to the throne of the Most High. Won’t God listen to the prayers of one of His struggling children? Yes, He will. He will also help. Scripture memory also helps in that it re-educates the former addicts brain. That is, dark thinking or lies, are exposed to light: the truth. The verse above can be a good verse to memorize. Temptation to a mind altering substance speaks with powerful lies. Addiction say’s things like “you will be far to afraid in such a situation without whiskey”, “you merely had too much last time, but this time you will stop before problems arise”, “you can’t live a life without whatever substance”, “those other Christians don’t understand what you’re going through”. God’s word responds to such lies with “No temptation has over taken you that is not common to man”. God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability. He will provide the way of escape.

In my own life, meeting weekly with a pastor had a profound impact on how I relate to temptation. The pastor shared with me some of his own struggles, and I began to see how my temptations are common to man. He also shared with me about the life Christ had brought him from and to. He walked me through beautiful Christian doctrines like the Trinity, the effectual call, what it means to be a disciple, and others. He prayed with me, and ate lunch with me. I learned something of Christian community, confession, and prayer for one another. Small groups and Bible studies have been used in a similar manner in my own life.

Lastly, service in a local church is a good way of escape from the temptation of addiction. This particular way of escape is, I think, a pre-emptive way of escape. Service in a local church is formative, and frankly, it also makes a Christian feel good. Serving in a local church is an act of being in the local church as opposed to going to a local church. I think it is very important that all Christians everywhere be the church, rather than go to church. 

These ways of escapes are not necessarily methods that I derived from Scripture as the way of escape that 1 Corinthians talks about. Although I do think all of these methods are Biblical. Rather, these are practical steps I have taken to avoid temptation and to escape temptation in my own life. This is my own attempt at practical theology. I pray that someone is blessed by this attempt.

       How should we as Christians respond to a person struggling with an addiction? If I were to ask different groups of Christians that question, I imagine I would get different responses. The only sufficient answer to the question posed is that Christians respond to persons struggling with addiction by presenting the gospel.

          How Christians deal with addiction, or any other sin, is by pointing people to Jesus. Pointing people to Jesus is not simplistic; it is very profound. We as Christians do not have a systematic set of steps for people to follow. What we have is a Savior, the Lord, who shed His own blood for sinners. The same God who spoke the universe into existence, who creates planets by the sound of His voice, loved people such that His Son Jesus died and rose again for sinners. This answer to addiction is profound.

           It seems to me that the Apostle Paul would agree. In 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, he says that drunkards as well as other sinners had been changed by Christ. Verse 11 says “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”. The Corinthian church had a lot of sinners in it. They were aware of addiction; they were equipped to help addicts. Some of them had been addicts.  Some of them had lost the ability to choose whether or not they would drink. Alcohol had controlled some of them. However, they were washed, sanctified, and justified by Christ and the Spirit of God. The gospel was their “road to recovery”.

      The church has a lot to offer addicts in terms of love and support. And there is some Christ-centered literature on the topic of addiction. But I want to encourage Christians and addicts to remember that Christ is sufficient, and the church is equipped to deal with the problem of addiction.

Divine Sovereignty And Man’s Freewill: From Augustine To Barth

Throughout history, Christian theologians have had different ideas about how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are related especially with regards to salvation. Although the Bible uses terms such as predestined, elect, and chosen, the nature of how these verses relate to an individuals salvation, or lack thereof, has been disputed. Relevant Scriptures are Romans 8:29, 11:7-8, and Ephesians 1:5 among others. It seems to me that Scripture teaches both a predestination on God’s part (Ephesians 1:5) as well as some degree of human choice (John 7:37).

I feel some what comfortable not having a black and white answer to whether or not people have the ability to choose salvation; very intelligent theologians have had trouble understanding this matter as well. Augustine’s position did not stay the same throughout his lifetime (Roach, 2008). Augustine first believed that God predestined those who would believe. Augustine later believed that God’s choice or election was not based on any quality of the elect person. Therefore, Augustine did not continue believing that God predestined those who would believe. His later view has been instrumental in the traditionally reformed view of predestination.

