The Hell Debate: Is Punishment Eternal?

Introduction

Some say, “I could not rest comfortably if I believed the orthodox doctrine about the ruin of men.” Most true. But what right have we to rest comfortably?[1]

-- Charles H. Spurgeon

What comes to mind when you think of hell? If we are all truly honest with ourselves we have developed some type of characterization of hell that was never intended from Scripture. Do you see Satan (or Lucifer, or a multitude of other names he has in Scripture), as a man all covered in red, with horns and a tail, oh and let’s not forget the pitchfork/trident? Or perhaps you are one of the people in the world that believes that there is no after life at all; when we die we are dead and gone. If you are one of those people, please listen to this conversation and see if your opinion changes.

However, this conversation is geared more towards those of us who call ourselves evangelical Christians, and the belief in hell is a doctrine that we can all agree upon; but where we differ can bring a great divide. Boyd points out, “Evangelical Christians disagree over whether this punishment is eternal in duration or in consequence. That is, when the Bible speaks of “eternal destruction,” does it mean rebels will eternally suffer a process of destruction, or does it mean that once rebels are destroyed, it is eternal (namely, permanent, irreversible)?”[2] This essay is going to focus on the two most prominent views taken on hell in evangelical circles; the eternal literal view and the annihilationist view.

The Literal View

Those who argue on behalf of this view make sure to take their argument back to the Old Testament. Did the Jews of ancient Israel have a view of hell and what would take place there? Usually when a discussion of the Old Testament turns to its view towards hell, the first thing that is mentioned is sheol. Sheol’s etymology is uncertain because in the KJV it is translated “grave” thirty-one times, “hell” thirty-one times, and “pit” three times; while the NIV’s usual translation is grave.[3] It was regarded as a place of horror (Ps 30:9; Num 16:33), weeping (Is 38:3), and punishment (Job 24:19).^[4]

While there is no specific mentioning of the on goings in hell in the Old Testament; there is one specific thing that Boyd emphasizes,

In Old Testament times, the ultimate disgrace was for a person’s corpse to be left above ground, where it would be eaten by maggots or burned with fire. The prophet uses this imagery to communicate the intense disgrace in the afterlife of those who oppose the Lord. When people suffered this terrible fate in history, the maggots or fire eventually consumed their corpses. In the final judgment, however, the maggots will never die and the fire will never go out! To enter into eternity in opposition of the sovereign Creator is to enter into unending suffering.[5]

The passage that Boyd is alluding to is Isaiah 66:24, and it is generally thought to be referring to Gehenna. In actuality, the place that reference was being made of was the Hinnom Valley and it started to gain the imagery mentioned earlier during the time of the prophet Jeremiah (see Jer. 7:29-34; 19:6-9; 32:35). According to Chan the “Jews living between the Testaments picked up on this metaphor and ran with it. The word gehenna was widely used by Jews during the time of Jesus to refer to the fiery place of judgment for the wicked in the end times….”[6] Jesus himself shows the relevance of understanding hell by using the word gehenna upwards of twelve times, it would be this very word of gehenna that ties the Testaments together.

One of the strongest supporters for eternal punishment seems to be Jesus Christ himself. While there are numerous passages throughout the New Testament to attribute to the doctrine of eternal punishment, one that draws the greatest analogy has to be, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:46 ESV) In regards to this parallel Lloyd-Jones has one of the most thought out points of view,

The same word ‘eternal’ is also always used in the parallels and contrasts that are drawn in the Scriptures between believers and unbelievers. They face either eternal life or eternal destruction. Perhaps the best example of this is the last verse of Matthew 25: ‘And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal’ (v. 46). The contrast between the unrighteous and the righteous is the contrast between everlasting punishment and everlasting life. And if everlasting as regards punishment means only for a while and then extinction, why should everlasting not mean the same when it describes the righteous and the life that they will inherit? There is no exception to this. Constantly in the Scripture the fates of the believer and the unbeliever are contrasted in that way and each time exactly the same word is used in both cases—eternal on the one hand and eternal on the other. So if there is no such thing as everlasting destruction, there is no such thing as everlasting life, and all that is promised to the believer will only last for a while and then come to an end.^[7]

Another extremely powerful verse used to express the type of punishment to be received is Revelation 14:11, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”(ESV) Did you notice the words that drive home the type of torment that was going to be received? They were “forever and ever, and they have no rest”, in my understanding this shows no end. There has been argument made around the Greek word aion and its meaning of forever. Annihilationists contend that the Greek word aionios, derived from aion, which means “age,” has the meaning of “age long” rather than “everlasting.” However, aionios is the strongest word in the Greek language to express the idea of endlessness.^[8] Mark Driscoll in his book on doctrine asserts that “the word forever (Greek aion) means unending. This word is used to describe the blessedness of God, Jesus after his resurrection, the presence of God, and God himself. As uncomfortable as some may be with it, it also describes eternal, conscious punishment.”[9]

Some of the biggest arguments against the view of eternal punishment have to do with how we perceive justice. You will often hear questions along these lines, “If God is loving how can he punish someone for eternity?” or “That’s not fair.” In response to this, Grudem makes a compelling point,

The argument that eternal punishment is unfair (because there is a disproportion between temporary sin and eternal punishment) wrongly assumes that we know the extent of the evil done when sinners rebel against God. David Kingdon observes that “sin against the Creator is heinous to a degree utterly beyond our sin-warped imaginations’ [ability] to conceive of … Who would have the temerity to suggest to God what the punishment … should be?” He also responds to this objection by suggesting that unbelievers in hell may go on sinning and receiving punishment for their sin, but never repenting, and notes that Revelation 22:11 points in this direction: “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy.”^[10]

These objections and several others are usually raised by supporters of the annihilationist view (also known as “conditional immortality). Driscoll believes that “despite having proponents who are otherwise fine Bible teachers (such as John Stott), annihilationism is simply not what the Bible teaches.”[11]

The Annihilationist View

Let’s understand that even for those that hold this view, they still believe in a realistic hell. Clark Pinnock, an adamant supporter of this view tells us, “For me too, hell is an unquestioned reality, plainly announced in the biblical witness, but its precise nature is problematic.”[12] We should also understand that this is not some new thing that has just sprouted up over night, apparently “…this opinion had a solitary representative in the 4th-cent. African Christian author *Arnobius, it was never held in Christendom until recent times, except in isolated cases of philosophical speculation, and it was formally condemned at the Fifth *Lateran Council in 1513.” ^[13]

As we take a look at a more current advocate, Pinnock begins to set the stage for his understanding of this eschatological view by turning to the Old Testament. He uses two major references Psalm 37 and Malachi 4:1-2, to support his idea of destruction, but right after referencing these two passages he says, “While it is true that the point of reference for these warnings in the Old Testament is this-worldly, the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine.”[14] The question that Pinnock brings upon himself from this quote is “Am I reading too much into Scripture?” For the annihilationist there are several words that they attempt to build their whole case upon. According to Lloyd-Jones,

…the primary argument for conditional immortality centers upon terms like ‘destruction’, ‘perish’ and ‘death’. Now, it is said, destruction means destruction, and it is inconceivable that something can go on being destroyed forever. Destruction means complete disintegration, the end of something. ‘Perish’ and ‘death’ likewise must mean the end of existence. So if you quote 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which speaks of ‘everlasting destruction’, you are told that that is impossible.^[15]

One thing that is troubling while reading Pinnock’s understanding of hell was his constant reference to the second death, because that phrase is used only in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8). It shows that he is willing to pick and choose what should be taken literally from Scripture and should not. Chan’s response to the second death, “While the word death itself could suggest finality, it is often used throughout the New Testament in a more metaphorical (nonliteral) sense. For instance, New Testament writers often refer to unbelievers as “dead”…So it seems best to understand the word death not in terms of total annihilation but as a description of those who will be separated from God forever in an ongoing state of punishment.”[16]

Another argument that has been raised is that the human soul is not originally immortal. Pinnock believes that we have allowed Hellenistic teaching to invade our understanding of Scripture and therefore skewed our exegesis of it. He believes that “Presumably the traditional view of the nature of hell was originally constructed in the following way: People mixed up their belief in divine judgment after death (which is scriptural) with their belief in the immortality of the soul (which is unscriptural) and concluded incorrectly that the nature of hell must be everlasting conscious torment.”[17] The question that comes to mind when I read this is, “When God originally created Adam and Eve, and said, “Let us make them in our image,” did this not have the possibility of immortality? Or How about Genesis 2:17 when the Lord tells Adam that if he eats he will surely die, we know he did not suffer physical death at that moment, could this also be an indicator or the loss of immortality?” However, Lloyd-Jones responds to this topic with a bit more savvy than I,

What argument do people have for this idea? Well, they are fond of quoting that statement which I referred to in the last lecture: God ‘who only hath immortality’ (1 Tim. 6:16). That, they say, must mean what it says—that only God is immortal. But, as we indicated, while we must accept that and agree with it, it does not of necessity preclude the fact that God has given the gift of immortality to all men and women. Immortality, it is stated, is referred to in the Scriptures as a gift—‘For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,’ says Paul in Romans 6:23.^[18]

Conclusion

This has been a very heavy journey that should not be taken lightly. Throughout the process of researching this paper, ideas that were originally held to were challenged and some even changed. As of right now I must admit that I cannot see a way to adhere to the annihilationist view and still feel that I am remaining true to Scripture. At the same time there is a logical struggle with the idea of hell being full of fire and yet dark simultaneously. With that being said, hell is a place where eternal punishment will take place, but whether its literal or metaphorical is for the Lord alone to know. If we take serious the threat of hell it should light a fire under us to do our part to tell people who Jesus is and what he has done; so that they may not have to find out the hard way the truth about hell.