Luther held a view of predestination that is now common in reformed Christianity. A person can do nothing in terms of  initiating salvation; God must begin and finish the work. Luther was a big proponent of the view that God’s grace saves, and God’s grace alone is what saves. Luther’s views can be understood as a reaction to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, for instance, the doctrine of indulgences.

Calvin’s view has been one of the most definitive in terms of inspiring future adherents. Calvin’s view was quite similar to that of Luther’s. Calvin thought that people were slaves to sin. People were slaves to the degree that people couldn’t even desire good things. People definitely couldn’t choose to love and believe in God. For Calvin, God elects some people to salvation, and He does not elect others. This view is still very popular among some Christians today, and the debate continues about the correctness of Calvin’s view.

In contrast to the views of Calvin and Luther, Jacobus Arminius held a view similar to Augustine’s earlier understanding. Arminius believed that God elected those that He foreknew would believe. This was the idea of conditional election. This view seems to me that it has the potential to reconcile God’s sovereignty in salvation and some degree of human freedom. In Arminianism, God predestines people unto salvation. This allows for some human freedom because God predestines those who will believe. Arminius inspired famous followers; one example is John Wesley.

          Wesley was the founder of the United Methodist Church. He was not a Calvinist but an Arminian. Wesley noted the differences between the two views (gbgm-umc.org) by mentioning that Calvinists do not believe in conditional election but absolute election, and the Arminians believe in conditional election but not absolute election. The two also differ in other respects, but this is the main difference pointed out by Wesley.

Finally, Karl Barth had an understanding of election that differs from the previous views of Arminianism and Calvinism. Grenz & Olson (1992) wrote about Barth “Jesus Christ is for him the only object of God’s election and damnation”. Goroncy (2008) wrote about Barth’s view “It is in and through Jesus Christ that God has actualized his eternal covenant with humanity, God’s eternal election of himself to communion with humanity, and humanity to communion with God”. It is clear that Barth had a very different view than what has been mentioned here previously. For Barth, Christ  is the object of election. I find this to be a very intriguing position.

The view held by Luther, Calvin, and Augustine during his later life, is that God is completely sovereign in electing people unto salvation, and humans do not have a choice in the matter. This view has some strengths because this seems to be the basic understanding of certain passages in Romans. Romans 8 and 9 are good examples of this. Some Scripture seems to teach that God chooses those who will be saved. One of the weaknesses is that there are other verses that do not agree as easily with this view. One of the strengths of Arminianism is that it avoids some consequences of complete determinism, such as God being the author of sin. Barth’s view has a tempting appeal to it, in that, it would provide a basis of avoiding the Calvinist vs. Arminianist debate by providing another option. A possible weakness is that Scripture does not seem to teach what Barth espouses, at least not from my studies. 

For the time being, I would fall into the Arminian camp in terms of my understanding of predestination. It seems to me that this view best explains the most Scripture as well as avoids massive moral problems such as complete determinism. To clarify, almost no one believes that humans have complete free will. For instance, few people believe they can choose to sprout wings and fly. Those who think they can choose to sprout wings and fly belong in a hospital. Therefore, it is not a problem to note that no one is completely free. However, the Bible does seem to teach some degree of human freedom. This is why I think Arminianism is the best option in reconciling the facts of the Bible. God is sovereign, and man has some degree of freedom.

References

Goroncy, J. A. (2008). ‘That God May Have Mercy Upon All’: A Review-Essay of Matthias Gockel’s Barth and Schleiermacher on the Doctrine of Election. Journal of Reformed Theology, 2(2), 113-130. doi:10.1163/156973108X306218

Grenz, S.J., Olson, R.E. (1992). 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional 

Age.