Bibliography

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Cabal, Ted, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Chan, Francis, and Preston Sprinkle. Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2011.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.

Duffield, Guy P. and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angeles, Calif.: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983.

Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001.

Gundry, Robert H. "Pastoral Pensées: The Hopelessness of the Unevangelized". In Themelios: Volume 36, No. 1, April 2011. United Kingdom: The Gospel Coalition, 2011.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Church and the Last Things. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Spurgeon, Charles H. 2,200 Qutations from the Writings of Charles H. Spurgeon. Edited by Tom Carter. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.

Walvoord, John F., et. al. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crockett. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

---

[1]Charles H. Spurgeon, 2,200 Qutations from the Writings of Charles H. Spurgeon. Edited by Tom Carter. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005) 99.

[2] Gregory A.Boyd, and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 281.

[3]John F. Walvoord, et. al. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crockett. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 14.

^[4] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995).

[5] Boyd, Across,282.

[6] Francis Chan, and Preston Sprinkle. Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up. (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2011) 61.

^[7] David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Church and the Last Things (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998), 73-74.

^[8] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, Calif.: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 551.

[9]Mark Driscoll, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010) 430.

^[10] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1151.

[11] Driscoll, Doctrine, 430.

[12] Walvoord, Four, 135.

^[13] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 397.

[14] Walvoord, Four, 145.

^[15] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 72.

[16] Chan, Erasing, 107.

[17] Walvoord, Four, 148-9.

^[18] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 72.

The Growth of Christianity in India

Introduction

While India attempts to show religious tolerance, it has difficulty doing so when those born in that country are automatically considered Hindu and leaving is extremely difficult.[1] Along with this religion in India lies the caste (jati) system which tells people, men in particular what their worth in life is. In the caste system people range from the Brahman (usually wealthy and well-educated) to the Dalits (usually considered socially invisible)[2]. But the Lord speaking in his hometown synagogue to a group of people told them, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”(Luke 4:18-19 ESV)

While Hinduism is not the only religion it is the largest (around 73%) part of the population, followed by Islam (13.7%), and then Christianity (4.7%).[3]

Christian Movement into India

The church in India was not necessarily a new concept; it has been speculated that St. Thomas himself was the first there to share the gospel, but of that we have no hard evidence. With that being said we will start a just little closer to the present day (around 1500 AD). “Western Christianity came to India with the ships of Vasco da Gama in 1498. In their small territories of Goa, Cochin, etc., the Portuguese exercised strong pressure, though not actual coercion, on the inhabitants to become Christian, but they made no extensive attempts to convert the inhabitants of the country as a whole.^[4] Within the next half century there would be attacks made on a small pearl fishing village unable to defend itself, “John da Cruz, and fifteen Paravars offered an alliance. A year later, their jati thalavan (chief), Vikrama Aditha Pandya, gave the Portuguese access to the lucrative pearl trade. Families of some 20,000 pearl-fishers were baptized. In 1537 a furious sea battle ended threats from Hindu and Muslim forces, and the entire Paravar community declared themselves Christian.”[5]

A few short years later St. Francis Xavier would begin his work on the Fisher Coast having a great impact in that region because he “exploited a deeply ingrained indigenous genius for memorization involving rhythmic recitations each morning and evening, and reinforced by mnemonic exercise, they drilled bright-eyed boys in imperfectly translated essentials: the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, Creed, Ten Commandments, and other rudiments of Christian Faith…”[6] As the 1600’s ensued there was only one recorded case of an Anglican baptism in India.[7] However that is not due to lack of presence, there were English and Dutch churches in India but their work consisted predominantly of taking care of their own people, with minimal records of missionary work and fewer conversions.[8]

Turning of the Tide

During the eighteenth century the tide began to turn in regards to missionary work in India. While there were many different missionaries, one of the most prominent would have to be Friedrich Schwartz, who was an amazing linguist (he was fluent in Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Persian, Sanskrit, and Portuguese); as well as a preacher, teacher, diplomat, and statesman.[9] Just imagine that without the influence of Schwartz in India the gospel may never have impacted as many people as it did, because he was able to train a man named Sundaranandam David. Sundaranandam would take the message that he heard back to his village and eventually “Thousands, often whole villages, turned Christian,”[10] because Schwartz was willing to sacrifice and reach a people so many others in the Hindu tradition had written off.

Sundaranandam was also a man would did not want to tolerate social injustice. He would set up what were known as “Villages of Refuge”, because as his Christian message spread, those who were not converted became more violent toward those who had. These villages took in those who were “fleeing, needy, sick, and poor widows and orphans. Every decade for a century the number of new converts doubled or tripled.”[11] This is a prime example of what William Carey meant when he said, “the forming of our native brethren to usefulness, fostering every kind of genius, and cherishing every gift and grace in them; in this respect we can scarcely be too lavish in our attention to their improvement. It is only by means of native preachers we can hope for the universal spread of the Gospel through this immense Continent.”[12]

This would be important because it would necessarily be the wealthy and knowledgeable, who were being converted, but “…among the most oppressed and poverty-stricken sections of the community….”^[13] Gradually in certain parts of the country the local leaders of the churches would begin to outnumber the missionaries in that region.

The Church after 1900

The church in India is one that can be considered as awe inspiring. Unlike churches found in many other nations, the different denominations found a way to come together and glorify the Lord by creating one church. Granted this all did not take place over night, nor did the whole countries Christian community gather into one large church there are some differences between the Church of South India (CSI) and the Church of North India (CNI). Gonzalez takes care to point out that, “By 1908, Reformed and Congregationalist joined to form the United Church of South India, and in 1947 this church with the addition of Methodist and Anglicans, resulted in the Church of South India.”[14] To show the extent that Christians in India are willing to work together, Jonathon Hill notes that

In 1958 the Mar Thoma Syrian Church established intercommunion with the CSI, meaning that, while they remained separate churches, they regarded each other’s ministers and sacraments as valid. The CNI subsequently joined this accord, and in 1978 all three churches established a Joint Council which was to oversee what was in effect a federation of the three churches, known collectively as the Bharat Christian Church. Today, there are efforts under way to merge them into a fully unified Church of India.[15]

While the church in India is making great strides to come together as one large ecclesiastical body there are still more things that need to be in place before that can transpire; because certain parts of India are under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church, and have not entered into the conversation of joining together with any the ecumenical associations.

Conclusion

While Christianity may seem like the underdog in the predominantly Hindu country, we can trust that anywhere the gospel is faithfully preached there will be a church. Christ promised his followers, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20 ESV) Fellow Christians throughout the world would do well to follow the example set by the Christians in India; by putting minor things aside and enjoying the majors together, by worshiping our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a unified body.

Bibliography

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Frykenberg, Robert Eric. "Āvarna and Adivāsi Christians and missions: a paradigm for understanding Christian movements in India." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 32, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 14-18. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 5, 2011).

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

Spinner-Haley, Jeff. Hinduism, Christianity, and Liberal Religious Toleration. Feb 2005. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038394 (accessed October 7, 2011).

The Association of Religion Archives. http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/MultiCompare.asp?c=108,%20234 (accessed October 11, 2011).

---

[1] Jeff Spinner-Haley, Hinduism, Christianity, and Liberal Religious Toleration. Feb 2005, 36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30038394 (accessed October 7, 2011).

[2] Robert Eric Frykenberg,. "Āvarna and Adivāsi Christians and missions: a paradigm for understanding Christian movements in India." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 32, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 14 . ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 5, 2011).

[3] The Association of Religion Archives. http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/MultiCompare.asp?c=108,%20234 (accessed October 11, 2011).

^[4] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 832.

[5] Frykenberg, Āvarna, 15.

[6] Ibid.

[7]Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976) 440.

[8] Cross, Oxford, 832.

[9] Frykenberg, Āvarna, 15.

[10] Ibid.15

[11] Ibid.15

[12] Johnson, History, 441.

^[13] Cross, Oxford, 833.

[14] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010) 498.

[15] Jonathan Hill,. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006)474-75.

My Understanding of Eternal Salvation (A brief description)

While this topic is not one we enjoy considering, I believe that everyone that follows Christ has truly contemplated the state of their salvation. My understanding of Scripture and who God is (albeit a very small understanding) have led me to believe that true believers cannot lose their salvation. What is meant by saying that is if someone is truly a Christian they will not want nor lose their salvation. In the famous John 3:16 we are promised eternal life, and in order for it to be eternal it cannot have an end.