Roach, D. (2008). From free choice to God’s choice: Augustine’s exegesis of Romans 9. Evangelical Quarterly, 80(2), 129-141. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Wesley, J. The Question, “What Is an Arminian?” Answered by a Lover of Free Grace. http:// new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/

The Eternality Of Hell: The Teaching Of Scripture 

And The Beliefs Of Three Early Christians

Some find it hard to imagine that a loving God would send people to a place of conscious suffering for all of eternity. Other’s believe that many people will, in the end, wind up in such a place. In Christian doctrine, this place of eternal conscious suffering is known as hell. By hell, I mean the destination after death of those who have not trusted in Christ as Savior and Lord. It is described in the Bible as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Luke 13:28), a fiery furnace (Matt 13:42), and several other harrowing descriptions. I currently believe that Scripture does in fact teach that an eternal place of conscious suffering is the destination of those who do not believe and follow Christ. I do not think it is necessary, or even helpful, for a believer to try and give details about what hell is like, in terms of the kinds of torments present. That is, I believe that I am only justified in describing hell the way the Bible describes hell. Therefore, my focus is mainly on the eternality of hell.

In order to show whether or not Christians ought to believe in an eternal hell, it is necessary to look for Scriptural evidence of hell. It will also prove helpful to survey what some of the early Christians believed. Church fathers such as Origen, the author of 2nd Clement, and Justin Martyr will provide some clues as to what the early Christians believed about the doctrine of hell. There are many relevant Scriptures to take into account.

One verse that seems to teach that there is a place of eternal conscious suffering is Revelation 20:10 which states “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (ESV). This verse says that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented constantly and without end.  Another verse that seems to teach conscious suffering after death is Luke 16:19-31. In this passage Jesus tells the story of a rich man and a poor man: Lazarus. To summarize, Lazarus went to a place of comfort after death and the rich man went to Hades after death. It is said that this rich man was in torment in Hades. One may argue that this is a story and not meant to be taken literally, but even if it is merely a story, the story is told to convey a truth. 

Origen was an early Christian who did not believe in the doctrine of hell as it is commonly taught these days. Origen did not think that sinners would be tormented in hell for eternity (Moore, 2005). Origen also believed in a sort of rebirth. Souls could be reborn in order to be fixed for salvation. This is a simplified view of Origen’s doctrine, but it shows that he did not believe in an eternal punishment. Origen believed that all would be reconciled to God at some point in eternity. This is known as universalism. Universalism was condemned as heresy in 544 (Unitarian Universalist Fellowship at Stony Brook, 2006). This view that hell is not a place of conscious eternal torment has never been the dominant view of institutional Christianity. There have, however, been some Christians throughout history who have held this view.

The authorship of 2nd Clement has been disputed. Whether or not the author was Clement: a disciple of the first apostles; is largely unimportant for the purposes of our discussion. The author of 2nd Clement, from here on known as the author, was a Christian within the first two centuries of the founding of Christianity. His belief about the nature of hell will provide another look into the early Christian beliefs on the topic of hell. In his letter: 2nd Clement; the author says “17:15 He speaketh of that day of judgment, when men shall see those among us that lived ungodly lives and dealt falsely with the commandments of Jesus Christ. 17:16 But the righteous, having done good and endured torments and hated the pleasures of the soul, when they shall behold them that have done amiss and denied Jesus by their words 17:17 or by their deeds, how that they are punished with grievous torments in unquenchable fire, shall give glory to God, saying, There will be hope for him that hath served God with his whole heart”. (Wesley Center Online). The author obviously believed in a judgement of terrible torments in a fire that can’t be put out. The author seems to believe in a conscious suffering of the unrighteous. This is the traditional view of hell in the religion of Christianity. 

Justin Martyr was a church father who is known as the first Christian apologist. Justin believed in an everlasting punishment of fire. In chapter 12 of his first apology, Justin said “And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments” (earlychristianwritings). Whether or not Justin Martyr believed this eternal fire was an eternal conscious punishment is open to debate. It may have been that Justin Martyr did not quite hold to the traditional view of conscious eternal torment. Peterson (2000) says that “Embryonic forms of conditionalism are found in Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch”. Conditionalism is the view that the human soul is not, by its own nature, immortal. However, Justin Martyr did hold that the punishment was everlasting.