As human beings in a fallen world with a fallen nature still inside of us, we will sin; but it should not be a lifestyle if we believe ourselves to be Christian. Take for example, Peter, he was the one given the revelation of who Christ was and he still denied Jesus at his trial. In Luke 22:31-32, Christ tells Peter he is going to screw up (or backslide), but when you come back strengthen your brothers (a very loose interpretation). Even though we will have struggles and times where we make mistakes, MacArthur points out, “A true believer has an ongoing love for God that holds fast even in trials. And as we’ve noted previously, love for God shows itself through obedience to His Word (see 1 John 2:5-6; 5:1-3).”[1]

When dealing with the issue of apostasy I have to believe that these people never really knew Christ. As John says in 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”(1 John 2:19 ESV). If you have truly had a life changing experience with Christ, just remembering what he has done will make it difficult to walk away from the life he has given you. So while we will make mistakes we can rest in knowing that we are safe in Christ’s hands (John 6:37-40). Once you have gained a greater understanding of your assurance of salvation, you can then appreciate the fact of your eternal security. It is comforting to know that when you can witness growth in your walk, you have evidence for yourself and those around you that you are growing in the grace of the Lord.

Bibliography

MacArthur, John. Saved Without a Doubt: Being Sure of Your Salvation. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2006.

---

[1]John MacArthur, Saved Without a Doubt: Being Sure of Your Salvation. (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2006)170.

The Baptism Debate

Introduction

All that should matter in this life is the fact Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of the world. Sadly enough for some church goers it is not. They would much rather spend their time arguing over what can be called second tier issues. What issues do you allow to rule your experience with the church or most importantly with Christ? Take baptism for example, in your church there is probably a particular standard that is adhered to and by you being a member you support it. But would you condemn a fellow Christian who attends a different church because they practice differently? When it comes to the controversy surrounding baptism D.M. Lloyd Jones wisely says, “Is it not perfectly obvious, before we go any further, that this subject cannot be finally decided, that it is not one of those subjects concerning which you can give an absolute and unmistakable proof? If it could, there would never have been all this controversy and there would not have been denominational distinctions.”^[1]

With all of that being said we must still take the time to investigate for ourselves and come to our own conclusion of what Scripture is telling us, without blindly following our denominational history. Throughout this essay there will be comparisons and contrast drawn between different views regarding the purpose and merits of baptism, who should receive baptism, and the different modes of baptism. Personally this essay has been a challenge for me, as a member of a PCA church. In the end hopefully a biblical and well balanced understanding of baptism has been presented. If a random person were to walk up to you and ask, “Why were you baptized?” and then followed it with “Is there any benefits to it?” how would you respond?

The Purpose and Merits of Baptism

In helping us to understand what the purpose is we will first take a look at what it is not. Nettles says, “The first caricature sees baptism as nothing more than a personal insurance policy that the one baptized will go to heaven; the second reduces baptism to receiving a name or to getting into the membership of a particular church within a certain cultural expression.”[2] Now that we have established what baptism’s purpose is not, we must examine what it is. According to the Baptist view, baptism is a symbol of Christ saving work. There are those who will argue that baptism is merely a symbol and holds little to no spiritual significance, while others believe we become regenerated through our baptism, and another sees it a mysterious encounter with God.

Nettles argues, “Baptism represents the confident reliance on the judgment that Christ took for us, which judgment becomes our salvation. Baptism itself does not remove the damnable filth but expresses one’s confidence that only the propitiatory death of Christ saves.[3] It can also be stated that the Baptist view, points to baptism symbolizing a person’s acceptance into a congregation. Castelein in Understanding Four View on Baptism rebuttals this argument with, “One important truth needs to be added: the church (both in its universal essence and local expressions) is the body of Christ. The Scriptures do not warrant separating incorporation into Christ by faith from a later incorporation into a local church by baptism.”[4]

The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that upon baptism man then begins the process of regeneration, making it a necessary act to receive salvation. Lloyd Jones expresses that, “No sacrament is essential to salvation: if you say it is, you are aligning yourself with the Roman Catholics. Protestants have always said that while baptism and the Lord’s Supper are commands of the Lord, and we should therefore practice them, they are not essential. They do not add grace, they simply point to it and bring it to us in a special way.”^[5]

That special way would fall into the Reformed view, because “…Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith.”[6] It is usually argued that the Reformed view believes that baptism is sacramental and covenantal. This response in the end comes across rather ambiguous and very confusing. When reading on the Reformed understanding of baptism, one cannot help but notice that there is a heavy reliance on creeds and confessions.

One of the best summations I have heard about baptism comes from,. J. I. Packer, who believes,

“Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live henceforth in a new way as committed disciples of Jesus.”^[7]

After hearing all of these different views my understanding is our baptism signifies our union with Christ, while telling others we have come to trust the Lord for our eternal salvation, and it’s a promise of assurance of our justification.

Who Should Be Baptized?

This is a question that has caused heated debate, and it would seem that the New Testament points more in favor to a believer’s baptism over the padeo-baptism argument. When we scour the New Testament we can find no direct place where we are told to baptize infants. Elwell supports this by saying, “To be sure, there is no direct prohibition of infant baptism in the NT. But in the absence of the direction either way it is surely better to carry out the sacrament or ordinance as obviously commanded and practiced than to rely on exegetical or theological inference for a different administration.”[8]

Often times supporters of infant baptism will choose to cite Acts 2:39 to support their view of the covenant extending to their physical family. Again Lloyd Jones notices that,

“Clearly, by ‘children’ Peter does not mean physical descendants, he does not mean the children of those listening but, in effect: ‘The promise is not only for you who are immediately here, now, but is for the next generation and the generation after that and after that and it will continue down the running centuries. And it is not only for Jews but also for those who are afar off’—the Gentiles, those who are outside the commonwealth of Israel. Indeed, it is for ‘as many as the Lord our God shall call’.”^[9]

After defining what is to be the purpose of baptism and its meaning, the case for infant baptism seems that much weaker; because when we view the majority of accounted for baptisms in the New Testament we can see that they follow a very specific pattern of preaching, repentance, and then baptism. “Accordingly, the only appropriate candidate for the witness of baptism is someone who has something about which he can bear witness (Acts 2:38; 8:12–13, 36–38; Eph. 4:5).”^[10] It has been argued that to baptize babies into faith is dangerous because if they grow up and leave the faith it brings condemnation on them.[11] In regards to this argument Lloyd Jones answers with,

“Similarly, people often say something like this: ‘Look at the thousands of children who were baptized when they were infants. p 43 They were accepted into the Christian Church but subsequently they lapsed, proving that they were never really Christians at all.’ The answer again, of course, is exactly the same. That has happened, alas, thousands of times with people who were baptized on confession of faith when they were adults. We must be very careful as we handle these arguments because the same point can be raised on both sides. We must not base our arguments on observations but, as we have been trying to do, on the Scriptures.”^[12]

Proponents of infant baptism will cite the fact that circumcision is for all of God’s people in the Old Testament, and baptism is the correlating sign for the New Testament. One thing that they tend to neglect is that the idea of the mark of the covenant has gone from being physical to spiritual. One key text that padeo-baptist tend to rely on for their circumcision/baptism argument is Colossians 2:11-12. Salter says of this text that, “…baptism and spiritual circumcision are connected with spiritual cleansing and new life. In this respect they are unlike physical circumcision, which is sharply distinguished from spiritual circumcision and its concomitant realities. Paedobaptists have blurred the distinction between the physical and spiritual that Paul sees so clearly.”^[13] Supporters of infant baptism also choose to cite references in the Book of Acts 16:15 and 33 in attempts to say that when it mentions whole households that it includes infants also. We have no way of knowing for sure who was in the household so this is a case of speculation.

There are also attempts to say that the holiness of the parents can be passed on to the children as long as their parents are believers based upon 1 Corinthians 7:14. Two very theologically sound men J. I. Packer and D. M. Lloyd Jones have very different views about the meaning of this verse in particular. Packer contests that, “…one partner has become a Christian by invoking the certainty that the children of such a marriage are relationally and covenantally “holy,” that is, are dedicated to and accepted by God in company with their one Christian parent. So the principle of parent-and-child solidarity still stands, as Peter also indicated in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:39).” ^[14] In regards to Packers assertion we have already mentioned Lloyd Jones view of Acts 2:39, so there is no need to repeat it here.

In the end there is no empirical evidence that tells us to baptize infants while we were given the specific command of the Lord to make disciples and baptize them (Matt 28:19-20). So that leaves me agreeing with Boyd & Eddy, when they say, “Without exception, baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to follow Jesus.”[15]

The Mode of Baptism

The mode of baptism has become a topic of great debate over the last several hundred years. While it is argued that the word “…baptiziō its cognates often refer to immersing or dipping, these terms are also used to describe washing and cleansing.”[16] While conversely the Holman Bible Illustrated Dictionary says,

“But overwhelmingly the most prominent use of the word refers to the first response of obedience by a new follower of Jesus. The word “baptize” is itself a loanword borrowed from the Greek term baptizo. Few scholars contest that the meaning of the term is “immerse,” and not “to pour” or “to sprinkle.” In classical Greek, the word is used, for example, to describe the sinking of a ship that is, therefore, “immersed” or totally enveloped in water.”^[17]

According to Packer, “No prescription of a particular mode of baptism can be found in the New Testament. The command to baptize may be fulfilled by immersion, dipping, or sprinkling; all three modes satisfy the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo and the symbolic requirement of passing under, and emerging from, cleansing water.”^[18] What is to be found more interesting are the multiple ways the word baptizō can be understood. Lloyd Jones gives us a great example with these words,