One need not believe that those who suffer hell suffer consciously to believe that it is eternal. There is another view known as Annihilationism. Annihilationism is the view that the wicked will be completely destroyed after a period of consciously suffering God’s judgement. There were some early Christians who held this view. Peterson (2000) notes “Arnobius was the first to defend Annihilationism explicitly”. There are Scriptures that could possibly support this view, and it is a view held by some Christians. When Scripture talks about the judgement of the wicked: those who are not saved; it often uses verbs such as destroyed. For instance, Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 “…Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna)”. Another verse that looks as if it could teach Annihilationism is 2 Peter 2:6 which says “if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly”. This says that the extinction of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as an example of what will happen to the ungodly. Another passage that speaks of destruction is Matthew 7:13-14 saying “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few”. This passage says that many will end up facing destruction, and that few will find life”. I think this view: Annihilationism; is more likely to be true than the universalist view, but the traditional understanding of hell seems to me more Scripturally based than Annihilationism.

There has historically been theological disagreements on the nature of hell. Some have a problem reconciling that God is love if many are sent to a place of eternal torment. I do not see any contradiction between love being an attribute of God and people going to hell for an eternity. The teaching surely is difficult. It is very difficult. My reasoning would go something like: if God is love, than it makes sense to me that He would rid the world of evil. The Bible also teaches that people, without Christ, are evil inherently. I see no reason to think that there is a conflict between love and ridding existence of evil. Therefore, it makes sense that God would rid the world of people that do not have Christ by quarantining them in hell. To be clear, Annihilationism would account for God ridding the world of evil. However, I do not think this is what Scripture teaches simply because of the references to torment. For torment to exist consciousness must be present. The Bible teaches that torment will be eternal in the lake of fire. Therefore, Annihilationism means that eventually the torment would cease, and thus it would not be eternal. Again, this is a view that would make hell seem a bit more palatable to me, but I cannot reconcile this view with what Scripture teaches. This is the case even though there are some verses which look like they could lean in the direction of Annihilationism.

I do not think the question: what is hell like; is easily answerable. It may be fair to say that question can’t be answered due to our limited understanding. However, the question: is hell eternal; can be answered, I believe, with a resounding yes. Scripture seems to teach that there will come a final moment in history, when death and hades will be cast into a lake of fire. In this lake of fire, will be the devil, the beast, the false prophet, and those whose names are not in the book of life. Jesus taught clearly about a place that people went after death that was not the preferred place to be; however, there is a preferred place to be, and this place is accessible. The church father’s did not agree unanimously about what hell will be like. This is not an unsurprising fact; theologians almost never agree unanimously. Two of the three church father’s surveyed: Origen, the author of 2nd Clement, and Justin Martyr; suggested that hell was indeed eternal. Only one church father: Origen; thought that hell was not an eternal state. Of the two church father’s that thought hell was eternal, one of them clearly taught that suffering occurred in this eternal hell. Certainly, Annihilationism is a possible option in Scripture, but I think there are ample reasons to consider it the less likely scenario. Although, it certainly seems to be the more palatable scenario. Truth, however, is not determined by what is palatable. It seems to me that Scripture and historical theology both teach that the traditional view of hell: a place of eternal conscious torment; is the correct one.

References

English Standard Version

Justin Martyr. The First Apology of Justin. Retrieved from http:// www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Moore, E. (2005) Origen of Alexandria (185-254). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ origen-of-alexandria/

Peterson, R. A. (2000). UNDYING WORM UNQUENCHABLE FIRE. (Cover story). Christianity Today, 44(12), 30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Second Clement. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Retrieved from http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons- essays-books/noncanonical-literature/second-clement/

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship at Stony Brook. (2006). Retrieved from http:// www.geo.sunysb.edu/UU-history/chronology.htm

Navy band “passage”, pier 39 San Fran California.

Cliff Murray- gt, vocals

Eddie Dreher- drums

Mr Jon Beebe- Keys

Jason Batten- Bass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcea2JTTVLI&feature=related

Good times!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFoJlZYH2o