“If you read Luke 11:37–38 you will find this: ‘And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.’ The word used there is baptizō and clearly it does not mean that they were surprised that he did not go and have a complete bath. No, it was the custom of the Pharisees, before they sat down to eat, to hold their hands under running water. They thought it was essential and were surprised that our Lord, instead of holding His hands under running water, immediately sat down. So there is the suggestion of sprinkling.^[19]

It has also been alluded to, that Old Testament cleansings can relate to baptism. If that is the case when we understand those cleansings we know that they very rarely involved full immersions but sprinklings. When the priest would make offering on the altar he would sprinkle the corners of the altar. “In the Old Testament things were set apart, purified, consecrated and sanctified by sprinkling. The horns of the altar were sprinkled with blood, and blood was sprinkled in front of the curtain of the Holy Place (Lev. 4).”^[20]

With all things being considered both forms of baptism should be acceptable, because when we understand, “In Romans 6, Paul refers to burial to show the absolute character of death.”[21]

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to prove the purpose of baptism, by showing our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, and that it should be only for adult believers who are able to make a conscious decision to do so. While I believe that both modes of baptism are acceptable it should be the heart of the person receiving baptism that is more important than the means in which it is received. Baptism while not being essential to our salvation is vital to our relationship with the Lord because he told his disciples, ““If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 ESV)

Bibliography

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001.

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Church and the Last Things. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Nettles, Thomas J., et al. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993.

Salter, Martin. "Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12". In Themelios: Volume 35, No. 1, April 2010. United Kingdom: The Gospel Coalition, 2010.

Schaff, Philip and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Strawbridge, Gregg ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003.

---

^[1] David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Church and the Last Things (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998), 35.

[2] Nettles, Thomas J., et al. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by John H. Armstrong. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 20.

[3] Ibid,38.

[4] Ibid, 51.

^[5] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 36.

[6] Nettles, Understanding, 59.

^[7] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995).

[8] Water A.Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001)131.

^[9] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 40.

^[10] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 168.

[11] Elwell, Dictionary,134.

^[12] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 42-43.

^[13] Martin Salter, "Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12" In , in Themelios: Volume 35, No. 1, April 2010 (United Kingdom: The Gospel Coalition, 2010), 29.

^[14] Packer, Concise,

[15]Gregory A. Boyd, and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002)218.

[16] Gregg Strawbridge, ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg: (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003)115.

^[17] Brand , Holman, 167-68.

^[18] Packer, Concise.

^[19] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 44.

^[20]Ibid, 45.

[21] Strawbridge, The Case, 116.

WHAT WENT WRONG: THE THEOLOGY OF FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER

Introduction

Have you ever stopped and considered how you view the Bible? No, then take a moment and do so. Now, did you tell yourself that it is the inspired word of God, or is a bunch of stories that people use to make them feel better about themselves? What you think of the Bible will determine, how you think of God. During the Enlightenment and the early part of the eighteenth century, the way people understood the Bible became a big deal.

Ever since the first several centuries after Christianity’s star began to rise, there has been controversy over the Scriptures themselves, especially about what should be considered as Scripture. However, it would be during the eighteenth century that Kant and others like him would begin to deny validity of the Bible and its need in our lives. Kant basically believed that since we cannot see God we cannot trust that he exists, and in the end all we can do is try to lead good lives.

During the early to mid-nineteenth century there was a German man named Friedrich Schleiermacher, who while trying to do a noble thing would end up tearing a hole in the heart of the gospel. He would attempt to reconcile science and religion to one another without ever staying true to either side of his argument. Hodge in his systematic theology says, “The supernaturalists, who believed in the Bible, charged him with substituting the conclusions of his own philosophy for the dictates of Christian consciousness. And the philosophers said he was true neither to his philosophy nor to his religion. He changed from one ground to the other just as it suited his purpose.”^[1] This essay hopes to take a look at the man and his theology and see where he happened to go wrong.

The Man

While most homes in today’s society seem to lack any religious influence, this was not the case prior to and even somewhat after the Enlightenment period. This is the time when Friedrich Schleiermacher was born; while there is no exact date we are told he was born in 1768. Schleiermacher was, “a native of Breslau in Silesia, he was the son of a Reformed army chaplain, and, after his parents’ conversion to the *Herrnhuter Brethren, was educated at their college at Niesky and their seminary at Barby.” ^[2] By him being the son of a Reformed chaplain, we can assume that he had a very strong theology instilled into him from a rather early age. Gonzalez points out that: “Although Schleiermacher was Reformed, Moravian Pietism did leave its mark on his theology.” [3] While he was a student at the university he was introduced and became very interested in the arguments of Immanuel Kant.

When he was close to thirty years old he left his job as a tutor and an assistant pastor with his uncle to go to Berlin and become the chaplain of Charity Hospital there. During this time he was struggling with his own understanding and was starting to feel torn between theology and philosophy. It would be during this time that the insights of the Romantics would help him find his own voice from the debacle the rationalism had created.[4] Shortly thereafter in 1799 he would go onto write his famous On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. For a time Friedrich was an assistant professor at the University of Halle, during his time there he would write several different works; one on Plato would be influential for years to come. His time at the university would be overshadowed the Napoleonic Wars and the French invasions. In 1809 he returned to Berlin where he “…was a professor of theology and also minister of the Trinity Church. The church itself was an early venture in ecumenical relations. It was shared by the Reformed and Lutheran churches, which the king of Prussia was anxious to bring together as an instrument of unification and renewal. Schleiermacher represented the Reformed Church.” ^[5]

In 1821 he wrote his most influential work, The Christian Faith as an attempt to write a systematic theology for both of the churches. It would be this work that would epitomize the last days of his life. After learning about the man, its time to examine his theology and see what went wrong.

His Theology

Throughout most of his life his theology was constantly evolving because he felt the need to “…bring together the academic world, the church, the state, and family life.”^[6] Over time Schleiermacher’s focus would become less of what the Bible had to say and more about feelings. Gonzalez points out,

“His main argument was that religion is not a form of knowledge, as both the rationalist and orthodox believed. Nor is it a system of morality, as Kant implied. Religion is grounded neither in pure nor in practical or moral reason, but rather in Gefühl—a German word that is best translated, although not quite accurately, as feeling. The Speeches did not clarify the content of such feeling, and Schleiermacher undertook that task in his more mature work, The Christian Faith. There he clearly shows that this is not a sentimental feeling, nor a passing emotion or a sudden experience, but is rather the profound awareness of the existence of the One on whom all existence depends—both ours and that of the world around us.”[7]

Schleiermacher’s ideas at the time were not making a huge impact but later in the nineteenth century and even until modern times he has found a following. While most historians give us a glimpse into his theology, Charles Hodge in his systematic theology has a whole section dedicated to Schleiermacher’s theology (especially his Christology and Anthropology). His teaching on feeling is most well known, but what makes his teaching even more dangerous is his denial of the Trinity, and his teaching on the person and work of Christ. During this time most churches were using creeds and other things to affirm what they believed, and heresies were departures from these affirmations; but the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, and three persons in God, he believed to be misleading, and the resurrection, ascension and return in judgment inessential.[8]

It is a sad state when a man who claims to follow Jesus denies all of the aspects of what makes up the doctrines of Christian faith. Hodge states, “The first objection to Schleiermacher’s theory is that it is not and does not pretend to be Biblical. It is not founded upon the objective teachings of the Word of God. It assumes, indeed, that the religious experience of the Apostles and early Christians was substantially the same, and therefore involved the same truths, as the experience of Christians of the present day.” ^[9] In the end Schleiermacher felt he was doing something important and powerful for the kingdom of God, while in reality he

“… greatly influenced Christianity through three major achievements. First, he made religion socially acceptable to those who no longer took the Bible and its doctrines seriously by showing its appeal to man’s aesthetic tendencies. Second, he attracted to theology countless young men who were interested in religion primarily as an expression of man’s imaginative spirit. And third, for a time he changed biblical criticism from historical to literary analysis.”^[10]

Conclusion

It would be his so called achievements that would lead him to being known as “The Father of Liberal Theology”. It would be his theology that would influence the likes of Ritschl and Kierkegaard, he would find some of his greatest challengers “in the twentieth century, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner voiced the criticism of many when they pointed out that Schleiermacher’s theology, being man–centered, neglected the revelation of God in his Word.”^[11]

When we stop taking the Bible as our greatest authority and place our own feelings in its place we deny our need for God. Also, by denying who Christ is and his atoning work we basically tell others and ourselves that we are capable of redeeming our own souls. As long as we hold the Bible in great respect and trust that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

As Christians the ultimate goal is to live a life according to what Scripture teaches while also surrendering to the Holy Spirit. In all things come back to the Bible and if you must choose between a feeling and what Scripture teaches, go with Scripture and you will never go wrong.

Bibliography

Brown, C. "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel". In Who's Who in Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010.

Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 443.

^[2] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1474.

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010) 389.

[4] Ibid, 389

^[5] C. Brown, "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 611.

^[6] Ibid, 611.

[7] Gonzalez, Story, 389.

[8]Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976) 375.

^[9] Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic, 443.

^[10] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 143.

^[11] Brown, Who's Who, 612.